Ethereum's North Star: Roadmap and CROPS

Transcript

Hello. I'll be moderating this session, Ethereum's North Star: Roadmap and CROPS. My name is Bosul Mun. Today we'll talk about where Ethereum is heading, and how the recent roadmap connects with the ecosystem's perspectives. That's what we'll discuss. We've brought together Ethereum experts from really diverse backgrounds here today. For the audience, it would be great if each of you could introduce yourselves. I'll start, and we'll go down the line. Hello. At the Ethereum Foundation, I work on Geth, an execution client. I'm Bosul Mun.

Nice to meet you. Hello. I'm with Nonce Classic, which hosts Ethereum Korea One (EK1). My name is Lucia Kim. Nice to meet you. Hello. I'm Sose from ECK, a host of Ethereum Korea One. Thank you. Hello. I'm a researcher at Four Pillars, where I just presented, and I also work as a validator engineer. I'm Hudson Jang. I also contribute as a member of ECK. Hello.

I run the Korea branch of Remilia Corporation. I'm Christopher Choi. With such diverse backgrounds, I expect we'll hear many different perspectives on Ethereum. Let's start with the first question. What do you think Ethereum's North Star should be right now? And if you had to pick the one most important thing to do to get there, what would it be? Please start with one sentence, then a brief explanation. Shall we start from this end?

To me, the privacy layer is the most important principle for Ethereum, so what we should focus on now is making the privacy layer a default that anyone can use. Right now, Ethereum is a public ledger, so everything you do from your wallet can be seen, and it can all become a target for analysis.

For it to be used in everyday life, people need to be able to choose how much of their economic activity they reveal. This goal is also what gives concrete momentum to the post-quantum transition. Once people actually start using privacy, protecting today's data from the future will become a far more pressing task, I think. So right now... Right, so private transaction data, the encryption that protects what matters among private onchain data,

and keeping it quantum-resistant. That's what you described, I think. Thank you for that. Any other thoughts? To me, a North Star is about something that's already been set, right? If it's the direction, the milestone we need to head toward now, then right now I think it's adoption. Because timing matters. Compared with the past, back then we had to explain why anyone should use blockchain, why they should adopt it at all.

Now we're the ones waiting for adoption. Yet I think we're still far from ready. So the direction we should head in, the North Star, should be adoption. But as we race toward that milestone, we can't arrive only to find we're no longer ourselves. That's why we need to clearly define unchanging values like CROPS, so that even if Ethereum changes for the sake of adoption, when we get there, what was first hoped for, by enterprises, institutions or everyday users, is still the Ethereum that remains.

We should pin those values down, and I hope the whole community comes to share them. I think no matter how big it gets, individuals should be able to verify on their own devices, and no valid transaction is censored. That 'world computer' form is the right one. For that, we really need predictability. Things like ePBS, mentioned earlier, and FOCIL in the next upgrade, where builders and relayers truly can't censor, so that nothing I do can be censored, and since anyone

can verify, trust in the system doesn't break down. I think that's something everyone should be able to get behind. Earlier this year, in the EF Mandate, I think Vitalik already set out the North Star. Building a chain that guarantees self-sovereignty is ultimately the Ethereum Foundation's North Star. Going further, I also think the adoption point raised earlier is really important, so ideally it becomes a chain that keeps self-sovereignty while sustaining its own economy.

That's the North Star I ultimately hope for. Even great technology can die without users, so in that sense lots of economic activity and users really matter. Ethereum is already used by institutions, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and other leading firms, but going forward I'd like more institutions and even governments to adopt it as it grows. Great, thank you.

Everyone seems strongly aligned on CROPS, while stressing adoption, and that CROPS still has to be protected along the way. The Mandate also came up. Recently the EF published its Mandate, went through a reorg, and saw a lot of changes. I'm curious how you see that, so here's my second question. Measured against the North Star you just described, over the past 1 to 2 years, the roadmap changes, the EF reorganization, and strategy shifts: are they heading the right way? And if there's anything you'd adjust, please share your thoughts.

First, as I said, for it to become a chain where sovereignty is preserved, when the Ethereum Foundation reorganized, it set up a separate institutions layer. Its role is to help keep principles like CROPS intact even when governments or institutions adopt Ethereum. So having that layer is really important, in my view, a good, positive change. What's unfortunate is that the EF used to have an enterprise team.

