Welcome to Game of Nodes, weekly podcast on the cosmos for independent validator teams.
Hey!
I can't believe that worked.
Did you press the button and it finally worked?
I've been pressing it for the last 13 minutes, nonstop.
Amazing.
Okay.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome to Game of Nodes.
Sorry about the slight delay.
As Null just said, possibly, and it possibly was heard on the stream, we're validators,
we don't have a backup plan.
So when our streaming provider of choice decided to go down 15 minutes right at the start
of the stream, we were completely effed.
So anyway, we're happy to be here.
Thank you for joining us.
And what are we going to be talking about tonight?
Null.
So we're talking about Prop 16.
We avoided the shit out of it last time we had a stream and now we're talking about it.
But it's just like a bit of a general chat about a few of the different proposals that
have gone up.
And I don't think we're going to be picking sides or anything like that.
We're just having a nice general chat about what's available and then moving on.
And we're going to talk about some monitoring this week as well, as well as a little bit
of Horcrux and whatever anyone else decides to talk about.
And Horcrux is a signing method.
That Jack is pioneered actually in his team.
So anyway, moving on.
So does anyone want to make an introduction to the Prop 16 for anyone who doesn't know
what we're talking about?
Oh, man.
All there is.
That's a loaded question.
Hey, Joe, so they said that you're going to give an introduction on Prop 16 right off
the bat.
Tell me your feelings.
Let's go.
Share it.
It's so simple, like a baby could actually.
I had to explain this to my wife the other night.
It was challenging.
I used your flow chart, Joe.
Oh, I need to try that.
Vanessa would love it.
So we like to reward early adopters and financial backers of crypto systems.
Who is that?
Why am I?
Oh, there we go.
That was my somebody's watching person who's slowly nodding positive.
I'm guessing.
Okay, please continue.
Sorry, Joe.
Yeah.
So we do these things called air drops and they usually work out great because we reward
people that participate and everything's merry.
And then we do them again and again and again.
And life is great.
And the trick is to construct the air drops in a way that they're fair and that they don't
over reward someone or that they're not announced too early.
So someone can try to get all the tokens for free.
And what we found in the Juneau stakedrop is that someone got more tokens than we expected.
And by we, I mean the core team.
The core team discovered that they had awarded more tokens than they wanted to.
And so there was an initial attempt to try to pull those back.
It was rejected.
There was a second attempt to pull those back.
It passed.
And now we're trying to figure out what that means, how we can do it.
And in the meantime, there have been a few alternative proposals or remediations recommended.
And so, you know, we've basically been hashing that out.
So it really comes down to does governance override your keys, your crypto?
And I think in extenuating circumstances, we've seen it do that.
We've seen it do that in Cosmos.
We've seen it do it in Osmosis.
And you know, it's the next test of those two principles.
I think that's a really nice way of letting it out, Joe.
I feel like it's worth taking a moment to talk a little bit longer about airdrops because
really, that's where the important bit here comes from.
Airdrops are such a specific thing to crypto that granted all of our everyone that's been
probably knows crypto, but for those that don't, it's really worth emphasizing the importance
of an airdrop to like stimulate the initial community.
Juneau's kind of claim to fame was that it's, you know, basically by the people for the
people it's a community network.
But other chains, they use airdrops to achieve different things.
For example, Dig, they airdropped to a social network, I want to say, in order to bring
in like a specific community into theirs.
And so because airdrops have this certain basis around them, thought structure around
them, it's very common for people to try and game it, which is kind of the reason why people
thought initially that the whale was trying to game it deliberately.
A lot of people, they will create different wallets, they will, you know, stick a single
token on 100 different wallets and stick all of them to try and optimize their airdrop,
because in theory, it should be very profitable, such as in this example.
But in effect, the intention of it is to stimulate the community, as you said.
Yeah.
So I think, you know, in terms of Juneau and the airdropping Juneau and the whale, I think
the basis of, you know, the outrage is that they've unfairly gained a large amount of
token on the network, basically, in that it's sort of, a lot of people feel it's not in
the spirit, I guess, of the airdrop and what it was meant for.
So also, people seem, you know, concerned that someone with that amount of token, no
matter how they got it, can in some way damage the network by, I don't know, selling, I
guess, is the biggest fear, a lot of token at once.
But it's raised a lot of, you know, it's not.
I think more than just selling, it's governance too, you know, because, I mean, like what
Joe was saying, where governance really does end up having absolute control over this,
we've seen this happen in a couple of other chains, where we can sort of make arbitrary
state modifications.
And if that governance power would be used maliciously by an actor with a huge percentage
of stake, that creates danger.
And you know, the selling thing is something that I think a lot of folks are absolutely
right.
Like a lot of folks are worried about that.
But for me personally, I think the governance thing is a little bit more worrying.
So yeah, there's, I think it's a bit of a divide, isn't there, where I think devs and
validators maybe think governance is probably the bigger of the two issues.
And that, you know, as long as they don't dump all their tokens in one go, it's not
that it's a non-issue, but it's the tokens are there, it's not the end of the world.
There's a kind of pretty common, there are variations.
I think there's a spectrum of opinions, obviously, but the governance thing is the one that I
think all certainly every dev and validator I've really talked to is worried about the
governance implications.
Whereas I definitely feel like from having spoken to people in the community over the
last week, be it on Twitter, be it on Telegram, and frankly, people coming out and saying,
I don't agree with your view on this, here's what I think is the biggest thing is that
generally seems that in the community at large, the thing that is concerning is the pure number
of tokens and whether that means, whether that's simply that they are perceived as unfair
or whether that's, you know, for dumping reasons or eliminating liquidity reasons, I don't
know.
I think there's again, there's a variety of opinions as to why that's a bad thing.
But I think that's also muddying the water of how we've been trying to discuss this thing
because I think a lot of the time we're going like, oh, but we can solve the governance issue
in all of these different ways.
But it comes back to the thing that Joe said, which is in our resolution of this, which
are we giving primacy to.
And so what we've also heard is arguments about real world circumstances where, well,
if a bank gives you money in air, the bank can claw it back.
And it's like, well, we're not really a bank.
This isn't really a currency.
If someone gives you property, at least in America, the government can't take your private
property without getting through some additional warrants or legislation or paying you for
the property in goods.
If someone delivers a package to your door and you didn't order it, it's yours.
The company can't call up and say, hey, by the way, you need to pay for this.
Or, hey, by the way, I want that back.
It's yours.
There's consumer protection laws that protect you in that instance.
So this is quite interesting, though, for the reason of, I think a lot of people who
are validators in particular are obviously concerned about the law in their jurisdiction.
