My apologies, I would have preferred not to make it personal but I don’t know how to point out that an easy to capture governance process is being exploited by a social engineering campaign without also pointing out the social engineer orchestrating it.
Regarding the attempted false equivalence, anyone who clicked on my account could see my full real name. My real name being there is no accident. That’s also my real face in the profile photo. As I told your friends a couple of years ago, I wrote the OP that you said you found offensive under the defectivealtruist pseudonym. I wrote it because I was worried by the success of the previous social engineering campaign to promote EIP 3074 when you were still working at Consensys. This is when you implied EF was endorsing the proposal, when it just provided a grant to split the cost of the dedaub report with Consensys. The OP wasn’t because some mean person had a grudge against you, it was a response to how you hijacked the legitimacy of the EF deceitfully to manufacture consensus in 2021.
That startup shut down in 2019. The product was an enterprise wallet. GSN was a small piece of missing infrastructure we decided to release as a public good. Putting time and money into a public good was probably one of the reasons the startup failed.
Some of people that worked on GSN are working on 4337 now, but I am not one of them.
No, this is a bad analogy. 2771 just standardized the meta tx encoding for embedding the msg.sender. Calling it a predecessor to 4337 is like calling Unicode a predecessor to SMTP.
4337 was designed by Yoav and Vitalik, building on Vitalik’s idea of leveraging private mempools and some of Yoav’s learnings from the GSN.
Sorry no. I didn’t get any part of the OP airdrops and I don’t expect posting my concerns on EM to warrant any future retroactive grants. FWIW, I was campaigning for the idea of retroactive grants way back, which you can also see a hint of in the OP, but I never benefited from them financially. I’m now somewhat concerned that they also pose a risk to the integrity of governance when used as retroactive bribes.
I respect my friends who have chosen to work on a public good instead of a for-profit venture, but I’m not speaking up for them. I also don’t care about Ethereum in the sense that I think it is worthwhile to declare my loyalty to it as a tribal brand. I care about the values I thought Ethereum was supposed to embody. Open source, open standards, decentralisation, permission less, censorship resistance. Work on 4337 is aligned with those values so I support it. I hope in the future to contribute more to aligning Ethereum with these values. I also care about good security design.
Given your championing of 3074 how would you rate your chances of making a life changing amount of money when Metamask tokenizes an invoker with billions of AUM? True, even if you promised publicly to burn the tokens we would still have to trust your word but that doesn’t make it worthless. You’re still publicly committing to it. If you don’t believe we should take this seriously because you are not going to be making a life changing amount of money anyway then you’re not giving up anything by committing to it. If you’re not willing to commit even to the hard to enforce honor system version of this, why should anyone dismiss as conspiratorial nonsense the possibility that you’re motivated by financial gain?
This is a straw man. You’re too eager to respond with populist anti elite rhetoric. I asked what should be sufficient criteria for identifying when proposals are contentious, not who should dictate how the protocol evolves. Given how you’ve leveraged the authority of the majority client, the dominant actor in the exclusive committee of execution client devs that are the only stakeholder with a vote on ACD, you have a much better claim of leading a shadowy dictatorial elite than Vitalik. Yet he’s not the one coordinating populist anti-elitist meme campaigns on Twitter, you are. I don’t trust Vitalik as an authority, I trust him as someone’s who’s values I respect who’s also pretty smart. You on the other hand seem to have a track record, even on this thread of attempting to exploit information assymetries to deceive and manipulate. It’s a pattern of behaviour that I find disturbing and alarming given that we don’t have strong protections around governance. It’s like seeing a fox in a hen house.