Cosmos is steadily becoming the place to create the ultimate modular blockchain. Cosmos SDK allows developers to effortlessly roll out tailored blockchains, resulting in a flood of new projects that provide specialized settings for novel products. The goal of modular blockchains is to divide Execution, Settlement, Consensus, and Data Availability. Refer to page 19 of this report to learn more about modular vs. monolithic blockchain designs (Ethereum). As a result, we see various teams tackling the issues of each layer and creating optimal solutions and developer environments. Ultimately, developers could use these optimizations to create an application that is highly performant using such an ultimate modular blockchain. Not to mention the greater decentralization that comes with spreading your product across numerous ecosystems.
Let’s go over the problems that current ecosystems face in each layer of the modular stack, and how various quality teams are solving these issues. Please bear in mind that there are other teams that are solving these issues too, we are just exploring some.
It is important to explain that when a block is appended to the blockchain, each block contains a header and all the transaction data. Full nodes download and verify both, whilst light clients only download the header to optimize for speed and scalability.
Full nodes (validators) cannot be deceived because they download and validate the header as well as all transaction data, whereas light clients only download the block header and presume valid transactions (optimistic). If a block includes malicious transactions, light clients depend on full nodes to give them a fraud proof. This is because light nodes verify blocks against consensus rules, but not against transaction validity proofs. This means that a 51% attack where consensus is altered can easily trick light nodes. As node runners scale, secure methods to operate light clients would be preferable because of their reduced operational costs. If nodes are cheaper to run, decentralization also becomes easier to achieve.
The DA problem refers to how nodes can be certain that when a new block is generated, all of the data in that block is truly published to the network. The problem is that if a block producer does not disclose all of the data in a block, no one will be able to determine if a malicious transaction is concealed within that block. A reliable source of truth as a data layer is required that orders transactions as they come and checks their history. This is what Celestia does, solely optimizing the Consensus and the DA layer. This entails that Celestia is only responsible for ordering transactions and guaranteeing their data availability; this is similar to reducing consensus to atomic broadcast. This is the reason why Celestia was originally called ‘Lazy Ledger’, however, efficiently performing this job for a future with thousands of applications is no easy job. Celestia can also take care of consensus. See the different types of nodes in Celestia here.
Two key features of Celestia’s DA layer are data availability sampling (DAS) and Namespaced Merkle trees (NMTs). Both are innovative blockchain scalability solutions: DAS allows light nodes to validate data availability without downloading a complete block; NMTs allow Celestia’s execution and settlement layers to download transactions that are only meaningful to them. In a nutshell, Celestia allows light nodes to verify just a small set of data, that when combined with the work of other light nodes, provides a high-security guarantee that the transactions are valid. Hence, Celestia assumes that there is a minimum number of light nodes sampling the data availability layer.
“This assumption is necessary so that a full node can reconstruct an entire block from the portions of data light nodes sampled and stored.”
It is worth noting for later that these layers (DA & Consensus) are naturally decentralized and easier to have fully on-chain, as most of the work is taken on by the validators. Scaling here will ultimately depend on the consensus algorithm. ‘Rollapp’ developers will not need to assemble a validator set for their applications either.
The present web3 environment suffers from centralization in the execution and settlement layers. This is due to the fact that the on-chain tech stack severely limits an application’s functional capability. As a result, developers are forced to perform heavy computation off-chain, in a centralized manner. On-chain apps are not inherently interoperable with external systems, and they are also constrained by a particular blockchain’s storage and processing capability.
More than just a distributed blockchain database is required to create the ultimate decentralized apps. High-performance processing, data IO from/to IPFS, links to various blockchains, managed databases, and interaction with various Web2 and Web3 services are all common requirements for your application. Additionally, different types of applications require different types of execution environments that can optimize for their needs.
Blockless can take advantage of Celestia’s data availability and focus to improve application development around the execution layer. Blockless provides a p2p execution framework for creating decentralized serverless apps. dApps are not limited by on-chain capacity and throughput by offloading operations from L1 to the performant, configurable execution layer offered by Blockless. With Blockless you can transfer intensive processing from a centralized cloud service platform or a blockchain to the Blockless decentralized node network using built-in functions. With the Blockless SDK, you can access any Web2 and Web3 applications as it currently supports IPFS, AWS3, Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Cosmos.