But an interesting corollary of this entire discussion.
So obviously, I work on a lot of the several different projects that are building on Juneau
and the dev teams are multinational.
We're in multiple jurisdictions.
The chain itself is in no fixed jurisdiction.
And so it's kind of like, how do you even set up a project to work on a chain when it's
fundamentally multilateral?
And then how do you work out what you're liable for?
Because there are people who will say to you, if you say you're a validator and you're concerned
about regulators, so I don't think it takes a regulatory lawyer in a lot of situations
to look at the current regulation, depending on your jurisdiction, and make a pretty clear
risk profile of what's going on here.
But then people can quite reasonably say, well, but which regulator do you mean?
Are we talking about Japan here?
Are we talking about the UK?
Are we talking about the US, Europe?
Where?
And there is a real sense in which nobody really knows where the jurisdiction of these
things begins and ends.
We just know where we are.
One really weird note about this on the jurisdiction thing especially, I think it would be really
fascinating if Juneau is the first chain that decides to do sort of an unorthodox state
migration like this in a way that was not forced by any government agency.
Because there's been a lot of ink spilled and sort of thick pieces written about how
these networks are potentially vulnerable to outside pressure from state agencies.
And if the state agencies decided to try to push for something like blocked addresses,
they could coerce the networks into running them.
But this is something that our community has chosen voluntarily, which as a crazy crypto
libertarian slash anarchist makes me feel things that I don't quite know what to say
about.
It leads to a lot of very interesting questions.
I mean, I guess that's...
I think a lot of us have been thinking that this is a really, really academically interesting
migration.
And that we all want...
We're all really, really excited about the blog posts and think pieces we're going to
write after this is all over.
But it would be really, like, totally awesome if we still had Juneau to work on when this
was all over as well, you know?
I do think it's very important to stress the number of paths that we have considered to
implement, to devise, to work around, to undo the undo.
In between the doggifts and just with my chat with you, Joe, I think there's been about
1,500 different potential solutions.
And so with each one of them, there's repercussions.
There's potential fail cases where we suddenly halt the chain.
And so how can we prevent that?
And so I understand that we all want this to come to a close.
But we want to do it with intention and care and to make sure that we're setting ourselves
up for a bright future as opposed to setting the stage for a dark, bleary authoritarian
thing.
Yeah, so I think if we can agree on anything, it's that this hasn't been great for Juneau
as a whole.
And it's been incredibly stressful for a lot of people, whether no matter which side of
the fence you're on, whether you're pro-Yes or pro-No with Vita or whether you're just
or the whale or whether you're piggy in the middle, it's been incredibly stressful.
And I think a lot of people are starting to get fatigued from it as well.
And I think the community is a whole on all sides of the fence, really just want it to
be a resolution and to be able to move on with development, which you don't hear much of
the development at the moment because of all this as well.
So there's a lot of projects and important things going on.
I mean, there is development happening though.
Sorry, you, Sir Berk.
It's OK, Jack.
I was going to say, it's such a weird fence.
You said like be on both sides of the fence, but it's not even pro CCN and Antio against
this.
It's some pitchforking and this is a wrong that we need to write, which I understand.
That's a valid viewpoint.
And then there's this, what we've been talking about, which is like Jack, make a good point
like, are we setting a precedent for how other bodies can come in and said, this is
not immutable.
This is something that can be changed.
Like all we had is a very close vote that had really poor documentation and details
behind and then had confusion in terms of, hey, change your vote at the last minute.
And a lot of the things like going on through that process that it's a really weird fence.
Thanks, dude.
And I think that it's such a, like a, I don't know, it's a really, it's a really difficult
position.
So I think this pitchforking out here, like around, so it's validators, like people are
saying, hey, we want to stop and think about this.
It doesn't actually mean that it's one side of this, this weird, peribidal fence, but
it's a little bit more around how do we want to set a precedent here about how this goes
forward.
And so I think there is a lot of stress around it and there is a lot of conversation around
it.
I know that this community is really, really vibrant around trying to solve, like to fix
this, you know, to right this wrong type of idea.
But I don't know if there's really a hurry.
I know everybody says, you know, looking at the rewards out of that account.
Those were, that's been going on for how long, right?
Eight months or whatever it is.
Like if we take another month, who cares?
Like it's not a big deal.
Like it's, it's, it's not something that if this proposal didn't come forward, we would
not be talking about this right now.
Right?
If this proposal wasn't, this might have been something we might have come up like a year
from now, like, holy shit, look at this account, right?
But just because of this fever and this kind of structure that we created now, I think
it's feeding on itself.
And I think what worries me most about this and all stuff talking is that I don't want
to set a precedent around just creating a fever that gets generated on Twitter and other
types of things.
And everybody's running after this type of thing without really understanding the reason
or the why or anything else and trying to get to the details of what's going on there.
I think, I think something else worth notice noting as well is that up until now, the CCN
have been diluting themselves every day by selling.
So they've actually been reducing their voting power every day from by diluting themselves
by selling and that's now stopped.
So that's another thing.
I mean, like if we make them never sell and stake every day, then they're just going to
increase their voting power.
I think as well, like just picking up on what you said was saying there as well, I think
as well, you said this a couple of weeks ago when this first kicked off, which is like,
however we come to a solution here, like everybody will hate it in the short term.
And in two months, we won't be talking about it.
I mean, this is the inherent nature of compromise.
And if there's one thing that good governance does it forces people to compromise.
So I think that if we all hate it, that's probably a good indication that it's working
well.
But one thing I want to kind of circle back on that we've kind of brushed over and I think
that as somebody voted no on the proposal and has been very public in their views, this
is something that I feel like doesn't get enough air.
Like CCN, like not great.
Just like I think we can all agree that like CCN is not great.
I found out about this and I have to say, allegedly CCN are not great.
It's not great.
We've been involved in some not great behavior.
Yeah.
Very allegedly.
I forget about I forget that in England, you guys have actual censorship, which is kind
of hilarious.
The home of the free press where it started and you guys have censorship.
The like I found out about this entity back in 2020.
It was like they're running this huge MLM in Japan and like there were the Toku Me Anso
Twitter account at that time had just photos and videos of people like speaking about cosmos.
And like, I don't know if people know what was happening back then, but that was like
DeFi summary, tailed off, prices were way down.
Like we hadn't hit the crypto bull yet.
Like Adam was struggle zone.
We hadn't shipped IBC yet.
It was a real tough time and like nobody was buying Adam and CCN went from nowhere to the
fourth largest validator by doing whatever they did in Japan.
