And it was, oh, fuck me.
It was, I love it.
Avoidable.
Avoidable is how I'd fuck.
Like the start of this show.
Well done.
I can't have my...
Welcome to Game of Notes,
a weekly podcast on the cosmos
from independent validator teams.
And despite knowing the format for this,
I still got rugged again.
Well done.
Well played.
Although you fucked up actually fucking starting the show.
So it was kind of an impotent...
It was kind of a...
It was sort of like a premature ejaculation of a rug.
It was nothing rug.
It was kind of a...
It was kind of a premature ejaculation of a rug.
Nothing rug.
I was just so ecstatic and slaughtered without the rug
that I just couldn't figure out how to fucking get the thing going.
Just clicking all the buttons at once?
There's so many good things in there.
I mean, at the end of the day, like...
Yeah, whatever.
It's not complicated to use the rug pool function
in the streaming software, and you still manage to fuck it up.
No, it is hard to get it in...
That's almost as good.
You can't get it in there with the subtle,
so you can't see me like rugging you.
So...
That's fair enough.
Okay, so...
So, this episode, we got quite a few...
I guess a few things to talk about.
We've had quite a few questions in.
I guess the biggest ones are...
Well, the Osmosis Holt is the biggest thing.
Before we talk about that, though,
we always get asked whether we mind giving our opinions
as validators on things that are currently going on
in the Cosmos on chains that we validate.
There is a live prop currently up on Juno.
Well, there's actually...
I guess there's two things currently being talked about.
One of which is the Subdow principles vote.
It just passed.
Was that last week?
Yeah.
Eighth.
Or was that today?
No, that was this morning.
That was this morning, wasn't it?
Or this morning, UTC?
Because there was a Juno epoch and my phone went off.
I remember that.
This says 9 o'clock yesterday, PM,
but I have no idea what time zone is this UTC.
I'm not sure if it's adjusted or not.
But anyway, recently.
So, I don't think it's up on chain yet,
but there's the first discussion about the first Subdow,
which is the Hack Juno Dow.
That's quite exciting from a Juno perspective.
And there's pro...
I mean, do we have any thoughts on the Hack Juno Dow?
Where's all this being set up?
Is this on Dow-Dow?
Or what's happening?
What's the next steps on this?
Where does this go?
Yeah.
So, I guess there'll be a signaling proposal on...
I should know.
It won't be a signaling proposal on chain.
It will be a proposal on chain to move some funds,
I would assume, to a Dow and Dow-Dow.
To a Dow and Dow-Dow.
Yeah.
So, it'll be a...
I think it's going to be a contract instantiation,
I thought, for the actual Subdow.
This version was just basically signaling and saying,
hey, we want to be able to put funds towards these ideas.
Right?
And then now this next step is...
Yeah.
And all of the Subdow proposals were to instantiate the Dow,
as I thought.
But I thought that's what Jake was saying.
I might have got it wrong.
Maybe it was to move funds from Community Pool.
But, so, no, no, it is to instantiate the contract
because they're actually putting funds from the Dev Pool,
not the Community Pool.
For HackGina, anyway.
Yeah, that makes sense, actually.
I didn't think the proposal was going to actually instantiate the contract.
This is just a text proposal, so there's nothing in here that's...
No, no, this...
So, the proposal that's on chain now is the one for the actual...
That's a signaling proposal to say that we want to do this.
Does everyone agree?
Right.
And then the subsequent...
So, they broke them up.
It was going to be...
They were going to put the HackGina Dow and the Dev Dow in that original prop,
but then broke it up to just have a signaling prop to say this is what we want to do,
so it's not tied to those other two things,
and then separately do those other two sub-dow's.
And I think they can both be just contract...
There's going to be a message that goes along with them
that does some things to do with that sub-dow.
Cool.
Yeah.
So, it is code as law.
This is also setting up for the other ones we talked about,
like infrastructure Dow with Jake when he was on those types of things, right?
Because that's something that's pretty exciting.
I like that idea.
Yeah.
It's definitely going to be a good handful of dow's.
I think there's four dow's.
Plan, there's marketing dow, HackGina Dow, Dev Dow, Infra Dow.
Those are the first four.
So, there's already some sort of marketing dow.
I'm not sure if it's a core one there.
There was, right?
There is at least a semi-official one, yeah.
But I don't know if it's...
I'm not sure if it's part of that or something,
but I'm sure he was saying something about it.
Yeah.
I think Highlander is part of something.
I think it's a marketing dow.
Cool.
But I think that's going to be more formally established.
I would guess that that will be Wolf and Block kind of leading that up.
Yeah.
And then everybody who's currently in the core team will kind of be sort of moved,
shuffled into their respective subject matters.
Yeah.
So, Calum has finally showed up.
And I actually tweeted out, where's Calum?
What the hell, man?
Isn't this your calendar?
Come on.
And yeah, so there's a marketing MS on Dow, Dow.
Cool.
And yeah, I guess Highlander nodes.
He said so.
So, you want to talk about 2016?
You want to talk about the sponsorship?
So, it feels like, yeah, it feels like the Dow's thing isn't particularly controversial,
especially like you said, we've been talking about the Infra Dow on here.
And I think we're enthusiastic about the things that I guess infrastructure providers can do
when working together in situations where it's things like RPCs or whatever,
where cooperation is the winning strategy or the dominant strategy or whatever.
Right.
So, but yeah, Prop26 is the one I think that's maybe more interesting, which is,
so obviously, Cosmoverse, I'm actually wearing the last Cosmoverse t-shirt.
Although it's very, very small, so you probably can't see it wherever it is.
Yeah.
Cosmoverse, very good conference.
The last one was not going to the next one,
because obviously I really value having all my fingers and toes,
but there's a prop basically to put up.
Hold on, you need to back up for a second there.
One in your fingers and toes, what is this referencing?
Oh, the next Cosmoverse is in Median in Colombia, which I'm sure is quite likely.
Oh, right, right, right, right.
I remember now.
We had this discussion.
Yeah.
Thanks, Nevis Michael.
It's on screen, mate.
We know that I'm paranoid, right?
This has been well established, but just because I'm paranoid,
just because you're paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get you, right?
Like all your ledgers in your same fanny pack, right?
That's right.
Let's see if you want one.
Yeah, exactly.
It's actually like a gun built style.
Oh, like the ammo is slugging.
I like to send shotgun shells.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I thought as long as you put the fanny pack around your front,
then you can see it and nobody can nick from you, right?
See?
They can still check your nails out.
They should make those with the ledger logo right on the front too.
This is really obvious.
This is bright.
Ledger sponsored front fanny packs.
Because you wouldn't want to forget what was in there, right?
You wouldn't, right?
Yeah, you want to advertise ledger.
Like that's a good, I'm safe.
Look at this.
Look at this fanny pack.
What's a bandoyler?
A bandolier.
I think that's a misspelling of bandolier.
Yeah.
Say bandoyler again.
Bandoyler.
Trust Callum to actually know what that is.
So fun fact, a fanny pack is just called a bum bag in England.
It's exactly the same.
Is that a trunk bag or something?
Yeah, it's a bum bag.
Bumb bag.
I mean, I guess a fanny pack is effectively the same thing.
Just a bunch of words.
Yeah, it's great close to an insult though, because obviously grot bag is an insult.
Fanny is such a fun word though.
You got it.
Yeah, I mean, that's a fanny pack.
Come on.
Fanny pack or bum bag?
Fanny pack with vagina in the UK.
Oh, does it?
Well, that's even more.
So if you were in front, it's even more appropriate.
If you say fanny pack, people are like,
Yeah, they were in front with the ledger logo.
Well, like when America is like, are you sitting on your fanny?
It's a site.
What really?
Is that really what I didn't know that?
Yeah.
Just means I don't use the word fanny in typical conversation.
So it's not much of a full bar, but you know, good to know.
But more than I could never last I used fanny in a conversation.
Wait, you're Australian.
You're not even American.
Yeah, we've got the other one.
What are they called down there?
Kent.
That's like, you know, the Simpson joke where she's like, say the line.
Say the line.
God, little emoji.
All right.
So back to Median.
So we're in, yeah, we have.
So next Cosmoverse is in Median.
Prop 26 is does Juno co-sponsor it?
Yeah.
And the only controversial thing about this, I think is the sum of money.
It, well, 15, it was 15,000 Juno, which was.
More.
A few days ago.
It was more.
It was a lot more.
Whatever it was.
It was a covered world.
And I think since this question got posed to us, I wonder if you think of Prop 26,
which I think got posed to us six days ago.
I think six days ago it was like 80 grand or whatever.
As of right now, at least as of June 8th, it's 54,000 USD, which seems quite reasonable
actually.
Yeah.
So I guess unfortunately, you hit me while they add them that they got is worthless.
And they're fucking well after.
And Osmo is ungettable at the moment.
It is ungettable.
That makes it, it should make it more valuable, right?
And also worthless.
Well, back to our thing from last week.
Yeah, we're to change.ruddy.
What is it?
It's just a very exclusive NFT.
It might as well be a fucking CW20 coin.
We'll get to that.
We'll get to that in a minute.
So, yeah, I guess there's two things about it.
Like what do we think of the value, the amount of money seems quite a bit.
And also, I think actually in general, there's a question of like how much value there is
given to the Juno community from sponsoring these things in general.
I can kind of get on board with the, if you go with the Juno's a blue chip, want to support
the community.
Yeah.
You know, it is a community conference.
I guess it's developers, right?
So, so I think as a, as a sponsorship, you're not really gaining much traction in terms
of a user base because it's all current users that go to that, that go to Cosmo.
It's like, and people who are already, you know, brave enough to want to go to Medellin
who are a Cosmo note.
And secondly, like, I think for that type of money, like Juno should be the lead sponsor
is the only thing.
Yeah, I agree.
It is lead sponsor, isn't it for that money?
I have no idea.
No, like actually somewhere in that, in that proposal said like the costs are about 300,000
for the show.
I see that.
I thought I just read that, but I mean, they do sell tickets.
The current cost of a 3D event is already exceeding 300,000.
This is like $54,000 in Juno.
So, depending on how many, what's going on there, I think that it is a, this is not,
I agree.
I totally agree with, with no, like this is not a acquisition play, right?
This isn't a marketing branding type of thing.
This is really giving back to say, for people who are already invested, this is something
to be able to, to be able to make sure that the conference goes well, which, you know,
this number doesn't actually doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
That was just trying to look at min scan because there was a couple other proposals that were
out recently where the numbers were like way ridiculous, but I'll see if I can remember
what the heck we were talking about.
Well, I guess those are 1 million Juno for the Terror Development Fund that, that was
big.
Yeah.
That's a lot.
I mean, yeah, exactly.
And things like that, those numbers are so large and those projects are so nebulous, like
we were just talking about before you got out.
And I guess what I'd say is like, is that a good value or not?
