IMO both sides of that chat have entrenched long ago, are optimising for different priorities, and ultimately talking past each other - "decrease" wants to fix the curve to protect ETH's fundamental monetary characteristics (this is my view). we chose the curve years ago without the rigor necessary for such a decision, hindsight tells us a lot - "keep it the same" wants to protect solo stakers and the heterogeneity of the network i cant help but point out, with the current curve, solo stakers are down to .3%. from 17% at beacon genesis - they will be a vanishingly small % of the network in the near future. this is a structural problem that keeping the current curve will not fix. if solo stakers and issuance actually had a direct relationship, we should be arguing to increase issuance. it's obviously more nuanced than that that being said, maintaining the ability for consensus activities w/ consumer hardware/residential bandwidth is still an admirable benchmark to aim for where we can (EIP 7870). ~~~~~ whatever your position: with respect to the people organizing, engaging in good faith discussion: contentious decision-making through endlessly-circular tg chat is NGMI. you have no idea how many people in the chat are actual stakeholders, to what degree, and anyone can DOS the conversation out of all proportion to their stake in the system's future. the venue is completely ill-suited to the question - we need robust, legitimate venues to build consensus among core devs, eth holders, and users of the network(trent.eth)