<\/p>\n
Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin calls Ethereum Digital Asset Treasuries \u201cprofound innovations,\u201d backs unlevered ETH treasuries, and commits 30,000 ETH to rsETH recovery while pitching Ethereum\u2019s quantum-safe roadmap.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to a new report from The Block, Lubin used a panel at Consensus 2026 to single out projects like Strategy, SharpLink, and BitMine\u2014public companies that are accumulating ETH on their balance sheets\u2014as \u201cpositive examples\u201d of Ethereum Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs).<\/p>\n
He framed these firms as building \u201clong\u2011term permanent capital\u201d for the Ethereum ecosystem by buying ETH spot, staking it, and avoiding leverage, thereby operating more like unlevered, perpetual capital pools than speculative trading vehicles.<\/p>\n
SharpLink\u2019s own CEO has described the company as a \u201cfocused, disciplined DAT,\u201d continually raising equity via at\u2011the\u2011market programs to buy ETH and then staking to compound holdings\u2014an approach Lubin has publicly supported as a shareholder and strategist.<\/p>\n
In his Consensus remarks, Lubin reportedly called the DAT construct itself a \u201cprofound innovation,\u201d because it creates listed vehicles whose sole mandate is to convert fiat equity capital into staked ETH, effectively institutionalizing an ETH\u2011standard treasury model.<\/p>\n
At the same time, he cautioned that \u201cweak assets and copycat DATs\u201d that lack transparent treasuries, take on leverage, or chase non\u2011ETH yield could undermine trust and introduce systemic risk, suggesting that not every self\u2011proclaimed DAT is necessarily aligned with Ethereum\u2019s long\u2011term interests.<\/p>\n
For more context on the interview and The Block\u2019s write\u2011up, see:\u00a0Ethereum co-founder Lubin backs ETH treasury firms, calls DATs \u2018profound innovation\u2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n Lubin also pointed to Consensys\u2019 and his own role in DeFi United, the multi\u2011protocol coalition formed to recapitalize rsETH after the April KelpDAO exploit.<\/p>\n Aave and DeFi United disclosed in late April that Consensys and Lubin had \u201cjoined DeFi United and would provide up to 30,000 ETH\u201d to support rsETH recovery, alongside contributions from Aave (25,000 ETH), Mantle, Lido, and other major protocols.<\/p>\n TRM Labs and Chainalysis estimate that the KelpDAO bridge exploit affected roughly 116,500 rsETH\u2014around 18% of its circulating supply\u2014after attackers compromised internal infrastructure and minted unbacked collateral, triggering a broader DeFi credit shock.<\/p>\n By committing such a large ETH backstop, Lubin framed DeFi United as an example of \u201cmulti\u2011party collaboration\u201d that Ethereum\u2019s culture makes possible: blue\u2011chip protocols, infra providers, and treasury companies stepping in collectively rather than waiting for courts or regulators to force restitution.<\/p>\n Additional coverage of the pledge can be found here:\u00a0Consensys, Joe Lubin Back rsETH Recovery With 30K ETH via DeFi United<\/a>.<\/a><\/p>\n Lubin also addressed long\u2011term security, noting that Ethereum has \u201cembedded a path to quantum safety\u201d in its scaling and cryptography roadmap, while Bitcoin will have to grapple with more complex property questions as quantum attacks become realistic.<\/p>\n Ethereum.org\u2019s own future\u2011proofing documents outline a multi\u2011year plan to transition away from quantum\u2011vulnerable primitives\u2014like certain elliptic\u2011curve signatures and KZG commitments\u2014toward quantum\u2011resistant schemes based on hash functions (e.g., STARK\u2011style systems) or lattice problems.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The roadmap focuses on opt\u2011in, phased migration at the execution layer so that users can gradually move funds to quantum\u2011safe addresses and authentication methods without disruptive chain splits or forced contract upgrades.<\/p>\n By contrast, research comparing Ethereum and Bitcoin on quantum risk argues that while both rely on similar cryptography today, Ethereum\u2019s more flexible scripting and upgrade pathways make it easier to coordinate large\u2011scale key rotation and protocol changes, whereas Bitcoin\u2019s UTXO model and hard\u2011fork aversion could complicate migration of legacy, quantum\u2011vulnerable addresses and dormant coins.<\/p>\n30,000 ETH for DeFi United and KelpDAO recovery<\/h2>\n
Ethereum\u2019s quantum-safety roadmap vs. Bitcoin\u2019s migration problem<\/h2>\n