The hosts of the video discuss the topic of enshrining things in Ethereum and the pros and cons of doing so. They explore two different perspectives: treating Ethereum like a government and selectively regulating certain areas for the greater health of the ecosystem, or treating Ethereum like an operating system and bundling certain services to protect users and deter competition. The underlying principle in both perspectives is good user experience.

- The speaker discusses the need for regulation in the cryptocurrency space.
- They mention the example of the US government saving financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during a financial crisis.
- The speaker references the governance structure of Ethereum and suggests that governance should be decentralized based on how close an entity is to the core protocol.
- The question is raised about what should be directly controlled by Ethereum and the potential implications of this.
- The tension between maintaining Ethereum's status as "ultrasound money" and introducing governance or control is discussed.
- The speaker expresses doubt about Ethereum implementing token governance but suggests that delegated proof of stake may be a viable option.
- The trade-offs and complexities of introducing regulation and governance into the protocol are considered.
- The speaker highlights the importance of finding a balance between regulation and maintaining Ethereum's commodity-like nature.
- The need for formalizing thoughts on regulation and governance in the crypto space is emphasized.
- Examples of possible regulations, such as capping stake delegation or minting delegation-specific NFTs, are mentioned.
- The potential governance bloat and implications of delegated proof of stake are acknowledged.

- The speaker discusses the implications of governance bloat and delegated proof of stake in the crypto space.
- They mention the concept of "unalignment police" and how it can be perceived negatively.
- The speaker observes that tribalism in the crypto space is increasing rather than decreasing.
- They suggest that Ethereum's success lies in being the best operating system to build on, rather than being opinionated about how it should be used.
- The speaker compares Bitcoin's tribalism to Ethereum's focus on applications and suggests that Ethereum appeals more to VC investors.
- They discuss the idea of launching a crypto game and debate whether to abstract away the crypto aspect or focus on users who already have Ethereum to spend.

- The speaker discusses the market potential for crypto apps and mentions Friend Tech as an example.
- They believe that Friend Tech's approach of targeting ETH owners and allowing them to bet on friends is a smart move.
- The speaker also mentions the value of ETH alignment and the flywheel effect it creates in the ecosystem.
- They discuss the challenges of building for the mass market versus crypto natives and the importance of sequencing in product development.
- The speaker highlights the unique advantage of crypto users having fewer restrictions in payments.
- They mention the small market size of active users on platforms like Uniswap but emphasize their high value and loyalty.
- The speaker suggests the possibility of in-platform stablecoins and the option for users to choose between ETH or USD-denominated apps.

- The speaker discusses the user experience of swapping into stables around Cosmos and mentions that it could be improved and streamlined.
- They highlight that the number of people capable of using and understanding these products is very low, even among on-chain users.
- The speaker acknowledges that Cosmos has a distribution problem.
- The conversation then shifts to the topic of issuance and whether it is a cost to the network.
- They discuss the different revenue and cost components for the network, supply side, and applications.
- The speaker argues that issuance is a cost to holders, not necessarily a cost to the network, but it can impact the price of the asset.
- They mention the importance of balancing supply side incentives and the downside tradeoffs of minimum viable issuance.
- The speaker also notes the confusion around terms like "revenue" and "block space profitability" in relation to the network.
- They compare the economics of the network to the oil industry, highlighting the difference in voting power and supply control.
- The speaker concludes by stating that they are still undecided on the topic and emphasize the relationship between demand and supply in determining the value of the block space.

- The profitability and demand for block space in Ethereum is influenced by the price of Ether.
- The introduction of EIP 1559 made Ethereum more attractive as an asset.
- Burning the base fee and potentially the MEV rewards makes Ethereum look more like a commodity rather than a company.
- Ethereum's price should not get too high as it may hinder user experience and lead to the search for alternatives.
- Scaling Ethereum can be done by moving computation off-chain or redesigning parts of the execution layer.
- Ethereum should be viewed as a unique digital commodity rather than a product of a centralized company.
- The Stride acquisition by the hub in the Cosmos ecosystem was potentially interesting for increasing alignment and security.