In a way, that team helped institutions and governments adopt Ethereum. It played a BD role, but that role is now gone, and with only principle-driven work left, it may feel distant to institutions and governments. So it's a pity that team is gone. The silver lining is that ex-enterprise team members formed a separate, larger group, Ethereum Institutional, and are now doing work like Etherealize's in its place.

So rather than leaving the ecosystem, they're contributing more independently, which I see as a clearly positive shift for the ecosystem. I actually think the direction is right. First, because they're trying to focus. Second, ironically perhaps, the Foundation is reducing its own influence. And third, as mentioned, things like the roadmap, the Mandate, the North Star: they've organized all of these and shared them, and kept up regular technical calls and events

around them, so I see that positively. What's lacking, though, compared with the developer side, is PR and communication. That does feel a bit clumsy. Some understand it one way, others think it's this, or that. Are we focusing on L2, or L1? You hear that a lot in the community. Should we boost decentralization or scalability? With all these views floating around, people end up asking: what is Ethereum's North Star?

I think that's how the question came up. These things are well defined, and it's all on track, but if they'd focused more on communicating it, wouldn't there have been less of this debate? Some people think so. Actually, we recently did an Ethereum AMA on Reddit. It would've been nice if you'd asked these questions there. That came to mind after hearing your answer.

I do think they're all brilliant people who'll do well, and heading toward the North Star is good, but in the past the biggest problem was, as was said about predictability, the answer to 'so what's changing?' changed too often, and you can't follow it unless you're inside the dev community. Laying it all out in a clear roadmap with infrequent updates is the best direction, I think. And rather than a regret, one concern is that the Ethereum Foundation is downsizing, as you know. I think that's the right direction,

but when that happens, even now, when groups like ETH Labs were formed, most of the funding came from similar places, from for-profit companies. So if those funding Ethereum end up being similar for-profit firms, there's been no discussion of how they'll be held in check. I worry we haven't proposed any checks that can protect the path Ethereum is on now, well into the future.

That's my concern. Lately, in networks like this, with many people focused on user analysis, I view the effort to sustain projects positively. That's how I see it. To be completely honest, for today I did get the questions in advance. But early yesterday morning Vitalik put up a blog post, and he wrote everything I meant to say, so that's my prepared answer.

So what I'd like, my view, is that what's a bit lacking is that more concrete detail on computation could have been laid out. That's what I thought. I really did prepare more. Do you have a privacy-maxi vibe? Following what Vitalik wrote, from encrypted salaries onward, you read that post. Which parts of it match your own views?

I should go over it again. Actually, in what happens on the ledger, I think the big competitive piece may be lacking, and as for computing resources, I hope research efforts can come together and collaborate on that goal. I thought that was needed. But if privacy isn't guaranteed, then and if that is built out for everyone,

then privacy becomes practically meaningless. We need concrete, clear research and development on that. Thank you. To sum up: the CROPS core values are great, and the Ethereum Foundation is focusing its role on those core values while spinning out other organizations. Everyone agrees with that direction, but you also raised concerns about communication, and about how sustainable the current state of things is.

So far we've talked about the big-picture direction. Now let's get more concrete and talk about the roadmap. Recently an Ethereum roadmap called the Strawmap was released, with many challenges for us to tackle: ZK, privacy, Fast L1, P2 and more. But time and resources are limited. Being on a client team, I feel that acutely. There are concerns about how sustainable funding is, and at the same time a huge amount is being put on the roadmap. I think now is exactly when we need to set priorities.

So my question: among the many items on the Ethereum Strawmap, what are you watching most closely, what should be prioritized, and what do you think could wait a bit? I'd love to hear your thoughts. What I'm watching most closely are the pieces that come with privacy support: keyed nonces and. I see them as groundwork for bringing private transactions to market. In designs where many users share a common sending address, if nonces are kept in one sequence, unrelated transactions end up affecting each other.

Keyed nonces let each use an independent nonce space, so many transactions can be handled. The second relaxes constraints during validation, so that private transactions can also be checked for validity. It fixes a value for a privacy app's recent state and keeps things lean. It's also the foundation needed to apply FOCIL inclusion guarantees to private transactions that meet the conditions.

