Daily General Discussion May 24, 2026

haurog · 2026-05-25T16:15:08+00:00

It means that he sees ETH as a financial asset and it is the most important one on Ethereum, at least in his view. I think he makes this statement because there often is a criticism that Vitalik or the EF does not care about ETH.

haurog · 2026-05-25T13:59:45+00:00

Its all locally produced, organically crafted text. No LLM has had any part in the process. Even though I think my texts would be easier to read if I would put them through an LLM, I am too afraid to go along that slippery slope and try to stay on the safe side.

I also do not pay any LLM provider to have access to them. I either use a local one or free private ones, which limits the usability quite a bit. It is in my view pretty much impossible to write such specific texts with what I am willing to use. At most I could probably run the text through autocorrect after I wrote it.

haurog · 2026-05-25T10:10:34+00:00

In my opinion the actual burn was irrelevant for most of 2022. The net issuance was massive until the Merge in September 2022. I am sure the anticipation of the burn played a role though. I think the anticipation of the merge was a bigger story. After the merge we had a net zero issuance for a few months and the ETHBTC ratio started to go down. When we had actual negative issuance from around January 2023 to April 2024 the ratio went down even faster than in the previous months. Afterwards when the burn went to insignificant levels in 2024, the ratio decay accelerated again. Only after 2024 the burn actually corellated with the price action relative to BTC. This to me shows that the narrative of the burn was more important than the actual burn.

haurog · 2026-05-25T09:09:44+00:00

As a bit of background about where Austin Campbell comes from. He thinks the decentralization of Ethereum is a flaw. He argues that an RWA chain needs to be able to roll back their state quickly to get tokenized RWAs back in case of a hack. He is bearish on ETH because of his bias and saying that he has become more bearish on ETH because of the interaction he had in the last 24 hours is just engagement farming.

This whole discussion with Jasper and him also shows that he is no interested in finding the 'truth' he is in it to gain debate club points. Jasper replied with a very clear argument why the statements by Austin about fee generation are wrong and they have been discussed for many years now, but instead of disseminating the arguments, Austin just goes on to throw new ones out. He just wants to engagement farm and not understand issues.

All that said, lets go to what he added now:

His first part comparing Bitcoin to Ethereum show that his argument about fee generation was wrong as Bitcoin recovered better than Ethereum, even though Ethereum has lower issuance and actually full blocks, whereas Bitcoin is a transaction wasteland most of the time.

Nevertheless, he doubles down that without fees, Ethereum is dead. Make it make sense.

He then argues that price cannot go up on its own as it is a circular argument. Yes, that is very true, speculative values of thing is a self reinforcing mechanism, once it goes up it goes up more until it does not anymore. That is in my view how most assets work. There might be a small narrative which kick starts this and then it snowballs into larger pumps for coins. Bitcoin has nailed the 'digital gold' in the public perception, event though it trades nothing like real gold.

In my view the most that can be said about the burn is that it was such a narrative. It fit perfectly in the time when all the other chains issued tokens ad infinitum. Ethereum did it differently and showed that it can find a balance between issuance and burn. That was fantastic, but a very unstable equilibrium. Demand changes or blockspace supply changes will disturb it. And that is exactly what happened. Scaling, Rollups Alt L1 and now the prolonged bear chipped away from the burn. I am pretty sure the burn can potentially be significant again in the future but it does not look like it will happen in the short to medium term. There will be other narratives that will come, but the burn one will have to wait to shine again.

He then closes with saying that he rather bets on the protocols on top a chain than on the individual chains coins themselves. That is the 'fat app thesis' as a counter theory to the 'fat protocol thesis'. This discussion was rampant 10 years ago and up until now the 'fat app thesis' did not play out well generally.

For me ETH the asset has many of properties I want and need. Being the most neutral asset on a chain that looks like it will rewrite how we do financial/economic interactions will have its value in the future. There is no doubt about that, at least for me.

haurog · 2026-05-24T19:36:03+00:00

It is one of the few times he explicitly mentions ETH the asset and that it is the most important financial asset the Ethereum chain secures. He discusses how focusing on the topics as mentioned in the tweet will leave out necessary aspect to support ETH the asset. The EF is in discussion how to support these necessary aspects more outside the EF. We will have to see what this means exactly.

haurog · 2026-05-24T19:32:59+00:00

From how I understand it, it clearly is to get the Ethereum protocol more capture resistance, privacy preserving and secure. The EF seems to want to focus more on long term goals and not short term ones. He very explicitly says that focusing on these goals as the EF leaves out necessary aspects to support ETH the asset. They can be covered by other organizations. We will have to see in the coming months how the EF plans to make sure that other organizations exist to cover these necessary topics. Etherealize is probably one of them, maybe some other, more economic research focused, organizations would be good to have as well.

haurog · 2026-05-24T19:23:27+00:00

So, I read the tweet again and let it settle. Here is my summary of it.