It might be like, depending on what comes in, but it might also be a total waste of time.
I think that's not so much like the, the, I think the delineation of those funds, but
it's actually the, how those funds get applied, right?
Which is probably more, more important.
I guess I mean, I feel a bit weird about, and I felt a bit weird about this in Prague
is the Juno is kind of a community chain.
We're not really like, we don't need to market in the same way as other chains.
Like whether it's a good use of community full funds to spend on an event, which is largely
devs because it's subsidizing developers.
Do you know what I mean?
It seems like a junkie for a fucking devs, to be honest.
Like looking, so 300 grand for a thousand attendees, like, yeah, that's a lot.
And, and do they sell tickets?
So I would have liked to have seen a budget with the, with the proposal to be honest.
Like if it's public funds, I would have liked to have seen a link to an IPFS with a budget
to sort of, you know, give some context about where the $300,000 goes.
And there probably is some more information out there about like, you know, tickets and stuff for the, for the event.
But like looking at the one last year, you know, you went the fray, but I mean, like, it was a nice location, right?
And it was nice food and stuff all catered for your what $60 ticket or something.
It was like cheap as, but to me that's like, there was no, there was a weird thing where you could only get coffee like twice a day.
Really?
Okay.
Yeah, they like wheeled out this car.
They're like, you can have coffee now for this 10 minute window.
And then they fucking shut that shit away.
And it's like, if you want coffee now, you got to walk out of the venue down the road, go to the train station, go to the, the store outside the train station.
You just need to bring your own insulated fanny pack.
Like just fucking load up, just pour that thing in there and drink out of it all day.
I should have got like a needle cast travel mugs and then just like got a whole thermos, got a whole thermos for the plan.
Yeah. So what I guess what I'm saying is that it seems to me like, you know, they're asking all these chains to pay for a bit of a junk at the devs.
Yeah.
Which, which maybe makes sense if you're like a foundation running a, you know, project of your own.
But like, I feel a bit weird about Juno paying for something like that, given that who benefits mainly other ecosystem cosmos people and a few Juno devs.
And it felt a bit weird in Prague as well, if I'm honest, like, yeah.
I, I, Calvin just pointed something out in chat here about, about better spent on non cosmos conferences.
I totally agree with that.
Like even what's going on on, like I'm, we're headed to consensus here tomorrow for this conference in Austin.
And there's like, obviously a cosmos track and those types of things.
But in the grand scheme of what's going on in those talks, it would be great to have maybe not just Juno specific, but more non-cosmos specific type of marketing.
Out there.
Cause I think there's so many benefits to this ecosystem that I think it overlooked and people get so kind of maybe single track on, you know, things that they understand.
There's a lot of value in trying to open up the ecosystem.
Right.
And I think I totally agree that that I think acquisition is a much more valuable dollar per ROI return than say just funding devs to go to Median, which I think you might even get a thousand down there with this show.
I don't know.
Absolutely.
So like you look at consensus, right?
Consensus is a massive event and 40 grand or 50 grand or whatever it is when it comes out would get you like a lot of people at an event like that.
And then people would be, and it's people who don't know what it is.
They can come up and say, well, what the fuck is this?
You know, you go, well, it's the greatest thing ever, man.
And for the fuck of you, Ben?
Yeah, it's, it's terror, but better.
Maybe not the better.
We're going to work on that tagline.
Yeah, terror, but better.
Yeah, actually, let me look at the sponsors real quick.
I think you're totally right because like the corporate sponsors near near file coin, Galaxy digital, like, and even like this next level looks to say fish, sakefish is actually sponsoring a big, big structure crypto.com, Binance US is.
I'm guessing these lists are probably under 100,000 easily.
So I think I agree.
Like this would be a things like this, maybe not just this show.
I mean, obviously there's better shows, but I think that's a nice use for funds.
In the comments, Juno.Love said, maybe fly a plane with a banner past a lunar conference, which reminded me of a joke that you sir for made earlier about the, about the osmosis security disclosure.
And we'll talk about osmosis in a minute, but the way the disclosure was handled.
Yeah, I was posting it straight to Reddit.
I think it's probably not far off flying a plane past a conference saying, you know, osmosis has a vulnerability off you go.
That's free as more like this free Osmo click the vulnerability.
Exactly.
So are you talking about that massive disclaimer that comes up on the screen when you visit for the first time that you quickly scroll past and click okay?
No.
Oh, okay.
There's a security disclosure.
What is in that disclosure?
The security vulnerability was first announced on Reddit.
Yeah, something just posted on Reddit basically.
It's like, I think I found a bug.
It's like, yeah, I can't like here you go.
See if you can also pull millions out of this.
So you can also figure out how to make $2 billion from $0.68.
Yeah.
So what else we got off track?
We were talking about the free.
Yeah.
So, so yeah, in conclusion, I think probably.
I don't know, maybe, maybe this is again something we can get tighter on whereas marketing down these things come along, but it kind of seems like we've got quite a big budget and we don't need to.
We shouldn't be doing the same thing that every other Cosmos is chain is doing for attention because we don't really need to.
And those chains will fund these events and these events will continue to happen because a lot of them are foundations that want to send their devs on a nice holiday.
Yeah.
And Gina doesn't need to do that.
Yeah.
I think like areas like this, it's so easy to have something come up and just blow money at it without like thinking downstream.
But I mean, we're talking about June for 10, 20 years, right?
And so these, these things are important, right?
And where we spend it.
So having a having some sort of control over this, not just as a single vote because honestly votes like this, this is goes, this goes back to we've talked about this before.
But when you have so few proposals, something like this, some people just click.
Yes.
Oh, yeah, I want this to grow.
I want the value to grow.
I want to do a little bit of money to go outside and build.
Yeah, sure.
But we're not being strategic around that, right?
We're just being reactive.
So when something complex exists, like if you had a vote of this versus, hey, we want to build a marketing down and we want to build a budget for 2022 and we're going to pick strategically what shows we think we're going to add the most value to the ROI and blah, blah, blah, and have like a real strategy around it.
I think people would choose that over just randomly throwing $15,000 or I'm sorry, 15,000 Juneau or something because I mean, is it 15?
Is it 14?
Is it 30,000 Juneau?
What are we getting out of that?
Like there's not much in there.
So I think this point and shoot type of point and shoot governance is a real problem.
And so I'm hoping with the Dow and those types of things, you start building a little bit more, a little bit more plan full around what the hell we're doing here, right?
I mean, it would be really cool.
I think if for the budgeting thing, we had the option of things like knapsack voting, which we've been talking about in the context of,
in the context of the Terry developer fund.
And I imagine I think she's also watched recently, rewatch the, the Tim Ruff garden lectures.
So if you're interested in what knapsack voting is, it's covered in the economic incentives for computer scientists course by Tim Ruff garden.
But it's a, I think we recommended that course on this show before several times.
But it's a participatory budgeting voting mechanism where you, let's say you have eight things that you could fund, but you only have like $100.
And each one of them cost something between like, you know, $5 and 500, let's say, or $5 and 100, because otherwise you wouldn't be to fund it.
That's maths children.
So you don't get a vote on what things you want, you only get to vote on a combined basket of projects.
So it means that you have to, as a voter, essentially do all of your tradeoffs ahead of time.
It's like ranked choice voting, but in a situation where not all of the choices are equal in proportion, like they have their own weightings.
Whereas if you're voting for like political candidates or choices in just a set of votes, you can obviously rank them in a particular way.
So NAPSAC is really interesting for that.
And it's something we've been talking about a little bit like, oh, wouldn't it be great if we had NAPSAC, which we don't, sadly.
And maybe it will come to doubt out at some point.
There are doubt out people in the chat, although they're very busy.
Isn't a sub-dial like essentially NAPSAC voting?
Well, no, because you need to specify the total amount and then specify essentially a vector of all of the things that you want that would come in below that value.
And it's checked before you even see that as your vote.
So then you just get all of those and you basically, you go for the combined set that has the most votes.
So this obviously, there's ways you have to do it.
If you have like a three or five multi-sig, everybody can vote differently and then they need to have a problem.
Sorry, you had a good point there.
Sorry, you said it was literally going to derail it into a bunch of stupid shit.
Go ahead, please.
As I was going to say, it usually relies on a slightly bigger voting set than let's say a three or five multi-sig because you're relying on at least, let's say, two people landing on exactly the same set of things.
Because it's unordered.
It's just a basket.
So it is a mathematical set.
So they'll be equal even if they're in different orders.
But you need two people, I guess, at a minimum to land on the same basket in order for that vote to pass.
If you see what I mean?
So the threshold is slightly weird.
If you have very, very small numbers of voters, I think that's there.
I would be my only, I'm not 100% sure how you resolve that with the model. I have to go do some reading.
So basically it's like betting on fantasy sports but not.
Or instead of choosing a player.
Right, yeah.
It's like assembling a fantasy football team or whatever.
Right.
Or whatever your sport of choice is.
It's exactly like that where you have a set number and you can only assemble one group.
And everybody comes up with a slightly different group, which is the problem in this situation.
So that's why you have to like, it works obviously better when there's a certain number of things on the slate.
And they're kind of clearly marked and costs and benefits and stuff.
But I guess it's an interesting idea anyway, I think.
But...
Very, very good.
I finally worked out how to add stuff to the overlay.
I love it.
What I was going to stupidly interject with is I always love how, if it's all the UK or maybe just in England, the use of the word maths.
So in the US where you grew up, it's just math, right?
And maths really got introduced that with, if anybody heard of the look around you, kind of like parody.
You ever guys seen this?
Like the look around you?
Out of the UK, right?
It's a parody of Tomorrow's World.
Is it? Okay.
So we'll put a link in the show notes.
But look around you, it's hilarious.
And there's a maths episode they always loved, which is always my favorite.
So anyway, we'll talk about that later.
Look around you as a very...
Awesome.
Yeah, you could put...
I think especially in programming circles of a certain age, you could basically walk into a room and make a joke about synthesizer patella.
Everybody would go...
I love that.
Synthesizer patella.
These bloody kids, they come and they steal your synthesizer.
I love it.
I can make that joke. I'm a Asian descent. It's totally fine.
Although I think it was Richard Ayoade that makes the joke of the show.
Complicated.
I don't remember.
Anyway, we're not canceling anybody. It's a great show.
There's a mutual.
All right, shall we get to the topic of the day?
Top of the day.
We've already circled the trade of the topic of the day already, but it's the osmosis chainhold.
Could somebody who's smarter than me explain what happened?
I'm looking at Shultz here.
There's only one, which is valid here in this chat, right?
Shultz.
Okay, here we go.
So it's actually a pretty interesting exploit because...
So kind of the root cause of this was there was a massive refactor of osmosis.
Like 150,000 lines of change since the last version.
And somehow what ended up happening was if you...
A bug got instituted where if you put in tokens into a pool and then you pulled tokens out of a pool,
you'd get 50% more just for no reason.