- The proposal is to merge Stride with the Cosmos Hub, which is the most decentralized proof of stake network with token governance.
- The merger aims to avoid social scaling issues and mitigate governance risks for Stride as it grows.
- The merger could make Atom holders more comfortable with Stride and attract other networks to join due to a larger set of stakeholders and increased security.
- The rationale for the merger is to provide a revenue driver for the Cosmos Hub and increase the market cap and value accrual for Stride.
- There were pushbacks from both the Stride and Atom sides, but the potential benefits outweighed the concerns.
- The analogy of the merger is imperfect, but it is seen as a growth strategy and a way to capture a larger market share.
- The merger is viewed as a critical building block for the roadmap and value of the Cosmos Hub.
- Crypto M&A is generally seen as less exciting due to wonky valuations and lack of businesses with strong moats.
- There are two moats identified for Stride: talent and execution in building products.

- The video discusses the pros and cons of enshrining things in Ethereum and explores different perspectives on regulation and governance.
- The importance of finding a balance between regulation and maintaining Ethereum's commodity-like nature is highlighted.
- Examples of possible regulations and the implications of delegated proof of stake are mentioned.
- The discussion shifts to the market potential for crypto apps and the challenges of building for the mass market.
- The unique advantage of crypto users having fewer restrictions in payments is mentioned.
- The conversation then focuses on the topic of issuance and the impact on the network and asset price.
- The profitability and demand for block space in Ethereum are influenced by the price of Ether.
- The introduction of EIP 1559 made Ethereum more attractive as an asset.
- Scaling Ethereum can be achieved through off-chain computation or redesigning the execution layer.
- The proposed merger of Stride with the Cosmos Hub is discussed, highlighting the potential benefits and concerns.
- The merger is seen as a growth strategy and a critical building block for the Cosmos Hub's roadmap and value.

- The team building products and executing direct-to-retail is unmatched on the hub side
- Deal structuring in the crypto space is complicated due to valuations not being grounded in traditional finance practices
- The build versus buy framework is important in valuing businesses, considering execution risk and time to market
- Partnership is a viable option, as seen with Stride and the hub, but the market disagreed with a merger or acquisition
- Lack of a clear strategic vision for the hub makes it difficult to gain community support
- The Cosmos ecosystem lacks alignment and a shared rallying point like Ethereum's ETH
- Value accrual to the Atom token is at odds with the vision of Cosmos and building individual App Chains
- Rallying the community in Cosmos is challenging due to the desire for sovereignty and independence from Ethereum's roadmap.

- The speaker believes that launching an app on a roll-up is more beneficial than using the main chain.
- They suggest making the default gas on every Cosmos chain to be Atom.
- The speaker argues that people prefer to use the native token rather than USDC for gas.
- The success of Cosmos may depend on the success of Atom, but it is not necessary for its survival.
- The speaker mentions the importance of user experience and adoption for the success of Cosmos.
- They discuss the tension between optimizing for value accrual and adoption in both Cosmos and roll-up frameworks.
- The speaker believes that users' preference for using ETH as gas can be a compelling business case.
- They mention the example of DYDX and its gasless trading.
- The speaker expresses their interest in seeing all ecosystems succeed.

- The team building products and executing direct-to-retail is unmatched on the hub side.
- Deal structuring in the crypto space is complicated due to unconventional valuations.
- The build versus buy framework is important in valuing businesses.
- Partnership is a viable option, but a merger or acquisition was not favored by the market.
- Lack of a clear strategic vision for the hub makes it difficult to gain community support.
- The Cosmos ecosystem lacks alignment and a shared rallying point like Ethereum's ETH.
- Value accrual to the Atom token contradicts the vision of Cosmos and building individual App Chains.
- Rallying the community in Cosmos is challenging due to the desire for independence from Ethereum's roadmap.
- Launching an app on a roll-up is more beneficial than using the main chain.
- Making Atom the default gas on every Cosmos chain is suggested.
- People prefer using the native token rather than USDC for gas.
- The success of Cosmos may depend on the success of Atom, but it is not necessary for its survival.
- User experience and adoption are crucial for the success of Cosmos.
- There is tension between optimizing for value accrual and adoption in Cosmos and roll-up frameworks.
- Users' preference for using ETH as gas can be a compelling business case.
- DYDX and its gasless trading are mentioned as an example.
- The speaker expresses interest in seeing all ecosystems succeed.