So like the really morally murky things are like to get this cool IBC thing that we really
like a huge part of that might have been like this weird MLM scheme in Japan that like none
of us like did a bunch of shady things that drove the price up, right?
They drove the price up a well, no, they bought when nobody else was buying.
So essentially supported the price.
Yeah.
That one's super weird to me and I don't know quite how to feel about it.
And then like suddenly they get all these IBC air drops because they have this weird wallet
management strategy where they're like the whole story is stranger than fiction in a
lot of ways.
And like, yeah, it's just it's bizarre to me.
I mean, also the whole story of this, how this is unfolded with the interactions and
stuff.
Like, you know, at first I thought it was the language barrier and then for a while I was
like, you know, are they negotiating in bad faith?
Do they just not understand the seriousness of the situation?
And I think it's actually a combination of a lot of the above.
And also like, yeah, I don't know if you've seen these guys, but they're also like, I'm
not that old, but they're young guys as well.
Like, you know, I've made a lot of money and I think there's a really strong element that
they don't really know how they've ended up here other than they have.
Like and some of that's obviously been intentional.
Obviously, you don't just make that kind of money without making conscious decisions
along the way.
But there is like, like you just said, Jack, there's a stranger than fiction element to
this entire thing, which I think like the kind of weirdness element of it cannot be
underestimated in terms of how we've ended up.
If you start off with a fundamentally weird situation, you can't be too surprised that
it gets weirder and weirder and weirder the more you scratch, right?
Yeah.
And at this point now where we've scratched off every single layer of the, of the, of
the, I don't know about that.
I think that there's this whole onion sitting down there about the real history of CCN that
once people find out about it, everyone's gonna be like, fucking really?
I don't know.
I just know what the onion smells like at this point.
And I'm like, that onion did not smell good.
And I would say that I think it's not, I think it's well within my rights, within the legal
and libel system of the UK to say there is something a bit fishy going on here.
I mean, that's, that's why I voted no.
Like it smells wrong, but like I couldn't find where the smell came from.
So like, is it right?
Exactly.
I mean, that's exactly it.
Like I think, you know, the position that we came out very publicly with a no vote very
early, relatively early on in 16's discussion, moved to no with veto have taken some flak
for that.
And I think it will kind of boils down to this thing of like, there's obviously something
weird going on here.
And we obviously don't like the whale, you know, and definitely think there's something
a bit up with their business practices.
But can we extend that to breaking what we see as, you know, sanctity of wallet balances
because we don't like somebody?
That's not really the trial, right?
I mean, the trial is the trial is this was this delivered erroneously and should it be,
you know, is there a problem with that?
And I think Joe started this out with saying that this was delivered by mistake.
I don't know if you use that term or maybe I just heard that term, but it wasn't delivered.
It wasn't though, right?
Because at the time they were separate wallets only later did that we realize that I guess
individuals realized after they combined it, if they wouldn't have combined it, we wouldn't
have this conversation, right?
It would have just been 50 walls that are all had a ton of adamant, right?
Or, or maybe 73 or 76 wallets, whatever it is.
Not that I thought anyway, I keep finding that's a separate episode.
Episode four, episode three.
Yeah.
It's a cabbie with a flip board.
And as you can see from position five, and then flips over the flip board, I'll be like,
this is another one I discovered.
Right.
So, but, but after that was, after that was discovered, then, then I think really then
it started to understand, okay, this is maybe one person.
And then after that, that was in the proposal came forward and then really the investigation
started to understand that then we had revealed who that person, that group was.
Then we started understanding if it was an exchange or not, right?
All that happened after the proposal was delivered.
So I, I think like this is a, it's kind of like we went to trial before we even did,
we had a case to really understand what the details of that case was.
And we went into trial and we realized, oh crap, we have the wrong thing on trial here.
But, but I, but I do think that to the point before, which is, is, is how the business
run part of this decision.
And I, I think it's like a jury situation, I guess maybe, but it's really difficult to
put that on, that on trial as part of the fun piece of it because there's probably more
to that.
And I think that's a good one, right?
Yeah.
You know, like if, if we're going to put on trial an entity because put it whichever way
you want, like, is that business practices or we don't like them or whatever, then what's
the stop a regulator coming along later and saying, well, look, you guys, you did this
thing before because you were like, they're super shady and you wrote a lot of stuff publicly
and you put, you put your reasoning on chain and then voted on it.
So we say these guys are terrorists or these guys are whatever or whatever.
And like, again, I'm not making a moral judgment on this either way.
Like I'm not super jazzed about criminals or terrorists or whatever, whatever anyway,
but it's about whether or not we actually have a remit to act or whether we're setting
a precedent here or specifically a precedent that can be repeated.
And then you're back to your point, you said, but you were saying like a lot of the reasoning
here was rushed, but I think that's why it was very important to look at Jaby's first
proposal, which was, you know, the reasoning of the proposal was, Prop 16, the wording
was everything over 50K, you know, game wallet.
And by that, you have to then look at Jaby's first proposal, which is every single wallet
over 50K, which merged and which we can identify that isn't the Prop 14 multi-sig, quick edition,
or the IBC Relayer account.
You know, if you're going to claim as a clawback or a generic clawback, I think you have to,
that's the only argument you can fall back on, say we have to burn all those, but you
know that burning 13 wallets or whatever is not a good look.
So it's kind of again, back to the like, you know, what is, and I know we didn't know this
before Prop 16 went live, and that's why we are where we are, right?
That's a super important point.
It's very fundamental to what we're talking about, isn't it?
And that Prop 16 went live before I think any of us on this call knew it was a thing.
We knew that Prop 4 was a thing, but we didn't know Prop 16 was going to happen until, you
know, oh, look, there's a proposal up for vote.
Hey, wait a second, this looks familiar.
What is this?
Yeah.
I was on splitting atoms two weeks ago when this happened.
And I think you can see me at the beginning of the show go, oh, this proposal just went
up on June, oh, this is going to be a disaster.
And you weren't wrong.
Yes.
The Cardinals Club Network.
So there's anyone.
AKA Debo, AKA game.
What didn't they have some rug from 2017 or a couple of rugs?
So mold I think was their original.
AKA mold.
So I'm not sure if that was, I mean, I don't really know the details, but I'm not sure
it was a rug.
I think basically they, it was their game project called mold that they were going to
do on another network.
And then so the ICO'd, I believe, and then, you know, the R spell out of everything.
So I think the plan was to distribute some of the game to the mold holders or something
like that, but can't be really sure.
I haven't seen the tokenomics of the thing, but yeah, don't know if it's legit a rug though,
I guess is what I'm saying.