There's a 50% multiplier on it.
So if you put them in and then took them out, you've suddenly had 150% of your tokens.
And then you've kept doing that again and again and again.
Does that scale up?
So any increase, decrease, like pull in, pull out,
or I thought there was something related to those balances not being equal or something.
There was some special situation or literally just in the UI, if I unbought it and pulled out, it worked.
Just put it in, pull it out, 50% more.
Without even bonding.
Just creating gams, just creating gams. So I just gam up, gam out.
Yep.
And so a lot of people, they just spent an hour doing that.
So there were a couple of instances where someone took like 60 cents and made it into like $80,000.
Because you know, you got 60 cents and then suddenly you've got 90 cents, then $1.35,
now you've got $2, $3, $4.50.
I'm like half bad as this is.
Half good.
And it just keeps going up and up and up.
And that's every 12 seconds of balance, right?
So I guess people, I guess, so how did this missed testing, right?
Because it's not a really common, I guess it would be common, right, to be able to pull in and pull out and be able to remove.
Yeah.
Did they test that, this version of Osmosis they would have had to, right?
They did, yeah.
So the problem is, so Osmosis, you can put tokens of defaults in two ways, right?
You can do it like where you do like 50% to 50-50, the quality can put them into a pool.
So like you do the full exchange or you can do one-sided pooling, right?
If you did one-sided pooling, it worked fine.
And that's the way a lot of people do it now.
They just put do one-sided.
It's for whenever you do a joint pooling that the bug happens.
And so there were a ton of unit tests and Russian testing around like single joints because that was more of a feature.
But around the like the full deposit, that's where it wasn't at.
I saw, I like math, what can I say?
So basically they were only testing new functionality, not existing functionality.
Like this with a refactor.
That seems pretty challenging when you have that much of a refactor, right?
Yeah, so I would say that was a pretty big mistake on that part.
I mean, the amount of lines of code of change, there's no way that could have been reviewed in the last like two months of code changes that happened.
I'm not going to say anything bad about the developers because developers are absolutely outstanding.
But I would say that was a poor decision.
Well, development and testing usually are kind of two separate worlds where there are testing strategy and development strategy might not necessarily be the same exact thing, right?
So, yeah.
Absolutely.
So we can definitely verify that two accounts of the four are willing to re-give the funds back because it's actually a validator that two people on a validator that are returning the funds.
So the other two individuals we don't know about, but we do know two are certainly going to return their funds or at least have publicly stated they will.
Do you think that's because they got code?
I don't know.
I think that it certainly would have been scary.
Like they would have needed to cash out through an exchange.
So like, I wonder if they probably would have been found, they probably could have, you know, like bought a KYC one off like the black market or something who knows.
But either way, odds are they would have been found out.
They didn't run a validator in Osmosis.
So it's not like it was their validator wallet that was doing that.
But in this case, they might have heard about it via Reddit, which we're going to talk about here in a second, right?
So how that was disclosed.
But they heard about it, they tried it. It might have been just like, Hey, I got my personal wallet.
I'm going to give it a shot. Oh, shit. It works.
Next thing you know, you're doing this over and over and you got $2 million and you're like, Oh, shit, it works.
Right. You're in that situation.
And then you realize, Oh, shit, I should have done this with a burner account.
Like, I didn't realize where exactly we I should have thought ahead of this.
I just tried it with my personal wallet and oh, fuck my, my, you know, everything else associated with this.
Now I can exactly certain.
Now, oh, shit, I got to come clean on this. Right. And maybe, maybe the other two accounts are burner accounts for the same people because they go, Oh, shit, we have $2 million.
And now let's go. Hey, let's go create an account. Like, let's go build another mnemonic and like mnemonic and let's get moving on it. Right.
So let's spend an hour watching some tokens for a minute.
Yeah. This is a good conspiracy. Then you come out and then you come out and Twitter and be like, Hey, listen, no problem.
And then you there's $4 million sitting in the other two accounts that I have the other mnemonics for.
I mean, so here's like, here's what I would have done differently.
If I were one of the quarters, here's what I would have done.
I wouldn't have run it up to a $1 million before saying something.
Well, I mean, so I guess first of all, if I were trying to do this well, I don't know why they didn't just go through the secret network, right?
Get all the funds.
Go to secret, bridge over secret, and then poof, it's gone.
And then at some point send a different account and then withdraw from there. Boom. Done.
Hashtag money laundering. Right. Exactly.
Yeah.
Yeah. So if you had done that, that's one way you could have gone away with it. That's how I would have gone.
There's way, I mean, there's ways to, yeah.
So and so how did who came out with this idea that it was only four accounts that that went through this process?
Was that was that coming from us most specifically? I heard that number, but I don't know where that number came from.
So I think Sonny was originally I did that, but I think that Joe Abbey has actually verified it.
So he's actually gone through and the way they were doing it was basically check what kind of transactions they did.
And if they're doing repeat join and exit, that's really easy to track.
Then you can track, you know, click obviously a ton of people in the hour or so that the exploit was available would have exited before.
If they only did it once, then that sucks.
But that's, I wouldn't consider that exploiting that some that they, it was, it was a bug and it happened.
If they do it 17 times, then you can track that pretty easily.
Right.
So that's good. Well, if Joe doesn't know that nobody knows, right?
So that's, that's good that he he tracked that. I'm guessing he's working on the other two as well.
I would guess so. Yeah. Well, so we know that the other two are in centralized exchanges right now.
Right.
The question is just who are they?
Right. Yeah. And I saw, I saw, I think I saw a tweet from, I feel Sonny or somebody else had said that they're talking to exchanges about what those accounts are.
And where those funds came from, et cetera.
Okay. So this is where, why the fuck not? Let's throw a spicy opinion in a spicy question.
Not anything. Cause I actually don't have an opinion on this really.
Given that code is law apparently.
Is that?
Well, it's something that, that Sonny did say very prominently about prop 16 and all of the fallout.
And the code was released and checked by the validator set for osmosis and ran in production.
Did the users running up those sums and then walking off with the money?
Did they actually breach the terms of service of osmosis?
Do you actually have a leg to stand on to go and chase a centralized exchange and say, whoa, whoa, whoa, this money is whatever, you know?
My opinion, my opinion, this is theft.
So I don't agree with, I don't agree that there's a lot of, there's a lot of structure here in the regular world around the protection of mistakes.
And those mistakes, whether that's pricing or, you know, hey, this is on the website for $1, it's supposed to be $100,000.
And so for a very good walk off for a dollar because you're on the website, doesn't really work in the real world, right?
I think that there is, I think that there is some protection here to say that, that this is an exploit and it's not, and it's a, it's a defect.
And it was exploited to be able to turn it into a large sum of dollars.
And so I have really have no issue in A, somebody recognizing the fact that this is an exploit and it should not be what they're, what they're getting.
I don't necessarily think that depending on that, there's penalties associated to that, like meaning like you're going to go take back what beyond what that person stole within that.
But I do think that this is theft.
And so in my, my opinion at least, that this should be returned.
And it, and going back to the exchange and say, hey, this money is coming out. I mean, it is, it is coming out of people's pockets, right?
This is not like just funds coming out of the air, like this is coming out of LP, pools that are staking everything else.
I do think that that should be returned.
So my opinion is that it is, the code is law thing I get and I'm down, like I'm with you.
But when, when that is, when that is exploited to say, hey, just because somebody figured some issue out and we had a problem with it and they're there for fuck it, we have no rules.
I totally fucking go against that.
I don't think that's the right idea.
But also we're talking about end product users.
We're not talking about, you know, the devs fucked up and it's a, and it's an end product user that gets fucked by it.
So, meaning the end product user in the LPs that are paying for this X plays out, you mean?
Exactly. Yeah.
It's like the extra, you know, 0.5 doesn't appear out of fucking thin air. It's someone else's money.
What would we feel differently if it was the community pool?
No, I would not.
I would not feel different.
I don't say it doesn't matter where it comes from.
So, would you feel differently if it was only a multi-sig of the founders money?
No.
I wouldn't feel differently under any circumstances, even if it was CCN's money.
Why are you going to bring 16 into this?
Everything comes back to 16.
For what it's worth, I'm playing devil's advocate.
I think the money should be returned.
It sounds like you're trying to say it's an unadvertised feature.
I kind of do think that in terms of liability, actually, the liability does rest with the devs.
I think that's pretty cut and dry.
Well, let's back it for a second there.
Liability basically never is with the devs, ever.
Well, it's not with the devs who wrote the code technically because it's open source and it's just being run.
But if I as a user do a thing and it's not breaking the terms of service and it's not breaking any law,
and it's not...
Now, here's the bit where I think this makes it a bit more cut and dry in this case,
is that it's not necessarily malicious.
In this case, I think it's quite obvious that somebody is going to get hurt by it,
ultimately, and that's where I think it becomes more cut and dry.
But were that not the case, which is why I use the example of, let's say it's the foundation's money,
no real individual gets hurt, but you as a user find a thing.
You keep clicking the button and you keep getting money and you walk off into the sunset.
To me, that is a very different case.
That is a foundation release code, had a bug in it, unfortunate.
If you walk away and you never even knew about it,
that would be... If nobody particularly has come to harm except for the foundation,
that is a weirder case.
That's why I'm kind of interested.
But I still think the moral impetus is to return money if you've taken it by accident.
I just think that the blame here is interesting for a user who finds something the system lets them do.
But is the foundation not there to serve the community anyway?
Like it's effectively as good as community funds, the foundation, because it's there to...
Not a lot of chains, no.
Well, the foundation is there to better the blockchain, right?
To pay the people to further the blockchain.
I'm not going to get re-drawn into the all-cosmos chains, it's just a decentralized system.
So what about this? Would you be pissed if the foundation just pressed the wrong button one day and gave Tim $2 million?
And Tim's like, thanks, I'm going to the section.
It's okay, because you just do prop 21.
I feel like we've solved this problem.
Whoa, we better shut that up.
Hold on a second, that wasn't quite what we meant. Let's try that one more time.
Tim, Tim.
Look, there's only one character difference now. It's very difficult with human readable names, unlike there's very readable back 32s to be certain you're assuming it's the right person.
Or even more readable, Hicks.
How about this question from Shoi?
So he asks, going to authorities is basically putting your hands up and saying we're centralized, isn't it?
I don't think so. I think it's just a recognition that in our current state, we don't have all the tools we need to govern ourselves.
That's as far as it goes for me.
Maybe one day we'll be able to do things about it without bringing it to authorities, but obviously not to that point yet.
Maybe the soulbound NFTs will solve that.
But you just hit it on the head there where you said in our current state, we can't govern ourselves, which proved the state chains essentially can, right?
Because you're either on the longest chain or you're not.
There's a whole layer of social consensus around that, but they can govern themselves after a fashion.
They govern themselves with CCN?
Well, yeah, we did, actually.
