L retweeted
Routers and Aggregators are slowly catching up to MEV bots as some of the largest users. Searchers that integrated are executing ~0.5bps away from Binance mid price at block execution time. I've seen bribes as low as 50% for atomic searchers switching out a univ3 leg for a pAMM swap.
L retweeted
1/ PropAMMs just blew through $1B in total volume swapped on Ethereum, with DeFi users enjoying price improvement on over 130K swaps.
This has been a collaborative effort to bring more liquidity to Ethereum, utilising guarantees of economic security, decentralization, liveness and censorship resistance 🧵
L retweeted
PropAMMs are live on Ethereum! pAMM liquidity is now available in every Titan block.
This is a major step toward broader Application-Controlled Execution (ACE) on Ethereum.
🤖 Made with AI
L retweeted
What if we could make the Ethereum transaction journey and block construction process faster, cheaper, more flexible, censorship resistant, & robustness?
What if we could do this today?
This is what the Blockspace Forum is about. 🧵👇
L retweeted
"The path forward are mechanisms that embrace high-performance specialisation while preserving decentralised properties, align incentives end-to-end, make guarantees portable and verifiable, and iterate with incremental, observable changes.
We look forward to further discussions and working towards solutions.
These principles have the potential to increase realised blockspace value without compromising Ethereum’s credible neutrality."
L retweeted
refusal is a core engineering skill. good systems are shaped as much by what they reject as by what they include. saying no to features, options, and abstractions is necessary to preserve clarity over time.
looks like ethrex (1y, 3.5k commits) is now faster than reth (3y, 12.5k commits), who would have thought?
Ethrex @ethrex_client is already slightly faster than Reth on the @ethereum mainnet. Several pull requests that meaningfully improve speed are about to be merged, so performance will continue to climb.
Even so, performance is not the main focus of the project. The real work is in building a client that is minimal, clear, and modular. That foundation makes higher performance almost trivial once the fundamentals are right, even if the industry tends to fixate on benchmarks first.
Audits are being worked on. We're already talking with multiple stakers that want to start using ethrex in the L1 and we got multiple clients that are about to use it in it's L2 mode.
Ethrex is on its way to becoming the strongest Rust SDK for building on @ethereum.
If you want to support us, it would be of great help if you can give us a star in github. Thanks!
"In a normal process, it is our opinion this change would not have been included in the fork had it been evaluated independently of the pipelining portion of ePBS from the start. We believe a lack of common understanding that it was reasonably separable may have contributed to this."
blog.sigmaprime.io/lighthous…
FOCIL and 6s slots would greatly improve the censorship resistance that makes Ethereum so valuable . Unfortunate to see both delayed in favour of ePBS
While this is difficult to appreciate from the outside, a major decision is at stake behind the Forkcast rankings published over the last week: Adding FOCIL to Glamsterdam or not. In my view, it would be a short-sighted decision to add FOCIL, either as a definite commitment and even more so as a conditional one (“we’ll add it to the scope and see if we can ship it”). Were no lessons learned from Pectra?
The headliner process was supposed to offer ACD a format to keep the fork scope manageable. It was already a process error to keep FOCIL in consideration after it was turned down as Glamsterdam’s CL headliner. Now ACD intends to add months of delay and a complex (even if well-understood) feature on top of ePBS, itself already a significantly complex change to the block construction pipeline.
This is not about the merits of FOCIL. People know well its importance and the necessity of a mechanism like FOCIL to ensure inclusion in a world of provers and high scale. Including FOCIL later is fine, and in my view FOCIL + 6 second slots for H* is a very attractive option, that we should be working towards as ePBS-only Glamsterdam approaches deployment.