What I'd like to see prioritized is mempool research. If a transaction's contents are exposed before inclusion, front-running or selective exclusion based on content can happen. If you avoid that through a specific intermediary's private channel, you depend on that operator. So a path anyone can use, without leaking contents, is what matters, I think. Designs that lock in inclusion and ordering before contents are revealed, rather than...

but trust assumptions remain, so who can see the contents first and how keys get revealed needs scrutiny. I'd like us to spend more resources implementing designs like this. What can take more time is enshrining a specific shared pool or privacy pool in the protocol. Better designs may come along, and later changing course would be very costly. As far as I know, as of last week too, people seem positive about multiple approaches competing, and also various features are going into encrypted mempools.

Move fast on research and experiments; review hard-to-reverse decisions thoroughly. That way we can experiment with what's needed now while leaving room to move to better technology. That's all. You covered the technical side so well that what I have feels light by comparison. Great to hear. There are many kinds of value, right? There can be values-driven ones, or financial ones, but the most important is survival, I think. And I'm an extreme N,

and I love conspiracy theories, so if quantum computing showed up tomorrow, everything would collapse. Even though it's being researched, someone could be hiding it at any time. So first, make survival the priority and build a network that won't collapse. Privacy and everything else come after that. From that standpoint, on quantum computing, the Ethereum Foundation and most others are putting quantum resistance high on their priorities, but in the community, many people see it as something far off.

That's my impression. So beyond the Foundation's priorities, people's attention needs to go there too. The Foundation is researching quantum-resistant algorithms, but if investors don't care and ask, 'What's that even for?' the direction could start to waver, so I hope more people pay attention to it. Quantum computing won't break everything in one go. It comes in stages, so first we'd hear how long it takes to crack one known address.

That's what would come first. So those things should come first, I think. From a community standpoint, getting people interested in PQ, getting them to see it as an important issue, is a hard question. Concretely, how would you answer an individual? Should the Foundation just handle it... I guess it extends what you said earlier. The Foundation has been working hard for so long, but somehow... I think that's actually a weak spot for the Ethereum Foundation.

People say the Foundation keeps selling ETH. But other chains all sell too, and they defend it well and explain where it goes. But here, all you hear is that it sold. So on why this matters, I know they set up a PQ team, but hardly anyone knows about it. So it needs more promotion. How important this is, what efforts we're making for it, and asking for more support. They should do that well.

Thank you. Actually, what I was going to say could be deprioritized is post- quantum. As everyone keeps saying, we don't know when it'll happen, but development and research are ongoing, and it's established as a next-technology theme, but as I said earlier, if we need to focus on the short term, I'd say frame transactions. In the AI era, I think AI agents will become the users of blockchain networks.

However much humans use it, we've offered huge incentives and kept urging people to try it, but it never really got adopted. Despite the enormous time and money spent, I don't think better UX alone will suddenly change that. So humans will use it through AI agents, and blockchain is a contract-based product, and I believe it gives clarity on how things execute, so it can be a far more convenient network.

Before, you'd have to hand over an entire EOA account and wonder how to expose it. Now, split by frame, you can grant permissions. Because of that, I think that progress could be a top priority, and in the short term rises, or affects blocks so I'd like that part to be prioritized soon.

I love the speaking order. I'm the non-engineer here, but luckily the speakers before me covered the hard technical topics so well, and I listened closely. Thank you. That was great to hear. You started with privacy and mentioned private transactions, and that ties into PQ, quantum resistance, so it's all connected. I learned a lot.

So far we've gone from broad questions down to specific protocol changes. Now let's return to where we started, take a longer view, and close with a question about looking back on Ethereum. So the fourth question: imagine, in the distant future, we look back on Ethereum and think, 'we really set the right course back then.' Is there a specific scene you can picture where you'd say that?

First, in the medium term, as I said from the start, I'd hope that with sovereignty, self-sovereignty, preserved, institutions and governments would still adopt it. So in the medium term, I picture this: for now, hardly anyone but Ethereum champions self-sovereignty, but someday institutions could use it as a marketing message and it would really land, with the value resonating culturally and improving user experience.

I hope that era comes. That's how Ethereum's values can work in everyday life. In the long run, I'd love an era where services without self-sovereignty get shunned by users. Q. The Foundation's influence over upgrades? For me, it's the Foundation's influence shrinking. When an upgrade comes out, right now everyone looks to the Foundation, at what happens when, how the network upgrade plays out, and whether it moves the price.

