video representation of where the chains are. Oh, good. The rugs in.
Welcome to Game of Nodes, a weekly podcast on the cosmos from independent
validated teams.
Welcome to Game of Nodes, a weekly podcast on the cosmos brought to you by
independent. No, no, not those people.
Welcome to Game of Nodes.
So obviously slightly different lineup this week.
I am Bendy, aka Bendy Davis from the chat or Bendy from
Athern Accelerator.
Now, if you know that and then Noel tonight is is Rama.
Yeah, good morning. Good evening. How are we all?
Yeah, a better version of Noel.
How are you, Bendy? Cheers, mate.
We've taken over the show this week.
We figured that was it 57 episodes or something of that previous rubbish.
We had to step in and actually provide some content and some information for once.
So I mean, we are after after two weeks of them failing to articulate
what Babylon chain was.
I just don't think they're allowed that podcast anymore.
I figured we're constantly in the chat and they're always asking us.
They're like, oh, Bendy, Rama, you know, can you come in?
Can you? How does this thing work?
Can you tell like we'll just come in?
We'll do one show, however long we survive and manage, inform everyone
and then probably to end it after this one.
I don't think there's too much of a point kind of having follow up podcast.
So no.
This podcast.
And this is the definitive edition of Game of Nodes, right?
In which there is no longer any of the original cast.
It's got to reach that point in its cycle.
The bear markets had its effect.
They've all given up.
Yeah. Yeah, we did consider bringing on guests.
We thought it would be a bit rude to bring on guests and actually speak to them.
So maybe, you know, funky, you busy, maybe we could get funky in here.
I think that could be kind of cool.
Someone from, you know, not specifically from the cosmos is recent to the cosmos.
If you want to come in funky, we'll let you shoot your link.
Get on in here.
It could be good.
You know, we control the stream so we can do whatever we want.
Really? Yeah.
This is.
It's really pleasing to me that I mean,
chat is so much more lively without us in it.
It's bizarre.
Yeah, that's a little odd.
All right, we're going to get should we get funky in here?
I can get funky in here.
Yeah, let's get let's get funky in.
All right, he's coming in.
Funky's from from Polkadot.
So we'll get we'll get funky in.
I think it'd be good.
Funky probably has some good questions for us.
So all right, I just sent you a DM on Twitter, funky.
Get get yourself in here.
It's kind of like when funky joins, I kind of it's like really hyped, really excited right now.
Funky's really going to mellow us out.
If you've listened to Funky's mediation streams, it really chills you out.
So when he joins, you're in for a shock, I reckon.
Showing me some more yanks.
I don't know.
You guys like my cut, by the way.
We're just discussing briefly before we went live.
We've got Juno growth over here in like, you know, a ten dollar shirt,
you know, a blurred background, so you can't see, you know, the incredible detail.
My two dollar coffee cup homemade coffee growth, Juno.
And then Adam Accelerator Dow over here, please, Bendy.
Yes. So so here you have my living room,
a few intellectual books in the background, nice sort of branded cross-moss shirt.
Here I've got, you know, nice cut glass, glass of brandy, ten years old, you know,
you know, it's just a lot, you know, a lot more comfortable in the world of Adam
than Juno. I mean, also, like, you know, lots of hair, you know,
glasses, probably.
They're just glass, they're not actually needed for real.
Yeah, this is just this is just vanity.
There's Rama does need glasses, but can't afford them.
You know, yes, you can see with my eyes, I can squinty all the time.
Try to try to read the chat.
He has seven a.m.
He has he has the money to do it, but it would tank the price if he bought glasses.
So he can't actually buy them.
Who has the voice for radio?
Is that is that me or you, Bendy?
Because apparently it's two Aussies at the moment.
So I don't have a face for TV and a voice for radio.
But the opposite. That's that's lovely.
So I gather that they had left something unresolved last week.
Yes, so there was a there was a unsatisfied
question, a viewer question, which was
wanting to know whether it's not surprising at all.
Probably me, to be honest.
They wanted to know whether or not a text prop is enforceable to remove Lobo
when Dow Dow does that in code.
As this falls into the the Juno world, let's let's say you're taking it first.
So I don't think I don't see there's any problem with a text prop to
into signal or to.
In force, in a sense, a doubt attack action, right?
So under, you know, I mean, the two sub-dow's in on Juno delegations
down or growth down, if someone was to put up a text prop or a signaling prop
on either of those two day I was saying, hey, you know, we want the funds back
or remove these members or don't proceed with this funding.
That would be the governance signaling to the Dow to take that action.
And then the Dow itself can action that on behalf of governance.
And if the Dow doesn't, then you would put up an actual prop
to enforce that via a code change.
That makes sense.
That makes complete sense to me.
You know, I think that our guest has joined us, but obviously in traditional
game of mode fashion, we should probably now ignore funky for the next half an hour or so.
And then say that we're going to talk to you and then not yet sound welcome funky.
Yeah.
So my take on this is that like, I don't think, you know, not everyone knows how to do a code prop.
People should be able to put up a text based prop.
It does should listen to them.
If this was in the atom world and it was someone wanted to get rid of me from the accelerator,
they would literally have to put up a signaling prop.
And technically the accelerator could now could just ignore them.
But then that would then be over.
Right.
Like, why would anyone ever support it ever again?
And you know, sort of.
Do you know, obviously has more tools and that kind of doubt out tooling is significantly better
because you've got more of a course.
But the thing for me is like one of the reasons why when we were forming the accelerator down,
and we were kind of, you know, we got some some shit for picking the members in advance
rather than doing elections.
But one of the reasons we selected the members that we did is that a lot of them have kind of reputation.
So effectively, the kind of social slashing of that reputation.
So if you are Cosmo Station, if you are course one, can you really afford to be on the Dow
that doesn't follow governance?
Like, so actually, you're basically saying and then you have a kind of inbuilt majority
into the Dow of four reputable validators that can at any time kind of go, no, no, we will take control of the funds.
And we will, you know, boot people off and then won't get paid anymore.
And, you know, so that was the reason for doing it that way.
But you kind of have to do that when you don't have the kind of recourse that that you know does.
So I'm kind of comfortable with tax props because I think that what you have to be mindful of is the,
even if you can't enforce it in code, the kind of construction of your Dow needs to have enough kind of social reputation.
That not following governance is damaging.
Otherwise, you can just run off with the funds.
Yeah, exactly.
And I think the example that we're talking about here is kind of core one, core one sub-Dow, right?
So, you know, they're primarily the founders and people who have been elected or voted into those positions.
If they weren't to adhere to governance, then the entire sub-Dow could be dissolved, which is, you know, say, say the, you know,
Don's prop and I'll answer your question in about 10 minutes as per usual for these podcasts, Schultzie.
When, if core one wasn't to say it passed and core one, it was like, actually, you know, we really like Lobo.
We're not going to remove him from the sub-Dow.
I think there would be two follow-up props.
There would be probably the follow-up prop to actually enforce it by code to remove Lobo and then a second follow-up prop to actually dissolve and take back all of Core One's funds.
And both of those should pass, right? Because if the sub-Dow is not going to enforce the will of governance, then the entire sub-Dow should be removed.
And all of the members should be removed or all of their funds taken away.
Because if you can't enforce a simple thing like membership removal or change, then how are you going to enforce anything else that governance wants, right?
And in this instance, it might be a membership removal, but what if it's something like way more important around like a funding or spend prop or something like that?
Yeah, or a proposal to take a load of money away from an individual or entity and stick it in a locked smart contract.
Yeah, exactly. On Schultzie's question, do I think that Lobo's removal was a publicity stunt or pure ignorance?
We've got a whole segment ready for Don, why he's so critically important to the cosmos. So it might be a nice segue into that.
Don is Don. I think he has his own way of going about things. In recent times, I think it's reasonably evident that there's some form of target towards Juno for various reasons from Don's behalf.
I think he has good intentions in that there have been actions from various individuals who which aren't in the greatest stead of Juno.
And his approach is always wrong. And it's always in like the most baitier engaging way it can be.
But I think he has kind of he has good intentions. He's yeah, his approach is always wrong.
If Jacob Gadokin didn't know how to code, he would be Don is my thing, which is like, you know, at some level, you know, good intentions, heart gold, whatever, but also just causes merry hell on their way to making the right ones in all the wrong ways.
Also, I think the two examples from Don, you know, the two times he's gone to on chain governance was no, don't fund close source. I think everyone's in agreement that we shouldn't fund close source from, you know, Juno Community Pool or growth funds, etc.