So when I was investigating like the claims for Prop 16, one of the things that some folks
were asking me was, would you care if they were MLM Ponzi scammers?
And I was like, no, as written, there's the criteria for the stake drop.
They have met the stake drop criteria.
They applied this before they could have known the stake drop criteria.
There's nothing wrong here.
And then they write a medium article that says, so we sort of hold our customers funds
in custody and we provide liquidity on their behalf.
And we also like, you know, buy and sell Adam on their behalf.
And I'm like, well, that's like the definition of an exchange.
You can just find only that I have a lot of holes in their fate.
Well, they take also take a huge commission.
But the period in which they bought Adam and then gave it back to people basically ensures
that whatever they did otherwise, like they made their clients like a 4x so who can get
bad at them, which is kind of another crazy situation about this whole CCN thing that
like,
Yeah, exactly.
Even if it was done in like with the intention to like potentially like, so even if even
if somebody could successfully allege that they were doing it in the with the intent
of defrauding customers, which obviously would be a serious allegation.
Yes.
And is not proven.
They nevertheless, because of market conditions, returned a 4x return.
Kind of great guys, if you're their customers, right, which is insane, right?
When else is when else was such a thing like accidentally be that?
It's only crypto.
Well, and they advertise fairly modest returns, something like 8% or 7% or something like
that and to instead get 400% in two years that.
Yeah, whether or not they actually return that much to their clients.
I don't know because I think they had contracts with a fixed APR in place.
So I think what actually happened was it was like a bank savings account where you say
you can get 2.5%, let's say, I mean, you definitely would not get 2.5% right now with
current market conditions.
But like, if you give the bank your money, they give you 2.5% back on savings rate, but
then they go gamble without doing options or CDOs or something, which is what banks actually
do with your money and they return 10 times investment or they lose it all.
They take that and you still get 2% whether they lose it or whether they return 100 times.
I think it's kind of a similar situation here, wild and crazy though it is.
And some of the jump-throughs as well to kind of make all that work are super sus.
The fact they were issuing essentially a token that was not a token to represent the
atom, that's like a what a bearer token security.
I mean,
Oh yeah, that's all kinds of security flaw issues.
So I mean, this is not an alleged, I can just say this, if they did that in the United Kingdom,
that would require full regular, first of all, the running an exchange that requires regulation
with the FCA.
They're issuing a token that's pegged to a secure, the potential security, the access
security, pretty sure that that's a regulated activity.
There's a lot of things there that are like, okay, but that's how that's how, because again,
we're none of us are Japanese legal experts.
Obviously this apparently can get around whatever legal restriction is in place, but gosh, it
does not look good.
Yeah, you just look at Prop 16 as written, which everyone likes to go back to because
they're like, where are you doing with Prop 16 written?
It was wrong.
It was categorically wrong.
It made claims that are false.
And we can prove it like, look, I have the data that says it's wrong.
And so why aren't you implementing it?
Well, that's neither here nor there because the community voted.
And so the expectation is that, of course, we'll carry that out.
And so in my authoring of a follow-up proposal was to try to set the record straight and make
sure that we're not going to face liability on making false claims and executing judgment
or remediation based off of false claims.
And so I think the virtual currency exchange definition based off of Japanese law is still
even shaky ground.
So at any rate, it's definitely exercised my understanding of I am not a lawyer.
It's interesting, because this idea, I don't know if they're exchange or not, whatever
that definition is, but get away from that.
I've been on 10 WebExes lately in the last six months around funds built in the US that
take in customer money that stake across multiple crypto chains, like different ecosystems
that return back with a K1, just a standard investment that has a structured endpoint
on that.
Dude, that might be one wallet or many wallets.
Who knows?
It's a fund account.
People are putting in $100,000, $200,000 into a fund account.
They might make $60 million or something like that and then be able to stake that across
multiple chains.
They might incur some sort of understanding of fixed percentages.
Do they get airdrops?
They would, right?
Depending on how they're getting blacked out, they might have multiple, maybe they have
multiple wallets to get around that type of structure.
The same thing.
Regardless of where CCN, those funds, where they came from and the story behind that, I'm
not defending that in any sort of way.
But this problem is not unique to this individual group.
I think this is going to be a bigger and bigger issue.
If a group like that, how would they deal with that in the US from a tax perspective
to say, hey, we have these customer accounts and now we airdropped $50 million in value
across these other types of chains, but they're not traded so they don't really have the... Yeah,
exactly.
I think it's a pretty interesting issue.
Joe might have some interesting thoughts on this.
Great scale is a fantastic over-the-counter fund that you can invest in on Fidelity or
other exchange services, stock exchange services.
You can buy a share of this fund that represents a share of Bitcoin called GBTC or Grayscale
Bitcoin Trust.
And when that happened, I bought into it before the Bitcoin cash split and then Bitcoin cash
split.
And so suddenly, you have all these investors wondering, hey, wait a second, shouldn't I
get GBCH or whatever is equivalent?
And what ultimately happened was they said, okay, we're going to hold on to it for a second.
We're going to see which way the market goes and the market stayed with Bitcoin.
And so then they liquidated the BCH and then I got an airdrop of USD in my Fidelity account
out of the blue and it's like, oh, great.
So that worked out just fine.
So they sold it?
Yeah, they sold it.
They liquidated it.
Did you get your Bitcoin Gold and your Bitcoin Diamonds and your Bitcoin Blue and your Bitcoin
Secret?
I have so many Bitcoin.
No, not from Grayscale.
I have so many Bitcoins, you guys.
So many Bitcoins.
But not what you think.
I have so many shit Bitcoins.
Shit bits.
Yeah, you just have to.
How has Coinbase handled this in the past?
Do they give in full access to forks and airdrops to people or like, are they like sitting on
keys worth millions of dollars in Osmo and Juno?
Some airdrops have to be missing those accounts, right?
Like it has to be.
Yeah, totally.
I mean, for Juno, think about this.
If you look at the list of excluded addresses in the Juno airdrop file, it's just a validator
addresses of the exchanges, which like, cool, fine.
Exchanges use many other wallets that aren't their validator address.
Sure.
Like, the airdrop was perfect.
Just this one issue.
Just this one airdrop from heaven, manna from heaven.
Nothing wrong with this manna.
Well, see, have you heard the, have you heard the micro whale conspiracy theory?
This is my favorite conspiracy theory.
Oh, please, please.
So the micro whale conspiracy theory is so obviously has been arguing about whether or
not Atom has been returned to clients in their own non-custodial wallets by CCN over time,
because it's very, very hard to verify that, right?
So some have alleged that that might not have happened.
