

Syscoin
10.7K posts

@syscoin
Building the secure foundation for Web3 on Bitcoin, where decentralized finance meets verifiable trust. https://t.co/ST3vuhyfem



📻 GM! Get ready for Monday’s Web3 Global Talks Edition! 🎙️ Our Guests: @tap_protocol, @truflation, @POSTHUMAN_DVS, @LighthouseWeb3, @ChainAware, @dmdcoin, @noon_capital, @syscoin, @jelljellyfish ⏰ Set Reminder! 👇




Most chains scale by asking you to trust more. zkSYS is built to do the opposite. The new testnet update covers Airbender proving, compact Syscoin DA, a lighter Gateway, full local verification, and post-quantum smart accounts. More scale. Less trust. Try now: • Portal: portal.tanenbaum.io/bridge • Explorer: explorer-zk.tanenbaum.io • ChainList: chainlist.org/chain/57057 Full update: syscoin.org/news/zksys-upd…


I was inspired by recent SLH-DSA / "SPHINCS-" work from Nicolas Consigny and wanted to see what it would look like inside real smart account infrastructure. ethresear.ch/t/sphincs-minu… So we wired the idea into @PaliWallet's smart-account direction and enabled a zkSYS precompile path for efficient post-quantum account security. We now have NIST-approved parameter set optimized for zkSYS users while still enabled for Ethereum and other EVM chains. You can try this on zkSYS testnet today. Grab Pali from github and jump on testnet through here (faucet included) portal.tanenbaum.io

New post on EthResear.ch! Validator Redirected Revenue By: - clesaege 🔗 ethresear.ch/t/25248 Highlights: - Ethereum faces a persistent coordination failure: many ecosystem improvements are public goods, so voluntary funding tends to underprovide them, creating deadweight loss and harming long-term competitiveness. - Validators are structurally aligned with ecosystem growth (more usage → more demand for blockspace → more ETH burn/value), but they still get stuck in a prisoner’s-dilemma equilibrium where they hesitate to contribute unless others also commit. - The proposal adds a protocol-level mechanism where validators signal a redirect rate: if a majority (e.g., 51%) supports a non-zero rate, that rate becomes mandatory for all validators, solving intra-validator free-riding; the rate is capped (suggested max 10%, min 0%). - Validators also signal preferred funding recipients and allocations; execution clients aggregate these into a “splitter” contract using a king-of-the-hill / Condorcet-winner style process with simple protocol choices (KEEP vs CHANGE), aiming to minimize governance overhead (“set and forget”). - Key open risks include validator cartelization (majority could redirect funds to themselves), principal–agent problems (staking operators controlling votes vs delegators’ preferences), and the possibility that willingness to redirect rewards is interpreted as evidence issuance could be reduced. ELI5: Ethereum needs shared things (like security tools and maintenance) that help everyone, but it’s hard to get people to voluntarily pay because each person hopes others will cover the cost (the “free-rider” problem). This article suggests a built-in way for Ethereum validators (the people who earn staking rewards) to collectively agree to donate a small, capped slice of their rewards to fund important ecosystem work. Validators would also collectively choose where the money goes using a simple voting/competition process, so funding can happen without lots of meetings or bureaucracy—while still acknowledging risks like validators teaming up (cartels) or staking companies voting in their own interest instead of users’.









