ECBSJCrypto Valuations…An exercise for shilling or an exercise towards futility?
Originally written on October 30, 2020 for PANONY/PANews: https://www.panewslab.com/en/articledetails/N8672127.html INTRODUCTION The one underlying theme that we have seen in the myriad valuation attempts of cryptocurrencies is the all too common, proverbial “we are still too early”. Valuations, which is referring to the exercise of running financial models in excel based on numerous factors that are subject to other subjective exercises of 拍脑袋 (a Chinese way of saying pulling numbers out of ...
ECBSJMemoirs from working at a crypto wallet startup in Shanghai
For those unfamiliar with me, I worked at a crypto wallet startup called Ballet for 3 years. Ballet designed & produced user friendly self-custody hardware wallets. Kind of like Ledger, but not really. I’d be a millionaire by now if I was given a dollar for everytime I had to explain this difference. Ballet had two main offices: one based in Shanghai and the other based in Las Vegas. I was based in the Shanghai office, which was where most of the personnel of the company were located. I was f...
Support ECBSJ
ECBSJRethinking DevEx on Bitcoin L2s
Do I own the xprv or does the xprv own me?
ECBSJCrypto Valuations…An exercise for shilling or an exercise towards futility?
Originally written on October 30, 2020 for PANONY/PANews: https://www.panewslab.com/en/articledetails/N8672127.html INTRODUCTION The one underlying theme that we have seen in the myriad valuation attempts of cryptocurrencies is the all too common, proverbial “we are still too early”. Valuations, which is referring to the exercise of running financial models in excel based on numerous factors that are subject to other subjective exercises of 拍脑袋 (a Chinese way of saying pulling numbers out of ...
ECBSJMemoirs from working at a crypto wallet startup in Shanghai
For those unfamiliar with me, I worked at a crypto wallet startup called Ballet for 3 years. Ballet designed & produced user friendly self-custody hardware wallets. Kind of like Ledger, but not really. I’d be a millionaire by now if I was given a dollar for everytime I had to explain this difference. Ballet had two main offices: one based in Shanghai and the other based in Las Vegas. I was based in the Shanghai office, which was where most of the personnel of the company were located. I was f...
Do I own the xprv or does the xprv own me?
Subscribe to ECBSJ
Subscribe to ECBSJ
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
The below is a candid reflection on a very niche and subtle topic that has been brewing in my mind during my time in DevRel with Stacks, a Bitcoin L2. This is also a collection of scattered thoughts that I've tweeted out before in the past year that I want to finally consolidate into a proper post.
Tooling isn’t neutral — it shapes how developers think, and what ecosystems become.
Maybe it’s just me. But spinning up a Hardhat project, writing Solidity, and connecting an EVM wallet to build on a Bitcoin L2 feels… off.
Technically, it works. Pragmatically, it lowers the barrier. EVM tooling is powerful, battle-tested, and familiar to thousands of developers. I get the appeal.
But culturally? Philosophically? From a developer-experience lens?
It feels uncanny.
Building on a Bitcoin L2 should still feel like Bitcoin. Even if execution happens elsewhere, the semantics, direct or indirect, should preserve elements of Bitcoin. Tooling isn’t just a convenience layer. It shapes mental models. It influences design decisions. It subtly dictates what gets built and who builds it.
When a Bitcoin L2 inherits the EVM toolchain wholesale, something subtle shifts. Are we optimizing for Bitcoin-native builders or for Ethereum-native ones? And no offense to Bitcoin L2s embracing EVM tooling. There are strong arguments for it. Faster adoption. Lower switching costs. More liquidity of talent.
But here’s the 🌶 take: Keep EVM tooling in EVM land.
