something and then people would just be like, what?
They launched an airdrop?
Go!
Welcome to Game of Nodes, a weekly podcast on the Cosmos
from independent validator teams.
OK, hello.
Welcome to Game of Thrones, a weekly podcast on the Cosmos
from independent validators with a perennially dodgy start.
We've just been talking about health care, which is obviously
not very related to the current drama in Cosmos,
but it is very interesting to have an international perspective
on such things.
This episode is going, we've called it extra credit,
and it's about what is going to happen next, probably,
in the ongoing resolution of the current drama.
So, we've got a resolution of the implications of Prop 16,
which obviously we're all quite close to,
and Meow from Juno Core is hopefully
going to join us in a little bit as well.
So, yeah, hopefully this is going to be a little bit less
dry than wading through some of the text proposals
and the implications thereof that we've had to do
during the last week.
Because we put this together at relatively short notice,
and Joe will be joining me until Meow shows up,
which I think is going to happen in a bit.
But obviously, there's few people as qualified,
particularly than Joe, to speak about this.
So, we were wondering earlier, Joe, do you have,
do you still have this, so Joe put together a great flow
chart of where we're up to, do you still have that, Joe?
Can you screen share it?
I just sent that to you, but I can also do.
I think if you say to screen share,
I can give you permission.
All right.
Let me put that on a proper screen.
Nerds, I know you were so bad, aren't we?
Allow me to put it on my second monitor.
Second.
That's all.
There's more than two.
And you had to worry about the rotated monitor for coding.
That's right.
Yeah, I mean, this is going to come off
fantastically on the Spotify version of this podcast.
All right.
Maybe you're here.
Maybe you, Serpa, can trim this.
Do you have to welcome my screen into the...
Ah, there we go.
There it is.
Wow.
We're like high tech now.
So PropFar came along and says, ah, they
gave them the stack drop.
And then Wolf says, no, they didn't.
They're fine.
It's cool.
So we rejected it.
And then they started selling it about to Juno.
And then Prop16 comes along.
There's some investigations.
There's some articles.
Core One says, please vote no.
But it's still passed anyway.
So then we can kind of zoom out and see
like how everything's expanded from that point.
Validators have had concerns.
CCN wants to negotiate.
There was a PR that was briefly ready.
Then it was closed.
And there's another PR.
Then there's been multiple PRs.
Over here on the Commonwealth proposals,
I really like that people have gotten more active
in the Commonwealth and making proposals
about different remediations, different ways
to handle the situation at hand.
And sort of on the side here also
tracking kind of the general consensus
from the community about, hey, all right, it's passed.
Let's do it.
And then why isn't government doing anything?
And why isn't Core One doing anything?
And then why is it over?
And so where we've basically sunk to
from all these different paths are,
CCN has a proposal that they've prepared.
There's unity proposal that Core One has produced.
And then there's the one that I effectively authored
gathering up information
and what would be the logical conclusion
from that information.
So that's the three proposals that we currently have
on deck right now.
Yeah, so now we've kind of gone through
Jaby's quite excellent flow chart.
I guess for the rest of this, we'll refer to them
as the CCN prop, unity prop and the burn prop.
Sepulona?
Yeah, I guess so.
So I'm gonna attempt a very short summary
of each of those and sure see if you think
I'm screwing this up then please jump in.
So the CCN prop is let's split what we have 50-50
between the community and our own investors.
The burn prop is we burn, we undeligate
and then burn the funds held by CCN.
And the unity prop is we undeligate and move the funds
to a smart contract, which has hooks that CCN can use
and hooks that the community can use.
That is my summary of the three proposals.
Is that reasonable?
I think that's a good tough little summary of it.
I think that one thing that'd be best to discuss
a little bit more is like,
what is the end game of the unity proposal?
Do you envision it as being a, like a,
right now we have labels like an escrow account,
where we'll have some level of control,
but the reality is that'll probably just end up being
a pseudo burn, right?
It's gonna be locked up for an indeterminate amount of time
because there's probably gonna be no conclusion
as to who gets what, right?
So what is your vision of what the unity
will eventually become?
Well, so there's a couple,
so we'll talk a little bit about each of the props
in a minute, but I think it's also worth saying
that unity prop was obviously put forward
when everything was a lot more uncertain
and a lot more shouty maybe than it has got now.
I think the conversation has sobered a little bit
and I think we're in a more constructive place
than we were a week ago or 10 days ago,
but the original unity prop, like you say,
I think certainly the way CCN view it is,
it is sort of burning by another means
because it's locking the funds up.
There is a way of putting a timer on this, right?
Which is to say, instead of the default position
being nothing moves, you could actually amend
that contract design to be that it still has
the governance hooks for the community.
It still has the withdrawal hook for CCN,
but you could also do a vesting schedule on it
so that the default position is that it drains over time,
right?
The other thing that you could amend to that,
which is if you say that it's going to drain over time
in favor of an account nominated by CCN,
I mean their admin, you could equally remove
what we call the RIPCord, which is their ability
to withdraw with a 28-day delay.
