Values Baked into Ethereum’s Design:
Self-Sovereignty: Ethereum strives for a financial system where individuals have control over their own assets and transactions, free from intermediaries and centralized authorities. Decentralization: The Ethereum network is designed to be distributed and censorship-resistant, ensuring that no single entity has excessive influence or control. Openness and Transparency: Ethereum’s codebase and development process are open to public scrutiny, fostering transparency and accountability. Inclusivity: Ethereum aims to be accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or technical expertise.

One Ethereum, Not Two:
Ethereum 1.0 and Ethereum 2.0 are not separate entities but rather parts of a single, evolving Ethereum network. The transition from Ethereum 1.0 to Ethereum 2.0 is a gradual process, with the two systems eventually merging into one unified network.

Key Components of Ethereum 2.0:
Proof of Stake (PoS): Replaces energy-intensive mining with a more environmentally friendly consensus mechanism based on staking. Sharding: Horizontally scales the Ethereum network by dividing it into multiple shards, each processing transactions independently. Rollups: Layer 2 solutions that further enhance scalability by bundling multiple transactions into a single transaction on the main chain.

Timeline and Milestones:
Phase 0 (Beacon Chain): Already launched, introduces PoS and lays the foundation for future upgrades. Phase 1 (Sharding): Expected to be implemented in 2022, enables horizontal scalability through sharding. Phase 2 (Rollups): Introduces rollups as a means to scale applications and improve transaction throughput.

The Bankless Nation’s Role in Shaping Ethereum’s Values:
The Bankless community actively participates in shaping Ethereum’s values and advocating for decentralization, self-sovereignty, and financial freedom. Bankless listeners and contributors play a vital role in spreading awareness and educating others about Ethereum’s mission and values.

ETH2’s Goals:
Proof of Stake: Aims to move away from the energy inefficiency of proof of work, reduce centralization risks, and promote democratic participation. Sharding: Aims to increase transaction scalability, supporting up to 100,000 transactions per second, enabling a publicly accessible and open global architecture.

ETH2’s Unwilling Sacrifices:
Supernode Dependence: ETH2 prioritizes a decentralized network that can operate without relying on powerful computers, ensuring participation by regular users and avoiding control by a small number of institutions. Honest Majority Assumption: ETH2 aims for strong robustness and security, even in the face of a dishonest majority, preventing malicious actors from taking control of the network.

Key Values:
Permissionless: Open participation without barriers or restrictions. Decentralized: No central authority or a small number of powerful entities control the network. Non-neutral: The network is not biased towards any particular group or interest.

Design Constraints:
Short-term Centralization: Centralized approaches may provide short-term benefits but can lead to long-term problems and authoritarian control by powerful actors. Real-World Examples: There are examples of centralized chains being used against the interests of their users, such as the takeover of Steem by Justin Sun and bribing attacks in EOS.

Importance of Values:
Long-Term Value: Permissionlessness, decentralization, and neutrality are valuable characteristics that users will appreciate in the long run, especially when disagreements and disputes arise. Decentralized Systems: Truly decentralized systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum will fare better in times of conflict compared to centralized chains, which may face unpleasant surprises.

Other Chains Embracing These Values:
Coda (renamed due to trademark issues) is an example of another chain embracing these values.

Ethereum’s Journey Towards Decentralization:
Ethereum’s core principles emphasize decentralization, scalability, and security. The blockchain aims to achieve these goals through mechanisms like proof-of-stake and sharding.

The Evolution of Proof-of-Stake:
Proof-of-stake was initially considered part of Ethereum’s social contract from as early as 2015. Early discussions centered around addressing the nothing-at-stake problem and achieving properties close to proof-of-work. Breakthroughs in 2016-2017 solidified the understanding of proof-of-stake’s security model and its integration with BFT consensus algorithms.

Sharding: From Unsolved Problems to Breakthroughs:
Sharding was recognized as an unsolved problem in early 2014. The concept of random sampling emerged around 2015, marking a significant breakthrough. Data availability proofs in 2017 enabled sharded blockchains to remain secure even under a 51% attack.

Initial Expectations for Proof-of-Stake Implementation:
In 2015, the Ethereum community anticipated the arrival of proof-of-stake within one to one and a half years. This estimation proved overly optimistic, reflecting a broader trend of timing overestimations in the crypto space.

