News Heat Trend
Project Overview
Drake is an onchain orderbook perp DEX with diverse collateral options, gas-free trading, deep liquidity, and meticulous risk control.
Ethereum Staking Reward Cut Proposal Sparks Outrage: Community Fears Damage to DeFi and Weakened Decentralization
Odaily News - Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-8363 ("Tapered Issuance Burn") has triggered strong backlash from the community, becoming one of the most contentious debates over Ethereum's economic model since The Merge. The proposal, put forward by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, ETHCC co-founder Jerome de Tychey, and others, aims to gradually reduce validator rewards as the ETH staking ratio rises, ultimately bringing new issuance down to zero when staked ETH reaches 50% of the total supply.However, the proposal has drawn opposition from DeFi developers, staking service providers, and institutional investors alike. Critics argue that lowering staking yields could weaken the network's decentralization, disrupt Ethereum's DeFi ecosystem, and heighten market uncertainty around ETH's monetary policy. Opponents believe market mechanisms can already naturally regulate staking demand. Berryman noted that as yields decline to around 2%, new staking demand may naturally taper off, without the need for protocol-level changes to issuance policy.Ether.fi founder Mike Silagadze stated that the proposal is "detrimental to decentralization, Ethereum adoption, and the network's reputation." Bitwise Ethereum business lead Steve Berryman also pointed out that institutional investors require policy certainty, and adjusting the issuance mechanism could introduce additional uncertainty. Greg Koumoutsos, technical research lead at the Lido Labs Foundation, noted that Ethereum pays not only in "slashable ETH" but also in decentralization, node diversity, censorship resistance, and network resilience. Aave founder Stani Kulechov also warned that reducing ETH staking yields could impact the DeFi ecosystem, as a large volume of staking derivatives has become an integral part of lending and yield strategies.Additionally, the community is concerned that lowering staking rewards could paradoxically intensify centralization. Since individual validators lack economies of scale, declining yields may drive smaller nodes to exit, while large exchanges and institutional staking providers—backed by greater business demand—could continue expanding their market share.Currently, EIP-8363 involves not only staking reward adjustments but has also sparked broad discussions over Ethereum's long-term monetary policy, governance stability, and institutional confidence. The community believes that such a significant change to the economic model requires more thorough debate and a longer evaluation period. (Cointelegraph)
Coinbase Advisory Board Warns of Bitcoin’s Quantum Risk: No Consensus Yet Within the Community—Quantum-Resistant Migration Preparations Should Begin Immediately
A cryptography expert advisory committee led by Coinbase released a report stating that Bitcoin should immediately begin preparing for potential quantum computing attacks. However, the committee did not take a clear stance on whether to freeze the millions of bitcoins potentially vulnerable to quantum-computing theft in the future. The committee includes several leading experts, such as Justin Drake, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. They argue that the current debate is not about *how* to introduce quantum-resistant signature schemes, but rather *how to handle* bitcoins held in long-dormant addresses that fail to migrate. One camp advocates setting a final deadline after which Bitcoin’s existing ECDSA and Schnorr signature schemes would no longer be supported, and unmigrated funds would be frozen—thereby preventing future quantum attackers from seizing large amounts of BTC and destabilizing markets. The other camp contends that freezing funds would effectively amount to asset confiscation, violating Bitcoin’s core principles of immutability and full user control over assets—and could set a precedent for future regulatory-driven freezes. The Coinbase advisory committee notes that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be combined. Yet it declines to state a position on whether “legacy BTC” should be frozen, asserting that the ultimate decision rests with Bitcoin’s community governance. It emphasizes two key points: first, technical development of quantum-resistant signature migration must begin immediately—not wait for governance debates to conclude; second, users must receive clear, timely risk communication to prevent prolonged uncertainty from harming the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Ethereum L1 Abandons Poseidon, Shifts to SHA2 or BLAKE2 to Advance Post-Quantum Cryptography Roadmap
Justin Drake stated that Ethereum L1 will no longer adopt the SNARK-friendly hash function Poseidon, which has dominated since 2019, shifting toward traditional hash functions such as SHA2 or BLAKE2s. This adjustment is based on progress in the SNARK design space, with the focus shifting from "SNARK-friendly hashing" to "hash-friendly SNARKs." By natively aligning Boolean operations in traditional hashing with binary fields, the proving performance of traditional hashes in SNARKs has reached 1 million operations per second, with an overhead of approximately 100x. Research efforts such as Binius and Flock have driven related progress. The Ethereum Foundation's post-quantum team is advancing this roadmap, which includes deploying a production-grade leanVM in 2027 and deploying across the consensus layer, execution layer, and data processing layer in 2028. Justin Drake also noted that AI's enhanced capabilities in cryptanalysis have recently dealt successive blows to the lattice-based scheme HAWK and the isogeny-based scheme SQIsign, with hash-based schemes being used for blockchain post-quantum signatures. The trend of open-source automated research is also accelerating, with SNARK.fast achieving 1.8 million BLAKE3 proofs per second.