So the text the property put up was just like under no circumstances ever do we consider funding close source and we should stop it immediately. It was like a one liner is that you probably need a little bit more detail than that.
Same thing with kind of the the lobo removal, you know, the wording in it without providing like any form of evidence doesn't.
It's not a good recipe for a successful proposal. And there's probably reason if you were to go and do some research and provide some actual evidence of a removal, maybe a month or two ago, right, like as soon as the sub down became an official sub down and you know, can be removed by a governance.
You saw all of the core members started being more visibly present in Juno, and it makes it hard to remove any of them when they're around.
Yeah, I think that that is all kind of fair. I think, you know, just to go back on the never fund any close source stuff like that's fundamentally like and again, the original inferior game of nodes hosts were actually quite clear that they would fund closed source almost at will.
But this was because loads of it doesn't fucking matter, because it's not a security risk if your block explorer is closed source, like you can check it and if it works, it works.
But like the word, you know, do you want usk to be open source? Absolutely you do because otherwise you will lose all your money at some point because someone somewhere will eventually get greedy and they will steal your money and you will never know that that's going to happen.
And that's why that's why it's like the follow up prop to be like, hey, we don't fund closed source smart contracts that are on main net, right, a little bit more detail, because like we don't care if you want to keep your, you know, your, your super secret source front end close source, go for it, right.
But smart contracts they will need to be open source. I think funky Jeff headphones because I think there's a bit of feedback. I know we're doing a great job at ignoring you, but we can't ignore the feedback.
My bad, I don't have headphones, but I will just be sorry. Yeah, I mean, that's better anyway, right then, then like then.
I'll ignore with you. All right, what's it mean about seven minutes since he joined right probably give him another five or so and see if he's around.
Then we can consider bringing him in and not speaking to him and you can go oh my God, we've ignored funky. It turns out like, and I don't know how Frey does this as a Brit, because like every British polite bone in my body is desperately going, make sure that funky speaking, make sure
that funky speaking. But you know, it doesn't work. What I'm really enjoying is that there are genuine listeners in the chat who have no idea what's going on, which is wonderful that there are actually genuine, genuine listeners to the podcast, because I thought it was just
James from 11 to five right.
Okay, he's not a genuine listener. No, just just one of the normal gamer notes pills.
That's great. That's absolutely fine. 11 to five of course who I delegate some of my
ountain excelerator to pay to because they voted against us. So when youう we will get paid right so, it's quite nice that they're like, I, I do some work, people noticed that would do the work, we've owns and stuff they start shipping it.
should have a look at it. We've moved on from Don and I did want just to revert to Don because
we're spending not enough time on the topics to really drag out every detail. So on the plus side
for Don, when after the filter was happening, he minted one for me because he had whitelist,
which I in turn then paid forwards because Funky missed the mint completely and I sent him
after the filter NFT. So in some ways, and I think this is the distinction with Don,
there's Don versus Marcin and like Marcin who I've spoken to and I had to exchange the
DMs with is a nice guy who is very intelligent, articulate and respectful. And then there's
Don who is an absolute bloody nutcase and has this persona and it obviously works at some level.
But like I saw, I just chose not to engage because I can't, but there was a his recent
Milady tweet where there's a picture of the girls got a little Nazi thing going on swastika.
And I'm just like, I had seen Milady were doing some stuff around this and trying and like,
I don't know why anyone would think it's funny. It's just anti-Semitic. It is just wrong.
And he must know that at some level being Polish, right? Like you're not going to be from Poland
and not get all of that. But you still do it anyway. And that's where I kind of just tip
into this bit where I go, this is like your Gov props, which is like, you are smart enough to do
this better. He definitely knows, right? I talked to Don daily, right? So consider us kind of good
friends. I know when like Don, as in, you know, Marcin is doing something. And when it's Don on
Twitter, you know, targeted going on a rant or, you know, doing his Milady or Romilio thing.
I've coined a new term, you know, is doing it for the Don 10. So now, you know, every time I go to
his videos, I put a comment on that, you know, my daily dose of Don 10, which is great.
When he puts out stuff that's pretty good, I use Don 10. And then when he kind of goes to the
extremes, I just choose not to engage with it. Yeah, he, you know, if you talk to him in the DMs,
like he's actually a really nice person, quite intelligent, knows what he's doing,
brings a lot of value to kind of stargaze. He's like out in the eighth world, you know,
researching and looking into like, what's happening in the NFT world to bring it back to stargaze.
So that's really good. But then, yeah, he's, he's kind of attacks and ramps and the stuff with
Milady, like he just does it because it's part of kind of their crew and they can't be canceled,
etc. A few times I've like messaged him, you know, he put out like, you know, anti-Semitic or kind
of more like hate speech type focused content. I'm like, hey, like I get it. But, you know,
unless you actually want to be canceled in Cosmos, probably like tone it back a little bit.
When he was tweeting out, you know, a bunch of like, you know, your bloodline will cease to exist,
mine's faster, it's superior, you know, a bunch of homophobic stuff. And I was like, hey, like,
I get why you're doing it. But, you know, if you want to be a validator and get support and
delegations, you probably want to tone it back a bit. Because it's a bit too far. And he was like,
okay, like, I get it. So I think that that's like what I see sometimes between Jacob and
particularly like Jack. So Jack's an example of some strange love and Jacob got it into him
notional, where Jacob is always super blunt, will send 400 tweets and DMs about the same
bloody thing to make sure that everyone sees it, because it's very important right now.
And that like, periodically, I'd see Jack just saying to him, the way you're communicating is
making this worse. And people aren't listening anymore. Like, and it and I think that, you know,
that's going to be one of the challenges that we have in any of the cosmos communities is that
like, internet communication isn't very good. And loud, loud voices will carry further.
But they're not necessarily the most productive voices to be having in any particular conversation.
And this is sort of that whole thing about DPS. You know, and like, I love a bit of that,
it's always good fun. But there is also just an element of like, if you actually want to
get shut stuff done, and you want to be taken seriously, there are better approaches. And I
think that that sort of, you know, you still have to be kind of public about it. And I think
that's where like, you know, if we want to get into the snap talk between Accelerator.dow and
Growth Fund, like, we have done a better job than you guys did on talking about what we're doing,
partly because I watched Growth Fund say nothing for a long time. And then I've already, oh, yeah,
there's this growth fund over here. You know, I think like, in the same way, like you guys are
doing better now, right? Like you've, you've taken some steps to try and improve. Yeah, I think
there's a few things, right? The Growth Fund was, we kind of came from the TDF, where there was,
which they had, you know, quite specific and strategic targets, right? They had an amount of
money, Terra Developer Fund, which was when LUNA collapsed, Juno put together a fund of money
to try and bring over and support Terra projects on Juno, essentially, which was, I think there was
a few million in Juno there for them to kind of fund the transition of those teams or projects from
from LUNA over to Juno. And a bunch of that stuff should have kind of came across pretty
reasonably seamlessly, right? Like they're using the SDK using Cosmosm. Probably we needed to update
a bunch of stuff and then deploy it on Juno. That was the intention. The, so a bunch of those members
kind of moved from TDF onto the Growth Fund. And we added a bunch of people to kind of provide more
insight and supporting in that process. TDF had a very specific focus and goal. I think Adam
Accelerator now has the same thing, you know, very specific focus, essentially implementing
Adam 2.0 in increments, right? In small pieces of work, in small stages. And also, onboarding
additional kind of projects with a large amount of reserves that helps, right? And very deep
liquidity within the ecosystem. I think growth, we started off with, we started off on the back
foot because we migrated from Terra Developer Fund. So there was already quite a lot of negative
sentiment from that particular MOLTC into the Growth Fund. And we transitioned the funds
from TDF into the Growth Fund with a number of outstanding payments that had to be paid,
and not a lot of liquidity. So we were very mindful of how and when and why we communicated
things and what projects we wanted to fund because of the learnings from the Terra Developer Fund.
And I think what we did was we ended up kind of shooting ourselves in the foot because
we were so afraid to kind of communicate or fund things that we ended up essentially doing nothing
for kind of four or five months. And when I say we did nothing, we didn't communicate.
And the reason was it's hard to communicate things when you haven't funded anything.
You know, we were having meetings frequently. We were discussing with a number of projects.