Credible estimates give FOCIL + 6s slots H* a possible deployment in early 2027, while ePBS + FOCIL in Glamsterdam would possibly delay 6sec slots-only H* to the middle of 2027. This is at least 4 months of delay to ship the same package of things! This should tell you everything about the compounding testing and deployment complexity of ePBS + FOCIL. In addition, we do not get to enjoy the massive scaling benefits of ePBS + BALs until much later in 2026 too. This is an opportunity cost that is too often discounted.
The ability to plan and make forward commitments on future forks is increased if ACD is able to protect itself from append-only decisions while increasing its cadence of forks. The positive flywheel disappears if we fail to do this, and in my view this simply does not serve our values or the interests of our community over the long run.
More discussions are expected on this Thursday’s ACD.
L retweeted
It is worth an extra quarter of testing to have FOCIL in a delayed Glamsterdam. FOCIL should have been in Pectra. FOCIL should have been in Fusaka. We need to ship this and the stakeholder feedback was tremendously in favor.
FOCIL is not of mere theoretical benefit. Private order flow and sophisticated MEV makes block building inherently centralized. When Tornado Cash was OFAC sanctioned we saw these builders censor transactions. This is an attack Ethereum has already experienced and can fix.
Builders should not have the power to do this. Last time it was censoring Tornado Cash; what if next time it is forcing unfavorable liquidation? DeFi needs FOCIL.
Strong censorship 51% attacks become significantly less bad with FOCIL, allowing optimistic rollups to more comfortably reduce their fraud proof windows. Scaling needs FOCIL.
Some things in life are worth waiting for. Glamsterdam with FOCIL is one of those.
While this is difficult to appreciate from the outside, a major decision is at stake behind the Forkcast rankings published over the last week: Adding FOCIL to Glamsterdam or not. In my view, it would be a short-sighted decision to add FOCIL, either as a definite commitment and even more so as a conditional one (“we’ll add it to the scope and see if we can ship it”). Were no lessons learned from Pectra?
The headliner process was supposed to offer ACD a format to keep the fork scope manageable. It was already a process error to keep FOCIL in consideration after it was turned down as Glamsterdam’s CL headliner. Now ACD intends to add months of delay and a complex (even if well-understood) feature on top of ePBS, itself already a significantly complex change to the block construction pipeline.
This is not about the merits of FOCIL. People know well its importance and the necessity of a mechanism like FOCIL to ensure inclusion in a world of provers and high scale. Including FOCIL later is fine, and in my view FOCIL + 6 second slots for H* is a very attractive option, that we should be working towards as ePBS-only Glamsterdam approaches deployment.
Credible estimates give FOCIL + 6s slots H* a possible deployment in early 2027, while ePBS + FOCIL in Glamsterdam would possibly delay 6sec slots-only H* to the middle of 2027. This is at least 4 months of delay to ship the same package of things! This should tell you everything about the compounding testing and deployment complexity of ePBS + FOCIL. In addition, we do not get to enjoy the massive scaling benefits of ePBS + BALs until much later in 2026 too. This is an opportunity cost that is too often discounted.
The ability to plan and make forward commitments on future forks is increased if ACD is able to protect itself from append-only decisions while increasing its cadence of forks. The positive flywheel disappears if we fail to do this, and in my view this simply does not serve our values or the interests of our community over the long run.
More discussions are expected on this Thursday’s ACD.
(some) rollups are cool but scaling the L1 should be the highest priority
Base, the most successful Ethereum L2 by far, spends about $4K/day to inherit the security of Ethereum. That's $1.5M/year to a $460B asset (0.03 bps).
The L2 roadmap has Ethereum maxis selling their virtuous alignment for less than pennies. Ethereum should focus on scaling the L1 and stop selling security and alignment for zero.
L retweeted
Someone is burning $100k a month, making zero ETH transfers to the Maestro router, but why?
Whilst trawling etherscan, I noticed an unusual amount of high-priority fee empty transfers to Maestro: Router 2. Opening the Maestro router showed these were extremely frequent, often occurring more than actual swaps and almost always paying ~35 Gwei in priority fees.
