►
From YouTube: Devcon VI Bogotá | River stage - Day 1
Description
Official livestream from Devcon VI Bogotá.
For a decentralized version of the steam, visit: https://live.devcon.org
Devcon is an intensive introduction for new Ethereum explorers, a global family reunion for those already a part of our ecosystem, and a source of energy and creativity for all.
Agenda 👉 https://devcon.org/
Follow us on Twitter 👉 https://twitter.com/EFDevcon
A
Yourself
about
cryonics,
but
you
know,
Merkle
trees
are
great
and
dojas
are
also
great,
but
Ralph
worker
will
do
just
are
not
actually
connected.
The
only
connection
is
that
I
like
both
of
them
but
the
so
what
are
mortal
trees
right.
A
Marco
tree
is
like
this
data
structure
that
lets
you
create
one
small
object
that
commits
to
a
large
number
of
objects
where
it
becomes
very
easy
to
prove
for
any
one
of
those
objects
that
that
object
is
inside
of
this
entire
big
entire
tree
right.
A
So
you
have
this
one
object,
that's
called
Infinity
Noah
header
and
it
might
be
committing
to
like
a
million
different
things
and
for
any
one
of
those
billion
things
you
can
make
a
short
proof.
That
shows
that
that
one
thing
actually
is
you
know
in
these
set
of
things
that
that's
been
committed
to.
Why
do
we
care
about
this?
Well,
ethereum
blocks
are
big.
The
ethereum
state
is
even
bigger
right.
The
ethereum
state
is
like
40
gigabytes.
So
what
if
you
wants
to
prove
something
that
happens
in
a
blog
or
proves
something
about
your
account?
A
A
Last
fun
thing
for
your
two
protocol
is
right,
so
most
people
die
or
increasingly
more
and
more
people
don't
use
ethereum
directly.
They
use
order
called
player,
two
protocols
that
inherit
security
from
ethereum
and
add
higher
scalability
on
top
right,
so
roll
ups
I
wrote
an
article
on
them,
they're
really
fun,
there's
a
bunch
of
them
from
a
user's
point
of
view.
Living
on
a
modern
layer,
too
feels
like
living
on
ethereum.
You
know
applications
work
the
same
way,
but
because
these
applications
don't
stick
everything
on
ethereum
directly.
A
A
Okay,
next
stop
the
surge,
increasing
scalability
going
finally
going
sustainably
below
five
cents,
a
transaction
going
getting
us
the
thousands
of
transactions.
A
second
next
stop
The
Verge,
replacing
purple
trees
with
more
efficient
structures.
The
butter
theory
of
noise
be
much
wider.
Ethereum
nodes,
don't
have
to
have
huge
amounts
of
data,
becomes
much
easier
for
anyone
to
run
them.
Yay
The,
Purge,
clearing
out
all
data
clearing
out
technical
debt,
making
ethereum
know
it's
easier
to
run
to
making
the
ethereum
protocol.
B
A
And
the
Splurge
grab
the
Egg
of
various
useful
stuff
account
abstraction.
A
C
C
I
guess
when
you
give
a
team
three
years
to
plan
an
event,
they
start
to
get
creative
and
start
to
think
a
little
bit
differently
and
we've
learned
a
lot
from
past
events
that
we've
done
past
Dev
guns
and
really
have
tried
to
make
this
one
better,
and
so
a
couple
things
that
we've
done.
We've
also
tried
to
hear
a
lot
of
input
and
feedback
from
the
community.
C
So
roughly
two
years
ago
we
launched
the
dip
process,
which
is
the
Devcon
Improvement
proposal
process,
mirrored
after
the
famous
ethereum
Improvement
proposal
process,
which
is
named
after
many
other
similar
Improvement
proposal
processes.
The
the
gist
of
this
is
basically
we
want
to
hear
feedback
from
you
all
and
we
have
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
from
you
all
and
so
we're
super
excited
to
have
a
lot
of
different
Community
Integrations
in
this
year's
Devcon.
That
we
hope
you
all
enjoy.
One
of
those
to
highlight
is
the
community
hubs.
C
On
the
first
floor
this
year
we
have
six
different
Community
hubs:
interest
groups
from
around
the
ethereum
ecosystem,
who
have
their
own
dedicated
space
so
be
sure
to
pass
through
there
and
talk
to
them
everything
from
a
a
woman
leaders
Hub
to
a
a
temporary
Anonymous
Zone
to
a
ZK,
Hub
regen
and
more.
We
also
have
in
the
basement
the
hacker
basement,
it's
a
little
hidden.
So,
let's
see,
if
you
can
find
it,
but
I
think
I
promise.
C
It
will
be
worth
it
if
you
do
feel
free
to
head
down
there
and
co-work
and
chill
even
into
the
evening
hours,
because
Devcon
this
year
is
open
until
11
pm
each
night.
For
the
first
time
in
Defcon
history,
we're
not
kicking
you
out
at
5,
PM
sharp,
we're
open
until
11
pm
to
continue
fostering
Community
collaboration
and
fun,
and
things
like
that
so
and
we
don't
just
we're
not
just
leaving
the
venue
open,
we're,
also
facilitating
and
encouraging
community
activities.
C
So
we've
built
a
Chiva
chillout,
we're
calling
it
in
the
back
of
the
venue,
basically
with
a
live
stage
where
we'll
have
live
music
from
fellow
ethereum
musicians
performing
throughout
the
day
and
particularly
in
the
evenings,
alongside
our
happy
hour
from
four
to
six,
so
you're
no
longer
so
now
you
have
an
additional
option
to
stay
around,
to
hang
out
to
collaborate
and
to
check
out
different
art
experiences
that
will
be
happening
also
in
the
hacker
basement
and
the
chiva
chillout,
alongside
a
special
Eve's
flat,
Sam
Community
Hub,
if
you're
from
Latin
America-
and
you
want
to
meet
your
fellow
community
members
head
to
the
chiva
chillout
on
the
first
floor
to
meet
them
and
I'll
also
mentioned
a
fun
dip.
C
Actually,
something
that
was
proposed
by
the
community
is
a
treasure
hunt.
So
I
was
told
to
basically
mention
this
sticker
as
part
of
the
treasure
hunt
and
to
leave
the
rest
up
to
you
just
been
working
on
this
for
months
months
to
make
this
treasure,
hunt,
cool
and
interactive
and
they've
been
here
in
the
venue
for
the
last
week
or
so
trying
to
make
it
fun.
So
good
luck
in
that
treasure
hunt
and
lastly,
I
will
say
this
year.
We
hope
you
really
enjoy
the
programming.
C
We've
had
the
most
applications
we've
ever
received
at
a
thousand
three
hundred
plus
applications
for
speakers
for
for
talks
for
workshops.
We
only
had
room
for
roughly
300
of
them,
and
so
we
really
had
to
be
selective,
and
so
hopefully
the
content
that
you
see
here
is
is
of
the
highest
quality
and
accessible
and
available
for
all.
C
So
we
we
wanted
to
have
talks
that
were
not
just
high
level
only
for
experts,
but
also
for
for
beginners
and
for
intermediates,
so
do
check
out
the
mobile
app
that
we
also
created
just
for
Defcon
to
to
find
the
talks
that
you
would
like
to
to
attend
and
I'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
what
is
officially
now.
The
biggest
Devcon
ever
by
a
factor
of
two
and
to
mention
that
this
is
just
the
start
just
to
start
not
just
of
Devcon,
not
just
of
this
week,
but
we're
still
early.
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
H
G
H
There
you
go.
Thank
you
Steve.
We
made
it,
so
we
are
with
the
full
room
tonight
today.
Sorry,
it's
been
long
days
for
the
Defcon
team.
Happy
to
have
you
here,
so
I
will
be
fast.
We
have
Steve
he's
going
to
talk
about
alternatives
to
liquidity.
Staking
so
is
this
talk
is
going
to
have
questions
or
you're
going
to
run
25
minutes.
G
H
H
G
Hi
yeah,
my
name
is
Steve
Berryman
and
I'm
from
attestant.
Attestant
is
a
an
ethereum
only
staking
company,
and
what
we're
going
to
look
at
today
is
an
alternative
to
liquid.
Staking
liquid
staking
has
been
phenomenally
successful,
phenomenally
successful
and
as
with
anything
in
the
ethereum
ecosystem,
something
that
becomes
that
successful
becomes
centralized
and
then
becomes
an
issue.
So
we
we
attested
and
been
talking
to
some
other
staking
companies
try
to
come
up
some
other
ideas
around
how
to
transfer
validators
from
from
one
owner
to
another
without
going
through
the
exit
queue.
G
G
Yep
it's
this
box:
is
it
okay?
So
what
is
staking
so
I've
kept
this
quite
light
in
the
way
I
want
to
go
with
this
is
is
is
to
really
give
the
justification
for
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
the
detail
getting
into
the
weeds,
really
I
think
if
you're
interested
come
and
speak
to
us
and
and
we
can
sort
of
talk
through
some
of
the
detail,
but
it's
really
the
rationale.
Why
we're
doing
this?
So
let's
have
some
context
around
what
what
is
staking
in
the
first
place,
what
is
staking
in
ethereum
so.
G
Okay,
okay,
I'll,
keep
talking.
This
is
a
very
high
level.
Clearly,
there's
a
lot
of
complication
goes
under
underneath
the
hood
of
this
for
ethereum
staking,
but
in
from
a
very
high
level
in
in
how
we
want
to
view
this
is
we're
locking
up
funds
32
each
you
send
32
each
to
the
deposit
contract.
This
was
that
this
started
in
December
2020.
G
You
sent
your
32
eighth
to
the
contract
and
that
basically
gave
you
a
ticket
onto
the
beacon
chain
and
that
that
ticket
enables
you
to
build
a
validator
and
go
through
a
certain
number
of
steps
and
duties
and
if
you
carried
out
them
duties,
you
receive
the
wards.
So
some
of
the
things
you
see
receive
rewards
for
are
testing.
That's
the
you're
doing
that
every
six
minutes,
it's
the
bulk
of
the
rewards
you
receive,
and
if
you're
online
and
you're
testing
you
get
a
very
small,
a
small
amount.
G
Anybody
that's
used
the
blockchain.
What
website
has
got
a
validating,
we'll
see
their
walls?
The
rules
keep
chipping
in
and
proposing
the
block
doesn't
happen
very
often
now,
there's
7
200
blocks
a
day.
There
are
44
000
validators
out
there,
so
roughly
every
62
days,
you'll
get
a
block,
but
they
were
the
only
two
places
to
get
rewards
back
in
December
2020..
G
G
So
if
you're
flying
in
two
days,
it's
unfortunate
and
then,
of
course,
what
we've
seen
with
the
merge
the
merge-
and
this
is
really
everyone's
excited,
because
now
we
can
we
we're
not
only
getting
transaction
fees
which
used
to
go
to
the
miners,
but
now
we
can
spend
it
and
we
couldn't
spend
before
so.
This,
you
know,
is
exciting
for
the
first
time
after
almost
two
years
of
having
money
locked
up.
Finally,
we've
got
some.
We
can
spend
and
of
course,
meth
comes
in
here
as
well.
G
I
can
get
this
to
work
okay,
liquid
staking.
So
briefly,
what
liquid
staking
is-
and
it's
hard
really
not
to
really
not
mention
lie,
though,
because
Lido's
the
biggest
priority
and
there's
going
to
be
tried
to
be
other
players,
but
again
it's
another
centralizing
Force.
So
what
is
liquid
staking
and
why
do
people
go
for
this?
This
approach
well,
currently
over
30
of
the
staking
rewards,
go
to
Libo
and
that's
not
great,
but
then
again,
liveo
runs
under
different
node
operators,
so
it's
not
quite
as
centralized
as
you
may
feel.
G
But
still
you
know
it's
an
ecosystem.
We've
got
lots
of
various
different
options,
but
why
has
this
become
so
popular?
Well,
however,
easy
you
know,
some
of
us
techies
think
it
is
to
run
a
node
is
just
not
easy
and
there
are
lots
of
complications
and
you
have
to
keep
the
thing
updated
and
you
know
number
of
people
I
speak
to
go.
Oh,
it
stopped
working.
G
Well,
you
know
you've
just
not
committed
enough
in
what's
going
on
in
the
community,
so
it's
difficult,
it's
difficult
to
stay
on
top
of
things,
and
so
and
so
with
that
people
are
going
to
want
an
easier
solution
to
pick
up
some
rewards
and
of
course,
you've
got
to
slash
in
I
mean
you
mentioned
slash
into
somebody
and
they're
going.
That's
it
I'm
not
even
going
to
touch
touch
homestaking
but
being
in
the
staking
company.
We
always
try
to
get
people
to
stake
at
home,
but
I
mean
you
know.
G
The
Technologies
for
most
people
is
probably
out
of
the
reach
and
they've
got
to
be
want
to
do
it.
So
when
you
know
Lido
came
along,
it's
just
a
perfect,
it's
convenient.
It's
so
simple!
You
just
go
and
buy
their
token.
You
go
and
take
your
you
know:
you're
easily
go
and
buy
some
token.
You've
got
two
choices.
You
can
go
and
mint
it
directly
or
you
can
go
and
buy
that
buy
them
for
on
the
exchange,
uni,
Swap
and
and
basically
you're
there.
G
G
So
so,
and
it's
been,
you
know
a
phenomenal
big
success.
Well,
what's
the
downside
to
it?
Well,
one
of
the
downsides:
is
you
lose
control
with
your
ether?
However?
Good
Lido
are,
you
are
handing
it
over
you're
handing
over
your
ether
to
a
pool
of
ether
and
you're
getting
effectively
an
IOU
now
for
individual
small
investors,
less
of
an
issue
for
large
institutions.
This
is
a
No-No
that
it
won't
get
past
the
compliance.
Department
there's
also
some
other
issues
which
are
very
interesting
regulatory
issues.
G
You're
in
a
pool
the
pool
gets
tainted
with
tornado
cash.
It
comes
tricky,
so
people
don't
want
to
necessarily
large
institutions.
Don't
want
to
be
involved
in
in
a
pool
system
and
of
course
there
is
a
tax
thing
in
some
jurisdictions
going
from
one
token
to
another
can
be
seen
as
a
disposal
and
a
taxable
event.
G
So
that
is
something
I
think
probably
a
lot
of
Lido
users,
probably
don't
realize
that
many
jurisdictions
put
that
as
a
as
a
taxable
event
Okay.
So
so
what
is
an
alternative
approach?
G
Now
we've
been
we've
been
throwing
this
idea
around
for
for
a
while,
but
the
thing
is,
is
you
know
there
was
this
little
thing
called
the
merge
that
sort
of
kept
us
busy
for
a
while?
But
now
that
we're
sort
of
over
that-
and
you
know
it's
I-
think
Danny
said
you
know
it
was
uneventful,
which
was
for
a
staking
company.
That's
what
you
want
uneventful
so
now.
G
Some
of
these
things
come
back
on
the
radar
and
also
they
do
require
some
extra
changes
to
the
evm
in
order
for
some
of
this
stuff
to
work.
But
our
idea
is
that
we
make
validators
transferable
so
that
they
can
change
ownership.
Now,
when
I
say,
transferable
I'm
not
talking
changing
staking
company,
the
the
validator
will
stay
with
the
same
staking
company,
but
you
can
transfer
the
ownership
to
somebody
else
and
at
the
moment
the
way
validators
work.
G
You
have
a
validator
key
and
that's
the
thing
you
have
online
to
create
your
rewards
and
you
have
a
withdrawal
key.
The
withdrawal
key
is
just
a
regular
ethereum.
In
fact
it
can
be
ethereum
one
address
or
it
can
be
a
BLS
address,
but
when
submerged
once
the
once,
you
get
past
to
the
withdrawals,
something
means
and
get
to
withdrawals,
this
thing
doesn't
have
to
be
just
a
withdrawal
key.
It
can
actually
be
a
smart
contract
and
we've
already
got
a
smart
contract
that
handles
this
sort
of
thing
very
well
nfts.
G
G
So
so
this
idea,
once
you've
got
once
we
create
this
smart
contract.
Then
we've
got
a
lot
more
flexibility
and
it's
in
one
way.
It's
not
up
to
us
to
decide
what
the
market
does
with
this.
It's
just
quite
interesting
to
put
the
great
thing
with
D5
you
put
stuff
out
there
and
see
what
happens,
but
you
know:
I've
got
a
couple
of
my
own
use
cases
where
I
think
this
would
be
particularly
useful.
G
For
example,
you've
got
a
large
institution
wants
to
buy
a
thousand
validators
and
somebody
wants
to
sell
a
thousand
validators.
Now
you
can
off-board
it.
It
takes
at
least
15
to
24
hours
if
there's
no
queue
or,
and
then
somebody
else
on
boards.
It's
quite
heavy
on
the
network
as
well
for
ethereum
to
do
that,
and
also
both
sides
are
losing
accrued
interest.
So
if
you
think,
if
this
is
a
bond,
you
know
you're
losing
money
for
for
the
24
hours
and
if
there's
a
queue,
it
could
be
a
lot
longer.
G
So
wouldn't
it
be
more
convenient
if
there
was
a
marketplace
where
two
people
just
bought
the
validators
off
each
other,
this
instant
settlement,
the
ethereum
network,
handles
it
extremely
well,
it's
just
a
transfer.
We've
still
got
the
same
validators
running
and
you
know
they.
It
just
becomes
a
a
much
easier
way
of
large
institutions
to
be
able
to
buy
and
sell
I
mean
clearly.
The
marketplace
has
got
to
have
liquidity
to
do
this,
but
you
could
imagine
you're
just
about
to
get
rid
of
a
thousand
validators.
G
You
would
go
to
the
marketplace
first,
if
there's
a
liquidity,
you're
going
to
get
a
better
price
or
you're
likely
to
get
a
better
price
than
just
unwinding
it,
because
you're
going
to
lose
a
day's
worth
of
interest
and
Rewards
some
other
stuff,
you
could
do
with
a
receipt
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
an
advantage
or
disadvantage
I'll,
let
you
decide,
but
it
could
be
used
as
collateral
in
defy
so
all
them.
Wonderful
things
and
the
great
thing
with
this
it
comes
with
a
revenue.
G
Stream
So
anybody's
into
Financial
engineering
could
come
up
with
many
different
views
of
ways
that
this
could
be
used,
and
it
could
be
very
interesting
and
I
think
a
marketplace
where
buyers
and
sellers
can
come
together.
I
think
would
be
very
interesting
and,
as
I
say
it's
for
the
network
for
the
ethereum
network.
G
It's
also
better
not
having
these
ether
huge
amounts
of
ether
coming
in
and
out
of
the
system,
and-
and
you
know
why
wouldn't
this-
why
wouldn't
this
be
the
better
way
of
transferring
and
providing
liquidity
to
staking
assets
without
you
know,
without
going
through
the
the
the
on
and
off
boarding
Okay?
So
what
are
the
benefits?
I
mean
the
biggest
one.
Is
you
still
own
the
ether?
It
is
a
receipt
you
still
own
it.
It's
yours,
it's
not
pulled
okay,
so
it
means
decentralization
because
you
know
we
we're
you
know.
G
People
are
not
pulling
this
thing
into
library
or
into
another
pooling
system.
So,
and
the
other
thing
with
this
is
something
as
a
staking
company.
We
think
about,
if
you're,
a
good
staking
company
in
Lido
or
you're
a
bad
staking
company.
Nobody
cares
because
all
the
rewards
are
just
mixed.
With
this,
we
start
to
find
out
who
are
the
better
ones,
because
the
marketplace
can
monitor
it.
G
The
marketplace
can
can
do,
can
look
at
all
the
stats
for
all
the
different
validators
and
clearly
we
think
that's
a
good
idea,
and
it's
something
that
also,
if
you
think
of
these
things
are
starting
to
look
very
much
like
bonds,
credit
spread
could
actually
be.
These
are
like
credit
spread,
so
the
the
staking
the
staking
companies
become
credit,
spreads
and
I.
Think
that
would
be
quite
an
interesting,
Marketplace.
G
G
G
The
biggest
problem
is,
we've
had
the
merge,
and
so
what's
the
problem
with
these
two
things
and
now
talk
to
each
other,
but
they
don't
they
don't
we
we
did
the
minimum
to
get
the
merge
over
the
line,
and
so
at
the
moment
the
evm
can't
talk
to
the
beacon
chain.
So
we've
got
no
way
of
being
able
to
test
the
state
and
test
you
actually
own
that
validator.
G
So
there
is
actually
an
EIP
which
is
is
aiming
for
Shanghai,
which
is
the
4788,
and
what
this
does
is
produces
an
OP
code
for
the
evm
which
allows
you
to
see
the
beacon
route,
the
state
route.
And
what
does
this
able
to
do?
You
can
build
a
miracle
proof
and
you
can
prove
the
validate.
Is
yours
and
then
you
build
the
nft,
so
it
just
needs
this
little
bit
of
glue
and
then
we're
away,
and
hopefully
this
will
get
included
into
that
Shanghai
and
we
will
be
testing
some
ideas
around
this
yeah.
G
So
so,
really
that's
the
main
thing
of
this
not
being
done
is
just
we're
waiting
for
the
next.
The
next
thing
for
the
you
know
this
this
EIP
to
come
through,
hopefully
in
the
next,
hopefully
in
in
the
next
round
of
updates
right
potential
issues.
There's
always
going
to
be
some,
you
know
it's
the
same
thing
as
the
advantages
it
can
be
used
in
defy
you
know,
and
you
know
we
we've
seen,
we've
seen
the
good
and
bad
of
that.
G
So
let's
just
be
wary
of
it
and
we
could
have
bugs
it's
a
smart
contract.
G
You
know
I've
seen
a
few
of
them
as
well
in
the
last
few
years,
I
think
with
the
bugs
thing,
though,
this
stuff
is
used
in
the
standard
technology,
we're
using
an
nft
contract,
we're
not
doing
it
we're
not
putting
any
innovation
in
new
stuff.
We
are
gluing,
it
together
differently,
so
clearly
lots
of
audio
very
around
that,
but
we're
not
going
out
and
building
some
new
smart
contract.
We
we're
using
technology
that
we've
all
been
using
for
the
two
or
three
years.
G
Right-
and
that
is
the
end
of
my
talk-
is
to
say
it
was
quite
lightweight
to
give
you
a
rationale
of
why
we
of
why
we're
looking
into
this.
If
people
want
to
get
into
the
weeds,
please
come
and
contact
me.
We,
you
know
we're
looking
for
getting
more
staking
companies
involved.
This
thing
only
really
works
if
other
staking
companies,
it's
a
network
effect.
You
know
it's
if
it's
just
a
test
and
it's
not
going
to
work
so
so
clearly,
we
need
other
people
involved
to
build
the
tools
out
to
to
make
this.
G
H
J
The
presentation,
so
you
mentioned
that
just
taking
a
liquid
sticking
tokens
are
subject
to
attacks
here.
We
are
also
like
receiving
a
receipt
that
receipt
will
include
some
yield
right
for
staking
rewards.
I
G
G
You
mean
from
the
tax
point
of
view
right,
so
you
could
be
I
mean
it
does
depend
on
jurisdiction,
because
you
could
argue-
and
you
know
we're
I'm-
not
know
much
about
tax,
but
you
could
argue
that
a
receipt
is
different
from
a
token
transfer.
You
know
it's
all
you're
doing
it
is
like
a
receipt
for
goods.
I
know
the
UK
government
doesn't
do
that.
G
So
I
know
you're
right
in
that
fact,
but
there
is
a
lot
of
debate
going
on
about
it,
but
really
there
has
not
been
a
transfer
of
assets,
so
that
would
be
the
thing
I
would
like
tax
authorities
to
look
at
to
go.
Look
you've
just
got
a
receipt.
You
still
own
these
assets
right,
but
you're
right
in
that
it's
it's
messy.
It's
a
messy.
It's
a
messy
field
and.
J
That's
for
the
collateral
I
mean
that
sounds
messy
right,
because
as
well
because
collateralizing
nfts
I
mean
nfts
are
non-fungible
by
definition.
Yeah
so
yeah
I
mean
I,
mean
NFD
as
a
collateral
for
a
defy
I.
G
Mean
it
is
already
done
so
and
I'm
not
suggesting
this
is
a
good
idea.
It's
already
done.
We've
seen
there
are
many
platforms
already
doing
this
and
you
know
it's
not
it's
not
for
us
to
try
and
decide
where
the
market
takes
this
stuff.
It's
it's
just
the
point
that
you
can
use
it
for
collateral
and
I'm
sure
somebody
will
do
that
so
right.
J
G
G
L
Maybe
a
silly
question
but
I'm
gonna
take
the
chance
to
embarrass
myself
so
validators,
don't
they
run
with
Hardware?
Is
that
a
thing?
So
how
how
are
you
then
going
to
kind
of
transfer
the
hardware
right.
G
So
I
didn't
go
too
much
into
that,
but
it
is
a
good
question
because
there's
a
certain
assumption,
I've
made
in
in
the
presentation
this
would
be
done
by
staking
companies.
Okay,
so
we
as
intestine,
we
would
still
be
running
it.
So
it's
not
transferring
from
the
point
of
a
staking
company.
So
if
you're,
if
you've
got
a
validator
you're
still
and
it's
with
us
you're
staking
with
the
test
and
you're
just
selling
it
to
somebody
else,
so
an
attestant
is
still
doing
its
job,
so
it
doesn't
stay.
G
M
N
G
I've
not
really
I've
I,
personally,
not
really
thought
about
that.
We've
kept
it
very,
very
simple
in
a
way
of
you
know,
providing
some
liquidity
to
clients
who
would
need
it.
This
is
where
this
has
really
come
from,
and
you
know
it's
just
a
way
of
taking
the
pressure
off
the
network
that
you
know
it
seems
silly
to
me.
We've
got
a
lot
of
validators
coming
in
a
lot
of
validators
leaving
and
really
it's
one
big
organization
once
wants
to
buy
and
another
big
organization
wants
to
buy.
G
G
I
think
there's
another.
There
was
another
question
here.
O
I'm
curious,
if
you
think
there
are
ways
to
synergize
with
existing
like
Port,
staking
derivative
projects
or,
if
like,
if
you
have
any
thoughts
in
that
direction,
I.
G
Mean
definitely
we
talk
a
lot
with
Lido
I
mean
we.
We
write
a
a
software
stack
called
vouch
if
any
of
you
are
familiar
with,
but
voucher
22
of
the
Lido
operators
use
vouch.
So
we
there
is
constant
communication
and
with
these
guys,
whether
they
will
get
involved
in
certain
things,
but
certainly
lie,
though
don't
want
to
be
40
of
the
network.
I
can
tell
you
that
so
it's
in
their
interest
to
have
you
know,
options
that
work
to
to
spread
the
load.
G
You
could
again
I
think
let
the
market
decide
all
right,
because
you
know
you
could.
Would
it
make
sense
to
do
many
things
with
this
stuff,
I
think
I,
think
being
able
to
transfer
ownership.
Is
the
big
use
case
for
for
my
thinking,
but
you
know
they're
I
can
imagine
there'd
be
lots
of
funky
project
products
built
off
the
back
of
it.
So
you
know
somebody
involved
as
a
thank
you.
G
E
B
G
G
R
R
I
know
they
told
me
to
point
it
this
way,
but
I.
Guess
it's
not
right
now,
but
in
general
it
should
work.
R
And
so
in
terms
of
timing,
it's
pretty
much
25
minutes,
okay
and
that's
fine
right!
That's!
Okay,
perfect!.
R
S
R
T
P
U
R
R
H
I
was
the
level
of
for
you,
I
mean
you
were.
R
Q
R
R
V
R
V
W
V
R
V
V
R
V
V
H
R
Hi
everyone
thank
you
for
being
here,
so
I
should
have
put
Mev
in
my
talk
title
because
we
are
actually
talking
about
Mev
and
I.
Think
we
would
have
a
higher
attendance
but
anyways
it's
going
to
be
an
interesting
talk,
I
promise
so
yeah.
The
focus
for
today
is
how
basically
application
design
decisions
can
remove,
or
at
least
reduce
the
centralizing
force.
That
Mev
is
placing
on
the
ethereum
blockchain
all
right.
R
R
The
second
part
we
focus
on
a
more
bright
out,
a
layout
for
ethereum,
where
we
are
heading
and
hopefully
yeah
ways
of
how
we
can
avoid
the
dystopian
future
scenario,
and
that
will
lead
us
to
the
next
part
where
we
will
talk
about
how
specifically,
we
can
make
design
choices
for
applications
to
reduce
MAV
and
then
dive
into
car
protocol
as
one
implementation
of
batch
actions
that
basically
facilitate
this.
R
Cool,
let's
Dive
Right
In
and
look
at
some
data,
and
so
we
had
to
talk
the
talk
right
before
was
focusing
on
validators
and,
like
he
was
saying
actually
is
that
the
set
of
validators
today
is
quite
centralized
in
a
way
you
have
staking
providers
such
as
Lido,
who
hold
more
than
25
of
the
market,
share,
followed
by
individual
stakers.
But
then
already
you
have
the
centralized
exchanges,
coinbase
current
and
buyers
who
intuitive
combined
also
make
up
more
than
25
of
the
entire
validator
set
on
ethereum
today.
R
So
you
can
say
if
you
have
already
some
degree
of
centralization
in
ethereum
today,
but
of
course
now
with
Mev,
you
add
additional
risk
of
decentralization
growing
further
right,
like
Mev.
Why
is
that
helping
Central
today?
R
Why
is
Mev
causing
centralization
is
because
people
are
like
validators
that
have
the
chance
of
proposing
the
next
block.
They
can
move
transactions
around
in
a
way
that
they
are
able
to
extract
additional
value
out
of
it.
In
this
way,
they're
actually
able
to
read
more
Rewards
from
the
blocks
than
anyone
else
would
be
able
to
do,
and
this
way
they
grow
their
pie.
More
and
more
over
time-
and
this
was
already
bad-
this
already
existed
in
in
proof
of
web
a
non-proof
of
stake.
R
This
was
accelerated
because
now
you
also
have
the
downside,
basically
that
you
know
in
advance,
who
are
the
next
set
of
validators,
so
you
can
have
more
sophisticated
Mev
attacks
that
involve
multiple
blocks
and
even
are
taking
place
across
multiple
blockchains.