This week Michael and Myles dive deep on all things Ethereum Enshrinement. The two kick things off with Credible Neutrality, reviewing centralization risks vs overloads governance. The guys then go on to discuss user experience as the guiding uniting principle and look at the gradation of protocol proximity; what should and should not be enshrined and why. We then challenge and defend the varying beliefs around Ethereum as ‘money’, before going on to hit on protocol engagement vs abstraction, issuance as a network cost, the Stride/Cosmos Hub merger update, and more. Enjoy!
- -
Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction
(01:00) Enshrinement: Opening Thoughts
(02:5) Credible Neutrality: Private Market Analogy 
(07:25) Enshrinement’s Uniting Principle: Good User Experience
(08:17) Protocol Proximity
(21:33) Ethereum: Money?
(28:24) Engagement vs Abstraction
(40:51) Issuance: Network Cost?
(45:14) Money vs Commodity 
(58:04) Stride/Cosmos Hub Merger Update
(1:16:17) Community Alignment 
- -
Follow Mike: https://twitter.com/MikeIppolito_
Follow Myles: https://twitter.com/MylesOneil

Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3R1D1D9
Subscribe on Apple: https://apple.co/3pQTfmD
Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3cpKZXH
--
Research, news, data, governance and models – now, all in one place. As a listener of Bell Curve, you can use code "BELLCURVE10" for a 10% discount when signing up to Blockworks Research https://www.blockworksresearch.com/
- -
Resources:
Vitalik Buterin: Should Ethereum be okay with enshrining more things in the protocol?
https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/09/30/enshrinement.html

Stride: The Enshrined LST Protocol for Cosmos Hub?
https://blockworks.co/news/stride-merge-cosmos-hub-network
- -
Disclaimer: Nothing said on Bell Curve is a recommendation to buy or sell securities or tokens. This podcast is for informational purposes only, and any views expressed by anyone on the show are solely our opinions, not financial advice. Mike, Jason, Michael, Vance and our guests may hold positions in the companies, funds, or projects discussed.

All right, everyone, welcome back to another episode of Bell Curve.

Before we jump in, quick disclaimer, the views expressed by my co-hosts today are their personal views, and they do not represent the views of any organization with which the co-hosts are associated with.

Nothing in the episode is construed or relied upon as financial, technical, tax, legal, or other advice.

All right, everyone, welcome back to another roundup edition of Bell curve.

2 of us, just the 2 of us getting cozy on a nice Thursday afternoon.

It is the first couple of weeks of fall, which is which is my favorite season.

We thought we'd mix it up here a little bit and actually not really discuss any of the news that's been gone on this week.

The only thing that's really happening on the news front is the FTX trial and saga.

And I don't know, I'm feeling a little bit overwhelmed with the constant deluge of little facts there.

And I think the CT coverage of it has been basically a historic low, even for a crypto Twitter.

And instead, if you're also sick of that, just like we are, I think, maybe we can zoom out and actually have a debate about just more of a debate sort of episode where, you know, 1 of the topics that I think is the topic du jour in crypto right now, at least in Ethereum land, and I think in Cosmos land as well, is enshrinement, enshrining things.

And I think this has been under the radar, something that's being discussed more and more back at ECC in July.

If you went Vitalik actually spoke a couple of times about the trend of enshrining coming back.

He just recently wrote a blog post talking about should we be okay with enshrining more things within Ethereum?

And, you know, we talked about this in a little bit in last week's round up too.

So, you know, bear with me here if this is repetitive for you, but it was a very instructive post kind of on the original philosophy of Ethereum of not enshrining things, not putting things within the protocol, similar to the Unix philosophy, and instead pushing complexity out to the edges.

You actually walk through the history of the many attempts to enshrine account abstraction, going all the way back to 2015 or 2016, to demonstrate how difficult it is actually to enshrine things in the protocol, even if you can decide as a community that this makes sense.