That's all people focus on. But the Foundation and client teams are the ones raising these topics, and right now limited resources are concentrated in the Foundation. Various groups should take on those roles and keep talking about their own interests and their own contributions. So later on, even the EF should be seen as just one of those actors, and, for example, when some technical update ships, people won't be saying, 'Vitalik did something again.'

Most will just use it like any brand, saying, 'Oh, we need to do this.' 'And now we need to do that.' 'Oh, this changed this time.' Reaching a state where it's adopted and people talk about it casually would be best. As for the most meaningful moment looking back, I keep wanting to dribble around it and holding back, but right now... Honestly, I'm not sure there's been a truly impactful moment so far. Not 'Ethereum had this much impact,' but thinking far into the future, extending what Sanghyun said, Ethereum is a world computer, and it's trustless,

so it's no longer only for the humans of the world. If there's a moment, it'd be an AI on its own saying 'Ethereum is awkward for me,' proposing a fix on the forum, and it quietly getting adopted. That would be really meaningful. And for that, Ethereum needs to become even more trustless, I think. What an obvious answer.

Me? No. When the apps and programs people use all run on Ethereum, that's probably when we'll know we got it right. This is a true story. For example, splitting a bill with friends, we all went Dutch, and this really happened. I accidentally sent money from the wrong wallet, and my whole balance was visible, which made things a bit uncomfortable.

Well, a painful moment. There's that. What I'm looking forward to is companies coming onchain. I'm really looking forward to that. In this case, I actually ran a test Whatever decision is made in society, or within a team, whatever recognition or expression, whatever policies exist, results come out without any of that interfering.

I can imagine something like that. We still have plenty of questions. I'm actually more curious about the moderator, since you're doing the work. What future are you looking toward as you build? I'm curious. Actually, I think a lot about adoption too. It's a bit of a summary, but people treating self-sovereignty as a given value, and naturally using things like this: that's what I often picture.

At the Foundation, I hadn't pictured what you said: its influence shrinking and direction being set by others, so that was really interesting. Actually, this very panel discussion we're having could be the start of that. Ethereum isn't something where the Foundation decides, or one person says 'let's do this' and the direction is set. So with the North Star, what matters isn't reaching an agreement to fix it now, but everyone sharing their perspectives and checking each other's views.

That process matters most, I think. So thank you to the panelists for being part of this, and thank you to the audience for listening. Thank you. We set aside a full hour so you could ask the panelists lots of questions and chat freely, so we still have time. If you have any questions, please ask now. And if there are none, we can wrap up and chat informally afterward.

I'd like to ask a question. First, that was really great. When setting Ethereum's direction, there's the Ethereum Foundation and many other actors too. In the past, the Ethereum Foundation probably set most of the direction, but how does it work these days? And there are economic and institutional aspects, and technical ones. I'm wondering how each part finds its direction.

Q. Are we in a transition period now? Actually, I think we're in that transition now, because organizations keep spinning off, and each one publishes its own tier list. So right now, in a way, we're in a transition period. But the format itself seems to be staying the same. Because when it comes to including a specific EIP, it's debated openly on ACD. The format is similar, but will more stakeholders join that conversation?

That's the change, I think. Then what do you think the ideal direction is? And could you give one more example? A recent EIP, if there is one, how the direction on that EIP was decided: was it mostly the EF, or more people from outside? I'm curious about the actual current situation, and also your personal

view, or the EF's view, on the ideal direction. Ideally, of course, diverse stakeholders reach agreement together, and the EF's influence shrinks as much as possible. That's the ideal. Something that struck me recently was, during this hard fork, ETH Labs put out its own tier list, and it was really well written, so we were kind of spurred by that and felt we had to quickly set a protocol tier list. So we made one and debated it, and while they focused on 6 seconds, fast album we gathered different views from various teams. That process

was interesting, I think. Thank you. A debate I enjoyed recently was about AA. Base and Tempo proposed new AA-related EIPs, while the Foundation wanted to go ahead with the EIP it had planned, so on Twitter and in the community there was a real debate over which was right, and which EIP to include in this upgrade

was debated openly a lot. I found that approach worth reflecting on. Along those lines, with decision-making authority being spread out, things go through consensus. Won't that slow things down? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Decision-making slowing down? I think so too.

It's a bit frustrating. It's not like you vote and say, 'you won, go ahead.' We keep talking, move to the next topic, and the next, so it keeps getting slower. So we use various tools to try to compress the discussion, but it's an unavoidable tradeoff, isn't it? But in the end, humans are the ones making it, right?