Developers using Blockless will only need to provide the serverless functions they want to implement (in any language!), as well as a manifest file that specifies the minimal number of nodes required, hardware specifications, geolocation, and node layout. In no time, their services will be operating with ultra-high uptime and hands-free horizontal scaling. To learn more about the architecture of the Blockless network go here, but yet again, its orchestration chain is a Cosmos-based blockchain responsible for function/app registration. The cherry on the cake is that you can use and incorporate or sell community functions and extensions into your own application design in a plug-and-play manner using Blockless Marketplace. In Cosmos, you can already do this through projects like Archway or Abstract.
Popular L2s and Rollups today like Arbitrum, Optimism, and StarkNet use Ethereum for data availability and rely on single sequencers to execute their transactions. Such single sequencers are able to perform fast when submitting to Ethereum but evidently stand as a centralized point of failure. Saga has partnered with Celestia to provide roll-ups as a service to enable a decentralized sequencer set.
Saga provides easy-to-deploy “chainlets” for any developer to roll out an application without having to care about L1 developments. Although their main focus is to support full appchain formation on top of the
Saga Mainnet, the technology can also support the modular thesis. This means that rollup developers can use Saga’s validators to act as sequencers and decentralize their set. In other words, Saga validators can also work in shifts submitting new blocks for Celestia rollups.
Saga offers a service that organizes validators into sequencers and punishes misconduct through shared security. Saga’s technology provides functionalities to detect invalid block productions with fraud proofs and to manage censoring or inactivity, challenges are made to process a set of transactions. This means that Saga can enhance the settlement layer whilst using Celestia for data to generate fraud proofs and offline censor challenges. This could also even be done for Ethereum, with the additional benefit of having shared security between chainlets and IBC out of the box. To further understand the difference between running a rollup or a chainlet, please refer to this fantastic article.
In such a modular world, developers finally have full customization power. One could choose to build sovereign rollup or settlement rollups, or even a hybrid. In our example, it could even be possible to use Saga’s consensus instead of Celestia’s. Referring to our example, we could have an application that decentralizes its execution computing through Blockless whilst programming in any language, decentralizes its sequencer set and is able to deploy unlimited Chainlets if more block space is required with Saga, and has a reliable and decentralized data availability layer with Celestia. What’s best, all these layers are built and optimized with Cosmos SDK chains, meaning they will have out-of-the-box compatibility with IBC and shared security of Chainlets.
The MEV supply chain is critical to the future performance and business models of the Solana network. Solana is in a phase of actively searching for, and ultimately choosing its MEV supply chain. One approach is to replicate the model established on Ethereum, building a searching and block-building marketplace. This path has multiple downsides, such as artificially introducing a global mempool that would increase Solana’s latency, and may also increase the risk of centralization and censorship.
We’re happy to announce that Chorus One has released a whitepaper today where we contrast the most relevant characteristics of Ethereum and Solana; review some of the features of the block-building marketplace model, i.e “flashbots-like model”, and what retrofitting it onto Solana would entail.
Given the particularities of Solana, we also propose an alternative to the block-building marketplace: the solana-mev client. This model allows for decentralized extraction by validators, through a modified Solana validator client, capable of handling MEV opportunities directly in the banking stage of the validator. Along with the whitepaper, Chorus One is also releasing an open-source prototype implementation of the approach detailed inside the whitepaper itself.
The client can be run by any validator. Even small validators or those with no specific expertise can benefit from MEV rewards by choosing to run the solana-mev client. That means the validators will be able to execute MEV strategies as they appear in their slot, in contrast with the current competitive aspect of searching, which results in a few winner bots extracting the value.
The model shrinks the incentive for independent bots to spam the network which ultimately contributes to episodes of intense traffic, as most of them send transactions targeting the same MEV opportunities.
Given that not all MEV strategies can be implemented inside the validator, independent searchers will continue to play a relevant role in the MEV space on Solana. That is guaranteed by their advantage of quickly building and updating sophisticated strategies, as well as expanding their focus to newly deployed programs and pools. This includes long-tail MEV.
In summary, the MEV client enables permissionless and decentralized extraction that benefits the ecosystem through transparent and ethical strategies, as well as increased financial returns for network participants.
For a comprehensive overview of the motivations and the model, please refer to the whitepaper here.