Because if you're getting the funds vested
over a longer period, then is there ever a scenario
where it's in the benefit, it benefits the community
to use the RIPCord?
No.
So the default position is come up with a compromise
to agree to withdraw the funds
or the funds will drain over a 10-year vest.
Let's say.
So there has been some discussion around
contract implementation about whether to go back
to the community and ask about that,
should there be the RIPCord in the current design
or should there be a vest?
But the problem is going back to the community
at this stage on a Commonwealth is likely
to just cause kind of anxiety or it's quite hard
to communicate even to technical people smart contract design.
I mean, talking about code is hard, right?
I mean, we're all on this call, we all kind of understand it.
And even then part of this call is that we're kind of
explaining this to each other as well as we go.
So I understand that it is like a difficult thing
to kind of talk about, especially in text form
on these Commonwealth proposals.
So yeah, so I guess we started talking about the Unity prop.
There's no particular order with how we were gonna go through
the three things that are gonna happen.
But it's so before we go on, I will say that there is
so that there is a logical sequencing of events
that is now going to happen.
People have been asking what's going to happen.
The answer is probably tomorrow,
we are going to table Lupa-Kalia phase one,
which is a security upgrade that will have,
this is great, we should have Joe with the charts up
all the time, this is amazing.
So Lupa-Kalia phase one is a security upgrade
and crucially it allows, it has an upgrade in it
that allows the governance module to take actions
on a smart contract.
And this is very new behavior.
This is new and exciting behavior.
So the reason this is important is because the Unity prop
requires the governance module to be able to take actions
on a smart contract.
And this is why I think smart contract developers like me
are very excited by this, not just because I think
it's a good solution, but because it is genuinely
very novel to try and solve this deadlock
in a zero trust environment with a smart contract,
with a smart contract that's not only a smart,
just solving with a smart contract full stop
will be pretty historic, but solving it with a smart contract
that's actually directly controlled
by the governance module is completely,
I mean, just the concept is completely impossible
in a proof of work chain, right?
So can we take a moment to talk about this a little longer?
So currently governance can basically do
like a community spend proposal,
it can do a text proposal, a software upgrade proposal,
and then now there's gonna be like,
execute smart contract type proposal,
or what will that look like in reality?
And will that have any sort of,
I suppose, anybody can create a proposal right now.
Are there any controls around that smart contract
execution now?
Like can anyone just put up a proposal that says
we should do this with a smart contract,
or how will that look?
Right, so what you do is you implement,
there's a, so Cosmos and smart contracts
have several entry points.
You can think of them as like a right entry point
and a read entry point,
if you're kind of used to traditional database models.
And then there are a couple of extra ones,
one of them is like a hook for if you get a message
from another smart contract, how do you handle that?
And there is an additional one,
which is that this is coming with the most recent upgrade,
which is I have gotten the message
from the governance module, what should I do with it?
So you need to handle specifically the message case,
and it needs to be formatted obviously a certain way,
serialized in a certain way to take an instruction.
So the Unity prop contract exists,
it has been written, and at the moment,
it is implemented purely to the letter and word
of the Unity prop as it is up on Commonwealth.
So it has, I can actually throw up,
I've got a couple of pictures I can throw up
to show what it does.
So the first thing,
and you can see a little bit of the side of us over here,
where is it?
Hello, there's my hand.
So there is a address that can do actions,
in this case, we would envisage it to be CCN,
and they can take a withdrawal action.
This is available at any time, they can request a withdrawal,
it starts a smart contract,
a timer effectively in the smart contract.
And then after that time has elapsed,
the withdrawal can actually be executed, right?
And that's the 28 day delay.
It's actually configurable,
but in the implementation notes on Commonwealth,
it was said that it would be 28 days.
So that's what we would configure it to, right?
And then when that time runs,
you can actually withdraw the funds.
Now we've been referring to this as the ripcord, right?
So you request a withdrawal,
the parachute starts deploying,
and at some point you actually start slowing down,
I guess that's the funds arriving in one go.
That's actually a really bad analogy, but whatever.
Anyway, for some reason we call it the ripcord,
but what it is is a delayed release of funds.
So that behaves very much like a normal smart contract,
it's just the execute handler, right?
But the other half of the governance contract
is the bit that, sorry,
the other half of this contract is the governance actions,
which is the bit I think that you were asking about
just then, Schultz-y,
which is that a governance prop can send a message,
and it can be one of three message types
that are implemented.
So the contract basically looks at what the message type is.
I mean, obviously the message type could also be invalid,
which would be bad,
but there are three actions available
to the community effectively, right?
There's burn all the funds held by the contract,
there's send an amount of native funds to an address,
and there's send all funds held by the contract to an address.
So again, pretty straightforward.
So governance could decide to do any one of those
three things on the right
by sending the right message to the smart contract.
