Hasu Claims Ethereum's Issue is Insufficient Ecosystem Investment
Flashbots' strategic head Hasu stated that charging passive holders to fund ecosystem projects like Lido, Aave, and DAT is actually beneficial. The problem with Ethereum lies in insufficient investment rather than excessive ETH issuance. These projects collectively fund client teams, various Ethereum foundation derivative projects, and DeFi development; reducing inflation will inevitably suppress investment, and the research community is not adept at predicting second or third-order effects. Funds flow from passive holders to ecosystem construction projects, benefiting investment and client maintenance under event-driven circumstances, while pure inflation reduction plans face pressure. Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Hasu has long focused on Ethereum MEV and economic design, previously participating in discussions on issuance curves and staking incentives; this viewpoint directly responds to the mainstream narrative of reducing inflation, emphasizing the actual contributions of ecosystem projects to core infrastructure. Resources are transferred from passive holders to builders like Lido and Aave through protocol fees, motivated by the need to maintain ongoing investment in clients and DeFi; similar mechanisms can be seen in other public chains that use staking or protocol revenue to support development. This aligns with the long-term debate contrasting Bitcoin's fixed issuance with Ethereum's dynamic adjustments, currently shifting from a purely monetary policy discussion to one focused on ecosystem funding cycles. Essentially, this represents capital concentration: passive holders bear the ecological costs while active builders receive ongoing funding, with the mechanism being that inflation or fees are the primary sources of self-investment for the network, and reductions will directly weaken this cycle. ABAB News · Law of Cognition 1. Passive holders are the invisible financial backers of the ecosystem 2. Reducing inflation equals reducing investment 3. Second-order effects determine the success or failure of policies.