tim-clancy.eth

Everyone complying with these draconian age-verification laws in free and open source software is weak-willed and spineless. They should be ostracized.

@scupytrooples @antiprosynth The problem is that sadly a lot of people ever.

“i into crypto to be absorbed by wall street and push their permissioned payment processors” -no one ever

@BowTiedGolem @gluk64 @0xstark Right, I mean what the banks do if the proof fails. Does the system work because they all keep a copy of the unavailable data and can internally see what went wrong?

what do you mean by misbehavior? prividiums are backed by ZK proofs, if a proof fails due to an invalid state/txn then nothing happens and the txn does not process banks are in total control of their prividium, they are permissioned chains, people can't deploy w.o bank approval

The Cari announcement sparked a debate about institutional blockchain infrastructure. Much of it focuses on technical architecture. But first, consider the business case of proprietary vs. open standard. Governance of proprietary networks like Canton or Tempo is going to be controlled by a small group with disproportionate voting weight. It's "permissionless", but to join you have to submit a Google Form with opaque admission criteria. It's unclear who decides. Over time, the most influential participants will set the terms of access and pricing. If you're a bank evaluating this today, you recognize the pattern from SWIFT and Visa: early incumbents locking in structural advantages while late joiners absorb the cost. This is what we hear from banks. Everyone wants to build their own SWIFT-killer. Nobody wants join someone else's SWIFT-killer. Ethereum is the only settlement layer where that dynamic can't take hold, because no single entity can capture it. It's the only place where every participant can permanently trust that no future coalition will rewrite the rules against them. That's what makes Ethereum the only game-theoretical equilibrium as a global settlement layer for institutional finance that works long term.

The Crusade Most Righteous is hard work.

@ivangbi_ @tayvano_ @lex_node @divine_economy Tay is talking about this. I answered the question asked regarding "why Morpho but not Fluid" by pointing out the license criteria from the Treasury policy. x.com/i/status/20344…

@tayvano_ @lex_node @divine_economy Wait one sec, there was no "official" response, was there? EF doesn't have spokespeople (maybe a couple), but the rest of EFers are subjectively delivering the agenda throw their own eyes / teams. Sometimes work clashes or gets amplified by multiple teams. Anyway, where was it?

after talking to people at the EF and seeing posts like this, i need to admit my concerns about the ethereum mandate were pretty misguided ethereum will continue to kingmake apps simply by using and talking about them (here, morpho) because that's exactly what it should do

@l2beat My vote is for stages because people already understand that and it's conceptually clear.

Quick poll: We just proposed a decentralization framework for alt-DA projects (validiums, optimiums). Should we call it "Stages" like we do for rollups, or give it its own name? Drop suggestions in the comments 👇

@tayvano_ @litocoen @ivangbi_ You need to expand the top post for my reply to make sense; I'm just answering a specific question about the treasury policy. blog.ethereum.org/2025/06/04/ef-…

@_Enoch @litocoen @ivangbi_ I'm interpreting it as everyone who views this thread and the top response rightfully interprets it.

ngl im starting to be pissed at the EF for blatantly overlooking Fluid again and again not because Morpho doesn’t deserve it (at all!!) but that they rather allocate a second time to a protocol they’ve already allocated tens of millions to before giving a nod of appreciation to one of the fastest growing protocols on Ethereum over the past 2 years screams of incompetence and/or bad judgement these guys embody the values of what makes ethereum special discovered ethereum as teenagers as a way to build permissionless financial applications - before they even had a bak account in their name won ethindia hackathon, got mentored by kyberswap guys, raised some money and scaled instadapp to billions of TVL in defi loans 6 years later the guys are still building and have come up with a completely new primitive (turning lending markets into AMM’s) became the second largest DEX on Ethereum just behind Uniswap and one of the largest money markets which in club does one need to belong to, to get considered by the EF treasury?

@bkiepuszewski Stick with L2Beat because the destiny of all alt-L1s is to become L2s after extraction.

It's increasingly clear that L2BEAT's future is ANYBEAT. Looking for a good new name for the only trusted source of truth regarding public blockchains, not just ETH L2s. Even more needed in the AI era where virtually all news you consume are AI generated

@tayvano_ @litocoen I think we are talking past one another and that you are interpreting one set of criteria for "this is how the EF uses DeFi with its own Ether" to broader implications about DeFi builders. I think @ivangbi_ should join in the conversation here.