So you said for a moment that
there's an assumption that the contract
or the message would be formatted correctly.
What's the default behavior
if the message isn't formatted correctly?
What if there's all this buildup around a prop saying,
we're gonna do this and it's not formatted correctly,
or someone sends it in and does something wrong,
what will happen?
You get a Cosm wasm panic,
and it says incorrect message format,
I think incorrect invalid wasm message,
and it returns an error from the SDK level,
from the wasm module.
So it would be pretty important
to do a dry run of that on a test net with this,
which obviously, so UniOne currently has
this behavior available to it on test net.
So the reality is whoever was going to implement
such a proposal from the community
would want to go on Uni and propose,
propose that upgrade, right, to test that it works.
Otherwise they would risk burning,
well, actually, I guess they wouldn't burn any Juno,
but they would just look a bit silly
if they did it on main net,
and it didn't work as anticipated.
Okay, so to clarify, there would be an error,
but it wouldn't cause a chain halt,
it wouldn't cause crazy adverse behavior,
it would just say throw up a new prop essentially.
Because no, it would be exactly the same as,
on the name service, if you don't fund
a wasm message correctly when you try and buy a name,
it throws a wasm error.
It would be exactly the same severity as that.
It's completely sort of firewalled
within the contract itself,
just because the contract has been called by governance
doesn't mean there's like some much more
risky behavior that's being used.
So yeah, that's the unity prop smart contract,
and that's how it would work.
And I think we've kind of gone over why it's cool as well,
which is that we're a smart contract chain,
and to be able to solve a problem like this,
using a smart contract is kind of inherently cool.
Maybe coolness is perhaps not the best way
to be judging the relative merit
of quite high stakes things, but it is cool,
and it would be pretty historic to,
on a proof of state chain,
solve a governance problem using a smart contract
controlled by the community.
I mean, I think that would be kind of pretty incredible,
but what I think about the technical coolness of it,
obviously, shouldn't really influence anybody
on whether they think it's a good idea or not,
because it does obviously boil down to whether or not
this is the right thing to do in terms of governance,
and in terms of actually mediating the situation effectively,
which is, does this contract,
or does the Unity prop itself actually set up
a reasonable ground for negotiation, right,
and all of that kind of stuff
that we've been talking about before?
So what does it look like if another option is proposed
and the smart contract needs modified?
Will that just go through a standard smart contract upgrade,
change, or will it just be a simple update to the contract
for the new addition,
for the new proposal that people are bringing forward?
So you mean if, let's say somebody said,
oh, I would like to perform some other behavior
that's not currently supported by the contract?
Yes, that's correct.
Yes, so right now, except for a certain amount
of text messages, a fourth message that says,
immediate burn half distribute half,
as an off the cuff example.
Yeah, so, well, this is the difficulty.
So as suggested by Unity,
my understanding of it is that the contract
should be instantiated without any admin.
So you instantiate without an admin,
it means nobody can ever rug the contract itself.
So if a regulator came along and was like,
stop this immediately, can't do it, there's no admin.
It basically, taking away the admin has a lot of good features
in that it puts a solution on the table
and it's like, now this is the solution,
we can't now bike shed any further,
but the downside is you can't migrate it.
If we were going to propose a smart contract solution
that could be migrated to change the kind of the
lay of the land underneath the contract,
like it's functionality, it's behavior,
I almost think that would be another proposal
because it's obviously you can migrate it
and you can change the way it behaves,
but whether or not that is the correct thing to do.
I don't know.
Yeah, you could also have it so that the community
or the governance module itself is the admin.
So if the community wanted to upgrade the contract,
they could vote to upgrade the contract.
Does that actually work though?
Can you send a migrate message as the governance module?
Because I thought you have to be a regular signing key
in order to call a Wazem migrate message.
I believe that there is a new,
in the latest version of Wazemd,
there is a new migrate contract message,
which you could, or proposal type.
So there's a special proposal type
for this new migrate feature.
That actually does sound like a thing
I've seen in the changelog.
So yeah, I know they just went ahead
and added full smart contract interaction capabilities
to the Cosmos governance module,
which is really exciting.
Another thing that could happen to you is
if there's a new contract,
the new contract could be instantiated
and then the community could just vote
to send funds to the new contract.
So like having a new...
That's actually a really good point
is if you did want to instantiate,
even if you wanted to take away the admin capabilities
for any number of reasons,
like from liability to whatever,
another good reason I'm taking the admin away
is to force people into having to come up with the solution.
But actually, like Meow's just saying,
when you have the ability to have a prop that says,
drain all the funds from the contract
and send it somewhere,
you also could instantiate another contract
and send the funds there.
And the native balance would land.
Although I suppose a weirder and funnier thing would be,
the smart contract, I guess, appears as an address.
Wouldn't it be kind of funny
if the smart contract received an airdrop?
Or is it too soon?
It could happen, yeah, why not?
Someone's gonna have that brilliant idea,
like a brand new airdrop.