Authors: Jennifer Parak, Maksym Kulish
One of the most important events of 2022 in the crypto community was The Merge upgrade of the Ethereum protocol, which switched Ethereum from a Proof-of-Work legacy chain implementation to a Proof-of-Stake Beacon chain. It has proved that principal innovation is possible for the oldest and largest decentralized systems, without any disruption to the protocol users.
At Chorus One, we worked on securing next-generation Ethereum since the Beacon Chain took off in 2020, and we operate multiple thousands of validators on the mainnet today. Our new product OPUS — an Ethereum Validation-as-a-Service API — is designed to enable any organization and individual to run staking validator clients on Ethereum Beacon Chain, with a non-custodial, permission-less approach where we require customers to specify their own withdrawal and fee recipient addresses, so they remain in possession of both their stake funds and rewards. This post focuses on the technology implementation of validator keys provision and storage approach within our Validation-as-a-Service API product and shows off some challenges we faced and solutions we created in the process.
The Merge has introduced two new types of keys involved in securing the Ethereum chain, in addition to legacy chain wallet keys that are remaining unchanged within Beacon Chain [1]. These keys are composed of the Signing (Validator) key pair and the Withdrawal key pair. In addition to new key functionality, the Signing key is also using a new cryptographic signature scheme, called BLS, which stands for Boneh–Lynn–Shacham. This means older key generation tools will not work for creating Signing keys. BLS signatures, specifically those over the BLS12–381 curve are used in Beacon chain block signatures and attestations. This makes it possible to aggregate multiple signatures and verify them in a single operation, which is an outstanding improvement in scalability [2].
Like most other Proof-Of-Stake blockchains, next-generation Ethereum depends on the functioning of validators for securing the transaction flow. Validators are members of the network who lock a portion of their Ethereum coins (with a minimum amount of 32 ETH) to become responsible for proposing new signed blocks of transactions, and verifying such signatures of other validators, which is called attesting. Normally, every Ethereum validator should attest signatures for a slot once per Ethereum epoch (around 6.4 minutes); and for every slot, in every epoch, one validator is pseudo-randomly chosen to produce a block of transactions to be attested by others. Validators are being rewarded for both block proposals and block attestations. The mechanism of signing the blocks and verifying the signatures of others relies on the Signing key pair. The verification mechanism works because every public part of a Signing key (Public Signing Key) is published on-chain, so every signature done with the private part of the Signing key (Private Signing Key) can be verified by every other validator. Despite having the power for creating blockchain content, the Signing keys can not be used to move any funds including staking funds, and they only listen for and sign the transaction content provided by the peering network of Ethereum nodes.
The Withdrawal key pair is neither used for blocks nor for attestations, but it has control over staked funds. After the Shanghai fork, withdrawals will be activated, which will enable the funds to be moved to an owner-controlled withdrawal address specified in the deposit contract. With EIP-4895 withdrawals will be enabled in a push-based fashion [3], such that funds that were previously locked on the consensus layer on depositing are automatically pushed to the execution layer as a system-level operation. This means users won’t have to pay any gas for a withdrawal transaction. For users who have specified a BLS withdrawal address in their deposit contract, they would need to broadcast a BLS_TO_EXECUTION_CHANGE message to the beacon chain to update their withdrawal address to an execution address.
Finally, when the validator successfully proposes a block, a special Fee Recipient address receives the accumulated gas fees from the block. Since the Fee Recipient is not directly involved in staking, we will largely omit it in this post.
More information about different types of keys involved in Ethereum staking can be found in the following resources: [4], [5]
As part of the OPUS Validation-as-a-Service API, we require customers to retain ownership of Withdrawal keys, so that staked funds can never be controlled or accessed by Chorus One. A Signing key, however, is different: since Chorus One is a responsible party for hosting and maintaining the Ethereum validator, the inner workings of the Validation-as-a-Service API require us to generate, load, and store Signing keys. Thus, a robust solution for key management is an essential part of our Validation-as-a-Service API.
