Page: 2

vitalik.eth@vitalik.eth

I updated my 2023 roadmap diagram to overlay where the items that were there sit in the current Strawmap ( https://strawmap.org/ ). In general, a lot of overlap, but: * Some things got reshuffled in order (eg. quantum safety up-prioritized) * Some things deprioritized (eg. VDFs; many EVM improvements) * Some things replaced with superior constructions (eg. Verkle -> unified BT -> PBT; state expiry -> new state types) What's most striking, however, is that some completely new things are in the strawmap that are NOT in this diagram, because they were not in the 2023 roadmap at all. These reflect changing priorities. Notably: * First-class attention to strong privacy. This covers: keyed nonces and recent roots, aspects of FOCIL, lean privacy pool & wormholes * Aggressive scaling in the context of post-quantum. This covers: leanSPHINCS signatures and aggregation, zkzk frames (see https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-828… ) * Lean-ification of the spec, to assist in formal verification (full FV of everything is only possible because of modern AI) * Blob and gas futures (this idea just didn't exist back in 2023) * Native rollups (SNARKs were nowhere near mature enough to even consider this back in 2023) * A more open design space for the "future of the EVM". zkzk frames already implies that the protocol will expose to users some ISA that's not the EVM - current leading candidates are leanISA and RISC-V. These ISAs are more simple, modern and efficient than the EVM. Once they're there, why not expose them to developers everywhere? (And then, why not turn the EVM into being an IR on top of that ISA, instead of an enshrined feature massively complicating the base protocol?) Though much of the deeper exploration here is too early even for the strawmap. * New state types are not just a replacement for expiry, they're a fundamentally different paradigm to how Ethereum does scaling A common theme in scaling, found in both state types and zkzk frames (both new ideas), is that instead of trying to maximally scale ALL ethereum activity, we try to create specialized mechanisms that have more restrictive properties that make them more scaling-friendly, while supporting the heaviest loads incurred by users and applications today (eg. token transfers, swaps) and tomorrow (eg. privacy protocols). The other common theme is treating STARKs and AI-accelerated FV as first-class objects, that we are okay betting the technical future of Ethereum on. There are recursive STARKs in many layers of the protocol, one particular primitive (the "aggregate to union verified dependencies" primitive) is expected to be used in *three* places in the protocol: EL, CL and DL. This can only be safe with formal verification, which is itself only feasible with modern AI tools. In general, many steps forward in maturity. And a huge amount of hard work by many dozens of Ethereum researchers and developers on all of these features. Ethereum will be quantum-safe. Ethereum will put users' privacy first. Ethereum will be secure. Ethereum will be censorship-resistant. Ethereum will be highly performant and scalable while satisfying the above. And Ethereum will be Lean.

Cast image
farcaster.xyz
vitalik.eth@vitalik.eth

In these five years, the Ethereum Foundation is entering a period of mild austerity, in order to be able to simultaneously meet two goals: 1. Deliver on an aggressive roadmap that ensures Ethereum's status as a performant and scalable world computer that does not compromise on robustness, sustainability and decentralization. 2. Ensures the Ethereum Foundation's own ability to sustain into the long term, and protect Ethereum's core mission and goals, including both the core blockchain layer as well as users' ability to access and use the chain with self-sovereignty, security and privacy. To this end, my own share of the austerity is that I am personally taking on responsibilities that might in another time have been "special projects" of the EF. Specifically, we are seeking the existence of an open-source, secure and verifiable full stack of software and hardware that can protect both our personal lives and our public environments ( see https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/09… ). This includes applications such as finance, communication and governance, blockchains, operating systems, secure hardware, biotech (including both personal and public health), and more. If you have seen the Vensa announcement (seeking to make open silicon a commercially viable reality at least for security-critical applications), the https://www.ucritter.com/ including recent versions with built in ZK + FHE + differential-privacy features, the air quality work, my donations to encrypted messaging apps, my own enthusiasm and use for privacy-preserving, walkaway-test-friendly and local-first software (including operating systems), then you know the general spirit of what I am planning to support. For this reason I have just withdrawn 16,384 ETH, which will be deployed toward these goals over the next few years. I am also exploring secure decentralized staking options that will allow even more capital from staking rewards to be put toward these goals in the long term. Ethereum itself is an indispensable part of the "full-stack openness and verifiability" vision. The Ethereum Foundation will continue with a steadfast focus on developing Ethereum, with that goal in mind. "Ethereum everywhere" is nice, but the primary priority is "Ethereum for people who need it". Not corposlop, but self-sovereignty, and the baseline infrastructure that enables cooperation without domination. In a world where many people's default mindset is that we need to race to become a big strong bully, because otherwise the existing big strong bullies will eat you first, this is the needed alternative. It will involve much more than technology to succeed, but the technical layer is something which is in our control to make happen. The tools to ensure your, and your community's, autonomy and safety, as a basic right that belongs to everyone. Open not in a bullshit "open means everyone has the right to buy it from us and use our API for $200/month" way, but actually open, and secure and verifiable so that you know that your technology is working for you.