And the question that comes along with that is, okay, if that didn't happen, then assuming
it's trackable, how do you just create 30, 40,000 wallets, right?
And manage them as if they're one wallet.
And a bunch of people went away and went, maybe it is actually possible to script this.
You know, we think that depending on your risk profile, you probably could script it,
which leads us to the micro whale hypothesis, which is that statistically speaking, it is
certain there is at least one more whale we've missed of some kind.
Like, it seems ridiculous that there wouldn't be one more, right?
Like the long tail of probability.
And so the micro whale hypothesis, like I say, it's a conspiracy theory, but I love it,
is that there is a whale with a massive amount of Juneau split into lots of tiny wallets
that mean that we can't find them.
But they're just operating quietly as one kind of large voting block that's scripted.
What I would say to the conspiracy theorists is like, don't hurt your head.
Like, I mean, Occam's razor applies here, I think, which is that really probably would
have seen it.
And we would have noticed, but.
Well, what about all the accounts with less than one Juneau that voted on the governance
proposal?
Speaking of micro accounts.
Well, yeah.
Huge amounts of space.
Well, if you were the micro whale, what would be the best way of convincing people that
the micro whale didn't exist?
We'll be voting to burn the whale.
And then everybody goes whale situation solved for all time while the micro whale swims off
into the distance on 200 million dust accounts.
Well, these were accounts that had less than one Juneau state.
Joe, for the win.
There were so many, like, yeah, less than one Juneau, but like less than 0.0001 Juneau.
Like they were dust.
They were just enough to make the.
Just to make the vote.
But that was completely bad for the network, too.
Like that just, just adds to the bloody block sizes.
Yeah, they spare me.
And like, but the transaction bloody index and everything, it just is terrible for the
network.
And there's tens of thousands of those bloody accounts.
No, you see, I very much agree with you.
It's terrible.
State bloat is the worst.
I have wanted to finger Joe is is Pup most for a very long time, but I'm convinced that
Joe is not Pup most.
I have convinced myself and I think you need to convince yourselves to because the real
Pup most is out there and we're going to find them and we're going to give them all the
head scratches.
It's the only way to do it, right?
If I were the real Pup most, I would not have a Pup most validator and a Jaby validator.
That would be unfair to the network.
And so that would be exactly what the person that was Pup most.
I know that was the allegations of civil validators against that otherwise quite tight
Opsac.
I mean, I'm really good theory on that other micro whale.
So, you know, whatever that would only be, I want to hear the theories on the micro whale.
I love the micro whale conspiracy.
It's one of my favorite things to come out of.
Why would I self incriminate?
Apart from the micro whale, right?
To quote Malcolm Tucker in the thick of it, right?
The last week has been like the Shawshank redemption, except for way more crawling through
shit and no fucking redemption.
Right?
Just an endless pipe.
But the micro whale is like the one glibber of hope.
I'm like, this is a great period.
I love it.
Shulte had a point, I think.
I had a point.
What are we talking about?
No, I was going to say, the Jaby and Pup most being a civil validator.
A civil is only true if Jaby doesn't have split personality.
So he might genuinely not know that he's Pup most.
No, it's like a, it's like a fight club situation.
Like he's up at 3am downstairs, like building up Pup most and then wakes up and he's back
to Jaby.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, Pup most tends to operate in a completely different time period.
So what happens with Pup most and Jaby interact on Twitter within minutes of each other?
He's just like blacking out and then coming back to me and something weird happened.
I mean, that would be the real fight club situation.
Totally right.
The idea.
Governor dynamic.
I'm John Nash.
Tyler Abbey.
Right.
Someone, someone came up with the theory, not low and go that it was a wolf contract.
Pup most.
Yeah.
I know.
I've known him for a while.
Pup most is far more technical than wolf is.
If you read those wolves, they're, they're pretty smart wolves.
That's a, let's not get into that.
So, so where, where do we go?
So where do we go now on this prop?
Like that was one of our points we want to get to is like, so it's March 23rd.
We have some, we have a, the worst negotiation skills from CCN possible, by the way, like
just, just learn how to learn how to negotiate.
But we have some, we have some a win-win-win kind of proposal put up.
We have a somewhat of a response kind of from CCN.
I think, I think everybody mostly wants some sort of realistic compromise that we can try
to hold some ideals around the chain, but at the same time we want to get past this
because I think this doesn't go anywhere but down, right?
Like nothing gets built while this happens.
This is a public conversation for everybody.
It's just negative.
And I think everybody wants to move on because that's, this is not the goal of what we're,
everybody's trying to achieve on this call, plus everybody who's listening to this, right?
So realistically, what the hell happens from here?
Can I, can I share my opinion?
I think that what we need to do, because we just went through all of the crazy questions
that we cannot answer right now about this whole situation and how wild it is.
And I think one of the things that's happened is there's this right to judgment.
There's this like thing, people want to do it.
I think the best solutions that have come out, the win-win-win proposal that Wolf posted
yesterday, some of the other things that are being worked on right now are basically like,
let's freeze this account.
Let's like put it in a smart contract, have some conditions on that, and like then cooler
heads can prevail.
We can negotiate with these folks.
We can work to figure out a solution here and like get on with normal business.
We've got the looper-calie upgrade coming up.
We got some exciting cross-chain-cosm-wasm stuff, interchange accounts.
Strange Love is like working on energy and account support for the Go Relayer.
We have this new test framework for IBC chains so that you can spin up any two chains, load
them with any smart contracts you want, and test complex IBC flows between the two chains
using the Relayer in a sort of automated like unit test type fashion.
So I think that if we freeze this account, like kick the can forward a little bit and
figure out what to do with it, yeah, smart contract, no one bonding, no staking, no voting,
they don't get any more money from this.
We like make sure that the threat that this community feels from this governance or this
economic threat that they feel, we neutralize that and then we try to kind of figure out
how to move forward from there.
That to me seems like the best option, but who knows?
Yeah, I mean, and to be honest, like the more we found out about, okay, I need to phrase
this carefully, the more that we have found out about them and their business practices,
in my opinion, the more it has become clear that our concerns around their influence on
governance are not unreasonable.
They're reasonable.
They're really, really reasonable.
Yeah.
Strictly in my opinion, you understand, for the purposes of British law.
It really, really is the case that, I think everybody who went into this even slightly
indifferent has now had to read everything that has been posted, read all of the different
information that's come out and then take a more concrete position.
It seems to me like the one thing that I think that everybody presumably by now has seen the
counter proposal that came out today, which I think Jack described as delusional, I just
something like that.
I think I described it as unworkable.
