1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,400
We should do something. Somebody should say, I think we found out who Popmos is. It's, and then we kick it off.

2
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:14,640
Welcome to Game of Nodes, a weekly podcast on the cosmos from independent validated teams.

3
00:00:19,840 --> 00:00:28,160
Hello, and welcome to Game of Nodes, the weekly podcast on the cosmos from independent validators

4
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:34,000
where every single episode we're looking for more and more extreme ways to troll other people

5
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:42,960
with how we open the show. Sorry, you just got caught. So thanks for joining us. Also,

6
00:00:42,960 --> 00:00:47,280
thanks to the number of people that we've got a lot of feedback as well for episode 2.5, which we

7
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:53,200
kind of did off the hoof as a result of the feedback we got from episode 2. So also lots of

8
00:00:53,200 --> 00:00:57,120
thank yous to everybody that's been checking these out, giving us feedback, giving us comments,

9
00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:02,400
and also suggesting topics. We're going to probably talk about a couple of things that

10
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:07,840
have been thrown our way a little bit further down the show, some stuff around smart contracts.

11
00:01:07,840 --> 00:01:13,920
And should I be signing these things, TLDR, do your own research? But first, we're going to do

12
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:21,120
our regular session. Noel, do you want to take over here? Yeah, so I guess I'll start. So the

13
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:25,520
regular question to start out each week is the dumbest thing you've seen in crypto this week.

14
00:01:25,520 --> 00:01:31,120
And while this might not be the dumbest thing I've ever seen, it was this week. And that was the

15
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:39,680
triple launch, or the triple fail to launch in Kraft, unfortunately, this week resulted in

16
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:45,040
trying the same Genesis at different times, three times, which resulted in, well, initially,

17
00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:51,360
we did get it booted on the first Genesis, but then it all of the vote power was with one

18
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:57,440
validator, which didn't appear to work. And everyone got jailed. And then we shut that down and tried

19
00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:05,440
again. But without everybody on board at another time, that was very short after the announcement,

20
00:02:06,160 --> 00:02:12,560
and not enough vote. And so that went on a few days, and then tried another one, which resulted

21
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:20,080
in not enough vote, and fail to launch new Genesis, this time with another network ID.

22
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:30,800
So, you know, that's a step forward. So I guess moving around the room then, so maybe Shiltsy

23
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:39,280
to go in order of the pictures on the screen. Yeah, I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the

24
00:02:40,240 --> 00:02:45,680
Cosmos Lend air drop that's happening right now. They put a tweet where they want validators to

25
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:50,080
basically market for them. And they're going to do, I want to say they're going to air drop to

26
00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:54,960
seven validators, only seven, the seven with the best marketing scheme. And I have pretty strong

27
00:02:54,960 --> 00:03:00,800
opinions about, you know, people giving delegations to validators over an air drop. Now I say that,

28
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:06,880
but I say that, you know, I get some of the craft bonus for my for my atom validators. So I guess

29
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:11,440
I'm, I don't know, talking crap to myself, but I'm not a huge fan of that. I think it's done.

30
00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:18,080
That's what I've got for the week. So you said, but you got anything for us this week? I don't

31
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:23,280
think so. Just to defend the the the craft team, maybe not defending, but the the challenges of

32
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:27,120
test nets have been getting more and more, I think they've been getting worse over time, like in

33
00:03:27,120 --> 00:03:31,360
this last few months, it seems. So I think the groups are too big and they want diversity and

34
00:03:31,360 --> 00:03:34,640
validators, which I totally agree with, right? You want to be able to bring people in, especially

35
00:03:34,640 --> 00:03:38,080
folks who are not running this professionally and just want to give them the opportunity to run

36
00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:44,880
nodes. That's how I got in, right? So I totally get it. But when you have 60 or 70 or 120 validators

37
00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:49,200
and they're global, and we kind of pick a time and then we make a mistake and then we have a

38
00:03:49,200 --> 00:03:55,040
last minute get, you know, get change on a, on a whatever it is, right? We're going to change that

39
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:59,280
last minute, we're going to change the, the network ID or something similar to that. It just, it's

40
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:03,920
difficult. So I think this last one, I mean, they're going to think they started with this last

41
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:06,880
this last row around, which I thought was the right way to do it. But they started with the,

42
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:11,200
they had GenTex and they had all the kind of coins from the original GenTex that they did.

43
00:04:11,200 --> 00:04:15,120
And then they started with five validators to say, okay, we'll get it going. And once it's going,

44
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:19,680
then we'll let people do a create and bring them in. And then one of the five disappeared. And so

45
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:23,360
they're right back to where they started where they didn't ever know. So it was an A for effort on

46
00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:29,120
that. But I think that, that, I think we've seen, we've seen a lot of challenges with just getting

47
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:34,160
test nets off the ground, right? Yeah, I'd mention main nets, not calling out anybody in particular,

48
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:39,760
but so yeah, I mean, yeah, I'm not, I'm not hacking on craft at all. But like,

49
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:46,640
I think probably it's important if you have a failed, fail to launch, then it's important to

50
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:51,680
iterate the, the chain ID, because you get so many, you know, old nodes trying to connect,

51
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:56,960
everything gets confused. And then it just doesn't work. So I think that's a good lesson for anyone

52
00:04:56,960 --> 00:05:04,000
trying to run a test net. If you get a fail to launch, just iterate the ID and re-collect GenTex

53
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:08,240
if you're going to use five people and they're there, just get a GenTex and, and pull them in

54
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:14,000
and start a new network ID. Yeah. Jaby, did you want to talk to us, man? Or did you want to,

55
00:05:15,040 --> 00:05:24,240
you're driving? No, I got it. So the dumbest thing that I saw in crypto is actually a historical

56
00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:38,480
relic. Katie, here we guys. Yeah. Yeah, man. So to make a long story short, in pre-proto

57
00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:46,800
buff JSON days, there was a certain set of messages that you could send to Cosmos chains to do

58
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:52,160
different actions. And then once Proto Buff was introduced, some of those messages got renamed.

59
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:59,680
And so my team and I spent, I don't know, at least 48 hours trying to debug something. And it turns

60
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:08,320
out that the Proto Buff form of message delegator, withdrawal reward is message delegator, withdrawal

61
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:16,720
reward. But the Amino JSON is message delegation, withdrawal reward. And so I had been encoding

62
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:23,840
it wrong. And we found out that there was this delta. So, you know, if you're going to do

63
00:06:23,840 --> 00:06:30,880
backwards compatibility or something like that, you need to go back and check the messages.

64
00:06:31,600 --> 00:06:41,760
Yeah. Yeah, I guess it was between V03.39 and 0.40. But that was a fun one. That was fun.

65
00:06:41,760 --> 00:06:49,520
Well, they say assumptions, the mother of all fuckups, right? Yeah. So we're kind of losing

66
00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:53,840
a little bit there. I'm not 100% sure where the hell he is or what the hell he's doing. But

67
00:06:54,560 --> 00:07:01,680
he's definitely going out of his way to be with us today. We've had no explanation from

68
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:07,040
where he is or what he's doing. He just showed up in a car on the phone with someone else in the car

69
00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:15,760
now. And I just in a van, it's a large passenger van. I'm giving out free candy. It's totally

70
00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:27,280
normal. Oh, yeah. There's another nondescript person in the vehicle. It's okay. Yeah. Oh,

71
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:34,720
get out. There you go. There was me like, there was me like all worried before this show. I had

72
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:40,640
that there was some I'm at my parents' place and there were some photos of people in my wider

73
00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:45,200
family behind me. And I was like, I can't dox these people and Jaby's just in the car with his

74
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:50,800
family. And Null's obviously pointing to the family cow picture. That's a car.

75
00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:55,280
That's a big tradition in Australia, of course. For those of you listening on podcast players,

76
00:07:55,280 --> 00:08:01,040
Null is pointing a picture of the cow who's behind him. And also Jaby has somebody in the car with

77
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:05,680
him. Oh, and Jaby is in a car. That's probably also not obvious if you're not watching the YouTube

78
00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:13,840
stream. So we still haven't finished going around the room. And I guess now is a good time to introduce

79
00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:23,600
our guest this week, which is Ghost from Whispernode. Tried to join last week, but had some issues with

80
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:32,240
the hardware for the stream. So joining us this week instead. And actually, it's perfect because

81
00:08:32,240 --> 00:08:38,560
now we have six because Jack's unable to join us this week. But Ghost mate, did you have something

82
00:08:38,560 --> 00:08:42,320
a little bit crazy, a little bit stupid you saw in the cosmos this week?

83
00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:52,560
Definitely. Cerberus proposal number two. Dude, just straight up asking like we adjust. And when

84
00:08:52,560 --> 00:08:57,920
I say we I mean chill validation and we were working on proposal one. It was my first proposal ever.

85
00:08:58,560 --> 00:09:02,160
I don't know about his. We pushed it live and literally hour and a half later,

86
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:08,080
someone pushed his proposal to live like, Hey, I am cute mouse. Give me money.

87
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:13,920
Something to that effect. And that was prop to like straight up hour and a half later.

88
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:16,080
And I was like, awesome way to start the chain guys.

89
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:19,920
Decentralization, man. Yeah, forgot about that. Yeah.

90
00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:25,440
Yeah. So I think the total cost to make a server is, you know,

91
00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:28,720
prop at the moment is probably what like two bucks.

92
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:36,080
It's 150,000 servers, which comes out to like 30 bucks, 40 bucks. Yeah. And unfortunately, the

93
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:41,920
teams hadn't had their native wallet finished yet. So they told everyone to go to the bit song

94
00:09:41,920 --> 00:09:45,920
wallet, which allows you to make text proposals right through it. So someone figured that out

95
00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:54,400
really quick and there you go. Here we go. There you go. So, you know, and we just dox that fact

96
00:09:54,400 --> 00:10:00,560
as well. So at least what the 10 people something watching this live right now could immediately

97
00:10:00,560 --> 00:10:07,120
go. Well, there you go. Don't do it. Anybody can create a proposal. Maybe some are going to

98
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:11,040
create a proposal to increase the amount required to make a proposal.