And we can get into some of the pros and cons of enshrining and why it makes sense and why it doesn't make sense.

But Miles, you actually have a great analogy, I think, for how to think about this.

I've increasingly started to think that when people talk about enshrinement, it sort of ships passing in the night and people are using these very different arguments.

I'll just tee it right up to you if you want to give the folks the 2 ways how you think about it.

And I think like the big question I'm trying to poke at here is really around does credible neutrality, which is really what has been the optimized for at this point, mean letting everything go to the private market.

And I guess the way I'm, you know, I've observed that there's 2 very different ways of thinking about this topic.

And although they kind of get to the same place, and 1 is, okay, let's you think about Ethereum or any blockchain as it should be basically treated like a government treats its country.

And from that perspective, you could argue if you're a proponent of enshrinement, hey, it's not great to let everything go to the private market.

There are certain services that lead to natural monopolies.

And if you were to let the private market completely capture something like utilities, That would not be healthy for the underlying ecosystem.

And so maybe Ethereum should be selectively pick a few areas that it believes it should regulate or even nationalize at some point for the greater health of the ecosystem.

And I think the pushback here has been like, well, that sounds like communism to me.

You're nationalizing businesses or like what sort of precedent does that set?

That's not healthy for attracting future entrepreneurs.

I think that pushback's like totally valid as well.

Then there's a very opposite end of the spectrum way of looking at this, which is to think about Ethereum more like operating systems.

And I think we'll be seeing Apple and Microsoft.

I mean, these big operating systems did bundle many first party apps into their system.

So these are like things like browser or like the calendar or even like, you know, I messaging with Apple.

And when you say first party apps, there are miles just to underscore that would be like if Windows or Microsoft designed the operating system Windows, then they would also create like Outlook, things like that.

And I think that this is, to some degree, to protect their users, again, because like relinquishing this control to the private market could lead to worse user experiences, but it also is effective in deterring competition.

And of course, Microsoft went through all that antitrust stuff because of it.

So they definitely took it to the nth degree of bundling things.

But I think whether you're looking at an operating system or a government, you know, I think that that is the big question is like, you know, do, does, like, do we, can we retain this value prop of credible neutrality that attracts entrepreneurs and, you know, reduces platform risk, it's not something they need to think about.

Well, also, you know, not letting everything go to the private market.

Are there things that we can enshrine, that's the word we're using, but really it's kind of like building a first party app in my eyes that makes the rest of the ecosystem net better and still leaves plenty of ample room for third parties to come and innovate and build and drive value.

So you're not driving away entrepreneurs, but you're also giving yourself a little bit of a competitive moat under the guise of also protecting users.

And so from that perspective, I could think it's interesting we haven't seen more enshrinement.

I think we're coming out a pretty extreme degree of credible neutrality optimization by not doing any of this.

But now people are starting to question it, that as the private market winners have started to emerge and saying, OK, maybe this isn't so healthy for the rest of the underlying ecosystem, whether that is Lido today or Eigen layer tomorrow.

If there are things that are super close to the metal, like should we be pulling more value back, first of all, into the chain, more control into the chain?

And if we do that, does that actually deter future entrepreneurs from coming and building third-party apps, which we absolutely, that's our main value prop, right?

We're selling block space for applications.

So that's kind of the way I'm thinking about it.

And I think there's like valid pushback and support based off of which angle you're more coming from.

So I really like that way of thinking about it.

But I actually would poke at you and maybe challenge the idea that those are very different.

I think the uniting principle is good user experience.

So good user experience from the perspective of a citizen, in your first example of a country nationalizing like a banking system or utilities or something like that, or good user experience from the perspective of using an operating system.

So from the perspective of windows, like 1 thing that everyone is going to do right is try to use email.

So it makes sense to like, well, maybe this isn't the thing that we take our rake on and make a bunch of money from.

It's more important to us that everyone has this basic service.

You aren't getting viruses transmitted to you.

It's not buggy and it just works because if that basic utilities work utility works, then it's going to lead to all of these other profitable activities down the road.

Same, same thing with the, with the country actually there.