So the only difference here is that there was no timeout and they'd be seed stuff across.
So if there was jurisdiction, to use a police term, if there was jurisdiction to pull those funds out and make changes after it's outside of the osmosis universe, I bet you they would govern themselves.
But at some point, that jurisdiction ends.
And so then, yeah, I think then you're going to end up going back to other types of methods.
So I mean, is that not right?
I mean, in the junior world, that was pretty much a self-jurisdiction type structure and a self-police state type structure to be able to do that.
There was a lot of talk about whether to involve law enforcement and that type of thing.
There's a lot of concerns around that and those types of things.
But in this situation, those funds were gone, right? They're IBCed out and so now they're in exchange and now it's outside of jurisdiction.
But the same way, if that was still sitting in osmosis account and then the chain stopped, what conversation do you think that team would be having?
Would they be having a, hey, maybe we could write a new genesis to be able to move these funds and blah, blah, blah and fix this problem and reverse?
Maybe that conversation would be coming up. I don't know.
So I don't think going to the authorities means that we're essentialized.
I think that means that it's now moved into a realm where it's in something that's regulated or can be regulated and can be something be done about the authorities.
It's no longer like at the chain side where we can do self-governance. It's on the exit side.
Yeah. I mean, that's a bridge between this world and the real world type of idea, right?
And those bridges, which I think here in the U.S., that's the points that they really want to be able to govern and build controls around.
But that's also the point where you could then start involving some others that are police and this and that, that they can have a little bit more control.
So if somebody actually moves that to a CEX and sells off, you know, whatever it was, $2 million in Adam or whatever else and turns that into USD,
then you can get some law enforcement type of things to say, hey, these funds are stolen.
I think what would be very interesting is if the chain tried to do a rewrite and actually take funds out of a sex wallet.
That would be unprecedented awesomeness for some other chain for us, as opposed to the handle.
That would be some shit.
That would be some shit, right? Like then you start really, yeah.
Well, this is where the funds were taken out of this wallet. Imagine some fucking shit stolen at its start.
Let's push this as far as we can. Let's start.
Then I think Sam Kassler could write an even better obstacle.
Let's change the balance sheet of one of these CEXes by changing the structure. Yeah, that would be something, right?
But it is a really interesting question, isn't it?
Basically, like what is a jurisdiction and what are its rights and responsibilities?
Because I think what Juno has stumbled into in Proof of Stake is that chains and dowels are their own jurisdiction.
That is kind of real. If it decides to do a thing, it will sort of bodge its way into making it real.
That is interesting because it implies that the jurisdiction around a dowel is for a limited subset of situations,
just as real a jurisdiction as stuff in the real world.
Because if it can enforce it's worth... And this is... So the fun thing about everything around Prop 16 is obviously everybody who got legal advice,
got legal advice at the time and everybody's legal advice was some variant of, holy shit.
Wasn't my luck away from this.
Mine was, what the fuck are you talking about? That was the next level of it.
I'm kind of reasonably happy talking about it now because I think a lot of the Prop 16 major drama has sort of died down.
But yeah, it was essentially like this is completely unprecedented. There's no risk free exit from this scenario.
In fact, you're already in a situation where who fucking knows.
It's find a way out basically.
But what's really interesting is obviously like, we're working on a social protocol at the moment and we are still...
The code's pretty much done and we're doing the legal dance at the moment with how we launch and how that works.
And it's the same team, right? And they kept up to date with all the stuff that happened in Juneau and everything.
And there... So some of the sub dowel stuff, we ran past our lawyers because we wanted to be like, look,
it doesn't really matter what Juneau thinks it's doing with this idea of dowels if we're all individually on the hook anyway.
Then it doesn't mean anything.
And within the context of nothing's guaranteed and it's only for our jurisdiction and none of it's been tested yet.
And you might still get completely fucked by this.
They were like, actually, you can make a reasonable argument that Dow is an entity like a corporation.
If you're engaging with them like a business, then they can delegate authority to you, but it's not really your...
You just work here. You just sweep... In my case, I just sweep the floors here, man.
I don't actually...
I'm the gardener.
Right.
Yeah, exactly.
And that that might apply for anything like for a multi-sig on up.
Right. And that is fascinating.
Like the idea that you genuinely can say, oh, we can probably make a reasonable guess that if a multi-sig is like a partnership or a small cooperative or something,
and then it goes all the way up to a dowel, it's like a much bigger thing.
That to be able to say, I am just acting as the responsible agent of this abstract digital entity, that's kind of fascinating.
And it's kind of brought us full circle the way back to Prop 25, I guess.
But yeah, wouldn't it be cool if Osmosis changed that balance?
That would be amazing.
Well, the dowel said, the dowel voted.
Hey, right.
I saw that... Juno.Love, let me actually bring this up on the show.
We all moved his reward, Juno, to Osmosis.
It's like crossing the county line in the Dukes of Hazard episode.
This is such an American beautiful reference.
I appreciate that, just so I can put a link to Dukes of Hazard in the show notes.
I appreciate it.
Asaf said, CEX will just hold Adam hostage until they would meet Maid Hole again.
Which is probably the case, but, you know...
Yeah.
So, funny.
Yeah.
What you were saying, the threat on the sub-dowels, and...
So, you were saying that they could be interpreted to be like operating a business, right?
And you're saying that...
You know...
You may be put in a position where you may need to pay tax on what's come into that business as an income, as a multi-city holder.
Is that what I was hearing?
No, it's kind of the opposite.
So, a bit concerned as an agent of a dev working on any of these projects.
You have to be involved in any number of different things on behalf of the dowel.
And I think one of the more interesting things, and you'll notice as well now, working on Juno, is that, especially in the kind of pre-genesis set of people that are involved,
it was a relatively small number of people.
There's quite a lot of unknowns.
And the number of people who were very explicitly trusted outside of maybe the founding multi-sig was relatively small.
And actually, one of the biggest things that happened behind the scenes for the first few months of Juno, being a part of the core team,
was simply just actually not being somebody that would rug the project.
That was the valuable reason for being in the room.
Over and above dev contributions, any other thing, whatever.
There are lots of things that needed those contributions, but actually, it's the trustworthiness bit.
Yeah, so it's really hard to establish that.
Almost all of Core 2 is like docs, right?
I don't think. None of us are like a non, I don't think.
Yeah, we're all A, relatively docs, and B, we've all mostly met each other face to face, like literally days after the chain launched.
So bringing that back to the point of this, which is that actually in that context, again, you can pretty reasonably make the argument that,
as an agent working on behalf of this chain, you really are essentially like a night watchman with a set of keys.
That's your job around here.
You have to lock up the safe at the end of the day and then go home for the night or whatever.
But it's not your money in the safe, it's somebody else's money.
Yeah, exactly.
I don't have that.
So I guess that was the concern, though, is that it might be able to be construed as like, you're getting the money and now it's yours and you're divvying it out.
Whereas that's not really the case. You're acting on behalf of the community as a delegate.
Yeah, it's a big concern with sub-dows, right?
Because what's the point in delegating funds to sub-dows to like higher devs to expand the dev team?
Do blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, whatever.
If every individual person on the dev team or every individual company that's represented in the case of us,
and needlecast, and Envoy's, is suddenly responsible for just like divvying up that pool of money and paying tax on it.
That would be insane. It would completely destroy the point of the entire exercise.
And it is a concern.
But yeah, I don't know.
It's all very interesting and I guess we're going to have to come up with a solution to this like every jurisdiction will.
But I kind of, you know, self-plug wrote a blog post on this called Jurisdiction Zero about the rights and responsibilities of the Dow jurisdiction,
which is based on our thinking around the sub-dows and also some of the stuff we've been doing on how social, around how do you encourage a community to moderate itself?
Short answer. If you've worked it out, please get in touch at Fray Needlecast on Twitter.
Please tell me.
I currently seven days into going totally insane rewriting the moderation handlers.
Please tell me.
Yeah, if anybody's got any great ideas, then I'm all ears. I'm Andrew Maher at this point.
So can we talk about fire steak?
Well, yeah. Well, actually, I think like in the context of fire steak, I think.
Set the context of what happened with fire steak.
Well, what I was going to say was I think a better conversation to be had is around the integrity of validators, I guess.
Don't blow it up. I didn't do that, but that was perfect.
Don't blow it up. Don't blow it up into a big thing. Let's talk about fire steak first. What was the background of why we're bringing them up?
Well, okay. So fire steak have, I'm not sure if they just owned up to it on Twitter or if they were found out beforehand, but fire steak are involved as a participant in exploiting the bug, I guess, on the osmosis.
Within that hour that it was available. So I think they've turned a relatively small amount of osmo into a relatively large amount of osmo somewhere.
I think they stated $1.6 million worth on on the 226 $226 turn into $2 million.
Okay, $2 million. So, but they have said that they will return it, whether or not that's because they were reasonably certain that they would be found out or not.
Here's another question. So that's the context of the conversation, I guess.
So, you know, it's, it comes down to, well, I mean, it could be said that, you know, they were caught up in the moment, potentially, and weren't really thinking about where the money was coming from, just that they were getting the money.
And, you know, if you, so as a validator, having having integrity as a validator and having the chain as your first priority as a validator and the integrity of the chain, and making sure that everybody who providing security to the users of the chain, right.
So the right move would have been to once noticed that it the vulnerability is real, the right move would have been to not click the thing again and go to discord and the devs and immediately tell everybody loudly and get the chain shut down immediately, not keep clicking the button for an hour.
I mean, while I agree in theory, does it change that they don't actually validate for osmosis, right. Sure, they're validators in general. They are a validator and they should know better than to do that.
They're a validator for 14 cosmos chains. 14. I agree. I'm just saying that like the conversation changes a little bit whenever it's a completely different chain, right. Like, yeah, it's still the ecosystem.
I, in my opinion, they very well, like, it's completely unethical what they did, obviously. So say if you live in Switzerland where they are very environmentally conscious, right.
And you want to rape and pillage the, the countryside for coal, right.
We leave the raping out of it, please.
And next door, focus on the pillaging door is like, I don't know, another country that's run by a dictator or something and doesn't have environmental laws.
Italy, you can go and rape and pillage the countryside for your coal. Does it make it right to do so? Should you go and do it?
I guess, I see what you're saying. I guess my point is more like, it depends on how you take your responsibility as a validator, right.
If it's just a job, then my job ends at this new chain, right. And with new chain, I'm just a user. And so I'm going to act like a user and do things that I can do as a user.
I'm no longer within the jurisdiction of me doing my job of securing the chain. Now it's out of my responsibility.
If you're a cop in Australia and then you go to the US, you don't suddenly have the responsibility in the US to uphold the law, right.
I'm pretty sure I've seen that film. I'm pretty sure I've seen that film.
I take your point, but it also comes down to who do you want as a validator and the integrity as a validator.
So, you know, as a validator validating other chains, you should not have it in you to exploit a vulnerability on another chain.