Ethereum’s Monetary Policy Evolution:
The original Ethereum white paper proposed an ongoing issuance schedule of 16 million ETH annually, forever. This approach stemmed from concerns about ongoing issuance for security, fairness, and accessibility. Over time, the community shifted towards a minimum viable issuance philosophy, influenced by the feasibility of proof-of-stake and the changing dynamics of proof-of-work mining.

The Challenge of Egalitarianism in Proof-of-Work Systems:
The original goal of Ethereum as a proof-of-work system was to achieve egalitarianism by distributing ETH to a broad range of individuals. However, the emergence of ASICs in proof-of-work mining threatened this goal by concentrating mining power in the hands of specialized entities, leading to concerns about centralization and wealth inequality.

GPU Mining as a Starting Point:
Ethereum initially chose GPU mining as a starting point to promote decentralization, as GPUs were more accessible to individuals compared to ASICs. This approach aimed to enable a wider range of people to participate in the validation process and receive ETH rewards.

The Concern of Ether Distribution:
There was a concern that the issuance of ETH through mining would primarily benefit specialized miners, rather than being distributed more equitably among the community. This issue is not unique to Ethereum and is a common critique of mining-based cryptocurrencies.

The Shift towards Proof of Stake:
The decision to transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake was motivated by the need to reduce ETH issuance and address concerns about the centralization of mining. The shift to proof-of-stake aimed to provide equal or higher levels of security while allowing for a reduction in ETH issuance.

Initial Uncertainty about Proof of Stake:
At the time of the Ethereum white paper’s release, the team was interested in proof-of-stake but lacked confidence in its viability as a reliable and secure alternative to proof-of-work. This uncertainty led to the decision to market ETH with an annual issuance of 16 million tokens indefinitely.

The Success of GPU Mining for Ether Distribution:
The initial use of GPU mining for Ethereum distribution proved to be successful in spreading ETH widely across the globe. GPU mining facilitated the participation of a diverse group of individuals, promoting decentralization and ensuring a broader distribution of ETH.

Problems with Proof of Stake Distribution:
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) issuance is neutral but not a distribution mechanism as it favors existing holders rather than promoting wider distribution. Credibly neutral distribution mechanisms beyond PoW and PoS are hard to design and implement. New distribution components are often controversial and challenging to gain acceptance.

Critique of Proof of Stake Staking:
Stakers in PoS can potentially remain stakers indefinitely, leading to a lack of churn and reduced opportunities for new entrants. This can result in long-term capture and a Cantillon effect, where stakers benefit disproportionately from the issuance of new Ether. PoW has an advantage in reducing the possibility of long-term capture due to the ongoing need for miners to adapt and update their technology.

Critique 1: Proof-of-Work’s Churn:
Proof-of-Work (PoW) is a relatively young industry and its disruptions are expected to settle down over time. The concept of a thermodynamic limit suggests that there is a minimum cost for generating a valid hash solution, leading to potential ossification of the hardware industry.

Critique 2: Accessibility and Wealth Concentration:
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) allows anyone with 32 ETH or more to participate as a validator or join a staking pool, making it more accessible compared to PoW which requires significant capital investment. The lower rewards in PoS compared to PoW reduce the wealth concentration risk since the income from staking is much smaller than potential PoW mining profits.

Critique 3: Staking Rewards and Churn:
PoS rewards are lower in absolute terms, typically around 15% if only 1% of ETH holders participate. As more people participate, the rewards decrease further, making wealth accumulation through staking less significant compared to PoW mining.

Critique 4: Recovering from 51% Attacks:
PoS offers more options for the community to recover from a 51% attack compared to PoW. This is an important advantage of PoS that is often overlooked.

Defense Mechanisms in Proof-of-Stake vs. Proof-of-Work:
In a Proof-of-Work system, if 51% of miners attack, the chain is vulnerable to persistent attacks. The only recovery option is to change the proof-of-work algorithm, which is costly and breaks both attacker and good guy miners.

Forking and Recovery in Proof-of-Stake:
In a Proof-of-Stake context, a 51% attack can be countered by a minority-coordinated user-activated soft fork. The victims of the attack can continue the original chain, ignoring the attacker’s blocks. This can effectively delete the attacker’s coins without even requiring an explicit hard fork. The Ethereum protocol automatically deletes the attacker’s coins due to the inactivity leak mechanism. In a minority fork, the majority loses half of their ETH to inactivity leaks before finality. Every 51% attack, even if successful, results in significant financial losses for the attacker. This makes repeated attacks economically unfavorable.

