Gill

Ethereum itself must pass the walkaway test. Ethereum is meant to be a home for trustless and trust-minimized applications, whether in finance, governance or elsewhere. It must support applications that are more like tools - the hammer that once you buy it's yours - than like services that lose all functionality once the vendor loses interest in maintaining them (or worse, gets hacked or becomes value-extractive). Even when applications do have functionality that depends on a vendor, Ethereum can help reduce those dependencies as much as possible, and protect the user as much as possible in those cases where the dependencies fail. But building such applications is not possible on a base layer which itself depends on ongoing updates from a vendor in order to continue being usable - even if that "vendor" is the all core devs process. Ethereum the blockchain must have the traits that we strive for in Ethereum's applications. Hence, Ethereum itself must pass the walkaway test. This means that Ethereum must get to a place where we _can ossify if we want to_. We do not have to stop making changes to the protocol, but we must get to a place where Ethereum's value proposition does not strictly depend on any features that are not in the protocol already. This includes the following: * Full quantum-resistance. We should resist the trap of saying "let's delay quantum-resistance until the last possible moment in the name of ekeing out more efficiencies for a while longer". Individual users have that right, but the protocol should not. Being able to say "Ethereum's protocol, as it stands today, is cryptographically safe for a hundred years" is something we should strive to get to as soon as possible, and insist on as a point of pride. * An architecture that can expand to sufficient scalability. The protocol needs to have the properties that allow it to expand to many thousands of TPS over time, most notably ZK-EVM validation and data sampling through PeerDAS. Ideally, we get to a point where further scaling is done through "parameter only" changes - and ideally _those_ changes are not BPO-style forks, but rather are made with the same validator voting mechanism we use for the gas limit. * A state architecture that can last decades. This means deciding, and implementing, whatever form of partial statelessness and state expiry will let us feel comfortable letting Ethereum run with thousands of TPS for decades, without breaking sync or hard disk or I/O requirements. It also means future-proofing the tree and storage types to work well with this long-term environment. * An account model that is general-purpose (this is "full account abstraction": move away from enshrined ECDSA for signature validation) * A gas schedule that we are confident is free of DoS vulnerabilities, both for execution and for ZK-proving * A PoS economic model that, with all we have learned over the past half decade of proof of stake in Ethereum and full decade beyond, we are confident can last and remain decentralized for decades, and supports the usefulness of ETH as trustless collateral (eg. in governance-minimized ETH-backed stablecoins) * A block building model that we are confident will resist centralization pressure and guarantee censorship resistance even in unknown future environments Ideally, we do the hard work over the next few years, to get to a point where in the future almost all future innovation can happen through client optimization, and get reflected in the protocol through parameter changes. Every year, we should tick off at least one of these boxes, and ideally multiple. Do the right thing once, based on knowledge of what is truly the right thing (and not compromise halfway fixes), and maximize Ethereum's technological and social robustness for the long term. Ethereum goes hard. This is the gwei.

Neynar is acquiring Farcaster. Over the next few weeks, we’ll transfer ownership of the protocol contracts and code repositories, the Farcaster app, and Clanker to Neynar. They will run and maintain everything going forward. Some members of the Merkle team, Varun, and I will step back from day-to-day work on Farcaster and move on to something new. Rish, Manan, and the rest of the Neynar team have been building on Farcaster from the start. Neynar was one of the first Farcaster clients, and its infrastructure now powers much of the developer ecosystem. We think they are the right people to take over leadership of Farcaster and they’ll share their new builder-focused vision soon. This wasn’t an easy decision. Farcaster and the people building on it mean a lot to us. We’re proud of what our team built, and what the community built alongside us. But after five years, it’s clear Farcaster needs a new approach and leadership to reach its full potential. We’re excited to see what Farcaster becomes under Neynar, and we’re looking forward to this next chapter.

新的日本首相表示，她将驱逐所有与日本文化不相容的外国人，例如那些占领儿童游乐场进行祈祷并要求实施伊斯兰教法的伊斯兰移民。你同意吗？

1011 事件已經告訴我們：幣圈媒體完全沒有監督能力。 不是不願意，而是不能。 因為媒體賴以為生的廣告與贊助，90% 以上來自交易所與項目方。 你要他們去質疑、追問、監督長期給自己投放預算的金主？在商業現實下不可能做到。 而社群媒體呢？ 坦白說，也沒有好到哪裡去。 大部分 KOL 不會真的去跟交易所作對。 返佣、合作、推廣、專案、友情、站隊，各種利益關係都讓人難以開口。 這也是為什麼，在伊莉莎白詐捐事件後，KOL 幾乎全數表態，人人都上去踩一腳； 但到了 1011 這種市場系統級別的事故，哪怕自己也受影響，多數人仍選擇保持沉默。 我查了一下數據：伊莉莎白詐捐事件在中文 CT 中的流量峰值，全面壓過 1011。 兩者本來不該在同一個量級上，但現實就是這麼荒謬。 你會看到許多匪夷所思的現象： Digital Galaxy 這麼大的機構，都得在壓力下修改 1011 事件的標題。 幣安拿到阿布扎比牌照、招銀合作案、何一訪談的公關稿，媒體報得比誰都快、篇幅比誰都大。 但 1011 這種直接關乎市場安全與用戶資產的重大事故，媒體幾乎全部噤聲，訪談避重就輕，該追問的不追問，該解釋的通通略過。 拿我自己的例子來說，前陣子我寫了一篇英文長文，公開問責幣安 1011 事件的處理流程問題。 那篇文在 X 上有超過 30 萬曝光、1000+ 個讚、350+ 個轉發。 如果是以前，媒體問都不會問，早就搶著轉載，因為這是貨真價實的流量題材。 但這次的結果是什麼？ 全場只有一家中文媒體轉發。（雖然標題被修得比較溫和，但願意轉發，我已經很感謝了。） 幣安之所以能成為幣安，是因為它曾經做對了很多事。 但1011 事件這種級別的安全事故，只要處理不透明，就足以動搖八年累積的信任基礎。