I just want to have you space,
he's just saying, dear God, no.
It's gonna become a do-am-a-dress
where people start sending NFTs and stuff to it.
It's like, eh, I don't need this one anymore,
send it to the whale, send the whale contracts.
Yeah, I mean, I guess you could,
I mean, it would be overthinking it
to actually write some reply hooks for NFTs
to see what it would do with those, but yeah.
So yeah, that's the long and short,
I think, where we're up to with the contract stuff.
And also, hello, Meow, we kind of snuck you in the back door
without introducing you properly.
Yeah, I know.
Welcome to Game of Nodes.
I was late, but I'm excited to be here.
This is my favorite YouTube series.
After like one episode.
Wait, two episodes?
Two episodes, yeah, the last one was great.
It was a great episode.
Awesome.
And I'm honored to be here with the likes of Jaby.
Like, I raised my glass to you, sir.
Thank you.
Jaby's been keeping us safe for the last-
I'm sure it's you and YouTube, obviously, Alex.
The phrase username just gives me closure.
Great.
That was an excellent joke.
Cool.
So is there anything else we wanna say
about the Unity prop at this stage?
And also, if anybody,
I actually noticed there are people watching.
So if you have questions about the Unity prop,
I'm gonna whip through the comments.
I've realized I haven't been paying attention to them.
Ask questions about what we're saying as we go.
Sorry about that.
Can I get my quick,
why I think the Unity prop is cool, Spiel?
Please do, yes.
I'm really sorry if I repeat anything
that any of you said before.
Jesus Christ, Wenra.
But yeah, it achieves everything the community really wants.
It takes away the whales' voting power.
It takes away their staking rewards.
It is action.
So, you know, it's like,
at the same time, it also makes a lot of validators
feel a little bit more comfortable
to not burn the funds instantaneously.
Obviously, they can be burned once in the smart contracts,
but it's not the validators doing it.
It's the community voting to burn the funds,
which is a small distinction,
but I think that, you know, that's a good one.
Making our validators comfortable is great.
And then I think the final reason I really like it is,
because the community is in complete control.
It is also a really great way
to come up with a little bit more deliberation
before we take this big step.
It allows the chance for us to come to a compromise
or some other solution we haven't yet thought.
Now, do I think that's super likely?
No, I think probably the funds
are gonna get voted to be burns
because I don't think the whale
is gonna put forward a good solution,
but you never know.
You have to allow space for that.
And I think it's gonna make us look a little bit better
having some sort of process for this
and not just instantly burning the funds,
though that might happen anyway.
All right, yeah, that's my appeal.
I think it's also, can we just recognize how good
Javi's little flow chart here is
like laying out all of these points,
as we've been saying them, this is kind of pretty awesome.
But yeah, one of the big things I think for anybody
that's following the Commonwealth threads
is they were happening,
like to pick up on something you said just there,
which is that moving the funds to the smart contract
and delegating them, it's a very subtle distinction
to like pop them in the smart contract.
But the CCN still are the only entity
that can trigger that withdrawal,
the ripcord we were talking about earlier,
so they're kind of still in control at the table,
able to compromise if they would like to,
but very crucially, their voting power is gone
and their ability to unbond and cut and run
is also kind of gone,
although still on a 28 day timer,
but the community has the other half,
is basically holding the other half in the thread, right?
So the two things that we I think saw the most
during that debate, which is we're worried
about their voting power,
which I think validates and devs are most worried about.
And then we're worried about their kind of economic power,
as well as their voting power,
was the other thing I saw a lot in the community.
So the great thing about a unity prop
is it does kind of deal with both of those things
quite neatly, right?
Yeah, and I think people don't really understand
the whole ripcord dynamic.
I saw a lot of, I think, I'll call them bad ticks
because I don't think they really read through
or understood some of the nuance of the proposal.
The community is in complete control,
even if the whale pulls the ripcord,
there's 28 days for the community to vote
to burn their funds or send them somewhere else.
So, and who knows, maybe the community will decide
to fund Ukraine or whatever, I don't know.
But yeah, so that ripcord also is to make people feel
a little bit more safe about running this code.
It's, it was a compromise.
So.
Yeah.
And it doesn't matter if the whale agrees to it or not,
that's another thing is like, yeah,
the whale has not come forward with any actual
viable solutions, they're just wasting time at this point.
So this forces them to actually come to the table
with a good solution.
So there's some, actually,
there's some good questions in the chat,
one of which is probably too big to throw up on the screen
because there's a really big comment,
but can the whale's staking rewards be frozen
as soon as the prop goes up?
So this is, we were obviously now at the point where,
and I think this is an interesting question,
is that the CCN account has accumulated quite a lot
of rewards while this situation has been ongoing.
So it's worth bearing in mind that with,
so back to, we were gonna talk a little bit
about what loopercalia phase one is.
So loopercalia phase one, we already mentioned is
essentially the teamwork that makes the dream work
as far as the pseudo functionality
and the governance module calling contracts is concerned,
as well as some security fix and stuff
that we'd really like to get in.