99
00:10:11,040 --> 00:10:16,400
That's the whole, he did get no with Vita though. So

100
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:21,280
yeah, well, that's that's what it's there for to lose your 30 bucks.

101
00:10:24,160 --> 00:10:31,040
Huge risk. So I guess I wouldn't mind circling back around to what Shiltsi started talking about

102
00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:37,600
with just briefly like the the cause. Can I go with the dumbest thing I've seen this week?

103
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:41,680
Oh, I miss you. Yeah. Shit. We did actually miss you.

104
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:48,720
It's fine. But this is actually it's not quite from this week. But and I don't mean to like

105
00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:56,320
just like stick the boots in or what is it you say now shovel? No. What's the slime that you use?

106
00:10:57,120 --> 00:10:59,920
No, for like for like sticking it into somebody for giving them a kick in.

107
00:10:59,920 --> 00:11:09,200
Oh, shit. I don't know. Twisted knife. No, it was like some like shoveling shoveling shit raking.

108
00:11:11,040 --> 00:11:16,080
Right. Well, anyway, it's gonna it's gonna it's lost the mystery. So anyway, so

109
00:11:17,600 --> 00:11:22,000
obviously found out about a little while ago and I thought it was a joke that the next Cosmo

110
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:30,480
first Cosmos conference is gonna be in Colombia. And I kind of just like sort of ignored that.

111
00:11:30,480 --> 00:11:35,200
I was like that can't be real. And then no, it really is true. And it was 100% confirmed to me

112
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:41,840
this week. And I was like, okay, like no disrespect to the team Cosmo first and this one was amazing.

113
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:47,040
It was really good time. Met some incredible people had a great time. We're totally love to

114
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:54,480
go to another one. But Jesus Christ, I'm not going to Colombia with a target painted on my back.

115
00:11:58,240 --> 00:12:02,240
So that that that is the most that is the most literally how do you really feel about Columbia?

116
00:12:02,240 --> 00:12:06,800
I think I literally stick took my tea when I was like, no, no, legit, that is where it is.

117
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:12,800
I was like, cool. Yeah. As I said to them, I'm quite happily anonymously go backpacking there.

118
00:12:12,800 --> 00:12:18,240
Not a problem. It probably is a really, really good time. I've been back packing in

119
00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:24,240
South Central America before, but I wouldn't go to a big room advertised as this big room

120
00:12:24,240 --> 00:12:29,840
will be full of crypto nerds who may or may not 100% understand what a big target.

121
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:36,640
No way. You know, someone said you're actually probably wanted this.

122
00:12:36,640 --> 00:12:42,480
Have you been backpacking there before the fray?

123
00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:53,200
I'm not wanted in any jurisdiction I know of, but a friend of mine got had to get smuggled

124
00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:58,960
across the border to Panama, I think from Costa Rica once because of it's too complicated to

125
00:12:58,960 --> 00:13:03,040
even explain why it was basically a misunderstanding, but they did have to get smuggled across the

126
00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:09,040
border and somebody I know got thrown out of Bordeaux like as in escorted to the border and just

127
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:12,240
booted like Homer Simpson style into the adjacent country.

128
00:13:13,760 --> 00:13:17,120
Well, neither of those things were me. I just want to clarify, neither of those were me.

129
00:13:17,120 --> 00:13:18,080
They were people I know.

130
00:13:22,880 --> 00:13:24,800
Alex, you're wanted in this jurisdiction.

131
00:13:25,680 --> 00:13:28,960
Yeah, man. You're wanted. We want you. We wanted right here.

132
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:33,680
That's kind of wholesome. I like that.

133
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:36,880
It's a holistically wholesome show.

134
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:39,520
It's a holistically wholesome show. Speaking of holistically wholesome,

135
00:13:39,520 --> 00:13:42,240
should we loop back to you wanted to loop back to Schultz's point?

136
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:47,280
Yeah, well, I think like Schultz's point is quite relevant at the moment.

137
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:51,840
I guess it's worth talking about and I guess we're all guilty.

138
00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:59,840
Well, actually, we're not all guilty, but some of us here are guilty of being on the train of

139
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:09,360
delegations for airdrops. I'm guilty, King drop, but I knocked that on the head shortly after

140
00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:15,200
actually announcing that and just took a snapshot because I realized like how damaging it is to

141
00:14:15,200 --> 00:14:23,760
other validators. Schultz briefly touched on craft, but craft is a little bit different in that,

142
00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:31,360
yes, there are bonuses for some validators, but they are also doing an airdrop to the vast

143
00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:39,600
majority of people in any case. The bonus isn't that huge. I'm involved in that and I think

144
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:46,560
Schultz is involved with that and Rino, are you? I'm not sure if you and Javier are. The trade

145
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:52,000
actually dealing with various shit like that except for dealing in the various things like that.

146
00:14:53,680 --> 00:14:58,480
Yeah, and I want to make the point that I don't think that Cosmos Lend, I think it's going to be

147
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:04,560
great product. I hope it's going to be great product. And I don't think that then only airdropping

148
00:15:04,560 --> 00:15:10,960
to seven validators will dam the project. It's just a direction that I don't see being a positive

149
00:15:10,960 --> 00:15:15,520
direction for the ecosystem to go. It starts with airdrops of tokens and then it goes to

150
00:15:15,520 --> 00:15:21,360
NFTs, which we're starting to see more and more. Unity Chaos has them saying that they are giving

151
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:26,800
empty airdrops. What's going to be after that? I don't know, but as we're seeing, it's always

152
00:15:26,800 --> 00:15:32,720
escalating. And to then escalate to only seven validators, that to me is just it's not the way

153
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:39,040
to go. Yeah, I don't fully understand why they've done that. It doesn't really make any sense to me.

154
00:15:39,040 --> 00:15:42,400
If you want to bootstrap a project, you want to get it out to as many people as you can.

155
00:15:42,400 --> 00:15:47,680
And I don't see the sense for their project in selecting seven validators, whether it's to have

156
00:15:47,680 --> 00:15:52,880
them all fighting over Twitter for a bloody recognition of the project. So they can be one

157
00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:58,320
of the seven validators. But I tweeted yesterday, like, how do I get involved with the project?

158
00:15:58,320 --> 00:16:04,080
And then like, saw what you had to do. And now I just I'm not going to get involved with it. So

159
00:16:04,080 --> 00:16:10,640
sorry to any of my delegators, but it's just it's going in a bad direction and we don't want to

160
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:16,960
encourage it. So yeah, so I mean, also, I guess, like, I got a bit of indirect shade there, because

161
00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:22,880
obviously, like with the name service, we are actually okay, I need to choose my words a tiny

162
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:33,200
bit carefully here, because there is a team that are going to do an airdrop for users of that service.

163
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:41,360
But also there, I obviously don't want to give away the exact criteria that, you know, mean

164
00:16:41,360 --> 00:16:47,840
eligibility or whatever. Like, but I will say that like, the way that a lot of the early doors

165
00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:55,120
stuff was done with like validators just dropping to their delegators and stuff like definitely

166
00:16:55,120 --> 00:17:00,720
influenced us in terms of thinking about like, what behavior are we incentivizing here. And,

167
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:05,920
you know, something, I mean, it's something that we actually, we publicly said a couple of times

168
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:10,800
as well around it was that we don't want to incentivize people just buy a load of names,

169
00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:16,800
because that's also just filling up a namespace from and preventing people who will come along

170
00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:22,000
later and actually want to name to build a project on top of or use for some other thing that we

171
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:27,040
haven't thought of. So that's kind of like an anti-pattern. And so, you know, we sort of like,

172
00:17:27,040 --> 00:17:31,520
well, you know, the eligibility criteria are going to be like, hopefully harder to game,

173
00:17:31,520 --> 00:17:37,120
it's not going to be just a validator, it's going to be more general. If there is any wider drop

174
00:17:37,120 --> 00:17:43,920
than just to users, and, you know, you probably shouldn't just buy a load of names, that probably

175
00:17:43,920 --> 00:17:47,840
is not a thing you should do. And yet, like, you know, some people, and it's cool, you know,

176
00:17:47,840 --> 00:17:51,120
if they want to do that, that's fine. A couple of times, if I spend money, and if they like the

177
00:17:51,120 --> 00:17:56,080
project or if it gives them advice, that's cool. But designing an airdrop is really hard. It's

178
00:17:56,080 --> 00:18:01,200
basically what I learned from that. And if we've learned anything from Prop 16, it's that, yeah,

179
00:18:01,200 --> 00:18:05,120
it's like even harder than you could possibly imagine, right? What if I bought a bunch of

180
00:18:05,120 --> 00:18:09,840
names across 50 wallets and then later combine them under one wall? Would that be more?

181
00:18:09,840 --> 00:18:16,160
Completely except too soon? I was talking to Shane about this the other day because

182
00:18:17,360 --> 00:18:22,080
this was, this is how much time was flowing. This must have actually been more like 14 days ago.

183
00:18:22,080 --> 00:18:25,760
It's just that it feels like yesterday to me because I haven't slept in like 14 days,

184
00:18:26,800 --> 00:18:32,080
as my crazy eyes will probably tell you. But I was kind of trying to catch Shane from Stargaze

185
00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:39,760
up on the drama. And he was like, Oh, you know, you kind of do want to restrict something, something,

186
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:44,080
something. And I was like, Shane, I'm going to just love with you right now. I have, I have bought,

187
00:18:44,080 --> 00:18:48,080
I have breached the token limit on some of your NFT projects by switching projects,

188
00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:54,640
burn me at the stake. So yeah, I think we all, I think most people here have done the same thing,

189
00:18:54,640 --> 00:18:59,760
have bought stars using multiple wallets, right? No, I don't let you talk about

190
00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:05,360
that. Well, I have on the a drop for them. I don't just bought pictures that I liked.

191
00:19:07,440 --> 00:19:15,440
Yeah. Has anybody, we all, we all liked into the star, the stargaze Genesis NFTs, didn't we?