And this is where there's a little bit of nuance between regulation and nationalization.

So net, like there's sort of like a couple of things that countries do, which is provide free goods and services.

You get taxed for them, but, that really, really actual public goods, right?

Like, like building roads, the post office thing, things like that.

Then there is, Then there's regulation, which is to say, look, in your example of utilities, if we just let The natural market dynamic of a utility is that there's a natural monopoly there.

So what we don't want is for people, whoever becomes the 1 supplier of power in a big urban area like New York, to just be able to gouge everyone and charge them so much that they're maximizing their profit, but 10% of the city is without power or basic goods and services.

We just don't think that that's a good thing.

We're going to improve the basic user experience of people who live in this area and just not allow them to do that.

And that actually should be a net good and pay dividends back for people who create businesses in those areas, and all those other things.

Nationalization would be an example of a government that wants more control over its financial system and takes the banks under their wing.

Or in an extreme example, if your financial system blows up, but the government has to come in and save parts of the financial system like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So we've actually sort of done that to a degree in the US.

And that's probably, that is sort of, to your point, how I was thinking about it before.

I do think the middle ground here is some form of regulation.

And I think even going back to season 2 of bell curve with did a great episode with Larry did 1 with Hossu as well, which provided this framework that I think is pretty accurate, which is the governance should fit how close you are to the metal.

So like Ethereum governments, super, super decentralized.

And that should be, because it's so close to the metal, it should be almost as flat and decentralized as Ethereum itself.

Now I guess the question that we're really getting at here and the crux of it is, is like what is so close to the metal that it actually should just be directly controlled by Ethereum?

And that is what I have less of a solid answer for.

If you can create elegant regulation that doesn't need constant governance, that's very different than operating what would otherwise be a full application and being opinionated and saying, this is the only version of this that you can use.

And I would make this slight differentiation where you have regulation with utilities, which keeps their, restricts there from being 1 electricity provider that the entire country uses.

And so you have a variety of them in their regional.

But if you're using Microsoft and you're using Microsoft Office, that's literally like you've got this 1 choice.

Obviously, it's more browser-based ones now today.

And yeah, with something like Lido, it's a question of sure it can be as flat as absolutely possible, even without any sort of enshrinement, and that's what they're going for.

But I think then you still, the concerns are coming from, okay, that's still like 1 electricity provider that still is providing, powering the entire country.

And they still have that ability to enforce pricing, you know, price gauging and like gouging and like, you know, unhealthy things, right?

And so with the LSM, the liquid staking module that we talked about, you know, it's first of all possible in Cosmos because Cosmos has governance first of all and it also has delegated proof of stake and so I think that that's the next question is okay if you want to go for this middle ground or frankly the national nationalization ground or the first party, whatever perspective you're thinking about it from.

What are the downstream implications of that for Ethereum?

And if you do add something like any kind of formal governance or delegated proof of stake, what are the trade-offs with that?

Does that start to potentially pick away at this ultrasound money sort of value prop?

The more complexity there is and control there is in the protocol, the less of a money meme Ethereum becomes.

And I think it's always been trying to strike that middle ground where it can compete with Bitcoin as a money, but also be this operating system.

I think we're now getting to the point where that actually hits like a serious tension where if you are going to try to compete with Bitcoin, then you're going to have to make trade-offs like relinquishing that control of the private market completely.

Or you say like, you know, at the end of the day, I think we can still, this can still be money with there being some form of governance or control.

And yeah, no, I think it will be interesting to see where it ends up playing out.

I have a hard time seeing Ethereum implement token governance in any form, frankly.

And so, I think that anything that requires that is a bit out of the equation.

I think that it seems like delegated proof of stake is becoming a little bit more of a viable option, or at least I've seen it thrown out there in a couple of the solutions that are being proposed here.

And so, yeah, I think some of that is also worth keeping in mind here is like, if you do decide to tackle the Lido problem, what other problems might you introduce that could potentially undermine the objectives?

Yeah, I think that fundamental tension is the 1 that I think about too, which is the trade off with enshrinement is complexity.

The more complexity you take on, you know, the cost of that is you need governance.

You need a way to manage all that complexity.