Social Recovery in Proof-of-Stake:
In a Proof-of-Stake system like Ethereum, there is a hidden social recovery mechanism. If an attacker misuses their power, the community can fork them out and seize half of their coins as a penalty.

Uncertainties in Values and Issuance:
Vitalik Buterin raises the question of how to determine the community’s values and how they evolve over time. Previously, perpetual issuance was considered for Ethereum, but the community later decided to adopt a minimum viable issuance approach.

Understanding and Expressing Values:
Regularly discussing and reflecting on values helps to align the Ethereum community and fosters understanding of shared priorities. This dialogue can lead to designs that satisfy multiple priorities simultaneously, as seen in Ethereum 2.0.

Values as Magnets:
Stating values attracts like-minded individuals, creating a magnet effect within the Ethereum and Bankless communities. Values are embedded in code, allowing users to opt-in to projects that align with their beliefs.

Uniswap as an Example:
Uniswap’s values-driven approach prioritized simplicity and ease of use, leading to its success and mainstream adoption. Its purist design, with no order book and direct interaction with a contract, resonated with the Ethereum community.

Chain Maximalism vs. Chain Relativism:
Chain maximalism emphasizes the superiority of certain chains based on their values and principles. Chain relativism posits that all chains are essentially the same, undermining the significance of value-based choices. The risk of chain relativism is that it may dilute the importance of values and lead to the acceptance of projects that lack strong value foundations.

Ethereum’s Position and the Broader Debate:
Ethereum recognizes the need for clarity and forcefulness in communicating its values and the properties that distinguish its applications. The Ethereum community engages in debates within and beyond its ecosystem, recognizing the importance of defending its positions and being open to evolving viewpoints. The broader crypto ecosystem is experiencing a debate about the significance of values in blockchain projects’ long-term success. Ethereum, as a participant in this debate, actively advocates for its positions and aims to provide explanations for its choices and trade-offs.

Vitalik Buterin’s Talk on Unstoppable Domains and Yearn Finance:
Unstoppable Domains provides domain names for Ethereum addresses, making them more user-friendly. Yearn Finance offers yield farming and dynamic money market products, allowing users to earn interest on their crypto assets. Staking Ether on Proof-of-Stake Ethereum signals alignment with the network’s values and provides ongoing revenue. Running a node helps validate the Ethereum blockchain and contributes to its security and decentralization.

David Hoffman’s Insights on Sharding:
Sharding was explored as a potential Ethereum scaling solution to address the limitations of everyone validating every transaction. Research into sharding began as early as 2014, inspired by computer science principles of achieving optimal efficiency. Sharding aims to improve efficiency by dividing the network into smaller, more manageable shards, each processed by a subset of validators. Sharding techniques, like merge sort and quick sort, offer significant performance improvements compared to naive approaches.

Key Points:
User-friendly domain names for Ethereum addresses enhance accessibility and usability. Yield farming and dynamic money market products provide opportunities for earning interest on crypto assets. Staking Ether contributes to the security and decentralization of the Ethereum network while generating revenue. Running a node helps validate the Ethereum blockchain and maintain its integrity. Sharding is a potential scaling solution that aims to improve efficiency by dividing the network into smaller shards.

Sharding as a Validation Strategy:
Sharding emerged as a promising strategy to improve the efficiency of block validation in Ethereum. The key idea is to assign each node to validate only a small portion of the blocks and transactions, rather than requiring everyone to validate everything. This approach allows for faster processing and reduces the computational burden on individual nodes.

Addressing Security Concerns:
One concern with sharding is the potential for 1% attacks, where an attacker with a small amount of hash power could target a specific subset of the chain and disrupt it. To mitigate this risk, clever strategies were developed, such as rotating node assignments and using random transaction indexing.

Sharding in Ethereum 2.0:
Ethereum 2.0 employs sharding as a core component of its design. The network is divided into 64 shards, each governed by a beacon chain. This architecture enables parallel processing of transactions and improves scalability.

Criticism of Sharding:
Some critics argue that sharding is impossible due to its complexity and the introduction of new assumptions. Others express concerns about the potential brittleness of sharding mechanisms, such as fraud proofs, which rely on a small number of actors attesting to the validity of computations.

Indirect and Probabilistic Validation:
Sharding introduces the concepts of indirect and probabilistic validation. In indirect validation, nodes rely on attestations from other nodes to verify the validity of blocks and transactions. Probabilistic validation involves randomly selecting a subset of nodes to perform validation, reducing the computational burden on individual nodes.