And you never want your first tweet to be like, hey, we've reviewed five or six projects and we
rejected all of them. So which is essentially kind of what we were doing, right? For various
reasons, we didn't go ahead with a number of funding of projects. You know, for terms and
conditions, you know, couldn't get set amounts of tokens on some of them. Some of the valuations
some of the valuations we couldn't kind of agree to. So it's super hard to be like, hey,
we're here, we're doing work. Here's the five projects that we rejected. It's not the greatest
cons. And I think what we found was we would, in retrospect, we looked at ourselves and were like,
we're not the Adam accelerator now, you know, we're a bunch of community members working primarily
part time to do the best we can with not a lot of liquidity. Let's take ourselves a lot less
seriously and be what Juno is, which is very community focused, you know, very transparent
and do things how we should have the first time, which is engage, you know, anyone who wants to
be active through the advisory and the discord group, and then have, you know, a small amount
of multi-seg signers who actually execute the stuff, but get feedback and input from the wider
community. So that's where we're heading. We've now got kind of four signers on the multi-seg.
Hopefully we'll have five in the short term. But then we want to just be able to bring people in
and be like, hey, you know, we're evaluating this project. Here's the term sheet. We're
having a meeting. Who can attend? Come in, ask some questions. Do you think this is a good idea?
How much should we fund it? And we don't really have like a vision other than we know that we want
to incubate and fund projects. And how we do that with low liquidity is the challenging part,
because people need money to build. And we don't really have the option of giving them a lot of
money in the short term with current price action and liquidity. So I think PUTMOS is working on
an idea at the moment to kind of issue bonds. And we can sell those kinds of bonds OTC. So
there'll be like a, you know, you'd be able to buy like a Juno-1 or a Juno-2 token, which is essentially
a smart contract where those tokens are locked in the auto compound. And, you know, one Juno-1
that you'll be able to buy on the open market, probably for a discount, I'm not sure how that
would work. And then if you hold that one Juno-1 token, let's say, it's locked for a year. And
after one year, you can grab that Juno, but it's auto compounded for you for that duration. So
you'll get, you know, whatever the auto compound value of that Juno will be in a year's time.
So that'll give us a bunch of USDC that we can then use to fund projects. And hopefully we can get
a bunch of people who are looking to, who are long-term bullish on Juno, who will buy those
kind of bonds. And that'll give growth fund liquidity to go and do things. And it won't
be just for growth, right? Like hopefully Core-1 can do it, maybe Comsdale can do it, etc.
I mean, I think that's interesting. Obviously, the easy cheap shot is, oh, I'm glad that
POTMOS is developing it because then it will never happen. Because when has that, I mean,
I assume it's the pause. The pause just stopped him being able to like actually do the coding he
needs to do to ship. So he can like tweet and he can promise airdrops, they can't actually like
ship his taps. I think it's the way he's able to tweet. He has a couple of translators, I think. So
bark to text. And then the text goes into Telegram or onto the tweet to make it a thing.
And then I guess that's the thing then, he's using that to then put into chat GPT to do his coding.
That would make sense. And that, you know, we'll see just how good the AI is because if these
bonds ship, we know the AI is coming for us. Yes. I mean, I do feel sort of, again, this is the
bloody English thing where it's really hard to, I think he's probably waited 18 inch minutes.
Funky, how are you, mate? Yeah, let's bring him in. I had to say, I still couldn't let you have it.
I needed to steal your thunder there. How are you, mate? No, it's, can you guys hear me okay?
Like, is it? Perfect. Okay, perfect. So I want to just, I'm great. Thank you so much for even
having me up here. Honestly, since I started coming to the Cosmos ecosystem and watching this show,
probably back in like episode 44, somewhere around there, like, I just thought, oh man, someday I
hope I can be on Game of Notes. Like, I put so much ambition by being here right now.
With the free post. But either which way, like it just, it's amazing. And just, I know it's going
to be a great opportunity to have a conversation and learn from you guys. I want to say, because
you probably saw me laugh inappropriately about Don, when you said the thing about his tweets,
what I thought you meant Ben, because I've seen a few of them and like, there was one where he
said something about thanks to Malady and he was like in like a first class like cabin and
then there was this cost. Yeah, that one. And then the one I saw like, that was like, he bought a
horse farm or whatever. So I started laughing at that. And then you started talking about all
this anti-Semitic stuff. And I'm like, wait, wait, no, I'm not laughing at this. I had no idea.
And then my first, so this has been such an amazing time, like these last like four months,
just exploring the cosmos, getting to know everybody. And my first introduction to Don
was watching a cosmos Joe, like he had him on on some live stream and they were rating validators.
And I just, I must have watched the first, I don't know, 30, 40 minutes. Are they serious? Is
this a joke? Like I didn't know I had to ask Joe. I'm like, what was that real? And so it's just been
the characters that are in the ecosystem. You know, it's, it's really interesting. The governance
stuff that you guys struggle with. There's again, so many similarities between what's happening in
cosmos and what's happening in polka dot with regard to contentious governance proposals. You
know, obviously our voting works a little bit differently. But still, like it just thematically,
so many of the similarities that I see, like I'm on a weekly live stream for, it's called
attempts at governance. And that's all we talked about. It was just the issues that are happening
in polka dot governance. And when I watch game of nodes, a large chunk of the show is always about
contentious props, things that are happening. Like one of the first big ones that I remember
stumbling into was like the coin fiat. Oh, I think I said that right about that. Confio.
That's it. Thank you. How they were pulling funding and all this other stuff. And I remember
tendermint Timmy was like showing some stuff about like just proposals. And that was where I
started to dig in. And my first time I've read anything on the cosmos forum. So anyhow, I'm
just excited to be here, obviously, because I can't shut up, but it's really cool to be with
you guys, especially YouTube. And thank you, Bendy, this morning for showing up for the meditation
space. So it's really cool to see your VIP. And thank you again for the after the, after the filter.
There was even, and I want to give a shout out to Pope choose intern right now, because
something about like his tweets always make me laugh. And there was one about after the filter,
where it was like the interview from the creators and the guy does kind of look like
Don before the filter. And there was after the filter was the actual
anyhow. But yeah, I'm just super thrilled to be here.
Oh, no, thanks for joining the meditation earlier was was great. It was it was just after my
lunch. So I was already feeling slightly sleepy. But I was I was trying to I needed to do some
writing that afternoon. I was putting some scripts together for the day job because I've
got some filming to do next week. So yeah, I mean, that's because like, Rama, you're in the same boat
as me, right? You're you do growth fund, and you have your real job, and you have a family.
And somehow you're meant to just be able to do all of that at once. And most recently, yeah,
like, turned into a big content creator. So expect like heaps more clickbaity tweets and
type pitches. So yeah, no, it's super difficult. So I've got I've got a newborn at home, three,
three, a little bit weeks old. I've got a three year old, my wife. And yeah, normally,
I'm not at the moment, but normally, I work kind of a quite high pressure corporate job.
In addition to my crypto stuff. So very busy. And I play sport. So it's always busy kind of training
a couple of days a week, play a sports weekends, football, proper football, not Australian football.
There's 17 different sport forms of football in Australia. And we call the one we actually use
your feet to kick the ball the time soccer. So that makes a lot of sense.
So that makes a lot of sense. But yes, which is the one that I play. So yeah, it's, it's very
difficult normally to kind of find time to do all the things. And I do my best. Luckily, I can work
from home quite a lot. So I can manage to kind of squeeze in some some crypto time in between my
day job, which is normally around the mornings, which kind of works well, because it's pretty
quiet for my normal job in the mornings. So I can kind of jump in, catch the Americans and some of
the English people before I kick off into my normal job. And hey, Joe, and, and then yeah,
do my do my day job, spend some time with the family and then jump back on and do some more
crypto and all the Americans and British are starting to wake up. Right. That makes sense.
I mean, yeah, similar sort of, I made the stupid mistake of so I'd like change jobs
two months after get to the accelerator now it has a nine months mandate. Two months into that,
I decided to change jobs from a job that I've been doing for like six years and was very,
very good at doing it and could just like and could kind of make time within that to do various
things in, you know, and I've had time for the accelerator now. And then I went and got a new
job where I know nothing in a new industry and kind of went, Oh, shit, I still need to like
do all this stuff with the accelerator. And so what I do now is I stay awake until like midnight
doing my like I'm only meant to do like three hours a day and I definitely do more. But,
you know, if you said some better future of watching, can I just have more, more money, please?
But it, you know, because again, get paid on my gig, that's the, that's the better bit.