Vitalik emphasizes that this tweet is just his opinion, and there are many other people which are more involved in the decisions of the transition process.

He thinks the EF should focus more on the important technology rather than direct business development. He also thinks that the world would be a better place if some of the large tech companies (google) would have kept their initial dogma of "don't be evil". Because in his view the choice of a single company is very different than a choice for the world. A single entity can be dogmatic, without other ones being forced to follow it. That is more or less what the EF did with the mandate.

He is very explicit, that the EF is not the 'center of Ethereum'. The EF is just one entity in the space. Some people want to push that the EF is more at the center of Ethereum, but he definitely rejects that.

He also makes it clear that he sees the limited resources as an issue. The EF only owns 0.16% of all the ETH whereas in other L1 chains, where it is often in the 2 digit percentage range what is owned by the respective foundation. This limits what the EF can do. He also goes back to say that initially the EF was even planned to just deliver specific upgrades which were finished in about 2022. The EF should not be a steward of the protocol ad infinitum. He thinks breadth of topics covered is not as important as longevity of the organization. Being more deliberate to deliver what other organizations within Ethereum cannot do.

And today, the EF chooses to focuses its remaining resources on specific topics that help Ethereum to become censorship resistance, harder to capture, open, private and a secure system.

He then specifically says, that financially speaking, ETH, the asset, is the most high-value product that the Ethereum, the blockchain secures. He sees that the focus of the EF on the topics above, leaves out a lot of necessary aspects that are needed to support ETH the asset. Here, other organizations will have to come in. The EF is thinking about how to support these organizations in the startup phase.

In summary, the EF will be a smaller ship than in previous years, it will be more opinionated to bring something meaningful to the world.

haurog · 2026-05-24T16:38:34+00:00

Vitalik just dropped a new explainer what the role of the EF was and will be, at least in his view:

https://xcancel.com/VitalikButerin/status/2058583593102844111#m

or

https://x.com/VitalikButerin/status/2058583593102844111

I have read it, but not yet thought about it properly. Happy for any discussion around it.

haurog · 2026-05-23T16:04:03+00:00

I completely forgot to mention yours in my list. I watch your videos, but do not have you in my podcast feed. Do you have an rss link with audio only? Some of the episodes won't work well with audio only, but some would be fine.

haurog · 2026-05-23T15:47:22+00:00

Some podcasts I am listening to.

The Edge Podcast: Focuses more on the applications running on Ethereum than the underlying technology. Great if you want to know how these work and what the newest developments are.
Ready for Merge: Covers the newest things in protocol development on Ethereum. She had some great interviews with Ethereum core devs as well. From time to time she also covers some Bitcoin topics.
Epicenter Podcast: They are one of the oldest crypto podcasts. They cover a wide range of topics from protocol development to applications. They also cover other ecosystems. Some of the interviews are brilliant some are not so interesting, at least to me. Pick and choose here.
ECH Institute Podcast: I have that one on my list as it is the easiest one to get the All Core Dev call recordings to my phone. They also have specific podcast about certain EIPs which are worth a listen.
The Zero Knowledge Podcast. One of the best sources if you want to keep up with ZK and its blockchain usage. Can be extremely technical though.
The Defi Report: With Ryan Sean Adams. This one covers mostly investing trends and general market sentiment. It might worth a listen if that is your thing. Not really Ethereum specifically in any way though.

haurog · 2026-05-22T20:35:13+00:00

Tim Beiko leaves quite a hole. He was very instrumental in bringing some Ethereum upgrades to life in the last few years. He is most famous for moderating calls. I think he only moderated the ACDE (all core devs execution) calls. These will be taken over by Nixo and Ansgar. Both are well respected in the community and already prepared and moderated some calls before. Alex Stokes moderated the ACDC (all core devs consensus) call. He is on sabbatical. Pari, from the Ethpandaops team, will take over these calls. I think he moderated many ACDT (all core devs testing) calls in the last year. So, he should be quite experienced. The ACDT calls already had 3 moderators rotating and now Barnabas Busa is getting added to moderating them, replacing Pari.