R
The
response
to
that
is
PBS
The,
Proposal,
Builder
separation
and
where,
basically,
you
now
divide
the
tasks
of
the
of
the
validator
into
two.
You
have
the
black
proposal
and
the
block
Builder,
and
now
the
block
Builder
is
basically
competing
against
each
other
and
the
one
that
is
able
to
extract
most
values,
winning
the
competition,
because
they're,
basically
yeah
bidding
against
each
other
and
the
one
who
is
able
to
pay
the
most
to
the
validator
is
the
one
who
is
picked.
R
So
you
might
say
that
basically
now
PBS
is
helpful
to
move
the
responsibility
like
to
move
the
centralization
away
from
the
validators
to
the
block
Builders.
But
now,
actually
this
is
problematic,
because
now
we
have
more
centralizing
force
on
the
Block
Builders.
You
can
even
enter
a
scenario
where
basically
more
than
60
percent
or
even
more
and
more
than
90
percent
of
all
blocks
are
created
by
one
single
block
Builder,
and
this
can
even
be
accelerated
if
they,
for
example,
would
have
access
to
private
order
flow.
R
So
if
now
you
would
have
a
wallet
such
as
metamask
who
decide
my
transactions
to
to
a
single
block.
Builder,
then
the
single
block
Builder
would
have
additional
advantages
over
the
other
block
Builders
and
would
more
reliably
be
able
to
win
this
Blackberry
competition
and
gain
more
and
more
share
of
the
network.
R
Okay,
now,
let's
actually
get
to
the
interesting
point
and
look
at
some
data.
So
here
you
see
basically
how
much
Mev
has
been
extracted.
145
000
blocks
before
the
merge
and
after
the
merch-
and
this
is
roughly
equal
to
20.1
days
and
basically
I
mean
proof
of
Stack
has
only
been
live
for
not
even
four
weeks
at
this
point,
and
if
you
look
at
this
data,
it
almost
looks
like
we
are
extracting
less
Mev
right
now
than
we
did
before
the
merge.
R
It's
interesting
right.
But
what
is
the
conclusion?
Why
is
this
the
case?
Now?
If
we
look
at
this
slide,
we
basically
zoom
into
one
specific
kind
of
Meb
sandwich
attacks,
and
we
can
look
basically
that
it's
starting,
it's
showing
the
the
first
20
days
of
Sandwich
attacks
on
proof
of
stake,
and
you
can
see
basically
that
the
amount
of
value
extracted
where
this
attack
is
growing
right.
R
So,
basically,
at
the
beginning,
when
we
move
from
proof
of
work
of
proof
of
Stack,
we
had
one
short
period
of
time
where
less
Mev
was
extracted,
but
now
over
time
we
are
getting
back
to
the
same
stage
as
we
did
before
and
now
here.
What
we
see
here,
it's
basically
a
chart
that
is
showing
the
adoption
of
math
boost
and
math
boost
is
the
protocol
created
by
the
flashbots
team
that
allows
for
this
proposal.
Builder
separation
that
allows
for
this
block,
Builder
competition
and
the
interesting
part,
is
that
basically,
they
correlate
right.
R
So
that's
that's
one
important
point
to
make,
but
then
also,
let's
see
how
the
adoption
is
going
so
at
today,
already
more
than
49
of
our
validators
that
we
were
looking
at
in
the
first
slide.
They
have
already
integrated
math
boost.
R
Now,
let's
go
one
level
further
and
look
actually
at
the
at
the
relays
themselves.
So
math
boost
was
created
by
the
flashbots
team,
but
it's
open
source,
so
anyone
can
create
their
own
relayer
with
their
own
rules
of
the
game
for
the
competition.
R
R
So
if
flashbot
says
83
market
share
of
50
market
share,
basically
of
those
that
are
being
integrated
by
validators.
This
means
that
today,
already
more
more
than
40
percent
of
all
blocks
on
ethereum
at
censoring
transactions
that
censoring
the
accounts
that
have
previously
interacted
with
tornado
cash.
R
Now
we
Zoom
one
level
further
and
look
at
the
Block
builders,
so
who
is
actually
Behind
These
block
builders-
and
here
you
see.
Basically
this
is
an
entire
overview
of
all
the
block
Builders
today,
operating
with
any
of
the
relayers
in
PBS,
and
you
see
that
the
top
two
have
more
than
50
market
share.
R
That
means,
if,
basically,
you
have
50
adoption
of
math
boost
and
within
math
boost.
50
of
blocks
are
created
by
two
players
that
encoder
of
all
the
existing
blocks
that
are
today
created
in
ethereum.
25
of
them
are
created
by
two
single
individual
block
builders
and
then
just
adding
again
the
argument
that
I'd
mentioned
at
the
beginning.
Basically,
if
you
have
private
order
flows
or
anyone
else
is
deciding
to
sell
their
order
flow
to
this
one,
individual
block
Builder,
you
have
very
fast
and
accelerated
centralization,
Force,
even
more.
R
Like
you
have
these,
these
Blackboard
has
been,
will
win
even
more
market
share,
and
suddenly
this
dystopian
future
scenario
of
where
ethereum,
hopefully
is
not
heading
towards,
certainly
doesn't
seem
so
unlikely
anymore.
Already.
Today,
you
have
two
block
Builders
having
25
market
share
and
they
can
easily
grow
this
very
quickly.
R
R
So
where
do
we
move
this?
And
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
avoid
this?
We
have
to
have
a
better
structured
way
of
protecting
the
ethereum
core
protocol
and
what
is
what
vitalik
said
himself
is
basically
The.
Way
Forward
is
that
these
risks
that
need
to
be
absorbed
elsewhere.
They
need
to
be
absorbed
either
by
layer
2's
or
by
the
applications
themselves.
R
Here
we
have
another
quote
by
Stefan
the
co-founder
of
flashbots,
who
actually
last
week,
announced
that
he's
leaving
the
team,
because
he
does
not
agree
with
its
centering.
That
flashbots
is
doing
today,
and
he
is
also
stressing
the
point
that
the
right
way
of
dealing
with
Meb
is
not
to
basically
try
to
extract
it
and
then
sell
it
or
like
distribute
it.
But
the
right
way
is
to
create
applications
that
don't
extract
the
value
in
the
first
place.
R
R
R
We
basically
believe-
or
it's
pretty
clear,
actually,
that
one
of
the
reasons
or
like
the
main
reason
why
mbv
exists
today,
is
that
within
a
single
ethereum
block,
you
have
multiple
different
token
prices
for
a
single
individual
asset.
So
if
you
use
the
example
of
decentralized
trading,
for
example,
yeah
you
can
have
a
Blog
where
five
people
all
want
to
sell
usdc.
For
example,
they
all
interact
with
the
same
amm,
but
each
of
them
would
get
a
different
price
within
a
single
block
that
has
one
single
time
like
it.
R
It's
very
interesting
right,
like
you,
have
an
amm
one
person
inside
Exquisite,
they
move
the
price.
The
next
person
interacts
with
it.
They
move
the
price
again
and
because
of
that,
they
basically
create
incentives
for
other
players
to
jump
in
move
their
transactions
around
Place,
additional
transactions
in
front
and
after
them
to
extract
value
from
these
users
and
to
give
a
more
concrete
example
of
a
real
block.
This
was
like
six
days
old.
R
We
had
one
single
block
where
there
was
11
different
traders
that
all
traded,
East,
usdt
and
East
usdt
is
obviously
a
super
liquid
pair
right.
It's
like
one
of
the
most
liquid
pairs
on
ethereum,
and
still
it
was
in
the
single
block.
R
Then
we
would
actually
be
able
to
even
offer
them
better
prices,
because
we
wouldn't
have
to
move
the
price
on
a
price
graph
up
and
down
up
up
and
down,
but
we
would
actually
be
able
to
not
have
this
much
price
impact
and
have
additional
value
that
we
could
give
back
to
the
users,
and
in
this
concrete
example,
it
would
be
930,
US
dollar,
that
we
could
additionally
pay
out
to
the
users.
But
the
real
benefit
on
top
of
this
is
that,
because
you
have
a
single
clearance
price,
you
don't
expose
those
trades
to
Mev.
R
How
does
car
protocol
work
so
we
are
doing
better
actions.
We
are
batching
trades
together
and
what
happens
is
that
basically
users
on
cow
swap
or
car
protocol,
they
go
to
our
UI
and
then
they
assign
messages
they
sign
and
intend
to
trade,
and
this
is
actually
really
important
right
like
because
they
sign
a
message
and
they
don't
just
execute
at
they.
Don't
just
sign
a
transaction
on
this
year.
This
gives
us
more
flexibility.
What
you
do
with
these
transactions.
We
are
actually
then
able
to
to
match
them
together.
R
It's
quite
the
opposite
actually,
because
in
the
blood
Builder
competition,
you
are
really
high,
like
you're,
focused
on
extracting
most
value
from
the
transactions
right.
In
order
to
be
able
to
win
the
competition
against
the
other
block
builders,
but
on
cow,
swap
you
maximize
the
value
for
the
users,
the
bug
Builder.
The
batch
Builder
that
disabled
to
find
the
best
possible
prices
for
our
users
is
the
one
that
would
win
the
competition,
and
this
is
enforced
by
the
objective
function
that
we
are
using.
R
The
batch
Builder
that
is
maximizing
most
the
utility
for
the
users
is
the
one
that
wins
the
competition
all
right.
So
how?
How
does
this
work?
How
do
we
keep
our
cow
batch?
Builders,
honest?
Is
they
they
participate
by
staking
on
our
protocol?
Then
they
can
participate
in
the
competition
and
in
case
of
malicious
behavior,
they
would
be
slashed,
but
if
they
actually
win
the
competition
and
they
execute
the
trade
on
chain
they're
being
rewarded
by
the
protocol.
R
R
R
Instead,
we
were
able
to
match
these
two
trades
directly
against
each
other,
and
only
the
leftover
amount
of
roughly
eight
thousand
dollars
needed
to
be
placed
on
executed
in
an
Unchained
amm.
And
this
way
we
were
able,
due
to
the
due
to
the
price
impact,
the
removed
price
impact.
We
were
able
to
save
fifteen
hundred
dollars
for
users,
and
also
we
were
able
to
save
on
protocol
fees
for
the
users,
an
additional
800
that
didn't
have
to
be
paid
to
the
amm.
R
But
the
real
argument
here
that
I
want
to
make
is
that,
even
if
our
our
batch
is
not
placed
first
in
a
block
by
growing
our
share,
we
are
basically
reducing
the
total
amount
of
Mev
transactions
in
a
block,
and
this
means,
in
other
words,
growing.
The
share
of
cow
protocol
means,
at
the
same
time
reducing
the
share
of
Mev.
R
That's
so
we
basically
maybe
can
I
go
back
in
my
slides
just
to
make
this
point
clear.
Is
that
possible
so
so,
okay,
otherwise
I
can
explain
it.
But
basically
we
had
this
one
slide
where
you
could
see
that
the
value
chain
of
a
transaction
from
it's
being
placed
and
it's
being
executed
on
chain.
So
basically
yeah.
R
Processes
right,
like
the
first
part,
is
basically
car
protocol.
That
is
the
application
on
top
and
what
we
do
is
we
collect
the
user
orders
and
we
collect
them
they're
signing
and
tends
to
trade.
So
we
collect
them
off
chain
in
an
off-chain
order,
and
then
we
have
the
cow
Builder
competition
and
they,
basically
they
have
their
own
set.
They
have
their
own
rule
set
and
their
own
competition
rules
right
and
that
it
is
completely
separate
from
the
black
Builder
competition.
R
So
someone
who
is
participating
on
a
cow
batch,
Builder
competition
they
basically
they
they
know.
If
they
participate,
they
only
get
rewarded,
they
only
win
if
they
are
Maxi
maximizing
value
for
the
user,
but
this
is
orthogonal
orthogonal
to
to
the
block
Builder
competition
and
on
ethereum
that
happens
at
a
later
stage.
So
right
deck,
the
cow
batch
Builders.
They
find
they
find
the
perfect
solution.
They
then
submit
them
on
chain
and
on
chain
they
can
actually
decide
how
they
want
to
submit.
This
is
is
up
to
the
to
the
batch
Builders.
R
They
can
either
submit
them
directly
to
the
to
the
public
mempool
or
they
can
submit
them
via
a
relayer
if
they
decide
that
they
want
to
additionally
protect
themselves
against
Mev.
However,
basically
at
this
point
in
the
execution,
if
they're
being
front
under
sandwich,
this
is
actually
something
that
the
block
Builders,
the
sorry
the
batch
Builders
have
to
pay
for.
So
at
this
point,
the
user
is
already
protected
by
the
the
price
that
the
cow
batch
Builder
promised.
So
the
cow
batch
Builder
wins.
R
X
X
Thank
you
for
laying
out
the
problem
with
L1
right
now,
in
terms
of
maybe
the
very
nice
slides,
I'm
curious
about
how
you
moving
this
problem
into
the
application
layer,
how
you
deal
with
censorship,
resistance
problems
in
the
off-chain
order
books
specifically
so
today,
if
I
go
to
the
Cal
swap
website
and
I,
make
a
transaction
like
how
do
I
know
I'm
not
going
to
be
censored
by
the
cow
swap
like
company
or
whoever
runs
this
protocol.
Yes,.
R
No,
that's
a
very
good
question.
It's
basically
something
that
we're
working
on.
We
still
have
some
centralizing
facts.
I
have
components
in
the
in
in
cow
protocol
that
essentially,
basically,
this
is
right.
Now
we
have
this
option
order
book
that
is
hosted
by
us,
but
the
idea
is
that
in
the
future
this
will
be
decentralized
and
not
host
the
bias
anymore
and
yeah.
But
basically
this
is
the
answer.
It's
like
it's
a
it's
a
it's
an
ongoing
process
where
we
have
to
decentralize
more
and
more
of
the
components.
Y
Question
is
when
you're
trying
to
remove
the
meth
in
the
blocks
by
cutting
these
batch
balls
in
between.
How
is
then,
how
is
it
then
still
attractive
from
a
builder
perspective,
since
he
has
less
math
in
the
block.
Now,
how
can
you
still
win
the
bid
auction
and
then
how
you
make
sure
that
the
block
gets
actually
proposed.
R
So
I
mean
right
now,
usually
not
a
hundred
percent
of
these
transactions
in
a
blogger,
Mev
transaction
right.
So
basically
you
would
even
if
you're,
not
the
first
in
the
block,
you
could
still
ensure
that
you're
part
of
it
but
I
think
one
interesting
point
that
where
we
could
get
it
is
by
the
more
order
flow.
R
We
are
actually
processing
the
more
Surplus
we
are
generating
right
like
this
was
the
point
on
like
this
one
slide
over
here,
where
we
have
this
like
real
example
of
creating
an
additional
two
thousand
three
hundred
dollars
in
Surplus.
So
what
we
could
do
is,
for
example,
if
we
would,
if
we
are
creating
this
much
more
value
for
users,
we
could
take
a
percentage
cut
of
this
if
it
was
needed
in
the
future
to
pay
block
Builders
to
guarantee
execution
in
a
blog.
H
H
B
W
W
AA
R
H
W
W
H
H
S
A
set
of
working
for
the
weaker
protocol.
That's
a
derivative
trading
platform
that
works
on
its
own
blockchain.
If
you
want
to
know
what
exactly
Vega
does
yes,
a
wonderful
Workshop
tomorrow,
where
you
can
spend
one
and
a
half
hours
playing
with
it,
I'm
talking
about
the
lower
level,
so
I'm
doing
blockchain,
research,
Mev
fairness
and
yes,
diversity
in
our
case
tender
mint,
but
it's
an
approach
that
works
everywhere
and
should
also
work
on
ethereum
and
that's
the
goal
to
have
a
discussion
with
ethereum
developers.
S
So
generally,
why
do
we
need
validator
policies
in
the
old
days
when
Bitcoin
started?
We
had
this
beautiful,
anarchic
cyberpoint
point
of
view
that
we
have
millions
of
validators
in
the
dorm
rooms
securing
Bitcoin
that
used
to
work,
but
now
validating
is
a
serious
business
and
that
has
caused
dependencies
that
has
caused
a
centralization
factors.
So
some
of
the
basic
assumptions
we
had
are
wrong
and
Anna
has
just
shown
there's
some
very
few
validators
that
owned
an
enormous
amount
of
the
ethereum
share
share.
So
it's
not
really
that
decentralized
anymore.
S
S
So
this
still
needs
a
lot
of
debate,
but
one
thing
that
I
think
nobody
needs
to
debate
anymore
is
we
need
more
diversity
and
centralization
or
an
undiverse
system
is,
is
a
very
bad
idea
and
if
you
don't
have
enough
examples,
so
from
other
blockchains
Bitcoin
at
some
point
had
a
vast
majority
of
the
mining
capacity
in
China.
So
if
China
had
not
set
you
guys
use
too
much
energy
get
out
if
they
just
said
get
out
and
leave
your
rigs
here,
then
China
would
now
own
Bitcoin
pretty
bad
idea.
S
Ethereum
has
a
similar
problem
that
there's
no
so
much
validation
in
the
power
in
America
that
the
United
States
has
the
same
decide.
Ethereum
is
now
a
U.S
citizen,
so
we
have
legislation
over
you.
So
congratulations,
ethereum!
You
know
such
as
of
the
United
States.
S
We
had
other
diversity
problems.
Early
ethereum
test
net
75
of
Supply
validators
had
a
canine
code.
There
was
a
bug
in
there.
The
whole
thing
stopped.
S
Almost
40
percent
of
all
validators
run
in
the
same
Amazon
Cloud.
So
if
Amazon
goes
down
then
so
does
Urbana.
That's
not
really
diversity
and
if
you
go
all
the
way
back
in
history,
lesson
lampro
to
actually
invented
the
term
Byzantine
agreement
already
set
the
whole
threshold
model
just
doesn't
make
sense.
That's
not
what
I
meant
when
I
said
Byzantine,
so
we're
even
using
his
term
in
a
totally
different
ways,
and
it
was
originally
intended
by
assuming
failure
Independence.
S
So
we
need
to
assume
failure
independently
States
fail,
implementations,
fail,
flesh
pots,
May
Fail
or
behave
in
a
bad
way,
so
we
need
definitely
more
diversity
on
the
chain,
one
controversity
in
there
and
that's
a
discussion
that
pretty
much
always
comes
up
when
talking
about
this
topic.
How
about
enforceability?
So
if
I
say
I
want
Geographic
diversity,
a
valid
data
can
just
lie
about
where
they
are
and
that's
true
they
can.
They
can
use
the
VPN,
so
I
can
be
in
China
and
claim
I'm
in
the
US
no
problem
there.
S
So
there's
a
couple
of
things
so,
a
just
because
I
can't
100
enforce
a
policy
doesn't
mean
I
shouldn't.
Have
it
I
have
door
locks
at
home,
I
have
friends
who
can
pick
those
door
locks,
but
that
doesn't
mean
I.
Remove
my
locks
and
put
my
valuables
on
the
street,
they
still
serve
a
purpose
even
though
they're
just
90
five
percent
secure,
and
we,
if
we
create
a
business
case,
that
at
least
honest
people
create
diversity
and
dishonest
people
at
least
have
some
risk
and
need
to
show
some
criminal
Behavior
to
violate
diversity.
S
S
The
way
we
normally
do
this
or
the
first
idea
to
implement
policies
is
by
economy.
So
ethereum
is
very
heavy
on
slashing
issue
misbehave.
We
may
slash
you,
so
you
better
be
a
nice
validator.
We
can
have
positive
incentives,
Like
A
diversity
award.
If
you
run
your
validator
from
New
Zealand,
we
give
you
more
money
or
something
indirect,
like
a
delegated
proof
of
stake.
If
you
add
diversity's,
Network
you're,
a
good
citizen,
more
people
stake
to
you,
you
get
more
money.
Everybody
is
happy
that
has
a
couple
of
problems.
S
My
favorite
one
being
Mev
I
mean
you
have
to
mention
Mev
here
with
Mev.
We
don't
know.
What's
business
model
of
the
validator
is
anymore:
they
don't
make
money
by
fees.
They
make
money
by
Mev
extraction,
so
paying
them.
A
diversity
bonus
is
like
paying
police
a
small
bonus
in
a
country
where
the
list
of
generally
of
bribes,
that's
not
the
business
model
to
get
the
salary.
The
business
model
is
getting
bribed,
so
economic
incentives
may
not
really
work.
S
We
have
fun
financial
instruments
that
can
Outsource
flashing
risks
and,
if
it's
just
economics
and
if
a
higher
incentive
to
cheat
so
it's
one
approach,
definitely
is
one
error
in
our
toolkit,
but
it's
not
the
end
solution.
So
that's
why
we
want
to
Implement
diversity
on
the
consensus
protocol
itself
and
to
get
there.
I
need
a
little
bit
background
on
consensus
protocols
and
there
you
see
how
old
I
am
because
this
is
papers
from
1984.
S
So
the
impossibility
results,
pre-pre-date
everybody
in
this
room
or
almost
everybody
and
the
worst
one
is:
it's
actually
bugging
the
whole
Community
since
40
years
by
now
it's
called
official
lunch
Patterson
and
they
proved
that
consent
is
actually
impossible.
The
end,
let's
all
go
home
well,
they're
more
precisely
proved.
There's
no
deterministic
asynchronous
product
coil
can
guarantee
termination,
even
if
one
validator
May
crash-
and
this
is
a
result-
we've
been
working
around
for
the
last
40
years.
S
S
Now,
of
course,
we
can
cheat
We
Have
Cheated.
That
is
why
we're
all
here,
the
first
way
to
cheat,
is
it
says
asynchronous.
So
if
you
use
a
timing
assumption
you
get
can
get
around
it.
This
is
what
tendermint
is
doing.
For
example,
the
bad
thing
is,
if
you
guess,
or
your
timing
assumption
wrong,
then
bad
things
happen,
you
get
very
inefficient.
S
The
second
one
is
pluralistic,
it
says
deterministic
protocol.
So
that's
actually
my
favorite
approach.
We
just
terminate
with
probability
one
which
is
generally
good
enough
and
then
I
don't
need
a
timing
assumption
or
what
was
invented
by
Bitcoin
essentially
and
is
now
also
partially
used
by
ethereum,
a
y
terminate
in
the
first
place,
if
ever
longest
chain
protocol
I
just
run
it
at
some
point,
it's
good
enough,
but
technically
you
never
really
terminate.
S
Now
after
the
merch,
you
do
but
technically
a
longest
shame
protocol,
never
finalizes.
You
always
could
theoretically
roll
back
your
transactions.
So
this
is
the
three
ways
we
got
around
this.
That
gets
us
to
the
consensus
map,
so
we
have
essentially
three
approaches.
We
have
the
randomized
approach,
the
partial
synchronous
approach
and
the
longest
chain
approach,
and
they
all
have
nice
properties.
So
the
both
committee
based
ones,
are
finalizing,
which
is
great
different
timing
assumptions
their
disadvantages.
They
don't
scale
as
well
as
long
as
chain
protocol
every
validator.
S
They
need
to
talk
to
everybody.
So
if
I
try
to
run
those
protocols,
those
40
000
validators,
everything
will
explode.
So
this
is
why
people
still
use
the
longest
chain
now.
The
reason
why
I'm
actually
going
to
all
of
this
the
technique
I'm
now
talking
about,
is
actually
very
well
explored
for
the
two
committee
based
protocols.
We
know
exactly
how
it
works
there
for
longest
chain
protocols
like
the
old
ethereum
Bitcoin
Solana.
S
We
sort
of
can
make
it
work,
but
we
probably
need
some
more
statistical
evaluation
to
be
sure
what
we're
doing
and
for
Gus
per
well.
We
we
need
to
talk
because
gospel
is
a
pretty
complex
Beast.
It
works
there
I'm
just
not
sure
nothing
explodes
if
you'd
implement
it.
So
this
is
a
where
it
would
be
a
very
good
idea
to
actually
have
a
small
discussion,
so
what
we
want
to
do
is
call
generally
adversary
structures.
S
So
normally,
as
you
saw
in
these
protocols,
you
have
thresholds
like
only
one
third
of
the
validators
may
be
corrupt
or
longest
chain,
half
of
them,
and
we
want
to
get
rid
of
this
so
forget
about
thresholds,
they're
boring.
What
we
want
to
do
is
write
down
explicitly
all
coalitions
of
adversaries.
I
want
to
be
able
to
tolerate
if
they
are
corrupt.
S
Simultaneously,
so
I
could
say:
I
want
to
tolerate
if
a
quarter
of
all
stake,
plus
an
entire
country
goes
corrupt
independently,
on
how
many
validators
are
in
this
country
and
for
now
I
just
write
down
these
sets
and
say
this
is
sets
I
want
to
tolerate
it's
a
pretty
flexible
notion.
We
can
later
scale
it
down
to
make
it
more
manageable.
S
Then
we
want
to
modify
the
protocols
to
work
with
this
and
unfortunately
we
also
have
some
requirements.
We
can't
just
say
I
want
to
tolerate
everybody
going
bad,
so
there's
some
some
limits.
What
we
can
do
in
there
and
if
we
look
at
the
committee
based
protocols
or
also
the
customer
part
of
ethereum,
you
usually
find
somewhere
in
the
code,
something
like
wait
for
2T,
plus
one
or
two
f,
plus
one
votes.
So
this
is
where
the
thresholds
come
in
and
in
pretty
much
every
modern
protocol
there's
exactly
three
thresholds.
S
S
We
have
three
things
we
need.
We
have
a
threshold
where,
if
I
talk
to
that
many
many
validators
I
know
at
least
one
is
honest,
honest
majority-
or
this
is
the
longest
I-
can
wait
before
I
can't
wait
anymore
because
everybody
else
may
be
corrupted.
S
So
this
way
we
now
can
replace
the
thresholds
with
actually
sets.
So
the
t,
plus
one
is
replaced
by
any
set
on
my
list
of
people.
I
want
to
be
corrupted,
plus
one
more
guy
and
for
as
a
committee
based
protocols,
we
can
just
essentially
take
the
thresholds
out
as
a
protocol,
replace
it
with
our
set
properties,
and
we
have
pretty
much
automatically
transformed
that
protocol
into
a
more
flexible
model.
S
We
can
do
the
same
for
the
proofs,
although
it's
probably
a
good
idea
to
manually
check
the
proof
afterwards,
but
we
can
generically
take
a
protocol
that
is
threshold
based
and
go
to
set-based
version,
which
is
then
much
much
more
flexible,
which
allows
us
to
explicitly
write
down.
I
want
to
tolerate
all
of
these
people
going
bad
and
there's
some
limits.
S
So
the
limit
we
need
for
committee
based
protocol
we
used
to
have
a
third
of
the
validators
can
be
bad
now,
it's
three
of
the
sets
I
write
down
must
not
cover
the
whole
set
of
validators.
So
if
I
say,
I
have
three
countries
and
I
want
all
one
of
them
to
be
able
to
corrupt.
It
doesn't
work
if
I
say
I
have
four
countries
and
I
want
to
tolerate
if
one
entire
country
goes
down
that
works.
So
that's
our
limits
on
on
the
sets
it's
necessary
and
sufficient.
S
So
we
know
if
I
satisfy
this
condition.
I
can
still
solve
consensus
if
I
doesn't
it's
impossible.
So
this
is
how
we
can
compute.
What
are
what
are
the
sets
we
actually
can
generate?
How
do
we
Define?
Actually?
How
who
we
want
to
tolerate
to
be
corrupted
as
long
as
chain
Protocols
are
slightly
different?
They
don't
have
a
threshold.
The
thing
we
have
here
is
leader
selection,
algorithm
and
the
longest
chain
rule.
S
So
what
we
can
do
here
is
change.
The
definition
of
what
a
longest
chain
is
so
if
I
have
say
consecutive
blocks
generated
in
America,
I
can
say
the
lengths
of
each
block
goes
down
in
the
longest
chain,
depending
on
the
number
of
blocks
that
were
generated
in
the
same
set
before
so
first
block
generated
by
an
American
validator
has
lengths
one
second
block
generated
by
an
American
value.
Data
has
length.
S
0.95
third
block
is
going
down
0.8
something
so
the
more
blocks
are
generated
by
validators
in
the
same
corruption
set
or
say
in
the
same
country
in
this
case
the
shorter
they
get.
So
at
some
point
just
anybody
go
coming
from
another
country
will
be
longer
because
they
just
can't
add
to
the
chain
anymore.
S
Parameter
choice
is
a
little
bit
difficult.
This
is
where
we
need
experimentation.
That's
a
general
problem
with
protocols
like
with
all
long
as
chain
protocols
like
Bitcoin,
like
old
ethereum,
that
there's
a
lot
of
guesswork
so
right
now
we
have
how
many
steps
do
I
need
until
I,
actually
trust
that
my
block
is
sort
of
final.
S
It
is
guesswork,
it's
statistical
evaluation,
so
this
is
what
we
need
to
redo
now,
if
we
want
to
go
to
these
generalized
adversary
sets,
Casper
is
getting
even
more
complex
because
it's
a
hybrid
protocol
so,
as
I
said,
I
think
I
can
put
this
into
gospel.
I
could
implement
it
in
gospel,
but
given
the
analysis
of
it
is
a
relatively
very
flexible
way
now
to
deal
with,
validators
was
actually
too
flexible.
So
what
we
want
is
actually
an
attribute
based.
One
and
I
use
this
already
in
my
example.
So
I
use
countries.
AB
W
S
Addition,
an
entire
country,
an
entire
code
base,
an
entire
flashbots
client
or
whatever
the
problem
in
here
is
and
I
guess
it's
an
issue
with
all
diversity.
S
AA
S
Have
along
which
I
want
to
be
diverse
and
more
difficult,
it
is
actually
get
that
implemented
and
I
guess
that's
the
same.
Also
in
normal
diversity,
in
real
life,
if
I
have
a
board
of
a
company
and
I
say
I
want
more
women
on
the
board.
That's
fine
if
I
also
want
different
ethnices
handicaps.
Whatever
then
at
some
point,
I
need
a
very,
very
big
board
to
accommodate
all
of
this.
S
So
the
danger
we
have
here
is
that
we
need
to
avoid
minority
stacking.
