BTC $63,026.22 +0.30%
ETH $1,881.34 +0.20%
BNB $610.24 +0.72%
XRP $1.00 +0.57%
SOL $75.44 +0.45%
TRX $0.3313 -0.42%
DOGE $0.0698 +0.18%
ADA $0.1779 -0.67%
BCH $203.47 -0.06%
LINK $9.58 +6.95%
HYPE $57.07 +2.90%
AAVE $86.62 +1.10%
SUI $0.6793 +0.13%
XLM $0.1578 -0.70%
ZEC $488.25 -0.75%
BTC $63,026.22 +0.30%
ETH $1,881.34 +0.20%
BNB $610.24 +0.72%
XRP $1.00 +0.57%
SOL $75.44 +0.45%
TRX $0.3313 -0.42%
DOGE $0.0698 +0.18%
ADA $0.1779 -0.67%
BCH $203.47 -0.06%
LINK $9.58 +6.95%
HYPE $57.07 +2.90%
AAVE $86.62 +1.10%
SUI $0.6793 +0.13%
XLM $0.1578 -0.70%
ZEC $488.25 -0.75%

try

All
Article
Flash

Gray Research Director: Ethereum is like a "small country," and the issuance of ETH determines the balance between network security and currency

Zach Pandl, the head of research at Grayscale, posted on the X platform comparing Ethereum to a "small country" and discussed the ETH issuance mechanism. He believes that Ethereum has only one core "government function": to protect property rights and value exchange within the system. Unlike traditional countries that provide public services through taxation, Ethereum primarily funds network security through "seigniorage," which is the issuance of new ETH.In this framework, the stakers responsible for maintaining network security are akin to a group providing public services, as they receive rewards through newly issued ETH. Therefore, Ethereum's staking mechanism and ETH issuance policy essentially constitute the network's fiscal and monetary policy. Zach Pandl pointed out that the Ethereum community needs to decide how much "new currency" should be used to cover network security costs. More security typically means stronger protection of property rights, but at the cost of a higher ETH issuance rate and potential other risks.For example, if network security increasingly relies on a few large staking service providers, there remains room for discussion about whether these providers can maintain the asset rights of all users completely neutrally. Pandl believes that, just as in traditional economies, no one knows the "optimal level" of government spending and currency issuance; the same applies to Ethereum. However, Ethereum has several key security thresholds, including: 1/3: an attacker reaching this ratio may affect finality; 1/2: affects blockchain fork choice; 2/3: can control the finality process. Some community members believe that the design of Ethereum's monetary and fiscal policy should consider the security trade-offs brought by these key ratios, while the current mechanism has not adequately incorporated these factors. However, the above analogy is not entirely accurate, as it does not yet involve other important factors such as the ETH burn mechanism, MEV, governance, etc.

The cryptocurrency industry is once again debating "who should hold the private keys" due to the $130 million theft case involving the Coldcard wallet

A wallet security incident involving approximately $130 million in Bitcoin losses is reigniting discussions in the crypto industry about asset custody models: should Bitcoin holders rely on personal self-custody or turn to institutional custody? Hardware wallet manufacturer Coldcard had a vulnerability in its firmware in 2021 that led to some mnemonic phrases generated by the device being predictably risky. This vulnerability was discovered years later, and approximately 5,200 addresses and about 2,000 BTC have been stolen, with losses amounting to around $130 million.After the incident, some investors began to turn to Wall Street custody products. Data shows that the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net inflow of about $626 million within days of the incident. Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas stated that such security incidents could further drive funds into ETFs. However, the Bitcoin core community still insists on the self-custody concept. Casa co-founder Jameson Lopp stated that recent events should not undermine users' confidence in self-custody and pointed out that third-party custody also carries risks. Bitcoin Core early developer Peter Todd also believes that self-custody has a better long-term safety record than centralized institutions.Onramp co-founder Michael Tanguma believes that both options have flaws. He stated that concentrating a large amount of assets in a single institution creates a "honey pot," while hardware wallets face risks related to supply chains, firmware, and random number generation. Tanguma proposed a "multi-institution custody" solution, where multiple regulated institutions hold keys through a multi-signature mechanism, requiring multiple institutions to jointly sign any transaction to reduce single points of failure. However, this model has also sparked controversy. Critics argue that while multi-institution custody enhances security, it also introduces permissioned management, conflicting with the decentralized ideals originally pursued by Bitcoin. As Bitcoin gradually enters the fields of pensions, trusts, and institutional asset allocation, the industry is seeking new custody solutions suitable for long-term wealth management. The Coldcard vulnerability incident once again highlights that achieving a balance between security, decentralization, and usability remains a core challenge facing the Bitcoin ecosystem.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.