News linked to both this project and an event.
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)
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.