Early into the project lifecycle, we used the staking deposit command line interface (CLI) provided by the Ethereum Foundation (https://github.com/ethereum/staking-deposit-cli). While the staking CLI is a great tool for solo/home stakers, we realized that it was not designed for our use case. First of all, staking-deposit-cli by default stores the newly generated keystore into a filesystem, posing a potential security threat from leaking key material. While it is possible to use infrastructure-specific workarounds like ramdisks to mitigate the threat, such workarounds would add complexity and failure points to the platform. The open-source nature of staking-deposit-cli allowed us to fork the source code and modify it to cater to our needs, but the lack of thoroughly automated test suites meant we had a hard time syncing our changes with upstream updates. Finally, all of our codebase is Rust, and having to support Python CLI within the infrastructure, including keeping a good security track record by timely patching all the Python dependencies, puts an additional burden on the development team. In the end, we decided to pursue an alternative approach to generating keys, which we describe in the next paragraph.
Having endured even more difficulties with staking-cli when generating Ethereum keys on a large scale, our Ethereum Team decided to tackle the problem during our company-wide engineering hackathon where we built an MVP for an Ethereum key generation tool written in Rust. This was the birth of the Eth-staking-smith project.
Eth-staking-smith can be used as a CLI tool or as a Rust library to generate Signing keys and deposit data derived from a new mnemonic or to regenerate deposit data from an existing mnemonic. These use cases were implemented, in order to provide the same functionality as the staking-deposit-cli whilst avoiding all problems mentioned above.
Example command to generate keys from a newly generated mnemonic:
Example command to generate keys from an existing mnemonic:
Private Signing keys
As mentioned above, the Private Signing key is the key used to provide a signature to any action taken by the validator. The Eth-staking-smith Signing key output is done without encryption because in our use case, we use remote API to store the key material immediately upon the generation. Remote API implements encryption for both data transfer and data at rest. We decided to make keystore use optional, but Eth-staking-smith can still generate encrypted keystores for the users who need that.
Example:
Keystores
The keystore is an encrypted version of the private Signing key in the specified format [6]. When generating keys with eth-staking smith, a keystore password can be specified and in that case, the keystore data will be output. Using a key derivation function (e.g. <code-text>scrypt<code-text>, or <code-text>pbkdf2<code-text>), a decryption-key is derived using the given passphrase and a set of strong built-in derivation arguments. The example below highlights the field <code-text>function<code-text> that shows the key derivation function used. The keystore is a useful alternative that is less vulnerable to an attacker than storing the private Signing keys in a plaintext file, since they would need the keystore file, as well as the passphrase to decrypt the file.
Example:
Mnemonic
The mnemonic, passed in by the user or the one generated, is returned as part of the output so that the user can store it safely. Further information on mnemonics can be found under the reference [7].
Example:
Deposit data
Finally, the deposit data is returned, which is used to make the deposit of 32ETH using the Ethereum deposit contract to activate the validator. One of the most important fields in the deposit data is the withdrawal credentials.
By default, withdrawal credentials are BLS addresses derived from the mnemonic, however, there exists a use case where a user might want to overwrite the derived withdrawal credentials with already existing ones.
The BLS address format is called <code-text>0x00<code-text> credentials, and is actually set to be deprecated sometime after withdrawals will be enabled. Another alternative way to provide withdrawal credentials is to use a legacy Ethereum wallet address, prefixed by <code-text>0x01<code-text>. Ethereum will be pivoting from using <code-text>0x00<code-text> (formerly eth2) to <code-text>0x01<code-text> execution (formerly eth1) addresses. To learn more about this, we recommend watching the panel from Devcon 2022 [8] and looking into the Ethereum specification [4]. Eth-staking-smith, therefore, allows the user to pass in a <code-text>0x00<code-text>, <code-text>0x01<code-text> execution withdrawal credentials, as well as an execution address to overwrite the withdrawal credentials.
Example deposit data with BLS credentials (<code-text>--withdrawal_credentials 0x0045b91b2f60b88e7392d49ae1364b55e713d06f30e563f9f99e10994b26221d<code-text>)
Below we present a full-fledged example output of the key material generated by Eth-staking-smith:
Command:
Output:
Since writing key material on disk was a major security vulnerability for us, Eth-staking-smith removes this issue entirely by not writing any files on disk.
To avoid heavy-lifting and re-creating crypto primitives from scratch, we’re re-using functionalities from the lighthouse client implementation [9] for key generation, which builds on top of blst — a BLS12–381 signature library [10], which is currently undergoing formal verification.
