I’m not too worried about a math super-AI breaking Ethereum, because I think we’ll be able to innovate our way out of that problem before it fully materialises. If the threat is real, it won’t affect Ethereum alone, or even blockchains alone. Public-key cryptography is everywhere. The entire digital world depends on it. And Ethereum is uniquely well positioned to adapt faster than anyone else. So my bet is that if anyone makes it through, Ethereum will. That said, the problem itself seems very real, we need to move quickly and I don’t think “bunker mode” solves much. If preserving the value proposition of blockchains requires us to stand on our heads and mutter spells to the demons of elliptic curves, we’re cooked.

I don't buy the rationale behind this proposal. - It will make solo staking less viable, not more. - Dilution (1–1.5% per year) is only something to worry about if ETH's long-term growth potential is in the low single digits (is it, @jdetychey?) - Staking income is one of the reasons people and institutions want to buy and hold ETH. I don't believe the authors fully understand the economics of staking or the macroeconomics of Ethereum. (To be fair, I don't fully understand them either, but I still find the arguments for such a radical reduction in issuance very unconvincing.)