That's
a
validator
say
great
I
have
one
value
that
represents
all
minorities
on
the
planet.
So
it's
its
own
operating
system
client.
Nobody
else
uses
located
in
Vatican
State.
S
So
such
a
valid
data
may
get
an
undue
weight
in
the
system.
If
you're
not
careful
how
we
Define
our
sets,
but
in
general
what
that
gives
us
now
is
I
can
give
validators
attributes
and
rather
than
saying
a
third
of
the
validators
can
fail.
I
can
say
everybody
with
a
certain
attribute
is
allowed
to
fail
and
the
discussion
we
need
to
have
as
a
community
is
then
what
attributes
are
actually
important?
Is
it
more
important
to
have
geographical
diversity?
Is
it
more
important
with
client
diversity?
S
Where
do
we
want
to
set
the
priorities
and
which
diversity
aspects
actually
in
the
end
less
important?
So
that's
my
parting
summary
already
so
plain
blockchain
implementations
are
getting
serious
diversity
errors.
We
have
a
huge
number
of
examples-
economic
incentivation
dusts
sort
of
work,
but
it
has
its
limits
due
to
new
Financial
tools
due
to
different
business
models
or
validators.
S
We
have
a
tool
that
we
can
put
things
onto
the
consensus
level
that
we
can
enforce
diversity
properties
on
that
level.
We
know
how
to
implement
this
for
some
protocols.
This
is
proven.
This
works.
Ethereum
is
a
bit
more
complex,
it
can
be
implemented,
but
we
still
need
a
security
proof
and
the
last
thing
is:
we
can
also
calculate
the
limit
on
how
diverse
we
actually
can
be.
So
we
have
a
mathematical
way
to
produce.
AC
S
Amount
of
diversity
I
can
get
via
the
consensus
layer.
If
that's
enough,
that's
fine,
if
you
need
more,
then
we
need
to
sit
back
and
maybe
combine
consensus
with
economic
incentives
or
really
go
back
to
the
drawing
board,
but
we
can
complete
precisely
calculate
now.
What
kind
of
level
of
diversity
can
we
have
and
the
legal
question
that
comes
up,
which
was
also
essentially
one
of
the
new
motivations
with
American,
with
ethereum
now
being
American?
Does
it
actually
also
help
to
give
us
a
legal
document?
S
Her
argument:
does
it
just
make
us
technically
more
secure,
or
are
we
also
now
legally
more
secure
by
saying?
Well,
there
are
no
blocks
that
can
create
be
created.
Only
in
America
I
always
need
non-american
validators,
so
ethereum
cannot
be
under
complete
American
law,
but
that's
freeze
the
wrong
crowd
to
answer
this,
but
of
interesting
questions
in
there.
S
So
thank
you.
AD
Clearly
a
lot
to
think
about
in
terms
of
diversity,
and
it's
not
as
clear
as
just
you
know.
You
know
more
clients
or
more
countries
or
whatever
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
you
know
things
like
Lido
that
are
building
their
own
node
operator
sets
and
are
you
know
taking
it
upon
themselves,
build
their
own
set
in
the
way
that
they
see
a
diversat?
AD
Looking,
you
know,
there's
some
people
that
say:
oh
it's
so
great
that
we
have
so
many
homesteakers,
but,
like
you've
kind
of
mentioned,
you
know
a
lot
of
people
might
not
be
stating
their
own
infrastructure.
They
might
just
be
running
on
AWS.
So
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
like
how
we
can
kind
of
economically
ensure
that
there
are
diverse
sets?
And
you
know,
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
people
that
are
going
ahead
and
doing
this
themselves,
like
Lido.
S
S
The
approach
generally
isn't
economical.
So
if
it
makes
a
lot
of
monetary
sense
to
centralize,
this
is
not
stopping
it.
It
just
gives
you
less
weight,
so
the
more
people
are
joining
light,
always
and
more
weight
in
the
consensus
people
get
that
did
not.
S
You
can
link
this
with
an
economic
incentive.
So
if
you
also
use
the
same
approach
for
the
leader
selection
algorithm,
then
you
can
also
say
the
valid
data
set
at
diversity
get
more
block
proposals,
so
they
make
more
money
so
that
at
some
point
also
an
economic
limit
on
how
centralized
you
can
be.
So
it
probably
would
be
a
combination
that,
both
by
consensus
enforcement,
you
say,
I
need
valid
data
set
at
diversity,
but
they
also
would
earn
more
money.
S
H
I
Yeah,
thanks
for
the
talk
is
this
for
a
team
also
applicable
for
distributed
validators
like
I
I,
think
it
will
be
difficult
to
produce.
K
I
Not
cryptographically
sure
script
together
assert
the
evaluation
certain
company,
but
what
I
think
when
this
could
maybe
well
I
could
be
applied
there
distributed
values
like
their
SSP
networks
or
opal
or
Thursday
working.
S
On
I
haven't
thought
about
that.
Yet
so
probably
you
could
make
it
on
the
second
level.
S
I
I
would
still
hope
that
it
gets
into
ethereum.
Even
if
you
don't
know
exactly
where
somebody
is
that
we
prefer
semi-perfect
policies
over
100,
cryptographically,
short
ones,
I,
don't
see
a
reason
why
it
couldn't
be
used
with
distributed
validators.
Maybe
it
gets
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
Define
than
the
policies
on.
If
you
have
two
levels,
I
mean
it's
a
similar
thing
already,
which
is
a
problem
that
hasn't
been
completely
solved
yet
in
ethereum,
I
have
two
protocols
that
both
have
different
thresholds
and
there's
different
sets.
S
So
how
do
I
combine
this
I
think
if
I
get
in
a
distributed,
validator
I
get
so
at
one
should
be
solvable.
I,
don't
see
a
fundamental
problem,
but
definitely
needs
to
be
worked
out
what
that
means
and
if
the
proof
still
goes
through.
So
the
main
thing
is,
you
need
to
still
approve
everything,
still
works
and
that's
a
part
that
is
still
a
lot
of
work.
AE
AF
AF
AF
AG
AF
E
AF
K
AF
K
AF
H
Well,
no
further
Ado,
let's
start
the
top
here
we
have
Paul
on
that
note
guys
the
space
is
yours.
Thank
you.
K
All
right,
so,
let's,
let's
set
the
stage
who
is
solo,
staking
or
who's
taking
by
themselves:
nice,
nice,
nice,
okay,
yes,
good,
awesome,
fantastic
who's
staking
through
a
staking
pool
all
right:
okay,
yeah,
not
bad
I
would
say
like
that
was
like
that
was
50
50.
U
K
Who's
taking
through
an
exchange
like
Kraken,
coinbase,
okay
out
of
the
room
right
now,.
AC
K
Joking
I'm,
joking
you're,
fine,
okay,
good,
no
I,
hope
the
the
talk
that
we're
gonna
have
today
convinces
this
last
group
of
people
that
this
might
not
be
the
best
decision
for
ethereum
and
that
it's
actually
not
that
hard
to
take
cards
into
your
own
matter
and
to
actually
start
doing
it
yourself.
So
yeah,
let's
go
for
it.
K
This
is
what
metallic
published
not
that
long
ago-
and
this
is
the
road
map
of
ethereum
and
solo.
Stakers
are
people
that
are
not
professional
stickers,
they're,
not
professional
validators
they're
people
that
have
their
own
jobs,
they're,
people
that
might
or
might
not
have
children
they
might
have
hobbies.
They
might
have
other
things
to
do
than
just
keeping
up
with
this.
So
how
the
heck
are
they
supposed
to
keep
up
with
all
of
this,
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
talk.
K
We're
gonna,
try
to
lay
down
in
the
next
25
minutes
the
next
things
that
are
going
to
be
huge
and
that
are
going
to
impact
us
all
as
solo
stakers
and
that
we
need
to
take
into
account
and
how
to
react
with
it.
So,
first
of
all,
let's
to
try
to
convince
these
people
that
are
still
sticking
with
Kraken
okay,
so
it
is
vital
that
there
are
more
solar
stickers.
The
reason
of
this
talk
is
because
we
need
to
convince
you
that
you
can
stake,
and
that
is
actually
worth
it.
K
It
is
valuable.
It
is
vital
for
ethereum
and
it's
actually
an
existential
threat
to
ethereum
if
we
don't
have
enough
solo
stickers.
So
we
all
have
seen
this
we'll
have
seen
how
a
very
few
entities
control
a
huge
majority
of
the
of
the
validators
who
he
remembers.
The
steam
Fiasco,
the
blockchain
steam
Fiasco
right
so
actually
having
centralized,
validators
or
centralized
centralized
with
it
actually
can
can
do
things
like
we're.
K
Just
inside
the
steam
Fiasco
was
just
in
San
bought
steemit,
which
was
a
company
that
was
behind
the
blockchain
Steam,
and
there
were
some
people
that
were
that
did
not
agree
with
him,
so
he
basically
went
to
poloniex
and
a
few
other
exchanges
and
said,
like
hey,
hey
guys,
take
this
couple
Millie
and
we're
gonna
vote
for
an
invalid
State
transaction
when
the
accounts
of
these
opponents
of
mine
are
going
to
be
emptied
from
one
block
to
another.
Imagine
your
ethereum
accounts
emptied
like
this
invalid
State
transaction.
K
K
We
have
a
32
percent
of
the
blocks
being
produced
in
ethereum
right
now,
at
32
percent
of
blocks
produced
that
are
ofac
compliant.
That
means
that
if
you
have
ever
used
tornado
cash
there's
a
32
percent
of
the
blocks
where
your
transactions
are
not
going
in,
did
you
know
that?
Did
you
know
that
you're
being
censored
in
32
of
the
blocks?
K
This
is
huge
and
this
is
Mev
boost
and
if
we
go
into
the
Meb
boost
produce
blocks,
this
is
87
are
come
from
relayers
that
have
said
that
they
are
going
to
comply
with
ofac.
This
is
why
it's
so
important
right,
Okay.
So
brief,
brief
introduction
to
dabnode
we're
here
to
make
it
easy
we're
here
to
make
it
easier
for
people
to
run
nodes.
K
K
Then
there's
like
all
sorts
of
nice,
beautiful
things
like
a
Webster
Center
that
holds
the
keys
for
you,
etc,
etc,
and
there's
a
huge
community
of
thousands
of
validators
that
are
doing
exactly
the
exact
same
thing
as
you
and
where
you
can
just
lay
it
relay
on
them,
ask
for
support
Etc.
This
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
done.
K
K
The
thing
that
the
solo
Staker
needs
to
know
is
that
you
are
the
key
for
the
future
of
ethereum,
all
right,
mov,
ing,
okay,
so
Mev
MV
stands
for
maximal
extractable
value,
and
the
first
thing
that
we
need
to
know
here
is
that
the
value
is
extracted
from
who,
from
the
user
and
people
say
like
oh
Mev,
but
they're
doing
nice
things
they
do
Arbitrage
between
dexes.
So
we
can
like
if
I
have
a
token,
my
price
will
be
the
same
everywhere.
Yeah,
that's
a
good
thing
right,
but
how
about
everything
else?
K
You've
got
price
execution
in
every
trade
that
you
do
in
a
decks.
You
got
gas
Wars
and
network
congestion.
Whenever
there's
like
a
juicy
Mev
opportunity,
you
get
the
potential
and
the
threat
of
chain
reorgs.
If
there's
something
really
juicy
and
the
conditions
are
right
and
the
validators
are
incentivized
to
attack
themselves.
So
if
I
come
after
the
a
block
where
there's
a
really
juicy
Mev
opportunity,
I
mean
incentivized
to
screw
up
the
guy
that
comes
before
me.
So
I
can
keep
the
Mev
opportunity
right.
K
AF
So
yes,
how
to
map
all
of
these
related
to
me
beef,
so
mainly
for
me
and
for
most
of
us.
Maybe
it's
not
a
feature.
It's
a
bug.
It
has
a
lot
of
implications
on
the
ethereum
design,
because
of
that,
because
it's
something
that
is
leading
in
a
in
the
wrong
direction,
so
mainly
PBS,
has
formed
to
try
to
mitigate
this
situation.
Pbs
proposal
block
separation
and
we
are
going
to
talk
about
that
later
on.
AF
So
that
is
why
the
concept
of
the
community
and
the
referred
here
to
try
to
mitigate
as
much
as
we
can
they
may
be,
and
that
is
why
we
are
starting
to
see
new
proposals
like
single
slot
finality
single
slot
finality
is
a
proposal
to
be
able
to
have
finality
in
just
one
Epoch,
and
the
idea
is
to
to
remove
these
opportunities
from
from
the
protocol
itself,
but
also
the
single
secret
leader
election
that
is
related
to
the
validator.
AF
Anonymity
is
something
that
is
also
resetting
right
now,
and
we
are
talking
later
on.
So
mainly,
we
are
seeing
how
the
student
Foundation
is
trying
to
find
ways
to
mitigate
this
situation
at
a
protocol
level,
but
there
are
something
that
we
cannot
mitigate
so
far.
We
have
seen
that
it's
really
really
hard
to
find
a
solution
to
Meb.
So
that
is
why
the
PBS-
or
maybe
smoothing,
is
a
way
to
make
this
more
fair
and
try
to
mitigate
these
situations.
K
Is
a
centralizing
force?
It's
a
centralizing
force
because
I
mean
researchers
will
not
give
you
as
a
solo
Staker
a
juicy
10
million
Mev
opportunity,
because
you,
as
a
solo
sticker
that
has
only
42
000
32
each
in
this
in
your
validator.
You
would
be.
You
would
be
happy
to
take
this
10
million
shut
down
your
validator
and
go
live
in
the
Bahamas
for
the
rest
of
your
life,
so
it
is
a
trustful
system
and
as
a
solid
sticker,
you
cannot
access
Mev
opportunities.
K
U
K
Centralizing
Force
that
but
yeah,
that's
that
basically
makes
that
us,
as
solo
stickers,
will
only
have
two
sources
of
revenue
which
are
block
production,
so
block
reward
and
transaction
fees
and
the
big
companies.
The
big
trusted
companies
that
can
sign
agreements
would
have
those
two
plus
MAV
opportunities.
So
Mev
boost
is
for
now,
as
solo
stickers.
The
only
solution
that
we
have
to
access
this.
AF
K
Okay,
DVT
DVT
is
the
next
Hot
Topic
and
it's
distributed
validators.
So
right
now,
there's
there's
this
equality
of
one
validator
key
one
validator
client,
which
basically
means
that
whoever
runs
the
machine.
Whoever
runs
the
validator
client
also
has
access
to
that
key
and
can
do
all
sorts
of
bad
things
to
this
it
can.
It
can
slash
you,
it
can
Ransom
you,
it
can
just
exit
you,
it
can
just
shut
the
validator
down,
so
you
get
inactivity,
leak
and
DVT
comes
in
so
the
the
DVD
comes
in.
K
So
you
can
split
the
validator
key
in
different
key
shares
and
distribute
it
over
many
validator
clients.
This
allows
for
high
availability,
but
because
imagine
these
validator
shares
as
a
sort
of
like
a
multi-seek.
So
if
three
of
these
Shares
are
online
out
of.
K
If
one
of
them
are
offline,
we
can
still
continue
validating.
It
also
allows
for
different
trust
assumptions,
because
you
can
distribute
these
shares
to
nobody
with
with
one
of
these
shares,
you
can't
do
or
you
can't
slash
people
you
can't
exit.
You
can't
do
all
of
this
stuff,
so
actually
we
do
not
require
so
much.
We
can
afford
to
give
these
keys
to
other
people
and
not
require
so
much
collateral.
K
Right
now,
rocket
pool
still
requires
a
somebody
to
put
16
e
huge
amount
of
collateral,
because
that's
what
they
can
get
from
That's
how
much
damage
they
can
do
so
with
DVT.
We
get
different
trust
assumption
and
the
potential
for
lower
collateral
requirements.
K
Moreover,
those
who
run
already
run
nodes
and
already
have
a
validator
setup.
They
can
monetize
through
DVT
Technologies
on
top
of
their
validator
sets.
So
it's
a
way
to
bump
up
your
your
your
rewards
for
having
a
validator
okay.
So
exactly
that's,
that's
exactly
what
you
need
to
know
about.
Dvt
you'll
be
able
to
monetize
your
machine
by
leveraging
other
protocols
on
top
of
it.
K
These
Protocols
are
like
SSV,
Network
or
opal
or
Diva,
and
that
people
will
be
able
to
participate
in
validation
even
with
less
than
32
each,
because
you
can
do
a
setup
and
then
you
can
participate
in
this,
which
is
great
for
accessibility,
because
we're
making
part
of
the
benefits
of
running
infrastructure
to
people
that
do
not
that
are
not
rich
people
do
not
have
32
each.
So
it's
great
for
accessibility,
all
right
withdrawals,
yep
with
roles
withdrawals,
that's
what
all
we're
waiting
for
right
like
we've
got.
K
This
32
withdrawals
are
going
to
be
a
new
system
level
operation
which
will
have
no
gas
cost
and
it
will
they
will
not
even
go
to
the
evm.
They
will
increase
the
the
balance
of
the
withdrawal
address
automatically
it'll
be
a
limited
block
per
block.
Just
like
right
now,
joining
as
a
validator
is
also
limited.
Blackboard,
there's
a
limited
amount
of
of
people
that
can
join
the
validator
set.
K
The
same
thing
will
happen
with
withdrawals,
and
what
we
need
to
know
is
that
we
will
be
able
to
get
our
money
if
we
want
to
now.
There's
something
more
interesting
to
think
about
here,
which
is
what
will
happen
when
people
are
able
to
take
this
will
staking
pools,
be?
Will
people
take
out
of
sticking
pools
and
start
solo
staking
that's
what
we're
hoping
or
will
the
opposite
happen?
K
So,
what's
going
to
make
it
easier
to
convince
people
to
take
out
of
staking
pools
and
centralized
exchanges
and
and
start
running
instead
of
writing
it
themselves,
yeah
all
right
so.
AF
Yeah
now
it's
time
to
talk
about
brotherland,
charting
and
the
future
of
of
ethereum,
so
mainly
the
the
roadmap
of
Studio
change
completely
at
the
moment
that
vitalik
make
these
credit
post.
So
mainly,
we
realized
that
if
we
facilitate
prologue,
they
have
better
scalability
and
potential
that
the
previous
execution
starts,
so
mainly
everything
changed.
At
that
moment,
we
forget
about
having
execution
on
the
charts
and
we
move
to
a
way
to
provide
data
availability
for
other
layer,
2
applications
that
are
going
to
happen
during
these
years.
AF
So
mainly
mainly
the
thing
that
happened
with
the
product
and
starting
is
that,
instead
of
providing
more
space
for
transactions,
we
are,
we
are
going
to
provide
more
space
for
data
that
the
layer
2
Solutions,
can
use
it
in
the
future.
So
the
idea
is
mainly
that
the
execution
is
going
to
happen
on
these
ckvms
and
roll
ups,
keeping
the
the
execution
part
of
trillion
as
it
is,
and
mainly
from
the
point
of
view.
Validator
is
just
a
way
to
validate
the
data
that
is
available.
AF
So
it's
not
going
to
the
include
the
need
of
validate
this.
This
data,
as
in
the
state
of
ethereum,
so
yeah,
what
do
you?
What
do
you
need
to
know
about
this
chain
is
going
to
store
these
new
blocks
and
the
data
is
going
to
be
stored.
AF
It's
going
to
be
used
by
the
roll
apps,
so
mainly,
the
idea
is
that
you
get
a
vertical
tree
approved
of
this
data,
and
you
can
use
a
break
compiler
smart
contract
in
this
video
that
validates
this
data,
allowing
them
to
verify
verify
the
state
of
this
layer.
Two
solutions,
yeah
mainly
mainly
the
idea
behind
this-
is
like
a
solution
like
the
Chicago
VM,
like
a
polygons
yesterday
that
are
going
to
be
able
to
have
a
proof
of
the
state
and
take
the
security
of
the
Syrian
inside
this
layer.
AF
K
What
do
we
need
to
know?
We
need
to
know
that
those
blobs
those
new
Blobs
of
data
will
be
stored
in
the
beacon
chain,
which
will
mean
that
our
Beacon
chains
as
validator
service
takers
will
grow,
will
bloat
but
hey.
It
will
not
grow
indefinitely,
because
this
data
will
only
be
stored
for
about
a
month.
So
that's
great
so
we'll
have
the
hour.
K
Beacon
chains
will
not
just
continuously
grow
and
grow
and
grow
at
least
the
part
of
the
blobs,
but
every
month
we
will
will
be
deleting
this
data,
so
it
will
grow,
but
it
will
now
grow
indefinitely.
AF
Next,
big
topic:
yeah,
that's
also
a
critical
point
of
the
network,
so
yeah.
The
thing
is,
since
we
are
using
Brandon
in
the
we
can
change
to
select
the
validator
proposals,
it's
possible
to
know
beforehan,
who
is
going
to
be
the
next
one,
and
since
we
are
using
lip
to
be
Network
to
communicate
with
this
node,
it's
also
possible
to
get
the
IP
of
the
nodes.
AF
So
mainly
the
thing
is
that,
since
we
have
also
myth
in
this
situation,
people
want
or
could
try
to
attack
these
nodes
because
they
can
get
the
minor
extraction
value
of
the
maximum
extraction
value
From
the
Block
so
at
the
end,
is
the
the
same
problem
that
before
we
are
put
in
the
integration
to
attack
the
network,
so
we
are
making
yeah
write
Integrations
for
for
the
the
solar
stakers,
but
this
is
not
just
that.
The
thing
is
the
secret
single
sector.
AF
So
what
you?
What
do
you
need
to
know
about
this
yeah?
Because
the
list
of
proposal
of
the
new
ebook
are
known
it's
possible
to
be
targeted
by
these
attackers?
Disney
protocol
protects
the
privacy
of
the
evaluators
at
the
moment
to
propose
the
block,
but
we
need
also
new
ways
to
hide
the
communication
between
nodes,
because
that
is
still
spouses.
So
that
is
why
private
Solutions,
like
Hopper
or
other,
can
provide
this
kind
of
privacy
protection
at
IP
level.
AF
Yeah,
a
good
one,
so
yeah.
This
is
how
this
has
been
a
Hot
Topic
in
the
research
part
of
the
protocol
from
several
days
ago.
So
mainly,
the
thing
that
we
have
right
now
is
that
we
need
to
have
all
the
state
of
execution
client
to
be
able
to
be
to
be
able
to
verify
the
next
block.
So
this
is
a
problem
because
we
are
taking
all
the
complexity,
all
the
historical
data
from
ethereum,
and
we
are
need
to
store
this
in
in
our
devices
to
be
a
solo
stickers.
AF
So
mainly
the
The
Proposal
is
to
try
to
remove
this
complexity
with
the
idea
to
be
able
to
verify
a
block
without
the
need
of
having
all
the
state.
AF
So
the
big
idea
is
just
to
have
a
goodness
of
the
state
at
that
moment,
and
if
you
have
this
proof
and
it's
written
it,
you
can
validate
that
the
transaction
from
one
state
to
another
one
is
is
correct,
so
mainly
the
good
part
of
this
is
that
we
can
remove
all
the
state
of
ethereum
and
just
to
have
a
a
very
small
proof
of
the
current
state
and
be
able
to
verify
a
block.
K
So
either
you're
telling
me
that
we,
if
we
create
a
block
through
this
through
this
witness
and
through
this
proof,
we
can
prove
the
only
the
parts
of
the
state
that
we
need
to
prove
that
this
block
is
valid
and
included
in
the
block
itself.
So
a
validator
of
the
block
will
be
able
to
look
at
the
Block
in
itself
and
be
able
and
it'll
include
this
person.
You'll
be
able
to
tell
if
it's
valid
or
not
yeah
exactly.
AF
AF
Pbs
PBS
is
going
to
be
also
a
very
important
part
of
the
protocol,
because
the
the
thing
that
Paul
just
mentioned
so
mainly
the
idea
is
that
we
are
going
to
split
the
roles
on
the
network.
We
are
going
to
have
proposal
and
and
block
producers.
AF
AF
We
don't
have
too
much
time
right,
okay,
so
yeah.
The
idea
is
just
to
put
all
this
computation
in
the
block.
Producers
and
the
validators
are
going
to
be
more
or
less
the
same,
so
they
only
need
to
validate
this
proof
in
a
short
short
way.
AF
So
what
do
we
need
to
know?
Yeah,
mainly
mainly
that
the
hardware
government
for
holding
the
state
disappears,
and
that
is
really
really
good
and
also
if
we
link
with
the
blocked
things
it's
like.
Okay,
we
are
getting
more
space
here
and
we
are
putting
block
there
so
more
or
less
we
are
going
to
be.
AF
The
same
is
going
to
increase
the
pathways,
but
not
too
much
because
we
are
going
to
move
for
from
traditional
medical
trees
to
Medical
trees
that
are
more
efficient
ways
to
prove
the
state
so
mainly
as
a
validator
I
think
the
result
is
going
to
be
more
or
less
same.
It
has
been
always
a
need
that
valuators
needs
to
be
running
custom
Hardware.
So
we
keep
on
that
level.
K
Okay,
I'm
gonna
take
the
Dan,
the
Dank
sharding
and
data
availability
sampling
okay.
So
this
is
going
to
be
the
last
thing
and
the
key
part
to
that
solo
stickers
need
to
know
right
now
about
this
is
that
we
do
not
know
which
are
the
consequences
that
it
will
have.
So
we
cannot
possibly
know
right
now,
because
there's
not
a
specific
implementation
of
the
data
availability
sampling,
so
datability
example.
K
What
it
will
allow
us
is
to
remember
those
Blobs
of
data
that
we
have
mentioned
before,
so
these
Blobs
of
data
will
not
necessarily
be
fully
downloaded.
We
will
be
able
to
just
prove
a
sample
of
this
to
take
a
sample
of
this
data
and
prove
somehow
that
that
this
exists-
and
this
is
valid
and
available
for
download,
but
we
do
not
know
yet
what's
going
to
be
for
solo
stickers,
because
there's
too
many
there's
too
many
moving
pieces,
and
this
is
way
too
far
away.
K
So
for
the
moment
for
Solace
takers,
what
it
matters
is
the
protodank
charting
the
existence
of
this
data,
blobs
Etc.
So
to
summarize
very
very
quickly
on
the
topics
that
we
have
spoken
Mev.
It's
a
bug,
not
a
feature:
it's
a
centralizing
force
and
it
screws
up
our
Center
our
censorship
resistance
for
DBT.
We
will
be
able
to
leverage
our
setups
to
earn
extra
rewards
for
the
withdrawals.
K
Pretty
self-explanatory,
we'll
be
able
to
take
our
deposits
Out
product
sharding,
our
consensus
layer
will
grow
with
these
Blobs
of
data
validator
anonymity,
a
single
secret
leader
election
will
save
us
from
the
Mev
extractors
that
come
behind
us
and
they
wanna
get
us
offline
to
get
the
Mev
opportunities.
Statelessness
is
that
we
will
have
less
less
Drive
requirements,
but
we
will
have
more
bandwidth
and
dunk
sharding
that
we
don't
really
know
so
in
25
minutes.
This
is
everything
you
needed
to
know
about
the
next
phase
of
ethereum.
H
AH
Yeah
I
I've
been
using
dap
nodes
since.
K
H
F
E
P
AI
AA
F
AB
AI
P
H
H
AI
H
AI
Okay,
hi
everyone.
Thank
you
so
much
for
coming.
My
name
is
Christine
Kim
I'm,
a
research
associate
at
Galaxy
and
today
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about
the
distribution
of
eat
supplies
since
the
Network's
Genesis.
This
is
going
to
be
a
two-part
presentation.
First,
we're
going
to
discuss
how
60
of
total
e-supply
today
was
generated,
all
in
one
single
block
and
how
that
very
large
sum
of
eth
got
distributed
over
time
and
then
second
we'll
discuss
total
steak
to
eat
Supply,
which
is
actually
a
very
small
percentage
of
total
Supply.
AI
So
to
understand
how
resilient
ethereum
is
against
attacks
such
as,
for
example,
like
a
51
attack.
What
one
of
the
key
questions
to
ask
is:
who
controls
stake,
eat
Supply
and
how
easy
is
it
to
seize
control
of
safe
deed
Supply
and
the
more
concentrated
that
your
Stakes
eat?
Supply
is
the
easier
it
is
to
disrupt
Network
consensus.
It's
like
a
centralized
point
of
failure,
but
the
less
concentrated
your
steak
eats.
This
Supply
is
the
harder
those
types
of
attacks
are,
and
the
second
reason
is
very
closely
related
to
security.
It's
a
it's!
AI
A
one
that
goes
part
and
parcel
with
security,
and
that's
because
the
supply
distribution
of
ethereum
it
matters
more
than
ever,
also
to
the
decentralization
of
ethereum,
and
that
relates
to
censorship,
resistance
and
credible
neutrality.
Because
validators
are
now
the
block
proposers
of
ethereum.
They
are
the
block
proposers
of
a
proof
of
stake
blockchain
and
for
those
of
us
who
are
from
the
US.
AI
This
really
does
matter
also
from
a
regulatory
point
of
view,
because
for
The
Regulators,
like
the
SEC
decentralization,
is
a
key
criteria
determining
what
type
of
financial
asset
each
should
be
classified
as
and
finally,
the
third
reason
is
because
this
topic
helps
to
illustrate
who
the
biggest
winners
are
from
proof
of
stake
from
aka.
The
merge
upgrade
the
biggest
eat
holders
on
ethereum
are
in
the
best
position
to
profit.
Now
that
the
merge
upgrade
is
complete
and
the
capital
that
they
hold
will
now
be
able
to
generate
more
capital
on
the
network.
AI
So
whoever
holds
a
lot
of
Youth
now
stands
to
generate
and
and
continue
to
to
hold
on
to
a
lot
more.
Even
this
is
a
little
different
from
proof
of
work
mining,
whereas
where
miners
were
to
some
extent,
incentivized
to
sell
off
their
eats,
do
their
due
to
their
High
operational
costs.
So
when
you're
mining
Aid,
you
sell
it
off
once
you've
mined
it
because
you
have
to
pay
a
very
high
electricity
bill.