I think without removing voting power, I influence on governance and without removing
staking, nobody is happy.
The community is not happy, validators aren't happy, devs aren't happy.
So that has to be the absolute basis of anything we do moving forward.
Like you say, the smart contract unity prop can accommodate that.
Their proposal said, we want to keep our governance vote.
We want to keep staking.
We want to keep getting rewards.
That's literally the status quo.
The whole thing people do want them to have.
That's what's happening right now.
That's cool having you fucking cake and eating it.
That's exactly what we're going to have.
That's like pretending like nothing happened, that 98% of stake didn't vote for this thing.
Without, I think that we probably could have gotten a higher percentage of stake to vote
for it if we had planned it a little bit better.
That's not higher percentage of stake total turnout.
I think we would have gotten a higher percentage of stake, yes, if we had planned it a little
bit better.
That's wild.
That is an absolutely wild statistic.
All of my time in proof of stake blockchains, I have never seen anything like that.
Not even close.
98%.
No, never seen anything above 90%.
I think Akash got to 89% on one proposal one time and I was like, this is wild.
You can probably go find my tweet from the time I'm like, records in proof of stake governance.
And nothing like that.
Just to clarify though, that wasn't 98% of participants.
That was 98% of stake.
So that includes validators participating on behalf of stakers.
Yes.
I think that, so I think any way you measure this, this is sort of a record breaking governance
proposal percentage of stake, you're absolutely right, is influenced by the number of validators
voted.
We had unprecedented validator turnout.
That's pretty cool.
If you look at the absolute number of votes, even excluding the Juno accounts that had
less than one Juno, there's still like 30 or 40,000 people voting for this thing, individuals.
I have a friend who's a lawyer.
He's been investing in Terra and Cosmos and a bunch of stuff since like early 2020.
Can I just do it with Kepler?
No.
I have to do it with Kepler.
I like showed him how to do all this stuff.
He's been like staking Luna and doing DeFi protocols.
But he has never voted in a governance proposal until this.
And I think that there are many, many Cosmonauts out there who this was their first governance
experience.
And that's cool.
It's fantastic.
Yeah.
I think that's bullish for Juno.
You know, Noel, you said earlier, like this cannon does hurt the network in some ways.
But I think that what this also shows is there's a ton of enthusiasm behind this network and
people really love it and they want to keep contributing to it.
And that in my mind, that's bullish engagement.
Good.
More and more people getting more and more excited about this.
That's good.
That means that when we launch the next version of Dow Dow, when we have these really exciting
interchange for our contracts, we got all of the coolest shit on Juno because we got
all the coolest devs working on it.
Like, yeah, absolutely.
To be fair, I think it only hurts.
I got to jump here.
Sorry, guys.
I have a meeting at five.
Anyway, very much enjoyed this and looking forward to doing this again next week.
I will see you guys on the next game of Dow.
See you, man.
See you later, buddy.
See you.
Yeah.
So just on what Jack was saying, to be fair from what I said before, I think it only hurts
Juno temporarily.
It's like, you know, like I said to the Frey, two months down the road, no one even remembers
this.
Maybe even a month.
It's once it's put to bed, it's done.
No one will remember.
No.
I think it's a little dismissive.
I think that there's more potential for it helping the network than it does hindering
it, right?
Because if we are setting president, regardless of what president we're setting, then people
are going to be looking into it.
Like this, this is quite literally a case that if there's a course on crypto on any college
and university, this is going to be in it because there's statements out here.
There's lots of public statements of different positions that are being taken.
And it kind of shows the power and the significance of decentralization, right?
So I think that showing like the fact that it's going to be so broad scale potentially,
I think that it's a really great voice for what Juno is and what Juno can develop further
into.
So, so not to dismiss the, you know, the prop, but I mean, we've already done it.
Prop four, it got voted down.
No one talked about it until Prop 16.
I don't remember hearing any discourse about it after it all.
And it was a big thing at the time.
And but at the time, people weren't as invested in it because not many people had paid for
their tokens.
It was all airdrop tokens.
Now you've got people are much more vocal now, I think, because there's a lot more people
who have invested in Juno, not just received Juno.
So, you know, but in terms of longevity of the conversation, I don't know, but prop four,
once you go vote it out, that was it, but never heard about it again, that I remember.
I think that that would be true if 16 had gone down.
If 16 had said no, and we decided we're leaving it, then I think that would be the end of
the conversation.
There would be a lot of contention now, what have you, but the fact that it went yes, and
that ultimately what is going to happen is a, and account with $125 million or 100 million
now is potentially going to be sucked out of a wallet by choice.
That's what makes it a more interesting and more compelling conversation.
And I think that's what's going to cement it into textbooks as like the first really
big proof of stake instance for governments.
Well, that's just like a really interesting case of like coders law, right?
Because you can say coders law on a proof of work blockchain, but you have no complicated
governance structures, whereas in proof of stake ostensibly, you do have an electorate,
right?
But every, I think I was saying this to meow the other day, like, you know, you have like
in most mature electoral systems, you have some kind of idea of separation of judiciary,
electorate and law, right?
So we kind of have law, we have code and code implies very heavily, if not actively says
like the wallet balances are immutable, right?
It makes that very heavy assumption, if not actually lays it down as law, because you
can't alter them other than doing an upgrade and forced to be mutating chain state and
then coming back up with a new upgrade.
I would say that's as close to law as you can actually get with programming, you know,
barring the halting problem and lots of other fun computer science holes in, you know, code
actually having a fixed meaning, right?
It all gets a bit postmodern.
But then we have this other thing that we don't have, which is a judiciary to rule on
what that means, right?
So who, what's a judiciary?
That's presumably devs, right?
In this case, in, you know, in the absence of an actual, because we don't have a constitution,
we don't have a social contract, right?
So we have devs who interpret the code and they say, well, this is what it says and this
would be what changing it involves.
And so I think there is a, there is like an element to this whole controversy and I've
seen a lot of it as a dev and as a validator who has said, number one, implementing this
is radioactive, I'm not going to do it because legal implications and frankly, I do believe
that wallet balances should be immutable.
Sorry, I think they should be changed only by transactions by the signer.
You know, it takes a lot for a state or a bank to change your bank balance.
And if we're not going to adhere to that same principle in crypto, what's the point of what
we're doing?
That's, that's my honest opinion.
That's just like my opinion, man, to quote the Big Lebowski, but it is my opinion.
But, you know, that, that push, because we don't have this like codified social contract
or like a constitutional whatever, it ends up being the situation where the devs are
effectively acting as a judiciary in terms of making a reasoning or a ruling, but we
have no authority to do so because there's no social contract that says we should do
so.