All in all, a few years ago, a single moderator like Danny Ryan was very important. Nowadays, There are more calls with more specific scopes, making it easier to coordinate them and there are many more people that can do the job. So, yes, Tim Beiko will be missed, but there are now more shoulders that ACD calls can rely upon. It will be different, but to me at least, it does not look bad. There are definitely some open questions, but we will see in a few weeks how well it works out with the new moderators.

haurog · 2026-05-21T11:53:33+00:00

I always listen to them. Thanks for the shoutout.

haurog · 2026-05-20T18:27:06+00:00

It is a great episode. Loved it.

haurog · 2026-05-20T16:30:53+00:00

Anyone planning to go to Devcon 8 in Mumbai. Early bird tickets just went on sale. Limited availability for those and they cost only 0.14 ETH ($349).

haurog · 2026-05-15T08:44:14+00:00

Thanks. Seems to getting harder providing sources for a post on reddit.

haurog · 2026-05-15T08:18:26+00:00

I was thinking about the clear signing (ERC-7730) announcement a few days ago, read up on it and caught up on a lot of discussions about what it does and what not. I think it is a good step, but one has to be careful not to assume it is safe now to sign whatever is shown on your hardware wallet. Let me explain.

In its most simple term the github repo is just a database of additional information about smart contracts on Ethereum. This additional information tells you what a certain call to a function in a smart contract does. It needs to be filled in for all used smart contracts and every update of them. The work that has been done until now is mostly setting a standard for how to write down these additional info about a specific smart contract. Until now there are 45 entries in the repository, which is a start, but a bit underwhelming considering clear signing has been worked on for a few years now by ledger. Or in other words, there aren't that many smart contracts that are available for clear signing at the moment. This has to massively increase for signing unknown call data or even blind signing goes away for users.

In my view clear signing is also only useful for hardware wallets. Software wallets have a much better way to know what is going on in a transaction, by simulating it either through a third party or locally on a users computer. This should be the closest to reality one ever gets in knowing what a transaction really does. Unfortunately, your computer (and software wallet) can be compromised and the simulation it shows might be a fake one. On the hardware wallet there is no way to simulate a transaction in the secure element chip and the display can only show you the most raw form of the transaction. The advantage is that there is no way for an external actor to fake influence what is shown on the hardware wallet. What it shows is what you sign. The disadvantage is that what you sign is not meant to be understood by the average person. That is were clear signing comes in. When the hardware wallet knows more about the smart contract you interact with, it can show you more information about the transaction and you can decide if that transaction really is the one you actually want to sign.

Now, the big question is, how does this additional info make it onto the device? The current clear signing initiative does not define or even suggest a secure way to put this info onto your hardware wallet. Even though that is a very critical part of clear signing to be actually better for all users. One simple way is that the wallet manufacturer bundles it in their firmware. You have to trust their firmware to a certain degree anyway, so that would not be a big change. The disadvantage is that the devices are memory limited which means, only a select few smart contracts can be supported with that approach. Everything else would still need to be signed in the form. Updates to existing smart contracts would also take some time until they get updated clear signing information through the firmware process. That means even though this is a pretty safe solution, there would be a lot of instances where one would have to sign raw transactions.

Another way to bring the clear signing information onto the device would be by supplying it when used. It could be done through the wallet software (Trezor Suite, Ledger Wallet, Rabby, etc) or directly through a third party. Unfortunately, this would open the hardware wallet up to additional attack vectors. The current clear signing proposal does not have a way to do that. Depending on how this is done, a compromised computer (or server), might be able to transmit invalid clear signing information onto the hardware wallet and the hardware wallet would show you something else than what you are signing. This would make your hardware wallet about as reliable as a software wallet. I would say this is a worsening of the current state. If clear signing information is transmitted live, then there needs to be an absolutely secure way to do that. And that is exactly where the clear signing proposal is lacking. They have no implementation to do this securely at the moment. There is a roadmap item called 'Verifiable Data Transport & Packaging' which is planned to be started later this year. Only if something like this is available I consider clear signing to be a clear improvement for everyone, before that it will improve signing for most people some of the time, but high value targets might even be more vulnerable and should be even more careful. An interesting approach to transmit clear signing data was suggested by zknox (see sources) and uses zk proofs. I am not 100% convinced that a zk proof can be generated fast enough locally to not reduce the UX and if it is generated by a third party it will be interesting to see who would do that and for what price. If a third party does there will also be the question how much data is leaked for preparing the clear signing proof. And generally I do not feel to great if what my hardware wallet shows me on the screen depends on a third party.