And then loopercalia phase two,
which is what Jaby has been hard at work testing,
is the actual, well, one of two,
loopercalia phase two is one of two things, right?
Option one is it's a burn,
as we described at the top of the show.
Option two, it's moving the funds to a smart contract, right?
So either way, the work that Jaby's been doing,
testing this code is like completely essential
to what we need to do.
But until loopercalia phase two,
that prop, whatever it is,
whatever number it ends up being,
until that code is run, the whales funds aren't undeligated,
right?
And in addition, they are free to claim their rewards
and can't run with those.
But I don't know, what's our sense here
on how major an issue that would be,
you know, the rewards that they've got to date?
I personally don't think this is too much of an issue.
Like they've sold very large amounts of Juneau before.
And yes, it does like tank the price like temporarily,
not like, you know, it's a large amount of funds,
but you know, it's a flash crash
and people know that Juneau is valuable
and we've weathered it many times in the past.
I mean, they've already sold like $60 million of Juneau
and so this will just be the last time.
I mean, there's not really too much we can do
about those rewards at the moment.
Maybe, you know, Jaby has some more to add to this,
but yeah, there's like, it's not gonna be possible
to like really, I mean, there's a chance
that they won't move them.
But I think that that's unlikely.
If there's a phase two proposal that comes up,
they're probably gonna wanna be like, okay,
now we're out of here.
But, you know, maybe they won't
because the game theory here,
especially if we do a smart contract approach is,
well, maybe they won't move their funds
because they don't wanna piss off the community
because then the community will vote to burn them, you know?
So who knows exactly how they're gonna behave
like with the prop on the table, but yeah,
there's, we can't really grab those
because we have to wait for the prop to pass.
And so then there's like a five day window
where they can just send it to osmosis or whatever.
But honestly, I-
What is the numbers?
Can anybody, I feel like this is a number
that Jaby might know off the top of his head.
I feel like it's 50K.
It's like-
So they have a little over 100,000 stake rewards
earning about 6,000 a day.
They have around, I think they put 2 million into liquidity.
It's now worth around 4 million.
And then of course there's several other
potentially CCN related accounts that are,
some are definitely, that are also still flush with Juno.
And, you know, this is the one very easy to identify
and remediate case that keeps us sane, if you will,
and not having to sort of go through every module account
and, you know, or not module account,
but every user account and try to address the balances there.
So I think that keeping it limited to what is locked
and staking in terms of what we can safely guarantee
that we will be able to claw back,
gives us a lot of leverage.
And then we get into the game theory,
like Meow was describing with regards to what happens
during the moment of governance.
If they sell it, so be it they sell it,
if they decide to retain it,
I think that will do well for, you know,
keeping the community engaged.
But I think that as they continue to explain things,
we've effectively seen their support,
not gaining traction.
Which was just like the question,
I think we've talked about this privately as well,
like, do you think they've been negotiating in bad faith
or is it just a not comprehending the severity
of the situation they're currently faced with?
So there's a couple of perspectives you can go with this.
You can go at the perspective of,
you started with nothing in Juneau,
you were given something and you gained already from it.
So from that perspective,
I think that's the question that we're trying to get into.
And I think that's the question that we're trying to get into.
You gained already from it. So from that perspective,
like you've already won.
And then the other perspective is I had something amazing.
I had, you know, $120 million and now they're trying to
sort of pull that back from me.
So if you take it from that, you know,
I've already maximized my profits, I want to retain it.
I think that it becomes easy to see
how they want to project,
they have the upper hand throughout this.
I don't know, I feel like I'm using words like them and they,
and not adding a lot of compassion to this.
It is curious, you know, from a,
from the way I see the layout of the chessboard
and the pieces that are in play,
it feels like we're in end game and they're playing like-
If you will, by the way,
what is chessboard that you describe this game of notes?
If you will.
But it really plays more like, like Go,
where it's about surrounding pieces
and trying to capture territory.
And, you know, at any moment that it can sort of flip
between, you know, you're ahead in this game
or you're suddenly, you know, underwater.
So anyway, yeah, I think I sort of rambled on there.
Well, I think that there's a point to be made here about,
given that they are supposed to be a fund
holding their investors funds,
I think there's an argument to be made that
they probably don't have a lot of things on the table
that we might have expected them to bargain with, right?
If I had just been airdropped $125 million,
and I knew that the community was coming for a burn,
I would probably try to negotiate.
I want to keep like 5%.
That's everything else and I'll send it for you.
I got my thing.
But if they're holding someone else's funds,
then they would technically need the permission
of the fund individuals to say,
hey, I'm going, I'm trying to get your funds,
but that means giving away most of it, right?
And for them to have to go back and talk to each person
would be quite a lift, something they're probably doing.