Regardless of whether you do any work, it's incredible.
Well, I mean, like, yeah, well, it turns out that doing more work that I meant to do,
I still get paid the fucking same pieces the longest week that Game of Notes has ever made it
until someone someone dropped an F bomb. There we go. We made it to 35 minutes. We're now demonetized,
but like, you know, rice, this is the longest we've ever gone. What what an achievement for the
show. And we had a lot and it wasn't the Australian that's that's war. So that's great.
That's probably another first actually for Game of Notes. It normally is great.
It's not like, you know, we turn the stream on, it starts and Frey does the intro and then
immediately Nars fucking hell. And it's like, but he's had two sips out of his coffee and he's like,
now I need more coffee. And then he just runs off, refills it even though he's had that much.
So that's normally how the show starts. Yeah. I mean, I did a non tribute earlier where I
left shop, but that was because what I managed to do is throw my earbud. I've got new earbuds.
They're not, I don't know. I may not have the thing on the end of them yet. And I literally
just lashed one across the room. So I had to go and fetch it because I was not sure that I would
be able to carry on otherwise. So there was a there was a question from the chat, which was now
20 minutes ago. Well, I mean, it was only 10 minutes ago. But it was pretty good. Like we're
already beating beating the other guys. Just transparency. I think we're gonna get Joe in
here because I think that'd be good content. Frequent, frequent listener. And it's our show
now. So we can just do whatever the fuck we want. So we'll get Joe in here. It'll probably bring down
the IQ substantially. Bring a bit of balance to the chat, I think it'd be good. I guess so funky
from my point of view is playing like Schultz Schultz's role now. And that's so we need to
dad Joe's the dad. We're literally like replicated gamer nodes. We've got the British, the Aussie
Schultz nice and quiet, very handsome down the bottom. And then we'll bring in dad. Yeah,
good vibes. And then we'll bring in dad in the bottom right. And we've done it. So Joe, Twitter
DMs get in here. We'll bring you up on stage. And oh, oh, we got someone most as much. Someone
must be out there. I thought this was game of notes. What happened? Good morning. Welcome.
There was a note upgrade. Yes, we actually did seem like an upgraded version. Oh, my gosh, we did.
We fall to the show. And this is great. I think this is the future. That was a perfect time.
This is a perfect time to bring you into I couldn't believe it.
It's just to bring Joe in and then we got an upgrade. So
all right, well, say I mean, is Joe joining as well? Let's bring him in.
I don't know. I don't know. This is bad at me.
Maybe I was gonna try and answer the question from the chat about whether there was a
difference in the mandate for Juno Grey fund versus it's already now just because
that's an actual sensible question. And like, you know, maybe we should answer them or just
talk about looks because that's the normal. No, we just ignore or ignore guests, ignore questions,
just talk politics. Yeah, excellent. I don't think there's a huge difference. Like,
Accelerator Dials mandate is to drive value to atom. So it's super broad. And I will do my regular
bit where I say we don't just exist to make 2.0 happen piecemeal. I think it's actually going to
be better than that because I think that 2.0 hilariously was not ambitious enough. I think
there were probably bits of it that weren't brilliant. But I think that actually like,
literally as 2.0 was happening, things like mesh were being announced, which weren't part of that
kind of 2.0 vision. I think mesh is really exciting. I think that the hub should have had
cosmism at Prop 69. I think it should have it at some point again in the future. You know,
I think that probably this is actually an interesting thing about how you do governance.
I think it's much more sensible to say we want permissioned cosmism because we want this and
we can't implement it without it. And then at least people actually can understand the benefit of it
and any potential risks. Although again, like I was super impressed to see Juhann just say,
there's no additional risk to cosmism compared to any other upgrade we do. They all have risk.
So that was interesting. But to retest, so Affimix Elator drives value to atom kind of any way that
we see fit. And now I end up in the position that Ramu was talking about earlier where I can't talk
about the things that I can't talk about yet, but there are some very exciting ones coming.
And it isn't just us saying no to stuff. So that is why we are better than the Juno grape fund.
Because we can actually afford, you know, because we have, but then this is the thing. So the biggest
difference potentially is, as the question said, that we've actually got the liquidity to do it.
And I was talking to someone the other day and I was saying like, really, you know, there's loads
of fud on Twitter for Juno, et cetera, and loads of it's products. But just simply,
if Juno could have liquidity, I think that would resolve a lot of people's anxiety and
people would feel better about the chain. How you create liquidity without tanking the price and
whatever is the challenge, I get that. But I think that liquidity is the one sort of fundamental
that bothers me about Juno. Everything else, I think is absolute fire. You know, I think there
are always going to be shitty projects on there because it's permissionless, right? So I don't
care about that. You know, if you want permissionless, you just accept that there are going to be
the odd dodgy thing. But like, you know, obviously Jake's here, so it's now going to sound like
I'm toting up. But like, if you look at something like a Dowdow, where it's, you know, absolute blue
chip project, why wouldn't you be bullish on a chain that had that? So what's that?
You look at something like a Reese, that is a blue chip developer, or a Zeke,
who literally implemented interchange NFTs. And we've actually added a real working version
of interchange accounts, believe it or not, might actually have interchange accounts that work soon.
And that's coming out of the Juno developer community, even with as little of liquidity as we have,
we were punching above our weight. So yeah, and I think that that is genuinely impressive. And I
think that this is the, you know, it's a funny thing being on the atom. And I'm now at number,
of course, obviously, so we've got one polka dot and two Junos. But on the outside of things,
I'm Juno in role. I'm Cosmos as an investor. Alright, calm down. Okay. Yeah. I'm an interchange.
I have an interchange perspective. Yeah, I mean, no, we I think, and I think in reality, we all do.
I think there's this, this funny bit where like, for the, for three hours a day, my, my thing ends
up being like, how do I approve value to atom? Now, actually, the answer a lot of times is cooperation.
And I think this is one of the one of the biggest things that is why, and I'd like to throw this
funky, like, I think that's why Cosmos is more correct than polka dot is in its sort of approach
to interoperability. Because I believe that despite the hub being this kind of originating
stack, the fact that it doesn't seek to kind of do parachain auctions and that kind of stuff,
if we can get our cooperation, right, I think that will create a better model of interoperability
and chains that have their own kind of app chain thesis and stuff that actually works and their
their own place in the ecosystem and that kind of cooperation between them. I think that is still
going to be the most economically successful model, even if it doesn't have direct value accrual.
Obviously, polka dot kind of chose a very different approach with a much more direct
value accrual for the dot token. I mean, so I think we already have a lot of
cooperation as it is in polka dot, if I'm being completely candid, like we have a lot of the
parachain teams already worked together and one of the things that's nice about polka dot. And
again, I'll be the first to admit, I am not the person like the tech person to be giving this
kind of spiel, right? I'm like the least technical person on our entire team. The lucky Friday,
I'm just some new investor from 2020 who got really interested because I was super bullish on
interoperability. And that's why I invested in Cosmos and everything else too. But now I'm like
deeply investigating it both from a work perspective, because we're starting to get validators on chains
because I mean, I've met a lot of like I keep describing Cosmos as the nerdy cousins next door.
Like, just like we're all into interoperability and a multi chain future that like, you know,
our teams working with composable, for instance, and building the bridge over to Cosmos and working
on the middle layer test net and stuff like that. But I think we already have sort of a very or one
of my boss shorty likes to call it co-opetition, right? Like where it's both cooperative, but
it's also competitive in some sense. So we have teams who contribute to the entire ecosystem
because you can build pallets, right? With that modular kind of flexible framework that you have
for Polkadot, like one of our teams in Varch gave who is one of the most brilliant devs I've ever
met in my life, like he's working on a multi sig palette that basically can be deployed to any
chain. It doesn't really matter like what chain you're running, because it's just the palette.
Once it's implemented on your parachain, you're good to go. So we're already seeing a lot of
this kind of cooperation being facilitated. It did seem early on as if many of the parachains were
somewhat siloed. And I'll be the first to also admit that there are some like deadweight chains,
there are chains that just seem to launch and then they're not even involved in our community.
So I think right now there's probably like 41 total chains. But if I were talking about like
how many are actually viable and working together a lot, it's probably more like half 20 maybe.