SharpLink CEO Opposes EIP-8363, Warning It Could Undermine ETH's Core Advantage Over Bitcoin
Odaily News, SharpLink CEO Joseph Chalom has formally opposed Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-8363, stating that if passed, the proposal could weaken the DeFi ecosystem, limit institutional interest in Ethereum, and erase a key advantage ETH holds over Bitcoin.EIP-8363, also known as "Tapered Issuance Burn," works by gradually increasing the proportion of consensus layer validator rewards that are burned as ETH staking ratios rise. When approximately 50% of ETH's supply is staked, the reward burn ratio would reach 100%, meaning issuance returns would drop to zero. If passed, the mechanism would be phased in gradually over roughly 18 months.The proposal, introduced earlier this week, has sparked significant controversy. Supporters argue it could limit the scale of ETH staking through market-based means while reducing the dilution problem faced by non-stakers. Proposal authors include Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, EthCC founder Jérôme de Tychey, and others.However, critics argue the mechanism could disproportionately harm solo stakers and weaken Ethereum's security. Chalom stated that the proposal's authors are all serious researchers and long-term Ethereum supporters, but "well-intentioned people can also be wrong."
Coinbase Advisory Board Warns of Bitcoin’s Quantum Risk: No Consensus Yet Within the Community—Quantum-Resistant Migration Preparations Should Begin Immediately
A cryptography expert advisory committee led by Coinbase released a report stating that Bitcoin should immediately begin preparing for potential quantum computing attacks. However, the committee did not take a clear stance on whether to freeze the millions of bitcoins potentially vulnerable to quantum-computing theft in the future. The committee includes several leading experts, such as Justin Drake, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. They argue that the current debate is not about *how* to introduce quantum-resistant signature schemes, but rather *how to handle* bitcoins held in long-dormant addresses that fail to migrate. One camp advocates setting a final deadline after which Bitcoin’s existing ECDSA and Schnorr signature schemes would no longer be supported, and unmigrated funds would be frozen—thereby preventing future quantum attackers from seizing large amounts of BTC and destabilizing markets. The other camp contends that freezing funds would effectively amount to asset confiscation, violating Bitcoin’s core principles of immutability and full user control over assets—and could set a precedent for future regulatory-driven freezes. The Coinbase advisory committee notes that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be combined. Yet it declines to state a position on whether “legacy BTC” should be frozen, asserting that the ultimate decision rests with Bitcoin’s community governance. It emphasizes two key points: first, technical development of quantum-resistant signature migration must begin immediately—not wait for governance debates to conclude; second, users must receive clear, timely risk communication to prevent prolonged uncertainty from harming the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Coinbase Advisory Committee Report Warns Quantum Computing Threat is Approaching, Crypto Industry Needs to Develop Countermeasures Early
Odaily News A 50-page report commissioned by Coinbase indicates that although current quantum computers are not yet capable of cracking the encryption technologies of networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum, fault-tolerant large-scale quantum computers will eventually be built, and the crypto industry must begin preparations now. The report was authored by an independent advisory committee, including cryptographers and scholars such as Dan Boneh from Stanford University, Justin Drake from the Ethereum Foundation, and Sreeram Kannan from Eigen Labs.The report states that estimates for the time it would take quantum computers to break current encryption standards range from several years to over a decade. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends migrating to post-quantum cryptography by 2035, but the report suggests this timeline may be optimistic. Post-quantum cryptography already exists and is undergoing standardization, but post-quantum digital signatures can be tens to hundreds of times larger than existing signatures, potentially increasing block sizes by up to 38 times and introducing challenges such as wallet migration. The Ethereum Foundation has proposed a post-quantum digital signature scheme, and projects like Solana are also experimenting with post-quantum wallet designs. The report recommends adopting flexible transition strategies, such as hybrid systems, to prepare for future upgrades without compromising current security.
