Let's talk about the latest Ethereum proposal EIP-8363, which has caused a lot of controversy 1) The starting point of this proposal is certainly good. At a critical point in the future, specifically when the staking rate of the entire network exceeds 50%, the issuance rewards of the consensus layer will be completely "burned out", relying solely on the real income MEV, tips and other rewards of the execution layer to motivate stakers. This will definitely be beneficial for Ethereum holders for generations to come, as it reduces the continuous issuance of ETH and indirectly forces the market to expand its economic vitality to generate new energy, rather than relying solely on the common interests of vampire holders to maintain the cybersecurity budget; 2) It is inevitable that the proposal will face resistance in the short term, as it violates the interests of vested interests and may even disrupt the balance of the current DeFi market. For example, the profitability of LST protocols such as Lido and etherFi will be affected because most of the rewards they currently give to Staking Holders rely on consensus layer issuance rewards of about 2.6%, while MEV and other fees only account for 0.2%. This proposal is equivalent to castrating their future profitability; Old DeFi loans such as AAVE and revolving loans also rely heavily on issuing rewards for a large portion of their interest. Once they are castrated, the impact is similar. Institutional treasuries represented by @ fundstrat are even more so. Once they strip away this portion of the original staking income and let them hold coins with zero interest on faith, it's simply a pipe dream; 3) But objectively speaking, these short-term resistance voices can be seen as "noise". As mentioned above, their anger is mainly due to concerns that their business cannot continue, but they ignore that this proposal is only being discussed publicly. Firstly, the pledge rate of 50% has not been achieved yet. The existence of the proposal can avoid the market relying solely on pledge income to suck blood (blocking the achievement of a 50% pledge rate). Secondly, the implementation of the proposal will also have a transition period of up to 18 months, which will not castrate the income overnight, giving the market the opportunity to adjust autonomously. Moreover, by proposing to turn off the switch for unlimited ETH issuance subsidies, Ethereum is forced to follow a path of relying on real economic activities to sustain itself. Why not do it. If these people think about the original intention of the proposal, they will not overwhelmingly oppose it. 4) Returning to the opportunity of proposing the proposal, it must be said that the author lineup, especially including @ drakefJustin and other researchers, has a stronger "ivory tower" flavor, because they have written a lot about the short-term harm of pledging rewards, but ignored how to use long-term benefits to boost the confidence of ecological participants. Broadly speaking, reducing inflation is the common interest of all ETH holders, including those who resist proposals. However, without explaining how executive income will incentivize the network in the future, it may be difficult to prevent ecological contributors from panicking. @VitalikButerin 5) @ Solana_zh actually has similar proposals, such as SIMD-0550/0228, which directly reduce the inflation rate and decrease Staking returns. However, Solana has a high starting point for inflation, and by doing some parametric design and implementing a landing curve, the market acceptance will be higher. The original intention of Ethereum's proposal and even the necessity of doing so in the future must be present, as no network relies on sustained high issuance subsidies to sustain itself. However, it depends on how to balance short-term and long-term interests. In any case, it is not just a matter of proposing a solution.