| eip | title | author | discussions-to | status | type | created |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<to be assigned> |
Update Network Block Rewards to Adhere to "Minimum Viable Issuance" Policy |
Kevin Owocki <kevin@gitcoin.co> |
Pull Request |
Draft |
Economic |
2020-08-11 |
Ethereum's monetary policy is "Minimum Viable Issuance to secure the network". Now that miners are nearly collecting more ETH from fees than blockrewards I believe we should cut block rewards from 2 ETH/block to 1 ETH/block.
This EIP does not change the monetary policy of "Minimum Viable Issuance to secure the network".
Cut block rewards from 2 ETH/block to 1 ETH/block.
Ethereum's monetary policy is "Minimum Viable Issuance to secure the network". Now that miners are nearly collecting more ETH from fees than blockrewards I believe we should cut block rewards from 2 ETH/block to 1 ETH/block.
This EIP does not change the monetary policy of "Minimum Viable Issuance to secure the network".
Cut block rewards from 2 ETH/block to 1 ETH/block.
Now that
- miners are nearly collecting more ETH from fees than blockrewards
- ETH is up to $400
we should cut block rewards from 2 ETH/block to 1 ETH/block.
N/A
N/A
TODO
The revenue from miners is important for securing the Ethereum network. While it is very important that the Ethereum mainnet remain secure from 51% attacks (and other attacks), it is also important that issuance adheres to the specified policy of "Minimum Viable Issuance to secure the network".
Presently, Ethereum is the most profitable ETHHash cryptocurrency to mine, and has become doubly so since fees increased. Because of this, hashrate has been on an upward trend.
If this EIP is accepted, and assuming that (1) the Ethereum price stay on a level or upward trajectory, and (2) gas prices continue to be higher than 30 gWei at low times + 110 gWei at peak times, there are no major security risks introduced to the network.
Note that the outcome of this analysis is likely to hinge on whether EIP 1559 is implemented or not.
If there is rough consensus that this EIP is directionally correct, I believe that a further economic analysis could be performed to prove to what degree the above assumptions (1) and (2) are correct.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.