Fraud Proofs:
Fraud proofs are a mechanism for verifying the integrity of information on a blockchain without directly verifying every transaction. They work by having validators stake ETH in a smart contract, and if they attest to something incorrect, their deposit can be taken away. The idea is to replace direct verification with a more scalable approach of “trust but probabilistically verify.”

Synchrony Assumption:
Fraud proofs rely on the synchrony assumption, which assumes an active network where messages can reach sentry nodes that check for fraud. If this assumption is violated, for example, during a network failure or a 51% attack, the fraud-proof scheme can fail.

Sharding:
Sharding is a scaling technique that divides the blockchain into multiple shards, each with its own set of validators. This reduces the computational burden on each validator and increases the overall transaction throughput of the network.

Assumptions in Sharding:
Earlier versions of sharding relied on honest majority assumptions, but recent developments have reduced this reliance. However, some assumptions still remain, such as the assumption of network stability and the absence of censorship attacks.

Fraud Proofs and Sharding without Fraud Proofs:
Fraud proofs can be eliminated by using ZK rollups, which provide a way to verify the validity of transactions without revealing their contents. This allows for sharding without fraud proofs, which is a significant improvement in scalability.

Intellectual Criticisms:
Some critics argue that the trade-offs involved in sharding, such as introducing new unknown risks, may not be worth the potential gains in scalability. However, over time, the Ethereum community has addressed many of these criticisms and gained more confidence in the benefits of sharding.

Vitalik Buterin’s E3 Search and Rollup-Centric Roadmap:
Vitalik Buterin’s recent post on E3 Search and his “Rollup-Centric Roadmap” has raised questions about the future of sharding. While it’s unlikely that sharding will be completely canceled, the discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the best approach to scaling the Ethereum network.

Sharding is Not Canceled:
Phase one of Ethereum’s sharding plan, which involves data sharding, remains intact. Sharding allows network participants to download and verify only a small portion of the data, increasing efficiency.

User Experience and Scalability:
Ethereum’s transaction per second (TPS) will increase significantly, from 50 to several thousand. This improvement in scalability will happen sooner than previously anticipated.

Rollups vs. Shards:
Sharding is often misunderstood as clusters of nodes, but it actually refers to logical subsets of the blockchain. Nodes can be assigned to multiple shards or even all shards. Rollups share some properties with sharding, but not all.

Properties of Rollups:
Computation is split apart, with different roll-ups performing computations separately. This separation of computation contributes to the scalability of roll-ups.

Similarities Between Roll-ups and Shorting:
Roll-ups are similar to shorting in that they both allow you to create a position that benefits from a decrease in the value of an asset. Roll-ups can be used to create synthetic short positions on assets that are not directly available for shorting.

Domains in the Context of Ethereum:
Domains are collections of accounts or regions of state where synchronous interaction between accounts within the region is possible. Asynchronous interaction between different domains is possible but delayed. Synchronous execution is possible within charts and rollups, but only asynchronous execution is possible between charts and rollups.

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Execution:
Synchronous execution allows for multiple transactions to be executed within a single block, while asynchronous execution delays the execution of transactions until a later block. Synchronous execution is possible within domains, but asynchronous execution is easier to implement between domains. Rollups have more leeway to design synchronous execution between them, but it is not easy to implement.

Differences in the Security Model:
In shard systems, each shard has its own data layer, which is not verified by all participants. Rollups, on the other hand, rely on a single data layer that is downloaded and verified by everyone. This reliance on a shared data layer allows rollups to avoid some of the trade-offs inherent in sharded systems.

Similarities in User Experience:
To the end user, shards and rollups feel very similar, as both offer improved scalability and efficiency compared to the base layer.

Future Developments:
With the advent of ETH2, different rollups may end up using different shards, further blurring the distinction between the two technologies. In this scenario, shards become a technical distinction primarily related to grouping data into blobs, while rollups become the more relevant distinction in terms of domains and user experiences.

Rollups in an ETH2 World:
Vitalik Buterin expressed excitement about the role of rollups in an ETH2 world, recognizing their potential to provide significant benefits to the Ethereum community. Rollups can help preserve Ethereum’s core values, such as decentralization and security, while also enhancing scalability and efficiency. The use of rollups can reduce the load on the base layer, allowing it to focus on security and consensus, while rollups handle the bulk of transactions and data processing.

