Something I keep noticing: the analysts who cover Ethereum validator economics have been largely quiet on @get_optimum. The research paper published in March quantified APR uplifts with real relay data. The ETHResearch post is live. Seven major operators representing 15% of total stake have been running testnet. The Hamming Medal was announced. Multiple blog posts, a simulation tool, Cosmos integration activity. By any reasonable signal threshold, this is a project that should be generating more analyst commentary than it has. I have a theory about why. Propagation layer improvements are structurally hard to fit into the standard crypto analyst narrative framework. They don't have a token yet. The economics don't resolve until mainnet, and mainnet doesn't have a confirmed date. The technical claims require understanding erasure coding to evaluate properly. And the validator economics story, while compelling, requires a different mental model than most DeFi or L1 narratives use. Infrastructure projects that solve real problems at the protocol level often get discovered late. The attention tends to front-run the product by one cycle when tokens are involved, or lag the product by one cycle when they aren't. Optimum currently sits in the second pattern. I might be wrong about whether this matters. But the combination of real testnet data, institutional validator adoption, and peer-reviewed research with no commensurate market narrative feels like a gap worth naming. @blockchainjeff