1 of the things that I think has been strongest for Ethereum and Bitcoin as well for its commodity moneyness, however you want to describe it, is the fact that there isn't this.

It's not like there are shareholders that can vote.

And it's just this thing that gets sort of decentralized, gets coordinated around, which looks very commodity-like.

I think the more that you bring within the protocol, the more complexity you ask it to absorb, eventually, if it's doing enough, people are going to start to be like, all right, who is making these?

Who is making these decisions and what is the process?

And I do think there are guys like, I've heard John Adler use the exact metaphor of regulation in the past.

And 1 soft, it doesn't often get thought of like this, but you could think of the EIP process as a part of 1 component of regulation in a way.

They're framed as improvements, but they are things that the clients will have to implement and gets brought into the protocol.

So I think it's worth considering and formalizing more thoughts about how regulation looks in a crypto and in an L1 sort of environment.

But then it is worth looking at how governance is going to look.

And this trade off between the more human decision that's around it, the more it's subject to change, the less it looks like a commodity.

And to the Bitcoiners credit, they saw this coming from light years out.

These debates were had a long time ago in 2012, 2013, and they saw a lot of this complexity coming down the road and they said, I don't want to deal with that.

I would have preferred to have this problem, rather than Bitcoin's problem.

But now you have to kind of accept that, you know, the realities of those of those trade offs.

And like, maybe just to give you some, like 1 idea of like, how, like, regulation that isn't opinionated at, you know, in terms of like impacting the apps could look is, you know, you can like the liquid staking module, they could add the ability to basically natively mint some sort of delegation specific LST.

And from there, you can then take that NFT and give it to 1 of these third party liquid staking providers who pool it.

But the regulation is that you cannot mint unlimited LSTs with 1 validator unless they continually increase their minimum bond, right?

That mitigates the principal agent problem.

So you're saying, okay, we're not gonna, this reduces the risk that all of the stake gets delegated and minted with 1 validator that can then basically rug the protocol.

But we're also not going to like, so we have a healthy like distribution of stake at the delegation level, but then we're going to let the private market handle, you know, how to pull those NFTs in a way that like keeps them, brings them back to fungibility, right?

Or with Eigen layer, you can make the protocol aware of basically how much of the network stake has been restaked and cap that, right?

So then maybe only like if the network now knows that you have your restaking, you know, to an AVS or something else, it can say, okay, out of the entire Ethereum stake, X percent is restaked.

Now the bloat that this would add to governance is that you'd have to be like constantly re-evaluating all these parameters and you would have to be you know basically doing a hard fork or a soft fork like an EIP for every single 1 of these updates right so let's say like oh we got comfortable with the liquid staking cap at, you know, 20 or the minimum self bond at, you know, x parameter, right?

Well, what if we want to bump that up a little bit?

Right now, so regardless of what you do, and like, whether you nationalize it or not, you you are adding like governance bloat.

But is that worth it in order to make this like the benefits of a healthier ecosystem so we could end this endless debate?

And I think that that's maybe the 1 thing missing I think from these like Lido debates is okay can we all agree first of all that like social shaming is is not gonna work here and so if you really want to think about this in like a practical way it has to be something at the protocol level.

I don't hear anybody really talking about those downstream implications of governance bloat or of delegated proof of stake.

We've heard mainly just like social pressure and now we have a vampire attack, but you know, anything at the in protocol level, I think, has yet to be like really, really explored.

I think this is where we've talked a little bit about this.

This is, and this person's been referenced on the show.

I don't know who Gwart is, but what a joy, what a joy to get brought to CT.

Someone drew like this Venn diagram of people that are smart and people that are funny to try to identify who it was.

And it's clearly someone who's in the know, but they've got a good sense of humor as well.

But that is where this kind of meme around the unalignment police, because it just rubs you the wrong way.

You know, I've been on the show saying, I genuinely think it's very well intended, but I do think it is always going to rub people the wrong way.

This kind of the dynamic of social shaming is just not 1

that's- Or just a disconnect between, I guess, whatever those values are and what they believe Ethereum users will do and what's actually happening on the ground.