Related news
Ethereum Foundation Abandons Poseidon Post-Quantum Hash Scheme
以太坊基金会研究员 Justin Drake 表示，因 SNARKs 技术进步，基金会将放弃 Poseidon 哈希函数，转向 SHA 或 BLAKE 等传统方案用于后量子架构。
Ethereum L1 Abandons Poseidon, Shifts to SHA2 or BLAKE2 to Advance Post-Quantum Cryptography Roadmap
Justin Drake stated that Ethereum L1 will no longer adopt the SNARK-friendly hash function Poseidon, which has dominated since 2019, shifting toward traditional hash functions such as SHA2 or BLAKE2s. This adjustment is based on progress in the SNARK design space, with the focus shifting from "SNARK-friendly hashing" to "hash-friendly SNARKs." By natively aligning Boolean operations in traditional hashing with binary fields, the proving performance of traditional hashes in SNARKs has reached 1 million operations per second, with an overhead of approximately 100x. Research efforts such as Binius and Flock have driven related progress. The Ethereum Foundation's post-quantum team is advancing this roadmap, which includes deploying a production-grade leanVM in 2027 and deploying across the consensus layer, execution layer, and data processing layer in 2028. Justin Drake also noted that AI's enhanced capabilities in cryptanalysis have recently dealt successive blows to the lattice-based scheme HAWK and the isogeny-based scheme SQIsign, with hash-based schemes being used for blockchain post-quantum signatures. The trend of open-source automated research is also accelerating, with SNARK.fast achieving 1.8 million BLAKE3 proofs per second.
SharpLink CEO Opposes EIP-8363, Warning It Could Undermine ETH's Core Advantage Over Bitcoin
Odaily News, SharpLink CEO Joseph Chalom has formally opposed Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-8363, stating that if passed, the proposal could weaken the DeFi ecosystem, limit institutional interest in Ethereum, and erase a key advantage ETH holds over Bitcoin.EIP-8363, also known as "Tapered Issuance Burn," works by gradually increasing the proportion of consensus layer validator rewards that are burned as ETH staking ratios rise. When approximately 50% of ETH's supply is staked, the reward burn ratio would reach 100%, meaning issuance returns would drop to zero. If passed, the mechanism would be phased in gradually over roughly 18 months.The proposal, introduced earlier this week, has sparked significant controversy. Supporters argue it could limit the scale of ETH staking through market-based means while reducing the dilution problem faced by non-stakers. Proposal authors include Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, EthCC founder Jérôme de Tychey, and others.However, critics argue the mechanism could disproportionately harm solo stakers and weaken Ethereum's security. Chalom stated that the proposal's authors are all serious researchers and long-term Ethereum supporters, but "well-intentioned people can also be wrong."