192
00:19:15,440 --> 00:19:23,200
But yeah, yeah, but like, I just bought as many as I could. I have a card in the follow up ones.

193
00:19:23,200 --> 00:19:29,360
I have a huge in IBC friends. I missed IBC friends. Send me one. I'll send you like that.

194
00:19:29,360 --> 00:19:35,120
I've got a number of six right now. I ended up trading like I used part of my airdrop, bought

195
00:19:35,120 --> 00:19:40,400
a couple of really low rank ones or, you know, like high rank jump ones, whatever, and just started

196
00:19:40,400 --> 00:19:48,160
hustling my way up. And now I have like a rank six, a rank 200 and something else. So, and then

197
00:19:48,160 --> 00:19:53,520
they're coming out with their next wave. So they're going to do 5,000 more. And I think in

198
00:19:53,520 --> 00:20:01,520
April, I'm not mistaken. Something like that. So there's 5,000 more coming. But yeah, that's a cool

199
00:20:01,520 --> 00:20:09,200
one. Nice. So we might be having some audio issues here. Someone's saying that they can't hear us.

200
00:20:10,080 --> 00:20:14,560
We did hear that. Anyway, I saw that. Yeah. The only person I can't hear

201
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:18,640
properly is your surface. So man, hit your loud. Really? Yeah. Like when you put your

202
00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:24,720
mouth right up to it again, when you're eating it, but still a little bit quiet, man. Okay. Thank you.

203
00:20:25,920 --> 00:20:35,360
So I guess, yeah, I mean, there's not just, it's not just people doing that one thing either. Like,

204
00:20:35,360 --> 00:20:39,600
there's a lot of that type of practice across at the moment. And I get it, like people are trying

205
00:20:39,600 --> 00:20:48,560
to attract delegations to their validators. But I guess what kind of gets lost during all

206
00:20:48,560 --> 00:20:56,400
of this is that maybe people don't consider before they re-delegate, like what the person

207
00:20:56,400 --> 00:21:01,600
that they're re-delegating from or the company or the validator that they're re-delegating from

208
00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:07,040
actually is providing for the ecosystem, whether or not they're giving away a free Nifty or whatever,

209
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:16,160
or a token. Are they actually supporting the ecosystem that is controlling all of this?

210
00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:22,400
Is what are they doing to help it? And maybe consider, are you going to a validator that's

211
00:21:22,400 --> 00:21:28,000
providing any value whatsoever to the network, or are they just giving something away or

212
00:21:28,720 --> 00:21:36,560
helping you compound your rewards? So I just think there's people need to sort of

213
00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:41,520
start considering more things than just jumping around from airdrop to airdrop.

214
00:21:41,520 --> 00:21:51,120
And a lot of them are not really valuable. So I think the flip side of that question is,

215
00:21:51,120 --> 00:21:55,760
well, what are good ways you can market yourself as a validator that don't involve

216
00:21:56,560 --> 00:22:03,600
those kinds of strategies? Let's take a step back and say, you want to enter a validator set with

217
00:22:03,600 --> 00:22:09,840
potentially a lower self-stake, how do you then market yourself? I will be a more acceptable

218
00:22:09,840 --> 00:22:15,760
way in your opinion to market. Yeah, and it's hard to capture the attention of people,

219
00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:21,840
especially when you're starting out. And it takes a long time to build a social following around

220
00:22:21,840 --> 00:22:32,160
your validator. And it's tough when you start losing them to other things, to projects that

221
00:22:32,160 --> 00:22:42,400
aren't providing any value to the networks. So you lose them in the hope that they'll come back,

222
00:22:42,400 --> 00:22:55,120
but you kind of just consider them gone when they're gone, don't you? But hopefully, as everything

223
00:22:55,120 --> 00:23:03,040
develops and goes on, people start to make more considerations and try to consider where they're

224
00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:10,160
going to. I know back when Juno launched, lots of people came into the chats and they're like,

225
00:23:10,160 --> 00:23:17,360
who should we delegate to? And a lot of the admins and stuff in there were saying,

226
00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:24,960
things along the lines of delegate to people who do relaying or delegate to people who provide

227
00:23:24,960 --> 00:23:30,320
RPCs or are involved with development because they're actively trying to help the chain

228
00:23:31,680 --> 00:23:38,640
or tooling or this and that. Which was good to see, but now people, I don't see the question

229
00:23:39,600 --> 00:23:44,240
as much anymore. It's all based around Twitter and where the hype is.

230
00:23:44,240 --> 00:23:52,400
Yeah, RPC and Relayers I think is a big one. As somebody who has a scumbag and doesn't run RPCs

231
00:23:52,400 --> 00:24:00,800
or Relayers. What a lage. I mean, I probably should be starting to run RPCs really, but it's

232
00:24:00,800 --> 00:24:08,800
just one of those like, how many hours do I have in a day? Things so sorry, not sorry, I guess,

233
00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:13,360
but it is definitely a thing where I kind of look when I'm looking to delegate

234
00:24:14,800 --> 00:24:19,120
funds that I have somewhere where I'm like, who's running RPCs? Because that seems to me like

235
00:24:19,120 --> 00:24:25,440
a kind of quite, it's a place where you can quite easily get into a tragedy of the commons,

236
00:24:25,440 --> 00:24:31,360
especially when you have things like smart contract chains where I mean, the thing that

237
00:24:31,360 --> 00:24:38,400
people have been talking about recently is the usage of I think Fortis is really, really RPC hungry

238
00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:46,000
and it kind of hammers the RPC. And obviously, that's been a really popular airdrop recently.

239
00:24:46,000 --> 00:24:50,960
So, there's situations like that where there are people running RPC nodes, so I'm seeing maybe

240
00:24:52,640 --> 00:24:56,640
a return proportional to the amount of effort they're putting into running those RPCs. But then,

241
00:24:57,120 --> 00:25:03,280
I don't run them myself. So I guess I can't speak to exactly how complex and how much

242
00:25:03,280 --> 00:25:07,040
extra maintenance running those is on top of running a validator. I think maybe Ysirpa would

243
00:25:07,040 --> 00:25:11,680
have some thoughts on that. I don't know if I, go ahead. Go ahead, Dylan. Okay, I was going to add

244
00:25:11,680 --> 00:25:14,800
really quick that one thing that's pretty interesting about this conversation is that

245
00:25:14,800 --> 00:25:20,160
I've talked to quite a few people who have done chain analysis on this and being a relayer,

246
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:26,720
being an RPC provider, it basically gives you zero new delegations, basically nothing. The only way

247
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:33,120
you get delegations by doing it is by speaking to the teams directly. And that can be quite effective.

248
00:25:34,640 --> 00:25:40,640
Certainly, like in Secret's case it is, Mujuno's case it is, but all in all, like running those

249
00:25:40,640 --> 00:25:47,920
services is very thankless. And so I guess the point in front I make is that, one, I absolutely

250
00:25:47,920 --> 00:25:55,600
agree that those people deserve the support, but unfortunately, two, they don't get that support.

251
00:25:55,600 --> 00:26:00,480
So like Osmosis, they put up an article like last week or two weeks ago, the support team did

252
00:26:01,040 --> 00:26:05,440
about relayers and kind of supporting and provide them. And there was basically no

253
00:26:05,440 --> 00:26:09,680
delegation change that happened, even though they spent all this time getting this data together and

254
00:26:09,680 --> 00:26:15,520
talking about it. And it's just an unfortunate reality of the ecosystem. Right. Yeah.

255
00:26:15,520 --> 00:26:21,440
Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead, Euseb. No, I was going to say, I think all that's accurate. I think it's

256
00:26:21,440 --> 00:26:25,680
difficult for anybody walking in this to have a good understanding of how to be able to pick from

257
00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:31,680
a moniker list, right? That's out there and it's not really published or there's no icons on

258
00:26:31,680 --> 00:26:36,240
min scan that shows who's doing relaying, right? Nobody knows what relaying is and what the role

259
00:26:36,240 --> 00:26:42,160
of IBC is. So I agree that that's really more of a dev kind of project ownership delegation type

260
00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:46,400
structure that's going to happen. I also don't think projects are hurting for IBC relayers. Like,

261
00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:50,080
it seems like there's a tremendous number of relayers that are out there and sometimes there's

262
00:26:50,080 --> 00:26:54,240
too many in a channel because they have different gas and people are dropping transactions and other

263
00:26:54,240 --> 00:27:00,960
types of things. So it's not that it's necessarily 100% an underserved

264
00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:08,640
market right now. I would like to stop you there really quick. So that is true for a very

265
00:27:09,600 --> 00:27:14,800
short time. So it's very frequent for a bunch of people to jump into relaying to set it up to put,

266
00:27:14,800 --> 00:27:19,520
let's say, 10 June into it. And then once it runs out of that initial seed, they bounce and never

267
00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:24,080
come back. And so you have a list of, let's say, 20 relayers or addresses on min scan things,

268
00:27:24,080 --> 00:27:28,400
people relay, they really only did it four weeks or so and then it goes away. Right. And then you

269
00:27:28,400 --> 00:27:34,160
generally have like three or four relayers that are actually reliably maintaining those channels

270
00:27:34,160 --> 00:27:38,880
and making sure that it's healthy over a really long period. Right. Because I mean, all this stuff

271
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:43,680
that we're even from a validation perspective or relay or anything else, we're doing it for years

272
00:27:43,680 --> 00:27:47,120
and years to come. And so getting into these chains or getting into these types of situations,

273
00:27:47,120 --> 00:27:51,040
it's not something you just want to walk away from. Right. Exactly. Right. And the vast majority

274
00:27:51,920 --> 00:27:56,000
walk away from about a week after it's set up, which is just right. Yeah. Right.

275
00:27:56,000 --> 00:28:03,600
Right. So I guess like the long term relayers though from what I've seen, well, in Juneau anyway,

276
00:28:03,600 --> 00:28:08,720
I'm not sure about other networks, but I know that Juneau supports their long term relayers with

277
00:28:08,720 --> 00:28:14,880
the Core One wallet. They do like, I'm not sure if it's like a fortnightly or monthly

278
00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:22,560
distribution to help cover those fees and stuff. So that's good to see. And I really can't wait for

279
00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:29,280
like relaying to be more effective in terms of the costs and how they're handled in the module.