But we do have a lot of cooperation and trying to kind of help other teams because some of them
fit such niche roles like interlay, for instance, with its trustless Bitcoin. I'm a Bitcoin right
hard. That's still probably the majority of my portfolio. And so that team likes to because
we're seeing just more and more cooperation happen among the parachain teams. And I think the same
thing is starting to emerge too. There's a need, a recognized need among the cosmos as well that
we're all better working together. Like if we have shared aims, it's going to produce a better
outcome for everybody involved, regardless of what chain you're from or what have you. So that's
kind of just my lack of technical take. But we definitely are very cooperative. And Jake,
because I know you've already been on some nights, I'm just going to throw this out there too.
Tomorrow, like one big social group that I'm involved with is called Chaos Dow. We are a
Dow, of course. And so we're having we're on tomorrow. I'm going to be talking about a lot of
the governance issues. So if you guys are curious about anything that's happening in Polkadot,
it's going to be like 2pm EST. I'll drop the link. I'll send it for you guys if you want to join
into the conversation, listen, what have you. But it's three myself and two others who are Dowists.
You know, that was kind of like the highest echelon inside the group. But we're slowly
decentralizing all the power. Like we have regulars, we have friends, there's different
structures, but we're trying to get rid of all of it because we want everybody in the Dow to have
the same exact, really, the Dowist is just like a title at this point, more than anything else.
And it was mostly the kind of core members who were constantly contributing to the point that
you guys were talking about earlier. Some people have more time to contribute. Others don't. Like
now that I work for Lucky Friday, I'm full time Web three. I'm just in discourse way too many of them,
probably, you know, 12, 14 hours a day. So yeah, anyhow, I'm going off on a tangent. But yeah,
I think we're just just to kind of jump in on, oh God, the skeptic he's in before before he speaks.
Oh, yes, it's going to ignore him for a few minutes, because I know he's a big fan of
of collaboration and cooperation. So just on your point around polka dot, I've kind of had like the
same vibe for cosmos for, I don't know, maybe a few months now. And I'm going to name like a few
chains here, just as some examples, but around the whole collaboration thing, right? I think a
successful Juno is it's important for the wider ecosystem. I think you need a space that is strong
and permissionless to incubate and build devs, right? Without that, the cosmos ecosystem, you're
not going to have this the opportunity for a bunch of devs who are, you know, they're either in school
or just out of school, who've got some skills and they want to come in and they want to throw up a
random contract on the chain, and then start building some form of app, right? Juno should be
that place. I don't think neutron is. I think neutron has got a very specific purpose in the
atom economic zone or, you know, however you want to call it. And it's there to be like the liquidity
hub. Salami. Yeah, whatever we're calling it this week. I don't think neutron's that place. I think,
you know, there's two options that can be like the, I'm going to say it the Australian way, the
Huawei chain or Juno, right? As much, I think who needs to like stick to being a meme, which they're
doing a pretty good job of, but like, I think Juno is like the permissionless deploy whatever you
want. Know that there's going to be ship projects, there's going to be rugs. But if there's good
developers and we can identify them from some of the work that the fleet, they should get, you know,
some support and give them small amounts of Juno to continue them and incentivize and reward them
to keep building. So for the wider ecosystem, I think Juno is important and everyone kind of
shits on it. But take away Juno and then you take away this permissionless place for developers to
launch on and you end up with like subpar products that are trying to launch on permissioned
cosmism chains. And they just get shut down by like grants projects or they don't quite fit the
app chain, the specific app chain vision. And they go, Oh, well, where am I going to deploy my thing
that I'm really invested in personally that I really like? Oh, there's no permissionless chain
for me to do that on. All right, well, I'm going to go somewhere else that will let me do that.
And is that like Solana or is that polka dot or is it, you know, some Binance smart chain?
We need that space and chains like, you know, osmosis and stargaze, etc, who have very good vision.
We need to like stop this rebuilding of infrastructure and focus on what our app chain
is for, right? Like stargaze, in his example, it is the premier NFT chain in the ecosystem.
Omniflix is coming for that title, I think in terms of a digital media chain.
They've got quite a nice marketplace. There are amazing features on ETH that should be on stargaze
now, right? They shouldn't be rebuilding like Dowdow. They shouldn't be rebuilding osmosis as a
dex. We should be putting outposts on on stargaze for both of those products. And stargaze should
be releasing NFT staking, NFT pools, improving their marketplace and making it so it's the best
NFT onboarding and user experience in the ecosystem and then use other
chain products to enhance that and like focus on what you're really good at and make it better.
That's the app chain thesis, right? Like you do like as Stride would say, you do one thing,
do it well. Like you just, you do like, and I think there is an entirely reasonable space that
says you can have a permissionless chain that, oh, Joe's quit. He hates the app chain thesis.
He can't be doing with it. It's all that cooperation. He can't bear it. But basically,
like my thing, when I see some of these things where it's like, oh, we need one of what they've
got. I'm kind of like, do we? Because that's not the point. I think the problem is though, like
IBC has just not been up to the task where we've had a version of interchange accounts. Okay.
And it's just not usable with smart contracts. You literally cannot use it with smart contracts.
We've had, you know, there's, there's also other limitations on the interchange accounts as well.
You don't have callbacks. Like, you know, and so while we've been talking this talk of interchange
composability for a while, we've yet to see that happen in reality. And well, a bunch of people
have been working on things like interchange queries. There's like five different implementations,
which one is the canonical one, which is standardized. Look at a neutron's version of
ICA. They built it so that they have their own custom module and then no one else can really
use it because they're, they're building it so that they're the only ones that can like write
these like interchange kind of smart contracts. Now we've done the exact opposite. Anyone can use
poly tone if they have Cosmosm and there's no extra features required. You got Cosmosm,
you can use poly tone and you can do anything you can do on another chain. And that's how it
should have been. And I think now that we are getting to the point where we have these tools,
we can get more chance that are like strad that are more focused on doing one thing and exposing
that composability in the interchange. Yeah. And then, and then I think that like how you choose
to structure your kind of interchange security stuff, whether that is through like the linear kind
of provider consumer model of ICS-D1 or whether it ends up in, I almost don't see the point of two,
like let's skip to three and mesh. Like, you know, I can see both of those having practical uses and
I can see ways that chains would want to have that kind of political alignment with each other.
And I think like that's one of the things for me, which is like, if Juno is going to be an incubator,
one of the really interesting things becomes like, okay, either you're incubating the dev
talent so they learn a lot of stuff and then they go and spin up a new project and it becomes a
standalone thing or they take their thing and it, you know, this vision often was, which is you have
your DAP and then it becomes its own softened chain. Whether there is any route in which Juno can
can earn back from that, that's where it gets interesting. And that's where like something
like a, that's an accelerator or a Juno, but like, in our case, that's not how we work with the
accelerator. We're not taking equity in anything. So if they grow, that's just meant to grow the
pie. There's no direct benefit, but then we're not anticipating people skinning out. When I think
for Juno, you probably want to be like cool, like Juno should own a portion of your chain.
Like the Juno community pool should be the owners of that. And, you know, that kind of,
you know, I think that that gives you the opportunity to kind of work.
But you know, this is why, you know, mesh is so important to us. And why I'm spending a significant
amount of time on mesh and why we have some of our best people, including like Zeke and Joseph,
who works on Swift protocol, we have them contributing to mesh because this is vital to
make this whole work because that's another lever that you can do to foster economic alignment.
And I think that, you know, another great thing about mesh and why we want Cosmos on the hub is
we need to just do a better job of aligning the ecosystem as a whole and kind of just restoring
the problem with like replicated security is that it actually is kind of anti-cosmos in a sense that
it gets away from, it gets just back to the idea of another one chain to rule them all rather than
this like initial like internet of blockchain kind of a chain. Yeah, I disagree slightly.
I think that it works better for a chain. If you are spinning up a chain that doesn't have a token
of its own, I think you can also do that with mesh. Of course you could do it with mesh,
but I think there is, I can understand why if you're going for a tokenless chain, you might just
think I would like... And then you don't have to like subsidize your validators with the ICF and
you know, things like that. Well, quite. Well, you know what, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna,
Bendy, I'm really glad you're here. I promise I'm not gonna make this spicy. I mean, like, no,
well, no, I think it should be spicy. I think... But the thing is, this is so frustrating because
I can't say the thing that I want to say that I think you know that I'm not allowed to say.
I'm not gonna say the thing either. And... Yeah, but it's really annoying. So like,
we're very much in agreement, but I will also disagree with Jake because I think that there is
a space for that product. I don't think that everything should do it. I don't think that...