But to the devs and the validators, it's kind of obvious when we're in a room together,
we feel like we have a responsibility to the chain because we have a lot of skin in the
game, right?
And we care about the, the success of the chain over the long term and the principles that
we see written into the code when we, you know, we read it and go, okay, okay, this
is our interpretation of how it's going to work and, you know, whether or not this thing
should be changed.
So all of that aside, I think there is a really interesting thing here, which may be given
that we don't have a codified constitution.
This big impasse we've reached right now, which is essentially devs and validators kind
of saying they're not going to run the code in one way, shape or form, a large portion
of people are not going to interact with it, is actually governance working as well as
it can given the circumstances.
Because that tension between a judiciary and an electorate is literally the definition
of a healthy democracy.
It's just that we haven't codified it.
So what's fascinating to me is that this is organically happened, right?
We've literally seen a governance system mature to a separation of electorate and judiciary
type system by accident in about a week caused by this tension.
And the other thing that's interesting is that that separation and that dispute took
the vote, which was, you know, we will have different opinions on it, but it's now brought
people back to a position where people on both sides have realized they have to compromise
as a result of this, both the devs and validators who are generally on one side, but not exclusively,
and members of the community who are generally on the other side, but not exclusively.
But what it's actually meant is that that separation has brought people more towards
the center into realizing that a compromise may be necessary.
And like all compromises, everybody will be unhappy.
But like Nels says, we'll have forgotten about it in two weeks.
So the interesting thing for me about what comes out of this is whether or not we can
actually arrive at a compromise that we can then take forward and codify, right?
Because you could write a political science PhD on this, if so, you know, I mean, heck,
if I didn't have so much bloody rust code to write, I'd write it.
I mean, I doubt I'd get accepted to write it from anywhere, but it would be interesting.
Sorry, I've been round.
I'm going to shut up for a second now.
And I think if the CCN team is watching this, please learn how to compromise, like try to
understand what was put out there, try to be able to work a little bit and work, let's
work towards the middle a little bit, because I agree that any, the back to the fence situation,
either side of that is pretty brutal.
And it's, I think it's both, both sides are really damaging to the chain.
So it's got to be something in the middle, like it has to be something where we work
out where, where we hold up uphold really the code of conduct and laws around the immutable
blockchain at the same time, we're trying to solve something that maybe should not have
happened.
And so I think there has to be some work within there to be able to do that.
Could you, could you guys imagine, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but could you
imagine the fallout of a past prop 17 where 40% of the validators skip that block and
the chain halts?
Like could you imagine that situation where we have a stopped upgrade?
Then what?
Like then, then there's nothing to move, nothing's happening.
Then evmos.
Like, where does that go?
How do you communication of that?
How to be able to build that back up?
Is that forked at that point?
Like what a freaking disaster.
Like that would be token price goes to zero and we, we have to pull all our code, all
of our smart contract code to Kerberus, right?
You can't sell anything, right?
Oh my goodness.
Like, no, I don't know.
Kerberus has smart contrast, isn't it?
Or did I imagine that?
No, there's no one.
Is there one in Kerberus?
I felt like there was.
If not, if not, maybe now's the time for Dojian Wasm.
I've been saying it for months.
I've been saying it.
I'm bullish on Dojian Wasm.
We could have enriched it.
What are you doing?
Enrich me.
Chihuahua forked Juno and Juno partially forked Osmosis.
So, I mean, we, it would be doing ourselves a service to make Dojian Wasm.
That's what I'm saying.
Just fork Chihuahua and launch before they do their launch.
Why would you fork Chihuahua when we literally, half the people on this call work on Core
Juno, we could just fork Juno.
Yeah, but it'd just be funnier because Chihuahua forked Juno.
That would be funny.
It would be kind of low key funny, but also hassle to fork Chihuahua and then incorporate
the Juno improvements since their fork of Juno back into the Chihuahua fork to make
Dojian Wasm a Wasm chain.
Plot twist.
What if Chihuahua did it better?
I mean, we're all, we're all null.
As you well know, we're all just copy pastoring our own code and other people's code in this
in this chat.
Apart from Jabbit, he probably writes very, very solid code.
Don't say that.
I feel like Jabbit's code is chef's kiss.
Don't say the quiet things out loud.
Yeah, back to the inside voice, I guess.
So we did have other things that we were going to talk about today, but I think it's probably
better just to leave this episode as a Prop 16 talk and then crack on with some other
exciting stuff next week.
What do you guys think?
We're up to an hour.
Yeah, we've got some cool stuff on our slate for next week, aren't we?
We can harass Jack about Horcrux next week as well.
So should we do closing question?
Yeah.
All right, okay.
I mean, let's make this a regular thing.
Let's end with some positivity.
So what are we most excited about in the next week?
Shultz, do you want to go first because you're like the most wholesome guy here?
Give me a pass and I'll come back around to me.
Okay, well, that was a bit of a damn script.
All right, come on now.
Help us out.
We'll see you next week.
Sorry, did you say me?
Yeah.
Oh, shit, man.
Can we just, I don't know.
There's not much really, I haven't seen much going on in the next week to be honest.
I've been scoping around.
We've got the craft testnet coming up, which I'm pretty excited about because especially
if they've got some of their application running on that testnet.
I don't know if many people here are gamers, but like I know people are fully into Minecraft
and I'm pretty excited to see if it's workable with what they've come up with and what they've
come up with.
I've been waiting a really long time as well for it, so excited to see that, I guess, is
one thing that I'm looking forward to.
And I believe that is imminent, so I can say that's what I'm looking forward to this
week.
Cool, yeah.
All right, you, Serpa, with your very slick branding.
Yeah, I get it.
At least it didn't shut off this week.
So actually, they just posted the genesis while we were on this call, so things are happening.
So it looks like they're going to try to launch tomorrow at some point, which is really good,
or at least a testnet.
It's going to be launched tomorrow.
Crescent Network came out with their test network, so that's going somewhere, I think
last week my thing I was excited about was Evmos.
So knowing that something was coming and I did hear that this week something is coming,
so it's only Wednesday, but I'm hoping we're going to hear a little bit more coming out
of the validator structure there about what the plan is going forward.
I know there was a Twitter space, I think yesterday or today, I missed it, unfortunately.
So that's exciting to see.
There's some movement there, and I think there's maybe some decisions within there.
So that's all good stuff, man.
That's great.
Oh, and obviously, number one on that list is Juno Testnet Upgrades, always the highlight
of my weeks by far.
So we'll move it.
It was a very convenient time for Nala as well, I gather.