280
00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:36,640
I would like to see, you know, those costs being covered per transaction as part of that module.

281
00:28:37,600 --> 00:28:41,760
So presumably people are working on that. You might have more of an idea,

282
00:28:42,400 --> 00:28:47,840
Shilty, you're a relayer. Right. Yeah. I'll give a shout out to OmniFlix here. They are,

283
00:28:47,840 --> 00:28:53,600
as far as I'm aware, the first network to use the fee grant module, which allows for them to

284
00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:59,520
actually pay the fee for all relink transactions for the relayers. That's awesome. That's everything

285
00:28:59,520 --> 00:29:02,880
because all the time investment and server investment, but the fact that they're even

286
00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:08,000
putting that forward, I think is absolutely fantastic. It's a really great move right forward

287
00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:17,040
for the ecosystem. Shout out, by the way, to OmniFlix. Like they've been not rushing their

288
00:29:17,040 --> 00:29:22,720
launch to catch on the hype. And they've been coming up with a lot of good ideas and talking

289
00:29:22,720 --> 00:29:27,360
with their communities a lot and validators and relayers and making sure that they try and do

290
00:29:27,360 --> 00:29:30,480
things as right as they can with the tools they've got at the moment and developing

291
00:29:31,600 --> 00:29:36,720
more tools and stuff as well. So shout out to them, Sisla and the team. Do a great job.

292
00:29:36,720 --> 00:29:39,840
And great communication for that group, right? And like they're very clear and

293
00:29:39,840 --> 00:29:43,760
man, like really reach out to validators. Like you said, no, it's good stuff. The other thing we

294
00:29:43,760 --> 00:29:50,000
should call out block panes, nine types of validators blog posts, which we'll link in the

295
00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:56,560
description maybe here on this down below as well as in the podcast because it really, I think,

296
00:29:57,120 --> 00:30:02,400
did a great job of kind of bucketing up some different types of validators within the ecosystem

297
00:30:02,400 --> 00:30:08,720
and kind of how validators or at least maybe some independence that are on this podcast,

298
00:30:08,720 --> 00:30:13,120
you know, review those and kind of think about how they bucket up different types of validators

299
00:30:13,120 --> 00:30:19,440
that are out there. But I do agree that like there's a real discoverability and like marketing and

300
00:30:19,440 --> 00:30:24,800
just value challenge within this. And somebody new coming into this and trying to just figure out

301
00:30:24,800 --> 00:30:29,440
what staking is or starting to think about LPs and all those types of things. It's just one more

302
00:30:29,440 --> 00:30:33,600
thing, right? And I look at this large list. And so what am I going to do? Well, they're ranked one

303
00:30:33,600 --> 00:30:40,160
through 100. So I'm going to take the top. And that really not only does that not really relate

304
00:30:40,160 --> 00:30:45,760
to value to adding to the chain. It really does not necessarily relate to security. It doesn't

305
00:30:45,760 --> 00:30:49,600
relate to uptime. It doesn't necessarily relate to involvement. It doesn't relate to a whole

306
00:30:49,600 --> 00:30:53,040
bunch of different things. And that statement is very broad. Like it's very different across

307
00:30:53,040 --> 00:30:58,720
different types of chains. But it's really, I think this challenge is a really large one for

308
00:30:58,720 --> 00:31:02,160
trying to bring new people in and trying to also develop diversification in the

309
00:31:02,160 --> 00:31:09,600
in a validator set. Yeah. So I mean, I guess I'm guessing most of us read El Sal's blog post on

310
00:31:10,400 --> 00:31:15,120
how you actually measure decentralization of a chain in terms of voting power and validator set

311
00:31:15,120 --> 00:31:24,960
and that kind of thing. And what I come up with was the HFFI, what the metric that they used to

312
00:31:26,160 --> 00:31:30,880
sort of evaluate it rather than using the Gini coefficient. And that was a really interesting

313
00:31:30,880 --> 00:31:34,960
blog post. And I think it highlights a lot of the problems, like a kind of maybe more academic

314
00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:40,640
level, the problems that you suffer with start sort of starting to get onto there, which is like,

315
00:31:40,640 --> 00:31:46,320
you know, how decentralized actually are we in practice? And, you know, this is something that

316
00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:54,880
we saw in Juneau when the validator set was pushed up to 125. Because we kind of hit this brick wall

317
00:31:54,880 --> 00:32:00,800
of performance was degraded and performance is degraded to the point that we had to do a follow

318
00:32:00,800 --> 00:32:06,240
up proposal to change the blocks per year to actually bring inflation back in line with what

319
00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:13,520
it should be. But at the same time, you know, it is when you look at it, you want to intuit that

320
00:32:14,160 --> 00:32:20,240
125 validators is more decentralized than 100. But the reality is that if all the delegations

321
00:32:20,240 --> 00:32:25,120
are still going to the top 10, it actually doesn't move the needle on the Gini coefficient or any

322
00:32:25,120 --> 00:32:33,360
kind of traditional measures of inequality, right? So you use measures of inequality to

323
00:32:33,360 --> 00:32:39,520
measure voting power, because voting power as a kind of rubric for decentralization, I guess,

324
00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:48,400
is it is actually academically viewable as a problem of inequality and resource allocation,

325
00:32:48,400 --> 00:32:54,080
right? So that's why it's so for people that are curious, it's why I've suddenly dropped into

326
00:32:54,080 --> 00:33:00,000
sort of inequality economics. That's why it's the set tools that generally used to talk about

327
00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:06,000
voting power at the moment. And so, yeah, I guess, you know, it's that question of like,

328
00:33:06,000 --> 00:33:12,720
how are we measuring decentralization and what is decentralization anyway? And what is the

329
00:33:12,720 --> 00:33:18,000
metric of decentralization that's most useful to us? Because, you know, there's one thing that

330
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:24,400
I've been very interested in for a number of years, and I've actually distributed systems.

331
00:33:24,400 --> 00:33:29,520
My background is distributed data systems to some extent. And I was recently talking to Martin

332
00:33:29,520 --> 00:33:34,400
Klattman, who wrote the book, Designing Data Intensive Applications, which is an amazing

333
00:33:34,400 --> 00:33:38,640
textbook if you ever want to learn about all sorts of high throughput data systems.

334
00:33:40,480 --> 00:33:44,480
And his thesis is much more around the future of the system that we're trying to build in the

335
00:33:44,480 --> 00:33:49,920
blockchain space are actually going to be distributed systems, but not decentralized ones,

336
00:33:49,920 --> 00:33:55,120
not ones that involve a blockchain. Because local first computing, i.e.,

337
00:33:56,000 --> 00:33:59,600
you know, devices interconnecting with one another, mesh nets and all that kind of stuff,

338
00:33:59,600 --> 00:34:05,040
and building from the bottom up is a more decentralized way of building a resilient

339
00:34:05,040 --> 00:34:11,520
network. According to that, I mean, I'm grossly simplifying a very large body of academic work

340
00:34:11,520 --> 00:34:16,640
and some really cool practical applications that they've built. But I'm going to stop talking now,

341
00:34:16,640 --> 00:34:22,160
but yeah, what is decentralization? I think is a really interesting question, like,

342
00:34:22,160 --> 00:34:24,640
that I think we have to grapple with as validators and...

343
00:34:26,720 --> 00:34:28,320
Well, the other question... I don't know how I feel about it.

344
00:34:30,000 --> 00:34:37,920
Is decentralization necessary in certain applications? So, you know, for example, Juno,

345
00:34:37,920 --> 00:34:42,560
the intention of that chain is to be decentralized, right? But then you take,

346
00:34:43,600 --> 00:34:49,680
you know, something that's got some regulatory issues, like, you know, for example, Sage,

347
00:34:49,680 --> 00:34:58,000
which is coming up, they, you know, they may need to operate in a different way

348
00:34:58,000 --> 00:35:08,240
so that they can manage risks in it. So, it might not be intentionalized to be, you know,

349
00:35:08,240 --> 00:35:14,240
fully decentralized. And that's not the only example. You know, what's the business model?

350
00:35:14,240 --> 00:35:20,400
Does it need to be decentralized? What value is there in decentralization for some projects?

351
00:35:20,400 --> 00:35:25,600
But obviously, other projects require, well, want to be, that's what they want to be.

352
00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:32,880
They want to be decentralized. So, we're past. We're not like, you know, in the whole point of

353
00:35:34,000 --> 00:35:39,920
proof of work, Bitcoin is that it's completely decentralized. But, you know, proof of stake,

354
00:35:41,280 --> 00:35:49,360
specific, you know, application-based modules, you know, what's, is there advantage in being

355
00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:52,960
decentralized? Do you need to... I guess it's kind of setting up an oligarchy,

356
00:35:52,960 --> 00:35:57,760
isn't it, rather than... And this is kind of, and this is kind of back to, like, a lot of the

357
00:35:57,760 --> 00:36:03,920
things that were thrown at the validators during Prop 16 is that you effectively do see

358
00:36:04,800 --> 00:36:09,760
the functioning of the validator set as a potential oligarchy in a situation like that,

359
00:36:09,760 --> 00:36:14,000
like in a very, where voting power really does matter and there is a contentious issue on the

360
00:36:14,000 --> 00:36:20,720
table. And I think that presents the same problems. I mean, because we talked about this a few weeks

361
00:36:20,720 --> 00:36:25,760
ago now, and I always said, well, what would happen if we made the entire validator set fungible?