If you want to build something in a specific way, then build it yourself damn self. The EF was explicit that they don’t want to do that. Which means that the EF is relying on builders and must empower those builders to build things. The mandate was explicit in neutrality and no gatekeeping / kingmaking. Not those who build, not those who use. It’s okay to have criteria to establish WHAT TYPE of support is most valuable for builders (and thus Ethereum) and WHEN it’s appropriate to give that support. But the baseline support, respect, appreciation, and paths for success for all builders must be given to everyone by default and by design. Or to none of them. If the mandate secretly defines CROPS and “no gatekeeping and no kingmaking” as “we will gatekeep those who use a diff license and kingmake those use this license” then holy motherfucking shit. Further, if the mandate secretly means “we aren’t building a casino” to mean “we bribe and extort people to use a specific license” then, well, literally, same. I’m not for that shit. No one I know is for that shit. No real cypherpunk is for that shit. That is NOT cypherpunk. That is petty little bitches forming exclusive in-group to dress up and play make-believe and speak a big game and requiring people to play by their rules. Rules which they refuse to clearly define, never stand by, and change on a whim when it benefits them.

I agree with you that a FOSS contract license does not guarantee CROPS. It's necessary but not sufficient. The other aspects of being permissionless are also part of Defipunk and the Mandate. > BUSL thing that can be interacted with via the raw Etherscan read/write is more Open than an MIT thing that cannot be. The EF should hold the carrot for the former over the latter. Currently they aren’t. I.e. my read of the Mandate is that the EF ought give the carrot to neither. If they are failing in maintaining this stance (which I know they currently are with regards to AAVE) I hope to see it corrected across the board. Ultimately the EF has the right to put its money where it wants to using whatever criteria it wants to. I just think being firm about the Defipunk criteria is as good as any, lest you think there should be no DeFi engagement at all. That doesn't betray any values to stewarding the platform or preclude providing not-depositing-treasury-funds support. I don't need to rehash here my prior arguments about the limited defense offered by closed source licenses, the benefits of open licenses to builders, and ultimately the fact that the license has very little impact on the product succeeding or failing. Many of these arguments are those the Free Software Foundation has made for decades, but DeFi operates in a unique situation where closed source software can be completely safely and privately interacted with and reputation matters more than any license ever would. I know you are not convinced. That's fine; others are.

Okay 1. I still think that the license alone should not be a breaker. I get the broader intent but Open is more than the license and blocking on license alone is soooo arbitrary and so Closed. There are many licenses that maintain most of the benefits of openness while mitigating business risks that would otherwise kill the thing before it’s got a chance to live. Plus, even if we accept this “carrot” logic, micromanaging literal licenses does NOT even guarantee more Open products are built on Ethereum. Which is the goal. One way to address this is by requiring 3/5 (or whatever N/M) conditions, rather than 1/1: A Chosen FOSS license. That way you don’t block people for one choice that might be the best choice for them and thus for the wider ecosystem. That way you don’t fucking incentivize people to build closed / worthless bullshit that’s technically “open” bc of the fucking license. Because let’s be super clear: The value of Open is not to have a bunch of useless fucking GitHub’s with the right license. It’s to have OPEN products and systems that serve people, ensure their right to exit, and allow others to benefit and build on each other, off each other, with each other. BUSL products can absolutely achieve that and the license is chosen often bc it increases the likelihood of achieving it, especially in an increasingly competitive environment. A BUSL product that exists in 2 years is always more Open than a GPL that’s not. Further, FOSS doesnt even fucking guarantee fucking real Openness! It does NOT ensure users actually maintain their right to exit, or their Freedom!!!! It ONLY means someone can THEORETICALLY fork the underlying code. Nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to onchain, the license means less than: - Interoperability - Modular (even extensible!!) components/libraries vs inextractable monorepos - Accessibility of api’s / endpoints / offchain data (that are often needed to reasonably interact with something today) - Broad compatibility with wallets, standards - Availability of alternate UIs As example: A BUSL thing that can be interacted with via the raw Etherscan read/write is more Open than an MIT thing that cannot be. The EF should hold the carrot for the former over the latter. Currently they aren’t. N/M is one way to fix this. 2. Even in cases where it’s not just the license, builders must be supported, not blocked. - In many cases, tangible support from the EF is often still available, even if they don’t ***YET*** meet the specific criteria for specific support. “Our bad if it wasn’t clear but X is just meant for Y projects. Z, A, and B are way better fits for what you’re building. Have you spoken to Z team? Would you be open to speaking to them?” - In the vast majority of cases, tangible support is still available, just not directly from the EF. The EF is one player in a large, diverse ecosystem. ITS OFTEN THE CASE THAT THE EF IS NOT THE BEST EQUIPPED TO HELP A BUILDER!!! When that happens, it’s the EF’s fault. Just bc the EF may have valid reasons for not prioritizing something doesn’t negate their responsibility. It’s certainly not the fucking builder’s fault that the EF can’t help them. Thus, at minimum, the EF should make this exceptionally clear and point them to more capable resources. “I’m sorry, the EF isn’t equipped to support you in this way rn. You’re going to get way more value from folks outside the EF who are better at what you’re building. Let’s see if we can connect you with one. Here’s a big list resources in the meantime.” - In literally all cases, builders choosing to build on Ethereum is better than building elsewhere. This is true EVEN IF THEY BUILD THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE EF PERSONALLY LIKES IN EVERY SINGLE WAY. If nothing else, the EF can and should appreciate builders for making that choice. This must be said explicitly, especially when there are onlookers. Else you are gonna be dangling motherfucking carrots in front of NO ONE.