But
for
validators,
that's
not
the
case.
AI
The
operational
costs
are
in
comparison,
extremely
negligible,
so
I
hope
this
has
got
you
interested
so
now
on
to
the
data.
As
of
the
beginning
of
October,
about
120
million
eth
has
been
generated
on
on
ethereum
since
Genesis.
AI
This
value
there's
actually
quite
a
lot
of
dispute
around
the
exact
decimal
points
of
the
of
the
value.
But
for
that
conversation
around
some
of
the
nitpicky
stuff
of
how
we
even
know
what
total
Supply
is
I
encourage
you
to
read
the
full
report
that
I've
written
on
This
research
topic
at
galaxy.com,
but
more
than
mining
or
validating
combined.
The
majority
of
Supply
was
allocated
before
the.
R
AI
Total
eats
Supply
today
was
distributed
at
the
Network's
Genesis
to
participants
Who
had
who
were
involved
in
the
initial
coin,
offering
so
the
Ico
sale
of
ethereum
basically
sold
off
each
to
the
general
public.
Anyone
with
an
internet
connection
who
had
Bitcoin
could
participate
in
this
fundraising
effort
for
ethereum
and
that
sale
took
place
in
25
14
a
year
before
ethereum
even
launched,
and
it
raised
funds
for
about
42
days.
Around
18
million
dollars
was
raised
at
the
time
now.
The
second
part
that
I
want
to
highlight
is
12
million
eth.
AI
So
roughly
around
10
percent
of
ethereum's
total
Network
Supply
was
also
generated
at
Genesis,
and
this
eve
went
to
early
project
contributors
to
ethereum
and
the
ethereum
foundation,
which
is
an
organization
that
was
set
up
to
help
Steward
the
development
and
the
the
growth
of
the
ethereum
ecosystem,
which,
if
you
guys
were
there
for
the
opening
ceremonies
I,
had
a
really
good
talk
of
what
her
vision
for
the
EF
is,
but
for
the
12
million
eat
that
was
generated,
it
was
basically
split
up
between
the
foundation
and
a
bunch
of
Founders.
AI
So,
like
some
of
those
names,
big
names
are
like
metallic
buterin,
Charles,
hoskinson,
mihilisi,
Gavin,
Woods,
Joe
Lubin,
there's
there's
more,
but
it's
not
clear
the
distribution
of
how
much
of
that
12
million
went
to
those
contributors,
and
we
also
don't
know
exactly
what
the
full
list
of
contributors
were
at
the
time.
There's
sources
to
say
that
you
know-
or
it
was
split
up
around
85
early
project
Founders.
So
a
lot
of
critics
of
ethereum
do
note
that
the
distribution
of
coins
through
processes
that
take
place
before
the
public
launch
of
a
cryptocurrency.
AI
So
before
mining
starts
before
validating
starts.
This
is
called
a
pre-mine
and
it
can
be
easily
manipulated
by
a
few
select
instriders
and
it's
not
a
very
transparent
process
to
understand
who
got
what
and
to
some
extent.
This
is
very
true
if
there's
two
really
great
books
that
discuss
a
lot
of
the
drama
and
the
difficulties
around
figuring
out
how
much
of
the
this
each
should
be
distributed
to
early
project
contributors,
Laura,
shins,
cryptopians
and
Cami
Russo's.
AI
Infinite
machine
are
two
books
that
discuss
that
history
and
when
you
think
about
the
Ico,
there
is
on-chain
data
to
show
that
you
know
that
60
million
eat
it
was
distributed
across
8
800
different
on-chain
accounts,
which
sounds
really
decentralized.
But
the
thing
is,
we
don't
know
how
many
of
those
accounts
were
actually
owned
by
the
same
person.
It's
a
very
difficult.
It's
a
it's
a
there's
known
videos
explaining
how
you
could
actually
participate
in
ethereum's
Ico
using
multiple
fake
identities,
so
there's
no
way
to
really
double
check
how
clean
the
Ico
was
and
how.
AI
According
to
the
rules,
people
were
playing
at
the
time
so
from
Genesis,
it's
very
hard
to
know
how
decentralized
eat
the
supply
was,
and
in
some
ways
it
does.
Look
like
a
bunch
of
insiders
are
getting
a
really
big
part
of
the
pie
so
for
the
next
few,
slides
I
really
want
to
do
a
case
study
on
some
of
the
biggest
holders
from
Genesis
and
explain
and
hopefully
show
you
that
we
can
see
a
lot
of
evidence
to
suggest
that
ethereum
supply
has
distributed
a
lot
over
time.
AI
Well,
as
of
March
31st
2022,
the
ethereum
foundation
self-reported
their
financials,
they
said:
hey
everyone
in
the
in
the
in
the
spirit
of
transparency.
Here's
how
much
eth
we
control
today
and
it
you
know
they
they've
they've,
said
and
self-reported
that
they
currently
only
control
about
1.3
billion
dollars
worth
of
eth.
That's
probably
less!
Now
that
Eve
price
has
gone
down.
AI
But
that
represents
0.3
percent
of
total
eat
Supply,
so
we
went
from
12
million
to
now.
0.3
percent
of
total
eat
Supply
and
the
EF
has
has
sold
off
some
of
their
ease
to
hold
other
assets
and
a
lot
of
this
analysis
I
will
you
know,
explain
that
it
depends
on
self-reporting.
It
depends
on
these
individuals,
major
individuals
to
self-report
how
much
eat
they
still
hold.
So
vitalik
has
talked
about
this
openly.
AI
Not
everyone
is
super
altruistic
and
not
everyone
is
going
to
just
like
explain
how
much
eat
they
hold.
So
it's
worth
also
looking
at
some
on-chain
data,
who
are
the
biggest
Ico
recipients.
Well,
the
top
receiving
addressed
from
the
Ico
received
one
million
eth
and
over
time,
outflows
from
that
account
reveals
that
the
funds
have
been
dispersed
to
several
other
accounts.
So
this
this
one
account
that
received
one
million
Eve.
You
can
see
that
they
sent
some
of
that
eats
to
centralized
exchanges.
AI
They
you
know,
invested
in
the
Dow
a
very
Infamous
token
sale
back
in
the
day
that
caused
the
ethereum
classic
creation,
different
smart
contracts
and
a
lot
of
these
flows
actually
converge
to
One
account
tertiary
account,
domain
called
fraternity,
eth
and
that
account
only
currently
holds
about
800
Eads.
Today,
shout
out
to
breadcrumbs
who
was
able
to
create
this
visualization
and
and
be
able
to
track
the
the
flows
out
of
that
account
over
time.
AI
And
similarly,
if
you
do
this
same
exercise
for
the
second
and
the
third
top
accounts
that
receive
the
Ico,
they
received
around
935,
000
each
and
then
933
000,
each
that's
the
second
and
the
third
largest
recipients.
95
of
the
funds
that
they've
received
has
since
been
transferred
over
to
centralized
exchanges.
So
that
basically
means
that
funds
have
been
moved
off
chain.
AI
They
can't
be
really
traced
without
further
supporting
evidence,
but
the
movement
of
funds
to
exchanges
generally
suggests
that
the
funds
have
either
been
sold
or
traded
and
that's
kind
of
like
a
case
study
of
the
three.
AI
But
if
we
take
a
little
bit
more
of
a
broader
look
at
at
all
of
the
where
all
of
the
eth
has
since
flowed
to
this
is
data
that
was
compiled
from
nansen,
but
it
sums
up
the
first
outgoing
transaction
between
2015
and
2018
from
accounts
that
received
eth
from
the
Genesis
plaque,
and
it
shows
that
the
top
10
receiving
entities
it
shows
like
the
top
10
of
like
how
much
eat
they
receive,
and
most
of
them
are
exchanges.
AI
If
you
want
more
supporting
evidence
for
this
idea
that
ethereum
supply
distribution
has
has
changed
over
time
and
how
the
biggest
winners
of
the
proof
of
stake
merge,
most
likely
aren't
the
Ico
recipients
and
early
Founders.
That
report
is
on
galaxy.com,
but
because
of
limited
time,
I
now
want
to
jump
to
showing
you
guys
some
data
around
total
staked
eat
Supply
and
how
we're
seeing
that
data
kind
of
evolve
over
time
and
the
trends
around
State
Supply
that
we're
seeing
over
time.
AI
Great,
so
in
comparison
to
how
much
total
eth
Supply
there
is
only
roughly
12
percent
has
been
staked
on
ethereum,
which
is
kind
of
small,
that's
18.5
billion
dollars
on
ethereum,
and
that's
very
surprising
kind
of
to
me,
because
if
you're
not
staking
your
eat,
you're,
essentially
getting
diluted
and
liquid
staking
Solutions
basically
means
you
don't
have
to
make
that
trade-off
of.
Oh,
if
I
lock
in
my
Eve,
then
I
can't
use
it
for
D5
applications.
AI
It's
it's
surprising
that
it's
only
at
12,
but
that's
probably
because
number
one.
You
can
actually
withdraw
your
steak
right
now.
There
is
a
big
risk
factor
in
that
you
know
Shanghai
we're
not
exactly
sure
which,
when
Shanghai
is
going
to
be
and
up
until
very
recently,
until
last
month
it
was
very
uncertain
when
the
merge
would
actually
happen,
and
there
were
tons
of
risks
associated
with
the
merge
that
probably
made
people
a
little
bit.
Iffy
about
should
I
be
staking
my
eath
into
the
beacon
chain.
AI
So
there
were
core
like
developments
in
the
protocol
that
needed
to
happen
in
order
to
grow
more
confidence
in
staking
your
eat,
and
so
I
actually
suspect.
This
figure
to
start
Rising
now
that
the
merge
has
happened
and
especially
after
Shanghai,
is
complete
and-
and
you
can
see
that
this
trajectory
like
year
over
year,
it's
getting
higher
and
higher
and
if
we're,
if
we
start
to
see
more
total
supply
of
eth,
become
staked.
It's
important
to
ask
the
question
who's
holding
that
eat
and
how
is
that
distribution
changed
over
time?
AI
So
for
the
past
since
2020,
since,
when
the
beacon
chain
started,
you
can
see
that
initially
independent
stakers,
basically
stickers
that
were
not
associated
with
a
staking
provider.
It
was
pretty
high.
AI
It
was
around
70
percent
of
of
of
the
total
steak
eats
the
supply
was
controlled
by
independent
stakers,
but
over
time
we
can
see
very
quickly
that
we're
starting
to
see
more
concentration,
see
the
the
black
to
staking
providers
like
Lido
and
coinbase
and,
of
course
take
some
of
this
data
with
a
grain
of
salt,
because
this
requires
on-chain
address
labeling,
which
is
not
always
an
accurate
science
and
shout
out
to
Hill
Dobby
from
who's
like
a
dune
analytics
wizard,
because
I
basically
took
his
dashboard,
but
so
why?
AI
Why
do
we
see
this
happen?
Why
do
we
see
it
going
from
from
70
to
like
smaller
well
I
think
number
one?
It's,
because
it's
a
lot
easier
to
stake
with
a
staking
provider
than
it
is
to
run
your
own
validator
node,
especially
after
the
merge
with
the
execution
layer,
client
and
the
consensus
layer,
client
and
making
sure
that
those
Communications
happen
in
the
right,
Manner
and
not
getting
slashed.
AI
So
I
think
a
big,
a
big
plus
of
Lido
is.
Is
this
idea
of
liquid
staking
that
you
don't
get
as
an
independent
Staker
and
then?
Finally,
this
is
a
theoretical,
more
theoretical
benefit
of
joining
us,
a
large
staking
pool.
AI
But
theoretically,
if
you
join
a
staking
pool
that
has
control
over
more
than
one
third
of
the
eat
or
like
key
thresholds
like
one
fit
like
one
half
of
the
eve,
then
you
also
have
this
ability
to
theoretically
achieve
outsized
profits
by
deploying
cross
like
multi-block,
multi-block,
Mev
strategies
and
you're
able
to
like
manipulate
block
time
times,
and
do
these
fancy
things
that
you
can
only
do
if
you're,
a
very
large
staking
provider
and
in
those
ways
like
increase
your
reward
so
left.
Unchecked.
AI
I
really
do
think
that
this
trend
of
of
increasingly
centralized
players
dominating
the
staked,
eth,
Arena
I,
think
that's
a
trend
that
we
could
start
to
see
grow
a
lot
stronger
over
time.
If
we
don't
start
talking
about
Solutions
now
so
for
the
the
last
slide.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
some
of
these
Solutions
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
much
into
distributive
validator
technology,
because
that
was
explained
in
much
detail
in
the
last
presentation.
AI
So
the
first
one
it
was
proposed
earlier
this
year
by
Justin,
Drake
and
He,
suggests
the
creation
of
a
liquid
staking
derivative
token
called
LSD,
which
is
the
name
of
drug.
But
it
stands
for
liquid
staking
derivatives,
yes,
and
this
would
basically
allow
independent
node
operators
running
their
own
validators,
as
opposed
to
other
to
that
of
other
users.
AI
You'd
be
able
to
enjoy
the
benefits
of
basically
re-hypothecating
your
assets
without
having
to
rely
on
a
on
a
staking
provider
like
Lido,
and
the
setup
would
really
circumvent
that
need
for
you
to
to
trust
in
a
smart
contract
that
may
contain,
like
smart
contract
risks
and
bugs.
AI
AI
It's
kind
of
hard
to
think
that
liquid's
solo
validating
is
in
ethereum's
near
future,
but
it
is
a
solution
or
a
potential
proposal
that
has
been
discussed
but
I'm
just
saying
that
it
would
require
a
lot
and
there
is
a
lot
on
ethereum's
development
roadmap.
As
you
probably
noticed
from
the
last
presentation.
The
second
one,
which
is
a
more
short-term
solution
that
many
ethereum
community
members
have
been
advocating
for,
is
basically
just
altruistic.
AI
Behavior
from
the
top
staking
protocol,
so
vitalik
was
tweeting
earlier
this
summer
about
this
idea
that
maybe
staking
pools
should
just
altruistically
start
increasing
fees
for
users
if
their
share
of
the
state
to
eat
Supply
goes
above
15
or
maybe
you
know,
the
individuals
like
Lido
should
start
imposing
self-imposing
like
deposit
caps
into
their
smart
contract,
so
that
their
their
portion
of
steak
e
Supply
never
goes
above
like
20
or
25,
and
I
think
that
this
kind
of
Goodwill
Behavior
might
seem
very
laughable,
at
least,
but
it's
it's
happened
time
and
time
again
on
ethereum's
protocol
for
other
for
other
issues.
AI
So
Mev
is
a
really
great
example
where
we
saw
a
lot
of
altruistic
behavior
from
from
Key
ecosystem
players
before
ethereum
merged.
There
was
ethermine,
which
was
the
largest
ethereum
mining
pool
by
hash
power,
and
they
publicly
tweeted
about
refraining
from
Mev
opportunities
that
don't
align
with
the
ethos
of
the
ethereum
community.
Out
of
support
for
the
longevity
of
the
protocol,
so
they're
basically
leaving
money
on
the
table,
not
interacting
with
certain
memory
strategies,
because
it's
just
bad
and
they're
not
going
to
do
that.
AI
Flashbots
recently,
tweeted
we're
gonna
start
giving
blocks
to
other
relays
because
we
just
want
to
bootstrap
other
relays,
and
we
want
to
help
out
the
ecosystem,
ethereum,
2.0,
client,
diversity,
exit
consensus,
layer,
client
diversity,
even
though
not
all
teams
are
like
have
the
same
resources
and
they
have
the
same
track
record
for
performance.
They
were
was
a
huge
Push
by
the
community
to
just
encourage
minority
clients
to
gain
more
user
adoption.
AI
So
time
and
time
again
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
altruistic,
Behavior,
encouraged
and
I
actually
hate
this
kind
of
solution
of
just
like
relying
and
encouraging
the
altruism
of
ecosystem
players
to
keep
ethereum
safe,
but
I
put
it
on
the
slide
because
it's
worked
for
other
Solutions
before
and
we've
seen
examples
of
it
happening
on
ethereum,
and
it
was.
It
was
one
of
the
proposals
around
this
topic
for
how
we
want
to
see
steak,
eth
being
more
decentralized
over
time
and
then
the
final
one
is
distributed.
AI
Validator
technology
I
won't
go
too
deeply
into
it
because
again
it
was
talked
about
in
the
last
slide.
But
this
I
will
also
specify
is
a
research.
An
active
research
initiative,
opal
and
SSV
are
two
of
like
the
few
projects
in
this
ecosystem.
That's
really
trying
to
make
DVT
a
reality
and
I
didn't
really
in
this
presentation,
go
much
into
how
Mev
boost
is
actually
changing.
AA
Hi,
how
are
you,
how
do
you
imagine
the
role
of
Latin
America
in
terms
of
decentralizing,
the
the
upper
feet?
I
mean
or
not
the
alphabet,
the
staking
of
it.
AI
So
I
think
the
fact
that
we're
having
this
conference
here
and
the
fact
that
we're
talking
more
about
ethereum
in
other
areas
of
the
world
that
maybe
many
developers
haven't
ever
interacted
with,
haven't
ever
come
to
visit
and
know
like
more
of
the
population
here
and
more
of
the
ways
in
which
yeah
we
can
have
more
validator
node
operators,
independent
staking
node
operators
from
Latin,
America
I,
think
that
would
contribute
significantly
to
the
security
and
the
decentralization
of
ethereum.
AI
So
I
think
it's
really
great
that
we're
talking
about
this
here
and
that
we
have
a
great
audience
of
of
people
who
can
bring
other
perspectives
and
other
ideas
so
that
it's
not
all.
From
a
perspective
of
like
you
know,
we
were
all
educated
from
like
universities,
out
of
like
North
America,
but
many
like
different
ideas,
so
Yes
actually.
H
H
H
AJ
AJ
AJ
H
H
H
AJ
H
AJ
H
A
really
hot
topic,
so,
if
you
guys
want
to
be
here
in
the
front
row
just
like
sit
on
the
floor,
we
want
to
maximize
the
room,
still
be
safe
so,
and
this
is
going
to
be
interesting
talk.
This
is
not
Mev.
It's
the
title
for
this
one
and
the
next
one
is.
This:
is
med,
so
I
will
do
a
quick
poll.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you
plan
to
stay
for
the
next
one
whoa.
H
Has
another
talk
that
they
want
to
really
attend
and
you're
going
to
get
outside
just
one,
so
it's
going
to
be
full
full
room
yeah,
let's
try
to
fit
as
much
people
as
we
can.
Maybe
here
you
can
sit
down.
AB
AB
B
E
AB
H
AJ
AK
U
AJ
U
AJ
H
AJ
Welcome.
Thank
you
all
for
coming.
A
friend
of
mine
recently
shared
this
picture
with
me
with
the
label
Mev.
AJ
AJ
AJ
Despite
this,
I
would
argue
that
we're
not
100
sure
of
what
mov
even
means-
and
this
is
a
poll
from
last
year
so
which
of
the
following
is
not
Mev
right.
There
seems
to
be
rough
consensus
around
front
running,
but
much
less
so
around
transaction
fees,
liquidation
rewards
and,
like
all
of
these
RMB,
it's
fairly
very
evenly
split.
AJ
This
one
is
more
recent
right,
like
the
the
last
year
from
last
year
to
this
year,
there
has
been
many
developments.
As
you
all
know,
this
is
a
recent
one.
From
last
month
our
block
rewards
a
form
of
Mev.
This
is
pretty
impressive,
it's
almost
half
and
half
right,
so
it's
really
a
contentious
concept
right.
AJ
This
is
a
perhaps
a
more
trolley
one
conference.
Swag
is
a
form
of
Mev.
I
won't
go
through
this
chart.
It's
a
lot
of
fun.
I,
encourage
you
all
to
check
it
out
and
essentially
there's
two
Dimensions
that
are
taking
into
account
here.
One
is
a
value,
and
one
is
extraction
so,
depending
on
where
you
sit
on,
each
of
these
variables
is
yeah
what
you
should
consider
Mev
or
not,
and
but
are
these
the
only
Dimensions
that
are
relevant
right?
So
again,
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
a
lot
of
consensus.
AJ
I
hope
nobody
got
robbed,
I
really
hope
so,
but
yeah
so
I
think
this
meme
illustrates
is
also
my
favorite
meme
form
it's
not
mine
by
the
way,
but
I
think
it's
a
it
illustrates
what
I'm
trying
to
to
get
through
to
you
and
today
right
like
so,
we've
been
calling
MV
a
lot
of
things,
and
so
in
this
talk,
so
in
my
work
in
trying
to
formalize
Mev
I've
been
argued
that
there's
no
consensus
on
a
formal
definition
of
Meb
and
there's
many
around
there
and
we're
using
different
things
and
and
it's
hard
to
come
up
with
a
formula
but
in
in
doing
work
for
this
talk,
I
realize
that
there's
not
even
consensus
on
on
the
concept
right
on
the
intuition
of
what
we
want
to
call
Mev.
AJ
So
in
this
talk,
I
want
to
go
through
different
ideas
and
say
why
many
of
these
are
not
a
movie
and
and
crucially,
this
talk
is
tightly
coupled
together
with
my
friend
Shin
stock.
Next,
who
will
tell
you
what
actually
is
I
mean
so
encourage
you
to
stay
he's
going
to
roast
me
and
tell
you
why
the
things
I
tell
you
now
are
actually
wrong,
so
you
should
definitely
stay.
You
want
to
be
a
bit
of
a
shorter
talk
and
he's
he's.
AJ
Y
AJ
Let's
get
going
so
yeah,
oh
I
forgot
I
have
like
a
cool
animation,
transparency;
okay,
just
a
decision
stock.
Okay,
let's
get
going
so
we're
gonna
start
with
like
a
trivial
example
right
is
Mev
is
the
the
are
all
the
things
that
are
maybe
also
and
all
the
things
that
are
value
right.
This
value
the
same
as
Mev
right.
This
is
a
trivial
example.
We
can
easily
argue
that
this
is
not
the
case
or
the
small
to
Mev
than
to
any
value.
AJ
You
can
think
of
picking
up
a
one
dollar
bill
out
of
on
the
street
right.
We
wouldn't
want
to
call
that
Mev.
Hopefully
you
all
agree,
but
this
is
still
value
right.
So
again,
this
is
a
trivial
example,
but
just
to
set
the
stage
of
the
type
of
argument
I'm
going
to
be
doing
and
critically.
This
is
all
intuitions.
There's
no
proofs
here,
I'm,
not
just
trying
to
hone
in
a
concept
and
it's
up
to
all
of
us
what
we
decide
to
call
me
right.
AJ
It's
a
matter
of
choice
and
there's
no
like
again
proofs
here,
okay,
so
first
non-trivial
example
is
Mev
equal
to
the
set
of
value
on
the
blockchain
right.
So
if
you,
you
think
of
the
definition,
the
original
definition
in
the
flash
floods
2.0
Paper-
and
there
was
like
value
that
can
be
extracted
by
miners
by
censoring
reordering
transactions.
So
there's
a
lot
of
blockchain
Concepts
there
right
transactions,
miners
Etc.
So
so
it
might
well
be
that
okay,
what
we're
calling
Mev
is
nothing
else
than
value
on
the
blockchain
and
sure
enough.
AJ
There's
things
that
are
value
on
the
blockchain
that
are
also
Mev.
Arbs
are
one
of
them
and
I'm
going
to
be
using
Arps
like
a
canonical
example
of
family
Arts
like
talking
about
Arbitrage
on
a
blockchain,
for
instance
right,
but
are
there
things
that
are
value
in
a
blockchain
that
are
not
Mev?
Well
here
one
could
argue
that,
okay,
if
I,
do
a
simple
if
transfer
right
and
then
the
miner
has
no
way
to
extract
that.
So
we
can
call
that
value
in
the
blockchain
that
it's
not
Mev.
AJ
AJ
How
about
the
other
side
right-
and
let
me
also
say
that
mostly
for
the
question
of
this
is
not
Mev.
We're
going
to
be
thinking
on
the
right
side
of
this
slide
slide
the
inclusion
of
the
pink
set
on
the
in
the
in
the
white
set,
but
we're
going
to
find
interesting
things
along
the
way
on
the
left
hand,
side
too
right.
So
we're
gonna
also
comment
a
bit
on
those.
So
in
this
case,
is
there
Mev?
That's
not
a
value
on
the
blockchains.
AJ
This
is
again
a
matter
of
choice
right,
but
I
would
argue
that
we
are
striving
for
a
more
abstract
General
concept
than
value
and
that's
strictly
on
the
blockchain
I,
don't
see
any
anything
special
about
blockchains
in
terms
of
value.
Blockchains
are
certainly
special
in
terms
of
coordinating
devices,
but
I
don't
see
them
as
like
again
providing
value
a
characteristic.
That's
so
special
right,
so
in
general
we
would
like
to
think
of
any
via
something
more
General
and-
and
here
the
canonical
example
you
can
think
of-
is
a
centralized
Exchange
in
a
centralized
exchange.
AJ
You
have
all
the
orders
coming
and
the
operator
can
decide
to
extract
value
from
users
like
Robin
Hood.
Does
that's
the
Robinhood
business
model
right?
So
we
might
want
to
call
that
mevn
matter
of
definition.
You
might
not
agree,
feel
free
to
come
and
chat
if
you
don't,
but
in
principle
or
whatever.
Perhaps
we
want
that
one
subtle
Point
here
is
that
we
might
need
this
if
we
start
quantifying,
centralized
exchange
versus
the
centralized
exchange
art
right.
AJ
So
if
we
have
value
flowing
in
and
out
of
the
blockchain,
then
maybe
when
we
start
quantifying
this,
this
kind
of
Arbitrage
and
so
on,
we
might
need
to
call
that
Mev
if
we
want
and
like
the
the
whole
calculation
to
be
sound
right.
So,
okay,
so
value
on
the
blockchain
doesn't
seem
like
it's
the
best
candidate
for
our
concept
of
Mev.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one
is
Mev
the
same
as
front
running
right.
AJ
Okay,
we
start
with
the
intersection
of
these
sets
trivially
arbs
again,
as
we
saw
I'm
gonna,
use
all
results
here
and
the
first
leg
of
a
sandwich.
For
instance,
you
can
think
of
it
as
an
ARB.
This
is
clearly
a
movie.
This
is
clearly
from
running
okay.
How
we'll
start
with
the
left
side
here
and
also
obvious
Point,
there's
clearly
nav,
that's
not
from
running
you
can
think
of
back
running
trivially
or
reorgs
other
things.
AJ
Okay,
so
here
are
the
tricky
parties
on
the
right
side
are
all
things
that
are
from
running
Mev,
okay
and
thinking
from
running
here.
Is
you
learn
some
information
from
other
parties
and
then
you
like
are
faster
than
the
other
in
Catching
or
capturing.
That
value
is
that
anyway,
again
the
rugby
example
in
the
first
and
slide
right.
So
here
you
can.
You
can
take
two
paths,
you
can
say:
okay,
let's
look
at
the
rugby
example.
AJ
Okay,
maybe
I
don't
want
to
call
that
Mev,
even
if
it
has
a
characteristic
of
like
you
know,
being
faster
than
than
the
other
person,
and
and
so
there
has
to
be
something
else
for
us
to
call
being
early
I
mean
because
being
early
again
doesn't
have
that
much
to
do
with
the
structure
of
of
the
value
itself,
and
so
here,
okay,
what's
the
missing
part
here,
perhaps
we
can
think
of
a
coordinator,
a
coordinator
that
is
doing
the
allocations
of
value
right
and
and
in
the
rugby
there's
no
really
meaningful
coordinator.
AJ
You
can
think
of
I,
don't
know
gravity
as
a
coordinator,
but
it's
a
coordinator
that
cannot
extract
it's
like
a
dumb
coordinator.
So
here,
if
you
have
a
smarter
coordinator,
what
happens
is
that
the
game
theory
gets
more
interesting
right,
so
the
Mev
concept
becomes
much
richer,
so
so
here,
okay,
this
is
one
path
you
can
go
down
and
you
can
say:
okay,
not
all
front
running
is
Mev
because
for
it
to
be
Meb
we
need
some
extra
player.
So
this
is
perfectly
fine.
AJ
AJ
Okay.
So
this
again
question
is
the
set
of
things
are
from
running
included
in
the
set
of
things
that
are
mov
and
we'll
get
back
to
this
at
the
very
okay.
Next
Set
is
Mev
and
the
set
of
things
that
are
maybe
equal
to
a
set
of
things
that
are
permissionless
value
to
your
example
in
Center
Arps
right.
This
is
permissionless.
Anybody
can
make
an
ARP,
and
it's
also
Mev
canonical
example
of
Mev.
So
that's
fine.
AJ
So
when
I
work
with
definitions
and
formalization
of
Mev
I
argued
for
the
importance
of
permissionlessness
in
the
in
the
definition,
because
there
were
many
definitions
out
there
that
included
the
notion
of
a
player
that
can
extract
a
value.
But
this
is
very
tricky
and
It's
tricky,
because
you
can
think
of
an
example
where
you
have
an
airdrop
right.
AJ
You
have
an
airdrop,
that's
only
entitled
to
you
and
when
you
are
going
to
clean
the
airdrop
The
Miner
cannot
do
anything
right,
so
there's
no
way
that
Miner
can
steal
that
value
from
you,
so
I
would
say.
Okay
permissionless
looks
like
it's
important
in
the
in
the
concept
of
Mev,
although
if
you
think
of
an
artist
to
an
example
say
you
have
an
inner
drop,
which
you
can
only
claim
at
a
specific
block.
AJ
Height
and
say
that
the
proposal
of
that
block
knows
about
this,
so
then
they
can
credibly
extort
you
and
tell
you,
look
if
you
don't
give
me
a
share
of
the
airdrop.
I
won't
include
your
transaction
right,
so
then,
okay,
after
all,
there
might
be
some
mov
character
toys,
this
extortion
capability
of
of
the
coordinator
right-
and
this
might
look
like
a
very
contorted
example.
AJ
Okay,
after
all,
is
there
any
airdrop
that
it's
only
valid
for
one
block,
but
if
you
think
like
a
little
bit
deeper
on
this,
and
if
you
use
some
numbers
you
can
think
of
the
earlier
ether
transfer
and
from
the
the
the
earlier
slide
and
there,
if
you
have
a
collusion
of,
say
10
of
the
validators,
they
could,
in
principle
extort
you
for
0.4
for
four
percent
of
the
value
and
shin
has
run
these
calculations
right.