But it means that they aren't able to just come up
with immediate answers, they have to kind of like evolve
through it because they have constituents
that they need to effectively communicate with
and their interests and there's probably even
Japanese laws that they need to adhere to
that means that they don't have to control
to just say burn half and give us the rest, things like that.
Right.
I'm not sure how much they care about the complying
with Japanese laws or their clients.
It's really hard to say.
Yeah, I personally think that, it doesn't really matter
they've whether or not they're doing this
with nefarious intent or not, or why they're doing it.
I don't think they've fully understood the situation here
and that there is not really a core team
they can argue with or deal with.
This is a decentralized community
and ultimately they have to appeal to the community
with what something the community feels
is a viable solution and that could be like,
the reason I like the unity prop is
because it buys more time to come
to that potential viable solution
while still addressing the community's concerns.
So hopefully we'll see something good from them
but perhaps not.
I do think that they've probably could have played their hand
a lot better.
They focused a lot on how poorly Prop 16 was written
and a lot of that drama but I think sort of the discussion
has moved on from there.
And they've talked a lot about,
they haven't really put forward any very many
concrete proposals and they still have time.
There still is time to put forward for them
to put forward like an on chain proposal
that gets voted on.
So we'll see what they do and we've got in the meantime,
phase one of the upgrade with some really cool stuff
coming in and then I think we'll probably wind up
moving forward with hopefully like unity
and yeah, that should get them to the table
to show that they need to make some sort of concessions.
Like people are not gonna just like trust them right away
so that they need to like figure out a proposal
that'll work to like when trust from the community.
I'm actually surprised that they haven't like done like,
let us keep 25% kind of thing or like let us,
you know, there's still like a lot more areas to explore.
But you know, I think the time is ticking
and yeah, we'll see what they come up with.
Like I think what I was worried about
and I think I tweeted about this the other day
is that their optimal negotiating strategy
might just be to stall because if you have
2% of token supply, it's still gonna be worth something
regardless of how much you essentially play out
the hand of everybody else.
Cause there are certainly the kind of,
a lot of people who have skin in the game can't afford
to just watch, you know, essentially a drama
continue for a long period of time.
But then it's also very hard to see how other than a kind
of very short term negotiating strategy,
like if you're trying to wait somebody out
in a contract negotiation, maybe,
but if those people also kind of hold the key to your funds,
just a lot of things about their negotiating strategy
really do not add up if it is indeed
a thought out strategy at all.
And actually back to Schultz's point,
obviously I have no insider evidence on this,
but like my gut feeling tells me that the majority
of people that are involved in whatever investments
they're running do not know about these funds, but some do.
And I do wonder if they're slowness to move
is that they have a few big people behind the scenes
who have an opinion, but the majority of people,
they don't have any idea.
And that's why they could table the 50-50,
because it's like, well, the 50% that goes to the Juno
community comes out the small fish,
and then the people that we would have to go around
and individually ask them their funds are protected.
It feels like that kind of a fudge.
But yeah, I mean, I'm also curious as to why,
when that received hostility, the other question is then,
yeah, why don't you then go down to 25, 75?
Unless I guess the question is like the community,
I think quite strongly reacted to it as a bribe as well,
which, you know, a bribe is a bribe, right?
It doesn't matter whether it's 75% or 50%,
like it's gonna get rejected either way, right?
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, what we've seen generally is that
we started with clawing back 90%.
We then progressed to clawing back 50K.
We have talked about burning all.
We've talked about unity, where over the course of time,
there's a path in which they receive all the Juno.
There are options for remediating further
in the unity proposal.
So why haven't anyone submitted like an upgrade proposal?
Well, because we do wanna still evaluate
and consider the different options that are available.
Yes, Prop 16 passed,
but we all agree on some level it was deeply flawed.
And so how can we prevent?
There's these three opposing forces
that are working in concert with one another
in directly oppositional paths.
And so we're in this deadlock.
And so how do we navigate this in such a way that we all win?
And it seems like unity is the best option forward.
It might be worth talking about
like why a software upgrade proposal is necessary
to get this to happen.
And please correct me if I'm wrong,
but my understanding is the reason why
a software upgrade is necessary
is because during an upgrade, state changes can happen.
This has actually happened previously with the Somalia chain.
But aside from that one instance,
you can't alter the state of the chain.
Is that correct?
No, you can.
And that's kind of why it has to be done through an upgrade.
When you make a big breaking change
to like a native Cosmos SDK module, well, state changes.
And so they actually built this feature
to make upgrades like more seamless and easy
so they could happen via on-chain votes.
But it's kind of had this unintended side effect is like,
oh, wow, we can like control state there.
Like we can kind of do whatever we want.
And so yeah, I think that a feature that was built
to make upgrades easier actually has this like other,
like, you know, some other consequence to it.
Like, but yeah, the whole point was...
It's a bit of an Adam Curtis documentary type situation,
isn't it, where it's like, you know,
the devs built this feature
and they thought they were just making their lives easier.
But this was a fantasy.
Well, the other option is that we forego
a software upgrade proposal.