@letsgetonchain @litocoen Yes, that's the inconsistency I mentioned here. Hopefully it gets fixed.

@_Enoch @litocoen isent aave BUSL liceensed?

@litocoen Yes, which is presumably why the EF is using a different Morpho product here.

@_Enoch okay i had read this when it came out but didn't pay attention to that exclusion of source-only licenses isn't morpho blue under a business license as well?

@colludingnode @tayvano_ @litocoen In practice yeah; and you don't even need to violate them to get clean room reimplementations under any license you want. The choice of license is more a social signifier than anything else, hence easier to find CROPS.

@_Enoch @tayvano_ @litocoen who cares about licenses? just violate them like a chad

@nickolas_tazes tfw something is so centralized it makes solagna pretend to be credibly neutral

Corpo slop made me like a Solana post. This is how bad it is.

@0xDataWolf I admire it too. The EF is just operating in line with its own Treasury policy from nine months ago. blog.ethereum.org/2025/06/04/ef-…

The hate for EF using morpho is frustrating because a moment ago they were getting hate for not using Defi and now they are accused for playing favorites Can’t win all the time I guess. This is why I admire EF’s steadfast tenacity to cut through the noise and do their own thing

@litocoen No, June of last year. blog.ethereum.org/2025/06/04/ef-…

@_Enoch as of 2 days ago?

@devanshmehta @gajesh @litocoen This is actually a lot older than the Mandate and comes from this treasury policy blog.ethereum.org/2025/06/04/ef-….

@gajesh @litocoen Could you explain how this is inconsistent? The mandate is pretty clear that source available licenses aren't supported by EF and the recent allocation is consistent with that guidance x.com/i/status/20344…

It's okay to shoot me; I don't care. I know we disagree on a lot. I was specifically answering the question asked, "which in club does one need to belong to, to get considered by the EF treasury?" and the answer is that a FOSS license is a requirement for consideration. This is not a call to not provide support to Fluid. This is not a demand that Fluid kill itself. This is not about refusing to support builders or punishing business decisions. I am quite sure that the new EF DeFi hires would be happy to talk to Fluid about Ethereum at any time. The EF L2 people talk to Arbitrum all the time even though Arbitrum is BUSL. This is a carrot to DeFi protocols that retain the O in CROPS because the EF believes that the O is important and absolutely does not preclude having a thriving business. Morpho are builders too, and are running a business while providing this FOSS product. They are far from a charity, and the EF has chosen to park some of its Ether with them.

I dunno who the following is directed at, probably not you, apologies for shooting the messenger, pls share with whoever is responsible for relevant things. 🤗 The fucking point of the EF is to build a fucking robust motherfucking thing FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO BUILD ON. As such, its a requirement that the EF empowers builders to build things on it. The fucking entire mandate is this again for page after page after page after page. "We dont fucking kingmake. We dont fucking gatekeep. We're credibly neutral. Blah blah blah blah blah BLAH." Stand by your goddamn words for a fucking SINGLE fucking day. > "accchtuuuallllyyyyyyy we only support builders who stand upon the same fucking moral hill as us." Nah, fuck off. You support ALL builders who contribute value to the system in good faith. You support ALL builders who choose Ethereum. That's what credible neutrality is. That's what permissionless means. Furthermore, BUSL is not remotely close to bad faith. It's a business choice. And one that's increasingly popular BECAUSE FUCKING VITALIK'S LONGTIME FUCKING FAVORITE BOY HAYDEN FUCKING CHOSE IT!!!!! I support the EF and their cypherpunk values but this is not cypherpunk. This is gatekeeping and kingmaking. Literally. This is cockblocking builders for insanely opinionated, personal, arbitrary reasons. Support builders who build on Ethereum. All of them. In every single way you can. Those with business sense. Those without it. Those who operate as a useless charity and will die in a year. Those who create untold value for people for decades to come. Those who are Super Serious. Those who have fun. If deploying capital doesn't make sense or carries undue risk for the EF, find other fucking ways to support them. But builders who build on Ethereum feeling unsupported is fucking unacceptable shit. And saying "no we cant support you bc........uh.........we dont like your license choice............." is fucking unacceptable shit. Disclosures: I don't give single flying fuck about Fluid. I don't use it. I don't know them. I don't know if they have a token. If they do, I don't hold and never had held it and am not going to buy it. This isn't about Fluid. It's about Ethereum. The majority of my net worth is in ETH and has been for a decade now and that's not going to change anytime soon.