For entropy collection, one customization was made: Eth-staking-smith defers entropy collection to the operating system by using <code-text>getrandom()<code-text> on Linux and thereby making use of Linux’s state-of-the-art randomness approach.
Finally, since key generation at scale was notoriously slow for us with staking-deposit-cli, we took initiative to add additional arguments for our users to tweak performance <> security parameters depending on their specific use case.
As per our use case, our API does not require the keystore file, but only the private key in raw format. We, therefore, enable the user to opt-out of keystore generation in order to improve performance. This can be done by omitting the <code-text>--keystore_password<code-text> argument as follows:
We measured that omitting keystore speeds up the key generation process by 99%. The key generation performance we experience with Eth-staking-smith is consistently sub-second, with slight variability depending on hardware and platform.
In case the user requires the keystore file for redundancy, there’s another option to speed up the keystore generation process by choosing a different key-derivation function. By default, Eth-staking-smith will use <code-text>pbkdf2<code-text> to derive the decryption key to achieve better performance. There’s also the option to use <code-text>scrypt<code-text> which offers better security, however, consequently, worse performance. This can be done by choosing the key-derivation function using the <code-text>--kdf<code-text> argument as follows:
As mentioned above, users who had previously specified a BLS (0x00) withdrawal address, will need to make a request to the beacon chain to update their validators’ withdrawal address to point to an execution address. To perform this operation, the user will need to have the BLS withdrawal key mnemonic phrase. Once done, withdrawals will be automatically funded on the execution address.
Eth-staking-smith enables the user to generate a signed <code-text>BLS_TO_EXECUTION_CHANGE<code-text> message which they can send to the beacon chain to update their withdrawal address.
Users can use the response to make the request to the beacon node as follows:
Throughout this post, we explained the basics of Ethereum Beacon Chain block validation, the key material involved in the process, and walked through an automation tool we created at Chorus One for Proof-of-Stake key management.
We hope the tool can be useful to some of our readers, especially those who use Rust for their blockchain automation work. It is also open-source, and we will welcome bug reports and pull requests on Github.
If the reader is interested in using OPUS Validation-as-a-Service API which builds upon that automation, you are welcome to join the wait-list for private beta, contact via sales@chorus.one.
[1] https://kb.beaconcha.in/ethereum-2-keys
[2] https://eth2book.info/altair/part2/building_blocks/signatures#aggregation
[3] https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4895
[4] https://notes.ethereum.org/@GW1ZUbNKR5iRjjKYx6_dJQ/Skxf3tNcg_
[5] https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/capella/beacon-chain.md
[6] https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-2335.md
[7] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf7HJT_DMFw&feature=youtu.be
Will Ethereum become a deflationary cryptocurrency, now that The Merge has happened? The answer to this question, in short, can be given in two words: “it depends!” Its long form, however, would offer you a better understanding of whether Ethereum will indeed remain inflationary (albeit only slightly as miners have packed their bags) or become a deflationary asset as time goes on.
At 6:42 AM UTC (2:42 AM EDT / 8:42 AM CEST) on Thursday, September 15, 2022, Ethereum’s long-awaited transition from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake, dubbed “The Merge”, was finally completed. As Chorus One and the rest of the ecosystem could confirm, the operation — after years of blood, sweat, and delays — was successful.
Having started out as a network relying on Proof-of-Work, thus fast shaping into the “hub” of miners as Bitcoin’s biggest competitor, Ethereum soon encountered scalability issues with its Execution Layer. Too much energy consumption between competing miners to process transactions and not enough security for the network, after all.
The Beacon Chain was, therefore, introduced in December 2020 as the network’s Consensus Layer. This innovation could be seen as Ethereum’s spine, master coordinator, or watchful lighthouse tower, with its key functions set to store data, and manage the network’s validators. Functionalities also included scanning the network, validating transactions, collecting votes, distributing rewards to performing validators, deducting rewards of offline validators, and slashing the ETH of malicious actors.
This Proof-of-Stake blockchain ran alongside the PoW network with the objective to — one day — merge and transform Ethereum into a Proof-of-Stake only network. A win for decentralization and the environment!