And like one of the things, because my background is non-technical, I am an arts student. I was...
It's my thing about changing the language of how we refer to those arrangements because I think
that it's... Is it about security? Is it bollocks? None of this is about security. This is about
relationships. Oh, no. I think if we spent concerted after online, we could like take down Neutron and
halt it on day one. Yeah, but... No, I think economic security is still important, but
there's like security is super holistic, right? Okay. What these things are really good for?
And I think maybe security is the wrong term. It's alignment between communities. Like that
economic alignment is almost... To me, that's almost the more important element. It's like
the partner chances as you guys are calling now, what's the benefit of that? The benefit of that
is the economic relationships that come with that. The way... The same thing with mesh, where it's
like you're just building these deeper ties between these communities. Yeah. The way I kind of see it
is an example and just tell me I'm completely wrong here is... So a chain like Osmosis, right,
where they deploy very specific apps that enhance and improve the Osmosis chain.
ICS or replicated security is the same thing for the hub, right? You're deploying very specific
chains that use the economic security to both benefit both chains, right? So Neutron is an
example. It's going to be like the liquidity hub. You're going to have liquid staking. You're going
to have deep liquidity for Adam on Neutron with the intention of massively increase transaction
volume, which will then enhance the hub via transaction fees, right? Stride going there as
well. The same thing. I don't think DYDX is going to be a consumer chain, but if it was,
like massive benefits for Adam because you've got all this huge amounts of liquidity and
transaction volume via leverage trades that benefits the hub, right? The intention is the
same thing, right? You're deploying very specific chains via replicated security to use the economic
security of the hub and then you're paying back via liquidity and transaction volume.
I think there is a future model where that is effectively how horizontal scaling works,
where actually, or like you take Osmosis, which is an actual app chain and has an actual kind of
utility in it, it's a DEX. If you just basically go, okay, there'd be a whole load of Osmosis
DeFi primitives that are technically on different chains, but they talk to each other over IBC.
They all use the same tokens and they all pay the same validator set, but they are different chains.
That's horizontal scaling. That to me is why ICS-V1 has utility. You don't need it today
because we're not doing the volume that would require that, but it gives us the ability to get
there in the future. I think that then things like Mesh is how you actually say that Osmosis has an
actual relationship with the Cosmos Hub, it has a relationship with Juno, it has a relationship
with Stargaze, and then it starts to deepen and strengthen those. I think that those are the
really ICS-V1, I think, is a scaling solution. I think Mesh is a political economic alignment
solution. I don't think that either are security solution.
I remember the Mesh thing. This is really interesting because at ETH Denver, when I was at
the shared security summit, the first time I met, Jake, for instance, Sonny was doing a presentation
on Mesh. As soon as you said the thing about the political alignment, I remember that first
part of his presentation where he was talking about the axes and how, yeah, so this is really,
I'm sorry, if I'm just sitting here nodding, it's because I find all this very fascinating.
Is that, do you see a future in which both of them are going to happen, where you're going to
continue to get more people coming on and the consumer chains to develop?
In, yeah, give it six months. Okay. I can't see a world in which the hub is not
both doing ICS-V1, which we'll be doing in a few days, and Mesh. If that fails to happen,
it is an absolute travesty of governments. I don't think that, I'm agreeing here, by the way,
when I say I don't think, ICS-V1, it's not going to scale. I don't think you can do more than
five chains. The operational expenditure, both in resourcing, manpower and dollars,
it can't scale, I don't think, more than five at most, the very most.
I think that's why I think it works as a stable solution, because you're already invested in a
chain that wants to grow. I think that's where it could go to bigger, but yeah, carry on.
Yeah, I'm not a validator, so I don't pretend to know the effort involved in running multiple
nodes and what that involves or entails in ICS. I have spoken to a number of validators who were
in the test nets for ICS, and they're saying substantial amounts of effort to manage the nodes
and spinning up a new node for every chain. At our current transaction volume for Adam,
it's just not scalable financially for the bottom half, bottom third, definitely.
If you have a dependency or a requirement to run a node for a chain, and if you don't run it,
you get slashed on Adam, that solution is bad for, yeah, so there's a lot of technical detail.
I'm not going to go down it too much and shit on the solution, because I think it's interesting,
and it's the first version of the future. Technical detail. We don't cover technical
detail, we just do spicy taint. So just for funky's benefit, essentially,
when you spin up a new chain via replicated security, every validator in the set has to
run that consumer chain. So we're going to have Neutron very soon, Stride will be next.
Say I'm in the bottom five validators, I'm one of those bottom five. I'm already losing money
by running Neutron, it's not net positive for me to validate that chain, but I have to do it.
Stride then comes along and I say, go ahead, Bendy. You don't have to do it, they have the soft
opt out. So everyone in the Neutron implemented it on their side. So basically, everyone under a
certain percentage. This is kind of like version 4. Yeah, because version 2 is utterly pointless.
Version 2 is never a good idea. But we have because you've got a soft opt out.
Well, what the opt out basically says is, it says, if you're below a certain rank of
validated by voting power, you don't get slashed. So you don't have to go on the road.
Ah, you don't get slashed. Right.
You don't get slashed, but you still get the rewards. So actually, so there are some like
very at the moment, Neutron specific code that they put in because they're like, okay, why isn't
this publicly like published and communicated because I haven't seen people talk about it.
It's on the forum. Like, yeah, I know. Yeah, but I knew. Yeah, okay. Maybe I think I think it's not,
I think I don't think it's well enough as ever. It should be.
All the people in Plasma aren't doing it aren't doing a good marketing job. That's me, isn't it?
Yep. Yep. So it should outmate.
And it'd be sad to not be paid anymore.
So Stride comes along and then Stride doesn't implement. There you go. James only found out
today. Nice. So Stride comes along.
It should be one of the fucking props.
Yeah. Well, I sold my item at $15. So I'll buy it back in at $14.99 and we'll go for it.
Have you got your new ledger yet?
My new ledger? No, I don't have a new one yet. The stacks.
Because I remembered you'd kind of got to a point where you'd have to unsteak everything.
No, no, I wasn't using a ledger. I am now.
I want to get the new stacks. Anyway, so if you don't run Stride or say you have downtime
on any of the consumer chains, you actually get slashed on your Atom validator.
So you lose Atoms and your delegators lose Atoms unless Stride implements the same thing,
no slashing. But without being slashed, then there's no deterrent for bad actors. So it's
almost, it's kind of dangerous in a sense being able to opt out because for a small subset of
validators, I'm sure it's fine. But the whole intention is that you need to do the right things
on the consumer chains. And if you don't, then you get slashed on the provider chain.
Okay. How often does slashing actually happen?
On the hub very rarely. Because it's a very bad publicity. It's very bad publicity to get slashed
on the biggest chain. We did see it with, what was the V8 upgrade, I think it was. There was
a number that were very, very close to getting slashed. And I think a couple did. It was very
scary. It was a very badly run upgrade, like, which was partly because I hadn't been an upgrade
for a long time. A year and a half, I think it was. Turns out that the hub hasn't been great at
shipping, which may also be a reason why having permission to cause a Muslim would be a good
idea because then you can iterate things quicker. Who would have thought? There is a question here
from Shorty that I want to get to. What is polytone or what's polytone? I can probably explain
this. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Maximus. The hosts are up the top. The guests
are down the bottom. Okay, please. So, polytone. Imagine just having the brass neck to tell Jake
that he's not allowed to explain polytone. That's how the show is ran. I learned.
You might do a better job than me. Maybe. This is the game of thrones. I know how it works here.
So, essentially, polytone is my understanding is it wraps interchain accounts and interchain queries
into a single, Rama's variation, into a single kind of protocol, I guess you could call it,
where we can deploy the contracts on either chain. So, let's use Stargaze and Juno as this example.
We deployed on both sides and what it enables both of those chains to do is any contract to
contract execution or query. So, an example could be as a Dow on Juno, I can purchase an NFT or
list an NFT on the Stargaze marketplace. We can do another example is, let's say, the
the Wah Wah chain because I like to trigger people. If we had polytone deployed on both of those,
I could have a Dow on Juno and have my Dow interact with anything on Hua. So, let's use the Raccoon
team as an example. They've got a marketplace over on that chain, the Emporium marketplace.
Maybe they have a Dev Dow on Juno. They set their royalties contract address to the interchain account
of their Dow on Juno and whenever someone makes a purchase of an NFT, the royalties of that go to
their Juno Dow Treasury and then they can just pull those tokens into that, like pull it across
via interchain queries or interchain accounts into Juno. You could do way more than that, right?