And if you do, should you be trusted on the other chains? So I think it is a detriment to your, you know, public image in doing so.
So let's just say that, you know, if this were Juno and somebody didn't responsibly disclose it in that situation, I as one of the dance would find out where they lived and I would get on the train and I would go to where they live and I would knock on their front door and then
What if Frey, what if they lived in Medellin? You know, boys are we boys.
I would call them nicely. Please pick up the phone. I'm not coming to see you.
I'm not coming to see you, but I'm really dissapointed. I'm just disappointed.
I think we're disappointed. I absolutely agree. No, I'm just kind of playing double as advocate there.
From my perspective, I see my role as a validator as even though I'm only on, you know, half the chains or whatever, I see it as like my responsibility to protect all of them.
If I see an exploit, the first thing, like whether I'm on the chain or not, the first thing I'm going to do is to find a different story.
Yeah, yeah, there's a hospital. Exactly.
A different story if it's unlike, you know, Solana. Well, I do agree that that's completely different. It's not comparing like a like is it?
That's affluence of the oranges though. You can't do that.
And Solana, you immediately post it to Reddit and you encourage other users.
Hey guys, I don't think this is quite working, but you know, because somebody else.
I'm supposed to get 3x back every time I press the button. Let's all press it together.
Livestream. I misspoke early. I said 14 chains are an 11 chains. So that was my bad. I just missed out on the rails.
I do think that osmosis is also slightly different. So if there was a Desmos or meme chain exploit and those types of things like like those are kind of smaller dollars and those types of things.
Like there's a little bit different there in osmosis pool one, when you're talking about Osmo, Adam, there's a significant amount of Cosmos ecosystem consumer value in that right.
And and also the way that they phrased it, I thought in the tweet, they said, if you guys remember, it said something along the lines of two members of the fire steak team started to testing to see if the bug existed.
And testing grew into a temporary lapse of good judgment and blah, blah, blah. Right. So they're kind of pushing to say, Hey, this wasn't this wasn't fire steak as an organization.
This is a fire steak team. I don't know how big that team is. I'm looking at their website. I don't know how big that team is.
And I don't really know too much about that group, which is whatever.
It probably is too. But but that idea like to say, Hey, we're pushing it down. It's two members had bad adjustment.
And I think somebody had a great tweet around the find that they say like, you never know if you if you find exploit until you get to the first million dollars worth of exploit, right?
You never know. Not sure if this really works. Let me double click this until I get to at least one million to see if this is a problem and then blah, blah, blah.
So I do think not be sure that the exploit works until you exit and you're in a limbo.
It's a beautiful tweet. That's a beautiful tweet. I love it.
So I think that I think that as a validator and and validators, regardless of chain, I think we all want the cosmos ecosystem to be successful.
Right. Like, I don't want to. We only validate for a few chains. Like, we're not in osmosis anymore.
I clearly don't want that chain to fail. But we want that to be successful.
We're not in. We're not in Desmos. We're not in Bicana. We're not in key chain. We're not in, you know, in Gravity Bridge.
But boy, do I want those chains to be successful, right?
So the idea that you have a validator that that that those that income is based on, I think, rising tide raises all boats type of thing that you want this ecosystem to be successful to have team members that that say, hey, I'm going to go pull two million dollars out of this because of this stupid bug and fuck them.
That that is that's a serious loss in judgment. And I give him props for coming back and saying whether whether or not they got caught or not. Who knows, right?
We're not maybe that'll come out in the book when somebody writes it from the osmosis team right about what the hell happened in here.
So Sunny did tweet out that they came forward without being caught first.
Sure. I mean, honestly, if if I was caught doing this, I would say, hey, Sunny, tell him that we came forward.
Right. Like, that would be something you want to be able to do or some sort of situation like that.
Well, so Javi was probably literally minutes away. He's probably outside their house.
I got a media. I got a medium post full of references and that's probably why he's not on tonight.
Because he's exactly he's outside their house wherever the hell they live with Winston straining on the leash.
75 75 of those like bottom of the page references of like details of Excel spreadsheets showing exactly how you fuck this over.
And yeah, yeah, it's just so impaled to get into daughter as soon as anything happens.
You just like I must.
He's really good at that. It's amazing.
And he's a detail guy.
I'm glad he's a success. So I mean, I'm glad they came forward.
I'm glad that that whether that was whether that was, you know, by they had to or whether, you know, it was guilt coming forward.
I'm glad and those types of things.
Yeah. Yeah. Probably they kind of push it down and say it says some team members and those types of things.
But I would hope that that, you know, I don't know if every validator would approach this the same way.
I don't know if you guys agree with that or not.
I want to chime in a little bit here to what soy said.
He said that this is a sipp chain down multi-sig frothing osmosis.
And I think that's a little more inflammatory than it needs to be.
Yeah, he might be on the multi-sig.
But from what I've heard, it doesn't like it doesn't take much to be on the sipp chain multi-sig.
Shots fired.
Wow.
Jesus.
Like a lot of his days.
A heartbeat in eight bucks and you're on the sift multi-chain recording the Schultz 11 or 5.
My point stands though that I don't think that like they thought, oh, this is our opportunity to like make sipp chain shine.
Right. I think it's just, I think it probably was still absent judgment, not a way to like bring down a competitor.
Yeah.
I don't know. I think this whole situation, I mean, I don't know, maybe it's part of growing up and those types of things.
I'm hoping that the osmosis team with this, like this seems to be kind of the way you described it.
At least Schultz seems to be a pretty basic bug.
This does not seem to be like some massive type of, you know.
Yeah. I mean, it wasn't like a smart contract exploit.
Like when it was found, they had like the code that had the issue found like isolated off almost immediately because it is just kind of like a simple, simple problem.
Yeah.
So I like to throw a question at work again.
We're sort of past the hour mark.
So I think it's time to ask.
Ask a game of nodes.
Let's go late.
We're all here.
We got a question, we got a question which was related to the cosmos.
The Ketzer on Twitter said, do validators on cosmos have too much power?
What does that mean?
Well, I think they're saying like is in the fact that they can hold the chain.
So I mean, I guess they're not just saying cosmos.
They're really saying proof of stake more generally.
That 100 teams can decide to hold a chain.
I think in this case is kind of back to the checks and balances thing that we were talking about previously with prop 16.
Isn't that I mean, in this case, holding the chain was the right course of action.
Well, I thought it was funny that as most as discord were or I think the large dragon was the one who said, hey, halt everything.
It was a really short message like, hey, fucking halt now.
Right. That was it. Everybody started halting and then somebody finally went, did he get hacked?
Like, are we sure that we should halt?
Like, is this we just got this little piece of information or is nothing else in there?
And I thought that was pretty interesting around everybody just halting and saying, oh, we'll figure out later.
So was it it?
Well, I mean, it's I guess it's a better safe and sorry situation.
Rather than everyone get into discord and say, wait, why the fuck did we hope?
Was that was it a joke?
Okay, let's start it back up again.
Right.
Rather than like, you know, let an exploit go for another six hours while everyone goes, well, should we shouldn't we better off just.
Well, I was at failure tracking.
I thought it was actually just one of the one of the regular validators who just said, no, we should we're turning off on there now.
No, it's Valero Dragon 10.
1039 p.m. Eastern yesterday.
So 1 a.m. UTC just said validators, please halt your nodes.
There was a serious chain bug in the v9 upgrade.
That was it.
There was a bunch of eyeball emojis because like what the fuck, which is a pretty, and then there's obviously in the valer channel, like just a lot of conversation, like what's going on.
And then there was a lot of questioning of what's what's happening.
Those types of things.
So it's quite a strong argument for centralization isn't it.
And I know obviously we again, we this is a subject we covered a lot on this and do you know security upgrades?
There's been a lot of discussion around how centralized those are with relation to the team.
I'm not throwing stones by throwing the hour that knows right.
Is that is that really centralization?
Is that is that really what it is?
It's it's a request to halt.
It's not it's not changing state or anything right like it's just let's pause the the only thing centralized about it is that there's a location where everybody looks right.
Yeah.
So I mean, something happened on secret back in September.
And what's interesting there is so there was there was a smart contract exploit there and secret swap was drained.
And we actually halted the chain before secret labs was aware that there was an exploit, I believe.
And so they woke up to us to the chain halted effectively because we all just got in telegram.
We saw something's been wrong and chain was halted.
And so I don't think that would be considered centralization because that is going to be made regardless of whether there's a singular entity calling for it or not.
As to whether validators have too much power, I think that on some chains, some do have too much power.
So take for example, the carver.
If this was a, you know, the same platform type as osmosis, but with a power distribution like carver.
If the top two validators are sleeping, right, and there's that exploit and you know,
you need to emergency shut down the chain.
It doesn't matter how many other eyeballs you get on the situation.
You're not going to be able to shut the fucking thing down.
Yeah, that's a real problem.
Yeah.
So, you know, distribution and power is important and like take for example,
Evmos, it's getting pushed right up the top now.
So there's a bunch of chains in a similar situation.
And the more top heavy it gets, the harder it is to wow, the more vulnerable it is to various things for the various reasons.
So do validators have too much power in general?
No, but do some validators have too much power as in vote and control on the chain?
Probably.
Yeah.
So interesting point just because somebody mentioned telegram just that something that got raised,
not as a direct question to the gamer notes, the weekly question thread or whatever,
but was whether or not this was more of a kind of general discussion I saw on Discord,
whether we think the telegram hack thing is real.
What do we reckon, place bats?
What's the telegram?
What?
Telegram here?
Somebody paste in the thing basically saying, yeah, telegram, because you know, it's like a home rolled encryption thing.
Not home rolled, but it's not like everybody knows it's not secure signal or whatever.
Somebody said, yeah, basically there's been exploit light.
There's been zero day in telegram for years.
I've collected loads and loads of private chats using this zero day within crypto.
And I'm gonna fucking pace Ben in June and July.
Who gives a fuck?
Don't talk about important shit on telegram.
Yeah, well, that's exactly what I get for all personal frigging conversations.
Back again.
I think it's real. I mean, I don't know if I don't know if there's any authority behind that guy, but I think I'm engaged enough.
I think it's interesting enough that I want it to be real.
Also, in the chat, it's more than 67% to stop producing blocks for us to have a chain home, not 37%.
Oh, 37% right?
If 37% do not participate, you can't get to a consensus.
If you can't get to 67%, then you're stuck.
So it'll be 33%.
Sorry, you need 67%.
So it's 33%.
Yeah, you need more than 33% off.
That was my fuck up.
Sorry.
How many values have to stop to producing blocks to chain halt?
That's like one of those really annoyingly worded maths questions.
No, it's right though. Don't say maths.
Math question. The math question is how many validators have to stop producing blocks to chain halt?
Mathematics.
That's correct. How many validators have to stop producing blocks to produce for the chain to halt?
That answer is more than 37%. That's correct.