Just as people work hard when there's a fire under them, if funding dries up, or quantum computing advances so fast that we must act, then decisions that come from having time to spare will naturally decrease. Having lots of such decisions means, in a way, it's a period where we can talk a lot about technological progress, which many see as good. And many think that once a problem clearly needs to be tackled, we'll focus on it.

Q. Any thoughts on reducing issuance this 2nd month (February)? Any thoughts on reducing issuance this 2nd month (February)? EIPs come out, and similar ones seem to surface in debates, and, for example, more radical things that both of you might really dislike could come up. As stakeholders grow and this 2nd month (February) gets adopted more, you both could be hurt by it. Can the Foundation or core decision-makers push that through unilaterally? Like, 'I don't like it either, but it's necessary.' That could happen, right?

That seems to be getting harder. I'm not sure if that's how it works. I don't know how much power core developers really have. We don't have power either. As I said earlier, ACD is a setup where anyone can come in and speak. If you have a really clear agenda, coming in, making a proposal and persuading people is up to those in the community who hold those views.

And we don't ignore the community either. When that topic was actually discussed, in the issuance discussion too, people from other companies and validator and node operators all came in and shared their views. Seeing that, I don't think we have that much power. Ah, well... What if, in the future, something like Apple comes in and says, 'but...'? Could that happen?

That I'm not sure about. Yes, as mentioned earlier, Coinbase, Tempo, Stripe are all pushing things, saying it should go in this direction. Arguments for particular interests can keep being made, but whether they're accepted or not is what matters. And Sose is here, and this has happened before, so we know it well.

We could build a scenario out of that. Anyone else with a question? Yes, please go ahead. This is a slightly tangential question, but I've been active in Ethereum since 2017, so... As you said earlier, AI agents seem to be becoming the main users. From that angle, this year I've come to follow AI closely.

On the Ethereum Foundation mentioned earlier, AI could take on part of its work and data, lowering in terms of use could help but it could also reduce communication friction and speed up reviewing diverse opinions, if used more actively. Rather, since each of us is just one person, I think there'd be more perspectives to share as opinions. In actually using AI, how actively is it used for opinions or functions, for coordination and such, and how are you looking at it?

How far are you looking into it? That's quite a deep dive. I think I understood the question. So, using AI to share opinions, meaning whether AI itself becomes an actor proposing EIPs, whether it can quickly gather proposals, and in our meetings the results can be put to use. AI resolving things or setting topics, and in that sense, whether you think it can actually cut communication costs. If it's actually used, I'm not sure to what extent.

Honestly, I don't think AI is used directly for things like evaluating EIPs. Of course individuals may use AI to understand things, but it isn't making decisions or coordinating directly. But for summarizing calls and organizing all our decisions, which are in the call summaries on Forkcast, AI is used a lot there. Using it more actively may be possible, but I didn't put that very well.

I'm curious whether it's being used that way. I've been using AI a lot recently, and using them heavily, what I've felt is that AI is a tool that humans use. People say that once it starts recursive improvement, self-improvement, things might change, but either way, with my intent, my taste, doing what I want, getting insights for decisions, or getting answers, we've gotten help, right?

But ultimately it comes down to what purpose I have, and whether I spend tokens to get those questions answered. So I think that's the limit for now. Building a complete project in one shot, or some kind of audit, say if hacking had to be impossible, code or the most efficient solution: you really can't fully trust that, and then comes the question of whether AI could hack it, or whether something better could come out. Since those questions will keep coming, the intent I bring to it is what matters.

So I think we need to look at it from that angle. Q. How do you use AI? This may differ a bit from the question, but as someone running validator infrastructure, I use AI a great deal. Client development and such still involve a lot of human work now, but who knows what's next. If AI, LLMs, end up involved in most infrastructure operations, it could become yet another single point of failure.

Instead of many people working in a decentralized way, more and more can be done based on a single body of knowledge. Everyone uses GPT and Claude now, and if a model were used maliciously to do something, that could happen. Of course permissions are locked down, but you never know, so I think that could become another risk factor. I use it a lot and love it, but I'm always wary when I use it.

For me, coming not from privacy but from AI, AI is actually my background. Last year, through an Optimism governance mission, I received a grant and carried it out, and my biggest concern was really the question of responsibility. When you use AI, the results can of course be good, but when they're bad, it's hard to assign responsibility. It's a problem traditional companies face too.

