I know many affected parties have dismissed this topic for the most, but during Berlinterop it became fairly clear that client engineers favor ePBS over the alternatives. This thread is an appeal for affected parties to voice your concerns/requests ahead of the next breakout

The only path forward is communication, either your concern may be a real blocker (and we stop wasting time), or it may have an acceptable solution. An example is payment via withdrawals to save staking pools substantial money in accounting changes.

Most complains I have read have been miscommunications and I am mostly to blame for those. But once affected teams learned the actual protocol they mostly realize that it enables progress rather than strictly forbids mechanisms.

This is an appeal to those that pay to Musk to get a blue mark to please distribute this thread and add an agenda item in the github issue

I am aware that some concerns are not prone to be publicly voiced (community reacts in irrational, uninformed ways). I am looking to get in touch with more preconf teams, staking pools, MEV operators, based rollups, etc. Please DM me to have a chat.

cc @RocketPool_Fi @LidoFinance @mteamisloading @Commit_Boost @0xRaghav @taikoxyz @ethnimbus @Teku_Consensys @sigp_io @lodestar_eth @grandineio @NethermindEth

@RocketPool_Fi @LidoFinance @mteamisloading @Commit_Boost @0xRaghav @taikoxyz @ethnimbus @Teku_Consensys @sigp_io @lodestar_eth @grandineio @NethermindEth Ahh I always get @Rocket_Pool's link wrong. Thanks @d_gusakov for the correction

@ConorMcMenamin9 @_julianma @StatelessEth @fradamt There are alternatives to each boost: there are three properties "proposer safety, builder reveal saf. and builder withhold saf.". Proposer Boost helps the first and it's kept. In Francesco's approach, the builder reveal safety is equivalent to a builder reveal boost of infinity

@ConorMcMenamin9 @_julianma @StatelessEth @fradamt The remaining one, builder withhold safety, is currently enforced by a builder withhold boost, which can be replaced by a mechanism counting attestations. That part of Francesco's design can be kept (linked in my reply to Julian) but the other relying on changing the att type not

@alextes This is not the reason why 7732 is being considered and most people do not think of this as the major pro. The broad agreement is on slot restructuring allowing for a much larger time for broadcast and execution, thus directly scaling the chain. I would love to hear about 1/2

@alextes costs to relays because I would expect relays to be able to continue working with the exact same technology as they do today, I do not see how ePBS adds any cost to them. I have heard from very steep cost to staking pools for example, but AFAIK major pools are pro