farcaster.xyz
Ente Paste: Share Sensitive Textfosstodon.org
Ente Paste: Share Sensitive Text
by mishaderidder.eth13038 🥝 • 7mo
GitHub - xai-org/x-algorithm: Algorithm powering the For You feed on X
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 9mo • github.com
Helia - A full P2P protocol written entirely in JavaScript
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 6mo • helia.io
Cyborg Upgradesubstack.com
Cyborg Upgrade
by mishaderidder.eth13038 🥝 • 9mo
The Jmail Encyclopediajmail.world
The Jmail Encyclopedia
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 8mo
chinese peptide physiognomysubstack.com
chinese peptide physiognomy
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 8mo
@iamtherealyakuza: TLDR Lens Roadmap
by mishaderidder.eth13038 🥝 • 7mo • orb.club
Your work, paid for by agents
by rvolz.eth1470 🥝 • 6mo • paragraph.com
Private Keysprivatekeys.pw
Private Keys
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 2mo
trustlessness.eth
by pedrovilela.eth2245 🥝 • 9mo • eth.limo
iOS Warfare
by mishaderidder.eth13038 🥝 • 7mo • bitmex.com
Local-First Conf 2026localfirstconf.com
Local-First Conf 2026
by mishaderidder.eth13038 🥝 • 8mo
@Eli5defi
@Eli5defi

Aave Labs just asked the DAO for $50 million. In exchange, they promise to give back revenue that arguably already belongs to the protocol. @Marczeller is calling it a slow-motion coup. Aave Labs calls it alignment. The truth sits somewhere between corporate restructuring and calculated leverage. Here's what's actually happening: — ➠ The Exchange Aave Labs wants: ❶ $25M upfront in stables ❷ $20M streamed over 12 months ❸ 75,000 $AAVE vested over 2 years Total ask: ~$50M in runway — What the DAO receives: ❶ 100% revenue from Aave-branded products (App, Pro, Card, Aave .com domain) ❷ Aave V4 as the ratified protocol architecture ❸ Formal IP and brand management structure The pitch → Aligning incentives by giving you the revenue stream → You just fund the builders. — ➠ The Controversy Critics argue this is value extraction disguised as partnership. ▸ The DAO implicitly owns protocol revenue already. Labs is asking $50M to formalize what should exist by default. ▸ No binding contracts in the temp check. Just frameworks and promises. ▸ This shifts Labs from service provider to subsidized monopoly. If the DAO pays, it admits dependence. — ➠ The Leverage: V4 Why would the DAO consider this? Because Aave V4 solves DeFi's liquidity fragmentation problem: ▸ Unified liquidity layer across all chains ▸ Cross-chain instant liquidity without bridge delays ▸ RWA integration for institutional backend If Labs stops building V4, the protocol stagnates. That's the leverage. — ➠ What's Really Happening Aave is shifting from protocol to fintech platform. The protocol layer (smart contracts) is commodity infrastructure. The value sits in the interface layer: the app, the card, the wallet. Labs is offering interface revenue to the DAO while securing $50M to build the platform that captures institutional flow. This creates vendor lock-in: ▸ Vote NO → Labs could fork the interface and leave the DAO with bare contracts ▸ Vote YES → Treasury bleeds $50M but secures the fintech revenue pipeline — ➠ Likely Outcome The DAO will pay. Not because the terms are fair, but because the alternative is protocol stagnation. The $50M funds the transition from "DeFi lending protocol" to "global liquidity infrastructure." I think we will expect negotiation on price, but the deal structure will likely pass. It will be interesting as well to watch the Snapshot vote. If opposition consolidates, $AAVE dips as the roadmap stalls. If it passes, short-term selloff from treasury most likely will happen, then rally as V4 execution locks in (NFA + DYOR_.

Tweet image
x.com
@LorenzoARK
@LorenzoARK

New monthly developer count in crypto just fell to levels not seen since 2017. One of the metrics we have always preached in crypto and I think is going to be completely irrelevant very quickly is the developers activity or count. Back in the day this was really important to understand an L1/L2 health. Historically, developer count and activity mattered because writing code was expensive. If a chain had a lot of real developers shipping wallets, protocols, tooling, SDKs, infra, and apps, that usually meant there was genuine mindshare, and experimentation. It was an imperfect metric, but it was still a decent proxy for how much human capital was committed to the ecosystem. First, code generation is essentially free. One developer can now produce the output that previously required several people. So a lower developer count may not mean a weaker ecosystem at all. You could have fewer developers producing better products. So with AI, developer activity becomes less useful as a health metric because it stops being a scarce input. When something becomes cheap and abundant, it usually loses value as a signal. Crypto is open source. We don’t need millions of developers all rewriting the same thing to build new products. Smart contracts were always meant to be capital- and human-efficient. Curious what the folks at @electriccapital @avichal think

Tweet image
x.com
How to destroy your life on one dayx.com
How to destroy your entire life in 1 day
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 9mo
More