362
00:36:25,760 --> 00:36:34,880
Like, essentially, meaning that validators entry and exit to the set is very easy. So,

363
00:36:34,880 --> 00:36:39,360
validators that are in the set have less security validators outside the set, have more likelihood

364
00:36:39,360 --> 00:36:46,480
of entering the set and earning rewards, even if that position is, like, not easy to guarantee,

365
00:36:46,480 --> 00:36:50,960
because maybe it's either done algorithmically or it's done on some metric that means people are

366
00:36:50,960 --> 00:36:56,560
kicked and cycled on a regular basis. Would that be desirable? And obviously, from a business

367
00:36:56,560 --> 00:37:04,240
perspective, the answer's no, right? I remember this conversation, and I was thinking,

368
00:37:04,240 --> 00:37:09,200
fucking, you have to... I think you did actually call me a fucking idiot, like, delaying from the

369
00:37:09,200 --> 00:37:17,360
event. You were saying some crazy shit that day. It was more academic than I had an appetite for

370
00:37:17,360 --> 00:37:25,680
it four o'clock in the morning. But then it does go back to that question, it's like, what,

371
00:37:25,680 --> 00:37:30,000
if you want to decentralize network, you have to do things like, yeah, cycle the validator set,

372
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:34,000
you have to make the validator set fungible, or you have to use light clients or some other method

373
00:37:34,000 --> 00:37:40,720
for bringing online processing power that isn't distributed on a small set of machines, right?

374
00:37:40,720 --> 00:37:46,880
So then it kind of follows that we've decided that decentralization is actually not as important

375
00:37:46,880 --> 00:37:53,200
as a stable set of computing power, which then brings us onto the question as, well, okay,

376
00:37:53,920 --> 00:37:59,280
at the moment we have this tragedy of the common situation where some people are like in block

377
00:37:59,280 --> 00:38:04,080
panes, blog posts, which is really great, and everybody should go check it out. Second shoutout

378
00:38:04,080 --> 00:38:09,200
to block pane, who's really cool tools for validators that make me look at pretty diagrams,

379
00:38:09,200 --> 00:38:15,520
where all the packets are going and stuff. But you go, okay, well, if there's these different

380
00:38:15,520 --> 00:38:19,760
tiers of validators, like a validator tier list, obviously, we're like, you surf as like S plus

381
00:38:19,760 --> 00:38:26,480
tier, and sure as he's like H plus tier for handsome. And then there's actually kind of like,

382
00:38:26,480 --> 00:38:35,360
all the way down, there's like some C minus tier, you know, like, you know, when you first start

383
00:38:35,360 --> 00:38:40,800
boot up Metal Gear five, and you're abducting guys for your research base, and then like,

384
00:38:40,800 --> 00:38:44,480
they just don't even move the needle somewhere in that tier, that's like me,

385
00:38:46,400 --> 00:38:51,440
and our validator operation, right? So, but then the question is like, if there are all these tiers

386
00:38:51,440 --> 00:38:56,400
of validators, can you do things with your chain and the way you build it to actually incentivize

387
00:38:56,400 --> 00:39:02,320
that behavior? Because certainly, there are projects in proof of work, that have come up with

388
00:39:02,320 --> 00:39:08,400
novel incentive structures to do things other than just incentivize people in the network to

389
00:39:08,400 --> 00:39:13,520
shuffle transactions around like, are we there's a really great example of this. And they talk a lot

390
00:39:13,520 --> 00:39:19,920
about the incentive structures they use to store data, right, because that's their thing. And so

391
00:39:19,920 --> 00:39:26,160
you go, well, okay, should our validator sets be incentivized to run RPCs and run relays and

392
00:39:26,160 --> 00:39:33,200
this kind of stuff should that stuff be mandatory. It sounds like we're almost circling around Null's

393
00:39:33,200 --> 00:39:37,120
favorite topic, which is foundation delegation. I don't know, it seems like we're kind of in that

394
00:39:37,120 --> 00:39:46,000
range, or incentivizing based on inequality. It's kind of, aren't we almost there? That's episode four,

395
00:39:46,000 --> 00:39:53,280
right? Yeah, maybe another episode. This 40 minute rant about foundation delegation.

396
00:39:53,280 --> 00:39:59,760
So would 100. So going back to I think what what Schultz brought into this into this topic was

397
00:39:59,760 --> 00:40:03,920
with the idea around the cosmos prop 66, which is they want to be able to bring it from I think

398
00:40:03,920 --> 00:40:12,640
it's 150 to 175. Is that right? Or is it 125? Yes, 150 to 175. So moving from 150 to 175 validators,

399
00:40:12,640 --> 00:40:20,560
does it make any difference? So at all important. So the answer to that is yes, but if you did,

400
00:40:20,560 --> 00:40:26,160
forgive me for like looping background, the phrase was saying back to craft, he was talking about

401
00:40:27,040 --> 00:40:32,400
how different validators have like different words. And I'm going to take a moment here to

402
00:40:32,400 --> 00:40:38,240
talk about like the craft test net. So one of the reasons why your genocet set is really important

403
00:40:38,240 --> 00:40:46,080
is basically for this reason. For your genesis, you want a handful of strong validators that

404
00:40:46,080 --> 00:40:51,680
have experienced getting a network going basically so you can create that initial stability. You can

405
00:40:51,680 --> 00:40:58,240
have 1520 25. It's fine. And then once you have that initial set, then you can expand past that to

406
00:40:58,240 --> 00:41:05,040
less experienced folks. And this kind of creates a an awkward incentive system. So you'll notice

407
00:41:05,040 --> 00:41:08,800
that on almost all cosmos chains, you'll have Cosmos station on there because they've experienced,

408
00:41:08,800 --> 00:41:14,880
but now because they're on all cosmos chains, they have the lion share of delegations. And so

409
00:41:14,880 --> 00:41:19,680
you enter this strange kind of paradox where you need to experience gear chain going, but because

410
00:41:19,680 --> 00:41:25,200
you are using that experience gear chain going, you are further lifting up the already experienced

411
00:41:25,200 --> 00:41:29,440
people and letting those that aren't his experience kind of fall through the cracks.

412
00:41:30,320 --> 00:41:35,920
There's something about heuristic where if you're joining a network, let's say a week after genesis,

413
00:41:35,920 --> 00:41:40,720
there's a strong chance you will just never be profitable as a validator. Sure. I have 25 networks

414
00:41:40,720 --> 00:41:45,280
are show that we're validating for and fewer than half are even paying for their server costs.

415
00:41:46,240 --> 00:41:50,240
And that's quite common. And so it's an unfortunate state that I don't quite know where the point

416
00:41:50,240 --> 00:41:53,840
I was eventually wrapping around to what this was, but something I wanted to point out.

417
00:41:53,840 --> 00:41:58,160
But the other piece of which we saw in osmosis was like, I got pushed out of osmosis twice or we

418
00:41:58,160 --> 00:42:03,040
got right on got pushed out of osmosis twice once back in fall of last year when, when really

419
00:42:03,040 --> 00:42:05,920
it started to pick up and the price started to be able to shoot up. And so you had a lot more

420
00:42:05,920 --> 00:42:12,080
money coming in. And then again, after they expanded from 100 to 125, we were in for maybe 45 days,

421
00:42:12,080 --> 00:42:16,240
60 days or something like that. And what you saw is you saw outside money coming in from other

422
00:42:16,240 --> 00:42:21,520
chains and you have validators that were not in cosmos at all that came in from in from polka

423
00:42:21,520 --> 00:42:26,720
dot or came in from somewhere else that brought up for state structures in there. So you had really

424
00:42:26,720 --> 00:42:33,360
large players coming in that I agree. Like the idea of being able to bring in new validators

425
00:42:33,360 --> 00:42:37,440
or groups and we're all independent, right? So the idea of bringing more independence and is

426
00:42:37,440 --> 00:42:41,520
obviously important to all of us, right? And like that's what we that's what I think we collectively

427
00:42:41,520 --> 00:42:49,360
want. I think expanding the set does do that. I don't know if it does that for a long time. Like

428
00:42:49,360 --> 00:42:55,360
we had that with, you know, messy on Juno, we've had that with other great validators who know

429
00:42:55,360 --> 00:42:59,920
and have good operations, but eventually get pushed out because, you know, we always talk about

430
00:42:59,920 --> 00:43:05,680
the floor's lava when you join after Genesis and when the floor is lava and meaning what we mean

431
00:43:05,680 --> 00:43:12,240
by that is that as this set expands and as the minimum keeps rising, it's very difficult to be

432
00:43:12,240 --> 00:43:16,080
a small independent trying to be able to build that up when you're at the bottom of the set because

433
00:43:16,080 --> 00:43:21,680
nobody wants to delegate to the last 10%, right? And they just feel that as being a risk. And so

434
00:43:21,680 --> 00:43:28,160
therefore that becomes a metric of staying in, which is associated to how much cash you bring

435
00:43:28,160 --> 00:43:32,640
into it or the validator or the group that's behind that validator brings into it. And frankly,

436
00:43:32,640 --> 00:43:37,360
as an independent validator, those numbers are usually pretty small compared to somebody coming

437
00:43:37,360 --> 00:43:41,760
in from, you know, from an institution or something else like that. So I think when something like

438
00:43:41,760 --> 00:43:49,440
Cosmos like when the atom wants to expand that out to 175, I look at that and say, well, that's a

439
00:43:49,440 --> 00:43:53,680
good opportunity for Rhino. Like I would love to be able to be able to be a validator and atom. I

440
00:43:53,680 --> 00:44:00,400
also look at the say, who is that opening a door for? And is that is that us or is it me? I should

441
00:44:00,400 --> 00:44:05,920
say. Or is that is that institutions that are coming in and you know, something else similar to

442
00:44:05,920 --> 00:44:12,720
that? Well, I'll share it this way. With this set expand, we're looking at this as an opportunity to

443
00:44:12,720 --> 00:44:17,680
do. I mean, we're definitely not to say we can't afford what the floor was. Last I saw was something

444
00:44:17,680 --> 00:44:24,640
well over $1 million, you know, and we're in 14 chains right now. So we're not doing too bad.