And so it's just kind of pointless to keep yelling into the void really from that side when you can see like in the data what the users, you know, what their like social layer is.

And I think that was the gort bomb last night.

But I also think maybe to take the other side of it just for a second, the other side of this would be that for many years, there was really no reason to use Ethereum unless you really believed in this stuff.

I do think Ethereum is here today because of those people that believed in those values.

So I can see if you're 1 of those people who just deeply, deeply cares about it.

I would just be like, come on guys, this is what we're built off here.

And 1 thing I've been thinking about a lot is people love, probably because this whole space started with Bitcoin, which was explicitly out to be a form of money, and now there's this ultrasound money meme in Ethereum.

My personal thought is that it looks more like a commodity like oil or something like that than a more traditional money.

But I do think that the question is, in the ways of money, is how do you get people to use this stuff and really believe that it's money.

You don't have the luxury of a government of just, you have a monopoly on violence and you get to force people to use it and force people to pay their taxes in it.

And it seems like the organic answer that crypto has landed on is to basically form a religion, like a commodity type money, which is enforced by religion.

And I'm increasingly starting to see the L1s through that lens Because, you know, like there are people that have been in crypto for much longer time than me, but I've been in it for 6 years now.

And I, you know, I went through the same process that many people do when they first get into this space.

It's not going to be this tribal forever.

You know, It's going to get less and less tribal.

I think it's, if anything, every year that I'm in this space, it gets more tribal.

And the other thing I hear people say sometimes is, that's just on crypto Twitter.

That's not really what it's like between builders.

And it's like, kind of, but kind of not actually.

Like, there are some good friends of mine in the space who I know I just have to be a little bit like, yeah, I'm in this camp, or like, no, I'm really in this camp.

And yeah, just as someone who, I look at this space from a media standpoint a lot.

And yeah, I think you just have to acknowledge that there are these, I mean, even just look at how separate of a camp Bitcoin is in these days.

It did not used to be like that even 2 or 3 years ago.

And now it's like, might as well be a different industry.

Might as well be an entirely different industry.

I, I've increasingly sort of started to look at these things.

Like I probably think the tribalism is here to stay.

And I think that it's evolutionary purpose, so to speak, is what Ethereum alignment is getting at, which is the enforcement mechanism for using these forms of commodity money is a religious-like devotion to an adhered set of values.

So if I had to guess, I think that's actually more of the, I don't know if that permanently, but it's more moving in that direction, it seems like.

I mean, I guess my perspective on this is more coming at the angle of, okay, What is the most scalable way to make Ethereum money?

I think it's by making it the best possible operating system to build on.

And in order to interact with this operating system, you need Ethereum, right?

And so, I think that to me is kind of how this actually, you know, scales long term rather than I think where we get in trouble is when you start to question how it's being used.

And that's what that's what's starting to happen here.

I mean, at the end of the day, all activity is good for Ethereum's moneyness.

And I think the second you start to get super too opinionated about how it should be used and whatnot, then you start pushing people out that don't want you to have opinions on this operating system if credible neutrality is your value problem.

Yeah, and Bitcoin's interesting because Bitcoin in some ways has cut itself off from the rest of crypto and it's taken tribalism way too far and taken its opinionation way too far.

But then there's also a massive class of holders that are basically treating this like a macro asset.

Like I don't think Paul Tudor Jones gives a shit about like bitcoins, you know, like the debates on Twitter and like the block size wars and stuff like that, except in the context of like, does this make this a better macro asset that like, you know, the reason I'm betting on, right?

And so in that sense, it is interesting how that played out.

But Ethereum, I think is very, very different.

And Ethereum's bet is, you know, based off of like people actually using it for applications.

And so they need to be even more careful about being opinionated around how people use this, because that will deter that activity.

On a long enough time horizon, I think It's not surprising to me that the Paul Tudor Joneses of the world are more interested in things like Bitcoin than Ethereum.

Because I feel like Paul Tudor Jones is the type of investor who is money on bonds, commodities, a much more traditional macro sort of guy.

See all Bell Curve transcripts on Applepodcasts

Ethereum Enshrinement 101 | Round Up