You can have like contract to contract executions. So, when someone does a swap on a DEX on Osmosis,
you can execute a contract on Juno. So, really, really powerful stuff. If you start to think
about arbitrage bots and the opportunities that you can have using interchain accounts and
interchain queries, cross-chain with arbitrage bots like the MIGALOO team, they're going to be
sitting there like absolutely licking their lips at this going, okay, let's get this deployed ASAP
and then the arbitrage bot that they use, anytime there's a transaction across any of the chains
that have polytone, they can query those chains and then automatically arbitrage across multiple
DEXes and have the ARB of that swap go back into their whale stakers and distribute those rewards
to their whale stakers as some examples. And the reason for that is, is interchain queries and
interchain accounts, they're like, my understanding is they're two separate modules that use two
different channels. By wrapping them up into one single protocol, you can now actually do like
callbacks, you can do queries, you can do, have interchain accounts across chain and have proper
interoperability, which is how it should be. How would you rate Romas' answer to explaining
polytone? I think it was mostly right. I might have a few nitpicks, but it's basically any
account, not just smart contracts, but including smart contracts. That's a big improvement over
interchain accounts, which only worked with, well, it didn't work with smart contracts, which is kind
of a limiting factor. But yeah, I mostly got it right. It also is really just an implementation of
interchain accounts and interchain queries in Cosmalsum. And it has, I think, a lot nicer of
an API. It can actually wrap those modules when they're ready, but they're not quite ready yet.
We don't have a default interchain query module that's used by everyone. We don't have a real
working version of interchain accounts with callbacks and smart contracts support. And I'm not
about to wait another six months before we can start actually developing real cross-chain protocols
and real cross-chain smart contracts. The kinds of things that you can build with polytone, and
again, polytone is not even geo-specific. Any Cosmalsum chain can use this. So Neutron can use
this. Osmosis can use this. Wawa can use this. Composable. The great thing about this is it
is designed, even if you don't use the Cosmos SDK, because I'm a Cosmalsum maximalist and Rust
maximalist, not a go or Cosmos SDK maximalist, though I still appreciate them. But we have a
bunch of new people that are joining. And I think the future of IBC protocols is going to move a
lot faster than what it's been moving up to this point. In many ways, I think it has to you, or
we are going to face competition from the outside ecosystem that are also competing on the
interoperability, interchange narrative. But I'm really excited because you could actually,
literally with polytone, build an interchange DeFi protocol, like a router, for example,
where you got a DEX on Neutron, you got Osmosis, you've got all the other, like,
injective and all these other ones. If they're connected via polytone, you could have a contract
that has accounts on all these different chains. And using price oracles, you could basically just
like always route to the best price. So if the best price for swapping to Adam is on Neutron,
route there. If it's on Osmosis, route there. If it's on injective, route there.
Imagine if there was a wallet that allowed you to do swaps in the wallet that would use such a
protocol. Yeah, exactly. That'd be really sick. You should fund that project.
It's actually probably, we should get polytone on the hub because, you know, I think it'd be
really, if there was Cosmos on the hub, then that potentially could be a thing that could be
deployed on the hub and that would drive that leaves that and then that would be something
that the atom accelerator should fund. What a fucking world. Now, we're just sitting in an
interesting conversation where an hour or 12 minutes is polytone a module. No, it's actually
just a smart contract, a Cosmos and smart contract. And that's the great thing about this as well,
is that with interchange queries or interchange accounts, everyone has to do a hard software
upgrade. Everyone's using slightly different versions of the Cosmos SDK. And so then they
have to figure that out. If they're on 45 and it only supports 47, they now have to upgrade
their entire chain in order to use the right thing. Everyone just deploys the contracts.
You could even be in polka dot land on composable, deploy these contracts and you're in business.
And that's, I think the future of IBC protocols. They should be that simple. We should be able
to roll them out quicker. And that's another reason why we have to get Cosmos on the hub
is because we don't want the hub to always be lagging behind. We don't always want to have
to wait for a go implementation because we know how much longer that takes. When there is a protocol
that's ready, for example, interchange NFTs, I swear would have been ready like four or five
months ago if it wasn't for waiting for the Cosmos SDK implementation and the Cosmos SDK testing.
This is a really interesting conversation. But we are an hour and 14 minutes in and we
haven't actually reached the first item on the spreadsheet. Classic game of nodes.
And so I just want to interrupt the interesting conversation to actually do drill tweet of the
week because that's an integral feature that we can't avoid. So here it is. I remark,
mummies are made out of diapers at the Egypt Museum. Some cops jump out of sarcophagus
and begin humping me as I roll on the floor. There we go. Drill tweet of the week.
Amazing. I'm so glad we're interested. It was very important that the whole thing was stopped
for that because otherwise we're at the point of getting the nodes.
Yeah. A nice room reset. And where do we go from here?
I just want to say this real quick. That was so enlightening for me because there's so much I
still don't know. But for instance, the composable stuff with the bridge, they had to build this
middle layer test net because they said some people aren't on like, and they were saying,
he was saying like specific, this is from the composable team, Jafar, he was saying something
like, oh, well, some chains are running for whatever, four, seven, and then there's gonna wait
for eight or something. Yeah. He just apparently is four, eight, the point at which everybody's
going to have Cosmos. No, no, it's just another Cosmos. Maybe I can break this down a little bit
funky. So there's multiple areas within Cosmos. So the main thing that everyone kind of uses is the
SDK. Okay, well, let's take a step back. Everyone uses, you know, the BFT mechanism,
tend to been out the door, not no one really uses it anymore. We now have Comet BFT.
Then we have the Cosmos SDK. Then we have IBC. Okay, now there's two versions of IBC to,
I believe now there's like a Rust version and a Go version. Okay, the SDK, everyone uses, and
there's multiple versions of that. That's generally upgraded and shipped via the hub,
the hub teams, essentially, believe it now, it's mainly informal and binary who are building that
there's, you know, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48. Don't think anyone's using 46 tried to implement groups module.
People are using 46 actually. We are. We're not using it. But
there are people, okay, I think some people are using 46 complicated people should.
4748, I believe with, and then so that's the kind of core stack. Then we have
Cosmos, which is essentially another module that you can chuck on, enable smart contracting,
et cetera. A lot of chains are using Cosmos. The hub's not with 48. I'm not sure technically
what's involved there. I think it's mainly around the IBC stuff to enable the kind of
dot integration. But you have to be there. So what we want to get to is, and what Juno's focus is,
is using a lot more of Cosmos and modules, sorry, smart contracts in the core chain to enable faster
development and iteration and relying less on the SDK, because it can be very slow to develop
for good reasons, right? Like it needs to be very secure, et cetera. But using upgrading the SDK when
you want to, but then having CW modules, Cosmos modules to use in things like core governance.
So then you can iterate and build upon them and be a lot faster in that development. And then
other chains that use Cosmos may go down that path to, say Juno develops an incredible kind of
governance module with Cosmos. Maybe Osmosis and Stargaze or Migaloo want to use that. And then
they can just drop the Xgov module and not use it. And then chains that want to continue to use it
can, or they can take the Cosmos and Gov contracts and improve them, iterate on them, however,
suits their particular chain. And I think there's also the different virtual machines, right? So,
you know, if you want to have a UVM because you want to try and connect to Ethereum and you want
to talk to Liddy, then you can do that. But I think that this is the whole thing for me, which is
there is this kind of philosophical question of what makes a chain a Cosmos chain. And I think at
one point the answer probably was the Cosmos SDK. And I think the answer is very quickly becoming,
and it probably already is, it's got IBC enabled. So Binance Smart Chain is not a Cosmos chain.
Matic is not a Cosmos chain. Core chain, not a, like, yeah, enable IBC, come join the Cosmos.
That's when you'll be a Cosmos chain. Because that's when you can, like, and then things like
Polytone enable you to play. And that's when the whole world of interchain. And this is like,
so the reason that I got into Cosmos was because I read, when I was like, I am a Johnny come lately,
know about Bitcoin Frasier, never bothered, just thought it was basically going to be, you know,
was criminals on the dark web and made a mistake. And then, you know, the last full run, friends of
mine were like, you know, this shit's kicking off, you need to actually pay attention. And I was like,
oh, you know what, it's lasted long enough, it probably is legit. And then very quickly, I was
like, I do not like this idea that something's going to win, because nothing ever has in the history of
like, humanity, there isn't like, things have standardized, but nothing has ever just been
the one thing. Or if it was, it was briefly, and then it got replaced by the next one thing.