I thought it was 33%, no?
Well, it's more than 33%.
33% and 33%, right?
So technically, 37% would halt it, yes.
It's more than...
It's a fairly common question.
It's more than 100 minus 67%.
Maths.
It's funny.
34%, sure.
Let's do a couple more Ask Gamer Nodes.
We should do Ask Gamer Nodes Maths questions when it's a really tough time.
Maths.
Not a good idea.
I'm trying to find... I would remember the definition of maths from the world around you, right?
That's what we're talking about.
Look around you.
Look around you. Thank you.
Well, this is just how... No, maths is just how we speak.
But they had a definition in that video, which I remember but not well enough to actually...
Are you thinking of the day to day? Because in the day to day, they have...
They say there's an algorithm for news and it's facts times importance with views.
I'll find it and then...
Which is another great...
If you've never seen the Wall episode of the day...
I've seen them all, like all 13 or whatever it is.
It's a British TV show, so I think there's three episodes.
That's all you need, right?
That's all you need.
So one of the other questions we had on the Ask Gamer Nodes was from Don on Twitter.
Will the Juno token get a utility?
Well, yes.
Other than securing smart contracts?
Yeah, maybe.
What are the utility... What do you think that utility could be?
I agree. It's a utility token.
Okay. I think we're on the same page.
It's a utility token, right?
I don't know what else...
It has a tremendous amount of utility today, I think.
Well, you can both of you. You can pay fees with it.
You can secure the chain with it.
That's the same for...
Convert to the other...
I guess maybe they're thinking in terms of something like Cosmosis where it's very definitely...
It's absolutely core and integral to the main thing the chain is designed to do on an app chain.
Whereas I think, obviously, Juno is the reserve currency for other projects to use by building projects on top of it.
But also, you can use it for LP as well and Juno swap.
You can pay suppliers in it?
Yeah.
And get paid?
More easily than USDC as well.
So there's going to be lots of emerging uses for it.
It's just time and devs.
So a more interesting corollary of this one, and I'll throw this one in there,
is that something I've noticed very, very heavily from projects coming here from Terra
is how aggressively they depended on USDC.
And obviously, we now got USDC getting bridged in and that's now available in Juno swap.
But my question is, is relying on the presence of a stable in a smart contract context a weakness or a strength?
It depends on the stable.
That's a question.
Yeah.
I mean, conceptually, is it better to work in, to be able to build projects that can work in a fundamentally volatile token?
Or is it different use cases?
Like for some use cases, you just have to use a stable over some use cases.
I don't know.
It's something I've been wondering kind of myself.
I don't really have a good answer, but I was kind of curious what you guys thought.
I don't think you need necessarily a stable coin as in a coin peg to the US dollars.
But I think it is for confidence, you need something that is highly distributed and enough depth in liquidity to be able to be more,
have more confidence in its value.
Like Adam, for example, is part of its use at the moment is as a coin that can be more relied upon than the cosmos altcoins.
And that's a utility in itself.
I think I agree.
I would think that I do believe that a stable or some sort of structure that there's a lot of volatility in the chains that we get involved with in the cosmos.
So, Juno at $3.63 versus say 44 or Stargaze at 3.14 cents versus 46 cents.
There's a lot of volatility that's happening within there.
And I think having a stable or some sort of way to be able to bring things back to a, and it doesn't have to be US dollars.
Like, I don't know, fuck the US, but I mean, it doesn't have to be, it's a US dollars could be anything, but some sort of structure where I have a safe harbor to be able to move things to that avoid that volatility at least at some point, I think is an important point.
So, one of the problems is that we're moving volatility to be acceptable.
So, the US dollars is not unvolatile, the euro is not unvolatile, the pound is not unvolatile.
They just move, their volatility averaged out on a day by day basis moves very within, it moves on a daily basis within very small bounds and it's
Fair enough.
Unvolatile over a certain period of time.
There's nothing that's unvolatile, right?
I don't think we have anything that's 100% stable, whether that be a commodity or land or investment or anything else, right?
Or maybe what are you going to say?
Arizona iced tea, it's 99 cents or the Costco hot dog.
Costco hot dog might be, that Costco hot dog might be a good stable.
That would actually not, but they're losing money on that because they want you to come in and buy the earth at that bullshit that they have.
I once saw an amazing interview on British TV with a pound shop owner in the north of England and he, unironically, it was like just off the budget.
So, we have a thing where, you guys presumably have a similar thing where the chancellor comes out with a briefcase.
It's a symbolic, you know, the budget isn't here.
I don't know if the budget is actually in there, but whatever.
It was on budget day, they were like, we've got a pound shop owner in an apron, like he looks like the guy from open all hours if anybody gets that reference.
No.
We're going to get him to say something about the budget.
And he just goes, well, you know, the natural enemy of the pound shop owner is inflation.
It sounds like the frozen orange juice futures from training spaces.
Oh, what a great home.
There you go.
All my references are 80s movies.
So that's it.
That's a great film.
So one of the things about having a stable coin in the ecosystem is though it inherently makes everything else more unstable because it gives a location to dump to.
So tell me what you mean.
Well, if you have a safe haven, right, and it's easily accessible rather than more difficult about having to shuffle things around to get to a sex to exit your money.
If you have say, say, people are piling into a token somewhere and then there's like a hiccup or something, it gives people an easily accessible safe haven to swap straight to which decimates the price of the other token.
So if you were swapping between other tokens in the same ecosystem, that it would just it would even out volatility more than being able to just dump everything into a stable coin.
It does make a lot of sense.
I guess the idea that I guess depends on where that stable coin is and and what the structure of that is, but the idea that we're constantly in those situations that also I guess it comes back to our original conversation, which is trying to try to bring new people into the ecosystem,
which is that I want to be able to provide easy methods for people to be able to move USD or other types of just kind of fiat currency into this ecosystem to be able to invest and be able to put money behind projects and those types of things, right?
Because those same LP pools that you're talking about that allow the exit also allow the entrance.
And so we go back to this Juneau type of thing back to prop 26 and we're saying that we're going to be able to take 15,000 Juneau and just make it towards devs.
I kind of go back to the idea around what's really important here is growth and ecosystem growth and not to make it a Ponzi because I don't think that's exactly what I'm that's not what I'm trying to explain here but there is importance that allows that this ecosystem overall has to grow for not only for the health of the ecosystem
but also for these projects to be successful in the long term etc etc.
So, idols is nailed it here that stables seem to be invented for day trading leverage and I think from a sex point of view they probably were.
But in terms of like decentralized exchanges, it gives a base for people to day trade off so people can enter and exit tokens all day long back to a safe haven for them to sleep on with while knowing that they're going to you know still be whole in the morning or even at the same time like in terms of UST earner, you know,
return on a wallet sleeping until it disappears.
So, in turn that's not good for volatility that just adds.
So imagine if that didn't exist and then you know you would have people who are, for example interested in the Juno project so they go and invest in the Juno project and they take it and sit on it.
And there's not this crazy trading going on in the meantime.
Yeah, what I was going to say was I think there's a couple of sides to it.
I think my first take on whether stablecoin is necessary is basically what the purpose of the app is right.
Like, I have a something that I'm developing and for me, stablecoin is absolutely necessary.
And that leads into my point too is in my opinion and this might be a controversial take here, the end goal of crypto is for users to not know they're using crypto.
Like there needs to be an interface that's so seamless that yes they're using crypto.
They don't know that they're just using an app that happens to be decentralized happens to have a lot of really cool features that crypto brings.
And one of the ways to facilitate that interaction is having some stable meeting between the real world and crypto, if you will.
I think that's a good point.
No, your point is right.
Like that idea, I see both sides, like that idea to be able to have some stability and be able to pull things out is a good point.
I think the idea to say, hey, if we're in the ecosystem then we're in the ecosystem and to be able to create barriers of exit.
Maybe that's not the right term, but it's kind of what you're saying, but almost like a barrier to exit to say, hey, we're moving at this to Adam or I'm going to move it to, I don't know, a larger market cap type of coin that doesn't necessarily swing as far as say Chihuahua or Cerberus and those types of things where I have a little bit more stability in terms of price or at least it moves a little bit slower.
And then if I want to be able to move that out that I'm moving through regular, you know, dexes and those types of things.
So, or CXs or whatever.
So I kind of get both sides of that argument. It's a good question actually.
I think it comes down to liquidity, doesn't it?
Because what about those highly volatile ones like Cerberus and and let's just say Cerberus.
Everything else in the cosmos right now?
Well, you know, the mean coins. I was just trying to remember the fucking names.
I mean, but that's, you know, maybe they wouldn't have ended up decimated so much as they did if there wasn't an easy out.
I mean, yeah, surely that surely could just be, you know, switching over to Osmo or Adam and exiting that way.
I thought we're supposed to blame validators for a lot of shit, right?
Like just selling rewards and shit. I thought that was the party light.
Was that what it was?
Yeah, we're the devil.
Yeah, that 5% really fucking decimates all these coins and shit.
Yeah, man. And so, yeah.
Well, anyway, that's I'm just saying the same thing over and over again.
Pretty well.
You catch up.
Well, I think also like the tokenomics of the space very much tend towards coins that will be artificially held high in value so long as there is enough liquidity to hold them high.
Like a common thing that people are saying on Telegram at the moment in the Juno chats or and I imagine in every other chat.
It's just the due to the one I'm checking on the most is like, you know, what's happened to the price?
What's happened to the price?
It's like, well, the liquidity has gone down.
The price has gone down, right?
Like the reason a lot of the tokenomics of these, so some of these coins, they actually are indefinitely inflationary, but the amount in circulation at any given time is actually not infinite, right?
So, yeah, that's exactly how a central bank works.
And it's all about kind of juggling that to affect some notion of value.
And the complex thing is balancing that with liquidity in such a way that there's any consistency.
And until you basically get users to think that this is not an investment, fundamentally, you can't create.
Because that's the difference between a safe harbor, stable and a high cap, high supply meme coin.
It's only the perception that it won't go up.
And the thing is, it actually is going up and it is going down, even if it's paid to the US dollar, it's constantly fluctuating because the US dollar constantly fluctuates and it's not constantly pegged either.
But if you looked on a monthly, bi-monthly yearly basis, it would be moving around. It would just be moving around slowly.
So, what's really different is actually the way the consumer is looking at it, which is not as an investment.
So, they're prepared to spend it like money.
And so, it's that expectation and it's the purchasing price parity that matters.
I know we talked about purchasing price parity on the podcast before.
But the interesting question is if you did tokenomics like Stargaze, which is quite stable in terms of its general bracket,
if you did tokenomics like Stargaze and you called it a stable coin, but you did nothing else than launch a chain that had underlying utility, would it behave like a stable coin?
Like, if you could basically make it a black box and people would have to trust you.
And let's say people did trust you as developers and they would, like as a thought experiment, if you say it's a stable, they will trust you that it's a stable.