445
00:44:24,640 --> 00:44:29,920
But like Schultz said, not all of them pay for themselves. There are some that just simply don't

446
00:44:29,920 --> 00:44:36,960
even cover server console loan labor and all that. So I think expanding set is good in that. Yes,

447
00:44:36,960 --> 00:44:43,040
we can bring in other validators and all that, but there is that risk of absolutely just someone

448
00:44:43,040 --> 00:44:48,960
sees a chance and all right, we've got $1 million per screw. Let's get an atom set. And now we're

449
00:44:48,960 --> 00:44:55,600
earning all these extra tokens that are almost always a drop to boom done. Right. And I kind of

450
00:44:55,600 --> 00:45:01,920
want to tie this to what you guys were talking about before with decentralization and kind of how

451
00:45:01,920 --> 00:45:07,920
I pick a validator. There's something that I've been thinking about for the past few weeks. And it

452
00:45:07,920 --> 00:45:17,280
was a GitHub, basically repo that Bro and Bro validator shared. It's like December 1st of 2021.

453
00:45:17,280 --> 00:45:24,720
So last year, months ago, and it's called the Bro rating. And so basically they took validators,

454
00:45:24,720 --> 00:45:30,960
and I believe it was the Osmosis set, and they ranked them based on a variety of factors. So it

455
00:45:30,960 --> 00:45:40,400
was like greed, reputation, community involvement, contributions, whether it was code or adding nodes

456
00:45:40,400 --> 00:45:46,960
for layers, different things they were doing. And then governance, that's a big one, of course.

457
00:45:47,520 --> 00:45:52,960
And all of these factors adding up and you were, this list they initially made was showing a lot

458
00:45:52,960 --> 00:45:57,600
of validators that may have been a lot lower on the list actually showing up a lot higher on this

459
00:45:57,600 --> 00:46:04,400
rating system because they're actively trying harder. They're not at the top stacked with all

460
00:46:04,400 --> 00:46:10,080
this money and they don't have to care. We see that in a lot of these chains where the top 10,

461
00:46:10,080 --> 00:46:14,240
they may not be voting anywhere near as much as everybody below them because

462
00:46:14,960 --> 00:46:18,720
they're solidifying their position. They're cool. They're chilling. They've got a nice team

463
00:46:18,720 --> 00:46:24,880
delegation. And with that, they just continue to get the lion's share of delegations coming in. So

464
00:46:24,880 --> 00:46:32,320
I've been thinking about how could we take this rating system, build it into a simple UI that

465
00:46:32,320 --> 00:46:38,160
the community could go to and it's updated on either a daily, weekly, whatever basis and people

466
00:46:38,160 --> 00:46:44,240
can look at it and go, okay, I want to pick a new validator. Who should I delegate to and why? And

467
00:46:44,800 --> 00:46:52,400
just based on various factors, these are things that we could all discuss and choose what metrics

468
00:46:52,400 --> 00:46:59,600
matter and not go from there. I think that's a bit of the Holy Grail. I think that everybody

469
00:46:59,600 --> 00:47:04,880
who's on this would want that. The big challenge of that is how do you bring that into MintScan?

470
00:47:04,880 --> 00:47:10,160
How do you bring that into Kepler? How do you bring that into the Kepler?

471
00:47:10,160 --> 00:47:16,400
No, it's got a question. Is that a question? I have some ideas on that. I've talked about these

472
00:47:16,400 --> 00:47:25,520
with a few people in the past, but no matter what solution you go with, it's subjective to the person

473
00:47:25,520 --> 00:47:35,520
who's doing the assessment and the reporting. So an idea I had was that teams who are essentially

474
00:47:37,200 --> 00:47:44,960
developers of the blockchain or trusted business in the community or whoever,

475
00:47:44,960 --> 00:47:54,720
some part of the system would recognize the contributions from people and assign them a revocable

476
00:47:55,600 --> 00:48:03,520
NFT, non-transferable revocable NFT for that attribute. For example, if you're a relayer

477
00:48:04,400 --> 00:48:11,280
and you're on the network every month ringing, you get a relayer NFT and then

478
00:48:11,280 --> 00:48:20,960
MintScan picks up that NFT. If you hover over the icon on a moniker for that validator,

479
00:48:22,240 --> 00:48:30,960
you get the NFTs which show their contributions to the network. How do I monitor that?

480
00:48:30,960 --> 00:48:42,720
I think Noel said my idea on this, which is that I hear that there's a positive correlation

481
00:48:42,720 --> 00:48:50,080
between voting and a validator's involvement in the network. I can write a smart contract to look

482
00:48:50,080 --> 00:48:58,640
it up. It's easy peasy. A lot of those things can be sorted out in code. Now, with the caveat

483
00:48:58,640 --> 00:49:03,680
that there are some chains that's not true of like Stargaze because of how their claim works,

484
00:49:03,680 --> 00:49:08,400
they had to just put up loads of spurious governance proposals. I didn't vote on them

485
00:49:08,400 --> 00:49:15,360
and I didn't need a cast because it was just like, I'm not just clicking yes to click yes

486
00:49:15,360 --> 00:49:21,280
on a claim your airdrop number seven governance prop, which has no meaning.

487
00:49:22,720 --> 00:49:26,800
So there are obviously some chains that would work on, some chains it wouldn't work on,

488
00:49:26,800 --> 00:49:34,000
but I'm obviously quite bullish on the idea that the question of how do you know whether

489
00:49:34,000 --> 00:49:38,800
somebody's running relayers, well, you can just say that there's actually, for example,

490
00:49:40,800 --> 00:49:47,440
there are tiers of validators. So why does there have to be only one validator set? For the point

491
00:49:47,440 --> 00:49:52,960
of view of consensus, there is only one validator set. For the point of view of actually adding

492
00:49:52,960 --> 00:49:57,680
metadata to a validator set that's shown to a user or that's stored on chain, there's no reason

493
00:49:57,680 --> 00:50:04,320
why there can't be more than one validator set or indeed that you can't actually change the voting

494
00:50:04,320 --> 00:50:13,520
power or essentially like the rewards that a validator is getting based on criteria that you

495
00:50:13,520 --> 00:50:21,920
define economically as a chain and in code. So like you get a multiplier if you provide this

496
00:50:21,920 --> 00:50:26,320
service and it can be read by this smart contract and you get a multiplier.

497
00:50:26,880 --> 00:50:29,760
Yeah, I mean, you changed your tone because the last time I talked about this with you,

498
00:50:29,760 --> 00:50:35,200
you said I was mad. So... No, well, I think you were mad at the time, but you were talking about

499
00:50:35,200 --> 00:50:42,240
other shit as well. Sorry, I didn't think I gleaned that when you were talking about this to me

500
00:50:42,240 --> 00:50:51,280
before. So just actually grasp me out here because I was right. Say if you like, so say you provide

501
00:50:51,280 --> 00:51:01,040
a service, right? You can pick that up in code and then if you're providing that in association

502
00:51:01,040 --> 00:51:09,760
with your validator wallet or if you declare that somehow in your validator wallet transactions,

503
00:51:10,480 --> 00:51:18,880
then if it picks up that service, then that is going to give you a multiplier for your rewards.

504
00:51:18,880 --> 00:51:24,080
Is that what you're saying? So I'm saying you can write this. I'm saying it doesn't exist in any

505
00:51:24,080 --> 00:51:32,000
Cosmos chain at the moment and it would no longer be precious stake. So you would have to write custom

506
00:51:32,560 --> 00:51:39,920
code for your chain to essentially take out a band information and essentially

507
00:51:40,720 --> 00:51:46,000
decide what the current state, like who is currently a validator is not just a function of

508
00:51:46,000 --> 00:51:51,680
are they participating consensus is also is X other economic criteria fulfilled.

509
00:51:52,640 --> 00:51:56,400
And this is something I've been thinking about a lot from going back and looking at proof of

510
00:51:56,400 --> 00:52:02,320
work chains that are doing things using extra infrastructure, be it like file storage or be it

511
00:52:02,320 --> 00:52:09,440
like economic incentives around document access like are we right where they essentially are

512
00:52:09,440 --> 00:52:14,400
trying to get people into a, so if you want something to run three additional services as

513
00:52:14,400 --> 00:52:19,760
well as a validator, the equilibrium where those services will be up is to just say,

514
00:52:19,760 --> 00:52:23,920
is to not tell the validator which one you're going to look up, but only look up one of them

515
00:52:23,920 --> 00:52:29,680
because you don't need to look up all three, every block or every X blocks. You just look up one

516
00:52:29,680 --> 00:52:33,920
and see is it live and you never tell them which one it's going to be. If it's not live, boom,

517
00:52:33,920 --> 00:52:37,120
you're out of the set for that block or that set of blocks or that tranche.

518
00:52:37,760 --> 00:52:40,560
Oh yeah, no, that's where else I think you were crazy.

519
00:52:40,560 --> 00:52:44,000
Yeah, well, yeah, this is the bit. Actually, this is the bit.

520
00:52:44,000 --> 00:52:49,600
I'll throw some names. That's in 4am. In that same question, in that same conversation,

521
00:52:49,600 --> 00:52:56,480
you were talking about randomly assigning a voter in your set of delegators.