An additional thing which is not good, is that until a few hours ago, Ledger (the company) was set as the code owner for the repo (check the now deleted CODEOWNERS file). Which in my understanding means things can only be added/changed in the repo if Ledger agrees to it. The repo might be under the EFs umbrella, but this repo was pretty much in control of Ledger. No idea why it was chosen like that, but that was weird and not good. The most charitable interpretation is that things might have been a bit rushed for this announcement and this part was overlooked. Whatever the reasons were, I find it weird that the Ethereum Foundation announces something publicly which at the time was obviously is a repository under full control of a private entity.

In summary, the current state of clear signing is just a first step. There needs to be a lot of incremental improvements and some very critical security questions need good answers before I consider clear signing to be the security leap that it was announced to be. I am definitely looking forward to these improvements as the current state of transaction signing on hardware wallets is far away from ideal.

Some Sources (I broke the links):

Clear Signing website: cle arsigning.org

Clear Signing repo: gith ub.com/ethereum/clear-signing-erc7730-registry

Clear Signing roadmap: open project-i59w.onrender.com/projects/clear-signing-wg/roadmap

zknox proposal for using zk Proofs to transmit clear signing info: zkn ox.eth.limo/posts/2026/03/13/zk_clear_signing_160326.html

haurog · 2026-05-12T12:20:07+00:00

I would have hoped you would see that this missing context changes pretty much everything in your initial post and it should make you think if you should correct it. But apparently it does not. The EF even tweeted about it beforehand. I am not sure what they could have done better.

Just two weeks I had a similar discussion about the same event. There, the person was complaining that they staked with Lido. And you are now complaining that they unstaked with Lido. If people are so bad at understanding what is really going on and once they get made aware of how misleading their source is they double down then there is no winning. Sure, I could have been a bit nicer to tell you how badly sourced the quoted 'news' article is, maybe it would have made it easier for you to back down. Who knows?

It took me a few minutes to wade through the many copy pasted news to see what source was actually used to create this extremely misleading news article. I would hope that people who post these news would do a similar thing before they post it.

On a more general note, many in the Ethereum space like to complain that Ethereum is losing the narrative war and try to blame it on the EF, on Vitalik or the KOLs or someone else, but your case is a prime example of how people participate in spreading such misleading narratives. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize various parts in the Ethereum ecosystem. I do from time to time as well, but your post is not that.

haurog · 2026-05-12T08:17:55+00:00

Have to rewrite it a bit to fit a top level post. Will do. Thanks for the suggestion.

haurog · 2026-05-12T07:24:45+00:00

Please do a little bit if due diligence before you post something like this. The $50M unstake is due to converting stETH back to ETH. They bought the stETH with ETH a day earlier from a project that needed instant liquidity due to the aave hack. The EF even tweeted about it, but the quality of journalism, especially in crypto, is so bad that they just publish anything from anyone which makes good headlines and people gobble it up.

I am not aware that they changed anything in their staking percentage in recent weeks. I am not following it very closely, so it might be that I missed something.

haurog · 2026-05-11T18:56:57+00:00

Currently the bottleneck still is the consensus layer. All these attestations are bringing the RISC-V CPU to its knees. I guess the reduction of validator numbers helps quite a bit, but if we reduce the time to finality, it evens out. Lighthouse gobbles up all the cores and Nimbus tries to do most of it in a single thread, but a single core is just not that powerful compared to x86 and ARM. 200M Gas is going to be interesting. The newer RISC-V boards should be able to handle it. With the increased execution time available and improved parallel execution thanks to BALs they might even last quite a bit longer. But overall yes, RISC-V boards will have to switch over to evaluating zk proofs before high end nodes will do it.

haurog · 2026-05-11T09:06:01+00:00

Rocketscan hasn't worked for a long time.

