Each goal has clear leads, ensuring the EF’s resources are allocated towards maximal impact. 

- Scale L1: @ansgar.eth & me
- Scale L2: @fradamt & @ralexstokes 
- Improve UX: @rudolf & @barnabe 

To top it off, @dankrad will set strategy alongside each of us!

Talk (crosschain) UX to me!

We’re looking to identify, build and support pragmatic solutions to fix some of the most common user problems on Ethereum, with an amplified focus and the means to deliver.

Protocol::Improve UX at Ethereum Foundation

https://protocol.ethereum.foundation

3SF & cheaper L1, are the only things that can improve UX. That way MMs & solvers can help users buy any token on any chain in less than 1 minute, that too in any size. L1 wins as all the liquidity is routed through it. This will kill 90% of fragmentation & UX issues .

Intent based bridges like across etc. have severe limitations in terms of liquidity.

See this debate on the question https://x.com/barnabemonnot/status/1908121756121841763

As @fradamt put it during the first Protocol research call, our choice of how to do Single-slot Finality depends on how timely and valuable it is to Ethereum

The call featured a mini-panel with @dankrad, @mrice32 and @drakefjustin, on value accrual, interop and preconfirmations https://t.co/i6ElCaIrlE

barnabe.eth

hi so I listened to the talk . 

Big agree with dankrad. Currently all L2 - L2 rebalances are being captured by CEXs, maybe espresso will capture them, will depend on their tech & BD. which is really bad for L1. I also agree with his recent postings about user accquisition on L1. I think the L1s main role should be providing confirmations. Its gonna be much easier to just do 3SF & 2-3x gas limit increase & make sure that L2 - L2 rebalances go through the L1. Then to compete with coinbase for user accquisition for eternity.

Matt rice correctly highlighted the solver rebalance problems. But he is severly underplaying 3SF's impact. Word of caution- across's revenue will take a hit if the L1 provides much faster finality. At the end of the day across makes money cause the L1 is not fast & cheap enough. Please talk to more people, solver teams are the people you want to talk to.

Dont like justin's answer. As far as I understand he's trying to say 3SF is still too slow. But preconfs are much newer & still rely on out of protocol actors. There is no guarantee that public goods preconfs sidecars will win over something more centralized. Reorg resistant preconfs are definetly interesting , but still too many unkowns & too long of a timeline. Preconfs are important to make the L1 fight for user accquisition among its L2s which is a loosing battle, uniswap foundation can tomorrow annouce 1 billon usd worth of liquidity mining incentive program to get users, EF cant.

Thanks, I am pretty aligned with what you are saying here! I agree with @dankrad that the role of a blockchain is to confirm things, and so that makes it valuable.

I hear different things from different people about finality, slot times etc, on net I would say good to improve intent/solver protocols short term, good to have the medium term view of faster finality then (pairs well with real-time proving/instant bridging too).

I believe preconfirmations will fill the gap but we shouldn’t think of them as *the* solution, more as a stop-gap and a feature for confirmation speed that the L1 can never reach itself.

L1 should maximally focus on confirmations & DA. Confirmations are useless with an expensive L1. Thats my stance.