So
0.4
percent
of
the
value
is
a
lot
right.
AJ
It's
more
or
less
the
same
as
the
fees
that
you
have.
You
pay
like
swapping
on
uni
swap
or
whatever.
So
actually
this
example-
and
that
looks
contorted
is
not,
and
could
very
well
happen
right.
So
extortion
is
a
real
thing.
Okay,
that's
again
for
the
left
side
on
the
right
side.
This
is
not
too
interesting.
We
have
the
example.
I
gave
you
earlier
of
the
dollar
bill,
you
pick
up
a
dollar
bill,
that's
permissionless
value
and
that's
arguably
not
Mev,
but
okay.
That's
an
example.
AJ
That's
outside
of
the
blockchain,
so
perhaps
we
want
to
consider
permissionless
value
on
the
blockchain
how
this
set
of
things.
Okay,
the
two
examples
I
gave
you
for
the
intersection
and
for
the
Mev
side
are
on
the
blockchain.
So
we
know
this
exists
in
principle.
So
how
about
the
other
side?
Are
there
things
that
are
permissionless
value
on
the
blockchain
that
are
not
Mev?
AJ
This
is
a
question
for
you.
Actually,
I
haven't
found
an
example.
So
if
you
can
come
up
with
an
example
again
of
things
that
are
permissionless
value
on
the
blockchain
that
you
wouldn't
call
Mev,
please
let
me
know
and
we
can
sort
out
that
set
inclusion
and
there.
So
this
is
a
one
candidate
set
to
consider
for
characterizing
or
half
characterizing
it.
Maybe
if
you
will
okay,
thanks
for
bearing
with
me,
we've
been
through
a
lot
of
like
Venn
diagrams.
AJ
This
is
the
last
one:
okay,
how
about
value
extractable
by
a
monopolistic
coordinator
again,
I've
argued
sorry.
I
have
argued
for
the
importance
of
a
coordinator
and
because
it
changes
the
game
theory,
it
makes
it
more
fun.
So,
here
again
critically,
the
coordinator
needs
to
be
able
to
extract
for
that
game
theory
to
be
richer.
It
has
to
be
monopolistic
because
also
for
the
extortion
I
showed
you
before.
If,
if
it's
on
the
monopolistic,
then
this
doesn't
work
so
in
the
intersection.
We
have
the
same
example
as
before.
AJ
AJ
Okay,
so
how
the
left
side
are
things
that
are
Mev
and
that
are
not
value
extracted
by
a
monopolistic
coordinator,
and
here
it
depends
on
your
earlier
choice
on
the
arbit
room
example
right
the
front
running
example:
okay,
if
you
decided
to
call
arbitrum
arbs
that
type
of
front
running
Mev,
then
this
is
an
example
of
an
element
here
right
because
it's
not
value
extracted
by
a
ballistic
coordinator,
but
you're
still
choosing
to
call
it
Mev
again
a
choice.
Finally,
let's
look
at
the
RSI.
AJ
Is
there
value
extractable
by
a
monopolistic
coordinator?
That
is
not
mov?
Can
you
find
examples
of
this
I
haven't
so
again
a
challenge
to
you
all.
Please
come
talk
to
me.
If
you
find
an
example
in
this
set
there
and
again,
we
can
sort
out
this.
This
question
here,
Okay,
so
we've
dealt
with
the
concept
of
Mev.
We
came
up
with
three
sets
that
look
like
might
always
be
Mev.
This
is,
of
course,
not
a
full
characterization,
just
to
sum
up
value
extractor
via
monopolistic
coordinator
front,
running
permissionless
value
on
the
blockchain.
AJ
This
is
quite
an
unfortunate
picture.
I
would
argue
right
because
there's
these
three
disjoint
sets
and
how
are
they
related
to
each
other?
This
doesn't
look
like
a
unified
theory
of
nav
right.
One
would
ideally
like
to
have
a
more
concise
idea
of
what
Mev
is
right,
and
these
are
only
if
at
all,
partial
characterizations.
So
what
come
in
the
talk
that
comes
next
Sheen
is
going
to
share
a
little
bit
of
that
and
try
to
come
up
with.
AJ
This
was
more
like
an
outside
in
exploration
of
the
idea
of
emulation,
he's
going
to
share
inside
out
a
more
constructive
way
to
think
cohesively
about
Mev
and
so
again.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
coming.
I
appreciate
you
all
being
here.
W
H
AB
AJ
AA
AJ
H
Let's
try
to
feed
at
least
eight
more.
Do
you
think
we
can
make
it?
Maybe
that's
where
we
can
do
some
sacrifice.
E
E
E
E
AL
J
H
AJ
H
H
AH
Yeah
so
from
the
last
talk
we
get
we
arrive
at
this
slide
and
having
a
test
for
non-ammy
v
news.
But
in
this
talk
I'm
done
talk
about
you
know
sorry
about
this
formulation
of
a
movie
is
mid
so
specifically
what
it
means.
Why?
Because
it's
like
a
party
guy,
you
know
a
guy
at
the
corner
of
a
party
saying
they
don't
know.
This
is
not
me,
while
the
other
people,
all
of
us
are
like.
Yes,
we
know
and
we
don't
care
it's
a
good
Meme
and
it's
you
know.
Memes
are
important.
AH
Memes
are
more
important
than
you
know,
arguably
many
other
scenes
in
our
life
and
then,
but
there
is
also
another
extreme
in
the
community
vouching
for
a
formalization
of
family
right.
AH
So
some
common
pitfalls
on
this
on
the
world
on
the
definition
of
the
word,
and
maybe
is
that
we
give
up
on
the
clarity
of
the
notion
we
over
formalize
it
such
that
we
lose
some
memes
right
with.
It
is
no
longer
a
mean
term
and
it's
lost
in
and
we
are
getting
lost
in
the
detail
of
the
real
value
of
defining
moves.
So
in
this
talk,
I
will
give
a
clear
definition
of
family
that
points
to
a
solution.
AH
Two
points
clearly
to
the
solution:
recipes
that
how
we
should
solve
Mev
and
I'm
not
gonna,
give
a
mid
curve
formalization
nor
am
I
abandoning
our
means.
So
what
is
Mev
so
by
the
end
of
the
talk
you
will
see
that
Mev
is
Al,
Capone,
evil,
deity
and
Lewis
the
16th.
So
this
is
a
maybe.
AH
Yeah
so
so
to
start,
we
see
that
so
so
why
Al
Capone's
Mafia
is
Mev
so
because
Mafia
extractable
value
you
know,
vcm
arises
from
arises
when
one
agent
or
Collision
of
Agents
gains
an
asymmetric
knowledge
of
another
agent's
private
information.
So
this
condition
sounds
really
exists
on
a
symmetric
sophistication
between
agents.
So
very
easy
examples
include
sandwich
internal
as
brown
running
or
in
traditional
Finance.
AH
We
see
that
people
trading
one
strategy
is
actually
people
trading
on
the
limit,
other
books
imbalance
so
which
is
essentially
a
form
of
One
agent,
gaining
knowledge
of
another
agent's
utility
or
intent
right.
When
you
see
more
bid
than
us
on
the
books,
then
you
take
the
best
us
and
you
make
the
best
bit
so
the
evil
deities
are
more
like.
Why
is
it
I
mean
so
monologue
is
terrible.
Value
is
a
value
that
was
surrendered
to
the
malloc
I
on
coordination
within
your
mechanism,
your
allocation
mechanisms
for
people's
preferences.
AH
AH
So
you
have
a
kind
of
a
shrink
transaction
quality
trilemma,
and
there
are
of
course
many
other
examples
for
so,
for
example,
in
the
traditional
high
frequency
trading
arms
race
example,
people
the
mark,
the
cost
that
market
maker
spends
on
arms
race
gaining
latency
advantages
was
channeled
as
charging
higher
spreads
for
users,
so
the
externality
is
transferred
from
sophisticated
agents
to
unsophisticated
TKD
agents.
There
are
some
other
examples,
and
so
finally
Louis
xixteen
Monarch.
AH
Why
is
him
and
maybe
so
Monarch
his
travel
value
arises
from
the
fact
that
the
coordinator,
so,
for
example,
the
sequencer
or
the
validator
has
the
ultimate
power
of
deciding
what
the
ordering
or
the
allocation
of
specification
on
status.
So
by
specification
on
state
I
specifically
mean
which
specification
or
property
does
the
next
day
satisfy
you
can
for
those
of
you
familiar
with
programming
languages,
you
can
see
that
this
directly
links
into
the
you
know,
formal
verification.
You
have
a
program
and
the
specification
that
the
next
state
must
satisfy.
AH
So
then
we
can
see
that
Mev
arises
from
three
distinct
properties:
the
Mafia,
the
malloc
and
the
Monarch.
So
now
a
little
bit
more
formalized
suppose
that
m
is
the
monarching.
Our
units
versus
or
our
game
e
and
w
is
the
social
welfare
function.
Then
we
know
that
the
monologue
kick
straddle
value
equals
the
welfare
that
is
achievable
by
the
best
possible
mechanism
for
our
game
to
allocate
specification
on
State
minus
welfare
of
the
current
Monarch
and
the
monarchy.
V
equals
to
the
welfare
of
the
current
Monarch
minus
the
welfare
that
that
already
existed.
AH
You
know
in
the
original
game
in
without
our
current
Monarch
has
a
coordinators.
You
can
see
those
closely
tied
to
the
idea
of
externalities
right
and
then
from
our
definition.
We
know
immediately
that
monarchy,
V,
plus
monologue
extractable
value,
equals
the
welfare
of
the
best
possible
mechanism
in
our
in
our
game,
minus
the
welfare
of
the
original
game.
So
so
it
equals
the
constant
right.
So
it
is
so
Marlo
QV,
plus
monarchy.
AH
V
is
innate
to
the
game
e
and
does
not
depend
on
our
choice
of
the
mechanism
and
and
finally
defining
a
mafia.
Ev
is
a
little
bit
harder
harder,
but
the
intuition
in
the
mafia,
if
it
depends
on
the
specific
sophistication
details
or
the
power
of
agents
that
is
existent
in
m.
So
what
this
means
is
that
how
much
exposed
knowledge
or
last
look
One
agent
can
have
over
other
agents
or
their
coalitions.
So
then
we
can
see
that
those
three
values
have
very
have
distinct
sources
and
those
sources
of
value
are
non-overlapping.
AH
Thus
we
can
call
them.
You
know
our
new
definition.
Collectively,
three
EV
Mafia
monologue,
Monarch
extractable
value.
You
know
it
forms
the
sum
type,
it's
perfection,
so
then,
from
what
this
implies.
Is
that
the
resolution
recipe
right,
it's
futurist
in
our
hands.
We
know
that
a
mafia
plus
model
plus
Monarch
is
100
of
the
Mev
and
that
monarchy,
V
plus
monarchy
V,
equals
to
a
constant,
depending
only
on
the
original
game.
But
the
percentage
of
malloc
versus
Monarch
depends
on
M
our
our
choice
of
the
mechanism.
AH
So
you
can
already
see
that
there
is
a
nice
link
with
the
notional
price
of
Anarchy
In
traditional
mechanism
design
here
right,
although
in
traditional
mechanism
design,
of
course,
like
the
you
know,
there
are
theories
you
want
bonds,
so
they
have,
and
so
they
Define
price
of
energy
as
like
the
division.
But
now
we
are
interested
in
values,
so
you
know
I
kind
of
Define
it
as
difference
and
then
finally,
we
can
see
that
Mafia
UV
is
also
a
constant
depending
our
choice
of
M.
AH
So
since
the
sources
are
distinct,
we
can
adjust
the
percentage
of
the
three
variants
of
MAV
by
transforming
one
form
of
Mev
into
another,
but
in
our
designing
of
a
better
mechanism.
App
so
I
argue
that,
ideally,
we
should
have
zero
percent
Mafia
zero
percent
monologue
and
100
Monarch,
where
the
Monarch's
profits
are
distributed.
AH
It's
not
recoverable,
and
nor
is
it
redistributable
so
then,
and
why
100
Monarch
with
redistribution
is
that
if
there
is
no
redistribution
to
the
Monarch,
then
then
the
100
Monarch
EV
on
the
erode
the
incentive
for
people
to
use
your
mechanism
right
because
you're
essentially
creating
reintroducing
the
value
that
they
would
have
paid
to
the
monologue
by
having
them
pay
to
the
Monarch.
Instead,
so
there's
a
different,
you
can
see
there's
so
users
would
be
indifferent
between
paying
to
the
monologue
in
the
original
game
and
paying
to
the
monarchy
in
The
Meta
game.
AH
So
you
know
this
kind
of
violates
the
individual
rationality
guarantees.
So
then
there
are,
of
course,
some
caveats
as
to
our
choice
of
Monarch
and
our
definition.
So
as
we
can
see
that
the
welfare
of
the
game
without
the
mechanism
depends
on
E
right.
So
now
we
assume
that
the
mechanism
represents
a
domain
or
a
builder
or
some
just
some
Coalition
of
Agents.
Then
we
can
give
a
kind
of
and
have
a
notion
of
Internet
domain
correlation
Factor
K,
where
k
equals
one
if
the
mechanism
is
monopolistic
across
all
domains.
AH
So
here
we
are
kind
of
cheating
a
bit.
We
are
including
time
as
another
domain,
so
K
is
kind
of
like,
and
this
content
and
dimensional
preference
curve
and
an
example
of
the
prismic
curve.
You
can
see
on
the
top
right
corner
and
then
k
equals
zero.
If
the
mechanism
is
powerless,
so
then
what
this
implies
is
that
by
forming
a
larger
Collision
means
the
equation
has
a
higher
K
and
this
enables
them
to
do
more,
credible
extortions.
AH
So
what
this
means
is
that
the
Monarch
extra
value
for
your
Collision
of
Agents,
you
know
forming
the
mechanism
m,
equals
to
K
multiplied
by
the
original
monarchy
if
M
and
minus
and
forms
a
grand
Coalition.
So
then,
of
course
this
implies.
The
users
can
also
be
the
Monarch
if
they
have
a
large
enough
K
right
and
similar
probability,
researchers
or
Builders.
AH
You
can
imagine
different
mechanisms
than
what
is
currently
being
played
in
the
Mev
field,
so
essentially
the
interdomain
correlation
Factor
represents
your
collective
bargaining
power,
which
determines
how
the
Monarch
is
set
up,
who
we
thrown
as
the
king
and
how
the
Monarch
is
set
up
within
the
game.
AH
So
then,
however,
the
okay,
so
so
there
are
some
caveats
to
the
choice.
You
know
how
much
coalitions
can
you
have
right?
So
you
can
imagine
this
formalized
as
a
corporate
game
where
the
core
of
the
game
might
not
exist
if
we
have
too
many
inter
inter
domain
correlations.
So
this
kind
of
reminds
us,
as
the
you
know,
original
notion
of
there
exists
anatomicity
of
coordination
and
in
and
efficiency-
and
this
also
relates
back
to
you-
know
a
notion.
AH
I
would
like
to
call
the
incompleteness
theorem
of
Meb
ratio,
so
you
can
see
that
the
game
e
cannot
continue
if
there
is
not
enough
competition.
What
this
means
is
that
you
can
increase
the
coordination,
but
it
does
not
always
increase
if
efficiency
of
the
allocation
in
reality
and
even
if
you
try
to
eliminate
the
efficiencies
caused
by
your
extra
coordination
by
using
some
another
credible
commitment
or
coordination
device
in
The
Meta
game,
then
you're
just
transferring
the
monologue,
its
credible
value
in
the
original
game
to
the
Monarch
in
the
rapt
game
right.
AH
So
this
kind
of
provides
a
ground
for
us
to
refill
any.
You
know
previous
ideas
by
Virgil
Griffiths
and
his
whole
ethereum
as
game
changing
technology
argument.
So
then
the
coming
back
to
this,
the
specific
value
of
the
correlation,
Factor
K,
depends
on
how
we
set
up
the
game.
We
can
throw
out
these
from
different
monarchs.
Ultimately,
we
want
to
choose
the
best
mechanism
and
start
that
is
most
incentive
along
with
long-term
prosperity,
and
it
is
most
capable
of
coordination.
So
you
can
see
there's
a
trade-off
over
here
and,
of
course
like.
AH
Why
do
we
want
a
manner?
Why
do
we
need
this
meme
right?
Why
can't
we
just
go
the
formalization
route?
You
know
for
formalization
throwing
Mass
equations.
So
the
reason
for
this
monarchy
abstraction
is
because
the
outcome
in
contrary
to
traditional
mechanisms
and
the
outcome
in
Mev
is
not
common
knowledge
and
depends
on
each
agent's
private
information,
which
the
other
agent
don't
have
priority.
Don't
have
priority
to
the
Mev
time,
which
is
the
allocation
time
or
like
block
building
time.
AH
So
it
is
hard
to
analyze
the
equivalence
in
this
game,
especially
when
there
is
exists
and
a
smear
as
symmetry
in
the
sophistication
of
Agents.
So
thus
we
reduce
the
guarantee
of
of
our
mechanism
to
just
have
some
some
bounce,
like
some
some
loose
bounds
on
the
incentive,
compatibility
and
the
individual
rationale.
AH
So
then,
now
to
concretize
things,
we
provide
some
case
studies.
So
specifically,
we
say
that
there's
we
know
that
there
has.
It
has
been
vanilla.
First,
come
first
serve
and
frequent
batch
auction
style.
First
come
first,
where
we
increase
the
fairness
granularity
within
the
receive
other
fairness
protocols.
So
what
it
specifically
means
is
that
instead
of
reporting
a
strict
ordering
by
the
receive
all
the
time
of
the
transaction,
each
individual
node
now
reports
a
partial
ordering
to
the
leader
of
the
ordering
consensus
protocol.
AH
So
what
this
concrete
means
is
that
you
know
you
just
take
the
smaller
than
to
smaller
or
equal
to
and
then
after
aggregating,
each
individual
knowledge
preference,
the
Monarch
in
this
case
the
leader
with
consensus
protocol
gets
a
week
ordering
by
first
come
first
serve
and
then
there's.
Of
course,
we
know
there
there
must
exist
some
other
batches
in
it,
which
is
caused
both
by
the
condorsal
paradoxes
and
the
initial
partial
has
been
reported
by
each
individual
node.
So
now
the
Monarch
tries
to
resolve
the
order
of
the
on
or
the
batches
using
auctions
right.
AH
So
this
is
why
it's
free
from
bash
auction
and
then
in
reality.
Why
is
this
model
like?
Let's
speak
into
some
datas?
We
see
that
in
reality
is
over.
65
of
the
unit
volume
is
comes
from.
Arbitrage
is
you
know,
maybe
statistical
and
among
the
other
35,
it's
a
big,
a
few
few
market
makers.
So
what
this
means
is
that
the
Mev
activity
constitutes
a
huge
amount
of
ethereum
activity
and
the
burst
period
on
ethereum,
which
arises
from
public
information
review.
AH
So,
for
example,
some
price
discoveries
happen,
some
binance
or
some
people,
some
wells
and
unprotected
transaction
into
the
public
member.
Then,
once
once
this
kind
of
event
happens,
it
takes
around
1.2
seconds
then,
and
75
of
the
conflict
of
preferences
on
ethereum
conflict
presence
is
meaning
that
there
is
a
conflict
within
what
specifications
should
the
next
day
satisfy?
You
know
it
happens
less
than
four
percent
of
the
time,
and
so
this
means
that
vanilla
first
come
first
serve
compared
with
frequent
batch
auction.
AH
First
compressor
will
be
bearing
the
extra
negative
externalities
which
cause
worse
ux,
higher
fees
for
users
or
centralization
in
the
nodes,
from
12x
more
conflict
of
preferences.
So
you
know,
bursts
of
periods
for
preferences
are
significant
and
just
adding
some
partial
ordering
just
covering
that
little
four
percent
window
you
can
mitigate
most
of
the
negative
externalities
on
the
domain.
You
can
take
value
back
from
the
monologue
right.
AH
So
if
we
use
the
three
EV
framework
to
compare
those
two
protocols,
we
can
see
that
they
have
the
same
Mafia
right
and
and
for
marlocks
the
the
first.
The
vanilla
version
has
much
more
monologue
because
the
vanilla
version
nobody
can
express
their
preferences
in
a
short
burst
period,
which
constitutes
most
of
the
activity
right.
So
so
the
monologue
arises
from
the
tribute
to
the
monologue
arises
from
on
coordination
and
then
Ultra
simplify
social
Choice
function.
AH
Right
we
have
the
social
Choice
function,
it's
like
I,
all
or
like
I
choose
to
preference
by
the
other,
I
receive
them
that
does
not
coordinate
any
of
the
burst
period,
Mev
right
and
then
burst
period,
and
maybe
you
know
typical
cases
include
like
permission,
SMU
price,
Discovery
autom
so
and
then
so,
as
you
can
see
from
the
graph
on
the
right
right
like
we
are
transforming
the
mafia
slowly
into
the
model,
of
course,
where
the
value
is
transferred
to
the
user.
AH
So
if
the
users
have
the
same
payoff,
you
know
same
bad
payoff
and
then
from
the
Monarch.
It's
strictly
worse
right,
but
better
definition,
but
also
vanilla
versions,
run
the
ROM
on
work
right.
So
in
in
latency
games
you
pay
more
to
AWS
or
Google
Cloud,
because
you
know
you
need
to
play
this
latency
games
and
SAS
and
the
Monarch
you
know.
Google
and
Amazon
are
obviously
nothing
incentive
aligned
with
crypto
or
like
whichever
domain
you
adopt
your
audience
for
the
Quran
and,
of
course,
it's
more
centralized
because
comma
is
like
fan.
AH
Okay,
so
now
com,
some
some
concrete
examples.
Let's
see
you
know
transformation
of
three
if
it
does
really
actually
capture
most
of
the
existing
and
maybe
Notions
that
we
have
so
for
transforming
Mala
to
Monarch.
We
see
that
one
form
of
this
is
the
spread
charged
charged
by
market
maker
Bridges
from
Monarch
to
Mafia.
We
see
that
if
in
traditional,
if
in
previous
ethereum
profile
work,
the
miners
were
to
go
Rogue
and
still
bundles,
they
need
to
be.
AB
AH
What
okay
and
then
from
Mafia
to
malloc
the
transformation?
So,
for
example,
you
go
from
a
public
member
model
to
a
vanilla.
First
come
first
serve
right,
you
eliminated
polymer,
so
you
don't
have
that
information,
but
you
have
that
you
know
on
coordination,
you
have
a
a
very
bad
allocation
of
preferences,
which
increases
monologue
and
then
from
malloc
to
Mafia.
You'll,
see
that
so,
for
example,
if
a
malicious
coordinator
were
to
pocket
all
of
the
Surplus
with
that
that
it
generates
from
optimizing
the
ordering
or
just
existing,
you
know
from
coordination.
AH
So
this
case
you
you,
you
go
from
yeah
and
then
what
we
can
do
to
go
from
Mafia
to
Monarch
is
to
have
programmable
privacy
right.
So
in
this
case,
for
example,
SGS
you
can
still
do
bundle
merging
or
block
building
or
preference
aggregation.
Despite
that,
you
don't
have
a
Elementary
symmetry
in
the
information
and
then
finally
come
on.
The
current
model
of
Tau
governance
is
a
form
of
transforming
the
Monarch
to
the
malloc,
which
is
not
good
right.
AH
So
so
so
what
this
means
is
that
so
Dao
exists
for
coordination
right,
but
then,
but
launching
a
dollar
token
and
then
allowing
it
to
distribute
under
battle
economics
or
like
whatever
you're
you're,
creating
a
Ponzi
which
creates
more
monologue
right.
You
could
have
got
that
to
a
monarch
stage,
but
then,
through
more
decentralization,
you
have
recreated
his
monologue
in
The
Meta
game
of
the
token
game
right.
So
this
reminds
us
of
the
previous
example
of
the
non-monatonic
relation
between
decentralization
and
coordination
and
efficiency
in
the
mechanism.
AH
So
then
some
implications
of
really
EV
right
concretize.
This
idea,
what?
Why
is
it
useful?
So
then
the
solution
recipes
how
to
achieve
zero
percent
zero
percent
and
distribute
to
100.
We
can
solve
Mafia
EV
using
program
privacy,
which
allows
for
expressivity
and
agents
can
control
how
the
information
is
used
along
the
path
of
the
determination
of
the
outcome
buys
among
narc.
Also.
This
relates
to
the
traditional
mechanism
designs
idea
of
the
definition
of
How
It's.
AH
What
how
expressive
a
mechanism
is
right
and
then
concretely
what
this
means
is
that
you
can
devise
a
mechanism
for
discovering
the
unsophisticated
users
preferences
and
helping
them
to
communicate
this
preference
to
the
coordinator
or
through
the
mechanism,
and
then
we
can
solve
model
key
spreadable
value
by
just
increasing
memory,
efficiency
right.
We
can
eliminate
the
price
of
energy
while
via
refinement
of
society
or
I.E
specialization
of
Labor.
So
what
you
can
see
you
know
in
in
this
example
is
like
a
contrary
to
the
idea
of
monologue.
AH
It
has
the
idea
of
a
slack
right,
so
slack
is
arises
from
coordination
where
it's
basically,
you
you
allow
somebody
to
have
enough
modes
or
like
period
where
they
can
grind
on
the
higher
payoffs
which-
and
this
is
only
allowed
if
you
have
a
highly
coordinated.
You
know
specialization
of
Labor
in
your
society
and
then
finally,
Monarch
is
readable
value.
How
do
we
division
its
value
right,
so
the
value
division?
We
should
division
it
in
such
a
way
such
in
that
we
maximize
this
welfare
or
the
future
returns.
AH
So
what
this
means
is
that
you
probably
shouldn't
focus
on
giving
tiny
Kickbacks
to
the
existing
one
percent
of
users,
but
instead
focusing
on
onboarding
the
invisible
99
percent
of
users
as
as
Monarch
is
readable
value
or
like
I
mean
in
general,
grows
super
linearly
with
respect
of
compared
with
the
number
of
other
flows.
That's
existed
on
your
domain
right
so,
for
example,
the
ways
you
can
do
this
is
through
investment
into
Wallace
or
some
some
idea,
like
virtual
active
public
goods
funding.
AH
And
of
course
this
was
the
original
idea
by
Fair
ordering
as
well
right
like
the
the
idea.
Is
that
you
can.
There
are
99
of
users
that
would
have
come
to
your
domain.
If
you
other
things
you
know
fairly,
but
yeah
yeah.
So
so
it's
it's
been
on
as
a
narrative
and
then
yeah,
and
so
so
then
specific
implementations.
We
know
that
3ev
was
defined
by
the
source
of
value
at
their
distinct,
so
the
sink.
AH
However,
the
sink
of
those
value
are
different,
so,
for
example,
the
mafia
Extra
Value,
sometimes
sinks
into
into
Monarch
right.
So,
for
example,
when
there
is
a
sandwich
and
then
two
very
competent
atomic
structures
in
the
values
sinks
to
the
Monarch,
which
is
the
validators
and
then
the
think
of
value
impacts,
the
source
of
value,
so
I
argue
that
by
controlling
the
sink
of
the
value
we
are
control
we
can
already.
AH
We
can
also
impact
on
the
source
of
the
value
where
the
magic
of
credible
commitments
so
some
example
credible
convenience
I'm
not
going
to
expand
where
you
can
like
hit
me
up
later
after
this
talk,
examples
include
Builders
as
roll-up
or
they
you
have
a
special
Builder
Innovation,
where
you
grind
on
the
expressivity
of
the
building
language
or
you
have
a
decentralization
of
building.
You
use
sgix
tokens
to
align
the
incentives
or
like
some
more
fancy
things,
but
all
of
those
conditions
on
all
of
those
Solutions
can
conditions
are
low
enough.
AH
Interdomain
correlation
Factor
right
remember
from
before.
Once
you
have
too
much
correlation
or
too
much
coordination,
then
you
can't
possibly
you
know,
have
a
good
mechanism
or
or
like
it's
very
hard
to
do
so
so,
and
that
a
low
enough
factor
means
that
you
have
high
enough
competition,
which
means
the
market
is
contestable.
AH
So
I
claim
that
having
more
competition
in
the
game
by
incentivizing
having
more
competition
in
the
game
is
Right
curve,
behavior
and
optimizing
the
ordering
by
learning
more
about
the
preference
microstructures
and
then
grinding
on
the
design
of
the
mechanism
is
mid
curve.
So
contestibility
is
an
important
tool
and
it
can
only
be
realized
if
we
design
the
initial
Market
in
such
a
way
that
it
is
not
centralizing.
What
this
means
is
that
in
reality,
what
this
means
is
that
there
should
not
like
like.
AH
We
should
definitely
devise
a
mechanism
that
were
exclusive
or
exclusive
other
flow
wouldn't
exist.
So
then,
finally,
I
Pro
I
would
like
to
provide
some
philosophical
foundations
for
the
previous
talk
right,
I
said
it's
mid.
Now,
it's
time
to
you
know,
show
some
real
work
for
show
some
real,
like
tests
for
non-emmy
venis.
So
then,
remember
that
Fraga
and
Russell
was
debating
why
you
know
whether
the
king
of
French
was
both
right
in
the
beginning
of
20th
century
and
they
come
up
with
the
tests
for
presuppositions
for
utterances
of
sentences.
AH
So,
for
example,
the
utterance
of
the
sentence,
access
Mev,
has
a
presupposition
test
that
there
must
exist
again
e
and
then
like
allocation
or
other
protocol
M,
and
that
within
M
and
E,
using
the
three
UV
definitions
we
can
indeed
see
that
is
constituted
by
a
type
or
multiple
types
of
the
three
EV.
So
in
so
so.
In
this
sense
the
utterance
of
X
is
Mev,
has
a
presupposition
of
the
existence,
condition
of
enm
and
X
being
indeed,
instead
of
3v.
AH
Thus,
if
there
does
not
exist
such
a
enm,
which
you
know
translates
into
English,
is
that
is
if
that
is
absence
of
a
monarch,
then
the
utterance
of
this
sentence
axis
Mev
is
false
and
X
is
not
Mev.