We get all the validators, all 120, is it 125 on Juno?
We get all the validators to agree
that we're gonna set a halt height at 2.5,
you know, block 2.5 million.
And so once that comes around, everyone stops,
everyone installs the new Juno and then starts again.
But coordinating that and ensuring that everyone upgrades
is very difficult and it can end up
creating a situation where the chain halts
because people don't see that the consensus is progressing
during that upgrade.
And so it gets very dangerous.
So the software upgrade proposal is basically setting
the halt height for everyone at the same time
when the government's proposals succeeds
and preventing the chain from proceeding without, you know,
at least a modicum of checking that says,
are you running the latest?
And so it's not a perfect system,
but it definitely avoids the halt height debacle
where some chains even recently have halted.
Oh yeah, it's so much nicer.
I mean, I don't know if you guys remember
like the early like Cosmos Hub upgrades
where like the number changed each time,
like Cosmos Hub 2 to Cosmos Hub 3,
Cosmos Hub 3 to Cosmos Hub 4.
It was like those were, you know,
the auto upgrade stuff is an amazing tool,
but you know, with it comes this like sort of like ability
to like, you know, rewrite state.
And that was a needed feature
because oftentimes when you need an upgrade,
it's because, you know, some breaking change happened
in the state somewhere, like,
and you needed to migrate that.
And so yeah, you know, I think this comes down
to like a lot of the discussions we've been having around this
of like the need to improve, you know,
our governance standards,
thinking about things like on-chain constitutions,
just evolving our governance processes.
You know, those are longer conversations.
And I know the whale has like posted a lot about like,
oh, we need a constitution.
There needs to be like some sort of like, you know, due process,
but the constitution is sort of the consensus
of the community.
And you know, the community would have to,
I do think it comes down to like sort of stalling,
which is good for them,
at least in this phase of the game theory,
when they're earning staking rewards,
they have all the incentives, you know, to want to stall
and like, you know, try to make themselves look good
by like advocating for, oh, we need to like create
a constitution first before we like, you know,
take this drastic measure, but it's, you know,
there's nothing to stop the community from,
like especially now that the code is out there,
like someone could like literally just like,
anyone could just like post this, you know.
It's like, and it's, the community has like been very loud
and vocal that something needs to happen here.
In many ways, like I'm kind of surprised
that the whale did not go just for the unity proposal
out of like just trying to like show like good faith.
And yeah, at the other day,
they don't really have too much of a choice.
Like consensus is ultimately social consensus.
And like the large majority of the community believes
that action needs to be taken.
So yeah, I tend to agree, especially with how much effort
they put into getting game going,
you would think they'd spend more time trying to improve
the goodwill of the community.
Because if they're not trying to make any inroads
with the general community,
that then expands to Osmosis community
and Cosmos community.
And so people are, they're not gonna feel
as much incentive to go join game.
And I feel like that's a conversation
that they haven't really addressed too much,
but I found very interesting.
I don't know if they're trying to distance themselves
as much from it as much as possible,
but they are in effect game.
So goodwill against the whale or badwill for the whale
is more or less badwill for game.
And it seems like they are remissed for not addressing that.
Yeah, I think it's a missed opportunity on their part.
Like, yeah, I think in hindsight,
or if I could just argue from the whales perspective
for a little bit, like the best thing to do
is to like engage the community
and figure out some, like explore different plans
of actions for solving the core problems.
Like they have to give up their funds.
And so like, you know, and there's more of the
there's more.
Honestly, they're only the only thing,
the only thing they've been able to do
since the Unity prop was was put on the table,
that has been the only game in town.
And that's really obvious, right?
It's fundamentally pretty obvious.
Like, it's Unity prop or burn, right?
And burn is incredibly difficult to pass
for a variety of reasons.
So, stalling the Unity prop is the only way
you've got Riggle Room out of burn
if you don't like the Unity prop.
But it doesn't change the fact that the Unity prop
is your only way out, which is the bit I don't get.
Like, I get that there, that the stalling tactic is logical
in for some definition of logical,
but there's no end game to it.
Like it's not a it's a short-sighted tactic.
And that's been the weirdest thing for me
is watching this play out.
It's just going like, yeah, like,
putting aside all the stuff about game,
which is like, you know, the Cosmos community
is largely the same group of people.
You know, if you poison the well,
you poison the well, right?
So that's a big negative for their entire
negotiating strategy.
But also, if you intend to walk away
with any of your Juno, then you should have
taken the Unity prop.
Yeah, it's pretty weird.
So anyway, we were going to kind of keep this to about,
we were originally trying to keep this to about half an hour,
but we've ended up, we seem to like just sort of,
our default length is about 50 minutes,
and they were like, oh, it's 50 minutes on the clock.
We should probably start thinking about wrapping up.
So, yeah, we basically wanted to just talk about
looping area phase one, what the Unity prop is
and how it actually works.