I mean, this is basically the thought experiment of Tether, right?
It's close.
I've led you down the garden path.
So, I mean, have you looked into the disclaimer on the USDC site recently?
No, I wouldn't say you're fucked.
What? It's fucking wooly as hell, isn't it?
It's like, oh, yeah, we're kind of, you know, we've got some dollars, you know, we've got some other stuff.
We're kind of over-clastralized. Don't worry, you're pretty little head about it.
It's like, you know, when you see prime beef, the reason people say prime beef, at least in the UK, you see that quite a lot, is because it has no meaning.
Really?
It doesn't mean anything.
You don't get the choice versus prime situation out there?
Well, yeah, it means something. But if you put like a certification, like Red Tractor or RSPCA or whatever, it means that the meat is verifiably of a quality from a place.
It's not horse meat, whatever.
That was a real scandal. It happened in the UK a few years ago. The supermarkets were selling horse meat. It was a thing.
Was it good? You mean prime beef?
No. No. No.
I've heard horses shaming in Japan. It's actually quite nice.
I mean, it probably is fine. But I'm actually not, I mean, I don't eat meat ready anymore, but if I'm not a snob when I do, my favorite, the meat I still do eat is awful because it's good for you.
But that's by the bite. The point is the reason people say it's prime beef is because in the UK, that has no meaning.
So if you go to somebody and go, oh, this was really shit quality. So it's prime beef and they go, well, prime beef doesn't mean anything.
It's just a marketing term. Fuck off.
Fuck off.
It's true. Whereas if I said this is organic, right? And I was like, this is not fucking organic.
Yeah.
And I could prove it or you watch the other way around, you have to prove to me it's organic. I could sue you on a consumer rights law.
You get damages claims and things like that for organic.
I don't think you get damages. I think they're just probably have to write you an apology letter or something.
They probably get fined for false advertising, actually.
That's a US thing.
Yeah.
There's all sorts of advertising stuff you can get fine for in the UK. It's usually really fucking small fines though.
But back to the point is that like circles stuff around what's actually secured reminds me of the Greg's steak bake specifically the steak bake, which is prime steak, which doesn't mean anything.
So yeah, I'm TLDR. I'm dubious about circle. Maybe it is also a thought experiment. Maybe it's a thought experiment rule participating in.
Okay, battery 11%. Let's pump this through a bit. So Terry projects announced the June I'm just moving on bud.
Okay, appreciate it.
And now it's for Juno's. So who wants to take the lead on that and you've got one minute.
Whole bunch of stuff.
Last question.
So give us give us the three most in your opinion, most important projects that are coming.
Making prioritize.
Well, I mean, obviously, loop is the biggest. The most exciting to me is sub query because indexing, cosmism, things I care about.
And there's not sure how she announced them, but there's a couple of other.
There's NFT type stuff in the background, which obviously vested interest in.
And I can't remember if the other one has been announced yet either some wallet stuff.
It's all the blur. It's all the blur. Okay, I was about to say something really bitchy that I'm not going to say that.
There's just a lot of conversations and it's hard to keep track of all of them. There we are.
Well, the big ones loop and they're Australian. So fuck everyone else.
So our exclusions from air drops. Okay, it's a book. What do you reckon?
Oh, that's ridiculous bullshit. That idea. It's not about who you validate with.
It's that you are a member of the Cosmo Seeker system or the chain that you care about from a from that perspective.
The idea of white listing or black listing validators is fucking horseshit.
That is ridiculous bullshit. Why would you why would you ever dictate why somebody who makes a random selection off a validator list
participates or doesn't participate in some sort of airdrop? I think that's fucking bullshit.
Counts are going wrong.
If you were doing an ad shop, would you would you include Takumi in it?
Oh, as a validator?
No, as in would you exclude them the whale wallet or would you add up them two million tokens or whatever?
You mean depending on who they're validating with?
I think you just means exclusions in general like saying all these wallets of valid.
Oh, I'm sorry. I read this is different. Let me back off my fucking tirade then.
I was just using your primer in the same way. So I was like ready to go.
I think the idea here with this question, let me let me let me read into this question and let me rephrase this question the way it should have been rephrased.
That sounds like an asshole.
The idea was that should you exclude either based on validator selection or based on other types like let's talk about validator selection.
The idea that people are valid that are staking into the ecosystem, who they validate with should make no difference in whether or not they're included in that excluded with an airdrop.
I'm specifically talking about Coastland on this Eveless thing, which is I think a bunch of horseshit like that is a validator population popularity conference,
which are type of structure, which I think is absolute garbage. I think that's awful.
Our exclusions from airdrops say to say from a sex perspective or something similar where you say I'm just valid with I don't know with Kraken and they have a validator and I don't know even know where I'm validating.
I'm just staking because it says I'm going to get 30 cents on the dollar for what I'm validating and those types of things.
That I think is okay because I think those individuals are not necessarily invested in the ecosystem.
They're in a exchange type perspective where they're just clicking a button on a web page and they don't understand the structure behind that.
I think that's okay. I think I'm not in an issue with that.
But the idea around like white listing validators or black listing validators I think is awful.
Related point to this because this is relevant is that there have been several conversations.
There are ongoing several conversations with staking protocols, not naming any names.
Most staking protocols work on selecting a subset of, sorry, liquid staking protocols work on liquid staking or otherwise, like all landing protocols work on selecting a subset of validators.
What is your take on those protocols?
Wasn't that clear enough? I don't understand.
So in the case of something like liquid staking where it's a subset of validators, you'd also be like it has to be all validators or none.
What's the benefit to the ecosystem or the people behind it or the people are putting time and effort into this ecosystem and limiting?
So let me give you my thoughts on it. Maybe that'll clear up things up a little bit.
So for my opinion, I think it's okay to exclude some validators or at least change your airdrop rules for validators.
Like were I to do an airdrop, I would probably exclude 0% validators as an example because they turn into something of a vampire on the ecosystem.
Look at Kava.
And I would also probably do like a reverse system where if you're staking near the top, you'll receive less than those staking near the bottom.
Just a kind of reward decentralization.
I think using airdrops as a way of changing behavior is a really compelling method for doing it.
Now, that's different from saying I will only give an airdrop to these four validators or I'm excluding these four validators for specific reasons.
I don't see positive end, but I do see positive end, at least using as a method for achieving certain outcomes.
But is that actually solving the problem or just like bandating the issue?
Like solving the problem would be, I'm not sure if it's actually solving the issue around staking.
We were just talking about this also on Twitter related to how to build UI around being able to choose a validator.
Like there's different UIs here.
I think the OmniFlex team has done a great job in terms of being able to make sure that in the interfaces that they provide around staking have a random structure around validators,
at least so they're not ordered.
Kepler is exactly ordered based on staking 1 to 100 and whatever based on what the validator ownership is.
MintScan highlights the top 10.
Why are they highlighting the top 10? Who gives a shit?
They should be hiding the top 10 or at least hiding the top 33%.
They're highlighting the high light says, hey, these are the safe ones.
Fuck all these below that type of idea.
And we're the top 10 in one chain.
And I would say within that structure, those types of things, you want to be able to drive behavior through UI.
And I think all of these staking interfaces, regardless of what the staking interfaces are, should be pushing towards decentralization,
at least in terms of that idea to say, hey, we don't want a sift chain structure where 67% of the voting power is in the top, whatever it is, seven validators or the hell it is.
I have a dumb question and possibly somebody on the here could answer me every staking protocol that I've heard talking about staking derivatives,
or null sneezing again, or, or liquid staking or whatever.
They always say, oh, we can only support subset validators. But I don't really understand why other than coordination.
Is it just laziness or am I missing something fundamental about how these protocols work?
I don't understand the liquid stick is enough to be able to comment on that.
But I mean, the challenge within 100 plus validators is not to be overlooked, right, in terms of coordination and everything else.
Although, as most as to their credit, halted a chain within 12 minutes based on a seven word discord comment.
Around 100 plus validators, which is pretty amazing, right?
Yeah.
I think maybe it's just the coordination point and maybe that's the underlying reason.
If any of the Juno swap guys watch this back and I've made a factual mistake, then I'm going to hear it.
I'm going to hear it in the DMs.
So I guess we'll find out for next week and we can do a follow up if I'm totally wrong about that one.
So I just want to confirm that by Juno.love there, Firestake have actually said, I just went and checked it.
They said on their Twitter that they are exiting their operations.
So they're 10, would you say 10, 12 chains?
I guess they're going to exit.
They said they're either going to, now this first one I don't quite understand.
They said they're going to transition down.
So they said there's one of two ways either transition their nodes to trusted providers via a key exchange, which is a little strange, or unborn.
So there you have it.
Or rebrand.
Well, unborned and then rebrand, I guess.
Yeah.
I mean,
Oh, it's starting for zero again.
So that's a bit of a blasted.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't know how you feel about this, but I mean, we talked about this before, but I mean, they, there's some bad decisions in there.
They tried to do the right thing, maybe with it, regardless of whether that was based on being boxed in based on the chain and having the data.
To be able to see that or whether that was conscious.
I saw something like a Twitter, a tweet from them that says like we're laying up at night thinking about this.
Yeah, I would think so.
Right.
Like you're stealing from the community that you're trying to be able to build from.
So yeah, I would, I would hope that that would create some thoughts.
And if it did create some thoughts and it did make them tweet that out, then then there's some value in that.
Right.
So if that, if that turns into a rebranding and, you know, we're going to start over and we're going to start with smaller numbers.
Change and rebuild and so be it.
And maybe that's a lesson that's learned.
Um, the fray, did you want to do your D gen moment, man?
Uh, yeah, we can do that.
It's literally a half of today's agenda is just.
There are a lot of questions on Twitter.
People already want to know.
Go for it, man.
Okay.
Cool.
DJ minute.
Here we go.
It's going to be slightly longer than a minute.
I told you the definition of her math, mathematical anti thoracic hafartum septonum.
Don't ever question.
I finally know what maths means.
I want to know.
Uh, you know, what's the other mistake to to get the airdrop?
Yes.
Only to me.
Okay.
No, no, no.
Uh, we've been very, very clever from the start.
That's fucking bullshit.
So, uh, all the questions that we got through on Twitter and I didn't write down who asked any of these.
So I'm just going to answer them in quick fire fashion as I possibly can.
Number one, how launch date, uh, when it's fucking ready lads.
Uh, number two, will how support Kepler mobile?
Yes, it will, but you can't integrate a test net application with Kepler mobile.
So we literally can't build and test that until we go main net, which brings back to how launch date when it's fucking ready lads.
Cool.
Um, name service plan differentiator our partnerships planned.
Uh, yeah, we have a bunch of stuff on the roadmap.
We need to finish building how first then same team.
Uh, differentiator is doesn't fucking pretend to be a domain.
Um, we're going to launch, uh, a new system for smart contracts and web, you know, interchain stuff and I see a host is coming to Juno.