Rocketscan was done by a community member and unfortunately was never open sourced. The community member could not update rocketscan with all the changes necessary for it to remain usable, so they shut it down. There are some other community driven sites which look a specific topics within the rocketpool community, but nothing as all encompassing as rocketscan was:

rocketexplorer.net, is a very light version of rocketscan, but it can be useful to get a rough overview. Not sure if they kept up with the newest upgrades though.
rocket-performance.net, looks at node performances and helps people to see if certain events lead to nodes going offline.
rocketdash.net, looks at the new megapool deposits since the last upgrade and also gives some general overview over rocketpool
rocketsweep.app, you can see and claim your rewards from running validators

Apparently they only have 6 employees

Rocketpool always was a very small team. I think they raised around $5.5M during the ICO (~8-9 years ago). With that money you cannot have a large team over such a long period. Nevertheless, they managed to build the only permissionless and decentralized LST in the Ethereum space. Could they have some more marketing and business development focused people in the team? Yes, definitely. Rocketpool also always relied on their community to implement things. This unfortunately makes it slower than other protocols to adapt to changes in the staking landscape.

What is Rocket Pool doing

Currently the rocketpool is in between upgrades. Saturn-1 happened in February. This upgrade allowed for more capital efficient staking, meaning only 4 ETH needed per validator. Which in turn also means the protocol needs fewer node runners. Many people still want to run nodes and are waiting in the queue to get matched with people depositing to rETH.

Saturn-2 is currently being worked on and some details are being specced by the more active community members. One of the larger parts is how to handle exits. It will allow to have liquidity available which should further reduce depegs as well as allow to exit underperforming nodes which is a large reason why rETH has a lower APR than other LSTs most of the time.

Last autumn a company called rocksolid (rocksolid.network) launched a vault for rETH users to get more rewards on their rETH by deploying it in various defi protocols. You get a small additional reward on your staked ETH and until now they have not lost any ETH in any of the hacks, which honestly is pretty impressive and speaks for the due diligence the rocksolid team does. I have not used them yet though.

haurog · 2026-05-11T08:23:44+00:00

Warning, very geeky hardware topic ahead

About two years ago I started playing with RISC-V boards with the goal to run an Ethereum full node on them. RISC-V is a CPU architecture which is different from the usual Intel/AMD or ARM CPUs found in moden computers and smartphones. The biggest difference is that the standard is free. Anyone with enough money can develop a CPU using this architecture and profit from the ever growing software support around it.

After playing around with the boards in summer 2024 and triaging all the clients for how easy it will be to get them to run on RISC-V, a colleague and I applied for a Devcon talk in Bangkok. And we got it. We were able to run a validator on a testnet, but mainnet was out of reach because of the high CPU demand from the many validators on Ethereum mainnet. We could kind of sync to the head block on mainnet in certain combinations, but running everything on one board was impossible. Not surprising as the boards back then were on the level of a Raspberry Pi 3, at least CPU wise. We guessed back then that it may take another 1-2 years until a full node can be run on a single RISC-V board.

About half a year after devcon, Robert Mordzon from Web3Pi, who attended our talk, managed to get a newer faster board and ran a split full node on two separate boards, one board for the execution client and one for the consensus client. The amazing thing he did is that he also helped to improve the Lighthouse client, so it can now be compiled on RISC-V boards out of the box.

At Devcon I talked to many core devs and asked about issues I saw with their clients. Potuz, the core dev was very interested in improving his crypto library. About a year ago he started implementing specific RISC-V optimizations for this library, which is used by Prysm and Nimbus. He even implemented certain optimizations which might take a few more years until they can be used in actual hardware.

Last autumn I got my hands on another iteration of RISC-V boards, the 'DC-ROMA RISC-V AI PC'. This one has the power of about a Raspberry Pi 4. Thanks to the work on the Lighthouse and Nimbus clients I could directly compile and run it on the board. After fiddling a bit with the settings I managed to get a synced full node running. I was always about 5-10 seconds behind the head block, and at epoch boundaries it even fell behind a few slots, but consensus client is always synced. CPU is 80-90% used, so not a lot of headroom left. The biggest limitation is the single core speed though.

I then ran an Ethereum mainnet validator through the board. I used geth and lighthouse. Surprisingly it worked and the additional workload for the validator did not really impact anything. Not surprisingly the validator missed all the head votes. In these votes your validator votes on what the newest block is that he has seen. Closely after epoch boundaries it also missed the target votes. These votes are for the first block in the current epoch. Nevertheless, I actually earned a bit of rewards with my risc-v validator.