522
00:52:58,960 --> 00:53:02,800
Yeah, I mean, I think, well, I think there would be some interesting stuff around

523
00:53:02,800 --> 00:53:10,800
validators not necessarily wielding their own voting power, though this is an area where obviously

524
00:53:10,800 --> 00:53:16,240
the political scientists and theorists have done a lot more research than I have. But the idea that

525
00:53:16,240 --> 00:53:23,040
you're sort of, a voting block exists, right? And the validator is currently the executor of that

526
00:53:23,040 --> 00:53:31,520
vote. But why? Why is it not the case that that vote is not given to it, is just round robin to a

527
00:53:31,520 --> 00:53:37,600
key that is delegating to that validator, and they decide how that voting block votes. And if people

528
00:53:37,600 --> 00:53:43,520
don't like it, they can vote against that person's vote or that wallet's vote. And the validator

529
00:53:43,520 --> 00:53:47,600
themselves, if they have a large self-state can just vote themselves. It's not like anybody's

530
00:53:47,600 --> 00:53:51,600
telling you, it's just putting you, again, it's like, you know, is it necessarily right that

531
00:53:51,600 --> 00:53:56,800
validators always have this privileged position to exercise that vote? Maybe it is. And we have

532
00:53:56,800 --> 00:54:01,760
seen Prop 16 play, I mean, so we had this conversation a few weeks ago before Prop 16 was

533
00:54:01,760 --> 00:54:07,600
even a glint in Wolf Contract's eye. So, you know, I think we've seen with Prop 16 that actually having

534
00:54:08,240 --> 00:54:14,720
a block of voting power with validators who have different incentives to sort of ordinary users

535
00:54:14,720 --> 00:54:19,280
might actually be a valuable thing. But I think it's also worth questioning whether or not, you

536
00:54:19,280 --> 00:54:26,000
know, you could yet delegate votes to one voter, to one delegator of the validator, and then they

537
00:54:26,000 --> 00:54:29,520
execute the vote for a Gov prop. I think that's quite an interesting idea. I don't know if it

538
00:54:29,520 --> 00:54:34,720
would pat out well, but it could be something. It could be something that you guys could do today

539
00:54:34,720 --> 00:54:39,200
with Dow, at least in Juneau. Like you could, from even King Nodes, you're Dow, you guys could

540
00:54:39,200 --> 00:54:45,280
put proposals up and be able to take an initial vote and how King Nodes will vote, for example,

541
00:54:45,280 --> 00:54:49,360
or something similar that you guys could do that. And as Wasm moves across chains, it might be

542
00:54:49,360 --> 00:54:54,000
something to be able to think about in terms of saying, I want to, and maybe just the yes, no vote,

543
00:54:54,000 --> 00:54:59,120
no with veto is not enough. But as we get into more complex voting structures and things like that,

544
00:54:59,120 --> 00:55:05,440
I think the idea that a validator meeting me, this brain, making a decision for, I've been

545
00:55:05,440 --> 00:55:09,520
a little bit vocal about this, but making a decision for everybody who doesn't vote is a little bit

546
00:55:10,400 --> 00:55:16,400
not the perfect situation. So finding another way to be able to bring that forward or make it a

547
00:55:16,400 --> 00:55:22,880
little bit more community driven, not necessarily. There's no reason you couldn't effectively model

548
00:55:22,880 --> 00:55:30,800
a validator's actual vote, like the block vote, as essentially a Dow's governance prop and then say,

549
00:55:31,440 --> 00:55:37,280
well, you could do that. Yeah, you could do that. And it's on that. I'm dangerous.

550
00:55:38,240 --> 00:55:42,720
Cal makes a good point around the voting period and things like that. Yeah, there's a timing

551
00:55:42,720 --> 00:55:47,360
issue here too, right? Because you want to be able to give your delegates who might hold a specific

552
00:55:47,360 --> 00:55:51,360
token, the ability to be able to guide that vote and those types of things. But honestly, that

553
00:55:51,360 --> 00:55:59,360
Dow situation is more maybe of a patch of that. No, it's more of a patch of that issue versus

554
00:55:59,360 --> 00:56:03,120
kind of solving that problem. But I think it's going in the right direction. The other thing,

555
00:56:03,120 --> 00:56:07,360
just back to the idea around expanding the set and those types of things, I think one thing that

556
00:56:07,360 --> 00:56:10,880
if there's, you know, there's a lot of people I think are interested in the cosmos that are

557
00:56:11,440 --> 00:56:13,760
listening to this, it might not be running validators and things like that. The other thing

558
00:56:13,760 --> 00:56:18,720
that thinks about from a validator perspective is once you get in there, and once you kind of make

559
00:56:18,720 --> 00:56:23,440
a decision, you want to be able to get into a set if that set expands is a long term viability of

560
00:56:23,440 --> 00:56:28,880
that. And there's a there's kind of a issue around I want to be able to get in there. But I also

561
00:56:28,880 --> 00:56:33,840
want to make sure that I can be able to be a validator for my delegates long term. And so I

562
00:56:33,840 --> 00:56:38,240
was just actually going back into the osmosis, everybody goes to min scan and go osmosis validators

563
00:56:38,240 --> 00:56:42,960
and look at inactive and look at the great validators that are inactive on osmosis after it

564
00:56:42,960 --> 00:56:52,240
went from 125, right? You have cat boss, you have you have polkachu, right? Hugely valuable

565
00:56:52,240 --> 00:57:00,240
validator in the cosmos ecosystem. You have rhino, hey, you have there's there's like a huge list of

566
00:57:00,240 --> 00:57:05,520
really valuable organizations that have and whispers in there as well, right? Ghost and and

567
00:57:05,520 --> 00:57:11,600
mercury others that have been really good strong proponents and very vocal and ecosystem that just

568
00:57:11,600 --> 00:57:17,280
cannot stay in set. And that's not just bad for them like as a business. But but when we're

569
00:57:17,280 --> 00:57:21,600
delegating across or when you have, you know, delegates, you're trying to build an ecosystem

570
00:57:21,600 --> 00:57:25,520
around and like be positive in ecosystem across multiple different chains, you don't want to

571
00:57:25,520 --> 00:57:29,520
let those delegates round like you don't want to let them down, right? They might redelegate to you.

572
00:57:29,520 --> 00:57:33,360
And the next thing you know, you're out of the set and they're stuck for the period, maybe 14 or

573
00:57:33,360 --> 00:57:39,680
28 days. That is not a good feeling for a validator. Like you want your delegates to earn. That's

574
00:57:39,680 --> 00:57:43,920
number one, right? You want them to earn. And to be in a position where you're getting pushed out

575
00:57:43,920 --> 00:57:48,880
of the set and then you're putting delegates in bad positions is really emotionally draining.

576
00:57:48,880 --> 00:57:53,600
And so I think you see might see, you know, the set goes from 125 to 150 and you say, why aren't

577
00:57:53,600 --> 00:57:57,760
you jumping in that? Well, the reason is because I'm also you want to be the right thing for the,

578
00:57:57,760 --> 00:58:03,120
you know, the customers that you have. It's risky. Absolutely. You know, people can delegate to you.

579
00:58:03,120 --> 00:58:08,800
And then two days later, all of a sudden, someone jumps in that has a lot more capital backing them.

580
00:58:08,800 --> 00:58:13,440
And then you're gone. And they just redelegate it. So they're stuck to you. Absolutely. You know,

581
00:58:13,440 --> 00:58:20,880
we were at the edge of the Gino set. You know, it was 125. We were 121 for like a week. And I was

582
00:58:20,880 --> 00:58:26,000
on Twitter just going like, you know, guys, like anything like, you know, 10, I don't care, but we

583
00:58:26,000 --> 00:58:31,680
were losing delegations to like, putt modes, and we were losing delegations to like, you know, all

584
00:58:31,680 --> 00:58:37,120
these, oh, air drop vote stuff. And I'm not trying to drop or bash. It's just, it was really, it was

585
00:58:37,120 --> 00:58:42,560
a challenge, you know, we got, we caught a lucky whale. And we really appreciated it. And now we're

586
00:58:42,560 --> 00:58:48,000
like in the mid 50s, you know, restake helped a lot. But yeah, it's definitely challenging when

587
00:58:48,000 --> 00:58:53,040
you're that low because people are taking a way bigger risk on you, you know, right? So

588
00:58:54,240 --> 00:59:01,040
that's right. I remember the word sledge. Oh, sledge. That was the word I told you is like

589
00:59:01,040 --> 00:59:08,400
shovel. That was what I was trying to remember earlier. I was, wow, that was about 45 minutes

590
00:59:08,400 --> 00:59:13,120
ago. It says that I was sledging somebody, but not to discount anything that whisper node was

591
00:59:13,120 --> 00:59:21,120
saying then, but yes, the right handers remember this. I think it's, I think it's because you said,

592
00:59:21,120 --> 00:59:25,440
you said you didn't want to put shade on validators that were doing airdrops and it kind of dropped

593
00:59:25,440 --> 00:59:31,520
me all the way back. If you like it, airdrop me all the way back to our previous conversation. I

594
00:59:31,520 --> 00:59:36,160
remember the intention and the intention was not to do that. It was simply just that, yeah,

595
00:59:36,160 --> 00:59:42,080
and when you're that low in the set, it's very easy to lose, you know, delegates that you had

596
00:59:42,080 --> 00:59:51,600
before then to those new ones. So yeah, yeah, I'm conscious a little bit of time. I think we've,

597
00:59:51,600 --> 00:59:56,240
we've kind of ended up having a pretty comprehensive discussion actually on validator,

598
00:59:56,240 --> 01:00:02,000
decentralize, validators, what decentralization is in practice and how you can maybe pick a validator.

599
01:00:02,560 --> 01:00:08,160
And there's so much in here. I think there was any of these topics we could probably

600
01:00:09,680 --> 01:00:14,720
do an entire episode on. So there's any, if there's any bits that we've been talking about here

601
01:00:14,720 --> 01:00:20,480
that are particularly interesting, then do shout them out or get in touch with us on Twitter and

602
01:00:20,480 --> 01:00:28,160
that is now we can maybe like expand on some things in future episodes. Certainly, as I'm sure I had to

603
01:00:28,160 --> 01:00:31,840
shut myself up because I was getting too excited about talking about economic incentives, there's

604
01:00:31,840 --> 01:00:37,520
a whole bunch of stuff around extensions to proof of stake, which may or may not actually be working

605
01:00:37,520 --> 01:00:43,440
on some stuff for cough, cough, cough. So, but there's also just, I think a lot that we can do

606
01:00:43,440 --> 01:00:50,960
within what we're currently all validating on, which are proof of stake chains, right? And how we, I

607
01:00:50,960 --> 01:00:55,360
think it was you, Sir, but he said, like, we have a stake as independent validator teams that obviously

608
01:00:55,360 --> 01:01:03,520
we're biased towards bringing in more independent validators because it is inherently more stable

609
01:01:03,520 --> 01:01:09,840
for all of us to work together when we are all small, similar styled organizations and businesses.