It's currently going to be on test net next week and we're going to launch it soon.
Juno is a host chain name services on Juno.
Other smart contracts in the cosmos ecosystem can call it there's differentiator for you.
Um, is number question number four, is this on chain or traditional web servers?
Now, but both of them are on chain, both of them are on chain metadata.
That's very new to cosmos.
None of the metadata is off chain.
There will be some stuff we do long form posts on how, but that will be on IPFS your images for names are on IPFS as well.
Everything else is on chain.
It's on chain metadata.
Um, question five, why $20 target price for a name?
Will this affect air drops?
$20 seems like a reasonable amount to pay once for a name for all time.
If it's less than $20, it's a network attack vector.
Um, you can use, you can create lots of names and then spam a downstream service that's using it as a login layer because you can only ban it.
Usually people will ban a name because that's the most valuable thing that somebody will own.
It's the best vector for moderation.
So that's why $20 will affect air drops.
No, probably not.
Whatever.
Uh, six was how not its own chain because the whole point of Juno is you find product, product, market fit and then you go build a new thing.
And chain dev is really tedious.
I'm already helping to build one chain.
I don't need to be doing two at once.
Uh, seven, what role does how token play besides governance?
Um, you can stake on content.
You get rewards creators get rewards, stakers get rewards.
It's going to be fucking wild lads.
Uh, question eight, how will how integrate with other daps on Juno?
It already natively works with dow dow.
Um, so dow dow props and stuff you currently can't comment on them.
You need kind of discussion around them.
You can tag them from a how, uh, like a, it's kind of like a hashtag.
You can say reference a prop and you can then have a discussion around that prop.
Uh, so that's one integration.
Um, there will probably be more as more daps launch.
Um, obviously Juno swap and stuff, um, as well.
So that's pretty insane.
Uh, and cool.
What's the difference between how and Twitter?
We both, well Twitter and we both, uh, fucking on web too, and they're
maintained by advertising.
We don't have advertising.
Uh, we don't really give a shit if you follow two people and you only want to
see their posts on your wall because we'd have no reason to just put random shit
in your feed that you don't want because we don't need to sell you shit.
That's literally the point.
So what is different is that our entire economic model is predicated around
serving you content you give a fuck about rather than trying to sell your data.
Don't really know how to explain it better than that.
Uh, go read no logo by Naomi Klein.
Um, how will moderation work?
Number 10, I've been tearing my hair out of that.
We're working hard on it.
Public alpha.
There will be changes to it, but yeah, the Dow will control moderation.
There'll be a sub-Dow that controls moderation as well.
I'll take it.
You want me to ban all console do that?
No problem.
You give me the moderates.
Yeah, me and no.
Yeah.
Fuck it.
Yeah.
You have a story.
Games and nodes blocks it.
Shultz too.
Well, listen, you pissed me off.
You're gone forever.
I don't want to be the shit.
I want to put that into terms of, fuck it.
I want to have the app.
Yeah, fuck it.
I'm pushing Trump to the top of the fucking pedestal.
Fuck it.
Fuck.
If you're a cunt, you're gone.
That's it.
That's a structure.
Done.
Okay.
Uh, 11 when dense, dense doesn't exist.
There's not going to be a dense token.
It's all howl now.
That's that one.
Uh, what's the difference between howl and dense?
One's a name service.
One's a micro blogging.
Well, one's medium, but on chain with a bunch of cool economic incentives and new stuff.
One of them's a login layer that any app can use, any DAP can use.
How will howl promote itself and keep its active user base up?
When you stake on content, your stake expires after a period of time.
So you can't just like go to the hello world howl that comes out on day one that Callum
will no doubt post with some fucking spicy take and then stake on that and then continue
earning howl forever because it will expire after a couple of weeks and you have to come
back and decide what new shit you want to stake on.
Uh, people, uh, I can't connect with dense name or multiple networks.
Why is that?
Uh, cause I see a hasn't been launched yet, but when it has other people can integrate
with it.
Um, can I sell selling names?
Can I sell names?
Something like that?
Uh, no, when can I sell dick butt?
When can I sell dick butt?
Uh, yeah, very good.
Well, when some, when, when there's a native marketplace for NFTs, you can, they're just
NFTs, you can sell names.
You can, you can actually sell howl.
You can sell posts.
If you have a post that's super fucking spicy, I'm sure Callum's fucking posts are going
to be really valuable on how you can do that.
Sell a post.
Yeah.
That's the shit right there.
Sell a post or stake on a post.
You can stake on a post, uh, to like, like the equivalent of liking something that says
no retweet.
There's no like a retweet.
There's no amplify because it doesn't really have a, is a post just a nifty?
Yeah.
A post is a nifty.
So I can sell my post.
Yeah.
Okay.
And what?
And then that's cool.
Yeah.
You can sell it if you want to.
Um, but obviously bear in mind that the stakes on it actually expire.
So although it's, although it's really primo content, it's not guaranteed that its value
will be stable for all of time because it's not like you're selling an income stream.
Um, plan to make how price go grow.
Oh, I don't know.
Probably continue trying to build a useful product and then hopefully people will want
to use the token.
Continue, continually, show it on gamer nodes.
Yeah.
So they will fucking marketing on two out 10 fucking viewers.
I think most of our viewers are howl devs.
So yeah.
Shit.
Like everybody watching this, we know this business plan sucks.
It's basically the thing is game of notes started off as let's film, let's film the
group call.
And now it is literally now the drama per second has lowered a bit and we're in a better
market.
It is just literally the Wednesday group call for the lads.
That's fine.
To be honest, we are doing pretty well in terms of podcast listening.
I'm very grateful people have downloaded this podcast.
Enjoy.
What are our numbers?
Who cares?
It's great.
Yeah.
It's amazing.
It's a huge job.
How are you?
Why are you not real?
No, it's it's it's growing like this.
It's growing like it's a huge spike.
Right.
Shut up.
Straight fucking line.
Are you confused about grade or?
I just read a book really do this for fun anyway.
So we're not like it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah.
That's good.
You went through that pretty good, man.
Yeah.
Sorry.
That was that was more than a minute, but hopefully that's what's the release date.
When you when you guys going when can I say it was the first question you said?
I was ready fucking.
Where's my kids?
It was it took a lot of effort for me to put the strike through on all these items as you
are going through it, which I appreciate.
I know that you appreciated to see that I was appreciate.
I was yeah.
I know.
Very useful.
Very, very helpful.
You were doing the striking right.
I'm not listening to shit on this show.
Yeah.
That's good.
Okay.
I'll go back and listen to the podcast and understand what I'm talking about.
It's all just it's all you need to know is it's all just a very, very long form rug
play where we're going to build features so that we can post external content from the
game of nodes YouTube channel and then rug pull the entire service.
And then there's no way I mean, no, we have any question about that.
It's our whole is that a moniker that we set that in the description of this podcast.
I mean, to be fair, it's essentially it's essentially the rug pull podcast.
All right.
Should we wrap up?
Yeah.
What are we most excited about this week?
What's the start?
Shorty.
Sleep.
You got that.
You got that muscle shirt on.
Let's see what's going on.
What do you got going on down there and give me to lift my shirt?
You're gonna flash the screen.
That's not what I said.
It's not at all when I said that.
I didn't say anything near that.
I'm actually pretty excited for the Quicksilver test that's coming up.
I think next week, they just announced that the next round is going to be here and they're
going to have more features to test out.
I think it's cool.
Defund has another one that's coming out here soon that I'm also really excited about.
Cool.
Nice.
Sick.
Who's next, bro?
I'll go next and say I'm fucking excited.
I'll be, I'm just gonna be super excited about finally fucking finishing this moderation
stuff.
I need to finish doing the cash shit that I've been talking about for literally six
weeks.
Nice.
That's gonna be sick.
What was that?
That was a weird muscle.
That was like a muscle move that you were making.
Yeah.
So I'm in the loft.
So the ceiling is here because I have my laptop in an alcove.
So if I go like that, I can do it now actually because there is a window directly above me
and it's actually open.
So you can raise the roof but only six to eight inches.
Is that what you're saying?
You can't quite see it, but there is actually a window.
Oh, there you go.
Oh, that's nice.
Got some breeze.
So that's why I could actually, I realized actually, I could just do that.
But perfect.
But yeah.
Arms are tiny.
It looked like you had entered a Bukaki party.
It's a weird transition.
Yeah.
So, is that what you got going?
Oh, am I going next?
Okay.
I'll be at Consensus 2022 down in Austin this weekend.
I'm leaving tomorrow.
I'm hoping to see if anybody finds me, I have some Rhino stickers and other types of goodies
to give away.
If you show me that you are a delegator to Rhino, holy cow, that would be incredible.
I'll give you a T-shirt.
I got some really bitchin swag that's ready to go around.
So I'm excited to be on there.
This is my first conference that I've been involved in as a validator here in the Cosmos.
So I'm excited.
There's a Osmosis party Saturday night and trying to get involved in a couple of different
conversations.
It's always nice to be able to separate the Discord monikers from real people, which is
why I love Game of Nodes so much because they're great people on this call and our listeners
as well and the people that interact with the Game of Nodes.
It's just amazing to be able to put some real personalities behind just an icon and a name,
which has really been great.
And so, Collins just said the Osmosis party has been halted.
That's cruel, dude.
So that Saturday night, the party can never stop.
So I'm going to try to have a good time this weekend and not be roofied is my goal and
not bring any ledgers.
So stay away from me.
I'm not going to have a ledger fanny pack in front of me with the ledger name on it.
I'm not going to have any ledgers on me.
I'm not going to have anything associated to me.
So just stay away from my knuckles and my kidneys.
But I'm excited about going down there and those types of things.
So if you see me down there, that would be great.
The other thing I'm excited about, I think I've sat in this podcast before I've been
involved in the helium project a lot, which is a lower one kind of incentive structure
around being able to build a tremendous amount of nodes across the globe to be able to allow
small devices to be able to produce lower one packets to be able to produce, you know,
like GPS locations and other types of information like temperature and other types of things.
That tool set that we've been looking at for a long time, they're exploring other ecosystems
to say, hey, we want to look at both, you know, maybe cosmos or we want to look at other
types of tool sets out there because they're kind of struggling with what they've been
building on the helium network.
And they're looking at cosmos and kind of a little bit involved in that.
I know they're looking at a lot of exploration type of things, but helium team will be down
there in Austin this week as well.
So I'm hoping to be able to bring some cosmos love to that tool set.
I think the structure around cosmos and the IBC piece of things and what they're trying
to do is a really good fit versus maybe other things that might be looking at in terms of
substrate and other types of areas.
So that's another area that we're looking at and trying to play a role in.
And those are that's what I'm excited about this week.
So that's actually a nice, it's going to be a good weekend and I'm looking forward to
give you guys an update next Wednesday.
Awesome.
No.
T-Grades coming.