So
then
some
concrete
example
imagine
Kim
and
dar
playing
a
prisoner's
dilemma
right.
So
then
they
both
choose
to
be
trained.
Now,
Suppose,
there
isn't
a
coordinator
okay.
So
then
somebody
utters
the
sentence.
He
says
that
the
value
that
Kim
and
don't
is
extracting
ABS
in
the
Monarch
I.E
1
1
is
not
Mev.
AH
Then
then
this
value
is
indeed
not
that
maybe
bypassing
the
presupposition
test
right.
If
we
take
a
free
game
view,
and
so
of
course
like
there
are
other
countries
like
Wittgenstein,
has
this
notion
of
a
language
game
where
the
context
depends
on
social
scene,
so
the
utterance
of
actually
some
EV.
So
this
sentence
might
be
true
as
the
context
of
the
authorency
social
and
we
might
agree
on
some
notion
of
the
game.
AH
So
if
the
sentence
is
provided
without
context,
then
the
sentence
is
nonsense
and
has
no
choose
value,
thus,
ultimately,
the
test
of
Mev
conditions
on
which
philosophical
interpretation
of
language
you
agree
with.
If
you
are
Wittgenstein,
you
know
you
always
switching
and
believes
that
the
utterancy
is
within
the
context
where
it
is
socially
agreeable
that
a
monarchy
exists.
So
in
the
previous
rugby
case,
remember.
AH
We
often
see
that
say
that
physics
is
the
monarch
and
then
over
there
is
a
value,
is
indeed
and
maybe
okay,
so
so
now
some
takeaways,
let's
change
the
language
game.
Are
you
tired
about
minor
or
Maximo,
where
the
grammar
isn't
even
correct,
like
like
we
say
maximum
Mev
all
the
time
and
we
should
just
say
I'm
EV
and
it
conveniently
represents
a
shorthand
for
some
type
of
Mafia
malloc
monarchic
straddle
value
right.
AH
Have
you
been
saying
I'm
EV,
because
you
have
poor
imagination
to
come
up
with
a
replacement
term
for
miners
that
keeps
the
m
and
makes
sense
you
know,
is.
Is
that
what
we
are
doing
you
know
so
then?
The
argument
is
that
by
changing
this
language
game
we
have
several
benefits.
We
have.
You
know
this
formulation
gives
you
a
distinct
value
which
Origins
from
the
source
and
then
it
is
more
formalizable
and
it
is
formalizable
in
the
sense
that
you
don't
get
lost
in
the
details.
AH
It
is
still
keeps
a
meme
and
the
formalization
and
the
proof,
only
services
social
process
to
help
people
to
understand
it.
And
then,
of
course,
the
setup
is
a
better
Mev
argument
and
the
trade-off
or
the
transformation
between
the
three
values
of
space
is
clear.
What
this
implies.
Also,
this
implies
as
clear
solution
recipes.
H
AH
Yeah
good
question,
so
of
fact,
censorship
can
be
done
implicitly
using
a
terminal
using
a
form
of
the
preference
curves,
but
Alejo.
AH
Is
monarch
yeah
but,
as
I
said
like
what
we
want
is
to
shift
the
structure
of
the
game
right.
Remember
the
interdoming
Coalition
Factor!
You
can
unify
the
users
by
devising
some
mechanism
to
help
them
become
sophisticated
and
have
collective
bargaining
power.
So
that
is
what
we
ultimately
want
to
do.
Yeah.
AA
H
AA
H
AM
AM
AM
H
H
H
H
AE
AK
To
meet
you
Mike
yeah
there's
we
don't
really
have
a
particular
order,
so
you
can
sit
next
to
whoever
you
like
the
most
or
the
least
or
you
know
up
to
you.
Oh.
F
AK
Q
AK
Q
H
H
T
E
H
AK
Hello,
everybody
thank
you
for
coming
out.
This
is
the
in
case.
You
don't
know
where
you
are.
This
is
staking
panel
with
all
of
the
most
prominent
protocols
on
the
ethereum
network,
so
we're
gonna
have
a
great
conversation
today,
I'm
excited
to
talk
about
the
state
of
ethereum
staking
right
now
and
where
we
think
we're
going
to
go
for
the
future.
AK
So
the
topic
for
this
panel
is
sort
of
loosely
centered
around
the
idea
of
promoting
small
and
independent
stakers,
and,
if
you're,
asking
yourself
right
now,
why
do
we
care
about
that?
Why
don't
we
just
let
coinbase
do
everything?
Well,
hopefully,
you
already
know
the
answer,
but
I'll
answer
it
anyway.
It's
healthier
for
ethereum
to
have
more
people
involved,
especially
smaller
and
more
independent
actors,
so
that
we
can
all
sort
of
participate
in
a
healthy
ethereum
together.
AK
Hello,
everybody
I'm
Mike,
and
you
may
know
me
as
wander
I,
have
been
part
of
the
Journey
of
the
node
operator,
Association,
a
community
organization
to
promote
professional
node
operators.
That's
anyone
on
the
ethereum
network
who
Stakes
for
a
living,
or
especially
those
people
who
like
to
take
outside
investment
into
their
staking
operations.
Our
goal
as
an
organization
is
to
try
and
promote
this
nascent
industry
as
much
as
possible.
I'm.
Also
the
founder
of
one
of
those
kinds
of
organizations.
AK
Of
course,
bamboo
Financial
Technologies
does
staking
on
ethereum
for
our
customers,
High
net
worth
individuals
and
institutions
looking
to
get
involved
with
ethereum
staking.
So
let's
meet
our
panelists
first
up,
we
have
Ariel
sitting
next
to
him
is
facility,
and
next
to
him
is
oshin.
Then
we
have
Darren
and
Jordan.
So
while
we
have
you
guys
here
on
this
panel
for
just
a
second
on
this
slide,
would
you
do
me
a
quick
favor
and
introduce
yourselves
and
your
protocol
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
you?
Ariel.
AN
Hey
everyone:
my
name
is
Ariel
I
work
at
blocks,
which
is
the
company
which
is
the
core
developer
of
the
project
SSV
Network,
and
which
provides
a
decentralized
infrastructure
for
interior.
Mistaking,
for
those
of
you
who
doesn't
know
us,
SSB
stands
for
secret,
shared
validators,
it's
an
implementation
of
DVD
distributed
by
their
technology,
and
it
was
built
to
be
used
as
the
building
blocks
for
high
performance,
secure
and
decentralized,
taking
applications.
Solitary.
AK
AG
Hey
I'm
receiving
I'm
from
Lido.
It's
all
that
builds
liquids
taking
protocols.
The
segment
protocol
is
relied
on
the
living
room
that
currently
operates
about
6
billion
dollars
a
bit
more
and
like
that's
the
most.
We
do.
AG
Q
My
name
is
ashing
and
I'm
co-founder
at
overall
labs
and
oval
is
building
the
oval
Network
and
it
is
building
distributed.
Validator
technology
to
allow
high
uptime,
validators
and
validators
run
by
multiple
people
collaboratively
thanks.
AC
AO
Work
on
rocketpool
rocketpool
is
a
decentralized
liquid
staking
platform.
We
have
a
liquid
statement,
token
called
Ari
I
guess
what
makes
us
kind
of
unique
is
that
where
we
have
a
permissionless
validator
set,
so
anyone
can
be
a
node
operator
in
Rockefeller.
AP
Hey
everyone
I'm
Jordan,
Sutcliffe
I'm,
the
business
development
lead
at
stakewise
statewise
we're
also
a
liquid
staking
pool
not
quite
as
big
as
Lido.
We've
currently
got
about
80
000
each
stake
with
us
and
yeah
we'll
one
of
our.
Our
key
goal
is
to
help
reduce
the
Barrister
entry
for
people
to
stake
on
ethereum
and
there's
also
a
pretty
exciting
Road
marketplace
to
go
commissions
too,
which
I'm
sure
will
come
up
in
a
bit
absolutely.
AK
Thanks
so
much
guys
appreciate
it
all
right
so
now
that
we've
heard
a
little
bit
from
all
of
our
panelists
who
know
who
we
are,
let's
get
to
know
the
platforms
they
represent
on
a
more
detailed
basis.
So
the
first
questions
like
I
mentioned
before
are
going
to
be
for
each
analyst
to
answer
individually
and
then
we'll
get
into
some
discussion
questions
after
that
that
we
can
kind
of
go
a
little
bit
more
free
form.
AK
So
our
first
question
here
is:
it's
actually,
you
know
I've
written
three
on
here,
but
you
know
that
the
top
one
is
sort
of
the
real
question.
How
does
your
protocol
promote
independent
validators
on
ethereum,
so
Ariel
I'll
start
with
you.
AN
AN
As
the
infrastructure
for
first
taking
application,
the
that's
that's
the
way
we
support
the
next
wave
of
those
taking
applications
to
attract
more
independent,
validators
and
operators,
and
our
platform
is
completely
permissionless,
and
so
anyone
can
join
and
the
requirement
is
only
to
to
run
a
node
and
it
comes
along
the
standard
nodes,
the
execution
and
the
consensus
that
you
have
to
run
and
we
have
a
lot
of
resources
available
a
lot
of
guides.
We
have
a
big
developer
Community.
We
can
help
you
out
with
anything.
AG
Yeah
so
at
Lido
we
run
a
valid
data
set
of
professional
operators
that
is
regularly
expanded.
At
the
current
time.
We
are
working
on
a
solution
for
us
to
allow
us
to
onboard
independent
validators,
which
is
not
quite
as
easy
as
it
is
for
different
models
I've
taken,
because
we
do
a
liquid
taken
token
and
we
do
it
without
requiring
operators
to
have
a
bond
for
the
risk.
We
have
to
manage
risk
in
different
ways
and
it's
very
hard
to
do
with
a
permissionless
mode.
Q
Three
and
on
the
oval
front,
we're
implemented
maybe
slightly
differently
than
some
of
the
existing
pools.
You
add
our
software
into
your
stack
and
you
run
it
with
you
know
the
other
operators
you
want
able
you
either
run
on
your
own
or
with
like
multiple
other
operators.
You
want
to
run
a
validator
with
and
but
generally
speaking,
it's
permissionless
and
there's
a
launch
pad
that
you
can
go
on
and
set
up
your
validator
and
create
it
with
your
counterparties.
You
know,
as
you
wish,
and
there's
no
restriction
to
get
about.
AC
AO
We
have
like
a
deposit
pool
full
of
eth
that
is
waiting
to
be
matched
with
new
node
operators
and
we
are
actually
bringing
on
new
new
data
operators
very
very
quickly,
but
we
we
need
more
and
more
so,
as
I
said,
rocketball
is
permissionless.
AO
We
have
about
two
percent
of
the
ethereum
stake
at
the
moment,
but
we're
growing
very,
very
fast
and
we've
got
it
over
about
1600
node
operators
so
far
and
we're
getting
kind
of
you
know
more
and
more
each
day.
Quite
it's
quite
interesting
seeing
the
stats.
It
goes
up
quite
quickly.
But
yes,
yes,
we
are
inclusion.
AP
So
stakewise
in
its
current
form
runs
a
validator
set
similar
to
how
light
it
is
where
we
have
our
Dow
approved
a
set
of
node
operators
for
the
network,
but
we've
just
announced
our
plans
to
launch
a
fully
permissionless
platform
in
December
this
year,
where
we,
a
couple
of
people,
have
hinted
on
the
the
requirement
for
collateral
collateral
requirements
when
it
operators
So.
AP
The
plan
for
stakewise
is
to
allow
anybody
to
join
the
network
in
the
fully
permissionless
fashion
without
any
collateral
requirements,
and
so
for
this
we've
had
to
design
a
novel
staking
mechanism
that
basically
ensures
that
we
can
provide
a
liquid
staking
token
that
still
has
flashing
protection,
despite
the
lack
of
collateral
requirements
from
node
operators.
AP
So
are,
we
are
we
recruiting
new
node
operators?
We've
done
well
being
definitely
will
be
in
December.
AK
Excellent
excellent,
it's
great
to
hear
these
are
five
of
the
most
prominent
ethereums
taking
protocols
on
top
of
the
basic
protocol
and
all
of
them
are
looking
to
move
towards
permissionlessness
and
onboard
new
operators.
So
if
anyone
out
there
is
thinking
about
running
an
ethereum
validator,
you
have
lots
of
options.
AK
So,
let's
get
into
some
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
each
individual
model.
Each
of
there's
been
some
Illusions
so
far
to
the
differences
between
each
of
these
protocols.
Each
of
them
has
a
different
design
for
how
they've
decided
to
set
up
their
protocol,
and
there
are
some
trade-offs,
and
there
are
some
advantages
to
each
of
these.
So
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
this
slide.
I
should
have
read
the
last
one
too,
but
we'll
go
we'll
go
ahead.
AK
First.
What
Revenue
can
node
operators
expect
in
your
platform,
especially
it
would
be
really
great
to
describe
anything
above
and
beyond.
The
typical
ethereum
staking
Revenue,
where
that
comes
from
especially,
would
be
really
nice
to
know
another
one.
What
are
the
risks
on
the
other
side
of
that?
The
operating
a
node
with
this
protocol
entails.
So
you
know
the
audience
is
almost
certainly
going
to
be
thinking
in
the
back
of
their
heads.
One
of
my
risk
adjusted
best
options
here
you
know,
can
I
take
on
more
risk
to
get
more
return.
AK
How
does
that
work?
And
the
final
question
here
on
the
same
topic?
Why
should
node
operators
choose
your
platform?
Ultimately,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
know-
and
this
is
this
is
where
we
get
a
little
bit
of
a
competition
going
on
so
sorry
guys,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and,
as
is
tradition,
we'll
start
with
you
Ariel.
AN
AN
Basically,
on
top
of
nothing
just
for
the
operation,
so
the
revenue
they
can
expect
is
whatever
they
choose
to
to
set
to
charge.
What
are
the
risks
of
operating
a
node
I'll
answer
this
differently.
The
current
risk
that
most
staking
providers
have
are
highly
mitigated
through
DVD,
because
you
have
fault
tolerance.
You
have
more
security,
no
one
skips
the
the
keys
online.
You
only
have
shares
of
it.
So
there's
no
really
single
point
of
failure.
AN
AN
Why
should
you
choose
us
first
and
foremost,
because
it's
gonna
help
decentralize
ethereum
right
and
because
of
the
mechanism
which
each
validator
in
our
system
is
distributed
between
a
lot
of
different
operators,
meaning
for
each
sticker?
He
has
to
choose
multiple
of
them.
It
kind
of
gives
you
a
lot
of
more
Revenue,
a
new
Revenue
system
right,
because
there's
a
new
channel
channel
to
be
chosen
by
others
that
need
to
to
validate
their
operator
to
operate
their
validators,
yeah
I.
Think
that's
about
it.
AN
AG
Yeah,
so
in
Lido
we
have
currently
28,
not
operators,
and
we
expand
that
number
when
we
get
more
stake
in
a
way
that
no
no
you're,
not
no
non-operator
lined
up
in
Lido
has
like
a
big
shy
of
stake.
We
try
to
keep
it
like
less
than
one
percent
of
holiday
mistakes,
but
no
it's
around
like
that.
It
has
numbers
around
one
one
point,
five
percent
or
so,
and
they
should
have
enough
stake
for
for
it
to
be
a
a
good
business
to
to
work
with
vital.
AG
AG
That's
the
current
setup
and
the
selection
is
done
by
peer
review
so
like
we
basically
ask
the
not
operator
so
either
like
28
of
them
to
rate
the
people
who
lived,
who
want
to
participate
in
lighter
the
risks
of
working
light
is
mostly
reputational
like
if
you
screw
up
like
that's,
going
to
be
very
much
known
and
you
won't
get
more
stake
from
from
wider
or
like
from
many
many
other
sources
of
stake.
Potential.
Q
See
and
on
the
over
front,
rather
than
talking
about
what
Revenue
you
can
make
on
top
of
a
base,
I
might
instead
look
at
where
you
might
be
able
to
save
money
as
an
operator
with
overall
and
distributed
validators.
The
two
ways
you
can
do
it
is:
you
can
take
part
in
some
other
distributed
validator
or
you
can.
Q
You
know,
control
all
of
yourself
in
like
four
different
availability
zones
or
something,
but
generally
speaking,
if
you've
a
fault,
tolerant,
validator
and
first
off
your
devops
risk
is
much
lower
because
you're
not
waking
them
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night.
Every
time
the
server
dies
and
they
can,
you
know,
deal
with
in
office
hours
and
separately.
On
the
hardware
side,
most
people
keep
a
small
amount
of
validator
keys
per
machine
because
when
you
go
offline,
there's
very
little,
you
can
do
about
it.
Q
If
you
fall
tolerance,
you
can
safely
kind
of
start
to
lift
those
numbers
and
then
the
last
one
is
if
you're
running
validators
with
a
group,
and
you
don't
have
total
custody
of
it.
You're
staking
or
you're
slashing
Insurance
costs
come
we're
hoping
to
come
way
down
because
the
worst
case
scenario
here
is:
if
you're
compromised,
you
know
the
other.
Three
people
have
to
go
and
like
create
a
new
key
for
you
for
the
validators,
don't
get
slashed.
You
know
the
validation,
don't
go
offline,
so
the
risks
are
a
bit
different.
AO
So
in
terms
of
what
with
revenue-
and
so
each
of
each
rocket
pool,
node
operator
brings
their
own
collateral
with
them.
Proof
of
stake
is
called
proof
of
stake
for
a
reason.
This
has
to
be
something
at
stake,
and
so
they
bring
collateral
with
them.
AO
Now
with
in
terms
of
Revenue,
they
actually
earn
the
you
know
the
base
ethereum
fee
or
for
for
their
16
East,
but
then
we
match
them
with
16
East
with
liquid
stickers
and
they
actually
earn
an
extra
Commission
on
the
16
East
that
they
stake
for
the
pool,
so
they
get
15
of
the
rewards
they
generate
for
the
pool,
so
they
get
kind
of
more
than
you
would.
If
you,
if
you
were
a
solo
sticker
plus,
you
need
less
ether
because
you're
only
16,
you
don't
need
32.
AO
we're
looking
at
lowering
that
in
in
very
in
the
very
near
future,
as
well.
So
in
terms
of
risks,
there's
slight
bit
of
smart
contract
risk
with
rocket
pool
because
we're
a
decentralized
protocol.
Everything
is
trustless
in
the
sense
that
node
operators
don't
take
custody
of
funds
or
anything
like
that
from
liquid
stakers.
So
we
have
to
go
use
Smart
contracts
to
do
that,
but
we
are.
AO
We
have
been
audited
by
the
best
in
the
business
when
I,
say
audited,
I
mean
like
tons
of
times
it's
like
like
four
or
five
times
so
you
know
every
release.
We
do
we
get
multiple
audits
and
so
we're
very
conscious
of
that
other
risks
in
terms
of
like
performance
risk.
So
if,
if,
if
you're
slashed,
it
does
come
out
of
your
bond,
not
our
Earth
stakers,
but
but
ethereum
is
actually
a
very
forgiving
protocol.
It's
very
unlikely
that
you
get
slashed
and
there's
kind
of
pretty
much.
AO
One
reason
why
you
get
slashed
and
clients
consensus.
Clients
are
actually
built-in
protections
for
that.
So
so,
if
you're
offline,
it
doesn't
actually
matter
that
much
you
can
be
offline
and
you'll
earn
that
money
back
very,
very
quickly,
so
yeah.
So
that's
the
that's
the
kind
of
the
risks.
While
you
should
choose
us,
if
you
love
ethereum,
you
should
probably
come
with
rocketball,
but
also,
but
also
we
have
a
fantastic
Community.
AO
AP
Awesome
I'm
probably
going
to
answer
this
in
Reverse,
so
we
designed
stakewise
V3
to
help
decentralize
ethereum
and
the
key
target
audience
well.
One
of
the
key
target
audience
for
stakewise
V3
are
Solo
stickers.
So
what
are
the
current
issues
with
solo
stakers?
These
guys
and
girls
are
the
like
gold
standard
for
decentralization
on
ethereum,
but
their
eth
is
locked
away.
AP
AP
You
know
you're
allowed
to
unlock
your
Capital
to
use
within
defy
you
can
unstake
all
or
at
least
a
portion
of
your
Capital
instantly,
and
this
is
something
which
solo
stickers
have
missed
out
on
and
so
with
stakewise
V3
solo
stickers
will
be
able
to
move
their
nodes
over
to
stakewise
and
be
able
to
Mint
the
liquid
staking
token
off
their
notes.
So
this
gives
you
know
solo
stickers.
It's
the
idea
here
is
just
to
make
solo
staking
attractive
again.
You
guys
can
get.
AP
It
basically
solves
the
capital
efficiency
issue
with
for
solo
staking.
On
top
of
that,
you'll
also
be
able
to
accept
each
delegations
from
others
from
others.
AP
So,
for
example,
maybe
you've
got
enough
to
run
one
or
two
validators
yourselves,
but
your
your
infrastructure,
your
your
PC
you're
running
this.
These
validated
on
could
actually
run
hundreds
and
so
with
safewise
V3.
You
will
allow
you'll
you'll
be
able
to
get
anybody
depositing
East
into
your
mini,
staking
pool
and
you'll
be
able
to
spin
up
multiple
validators,
and
so
not
only
will
you
get
better
Capital
efficiency.
You
can
mint
a
liquid
staking
token
from
your
own
youth.
AP
State
you'll
also
be
able
to
earn
revenues
from
staking
eat
of
others
and
maximize
the
potential
from
your
infrastructure.
So
yeah
touched
on
the
revenues
part
there.
The
plan
is
for
100
of
the
revenues
on
the
eat,
stakes
from
other
people
to
go
to
the
node
operators
themselves
so
similar
to
your
system
and
I,
guess
the
risk.
AP
So
one
of
the
risks,
if
you're
looking
to
ramp
up
your
the
amount
of
ease
you're
staking
for
yourself,
but
also
the
people,
one
of
the
biggest
risks
is
that
you're
just
not
attractive
to
other
people
to
stake
with
you,
and
so
we've
designed
a
system
we've
designed
like
an
operator
scoring
system
where
node
operators
which
have
high
quality,
whether
it's
a
proven
on-chain
historical
performance.
Whether.
AP
Some
collateral
or
do
have
some
slashing
Insurance
in
place
whether
they
help
contribute
to
the
diversity
of
each
staking
in
terms
of
geography
and
client
diversity.
Then
these
node
operators
will
be
rewarded
by
having
a
higher
operator
score,
which
will
attract
further
capitals
so
again,
we're
trying
to
build
this
system
which
encourages
decentralization
and
there's
there's
a
couple
of
ways
which
we
can
control
or
push
decentralization
through.
The
stakewise
V3
infrastructure.
AO
So
the
other
Revenue
stream
that
you
get
with
rocketball
is
that
you
stake
RPL,
which
is
our
native
token,
with
the
with
the
eth,
and
for
doing
that.
You
also
get
RPL
missions
as
well,
so
RPO
inflates
by
five
percent
per
year
and
70
of
that
goes
back
to
node
operators.
So
node
operators
kind
of
get
like
this.
This
RPL
kind
of
Interest
as
well.
AK
Got
it
thanks
all
right
so
now
that
we've
got
to
know
our
ethereum
staking
protocol
is
a
little
bit
better.
Let's
get
into
a
little
bit
of
a
panel
discussion
about
the
future
of
ethereum
is
taking
and
where
they
want
to
take
the
future
of
their
protocols
where
they
see
ethereum
going
and
how
this
whole
thing
is
going
to
evolve.
In
the
long
run.
One
of
the
questions
that
I
have
as
a
node
operator
myself
is
what
happens
to
my
stake
in
five
years.
What
about
10
years?
AK
What
is
my
returns
going
to
look
like?
Are
they
going
to
be
lower?
Who
out
there
in
the
world
is
going
to
be
staking
on
ethereum?
Is
it
just
me
all
these
questions
and
more
I'm
sure
are
popping
into
the
heads
of
the
audience
out
there
if
you're
a
node
operator,
so
these
questions
are
going
to
be
a
little
open-ended,
so
anyone
can
answer
if
no
one
does
I'll
just
pick
somebody.
So
that's
your
threat,
but
hopefully
we'll
get
some
interesting
discussions
going
about
the
future
of
staking
all
right.
AK
AG
I
can
all
right,
yeah
yeah,
so
like
we,
we
have
actually
like
a
very
strong
thesis
around
that
around
which
we
built
Lido
I.
Think
that,
like
most
of
like
about
60,
70
percent
of
other
will
be
staked,
and
most
of
these
will
be
staked
in
liquid
staking
and
most
of
these
stake.
Liquid
state
will
be
in
you
know,
protocol
based
liquid
state
and
could
not
like
not
exchange,
base
liquids
taken
or
something
like
that.
AG
Q
AP
And
I
guess:
I'm
talking
about
Distributing
across
pools,
is
similar
to
how
you
can
distribute
stake
across
protocols.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
there's
not
a
monopoly
or
it's
like
it's
not
a
winner,
takes
all
Market
in
which
protocol
controls
the
most
liquid
staking
on
ethereum.
Essentially
a
couple
of
reasons.
One
there's
been
risks
about
having
Dows
controlling
a
protocol,
which
controls
a
significant
share
of
the
beacon
chain.
AP
That's
been
widely
talked
about,
but
there's
also
a
competition
element
as
well
like
competition
is
healthy,
and
it's
important
that
we
are
all
competing
against
each
other
to
to
better
each
other
and
also
improve
the
health
of
the
ecosystem.
The
more
we
compete,
the
more
we
will
innovate
and
the
more
we
can
improve
the
health
of
the
ecosystem.
So
and
that's
the
interesting
part
that
I
think.
AO
Picture
very
much
yeah
I
think
the
the
market
for
safety
is
going
to
the
water
level
will
arise
so
much
that
I
don't
really
I'm,
not
that
worried
about
competition,
because
I
know
the
the
rise
in
the
water
level
is
going
to
be
so
high
that
it's
going
to
be
there
so
at
about
50,
I'm
I'm
thinking
is
probably
more
in
terms
of
estate.
It's
kind
of
like
a
how
much
is
is
in
long
term
versus
short
term
short
term.
AO
AN
Yeah,
so
I
don't
think
it's
Luke,
it's
so
much
different
regarding
the
distribution,
I
still
think
about
30
will
still
be
and
centralize
the
changes,
because
it's
very
comfortable
and
a
lot
of
people
still
trust
them.
It's
very
easy
regarding
the
other
percent
I
think
it
will
be
from
pools
and
staking
services,
but
the
market
share
of
those
will
be
very
competitive
right
right
now
we
have
around
14
millimeter
at
stake.
AN
We
have
right
now
right
it's
starting
to
be
a
big
market,
and
once
it's
a
big
Market,
there's
a
lot
of
competitiveness,
and
we
will
see
a
lot
of
different
news
taking
pools
a
lot
of
different
Niche
and
a
lot
of
different
user
user
segments
that
are
targeting,
especially
when
you're
taking
to
the
fact
that
allowed
a
lot
of
the
D5
will
be
involved
in
staking
or
the
other
way
around.
AN
So
yeah
a
lot
a
lot
more,
a
lot
more
competitive,
a
lot.
No
more
new
actors.
AK
Interesting
so
I'm
hearing
a
few
different
things
here.
One
thing
that
I'm
thinking
everybody
seems
to
agree
that
liquid
staking
derivatives
are
the
future
for
staked
ethereum
and
that
most
staked
ethereum
will
somehow
make
its
way
back
into
liquidity.
Again
sounds
pretty
reasonable
to
me,
especially
given
the
growth
of
lsds
on
chain
right
now,.
AP
Yeah
I
just
want
to
add
a
final
point:
it's
it's
hard
to
put
an
exact
percentage
of
what
we
staked,
but
ultimately
it's
a
risk
reward.
So
it's
clear
that
linguistic
and
derivatives
will
be
integrated
in
D5
and
the
utility
of
these
derivatives
tokens
will
continue
to
grow,
and
so
it
gets
to
the
point
where,
unless
you're
paying
for
gas
fees
or
doing
something,
that's
very
specific
to
requiring
eth,
it
makes
just
complete
sense
to
stake
your
ease.
You
can
you
secure
the
network
and
you
get
to
earn
a
yield.
AP
There
is
always
going
to
be
an
inherent
risk
on
any
of
our
protocols
and
it
will
be
like
in,
like
traditional
Finance
sense,
it'll,
be
like
a
risk
return.
How
much
are
people
willing
to
take
on
whether
it's
a
couple
of
percentage
yield
on
their
eth
to
take
on
the
risk
of
owning
liquid
state
and
derivatives?
So
yeah
and
there's
a
lot
of
capital?
That's
coming!
AP
That's
going
to
be
coming
in,
like
institutions
is
a
big
focus
market
now
for
a
lot
of
people
in
the
space
so
and
everybody
has
different
risk
tolerance
tolerances.
So,
if
you're
certainly
interested
to
see
how
things
how
things
grow
in
in
the
future,
but
yeah
again,
I,
repeat,
I,
fully
see,
LSD
is
being
and
the
majority
of
what
you
see
across
across
D5,
at
least
yeah.
AK
And
another
thing
I
heard
from
this
was
that
you
think
well,
oh,
she
mentioned
it
very
succinctly
there.
That
groups
will
be
much
more
aligned
in
the
long
run
than
individuals
with
the
ethereum
stake.
It's
makes
sense
to
me
as
a
node
operator.
I
would
want
to
have
backups
and
I
want
those
backups
to
not
be
me
because
you
know
something
happens
to
me:
I
need
a
backup
who's.
Not
me
totally
makes
sense.
Ariel
did
I
notice,
you're
about
to
say
something.
AN
Yeah
also
I
think
like
the
users,
the
stakers
will
be
less
loyal
because
once
you
can
exit
there
will
be
a
lot
of
migration
between
the
project
right
and
competitiveness.
Yeah.
AN
AK
Great
point,
so
speaking
of
the
new
technologies,
I
have
another
discussion
question
that
revolves
exactly
around
that,
so
other
than
withdrawals,
which
we
all
know
are
going
to
be
the
most
important
thing
for
ethereum
staking.
