> redirect the burn for shared resource funding i haven't met a funding source i couldn't find tradeoffs for. here we go! benefits - It is mechanistic, as in, has fewer "moving parts" (instead of discretionary or governance gated allocations). this may reduce some of the capture surface area, and make it easier to reason about - Satisfies the free-rider condition: the social welfare of the burn (which ostensibly benefits all ETH holders through supply decrease) is applied across all ETH holders and users. - 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 - Breaks 1559 design assumption: the targeting + base fee mechanism assumes the ETH cannot be recovered, and so avoids actors artificially inflating a base fee that can then be recouped. For redirects, maybe this property still holds with sufficient social/political guardrails. What are the worst edge cases here, how could looping be abused? - It's mechanistic: it is a blunt, unsophisticated tool which still needs oversight + accountability over flows (the million dollar institutional design question). - 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(trent.eth)