610
01:01:09,840 --> 01:01:15,680
Whereas, yeah, like if somebody comes in with a huge like bag from Solana and just buys their way

611
01:01:15,680 --> 01:01:22,800
into a set and knocks one of us out, it's like, okay, that kind of sucks. But yeah, in the interest

612
01:01:22,800 --> 01:01:28,080
of time, should we move on to our final question, our final regular question we do every week?

613
01:01:30,000 --> 01:01:36,000
Yeah, yeah, quickly. Yeah, there's a quick. Okay. What is your target? Is it an hour?

614
01:01:36,000 --> 01:01:42,320
It's about an hour, I think. Like we always go a little bit over by talking to you final question,

615
01:01:42,320 --> 01:01:47,680
but, you know, I think, I think let's try and keep, I think we try and keep it into an hour.

616
01:01:47,680 --> 01:01:52,640
And if people think the subject wasn't dealt, dealt enough time, they can always have a go at us

617
01:01:52,640 --> 01:01:56,400
in the comments and we can come back around to it. Flame is in the comments. So we get more

618
01:01:57,040 --> 01:02:04,560
impressions. Yeah, sledges in the comments. Yeah, sledges in the comments for impressions sake.

619
01:02:04,560 --> 01:02:10,240
So all right then, well, let's go around the room then with our end of show question,

620
01:02:10,240 --> 01:02:17,040
which is what are you most excited about this week? Maybe we'll go and order this time. So

621
01:02:17,040 --> 01:02:23,520
DeFray, what are you excited about, man? I don't want to mention Prop 16 again,

622
01:02:23,520 --> 01:02:29,200
but I'm going to mention it. I am excited about that. I think Prop 17 is currently passing,

623
01:02:29,200 --> 01:02:33,760
which is the software upgrade, the nerdy software upgrade that allows us to do governance contracts.

624
01:02:33,760 --> 01:02:44,640
Yeah. I'm kind of excited to get Unity audited, get it put together and get it put in front of

625
01:02:44,640 --> 01:02:50,000
the community. I genuinely think this is next level tech. This is the next level opportunity

626
01:02:50,000 --> 01:02:55,920
to show the maturity of Juno's technology and its community. And I don't think there's really

627
01:02:55,920 --> 01:03:02,240
anything in the Cosmos ecosystem right now that is as exciting as the idea of resolving this solution,

628
01:03:02,240 --> 01:03:06,320
discover the situation with a smart contract. So that's what I'm excited about.

629
01:03:07,600 --> 01:03:15,120
Awesome. Whisper? 100%. I'm going to go on the meme side and say, OZ for Chihuahua.

630
01:03:16,880 --> 01:03:22,320
Running a restake fork and just all that. I'm excited for like 12, 1300% APY. So

631
01:03:23,760 --> 01:03:28,880
huge fan of Tom's. Big shout out to EcoState for building restake. I know a lot of us use it.

632
01:03:28,880 --> 01:03:34,400
A lot of people are watching or definitely probably using it. And yeah, I'm just excited for Chihuahua.

633
01:03:34,400 --> 01:03:40,160
I finally enable that. So it's got to be mine. Yeah, man. Always a shout out to Tom.

634
01:03:43,360 --> 01:03:48,960
Whisper? I think this week, I'm not going to say most again, because that's my answer last two weeks.

635
01:03:48,960 --> 01:03:54,800
So even though I see progress, things are happening. I'm excited for that coming back.

636
01:03:54,800 --> 01:04:00,960
I do think that this week we're going to see a turnaround on Cosmos token prices.

637
01:04:00,960 --> 01:04:04,880
Can we talk about prices? We've had a bit of a slide. You've got to say that's a game of

638
01:04:04,880 --> 01:04:10,560
notes price chat. We have a bit of a slide for a few weeks. And I guess we're just paying off

639
01:04:10,560 --> 01:04:16,880
the debts that Cosmos had during while the rest of the crypto markets slid and now we're paying

640
01:04:16,880 --> 01:04:22,960
for that a little bit. Back to Chihuahua and the great work that's being done at Stargaze and

641
01:04:22,960 --> 01:04:28,480
others. I'm hoping to see that we see some of the value that comes out of that. Kind of move

642
01:04:28,480 --> 01:04:35,360
forward here. I would agree also on kind of prop 17 and moving forward the upgrade. We talked

643
01:04:35,360 --> 01:04:41,520
about this last week and just the diversity in terms of viewpoints and those types of things.

644
01:04:41,520 --> 01:04:46,080
But I think if we can move together towards a solution and move past this, that's the best

645
01:04:46,080 --> 01:04:50,160
possible thing. And so it seems like that's finally going in the right direction as well.

646
01:04:50,160 --> 01:04:54,400
So I'm excited to see what happens in the next week. We'll find out how we talk next Wednesday

647
01:04:54,400 --> 01:04:57,440
just in terms of making more progress associated with that.

648
01:04:58,240 --> 01:05:00,240
Yeah, awesome. Chelsea?

649
01:05:01,760 --> 01:05:09,360
Yeah. So again, the thing I'm most excited about is more than just a week. But

650
01:05:10,400 --> 01:05:14,160
secret network is something of like my home network. And lately they've been getting

651
01:05:14,160 --> 01:05:21,200
a lot of heat after the shade airdrop. The network basically slowed to a halt. But they have a lot

652
01:05:21,200 --> 01:05:25,120
of really cool things going on that are happening soon. They have query notes that should make

653
01:05:26,080 --> 01:05:30,720
the network speed up. And they also have a lot of really cool things going on for governance that I

654
01:05:30,720 --> 01:05:37,440
think that other cosmos chains can take note of. And so I'm really excited for those improvements

655
01:05:37,440 --> 01:05:42,720
that are coming basically just around the corner for secret because secret is my home.

656
01:05:42,720 --> 01:05:47,440
Can query notes, we could take what's being done there and apply it to the rest of these chains?

657
01:05:48,560 --> 01:05:53,680
I don't think so. The query note optimizations are really based around how SGX handles it

658
01:05:54,800 --> 01:05:59,600
potentially. But I err towards not my discussions with the core developers.

659
01:05:59,600 --> 01:06:03,440
That'd be pretty cool for RPC nodes and API nodes and things like that right here versus

660
01:06:03,440 --> 01:06:05,520
actually keeping a whole copy of the chain and everything else.

661
01:06:05,520 --> 01:06:10,720
Yeah, absolutely. There's something ridiculous like a 5000% performance increase.

662
01:06:10,720 --> 01:06:15,840
Yeah, I saw that. Yeah, so I think that's really exciting for me personally.

663
01:06:18,000 --> 01:06:26,400
That's awesome, man. What am I excited about? Man, Prop 17, that was pretty cool that it wasn't

664
01:06:26,400 --> 01:06:33,520
the actual prop it was supposed to be. And it's an upgrade. I like that. But I'm excited for that

665
01:06:33,520 --> 01:06:41,440
upgrade. This smart contract governance I think is going to be like a really big thing now that

666
01:06:41,440 --> 01:06:46,960
someone's pulled the trigger and done it. I'm excited to see what developers do with it as well

667
01:06:46,960 --> 01:06:56,240
in expanding it and its capabilities. And yeah, man, I think it's really exciting. And if you

668
01:06:56,240 --> 01:07:02,400
don't know what I'm talking about, go back and listen to episode 2.5. A lot of good discussion

669
01:07:02,400 --> 01:07:09,360
about that prop and what it brings to Juno. So yeah, man, I'm excited about that.

670
01:07:11,840 --> 01:07:16,480
So I guess that brings us to the end unless anyone else has something they wanted to discuss.

671
01:07:16,480 --> 01:07:19,200
DeFray, do you want to do your wrap up, man, with your like and subscribe?

672
01:07:21,200 --> 01:07:27,040
Do you know what I actually just realized? I didn't do a like and subscribe at the end of 2.5.

673
01:07:27,040 --> 01:07:34,480
I think we just said thank you for listening to our nerd chat and then hit the button.

674
01:07:35,920 --> 01:07:42,800
So with that in mind, thank you everybody for listening as always. It's been really,

675
01:07:42,800 --> 01:07:47,200
really cool. And this was kind of a dumb idea that we all kind of came up with. I think Null

676
01:07:47,920 --> 01:07:52,800
in particular pushed us off the cliff to the, you know, we should do a podcast. And the fact

677
01:07:52,800 --> 01:08:00,320
that people listen to it is still surprising and awesome. So thank you for bearing with us. For

678
01:08:00,320 --> 01:08:05,200
those of you that haven't yet subscribed and liked, you should do that by the buttons down below.

679
01:08:05,200 --> 01:08:09,520
Hit the bell icon if you're on YouTube as well so you get notifications of upcoming streams.

680
01:08:09,520 --> 01:08:14,400
And if you're on other podcast players, leave us a comment or a rating depending on which one

681
01:08:14,400 --> 01:08:19,360
you're on because that will help us get a little bit more visibility. And also, it means that you

682
01:08:19,360 --> 01:08:24,160
say your surfers hard work in distributing it to all those other platforms is not wasted.

683
01:08:24,160 --> 01:08:27,120
Though if you're listening, of course it's not wasted anyway.

684
01:08:28,960 --> 01:08:35,520
It's on Spotify, right? It's everywhere. Oh yeah. No, definitely get on Spotify. I got it.

685
01:08:37,120 --> 01:08:40,960
So I did want to mention actually just a couple other things on top of that for that. I think we

686
01:08:40,960 --> 01:08:46,400
should just remind everyone at the end here that we are independent validators. If you do like what

687
01:08:46,400 --> 01:08:52,240
we're doing and maybe research our nodes and if you like how we look, maybe give us a consider

688
01:08:52,240 --> 01:09:00,400
delegating to us as well, which we probably should mention. And other than that, if you have

689
01:09:00,400 --> 01:09:05,520
suggestions that you want us to talk about on the show or you think we can improve and anything

690
01:09:05,520 --> 01:09:11,360
whether you want us all to be in cars while we're doing the podcast, just let us know.

691
01:09:11,360 --> 01:09:17,360
So other than that, thanks a lot.