And, you know, the work Joe's been doing
with the testing and stuff for looping area phase two,
and why that's important so far,
like important for all of the different strategies.
Hopefully that has now been done partly,
and well, largely due to Joe's excellent flowchart making.
Is there anything else we'd like to say
on this before we wrap up?
If there's any other, I'll flick back through the comments
and just see if there's anything super pressing.
I think the most important thing is that we have all,
at one point or another, changed our mind
about a conclusion that we've come up to or made,
and sometimes very publicly,
and have learned that you're wrong,
and then admitted that you're wrong,
and made a change to, you know, choose a new path
or a path that you had previously closed.
I know I've done that myself.
You've all seen it in me shutting down my validator
and then being like, wait, nope,
this is gonna cause more harm.
Let me turn it back on.
So while we say that they've rejected it,
you know, that they rejected unity,
I think there's still the opportunity to accept it.
I think there's the opportunity to realize
that there is time that it affords,
and that we can't continue to discuss and proceed.
I know I've had some terse,
succinct comments about, you know,
we're done talking about it,
but I totally understand that this is a non-trivial
problem to solve.
Yeah, and, you know, at the end of the day,
they're probably just gonna be forced into unity.
It doesn't really matter if they accepted it or not,
but I think it would be better for them,
and also better for us if they did,
because then it's like, that's actually,
I think, you know, kind of adds a lot more legitimacy
to what we're doing, you know?
And I think people were, a lot of people were confused of,
like, let's just kill the whale,
like, why are they, like, involved at all?
Like, well, first of all, the community has full power,
which is why the whale is, like,
probably hesitant to, you know,
place themselves in a situation where the whale,
or where the community has full power.
But, you know, they're involved to, like,
give, to make us look better,
and so, like, you know, make it so that people see
that Juno is, like, you know,
evolving its own governance procedures,
like, really quickly,
and doing things in a very thoughtful, considerate way.
Loh.
Three heads are better than one.
Three heads are better than one, but, you know.
It's the 4D chess move we've all been missing.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, yes, I think we're all on the same page,
like, we just really like,
it would be really, really nice if we could have
unity not enforced,
but the reality is that at this stage,
the most likely thing to pass is probably unity,
and it's most likely that it will be enforced,
and that means...
I think it's most likely that the community will vote
to burn the whale after it's in the smart contract,
you know, but then that happens.
Speaking of something burning,
I think I smell something in the oven.
Go, go.
So, I guess just to fully recap then,
the probable fate, for anybody who's joined Superlate,
what's probably gonna happen now,
Lupikelia phase one,
who gets the mark contracts with Pseudo,
Unity Prop, which involves smart contract,
and Unity Prop launches the upgrade,
which is Lupikelia part two, which moves the funds,
and the time scale for this is probably next week,
testing period then next week,
so 10 to 14 days.
That sound about right, Meow?
Yep, I think it's about 10 to 14 days,
and then this whole CCN saga will be,
I think, largely resolved, you know.
There might be, you know, some follow on proposals,
but I think there'll be a lot less dramatic
because the main problem of the whale
having too much voting power,
and selling staking rewards,
and getting staking rewards, that will be resolved.
And so, hopefully the coming, any future debates,
oh, that looks delicious.
They're supposed to be waffle fries,
they are waffle burnt.
Good crisp.
I guess you're just practicing, you know?
Yeah, just practicing.
I took that joke from Callum Anderson in the comments,
so, you know.
Ah.
Yeah, I thought that was an original.
No, no.
And you've also just docked Callum
on the Spotify version of this as well.
Oh, wow.
Sensational.
Okay, well, I was gonna say,
should we sign this off with something positive
from you, Jake,
because we'll all be doing this again
on our regular slot when it's not extra credit,
but what we always round off the show
is something that we're excited about for the next week.
So would you like to round up the show
by telling us something you're excited about
from the next week?
Anywhere in the cosmos.
So you can also plug Stargaze
if you would like to plug Stargaze.
Yeah, I mean, I'm excited for everything
happening in the cosmos.
There we go.
Now, I mean, okay, seriously, I'm excited for the upgrade.
Like, this is gonna be really, really cool.
It's a big moment for Juno,
like some nice performance improvements
and security stuff.
And it's like giving governance,
like the community,
like real governance control over smart contracts
is gonna, I think, lead to some next gen stuff.
Like we're gonna do some things as a community
that no community will have like ever done before.
And that, I mean, how can you not be excited about that?
Yeah, it's pretty rad.
Okay, on that note, I think we're out.
Thanks for joining us, Jake, Meow.
And thanks for all your hard work, Jabby.
I think we all need to say thank you
for all your hard work behind the scenes
with the flow charts in front of the scenes on Twitter.
And for all the shade you've been throwing
in the last 24 hours,
it's been very, very funny to watch.
And here's hoping we get all of our upgrades out
and rolling in the next sort of 10 to 14 days
and put this behind us, eh?
Yeah, that's awesome.
Right, party on, everybody.