So I looked at this and I was trying to, when I was trying to explain to my parents what on earth
I was investing money in crypto for, I was like, this is the railway. This is actually what this is.
And at the moment, people have their different stations that they've built. But what Cosmos is,
is connectivity, like the railway, if you can physically imagine that it's going to connect
all these different things and stuff's going to happen. And that's why I believe in Cosmos,
because you can see these models of connectivity have worked over all of human history. And there
is no reason to believe that wouldn't it work over the internet in the same way as it worked in
physical infrastructure. And so that again, becomes why when people say, you know, we are meant to
drive value to atom. And it is very difficult because you have these things where you go,
there's an intangible benefit to stronger, better, quicker trade routes. I cannot measure what the
impact will be, but I know it is net positive. I do not know if it will make atom the Bitcoin of
the future, or if atom will just fade into oblivion. But it's sort of irrelevant because what we
should all be trying to do is make that stronger, more connected Cosmos. And that's when I kind of,
you know, that's what I'm sort of in this for, you know, we say we're in it for the tech and like
tunics, or you know, you're in it for the tech, you're in it for the money, like, don't get me wrong,
I like making some money. That's nice. But genuinely, this is exciting because I think it is the
absolute future of where human interconnectivity is going. And that's the benefit for atom, right?
That I think a lot of people forget is like, it all started from atom. So, you know, when we talk
about, oh, we need to drive value to atom, you know, atom needs to do stuff. It's like, at the end
of the day, everything that we use at the moment, you know, SDK, IBC, etc. It all started with atom.
So, it's the same thing with Bitcoin, right? Everyone's like, oh, you know,
Adam's the Bitcoin of Cosmos. Yeah, it kind of is. It's gonna have the name and it's always gonna
have value because everything originated from atom, right? Like, at the end of the day, like,
what we're saying is, I think is right, like, IBC is the future, like, I don't care about
Tenderman, I don't care about SDK, Cosmism, in a sense, I don't necessarily care about too much.
Yeah, it's better than, you know, writing these core modules. We need to enable IBC across every
crypto ecosystem and connect everyone. And then I don't care what you're using underneath it.
There's gonna be better versions of Tenderman. There's gonna be better versions of the SDK.
There's gonna be better versions of different versions of Cosmism. We just need to connect
everyone. And then what we can come back and drive value back to atom and say, this all came from
atom and everyone will buy atom because that's where the development came from and will come from
and it will always have value because of that. I think it's just like the internet. Internet is
actually something where like a couple of one standards actually one out. But why did those
standards went out? There were actually different people trying to make different internet protocols
before that were proprietary because they were like, we want to be the one communications platform
to rule them all. And those all failed in the face of TCP IP and of HTML because they were just
free to build on. They were completely open. There wasn't a token or anything that like forced,
you know, you into their terms of service or whatever. And as we saw with the internet,
yes, there's many websites, but you know, there's still, it's all about network effects, right?
And, you know, I think that Adam's going to do well in the long run because it just has brand
recognition and it will have network effects. And there's, there's advantages to also being early
on these things because as the interchange grows and grows, yes, eventually it's going to add Ethereum.
But like by the time that happens, there's already going to be substantial network effects and
substantial like economic alliances, you know, by that time, I think we'll have like really good
mesh security. And Adam will have economic, you know, I would love to have like mesh security
with the Cosmos Hub for Juneau. I think it just makes a ton of sense. And it's, I kind of almost
wish we like launched with that instead of, you know, going down this replicated security detour,
but you know, that's a, well, I like, and I want to find a way to have Dow Dow on the hub, right?
Like, because actually, I had a sudden, I had a realization today where I was like, I'm not quite
sure that after accelerated Dow's about like we are, it's not like that's the thing. It is a
multi-sig. Like we, yeah, everyone, everyone shits on Juneau for it, but we actually have probably
have the best governance in crypto. I cannot, I can literally not name another crypto project
where the core team and the foundation is a sub-dow and they can be rugged at any moment and the
members can be replaced. And I just think where it would be with like AIB and all this shit, if
like there were actually, there was actually accountability, you know?
Imagine if you could claw back all those items that were meant for original developers that now
own by private company. Or if you could, if you could claw back the items from the ICF because
they're not doing a good enough job of looking after the Cosmos SDK, you know,
like people give a shit about their delegations. I don't give a fuck about that. I give a bit
of a fucking about DragonBerry. Yeah, totally. That happened on your watch and it's not in
your transparency report. Like you, the ICF has got the ball.
Yeah, straight up, right? And you know, people were kind of arguing with like the token swap
between Juneau and Dowdow. I was heavily involved in those conversations and essentially, you know,
Juneau helped build Dowdow. Dowdow is a key element to the future direction of vision of Juneau.
So Juneau got, in my opinion, an incredible deal because, you know, we get 10% of the supply,
they get half a million Juneau, sounds like a lot. But when Dowdow is deployed on, you know,
or there's outposts on 10, 15 chains or, you know, there's 10 or 15 chains using Dowdow on Juneau
and bringing their liquidity to Juneau, then all of a sudden, now when people want features,
they're going to have to go to the Dowdow team. This is my words, right? Not Dowdow's.
And they go, hey, we want this feature. Okay, cool. Here, pay us some of your
atom tokens to get those features and then you can have it.
Which if I was a voting member of the Atom Accelerator Dow, which might like to be super
clear to the listeners, I literally do the marketing and the coordination stuff. I have zero
actual like vote or voice. You know, the team are very respectful and listen to my opinions,
but like actually they make all the calls, right? You're not a sign-off.
That's not, yeah, it's entirely the point. So, but what I was going to say is that I would pay
Dowdow in a heartbeat for features that we need because we need them, they have huge value.
It like to pay for development time plus profit, it's in their brain, right? So, it is a-
I mean, look at how much money was put into Groups module as an example. It is multiple
millions of dollars. I don't know. Someone would have to do the adding up of it, but, and it's
also been like three years or more effort. Like they've been talking about Groups module for,
you know, that came out of, I think the same hackathon that Cosmosm came out of. And so,
it's literally been that long and there's been all this invested in it and-
I think Groups don't actually hold funds if my memory is correct. So, like-
Oh, with the data is still like years beyond the Groups module by this point, like it's just,
yeah, like if you want to do things like approval flows or vetoes or things like that,
that's all like possible. That's not possible with Groups module.
But like, you know, and I think this is, like Dowdow is a very good example of a product that
has really great product market fit, right? All these chains need to do governance. They need
to do much more complex things. You need to be able to mimic things that people do in the,
in the Web 2 world, in real life at the moment, in company structures, all of those things that
we have to do in real life, we need to be able to do them on chain and we want to minimize trust
and Dowdow allows you to do that. You know, one of the, like, so there are some, we're not there,
yeah, I think identity still needs solving. I think privacy still needs solving. I think there's
loads of this stuff, but Dowdow is a good example of how to do something.
We're actually working with Dev or Dave from Osmosis and Privacy Features coming in,
Dowdow v3. Or at least we're going to start like designing them. So, and then as far as identity
goes, we actually have that feature like almost shipped. This is a very long, big challenge
because identity is, it's tricky. But we are working on with like Synapse as a third party
to allow for basically just like proving that someone is an actual human being.
Now, we don't put that data on chain so you can't look up like who that person is, but you know,
there's like some, you know, third party record so that if you need to do, you know, I think one
of the things that I'm excited about for the Internet of Blockchains is that it allows for
diversity. And we are going to have both permission lists and permission chains.
And even some of the permission chains, there's going to be a spectrum there. I
seriously believe that there is going to be like local governments or countries or actual like
big companies that use these chains for their books. And to, I mean, look at this path of the
stablecoin legislation in America, we might have these kind of regulated sort of stablecoins, which
I don't think are like completely bad. And, you know, maybe they're not completely good either.
But I think maybe on the whole, they're like largely a little bit more positive. But, you know,
those are going to be like permissions chains, kind of like what circle is doing, right?
And the great thing about the interchange is all this stuff can just exist seamlessly together.
And then you can get composability between all these things.
And the thing is, as a user, you don't have to understand any of that eventually.
Eventually, you can get to a point where it's literally like using the Internet is today,
but you get all of the actual like accountability of this being on check.