Ethereum Community’s Pragmatic Approach:
Ethereum community values pragmatism and decision-making based on the current context and user needs. Raising the gas limit alleviates the burden of increased demand on users, balancing higher transaction fees with higher validation costs.

Two Main Themes:
Recognizing Reality: Scaling is urgently needed due to high gas prices, limiting applications, especially non-financial ones. Roll-ups are the key technology for medium-term scalability. Rollups and ETH2 Roadmap: Phase 1 of ETH2 (sharding of data) is necessary for roll-ups to achieve massive scalability. Moving to roll-ups offers both immediate scalability and future scalability beyond expectations.

Proposal:
Ethereum ecosystem should dedicate itself to rollups as a strategy for scaling applications. Avoiding a base layer execution and relying on rollups as the main scaling mechanism.

Reasons for the Proposal:
Rollups offer higher scalability sooner compared to base layer execution. Reduced number of new security assumptions, increasing ETH2 chain security. Synergy with Ethereum satellite projects and enablers. More room for experiments, public goods funding, and collaboration.

Relationship between Shards, Rollups, and ETH Killers:
Rollups are satellite projects with direct bridges to the main chain, similar to ETH killers. This relationship can turn ETH killers into ETH enablers, creating a cooperative ecosystem. Many Ethereum apps are announcing L2 systems and roll-ups to leverage scalability.

L2 Rollups Transforming Ethereum:
With L2 rollups, various applications and sidechains can connect directly to Ethereum, making it a centralized transaction hub. This raises questions about the future relationship between users and the Ethereum L1.

Users’ Primary Base Shifting to L2 Systems:
In the long run, users may spend years using Ethereum without interacting with L1, relying solely on L2 systems.

Reasons for Using L1:
Moving between L2s (though optimized mass exit mechanisms can reduce fees). Potential L2 breakdowns. Applications where the core is registered on the base chain with satellite components on L2s (e.g., token issuance).

Token Issuance and Management:
Issuing tokens will likely continue to occur on the Ethereum base chain. Users and intermediaries will deposit tokens into L2 systems for transactions and activities.

Transition and Adaptation:
The migration to L2s will be gradual, with applications and users progressively shifting their activity over time. Developers and communities will need to determine the ideal L2 for specific applications (e.g., single rollup vs. cross rollup).

Conclusion:
The integration of L2 rollups is reshaping the Ethereum ecosystem, leading to increased scalability and efficiency. As more applications and users adopt L2s, the relationship between users and the Ethereum L1 will evolve. The transition to L2s will require careful planning and adaptation from developers and communities to ensure a smooth and successful migration.

Rollups and Layer 2 Solutions:
To address the scalability limitations of Bitcoin, the adoption of rollups and Layer 2 (L2) solutions is being explored. Rollups offer Ethereum-level capabilities of scale, execution environments, and trustlessness, enabling decentralized transactions without relying on centralized ledgers.

Centralized vs. Decentralized Layer 2s:
Centralized L2s, such as Coinbase, provide a convenient option for Bitcoin transactions but compromise the trustlessness and permissionless nature of the Bitcoin blockchain. The goal is to create a decentralized and trustless alternative to centralized L2s, ensuring that users can transact directly on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Composability and Rollups:
Composability is a key concern in DeFi, as it allows for complex transactions involving multiple protocols and assets. Sharding and rollups can hinder composability, as they introduce asynchronous processing and data fragmentation.

Strategies for Retaining Composability:
Application-specific strategies, such as yanking, can be used to achieve composability in asynchronous contexts. Yanking involves creating separate contracts representing permissions for specific actions, which are then moved to the same shard for synchronous transaction processing.

Trade-offs in Rollup Adoption:
Some rollups may focus on high-value applications and DeFi, resulting in higher gas prices. Other rollups may target applications with lower fees but lack synchronous connection to high-value transactions.

Post-Sharding Possibilities:
Post-sharding, a single roll-up can potentially communicate with multiple shards, combining their scalability and enabling more comprehensive transaction processing.

Key Takeaways of the Rollup-Centric Roadmap:
The rollup-centric approach offers scalability potential, allowing for thousands of transactions per second, catering to high-value activities. This roadmap is pragmatic and feasible, with the potential to materialize as early as ETH2 Phase 1, approximately a year from now. The roadmap emphasizes speed and efficiency, leveraging rollups for scalability and sharding for data availability.

