longer post on this forthcoming! high level: yes we need new fundamental funding forms. tradeoffs of base fee redirects: 🙂 benefits: - it is mechanistic (instead of default discretionary or governance gated), which may reduce some of the capture surface area - it already exists: we can analyze existing flows (both cumulative, historic USD value) to derisk unknowns 🙃 challenges: - procyclical: funding peaks during high usage/congestion (eg. 2022), collapses during low activity. core protocol funding (and arguably any shared resource eg. advocacy for network or asset) is more stable than this boom/bust dynamic. how do you manage the in between periods? - in the extreme, may disincentivize scaling: core devs who successfully reduce congestion reduce funding - burn mechanism design assumes the ETH cannot be recovered. what are the worst edge cases here, how could looping be abused? social/political penalties? - historic memetic/narrative value of the burn balancing out new issuance (tho less prominent today). would need to be paired with a fresh evaluation of ETH the asset - still needs oversight + accountability (the million dollar institutional design question) 👀 what am i missing?(trent.eth)