There's
I
I've
been
a
part
of
a
few
conversations
today
at
the
fantastic
Devcon
event
that
have
revolved
specifically
around
withdrawals
and
how
quickly
we
can
get
them
out
or
wait
for
something
else
or
whatever.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
all
know
withdrawals
are
really
critical.
AK
That's
the
one
real
piece
missing
from
the
crypto
economic
puzzle
for
ethereum
staking
at
the
moment,
so
you
can't
use
that
sorry,
it's
not
allowed.
As
your
answer,
the
question
is
other
than
withdrawals.
What
is
the
most
important
upgrade
for
ethereum
staking,
and
so
anyone
can
take
this
one
vastly
I'll
skip
you
here.
You
want
to
go
Darren
yeah.
AO
I
I
I
know
that
silly
and
I
agree
ocean
as
well.
So
there
are
two
important
upgrades
that
rocketpool
and
I
think
most
a
lot
of
staking
kind
of
pools
need,
and
that
is
there's
a
there's.
A
EIP
called
4788
4788.
It
means
that
so
at
the
moment,
the
beacon
chain
or
the
time
the
consensus
layer
and
the
execution
layer
are
two
separate
things.
AO
There's
the
the
two
separate
Concepts:
they
don't
really
talk
to
each
other
and
so,
as
a
staking
pool,
you
kind
of
need
these
semi-trusted
oracles
Oracle
information
across
the
two
there's
this
eip4788,
which
puts
the
beacon
chain
State,
Route,
accessible
to
Smart
contracts
that
gets
rid
of
all
of
that
semi-trusted
Oracle
stuff
and-
and
it
actually
opens
up
a
lot
of
innovation
for
I'm,
staking
pools
and
others
taking
businesses.
AO
So
that's
that
one,
the
other
one
is
so
currently
there's
this
withdrawal,
credential
called
0x01,
and
that
is
essentially
when
consensus
rewards
are
withdrawn.
When
they're,
when
you
exit
a
validator,
it
goes
to
this
0x01
credential
and
now
in
staking
pools
a
lot
of
times.
That's
a
smart
contract
that
ends
up
Distributing
it
to
all
the
parties
that
you
know
need
that
that
Heath
or
should
have
access
to
the
eighth,
but
the
and
0x01
is
important
because
it
facilitates
this.
AO
These
protocols
to
be
able
to
do
non-custodial
staking
the
unfortunate
thing
about
Xerox
zero
one
is
it
doesn't
allow
you
to
exit
the
validator?
You
have
to
rely
on
the
Node
operator
to
do
it.
So
in
a
permissionless
situation,
where
you
don't
as
a
staking
pool,
we
don't
control
the
validators
with
the
the
node
operators.
Our
node
operators
are
like
1600,
individual
node
operators
all
over
the
world.
We
don't
have
no
control
over
them
whatsoever.
AO
You
know
we
0x01
enables
a
protocol
to
be
able
to
initiate
x's
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
they
are
they're.
Probably
the
two
things
from
our
point
of
view
of
my
point
of
view
that
that
we
kind
of
that
are
important
for
upgrades.
Q
AC
Q
Q
So
far,
are
there
oracles
and
it's
yeah
really
one
of
the
last
things
that
we
need
to
take
out
to
kind
of
decentralize,
but
they
they
kind
of
had
to
be
there
when
the
chains
were
totally
separate
and
even
now
there
is
still
no
kind
of
communication,
but
I
think
I
won't
feel
super
comfortable
until
those
oracles
are
mostly
taken
out
of
the
liquid
staking
protocols.
Yeah.
E
AK
Don't
think
so,
no,
not
necessarily
I
mean
I'll.
Give
you
a
quick
background.
The
way
I
got
into
ethereum
was
taking
was
actually
through.
Rocketpool
I
will
give
a
shout
out
to
the
I'll,
give
a
shout
out
to
trading
I'm
sure
some
of
you
are
watching
out
there.
That's
yeah
right,
Darren
was
not
lying.
A
racquetball
has
a
fantastic
Community,
I
I
have,
of
course
you
know.
I
try
to
be
as
neutral
as
possible
up
here.
I
cannot
chill
rocket
pool
above
the
others.
They're.
AK
I
will
say
that
one
of
the
things
that
I
learned
about
rocketpool
really
early
on
that
disappointed
me
is
what
you're
talking
about
this
Oracle
Dao
concept
is
necessary
for
the
running
of
of
Rocket
pool
and
I
was
very
disappointed
in
that,
since
it
was
a
centralizing
factor
now.
I
think
that
you
know,
all
of
all
five
of
your
Protocols
are
trying
to
do
the
best
you
can
to
stay
as
far
away
from
centralization
as
possible.
AK
But
you
know
in
order
to
truly
get
there
we're
going
to
need
what
was
it
eip4877,
four,
seven,
eight
four,
seven,
eight
eight
yeah,
oh
okay!
Yet!
Yet
yes,
yet
yeah!
That's
up
to
one
of
you
to
submit
all
right
anything
else
on
this
topic.
AG
Yeah
I
I
want
to
throw
a
couple
of
curveballs
like
this,
but
what
is
going
to
change
the
landscape
but
like
in
some
in
in
some
ways
at
least
one
thing
that
comes
to
mind
is
like
their
own
plans
to
scale,
involve
a
lot
of
a
lot
more
of
traffic
and
a
lot
of
more
storage
space
for
the
for
the
operators
and
that's
going
to
increase
the
costs
of
running
the
the
node.
AG
I
AK
That's
a
great
answer:
I
think
that
if
I
remember
correctly,
someone
from
eigenlayer
was
supposed
to
be
here
today
in
the
audience.
Anyone
know:
okay,
I'm
very
excited
about
that
as
well
and
maybe
next
year,
once
they
launch
or
get
a
little
further
in
their
roadmap,
we
will
have
them
as
our
sixth
panelists.
You
never
know
all
right.
So,
let's
keep
it
rolling
because
I
want
to
have
time
for
audience
questions.
AK
The
next
question
here
is
we're.
Gonna
go
back
to
some
discussions
about
defy
and
lsds
if
you're
unfamiliar
with
what
LSD
is
it's
this
crazy
drug?
That
makes
you
see,
Fish
I'm,
just
kidding.
Sorry,
no
I
mean
ethereum
staking
liquid
staking
derivatives.
Liquid
sticking
derivatives
are
the
encapsulation,
the
tokenization
of
staked
ethereum,
to
make
it
liquid
again,
and
you
can
do
all
sorts
of
crazy
things
in
D5.
With
this,
you
can
collateralize
it
to
make
loans.
You
can
have
those
loans
called
and
lose
a
bunch
of
money.
AK
You
can
do
all
sorts
of
crazy
things.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
that
you
know
lsds
are
are
really
changing
in
the
world.
So
far
from
what
I
can
see
is
the
defy
ecosystem
is
starting
to
adopt
lsds
as
an
eth
replacement
in
some
ways
mistaken
staking
eat
staking
has
many
times
before
been
likened
to
treasury
bonds
for
eth,
in
that
they
are
sort
of
a
risk-free
rate
for
the
ethereum
ecosystem.
AK
It's
not
entirely
risk-free,
but
it's
you
know
has
has
that
some
elements
of
that,
and
so
the
tokenization
of
this
you
know
and
and
adding
that
to
defy,
has
a
lot
of
effects.
So,
let's,
let's
get
to
the
question:
how
will
liquid
staking
derivatives
lsds
affect
the
defy
ecosystem
in
the
long
term?
So
we
know
today,
adoption
is
rising.
AK
Do
you
think
that
this
will
Plateau
will
go
down?
Our
LSD
is
going
to
replace
eth
in
defy
long
run.
Who
wants
to
answer
this?
One.
AO
AO
D5
protocols
adjust
slightly
to
the
fact
that
these
now
exist
and
we're
going
to
see
probably
a
big
shift
in
Innovation
over
the
next
like
kind
of
year
to
two
years
in
terms
of
how
new
D5
protocols
come
online
to
take
advantage
of
the
yield,
that's
being
generated
from
these,
how
it
kind
of
breaks
apart
the
principle
and
the
yield
and
how
you
do
kind
of
funky
stuff
with
that,
so
yeah
there's
a
lot
and
even
like
liquidity
platforms.
That
start
you
know
anyway.
The
community
platforms
are
kind
of
using
these.
AO
These
liquid
staking
derivatives
to
to
kind
of
yeah,
add,
add
an
element
of
here,
add
some
product
value
and
and
and
stuff
there
to
their
products
their
protocols.
So
we're
already
kind
of
seeing
that.
F
E
AP
There's
a
few
things
that
I
I
think
there's
a
few
goals
that
we
have
to
achieve
in
order
for
lsds
to
be
a
net
positive
for
D5,
so
one
of
them
is
having
slashing
protection
inbuilt
within
an
LSD,
and
you
know
DBT
is
going
a
great
way
towards
helping
with
that
and
we
talk
about
validation,
withdrawals
being
key.
AP
AP
So
that's
one
thing
that
I
think
we
all
need
to
be
cognizant
of.
The
other
thing
is
like
figuring
out
how
to
provide
sustainable,
deep
liquidity
and
liquidity.
For
probably
all
of
us
is
probably
the
bone
of
Our
Lives,
because
it's
super
expensive
and
it's
key
to
being
a
liquid
staking
protocol
and
again
withdrawals
will
reduce
the
liquidity
requirements,
but
we
still
have
situations
where,
in
in
a
Black
Swan
event
like
the
ones
we
saw
earlier
in
this
year.
AP
There's
there
will
be
situations
where
you
still
need
deep
liquidity
and
so
yeah.
That's
that's
something
which
we
definitely
need
to
figure
out,
and
the
other
thing
is
also
making
sure
that
again
it
comes
down
to
having
diversity
of
liquid
staking
derivatives.
If
there's
one
LSD,
that's
the
best
that
everyone-
that's
like.
That's
90
of
liquor
staking
within
ethereum
and
it's
the
90
of
the
used
across
D5.
AP
If
there
is
ever
a
hack
or
an
exploit
in
that
protocol,
then
that
could
be
like
catastrophic
to
the
ecosystem
and
so
again
it's
another
argument
for
having
multiple
lsds
integrated
within
D5
to
help
protect
some
of
the
key
systematic
risks
of
the
of
the
ecosystem.
Q
See
there's
one
thing
that
wasn't
mentioned
here
yet,
which
is
the
like
kind
of
Base
rate
of
reward.
Q
I
do
think
that
it,
the
heat
sticking
award,
will
be
a
bit
of
a
function
like
why
not
your
ether,
an
Ave
instead
of
you,
know
getting
staked
Ethan,
locking
that
an
Ave
and
stuff
there's
no
reason
why
people
won't
go
for
the
four
percent,
but
at
the
same
time,
how
will
lsds
affect
D5
I,
actually
think
that
the
high
chance
that
he
alluded
to
that
lsds
will
wreck
a
lot
of
wrecked
a
lot
of
defy.
Q
Q
Q
What
could
go
wrong
and
we
didn't
really
see
what
could
go
wrong?
There
was
a
lot
of
stuff
behind
the
scenes
that
stepped
in
to
prevent
stuff
going
wrong
that
that
was
what
went
right
really,
unfortunately,
but
yeah
I
think
Vasily
passed
a
comment
about
I'm,
not
sure
what
people
really
hypothecate
I'm,
pretty
sure.
AG
Yeah,
so
due
to
answer
the
original
question
like
I,
recommend
to
that
a
bit
later
right
to
answer
the
original
question.
I
think
that,
yes,
the
stakehold,
like
the
Civil
second
token,
will
be
replacing
either
and
the
reason
in
indifi
at
least
and
I
think
most
of
C5
as
well
actually,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
like
a
three-fold.
Actually,
one
is
that,
with
time
we
will
have
less
source
of
yield
in
in
defy
like
curve
spring
will
come
to
an
end.
AG
Eventually,
like
people
will
stop
like
selling
CRV
or
buying
CRV
or
like
then
it's
going
to
dry
up
and
like
overall,
like
there
will
be
elastic
which
mining,
so
the
sticker
Awards
will
be
the
most
important
and
the
largest
source
of
yield
in
the
ecosystem.
AG
That's
one
thing:
the
other
thing
is
with
time.
Protocol
risks
goes
down
because
protocol
becomes
more
proven
that
our
best
but
better
techniques,
better,
more
experience,
etc,
etc.
People
will
trust
more
Governor
street,
because
it's
also
going
down
with
time
the
protocol
specifies
itself
and
like
defend
against
gun,
sculpture,
etc,
etc.
Will
also
have
that
stories
go
down.
The
yield
becomes
from
from.
AG
Second
rewards
becomes
more
important
to
the
ecosystem
so
like
there
is
just
no
reason
not
to
use
ever
stick
that,
instead
of
feather
it's
a
very
hard
thing
to
overcome.
The
like
the
the
most
liquid
token
in
the
like,
except
Bitcoin,
right
in
the
in
the
crypto
world,
but
it
will
happen
on
natural
causes
eventually
like
the
creek
is,
is
very
important,
but
it
can't
compete
with
that.
AG
AB
AK
It
would
be
great
to
take
some
some
questions
from
the
audience,
so
so
sorry
vacillate.
AD
AE
AN
Obviously
lsds
has
been
great
and
people
thought
in
the
in
defy,
especially
before
withdrawals
are
available
and
but
there's
also
a
lot
of
risks
right.
There's
the
the
liquidity,
the
smart
contracts
they're
depending
and
all
of
that,
and
and
it
does
come
down
basically
to
your
to
your
risk.
AK
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thanks!
So
much
guys
we're
gonna
move
on
to
the
audience
q
a
session,
because
we
have
just
a
very
small
amount
of
time
left
so
I
saw
you
shoot
up
your
hand
right,
real
quickly
right
at
the
beginning,
so.
AE
Hi,
how
are
you
congrats
and
thank
you?
My
name
is
Pablo
I'm,
the
founder
of
Sensei,
no,
the
first
node
operator
in
Latin
America.
We
are
talking
with
all
of
you
and
I
think.
Something
really
important
is
not
only
geographically
centralization,
but
also
less
dependence
on
Amazon.
As
most
of
the
operators
work
with
Amazon,
we
try
to
work
with
local
and
Regional
data
centers.
My
question
is:
how
do
you
distribute
a
Mev
yeah
thanks.
J
AG
AC
AO
16
is
liquid
stickers
and
so
in
terms
of
Mev
and
priority
fees,
you
it's
a
kind
of
equal
split
between
node
operators
and
and
liquid.
AD
AO
Except
that
the
node
operators
get
their
fee
on
the
rewards,
so
they
get
15
of
the
of
the
commission
on
the
on
the
rewards,
so
they
still
get
that
kind
of
extra
bit
from
the
from
the
Mev
and
nav
and
priority
fees.
That's
the
usual
case.
We've
also
got
like
a
smoothing
pool
where
this
is
particularly
important
for
small
node
operators
that
are
running
kind
of
a
couple
of
validators.
AO
The
way
that
block
proposals
work
is
very
variable,
so
you
can
have
like
two
a
year
or
ten
a
year
and
that
hits
small
node
operators
hard.
So
if
you
join
the
smoothing
pool
everyone
samples
their
proposals
together,
which
works
particularly
well
for
Mev,
because
with
Mev,
that's
essentially
a
lottery
block,
you
may
have
end
up
with
a
lottery
block
that
goes
into
the
smoothing
pool
and
then
basically,
everyone
gets
a
share
of
the
smoothing
pool.
So
yeah
that's
what
we
do.
N
N
I
have
a
question
about
operator
set.
So
in
the
two
cases
here,
like
Lighthouse
stake,
wise,
more
professional
operators
are
involved,
rocket,
pool
kind
of
a
blend
honestly
of
both
would
love
to
hear
more
about
from
Statewide
and
Lido.
Like
do
you
see
a
future
where
your
pools
include
professional,
validators
and
at-home
validators
working
together
to
achieve
a
common
goal.
AG
Yeah
yeah
sure,
so
that's
what
we're
trying
to
design
right
now
in
in
like.
We
think
that
most
of
the
stake
should
be
managed
by
professional
operators
still,
but
we
want.
We
don't
like
what
we
want
is
to
light
up
a
bit
pipeline
from
like
a
homesteaker
to
professional
operator.
AG
So
you
can
kind
of
operate
as
a
like
as
a
solar
operator
and
Lido
with
small
amount
of
stake,
and
if
you
do
it
well
and
if
you
want
to
do
it
like
as
not
as
a
hobby,
because,
like
honestly
most
celebrators
are
not
rational,
like
they're,
not
making
a
business
out
of
it.
They
does
this
for
fun,
which
is
great
right,
but
if
they
want
to
do
it
for
like
for
for
their
job,
they
should
have
the
ability
to
like
earn.
AG
The
reputation
earn
the
like
the
their
metrics
required
to
get
under
into
the
like
set
of
big
boys
and
grow
up,
because
otherwise
it
will
be.
It
will
lead
to
catalyzation
like
three
year
stops.
AP
And
yeah
completely
so
the
way
B3
is
designed.
I
I
pointed
out
solo
stickers
as
a
key
target
market,
but
essentially
this
this
protocol
will
will
satisfy
yeah.
Every
single
anybody
who
can
run
a
node
can
run
a
node
on
on
V3
and
one
of
the
from
discussions
with
commercial
node
operators.
One
of
the
key
things
for
for
these
guys
is
coming
over
to
just
take
away
3,
so
they
can
provide
liquid
staking
with
fun
to
their
clients,
and
so
mv3.
AP
Every
single
node
operator
or
group
of
node
operators
will
have
their
own
little
mini,
staking
pool
and
can
then
their
users
can
then
mint
to
liquid
staking
token.
So
it
offers
liquids
taking
to
everybody,
no
matter
whether
you're
solo,
sticker
or
commercial
node
operator
so
by
proxy.
We're
going
to
end
up
with
basically
like
an
Open
Marketplace
of
of
operators
and
groups
of
operators
who
are
running
various
Technologies
who
are
on
the
stage
today
to
compete
for
for
stake
and
again
that
can
be
solar
stickers
and
also
commercial
node
operators
as
well.
M
AK
M
Because
I
mean
lsds
are
great
right.
You
can
use
your
stake
position
as
collateral
and
you
also
average
out
the
rewards
right.
So
why
is
solos
taken?
You
there's
no
point
of
that
right.
Some
people
will
do
it
even
for
free
but
yeah.
What
will
happen
in
the
next
five
years,
more
sort
of
stickers
on
less
or
less
almost
takers.
Thanks.
AP
Well,
if
statewide's
V3
works,
we'll,
hopefully
have
more
as
I
said,
the
reason
why
and
obviously
touched
on
it.
It's
it's
almost
non-economical
to
be
a
solo
sticker.
You
do
it
for
fun
or
to
because
you're
a
decentralization
maxi,
and
so
you
know
our
goal
is
to
try
and
make
it
economical
and
let
them
let
them
get
access
to
liquid
staking
which
they
have
not
been
able
to
before.
AO
So
so
we've
rocketpool
it
is
pretty
much
no
different
to
being
a
solo.
Staker,
the
you
have
autonomy
over
your
node,
you
bring
collateral,
so
you
have
a
stake.
The
only
difference
is
you
get
paid
more,
that's
that's
the
that's
the
only
real
difference
from
it
from
an
ethereum
perspective
and
from
a
decentralization
perspective.
You
know
it's
exactly
the
same
so
yeah,
that's
that's
where
we
come
from
today.
Q
Yeah,
if
I
was
to
add
to
that
I
think
the
question
is
there'll,
be
a
long
tail
of
like
solo
stickers.
For
sure
the
question
is
how
much
the
stake
will
be
on
them,
and
that's
where
you
know
everyone
up
here
is
trying
to
figure
out.
How
can
you
let
soul
of
stakers
like
have
a
bit
of
capital
in
someone
else's
Capital?
Q
If
there's
a
rocketpool
scenario
make
them
Bond
you
stakewise
V3,
you've,
let
the
like
people
take
the
risk
and
choose
like
a
vault
for
like
a
certain
risk,
and
we
hope
that
with
distributed
validators
you
can
trust
small
stakers
as
if
they
were
an
Enterprise
you're
like
yep,
for
you
guys
and
you're
all
credible
and
you're,
not
one
you
know
person
you
guys
can
have
99.99
uptime.
So
we
can,
you
know,
trust,
putting
stake
on
you.
You
can't
exit,
you
can't
even
get
flashed,
so
we
hope
with
DVT
people
like
you
know,
light
on
stakewise.
Q
AG
AG
Like
even
half
of
you
know
what
a
data
like
crying
like
lying
around
so
like
they
have
to
be
selected
not
on
like
unbonded
and
sound
Bond
way,
and
that
means,
on
the
other
hand,
that
in
history
manage
risks,
and
you
need
to
manage
the
white
labels
like,
for
example,
you
if
you
want
a
lot
of
solo
operators
in
the
protocol,
and
you
want
to
syncy
by
that.
You
need
to
understand
that
these
are
not
like
the
one
operator
in
these
guys
like
in,
like
in
trench
Court
like
this
100
nodes.
AG
AG
So
these
are
hard
problems
to
solve,
but
I
believe
they
are
solvable.
So.
AN
AN
Up
to
what
the
Austin
said,
imagine
if
you
could
use
like
DVD
to
pair
yourself
with
with
the
repeatable
top
class
operators
or
even
to
pair
yourself
with
your
friends,
which
you
trust
to
run
it,
and
so
the
technology
advances
that
will
come
will
reduce
the
barriers
to
do
that
in
a
still
reliable
way.
AN
AO
Sorry
another
thing:
rocker
Paul
doing
So.
Currently
it's
16th
that
you
need
so
in
our
next
release,
it'll
be
eight
and
then
in
potentially
in
our
next
release
lower.
So
that's
how
you
get
more
node
operators,
that's
what
we
that's!
What
we
want
is
more
individual
node
operators,
not
necessarily
more
stake.
AK
Great
all
right,
well,
unfortunately,
we're
out
of
time
for
new
audience
questions,
but
I
promise
you
all
five
of
these
folks
are
going
to
be
wandering
around
the
conference
floor
after
this.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
for
them
or
for
me,
we
would
all
be
very
happy
to
chat
with
you
throughout
the
rest
of
the
day
and
throughout
the
rest
of
the
week.
Thank
you
so
much
everybody
for
coming.
AB
AL
J
P
F
F
AL
AL
AL
M
AM
So
let's
look
at
some
numbers
about
the
L2
growth.
So
at
the
moment
there
are
more
than
20
Roll-Ups
on
top
of
ethereum
and
all
the
total
value
locked,
which
is
a
good
proxy
for
user.
Adoption
is
like
around
6
billion,
which
is
around
one-fifth
of
what
minute
is
so
that
shows
like
that
is
going
quite
well
and
two
of
the
most
important
Roll-Ups
like
Arboretum
and
Optimus
respectively.
They
have
more
than
160
dabs.
AM
On
top
right,
however,
there
are
some
side
effects,
so
all
these
protocols
and
apps
are
silos
across
all
these
Road
Labs,
so
the
liquidity
is
fragmented
and
the
end
user
experience
across
using
all
these
Roll-Ups
is
not
so
optimal.
So
it
looks
like
there
is
a
trade-off
between
low
fees
and
hydroelection
throughput
overcomposability.
AM
So
what
is
composability?
It's
yeah!
In
other
words,
it's
the
money,
Lagos
like
it's.
What
fueled,
ethereum
growth
all
these
years-
and
yes,
we
can
simply
see
here-
is
on
L1
how
our
yield
aggregator
can
use
a
decks
or
how
Landing
protocol
can
use
a
standing
protocol.
I
can
build
on
top
right
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
L1
is
yeah
the
risk
composibility
another
one,
and
all
these
optimistic
or
ZK
Road
Labs
different
ones.
The
there's
also
composability
inside
them,
but
not
across
them
right.
AM
So
that's
the
issue
we
just
described
yeah.
So
as
an
example,
these
are
four
of
the
most
popular
protocols
and
we
see
that
they
are
developed.
They
are
deployed
on
ethereum
and
the
roll
ups
and
yeah
at
least
two
of
the
road
labs.
But
all
these
deployments
are
separate
from
each
other
right.
They
cannot
communicate
with
each
other.
There
is
no
connection
between
them,
so
you
can
see
the
the
L2
ecosystem
is
quite
huge,
quite
thriving
with
all
these
kind
of
apps
like
Dexys,
yield
aggregators
nft,
Marketplace
synthetics,
but
it's
fragmented.
AM
And
here's
an
example
use
case
from
from
a
user
perspective
right,
so
a
user
has
some
liquidity
on
curve.
Let's
say
on
arbitrary:
they
want
to
move
it
to
optimism
to
do
that.
They
need
at
least
13
transactions
like
wallet
confirmations,
and
they
need
to
wait
seven
days
for
exiting
the
roll
up
and,
of
course,
they
need
to
pay
the
exit
and
the
entry
fees
right
on
mainnet.
AM
AL
AM
No
better,
okay,
so
we
solved
two
of
the
problems,
so
you
don't
have
to
wait
seven
days
anymore
and
you
don't
have
to
pay
the
enter
and
exit
fees,
but
all
these
2013
separate
transactions
still
exist
right
right.
So.
AM
AC
AM
And
yeah
the
end
game
of
that
is
yeah.
You
can
call
them
the
cross
roll
up
money,
Legos
right.
So
it's!
This
is
the
same
diagram
we
showed
before.
But
now
you
can
basically
use
a
a
decks
on
L1
to
communicate
with
derivatives
protocol
on
an
L2
right
and
and
all
these
kind
of
synergies
over
there.
AM
So
yeah.
The
the
benefits
of
these
cross
relapse
composibility
from
for
the
end
user
would
be
that
they
don't
have
to
manually
Bridge
anymore
for
any
kind
of
cross
or
lab
transaction
like
a
token
swap
or
moving
the
liquidity
or
any
kind
of
government
governance
actions
like
voting
or
Market,
making
or
money
market
transactions
like
lending
or
borrowing
not
having
to
move
the
collateral
or
nft
marketplaces.
They
can
Market
the
market,
the
the
nfts,
whatever
they
want
in
wherever
and
L2
they
want.
AM
So
how
this
could
look
like,
so
this
is
yeah.
Our
proposal
like
a
close
roll-up,
composibility
layer
and
you
can
see
on
top,
is
one
imagine
like
one
roll
up
on
top
and
another
roll
up
below
and
in
the
middle
is
the
relay,
so
it's
basically
off
chain
relay
Network,
and
the
main
concept
here
is
that
you
have
a
generic
message.
Passing
smart
contracts
developed
on
both
deployed
on
both
roll
ups,
and
you
have
the
so-called
Adobe
contract,
which
will
prepare
and
parse
the
necessary
messages
right.
AM
AC
How
does
the
relayer
maintain
L1
level
of
security,
like
you
mentioned,
so.
AM
I
didn't
mention
that
it
maintains
little
one
security
but
yeah
there's
several
kind
of
setups
right.
So
you
can.
You
can
have
a
fully
trusted
setup.
You
can
have
a
trust,
minimize
setup
with
you
know,
kind
of
optimistic
model
or
a
ZK
model,
so
yeah
I
mean
if
you're,
if
you're
talking
for
this
specific
proposal,
we're
doing
you
know
we're
starting
with
a
kind
of
controlled
setup
and
we
are
exploring
like
optimistically.
You
know
putting
the
state
back
on
L1
or
you
know
using
ZK.
H
H
Z
I.
Think
it's
fair
to
say
on
the
roll-up
level,
we're
seeing
a
push
to
give
users
the
choice
of
off-chain
data
in
ZK
Roll-Ups
that
looks
like
validiums
and
volitions,
and
for
optimistic
Roll-Ups.
That
looks
like
arbitrum,
Nova
and
metastas
optimistic
data
availability.
Really,
the
question
you
should
be
asking
yourself
when
you're,
considering
off-chain
data
for
your
dap
is
what
does
this
mean
for
security?
What
does
it
mean
for
my
users,
funds
and
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
to
consider
there.
Z
If
we
accept
that
off-chain
data
is
here
to
stay,
then
we
should
be
thinking
about
ways
to
make
those
apps
more
secure.
Despite
the
off-chain
data,
some
dapps
don't
need
all
of
their
data
on
chain
and
those
that
might
need
more
security.
There
are
some
solutions.
One
thing
that
I
thought
was
really
interesting
was
an
article
that
actually
came
out
today
by
Paulina
who's,
someone
on
Twitter
that
I
follow.
You
may
have
heard
of
them,
suggesting
that
we
have
split
security
data
sharding
on
Roll-Ups.
This
is
literally
an
idea
that
came
out
today.
Z
We're
also
going
to
continue
to
see
progress
and
Innovation
on
the
bridging
Fund
in
front.
We
just
saw
Georgia's
talk
about
some
really
interesting
ideas
about
how
we
can
have
composability,
but
some
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
talk
about
are
how
popular
layer,
2,
Bridges
right
now
are
centralized
and
they
keep
the
fees
rather
than
sharing
them
with
their
users.
That's
not
really
a
paradigm
that
we
like
in
the
ethereum
world.
We
don't
really
like
centralized
operators,
we
don't
really
like
middlemen,
so
I'm,
expecting
to
see
that
Paradigm
being
challenged.
Z
One
thing
that
we
already
are
seeing
hot
protocol
has
announced
that
they're
going
to
be
more
Community
Centric.
So
that's
just
one
early
example
of
sort
of
that
shift.
That
I
think
we're
going
to
see
we're.
Also
seeing
really
interesting
work
around
ZK
proofs
to
improve
Bridge
architecture.
We
can
use
ZK
proofs
to
verify
so
Suez
Bridge
created
a
proposal
called
the
slush
proposal
doing
just
that.
We
can
also
use
ZK
proofs
to
create
like
clients
with
ZK
snarks,
which
is
a
relatively
new
idea.
Succinct
Bridge
wants
to
do
that.
Z
Z
When
it
comes
to
optimistic
Roll-Ups,
we're
going
to
see
these
protocols
Branch
out
and
really
dive
into
Innovative
optimizations
I've
called
them
optimistic
optimizations,
which
I
think
is
kind
of
fun.
Arbitrum,
Nitro
and
optimism.