That day happened on September 15th, 2022. But before that, Ethereum was inflating at roughly 3.67% — with a ~ 4.62% issuance inflation rate. We will break down the calculations behind this inflation rate, shortly. But first, let’s go back to the drawing board to remind ourselves about the definition of inflation and deflation, in the first place.
Inflation happens when more bills are printed (FIAT money) or more tokens are minted (cryptocurrency) for circulation in the system. The value of the currency then decreases. In FIAT, this means that more bills would be needed to afford things. In certain cryptocurrencies, this means that the price of the currency goes down.
Deflation, on the other hand, happens when tokens are removed or destroyed from the system through “burning”. By logic, the value of the currency is supposed to increase. There are, however, much more complicated dynamics to this. Those won’t be our point of focus, today.
Before The Merge, Ethereum rewarded the capital-intensive mining activity with up to 2.08 ETH approximately every ~ 13.3 seconds. This rounded up to roughly ~ 4,930,000 ETH/year in miners rewards. The network also had around ~ 119.3M ETH in total supply. (Source: Ethereum.org)
We can find the inflation rate by summing up the Executive Layer and Consensus Layer inflation rates.
Then, we move to the Consensus Layer issuance, based on the amount of ETH staked. We’ll round up that number to 13,000,000 of staked ETH presently.
That’s almost Net Zero!
Summing both figures, we had an issuance inflation rate of ~ 4.62%, pre-Merge. In other words, miners made approximately ~ 89.4% of issued ETH whilst stakers got ~ 10.6% of the pie as ETH’s issuance inflated at ~ 4.62%.
Goodbye miners. Stay on, stakers!
We’ll get to understand how not addressing high gas fees could actually be a plus for “Deflationary Assets” or “Ultra Sound Money” advocates.
As we go back to the drawing board for the second time in our walk-through, let’s revisit the difference between inflationary, deflationary, and disinflationary crypto assets.
Some cryptocurrencies’ tokenomics are set-up to increase token supply over time. From the start, they are “programmed” to be inflationary. Other cryptocurrency projects, which propose unlimited coin supply, are inflationary as well — as unlimited supply is bound to outweigh demand, decreasing the currency’s value over time. An example of a coin with unlimited supply is DOGECOIN.
With its halving mechanism until the last 21 millionth Bitcoin is minted, Bitcoin is a disinflationary cryptocurrency. It is set up for a chronological decrease in its issuance. A disinflationary cryptocurrency can, in other words, be described as “an inflationary cryptocurrency with disinflationary measures” in the sense that the demand may, over time, become greater than the diminishing issuance of new tokens.
A good example of a deflationary cryptocurrency is the Binance Coin. BNB’s initial supply saw 200,000,000 tokens in circulation. At the end of Q3, nearly 40 million BNBs had been burned as part of the plan to halve the initial supply from 200 million to 100 million.
Look at tokens in circulation as a balloon and issuance as air: BNB’s mechanism is to deflate the balloon till 50% of air in it remains whilst Bitcoin’s mechanism is to keep inflating its balloon with a set maximum air supply, but doing so with a little less air at every pump.
So what about Ethereum, now that The Merge has basically rendered a close to Net Zero inflation rate? Why is it touted as a potential deflationary coin?
Enter EIP-1559, the mechanism that burns a portion of ETH gas fees during transactions on the network. With the inflation rate already dropping to 0.49% as explained above, EIP-1559 has the potential to decrease ETH supply — but only on the condition that the gas prices are above 15 Gwei.
Consequently, it is no surprise that ultra sound money advocates would plead users to set their ETH transaction fees to a minimum 15.1 gwei.
Ultrasound.money tracks Ethereum’s supply in real time. A negative figure reflects how many ETHs have been burned since The Merge. In other words, a negative figure showcases deflation, whilst a positive figure showcases inflation.
32 hours into The Merge era, Ethereum had issued over 376 more ETH. Inflationary.
A month on and the figures keep rising…
Or maybe not… a wider perspective shows us that there has actually been a decrease since October 8th, when the issuance peaked at over 13,000 ETH.
Ethereum — Deflationary or not?
Ultrasound.Money projects gas fees to be above 70 Gwei, registering a -3.40% supply decrease across the next two years.
As we’ve witnessed now, four weeks since The Merge, we’re bound to see periods of a deflationary ETH and periods with a low but healthy inflation — both of which would be vital for an economic equilibrium.
.png)
