I’ve commented this elsewhere but I think it’s applicable to this post as well. You seem to be a mix of points 2 and 3 below which I argue are not convincing in the linked post. In particular for LST dominance I’ll see if I can post about my thoughts on how we can keep native eth competitive with LSTs soon without messing with issuance.
To avoid the feeling I think a number of people get that these are just your preferences and somewhat arbitrary I think the need for introducing MVI itself needs to be very explicit and I don’t think a high-level and clear need has been defined. I think I’ve seen 3 high level needs for why we should pursue this articulated (I’ve addressed them in my replies already but just to make things concise):
- Large Validator Set Network Instability (a tech problem that already has some reasonable approaches to potentially solving)
- Reducing LST Dominance (I still have no idea why an LST can’t dominate even with more limited issuance)
- Avoid paying too much for security (extremely subjective what too much security is)
If you can articulate a higher-level need that is really driving a change like this that has a massive impact on every network participant I’d be open to hearing you out. I don’t think I’ve seen it yet. And getting lost in the minutia of which curve specifically to choose with extremely detailed long posts isn’t going to help move the proposal forward imo.