ETH2 Phase Two Implications:
In the extreme version of the roadmap, Phase Two becomes unnecessary, with the merge serving as the endpoint for base chain development. Incremental upgrades, such as Casper CBC and zero-knowledge proofs, may be implemented without fundamental changes. An intermediate path involves having multiple execution shards, allowing for distributed validation and potentially lower gas prices. Another intermediate path explores the use of ZK-SNARKs for EVM zero-knowledge proofs, enabling base chain execution without fraud proof assumptions. The roadmap allows flexibility in determining the specific version of Phase Two, providing time for further research and development.

Rollups and Scalability:
Rollups offer a viable path to scalability on Ethereum without requiring ETH2 phase two. Combining sharding with rollups can achieve high scalability. This realization has gained traction recently.

EIP-1559:
EIP-1559 aims to improve the Ethereum fee market by introducing a burn mechanism for transaction fees. It offers several benefits, including: Reduced fee volatility Improved block size stability Elimination of first price auction inefficiencies Mitigation of safety issues related to fee-dominant blockchains

Credible Neutrality of Ether:
EIP-1559 strengthens the centrality of Ether within the Ethereum ecosystem. It establishes a unique burn mechanism for Ether, making it indispensable for transaction inclusion on the Ethereum network. This balances the economics of the Ethereum ecosystem and reduces the political nature of Ether issuance.

Minor Extractable Value and EIP-1559:
Minor extractable value (MEV) refers to the value that miners or validators can extract due to their privileged role in ordering transactions. EIP-1559 burns a significant portion of MEV, which reinforces the centrality of Ether. The combination of MEV and EIP-1559 leads to a substantial amount of Ether being burned during transaction fee spikes.

MEV and Miners:
Fees are one type of MEV, and with EIP-1559, they will be captured by the protocol. Miners currently have a privilege of claiming arbitrage opportunities, but in a rollup-centric roadmap, this privilege will shift to rollup sequencers and projects.

Potential of MEV:
MEV can be used to pay for other public goods beyond Ethereum’s security, such as wider ecosystem development. The Ethereum ecosystem is continually improving its ability to capture and productively utilize MEV for the benefit of the entire network.

Ethereum 2.0 as a Cohesive Network:
The concept of ETH2 as a separate network is temporary and perhaps a misnomer. Vitalik Buterin previously referred to ETH2 as Serenity, emphasizing it as the next launch and a cohesive evolution rather than a distinct network. Ethereum 2.0 is a progression towards a unified and scalable network.

Roadmap and Merge:
Ethereum 2.0 (ETH2) phase 0 will introduce proof-of-stake, followed by phase 1 with data shards. The merge involves transplanting the existing Ethereum state into the ETH2 system, making it the sole execution layer. Users and client developers don’t need to take special actions during the merge; it’s like a special hard fork.

EIP Features for ETH1:
EIP-1559 and stateless execution are desirable features for ETH1 before the merge. Efficiency improvements and other optimizations are also beneficial.

Roll-up Round:
Phase 0 is expected in 2020. Optimistic roll-ups are favored in the short term, while ZK roll-ups may gain ground in the long term. Moloch represents coordination failures and is a target for improvement in the Ethereum ecosystem. The outcome of the digital currency race between China and the United States is uncertain. The long-term relationship between Bitcoin and Ethereum involves the growth of Wrapped Bitcoin on Ethereum. Decentralized wrapper tokens with multi-sig trust models are preferred. tBTC from the key project is an interesting trust model but may face challenges. Intrepid enthusiasts can stake at the ETH2 launch, while others may prefer to wait.

ETH2 and its Value Set:
Vitalik Buterin shared his perspectives on ETH2’s significance and the underlying value set that drives this project.

ETH2 Research Articles:
Links to important articles mentioned by Vitalik during the conversation, including those on Slasher, Punitive Proof of Stake, and Vitalik’s philosophy, will be provided in the show notes.

ETH2 Rollup-centric Roadmap:
Vitalik’s post on the ETH Research Blog titled “Rollup-centric Ethereum” will be included in the show notes for further reading on the ETH2 roadmap.

ETH2 Staking Guide:
A guide on ETH2 staking will be available in the show notes to assist individuals interested in participating in the ETH2 staking process.

Risks and Disclaimers:
The risks associated with cryptocurrency investments, DeFi, and the experimental nature of ETH2 are emphasized. Individuals are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough research before engaging in any activities related to these areas.