Until we work through the recognition and consensus issues, it will be hard. But using AI for decision-making, I found it very positive. Since you want to use AI. This is getting very AI-heavy, but AI is essentially emulating intelligence. Think of it as emulation.

Rather than thinking about intelligence and thought, take the human brain: when it's working, you think you're focused on one line of thought, but elsewhere many thoughts compete, and it concludes which one wins out. Multiple AI agents work together and make decisions that way, and I think they can produce results similar to human decisions.

Personally, I think we absolutely have to use AI. Yes. I'm not from a developer or tech-company background. First, on the earlier point about whether quantum resistance

ranks higher: the blockchain that institutions see is still, first and foremost, what financial institutions want is that, in the future, customers' money will be managed as treasuries on Ethereum. What that means is, it's no longer an era where you hand cash to a bank and get money back, but one where managing treasuries is the financial sector's task.

To them, this is basically a ledger. However you explain it, to them it's just a ledger recording customer balances. In that sense, I see CROPS itself as a meaningful goal that strikes a good compromise between the two. On the other hand, on priorities, when you asked whether the AI era and AI's promise come first, or survival comes first: looking at blockchain's upside today, I think quantum resistance really should be a high priority.

The issue isn't whether it's achievable; if we fail, it becomes a ledger that can't be trusted to record anything. That alone makes it a crucial initiative. And it's not just quantum resistance but related questions: is this technology you can trust with customers' money, not just your own? Nobody questions that now, which is why everyone is jumping in. The moment that's questioned, the whole premise is shaken. In the earlier discussion, at first I also assumed AI mattered most, but listening to Hudson Jang earlier, it made me think this, so I wanted to share it.

One more thing: we've been meeting clients lately, and e-commerce and payment firms are building MCP servers on their own initiative right now. That means AI is arriving much faster than expected. But what we see is that the law will take a very long time. However it's built, the question of who's liable, as mentioned, has to be solved by law, and that doesn't exist yet. Part of why things like Canton took off is that readable contracts really matter, and EVM chains like Ethereum are hard to read. But in the AI era, AI reads it all for you, which I think is really important.

So technically it'll come very fast, but the law takes a long time, so rather than AI helping projects, as mentioned, quantum resistance may matter more. That's my personal view. I brought up quantum computing, and as you probably know, the hardest part of making a blockchain quantum-resistant isn't technical. It's reaching consensus, I think. That's why I kept saying we need to put this front and center and win agreement.

For example, as many of you know, with Bitcoin, switching algorithms to become quantum-resistant wouldn't be that hard. A bank could just swap everything out, but with Bitcoin, if you change it, take Satoshi's wallet: who changes it? Do you change the public key, remove it, or just leave it to be drained? Reaching consensus on that is the harder part, I think. So, as you said, it's less a technical problem, and we should put it front and center.

That's my point. In fact, the next session is on post-quantum Ethereum, so I hope the speaker covers the technical side well. Rather than whether quantum computers are coming, I think standards for what technology to build for quantum resistance, and in what form, haven't been set, and so, because every time Bitcoin came up, for 3 or 4 years I heard, 'Will Bitcoin survive once quantum computers arrive?'

'Will it get hacked?' I kept hearing that, and each time, people said we need to prepare for quantum computers. And now, capital-wise, and more will have come out so naturally, as a form there's a lot of technical progress needed to stay trustless, but really, in the short term, could we see a decision saying 'we must focus on post-quantum'? I'm curious about that. Fully homomorphic encryption is advancing very quickly.

Recently, what came out last year, and rather than hyping FHE, actually using it has been hard, since it needs a huge amount of compute. It also needed bootstrapping, a technique to reduce noise. From China and many other places... Using FHE is getting much cheaper now, and as far as I know, Ethereum, just Ethereum, just Ethereum, Some say it's early, but I wouldn't worry much.

If Google's quantum computing has advanced, how many qubits has it reached? Asked that way, the answer is that it's not yet time to worry. But it's getting faster. And we'll respond. That's what keeps being said, so the Ethereum Foundation, among the five on the Strawmap, lists it as one of the North Stars, and the protocol is preparing for it. I trust it on that front, so I see it as a matter of priorities.

Any more questions? We can take one more. Yes. Yes. If not, at 3 o'clock we have the next session on post-quantum Ethereum, so let's move on to that. Thank you for listening.