Our POV isn't that we shouldn't interface with ethereum – quite the contrary, we structured our proof system to work both in modern ethereum in the cheapest way possible given eth's current constraints on KZG proofs, plus the same proof approach remains quantum resistant in the future.
Where we philosophically differ is:
- prioritizing ethereum is a bad focus for growth: we're not in a one chain world. catering to maxis is inverse to growth.
- protocols need leadership: regardless of any notions one may hold that ethereum has no steward, stated preference does not match revealed preference – even if vitalik wants things to be egalitarian and merit-driven, the reality is he carries extreme influence in the direction of the protocol. the contrast isn't over this as a fact, on the contrary – i think this is a good thing. imagine ethereum led by someone who was driven by token price.
acquisition intent: data doesn't lie – there was no interest expressed in fc until it was up for grabs.
1 Reply
{no channel}
- hash
- 9a26d2b0ff06fc200bea1391e9af2cc9c3949d3a
- timestamp
- 2026-08-25T22:14:57.000Z
- fid
- 1325
- parent_fid
- 15211
- parent_hash
- 8e7134de2e636b5409413b6e67d1a4e923c6abe3