I saw some heated discussion on Twitter but didn't get the full picture; thanks for sharing that, Pedro. I understand these researchers' good intentions and fair points (especially the one about using stETH and other LSTs as a primary currency seems like a significant risk). Still, the timing for this discussion is bad. SEC hawks would love to find a reason to treat ETH as a security. So, if the Ethereum Foundation suggests it could behave like a central bank by influencing the ETH's monetary policy, it would just give the SEC the ammo to shoot it down.
I thought the SEC argument in the article for shutting down the proposal was particularly stupid. And btw. let it be known that I also find it incredibly stupid to even speculate on what the SEC's process is to allow an ETH ETF. In any case, even if ETH is a security, an ETF can be launched on top of it and the Vanguard CEO already said this live on TV. And besides, I think nobody except for a few tradfi people actually care for an ETH ETF. Launching an ETH ETF is not part of the ETH roadmap and it literally doesn't matter. Ethereum is arguably a project that spans FAR more countries than just the United States and it has a much more far-reaching vision than what people like to attribute. The reason why people are up in arms against this proposal and why it is shut down without a discussion is because the incentives for it are in place. I bet that if you correlated the number of ETH stakes vs. users who are extremely against this proposal, then they'd highly correlate. People are getting low-risk yields on staking ETH and it is being proposed that they'll get less yields. Obviously, they're against this.