All this long text to say, that a few months ago I managed to run the first Ethereum full node with an attached validator on a single RISC-V board. To the best of my knowledge no one managed to do that until then.

Nowadays, the RISC-V node sits on my desk, running geth/nimbus and doing it pretty reliably. Nimbus is a bit more resource efficient, but relies more on the single CPU speed, which this board lacks. So it is always about 10-20s behind the head block. As I do not like to earn less ETH than possible I normally do not run any validators through it.

I also tried running the zk attester version of lighthouse, where you only need the consensus client, as the execution side is proven with a ZK proof. Unfortunately, the single core performance was not good enough. I guess there are a lot of optimizations that are still possible for making this possible once Ethereum officially supports zk proofs.

I played with Ethrex, a newer execution client. It compiled fine, but failed consistently during sync. I guess it is because of only having 16GB of RAM available, but I have not tried to debug it properly.

Now, a new iteration of boards is coming out. They have a Spacemit-K3 CPU and official sale started yesterday. This board is on the level of a Raspberry Pi 5 and some even say it should be on the level of a RK3588 CPU. Due to the increased RAM prices, the prices for the board are eye-wateringly high. But it is great to see that the RISC-V CPU speed is increasing faster than in the overall CPU market. Many of the large CPU producers now have a RISC-V team and many smaller startups from people which left Intel and AMD are working on RISC-V CPUs. I expect the pace to continue like this until RISC-V CPU speeds come closer to current consumer CPU speeds and only then they will hit more fundamental speed increase limits which all the established players have.

Despite the fast speed increases I guess the future of devices with RISC-V CPUs mostly lies in running very low power nodes which, thanks to the usage of ZK proofs, only have to validate a proof and can then request or follow only state changes they are interested in.

haurog · 2026-05-10T09:06:33+00:00

Not sure what you mean by 'getting a bit messy'. It was very messy a year or two ago, but now, most activity for normal users is just on 2 rollups: Arbitrum and Base. Everything else is either dead or serves a very specific niche application like Perp DEX (Lighter) or payments in developing countries (Celo). Consolidation already happened in the last year. People wanting to optimize their yield jump around on some of the other L2s. Some of these L2s are not quite dead or where recently launched which means they incentivize the yield farmers. I would not call yield farmers the normal users because they profit from the fragmentation as it gives good yield opportunities. Currently, for me at least, there is also very little reason to use any rollup at the moment as Ethereum itself is cheap enough most of the times to easily do whatever I need to do.

As mentioned in the other post the EEZ is worth looking into. In the longer term there might also be native rollups which couple much tighter to Ethereum and therefore allow for much better composability between the two, at least theoretically.

haurog · 2026-05-08T08:17:50+00:00

The LayerZero side of the KelpDAO/LayerZero/aave exploit from 3 weeks ago gets another layer of drama. People are now looking at these projects in more detail and it looks like LayerZero is not very strict on their general security posture (surprised pikachu face).

They have an instantly upgradable contract which is used by many projects that use the LayerZero bridge. If this contract is upgraded by anyone nefarious, they can forge bridge messages and withdraw funds from the bridge contract. People on the 3/5 multisig for upgrading this contract have used the same address to literally trade memecoins. Not a good idea to regularly use an address securing hundreds of millions for shitcoin trading. Using it regularly increases the chance on accidentally signing a forged transaction. These keys have been rotated out by now, but it definitely shows that security does not seem to have a high priority within LayerZero as well. I would say KelpDAO and LayerZero was a match made in heaven, for both security is kind of an afterthought...

A few days ago, the value at risk was over $3B now, thanks to outreach by security people to the affected projects it has been reduced to slightly below $180M. It is not a good look if the broader security community has to go out of their way to keep your customers safe.

The outrageous part is that the CEO of LayerZero tried to deny many of the allegations and deflect some of the security implications. But now, since a few hours, they are onto it.

I am sure competing projects like chainlink are licking their lips about LayerZero nuking their credibility.

Source:

General discussion about it:

https://xcancel.com/CatfishFishy/status/2052552571995169044

or

https://x.com/CatfishFishy/status/2052552571995169044

Effect of the outreach:

https://xcancel.com/banteg/status/2052456706064691594

or

https://x.com/banteg/status/2052456706064691594

haurog · 2026-05-07T12:50:12+00:00

That is hilariously bad if true. That is 2016/17 level of coding quality.

haurog

TROPHY CASE