Bitcoin settlement and unilateral BTC movement are non-negotiable requirements. I'm all for that. But identity in the developer experience matters too. Thinking out loud a bit more on this, if we blindly continue inheriting EVM dev tooling to enable our end goal, are we quietly optimizing for Ethereum-native devs over our fellow Bitcoiners? Are we slowly removing the distinction between what Bitcoin feels like vs what Ethereum feels like? Or maybe maintaining a distinct identity of what it means to build on Bitcoin vs to build on Ethereum is not important?
Maybe I’m over-indexing on a nuanced detail. Maybe this is minuscule in the grand scheme. But this “minuscule” thing keeps coming up in real conversations with builders. And I’ve come to believe that not being EVM-compatible L2 isn’t something to apologize for.
That’s why I’ve always admired what Stacks did early on. Instead of defaulting to EVM compatibility, they invested in their own full-stack of devtooling primitives. Their tooling makes you feel the Bitcoin connection. The L1 chain isn’t entirely abstracted away, elements of it are present in the L2 development experience.
Take Stacks' Clarity smart contract language, for example. It’s different. Intentionally so. But that difference gave many developers their first real positive impression of what building on a Bitcoin L2 could mean.
For those that think the devtooling feels don't matter is like saying certain elements of the Bitcoin and Ethereum culture are NOT actually distinct. I think they are, with the devex and devtooling playing a huge role in that.
The below is a candid reflection on a very niche and subtle topic that has been brewing in my mind during my time in DevRel with Stacks, a Bitcoin L2. This is also a collection of scattered thoughts that I've tweeted out before in the past year that I want to finally consolidate into a proper post.
Tooling isn’t neutral — it shapes how developers think, and what ecosystems become.
Maybe it’s just me. But spinning up a Hardhat project, writing Solidity, and connecting an EVM wallet to build on a Bitcoin L2 feels… off.
Technically, it works. Pragmatically, it lowers the barrier. EVM tooling is powerful, battle-tested, and familiar to thousands of developers. I get the appeal.
But culturally? Philosophically? From a developer-experience lens?
It feels uncanny.
Building on a Bitcoin L2 should still feel like Bitcoin. Even if execution happens elsewhere, the semantics, direct or indirect, should preserve elements of Bitcoin. Tooling isn’t just a convenience layer. It shapes mental models. It influences design decisions. It subtly dictates what gets built and who builds it.
When a Bitcoin L2 inherits the EVM toolchain wholesale, something subtle shifts. Are we optimizing for Bitcoin-native builders or for Ethereum-native ones? And no offense to Bitcoin L2s embracing EVM tooling. There are strong arguments for it. Faster adoption. Lower switching costs. More liquidity of talent.
But here’s the 🌶 take: Keep EVM tooling in EVM land.
Bitcoin settlement and unilateral BTC movement are non-negotiable requirements. I'm all for that. But identity in the developer experience matters too. Thinking out loud a bit more on this, if we blindly continue inheriting EVM dev tooling to enable our end goal, are we quietly optimizing for Ethereum-native devs over our fellow Bitcoiners? Are we slowly removing the distinction between what Bitcoin feels like vs what Ethereum feels like? Or maybe maintaining a distinct identity of what it means to build on Bitcoin vs to build on Ethereum is not important?
Maybe I’m over-indexing on a nuanced detail. Maybe this is minuscule in the grand scheme. But this “minuscule” thing keeps coming up in real conversations with builders. And I’ve come to believe that not being EVM-compatible L2 isn’t something to apologize for.
That’s why I’ve always admired what Stacks did early on. Instead of defaulting to EVM compatibility, they invested in their own full-stack of devtooling primitives. Their tooling makes you feel the Bitcoin connection. The L1 chain isn’t entirely abstracted away, elements of it are present in the L2 development experience.
Take Stacks' Clarity smart contract language, for example. It’s different. Intentionally so. But that difference gave many developers their first real positive impression of what building on a Bitcoin L2 could mean.
For those that think the devtooling feels don't matter is like saying certain elements of the Bitcoin and Ethereum culture are NOT actually distinct. I think they are, with the devex and devtooling playing a huge role in that.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
No activity yet