Achain 價格ACT

Hosseeb is correct in his conclusion that staking yields should be on the low end, mostly because slashing is either rare or on a chain like Solana non-existent. It never makes sense to pay high interest on an activity with no risk and slight liquidity disruptions. My sense is most of the newer chains that started with high emission rates did so because a)Bitcoin's curve was the default and b)They wanted grifty tokenomics that rewarded insiders (see TIA et al). But we should be careful not to start believing the @aeyakovenko line that economic security is just a meme. That's just hubris and complacency. As more value goes on these chains, the incentive to attack or sabotage grows, and falling back on the social layer (as both Toly and now Hosseeb seem to want to do) ignores the potentially destructive politics of such. The whole point of cryptoeconomic security is to avoid the messy soft process of human interaction, replacing with harshly enforced protocol rules. Validators who don't fear slashing will behave very differently from those who do. More importantly, everyone seems to forget that if a native coin isn't needed for security, then it has little reason to have value. The linkage between the two was Satoshi's primary (and maybe only) unique insight. Both PoW and PoS create a neat virtuous (or vicious) cycle based on the interop of coin value->incentives->security. If the security doesn't come from the incentives, the coin doesn't need any value. You can issue equity for ownership and should charge fees using a stablecoin. Hell, you might as well just permission the damn thing, like Canton. (But please just use a database and away with the presence of a blockchain). Would that be centralizing? of course. But not believing in crypto-economic security is giving up on the value of decentralization anyway. Why pretend? My sense is the best solution to these dilemmas is to have a lot more experimentation with slashing. It's odd that this particular lever is seldom considered in protocol design debates. People act like slashing is somehow bad or dangerous, but that's just the risk side of the equation, and it's perfectly tolerable so long as it is matched with a worthwhile reward. A PoS chain that has more slashing but also higher inflation has a much more sophisticated and expressive surface area for getting validators to work towards desirable outcomes. We should want this. It would even be good for DeFi, because owners of the native coin would have competing options for seeking yield in risk-adjusted ways.

📌 Sen. Cynthia Lummis Says Both Crypto Market Structure Bill & GENIUS Act Must Pass This Year Speaking with Squawk Box co-anchor Joe Kernen on June 25, Lummis expressed her hopes that both the House of Representatives and the Senate could come together to enact sweeping crypto

Avalon Labs reveals progress in its advocacy for U.S. crypto policy, calling on the government to support non-custodial crypto services According to official news, #Bitcoin financial services platform Avalon Labs officially disclosed its latest progress in crypto policy advocacy in Washington, D.C., aiming to push the government to introduce a clearer legislative framework for crypto companies and #Bitcoin lending businesses from the perspective of blockchain technology innovation, employment opportunities, and inclusive finance. Avalon Labs firmly believes that a clear and stable regulatory environment will help crypto companies operate more safely and compliantly in the United States. In addition, Avalon Labs also called on the government to support the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which aims to provide legal clarity for non-custodial crypto services and help the healthy development of the industry.

RT @stablewatchHQ: GENIUS bans Yield Stablecoins “Yield Outlawed: The GENIUS Act’s Prohibition on Yield-Bearing Stablecoins” By @olafiuu…

Another massive catalyst to help fuel our bull cycle --> the GENIUS ACT passing next month 💪💪