Ethereum Staking Reward Cut Proposal Sparks Outrage: Community Fears Damage to DeFi and Weakened Decentralization
Odaily News - Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-8363 ("Tapered Issuance Burn") has triggered strong backlash from the community, becoming one of the most contentious debates over Ethereum's economic model since The Merge. The proposal, put forward by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake, ETHCC co-founder Jerome de Tychey, and others, aims to gradually reduce validator rewards as the ETH staking ratio rises, ultimately bringing new issuance down to zero when staked ETH reaches 50% of the total supply.However, the proposal has drawn opposition from DeFi developers, staking service providers, and institutional investors alike. Critics argue that lowering staking yields could weaken the network's decentralization, disrupt Ethereum's DeFi ecosystem, and heighten market uncertainty around ETH's monetary policy. Opponents believe market mechanisms can already naturally regulate staking demand. Berryman noted that as yields decline to around 2%, new staking demand may naturally taper off, without the need for protocol-level changes to issuance policy.Ether.fi founder Mike Silagadze stated that the proposal is "detrimental to decentralization, Ethereum adoption, and the network's reputation." Bitwise Ethereum business lead Steve Berryman also pointed out that institutional investors require policy certainty, and adjusting the issuance mechanism could introduce additional uncertainty. Greg Koumoutsos, technical research lead at the Lido Labs Foundation, noted that Ethereum pays not only in "slashable ETH" but also in decentralization, node diversity, censorship resistance, and network resilience. Aave founder Stani Kulechov also warned that reducing ETH staking yields could impact the DeFi ecosystem, as a large volume of staking derivatives has become an integral part of lending and yield strategies.Additionally, the community is concerned that lowering staking rewards could paradoxically intensify centralization. Since individual validators lack economies of scale, declining yields may drive smaller nodes to exit, while large exchanges and institutional staking providers—backed by greater business demand—could continue expanding their market share.Currently, EIP-8363 involves not only staking reward adjustments but has also sparked broad discussions over Ethereum's long-term monetary policy, governance stability, and institutional confidence. The community believes that such a significant change to the economic model requires more thorough debate and a longer evaluation period. (Cointelegraph)
Famous rapper Drake loses $1.5 million after predicting Argentina to win the World Cup
famous rapper Drake had wagered $1.5 million on Argentina defeating Spain in the World Cup final, but ultimately lost the funds after Argentina's defeat. (Cointelegraph)
Coinbase Advisory Board Warns of Bitcoin’s Quantum Risk: No Consensus Yet Within the Community—Quantum-Resistant Migration Preparations Should Begin Immediately
A cryptography expert advisory committee led by Coinbase released a report stating that Bitcoin should immediately begin preparing for potential quantum computing attacks. However, the committee did not take a clear stance on whether to freeze the millions of bitcoins potentially vulnerable to quantum-computing theft in the future. The committee includes several leading experts, such as Justin Drake, a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. They argue that the current debate is not about *how* to introduce quantum-resistant signature schemes, but rather *how to handle* bitcoins held in long-dormant addresses that fail to migrate. One camp advocates setting a final deadline after which Bitcoin’s existing ECDSA and Schnorr signature schemes would no longer be supported, and unmigrated funds would be frozen—thereby preventing future quantum attackers from seizing large amounts of BTC and destabilizing markets. The other camp contends that freezing funds would effectively amount to asset confiscation, violating Bitcoin’s core principles of immutability and full user control over assets—and could set a precedent for future regulatory-driven freezes. The Coinbase advisory committee notes that these approaches are not mutually exclusive and could be combined. Yet it declines to state a position on whether “legacy BTC” should be frozen, asserting that the ultimate decision rests with Bitcoin’s community governance. It emphasizes two key points: first, technical development of quantum-resistant signature migration must begin immediately—not wait for governance debates to conclude; second, users must receive clear, timely risk communication to prevent prolonged uncertainty from harming the Bitcoin ecosystem.