Did you?
I think it's at 3 AM again.
I think it's 4.
It's 4, it's actually better.
It's 4 AM.
I think it's 4 AM for you, man.
Well, it's only an hour earlier than what I usually get up anyways.
You get up at 5 AM?
Yeah.
I get up at 5 AM and catch up on Discord and Telegram before I get out of it.
I was telling Nala to reduce my hours on other projects because it's not enough time to catch
up with the drama at the moment.
So those are all good things.
It's a good week.
Jaby, what are you excited about?
Nothing, nothing at all.
Big ass thing, which I'm just in Coil Hat, barely skating by in life and hoping to not
die.
No, it's releasing something soon, Jaby.
Isn't Pubmost releasing something soon?
Maybe you have some idea of what Pubmost might be releasing that might be exciting.
I have no idea.
Absolutely.
The establishment of carbon market on Osmosis, I think that's going to be really interesting
to see what's been elusive to the general public of carbon trading that happens between
large judicial bodies and governments to offset things and to make that more accessible.
I think we'll really drive a lot of interesting use cases as we ultimately begin to agree
that the planet's melting and we don't like that.
But what do I know?
I'm just a guy.
I should stick into my whole of crypto.
It's also like you say, as soon as we start looking at, let's make the assumption that
it works and it can go somewhere interesting.
We're in a position where we have IBC contracts that can do all hell of stuff from publishing
to whatever, to media delivery, to anything your heart could desire, really.
Combining that with the ability to interact with carbon credits on a buying or staking
basis or whatever.
Imagine medium, but every time you clap, it's actually like the underlying token is in some
way pegged to carbon credits that are actually being traded or given some kind of NGO that
could action them in a meaningful way.
Look, financialization of everything is unlikely to save the world, let's be honest.
But it could.
You never know.
We should try everything at this point.
You're saying that you want the clap to be easier to transmit via blockchain.
Yeah, basically, I want to be on the blockchain and have something that's going to make me
feel good about how I'm doing on the planet, but without doing anything to actually change
my personal impact.
On chain clap coming Q1 to Q2 2022, you heard it here.
Actually, no joke.
No joke.
Might be working on something.
But yeah, we'll see about that.
I'm sure we'll see if you come up with yours.
Yeah, you know, since this entire conversation is about Prop 16, I think I'm actually really
excited for the way governance has been developing over the last few months in general.
This isn't over the last next week, but if you look at Osmosis, their governance, it
was almost always maximum yes, every single time, very reliable, same for secret network.
You're starting to see more activity in learning about what's actually happening in the proposal,
more discussions happening on it.
I think one downside of it is that there are people that do get really engaged and they
get really excited about it, and they end up retaliating against their validators.
We validated or we voted no, so let's raise it to Reddit and tell everyone to delegate
away.
I think that it's a really important point to make is that the fact that they're actually
voting and engaging should be blotted.
Even on Osmosis, when everything was passing with 30%, 40%, whatever, that means 60% or
70% weren't voting.
Really the people that aren't engaging with the network, those ones that should be shamed,
not the ones that vote a certain direction.
If they vote a certain direction, then just reach out to them and say, hey, why did you
vote this way?
Try and engage a conversation.
I know all of you have engaged in the conversation, and I know many of the validators, they've
seen these conversations happening and then they get engaged.
The reality is we're all people.
We have our own viewpoints.
If you share your viewpoint, then we get to learn it, and then we get to ingest it, and
that might change our vote.
It's really important to note that if a prop comes live on the first and it ends on the
eighth and they vote yes on the first, that vote doesn't actually matter until the eighth
actually hits.
They can change it, and that's okay.
If you see something that's awry, start a conversation.
Calling people out on Reddit, maybe that's not the best way of going about it, but the
fact that there's so much engagement I think is really exciting.
That's a really good answer, and I'm not going to get into this.
Maybe we should get into it on a future episode.
For ballots, huh?
Yeah, that's a thought.
On that note.
I've been thinking a lot about it recently.
But yeah, I think I'm in the same boat as you.
I'm really excited for where this is going to take governance yet next.
I think and hope it will come to a good compromise on Juno that means that we can all stay happily
working on it for many years to come and stuff, and it's going to be one of those things you
can look at in the rearview mirror.
But regardless of how it pans out, there's going to be a lot of interesting stuff that
happens from governance.
And certainly a lot of the projects that I'm working on and working with people are either
at a smart contract level or a chain level about how we move governance forward.
And a lot of the ideas we were going like, oh, but what if X happened has just played
out in the last two weeks?
And we just have a concrete use case where we're now proven there we are done.
We're not wasting our time.
So that's really exciting.
The next week is that I'm going to be hopefully getting Horcrux on Horcrux set up in prod on
our Kerberos validator.
And that's what I'm excited about because I've been wanting to nerd out over that shit
for absolutely.
And I'm probably 16 completely derailed my like, cool, I'm going to get to do some op
stuff and it's going to be sick.
So that's what I'm excited about the next week, which is really dorky on the exciting
thing.
Like everybody's kind of got the high-minded stuff.
And I'm like, I get to play around with some new tech.
Yeah, I'm actually excited to see you run Horcrux in prod.
Well, rather, rather me than you, huh?
Yeah.
Well, I think everyone a couple of weeks back when he said that he was joining Juno using
Horcrux, I think we were all like, report back.
We all need to know how it went.
We want to know if it's a really bad idea.
Honestly, I've been looking at Horcrux for like six months.
Like Jack put out some versions of it a long time ago, never been game enough to pull the
trigger.
But I'm pretty sure that strange love run virtually all of their main nets on Horcrux.
So it can't be that unstable.
Anyway, do we want to wrap it up?
Let's do it.
Okay.
So everybody, thanks for joining us.
This has been Game of Nodes.
Don't forget to like and subscribe.
New episodes every week at 2300 hours UTC.
And episodes will go up on podcast players afterwards.
Thanks to the man with the plan, Usurper.
And I just pointed the wrong direction because I'm mirrored.
Hey.
And I'm not actually sure that the tiling is the same for everybody.
So yeah, so you can access wherever you like.
And obviously we're going to be doing the live streams here on YouTube.
We're also going to be having new guests on every week and we're going to start announcing
those coming out.
So moving forward.
So follow us on Twitter at Game of Nodes on the score at the end because we're sly like
that.
And we'll be announcing guests and stuff as we know them and shout us out with any other
topics that you think we should cover.
And we probably will.
Just not in this episode because we end up talking about Prop 16 for the entire thing.
So yeah, thanks very much for listening guys.
Say bye everybody.