0/ This view is utopian, idealistic, and aligned with the cypherpunk mandate of the original crypto believers. It will also be incredibly toxic for real world asset issuers beyond the point of stablecoins.

1/ Why? Because when there are hacks, when there are exploits, when there is theft, when there are scams, or simply when there are disputes, there will need to be network level controls to interdict these activities and yield to authorities outside the blockchain.

2/ Or, put simply, when there is a disagreement between a federal court and the blockchain, who wins? In the case of a real world asset, the answer is the federal court wins. If your blockchain does not reflect this reality, then your blockchain is not a viable ledger for RWA.

3/ At this point, the crypto natives will tell me the asset issuer should have the controls. And yes, you are right, they should. But are they the only ones? What if their smart contract keys are compromised? What if they are hacked or simply incapacitated in some way?

4/ What if they just straight up make a mistake or miss something? If your answer is "too bad, those are the rules", please see point 2 in this chain and understand that's not how legal systems work, nor how duty to end customers works for a lot of financial entities.

5/ You are arguing someone deploying assets should also have fatal liability if they make a single mistake. Yet that structure, and single point of failure systems are resoundingly rejected by traditional financial systems over time, because they don't work.

6/ So without significant hardening of the infrastructure to all of these events and a willingness to play ball with real world authorities (e.g. the antithesis of cypherpunk belief), ETH is loudly declaring it is the chain for state-independent payments but also nothing else.

7/ At that point, you're primarily just having an argument about if fixed supply or smart contracts are more important, because you're head on competing with BTC, and rejecting the hundreds of trillions of real financial markets.

8/ So, interesting move by the EF, but if I am reading the intent properly, this is hugely positive for @solana @StellarOrg @avax @0xPolygon @CantonNetwork @tempo etc. as the dominant first mover is actively abandoning the field they intend to play in.