Author: Ebunker Co-founder 0xTodd

https://twitter.com/0x_Todd/status/1785232393756160091

A fact can roughly be divided into three categories:

Objective facts

Subjective facts

Intersubjective facts that lie in between the "subjectivities."

For example:

1. Objective fact, such as 1+1=2;

2. Subjective fact, such as someone thinks @0x_Todd is handsome;

3. "Intersubjective" facts, which are a bit abstract, come from "social consensus," such as: ChatGPT is one of the leading AI technologies today.

"Intersubjective" facts are not as definitive as objective facts, nor as arbitrary as subjective facts.

It is a matter among subjects—put in layman's terms—it is the consensus of the masses, although it may not be the truth.

If we move to Crypto, let's give a few examples:

1. Objective fact, such as the execution of code by EVM, if it performs a certain function, it will definitely produce a certain result.

2. Subjective fact, such as a tweet, I think @eigenlayer's allocation to early holders is too small;

3. "Intersubjective" facts, also come from "social consensus," such as, Bitcoin is the leader of crypto; or a node is acting maliciously because it has concealed some data.

Nowadays, everyone knows what Re-staking is for:

Using ETH as collateral to complete some verification work;

1. If verification is successful, then earn a commission;

2. If messed up, then deduct the collateral.

But how do you judge whether you messed up or succeeded? Who will deduct the collateral?

Verifying "objective facts" is fine, with very clear criteria for judgment. For example, whether a smart contract has executed successfully, this is easily handled.

Using $ETH as collateral for verifying objective facts is not a problem.

But verifying "intersubjective facts" is tricky, as the criteria for defining them are not so clear. Would you dare to use $ETH as collateral in this case? You definitely wouldn't.

Therefore, Eigenlayer believes that whenever verification involves intersubjective facts, ETH will no longer be used for re-staking, but rather $Eigen tokens.

This still doesn't solve our earlier problem. How do you determine whether you messed up or succeeded?

1. Rely on majority voting? This could lead to "majority tyranny," for example, large holders could join forces to eliminate small holders.

2. Rely on committee rulings? Then why are we in crypto?

So, Eigen token Staking is prepared to use the third approach:

3. Rely on fork. If there is indeed a huge disagreement surrounding an "intersubjective fact," then there is a last resort, which is to fork.

If you (and those on your side) believe that everyone else is wrong, even if you currently do not hold the majority, then you can directly fork the token and confiscate others'.

Note that this is the ultimate weapon.

What exactly constitutes a huge disagreement surrounding an "intersubjective fact"?

For example, when Trump failed to win re-election by a small margin, Biden was elected as the 46th President of the United States. However, during a brief window, Trump claimed that Biden "stole" his votes and that he is the true legitimate 46th President.

Before this matter was settled, there must have been many people who firmly believed that Trump was the true 46th president, and they had no intention of subjectively doing harm, and neither side's supporters could convince the other.

Eigenlayer believes that the best solution to resolve such issues is to fork the tokens mutually, allowing time to verify everything, as one side will eventually lose legitimacy and approach zero.

So:

1. In the eyes of Trump supporters (i.e., the Trump version of EIGEN), all deposits of Biden supporters will be confiscated;

2. In the view of Biden supporters (i.e., the Biden version of EIGEN), all deposits of Trump supporters will be confiscated.

The final result is clear to us all, Trump is not the 46th president in the public eye, the Trump version of EIGEN will eventually be reduced to zero, so confiscating the tokens of Biden supporters is inconsequential, as they will all be worth 0.

Conversely, in the public eye, Biden is the 46th president, the Biden version of EIGEN becomes the legitimate EIGEN, and the tokens of Trump supporters that were previously confiscated will have consequences.

This is the problem that intersubjective forking aims to solve.

Therefore, this must be done with EIGEN tokens, not ETH. Forking ETH is too difficult, and it is also not conducive to the security of ETH. Of course, this is definitely also a selfish motive to lock up one's own tokens as much as possible.

There is also a small detail, EIGEN is a dual-token model.

One is a standard ERC-20 token, which will not fork and can be used for listing on exchanges or DeFi.

The other is the token truly used to determine facts, and if there is a huge disagreement, it theoretically can fork indefinitely.

These two tokens are isolated but have a certain mapping relationship. If interested, you can refer to the white paper for more details, which will not be reiterated here.

In summary, Eigenlayer has abstracted a new type of fact (intersubjective), which cannot be resolved using previous methods (ETH Restaking), so it has proposed a new solution (Staking and Slashing based on EIGEN tokens), i.e., issuing a new working token $EIGEN.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。