Bedrock
are
both
huge
steps
forward
for
the
ecosystem.
Yesterday,
at
the
roll-up
Day
event,
vitalik
actually
proposed
several
possible
ways
that
we
could
decentralize
provers
and
also
diversify,
approvers
and
luckily,
for
us,
both
are
both
arbitrum
Nitro
and
optimism.
Z
Bedrock
are
already
architected
in
a
way
that
should
allow
for
multiple
provers
and
different
types
of
approvers,
and
one
of
the
cool
things
about
both
arbitrive
Nitro
and
optimism.
Bedrock
is
that
they're
sort
of
Paving
the
way
for
allowing
validity
proofs
within
optimistic
Roll-Ups,
which
is
really
cool
and
something
I,
would
definitely
keep
an
eye
on.
Z
Roll-Ups
with
layer,
3
capabilities
will
honestly
be
able
to
eat
up
a
lot
of
the
market
if
they
get
off
the
ground
with
offerings
like
privacy,
daps,
permission
dapps
for
institutions,
games
and
even
creating
space
for
alternative
L1
chains
to
execute,
on
top
of
the
layer,
2
and
ultimately
still
settle
on
ethereum
gaining
ethereum
security.
Success
here
will
depend
largely
on
ecosystem
support,
documentation
and
ease
of
use.
This
is
also
kind
of
a
new
theme.
Z
Recursive
proofs
exist
on
starkanet
now,
but
they're
still
pretty
new
and
I
haven't
seen
any
actual
implementations
of
layer
threes.
Yet,
if
you
have,
let
me
know
I'd
love
to
take
a
look,
but
I
do
think.
Layer
threes
will
be
part
of
the
discourse
in
the
coming
months
and
years
as
all
of
the
ZK
Roll-Ups,
especially
mature,
and
go
to
mainnet.
Z
Speaking
of
ZK
Roll-Ups
zke
EVMS
are
likely
to
dominate
the
attention
of
the
layer
2
space
in
the
coming
months.
Zk
EVMS
are
really
exciting
and
something
a
lot
of
us
have
been
talking
about
for
the
past.
I,
don't
even
know
how
long
honestly,
since
layer,
2
kind
of
became
a
thing
and
the
reason
they're
exciting
is
because
they
are
theoretically
compatible
with
existing
ethereum,
tooling,
making
them
much
easier
to
use.
Z
They
allow
for
a
shorter
waiting
time
to
exit
to
get
finality,
and
also
because
they
use
ZK
proofs,
and
we
all
love,
math
well,
I
do
anyway
and
I
think
as
these
protocols
enter
mainnet,
the
debate
will
turn
to
what
counts
as
a
true
evm.
What
is
close
enough?
Z
What
is
evm
compatibility
and
how
much
of
it
do
we
need
for
a
zkevm
to
really
operate
the
way
that
we
expect
it
to
we'll
also
be
talking
a
lot
more
about
the
Innovative
architectures
and
use
cases
that
ZK
EVMS
allow
so
I'd
say
things
are
getting
a
little
spicy
in
the
cryptoverse
around
various
Decay
Roll-Ups
that
are
entering
the
ecosystem.
I
I
posit
that
competition
is
good
and
I
hope
we
can
turn
the
spice
into
something
constructive
and
eventually
coalesce
around
some
helpful
standards.
Z
Z
Oh
sorry,
so
it
turns
out.
Seven
minutes
is
not
very
long,
I'm
literally
being
told
right
now.
My
time
is
up,
so
I
did
create
a
list
of
some
more
Trends
to
keep
an
eye
on
that.
I
didn't
really
have
time
to
dive
into
I'm,
particularly
interested
in
the
modular
blockchain
designs,
protocols
like
Celestia
and
how
they
will
relate
to
how
those
learnings
can
be
taken
into
the
layer,
2
ecosystem
and
maybe
make
changes
there.
Z
H
Thank
you
for
now.
Thank
you
so
much
so
guys
and
girls
that
are
here
lighting
talks.
I
know
like
seven
minutes.
You
want
to
stay
more,
so
I
beg
you
at
least
20
people,
because
we
have
a
line
and
we
are
going
to
sum
up
till
three
lighting
talks.
So
after
this
is
the
last
one,
we
need
to
clean
the
room
up
so
you're
gonna
stay
for
one
more
and
to
keep
like
the
people
moving.
AB
U
AQ
All
right:
cool,
hey,
what's
up
guys,
I'm
Matt
I,
lead
product
at
arbitrum
and
off
chain
labs.
This
is
really
cool.
There's
lots
of
people
here!
It's
really
exciting
I'm,
actually
really
happy
that
the
last
two
people
covered
you
know
kind
of
cross-chain
messaging
and
bridging
and
Layer
Two
stuff,
because
I'm
going
to
talk
a
lot
about
about
that.
But
it's
great
to
have
context
so
again,
I'm
Matt,
welcome
to
my
TED
Talk.
AQ
So
three
things
I'm
going
to
try
to
cover
here,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
going
on
in
Layer
Two.
There's
a
lot
of
stuff
going
on
in
crypto,
I'm
gonna
try
to
focus
on
three
things
last
one
and
it
was
broad
talk
about
bridging
talk
about
compatibility
and
interop
and
I'm
going
to
talk
about
some
scalability
issues
that
I
think
we're
starting
to
coalesce
around
that
we
have
been
talking
about
for
a
while,
all
right,
so
bridging
right,
you
got
to
move
funds
from
layer,
one
to
Layer
Two.
At
some
point.
AQ
This
shouldn't
be
something
you
have
to
think
about
right.
So
we
want
it
to
be
there.
We
want
there
to
be
zero
degrees
of
separation
between
the
layers
at
some
point.
In
the
end
game
right,
you
Bridge
right
onto
Layer
Two.
So
here's
where
we
are
today
it's
a
state
of
bridging.
It
continues
to
be
really
challenging
and
continues
to
be
risky.
We
see
hacks
all
the
time,
it's
not
great,
but
it's
something
we
have
to
deal
with
ux
reviews
as
tricky
or
even
impossible,
depending
on
the
asset
right.
AQ
Not
all
tokens
are
your
320s.
Sometimes
you
can't
Bridge.
Sometimes
you
have
to
bridge
in
a
different
way,
so
it
becomes
really
challenging
for
someone
trying
to
use
any
kind
of
crypto
product
in
the
beginning
when
you
have
to
educate
them
on
what
bridging
is
and
what
that
means
is
for
developers.
Not
all
token
implementations
are
created
equal
on
arbitrum.
We
have
standard
versus
custom
bridging
so
when
you're
bridging
an
asset
over
for
the
first
time,
we
can
deploy
that
contract
for
you
on
Layer
Two
and
it'll
Auto
it'll
Auto
deploy
but
yeah.
AQ
If
you
have
things
like
interest
or
or
other
things
that
are,
you
know,
maybe
more
custom
for
implementation,
you
have
to
work
with
us
or
you
have
to
you
know,
build
your
own
custom
solution.
So
it's
pretty
complicated
and
I
think
you
know
we're
not
in
a
space
where
things
are
perfect,
but
we're
making
a
lot
of
progress
and
kind
of
at
a
higher
level
view.
This
is
our
Bridge.
You
know
fantastic
we're
from
the
team,
but
if
you
think
about
it,
bridging
is
really
designed
for
power
users
right.
AQ
So
it's
not
something
that
in
the
long
term,
we
want
to
have
be
kind
of
like
the
canonical
thing
you
have
to
do
on
on
the
blockchain.
So
what's
next
right
and
again,
this
is
lightning
talk.
I'm
trying
to
go
as
fast
as
I
can.
One
thing
that
works
well
is
fast
withdrawal
confirmation.
So
on
arbitrum
Nova
we
have
a
data
availability
committee.
We
can
actually
use
that
system
to
allow
for
withdrawals
back
to
L1
to
take
less
than
a
week,
be
almost
instantaneous.
It's
not
something.
AQ
That's
live
yet,
but
something
we're
thinking
about
it'll
make
this
a
lot
smoother.
Let's
see
yeah
something
that
we're
you
know,
we'd
like
to
see
happen
in
the
ecosystem
is,
is
more
wallet
integration.
You
know
deep,
while
in
integration
I
would
say
with
fast
bridging.
So
when
you're,
you
know
in
a
wallet,
you
have
an
asset,
you
can
just
use
a
fast
Bridge
from
within
there.
You
don't
have
to
go
on
the
browser
and
actually
sort
through
all
these
options
and
make
trade-offs
with
your
own
independent
research.
AQ
You
can
actually
have
that
be
like
automated
for
you,
obviously
that's
going
to
require
kind
of
community
discussion.
This
is
just
something
that
goes
without
saying
or
something
that
we've
done.
A
lot
of
work
on
is
within
the
bridge
itself,
increasing
discoverability
of
fast
Bridges
and
making
sure
it's
more
performant
right.
Not
all
bridges
are
created,
equal,
there's
lots
of
different
options
and
so
doing
what
we
can
from
an
agnostic
perspective
to
make
sure
that
we
provide
the
best.
AQ
Ux
is
something
that
we
try
to
do
all
the
time
and
something
I'd
like
to
see
long
term
is
Bridge
aggregation,
standard
functionality
right,
there's
lots
of
trade-offs.
You
have
to
make
to
find
the
best
performance.
AQ
Moving
on
to
layer,
two
as
a
developer
is
basically
kind
of
like
not
a
huge
issue,
and
the
other
thing
is
core
infra
that
you
kind
of
come
to
know
and
love
on
ethereum
on
other
blockchains,
RPC
providers,
price
oracles,
you
know
graphs,
monitoring
analytics
it's
all
it's
all
there.
It's
already
ready
for
you
on
L2,
so
we've
got
a
robust
set
of
tooling
and
infrastructure.
AQ
If
you
want
to
deploy
so
we're
in
a
pretty
good
State
there
and
you
know
sdks
and
Frameworks,
we
have
new
things
like
Foundry
coming
up
every
day,
they're
beginning
to
multiply.
You
have
lots
of
options.
You
have
lots
of
things
that
you
can.
You
know
potentially
use
to
make
your
development
experience
easier.
This
is
just
a
quick
graphic
with
Nitro
we're
running
gef
at
the
core.
So
in
terms
of
compatibility,
we're
you
know
reaching
parity
as
much.
K
AQ
Can
so
what's
next
right?
You
know
you
can
keep
pushing
the
envelope
here,
but
one
thing
that
we
want
to
think
about
right
now:
contracts,
solidity,
as
you
think,
about
Roll-Ups
in
the
future.
We
want
to
see
broader
language
support
for
smart
contract
execution,
so
this
is
something
that
you
can
imagine
having.
You
know
different
options
to
write
your
contract
code
in
and
compile
down
to
something
that'll
still
work
with
the
evm.
It's
a
really
exciting
time
again,
right
now
on
on
arbitrum,
we
have
two
dimensional
gas.
AQ
We
price
L1
call
data
posting
costs
separate
separately
from
L2
execution
costs.
This
is
something
that
you
know
if
you're,
if
you're
a
developer
of
your
project,
you're
doing
a
lot
of
things,
estimating
it
and
getting
accurate
pricing
for
the
gas
as
time
goes
on,
especially
with
high
volume
is
really
difficult.
So
making
that
better
and
working
with
wallets
to
have
different
standards
with
transaction
types
is
something
that
we
want
to
push
for
again.
AQ
The
last
one
I
want
to
make
here
is
there's
a
huge
perception
issue
in
kind
of
like
major
Tech
I
came
from
that
industry
before
working
here.
People
are
not
super
enthused
about
crypto
development,
and
we
need
to
do
something
about
that.
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
that
is,
but
it's
something
we
all
need
to
think
about
so
kind
of
a
philosophical
point.
There
I
think
this
next
point
is
kind
of
on
performance
right
like
as
as
much
as
we
can
increase
throughput
and
bandwidth
and
execution
speed
on
the
Chain.
AQ
More
people
will
use
it
more
developers
will
build.
So
the
good
news
is
this
is
happening
all
the
time.
You
know
we're
doing
this
today.
We're
at
a
conference
talking
about
how
we
can
all
work
together
to
make
this
possible.
So
there's
lots
of
stuff
happening.
We
ship
Nitro
a
couple
months
ago.
We
seven
extra
capacity,
we
lowered
speeds,
things
are
looking
pretty
good
for
Roll-Ups
and
the
one
thing
here
here
to
think
about,
though,
is
we
focus
on
gas?
All
the
time
remember,
Roll-Ups
and
and
blockchains
in
general
are
not
just
about
gas.
AQ
You
have
to
have
Security
on
the
Chain,
so
making
performance
for
validators
or
for
for
nodes
that
are
serving
as
validators.
You
know,
making
that
more
efficient,
making
that
more
accessible
is
something
that's
going
to
continue
to
be
more
important
as
time
goes
on,
especially
with
you
know,
State
growing,
in
the
way
that
it
is-
and
this
is
just
you
know,
a
quick
reminder-
fees
are
low,
it.
You
know
they're,
not
they're,
not
arbitrarily
low
they're,
not
tiny,
but
we're
getting
better
things.
AQ
Are
things
are
kind
of
improving
and
so
I'm
not
sure
how
much
time
I
have
left
yeah
yeah,
so
stapload?
It's
a
problem.
You
know
we're
going
to
try
to
continually.
You
know
optimize
for
for
client
performance,
and
you
know
there
are
a
couple
things
that
we're
experimenting
with
rentable
storage.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
statelessness.
There's
still
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done
here.
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
progress
to
be
made.
AQ
The
one
last
point
I
want
to
end
with
is
at
a
high
level
in
order
for
staple
to
be
a
problem,
we
need
to
get
people
to
actually
use
blockchains
outside
of,
like
the
canonical
use
cases
we're
comfortable
with
today.
I
personally
would
like
to
see
a
lot
more
use.
Cases
come
to
Market
with
lower
barriers
to
entry
right
now
most
games
in
crypto.
AQ
In
order
to
play,
you
got
to
spend
500
on
an
asset,
that's
not
something
that
most
people
can
actually
do
right
and
you're
going
to
make
a
leverage
long
on
some
ass
that
you've
never
heard
of
most
people
as
they
go
into
the
world
and
want
to
try
to
experiment
with
these
things.
You
need
to
make
sure
it's
easy
for
them
to
get
to
get
involved
with.
AQ
We
want
to
make
sure
things
like
you
know,
onboarding
into
D5,
having
account
abstraction,
being
able
to
pay
with
different
fees
for
for
your
transaction
pay
with
different
tokens
for
your
transactions,
something
that
we
want
to
see
something
that
we
want
to
encourage
and
something
I
want
to
talk
about.
Just
as
the
kind
of
a
last
point
is
we,
we
have
novel
experimentation
going
on
with
insurance
on
chain.
We
see
a
lot
of
hacks.
AQ
We
see
a
lot
of
teams
focusing
on
security,
focusing
on
audits,
focusing
having
the
best
talent
in-house
to
make
sure
that
things
are
secure.
That's
not
the
only
way
to
solve
the
problem.
You
can
kind
of
think
about
hedging
in
a
different
way.
So
baking
in
Insurance
into
the
core
flows
for
Defy
is
something
that
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
potential
and
that
we
have
lots
more
experimentation
to
do
with
so
sorry
for
going
really
fast,
but
yeah.
That's
arbitrary
and
that's
us.
H
H
H
AR
Great
okay,
so
we're
going
to
talk
about
a
formal
layer,
two
standards
working
group
which
has
been
formed
as
an
eea,
Community
project
managed
by
Oasis
and
we'll
explain
what
that
means.
But
first
I
am
Tosh.
Danish
I
work
at
the
ethereum
foundation
on
ecosystem
support,
focusing
on
the
Enterprise
ecosystem,
so
I
work
with
the
Enterprise
ethereum
Alliance
chair.
The
main
interest
group
co-chair
of
the
eea.
Community
projects
got
project
governing
board
and
this
is
Dan
Shaw
I'm.
AS
E
AS
Got
a
decade
of
kind
of
bringing
together
innovators
and
the
Enterprise
help
bring
node.js
into
the
foundation,
been
a
a
Founder
done.
A
lot
of
Open
Source,
stuff
and
I
am
the
co-chair
of
this
and
under
Dr
Andreas
foreign
is
my
co-chair
and
it
was
a
storied
background.
He's
the
spec
lead
on
the
Baseline
protocol
and
as
well
as
my
co-chair
assignment,
okay,
so
yeah
last
talk
really
teed
up.
Why
you
know
standards
are
are
useful.
AS
You
know
to
have
a
a
space
and
a
Clearinghouse
for
discussions,
and
you
know
a
neutral
space
right,
there's
so
much
information,
that's
happening
that
you
know
we
need
to
come
together,
and
you
know
our
our
perspective
is
in
part
the
needs
of
the
Enterprise
and
in
order
to
sort
of
continue
the
the
adoption
that
that
we're
seeing
Layer
Two
is
essential.
You
know
so
putting
in
into
place
those
standards
and
specification
to
enable
layer
to
thrive.
AR
So
why
are
we
doing
this
as
an
eea,
Community
project
managed
by
Oasis,
and
what
does
that
mean?
So
Oasis
is
a
non-profit
technical
standards
body
that
was
formed
in
1993
they've
done
things
like
xgml
and
XML,
and
a
lot
of
sort
of
technical
software
standards
sort
of
along
the
lines
of
IEEE
or
w3c
ritf.
AR
AR
Okay?
Here
we
go
by
EF
consensus
and
the
eea,
so
ethereum
Community
projects
is
a
you
know:
it's
an
oasis,
open
project,
meaning
it's
open
source,
Open,
Standards
development,
and
so
it's
we
chose
the
waste
because
it's
a
pretty
low
bureaucracy
and
it's
a
flexible
standards
process,
unlike
some
of
the
other
ones
like
the
w3c
and
ietf,
did
a
lot
more
sort
of
bureaucratic,
encumbersome.
Oasis
is
kind
of
more
ethereum
friendly,
in
that
it's
lower
bureaucracy
and
flexible.
AS
So
some
of
the
folks
that
are
involved,
of
course,
tashana
and
Andreas
from
the
EF.
We
have
Accenture
Boba
matter:
Labs,
metis,
octane,
Labs
optimism
and
polygon
and
we'd
love
to
have
you.
So
you
know
please
come
and
join
us
so.
AR
AR
Another
project
is
address
aliasing,
so
the
the
goal
here
is
to
be
able
to
deterministically
derive
addresses
of
a
digital
asset
or
an
externally
owned
account
on
an
evm
execution
framework
when
it
moves
like
when
it
moves
across
chains.
So
if
you
know
the
origin
chain
of
an
asset,
you
should
be
able
to
determine
exactly
derive
the
address
of
it
on
another
chain.
AR
We
have
many
ideas
for
potential
future
topics
to
work
on
layer,
2
transaction
fee
structures,
layer,
2
interface,
transaction
transaction
interface,
standards.
One
idea:
that's
gotten:
some
discussion
is
about
cross-chain
bridging
of
digital
assets
with
residuals,
so
the
issue
there
is
that
if
you
have
a
token
like
an
nft
representing
a
bond
or
something
that
gets
royalties
over
time,
something
that
gets
payments
over
time
and
you
move
that
to
another
chain.
It
breaks
the
connection
between
the
payments
and
the
asset.
So
that's
not
a
completely
solved
problem.
There's
been
some
discussion
about
that.
AR
AS
So
yeah
thanks
a
lot.
We
we
meet
bi-weekly,
you
can,
you
know,
hit
us
up
on
our
emails.
Github
is
github.com,
EA,
slash,
Oasis
L2
and
you
know
big
big,
thank
you
and
shout
out
to
l2beat
Dev
connect.
You
know
we
were.
You
know:
we've
gotten
this
Initiative
off
the
ground,
but
you
know
thanks
to
LT,
beats
event
at
devconnect.
You
know
we're
really
able
to
you
know,
get
a
lot
of
the
initiatives
that
you
just
saw.
AS
You
know
set
up
and
and
really
move
forward.
So
you
know
we'd
love
to
have
you
join
us
thanks.
H
AT
You
all
right,
so
let's
talk
a
little
bit
about
my
favorite
topics,
which
is
Fiat
on-ramps
and
layer.
Twos
I'm
dies
I'm,
the
founder
and
CEO
of
unramper,
and
you
can
imagine
my
interest
now:
let's
go
through
some
Basics.
What
is
on-ramp
so
an
on-ramper
is
not
a
body
like
coinbase
coinbase
is
broker
as
a
wallet
as
an
exchange.
We
will
Define
fiat
on-ramp
here
as
a
third
party
that
offers
a
API
or
widget
for
wallets
and
exchanges,
so
their
users
can
then
buy
crypto.
AT
AT
You
might
recognize
some
names
samples,
great
southeast,
Asia,
transact
this
local
payment
methods
as
well.
Moon
Bay,
tries
really
well
and
does
really
well
and
quite
a
lot
and
credit
cards
us
now.
The
question
is:
how
do
you
judge
Fiat
on-ramps,
so
there's
three
main
components
here:
number
one
is
fees
quite
obvious,
quite
intuitive
one
dial
too
much
into
now.
The
second
one
reach
reaches
how
many
countries
there's
a
Fiat
on-ramp
sport.
How
many
Fiat
currencies,
how
many
cryptocurrencies,
how
many
payment
methods
and
the
third
one
which
is
sadly
overlooked?
AT
AT
Now,
I'm
from
one
member,
we
are
a
Fiat
on-ramp
aggregator.
That
means
that
we
work
with
these
parties.
We
aggregate
them
all.
We
put
them
all
in
a
single
API
in
a
single
widget,
and
then
we
offer
that
to
dabs
wallets
exchanges.
Etc,
you
see
the
interface
there.
This
is
the
widget.
Now,
in
that
users
can
select
amount
of
crypto
they're,
buying
fiat
currency,
cryptocurrency
payment
method,
we
figure
out
who
is
actually
cheapest
right
here
you
see
it's
transact,
but
you
can
see
that
the
fees
actually
can
differ
quite
a
lot
right.
AT
When
it
comes
to
reach
or
actually
if
I
go
back
a
slide,
so
this
is
choosing
the
on-ramp
based
on
fees.
That
I
just
said.
Success
rate
is
also
really
important
right,
so
we've
actually
just
built
an
intelligent
routing
engine
that
can
predict
the
success
rate
with
each
on-ramp
for
a
specific
user
in
order
to
optimize
for
completion
rate
yeah,
then
reach
and
really
the
gist
of
the
talk
here
now.
If
we
look
at
the
support
for
ethereum
on
different
Fiat
on-ramps,
then
you
can
see
immediately
an
unwrapple.
AT
So
why
is
this
important?
Well,
we
just
heard
two
talks
ago
about.
We
need
to
make
it
easier
to
get
to
Layer.
Two
is
easier
to
use
depths
on
layer
twos
now
one
way
is
bridging,
but
we've
also
heard
the
risks
thereof
and
the
ux
issues,
so
another
way
is
making
sure
that
you
can
actually
buy
it
directly
on
Layer
Two
use
layer
2
with
credit
card,
preferably
so.
AT
Here's
the
landscape,
I,
won't
dive
into
zero
knowledge
versus
optimistic,
because
there's
been
enough
about
that
already
I
guess,
but
we
see
the
range
of
layer
twos
out
there
and
in
the
bottom,
if
you
can
read
it,
how
many
on-ramps
actually
support
assets
on
that
layer
too.
So,
right
now,
the
one
with
the
most
support
is
polygon,
which
arguably
there
too
or
not,
and
after
that
arbitrim
we
just
heard
from
as
well
as
then
optimism,
CK,
sync
and
some
of
the
other
ones,
notably
some
of
these
layer.
AT
So
some
conclusions
and
Portugal
the
most
popular
layer
2
for
on-ramps.
This
is
a
multiple
metrics
that
we
track.
Obviously,
as
aggregator,
we
get
a
lot
of
data
and
across
all
of
these
on-ramps
across
all
of
the
people
that
integrate
on
ramper,
so
they're,
most
popular
in
transaction
volumes,
number
of
on-ramps
and
supported
assets,
because
one
thing
is
a
on-ramp
actually
supporting
the
buying
of
has
its
own
layer
2.
But
then
second
question
is
which
assets
how
many
assets
and
you
see
even
with
the
biggest
ones.
AT
We
see
a
very
low
range
of
assets
being
supported.
So
it's
really
early
days
now,
it's
miles
better
still
than
a
year
ago,
but
we're
not
there.
So
what
then,
and
what
is
on-ramper's
role
within
it?
Now
we
care
about
improving
this,
because
the
simple
reason
for
that
is
this
is
usually
the
first
thing
a
retail
user
has
to
do
right
and
often,
sadly,
these
transactions
fail.
Often
these
tokens
are
not
supported,
so
in
any
way
we
can
help
out.
AT
We
want
to
help
out
so
when
it's
about
the
support
of
tokens,
there's
multiple
ways
that
we
actually
do
help
out
layer,
twos
and
projects
built
on
top
of
layer
twos
one
is
obviously
we
have
the
relationships
with
all
of
these
different
field
on-ramps.
So
we
can
help
in
improving
the
support
for
their
two
base
assets,
whether
that's
you
know
the
more
regular
ones,
ethereum
use,
DC,
Etc
or
more
specific
assets.
AT
However,
that
is
per
project
right.
That's
not
very
quick
in
that
sense,
not
very
scalable,
because
it
requires
our
human
effort
to
work
with
you
together,
of
course,
we're
willing
to
do
that,
but
we've
also
built
a
better
way.
Now,
this
better
way
is
essentially
taking
this
concept
of
hey.
You
still
have
to
buy
cryptocurrency
with
Fiat,
first
with
credit
cards
or
local
payment
methods,
and
then
you
still
have
to
bridge
it.
AT
But
what
if
we
make
this
into
a
single
flow
and
sure
if
we
can
buy
crypto,
let's
say
ethereum
on
a
main
layer
and
then
Bridge
it
over
to
layer?
Two,
then
still,
we
only
have
one
asset.
So
what
if
you
can
then
instantly?
Also,
in
the
same
flow
merge
the
swap
on
the
decks.
So
that's
what
we've
built.
That
is
what
it
looks
like
I
see
that
my
time
is
up.
You
can
wrap
up
in
30
seconds
right.
AT
So
that's
what
it
looks
like
it's
a
flow
that
allows
the
user
to
go
from
Fiat
to
any
acid
on
layer
2.
If
we
want
to
make
that
work,
even
through
a
bridge
and
a
the
X
transaction
now
the
bridge
is
hidden
on
the
back
end,
here's
an
overview
of
the
bridges
and
exchanges,
the
access
that
we
already
support.
Now
we
haven't
been
able
to
aggregate
all
of
this
ourselves.
This
is
made
possible
by
the
beautiful
and
great
people
at
Levi
and
yeah.
W
H
AU
Yeah,
thanks
for
everyone
being
late
for
this
sort
of
talk,
so
I'm
yaochi,
the
founder
of
earlier
so
earlier.
We
are
basically
building
the
runtime
execution
and
the
elastic
scaling
layer
for
ethereum.
So
before
we
dive
into
like
earlier,
we
want
to
know
like
what
kind
of
fundamental
problems
we
want
to
solve
right.
So
right
now
we
know
like
ethereum
pulse
emerged
and
later
on.
We
also
have
this
product
sharding
and
lots
of
like
scaling.
Solutions
will
be
applied
like
sort
of
ethereum.
AU
So
in
that
case
is,
as
you
can
see,
right
like
for
the
past
two
years,
we
encounter
a
lot
of
network
injection
gas
War,
even
for
some
iot,
like
social
means,
like
one
example
on
ethereum.
Is
this
other
deed
that
I
have
to
me
right?
So
basically,
people
probably
pay
more
gas
fees
than
the
mid
fees.
AU
It's
not
just
like
sort
of
the
scenario
on
ethereum,
but
also
on
some
highly
scalable
blockchains.
Like
a
polygon.
We
had
these
sort
of
sunflower
game
right,
but
at
the
same
time,
just
like
so
many
transactions
and
the
congestion
in
the
network
same
issue
to
Arbitron.
Basically,
we
had
a
very
successful
campaign
to
onboard
more
user,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
just
like
so
popular
and
at
the
same
time
the
network
was
so
congested
and
then
they
have
to
pause
until
the
Arbitron
natural
came
out,
so
they
can
resume
such
campaign.
AU
So
how
we
solve
this
kind
of
network
congestion
problems
for
general
purpose
are
once
so
one
like
sort
of
a
thing
we
observe
and
basically
on
our
side
we
want
to
propose,
is
about
this
application
tailored
out
to
execution
layers.
AU
We
very
fast
finality
like
right
now,
some
metrics
with
some
updated
and
basically
we
can
really
achieve
a
sub-second
block
time
and
we
even
with
like
tons
of
thousand
transactions
per
second
I
mean
we
are
also
support,
both
evm
and
also
wazan.
So
there
are
two
products
we
would
like
to
provide.
The
first
one
is
like
sort
of
short-lived
application
dedicated
your
lab,
and
we
call
flash
layers
and
later
I
will
just
share
with
you
why
we
want
to
have
this
short-lived
flash
layers.
AU
I
mean
well
there's
a
persistent
rule
of
solutions
quite
similar
to
the
other,
like
existing
optimistic
Road
labs,
and
the
idea
to
have
the
flash
layers
is
quite
straightforward
for
a
lot
of
Demands
and
requirements
from
the
applications,
because
we
can
see
right
for
a
lot
of
empty
projects.
One
of
the
biggest
like
sort
of
campaigns
is
the
empty
means,
and
also
sometimes
it's
airdrop
right
for
this
short-lived
campaign.
Right
typically
only
lasts
for
a
few
seconds
or
a
few
minutes.
In
that
case,
they
can
just
like
sort
of
click.
AU
A
bunch
of
buttons,
via
our
dashboard
and
protocol,
will
automatically
teaspoon
of
a
dedicated
layer
to
handle
the
millions
of
requests
for
the
empty
mint.
The
user
can
just
do
the
empty
mint
and
everything
will
be
handled
properly
within
a
few
seconds
or
minutes
after
that,
protocol
will
automatically
roll
up
all
the
states
I
have
to
use
back
to
ethereum
without
sort
of
any
like
third-party
interaction
like
at
the
same
time.
Right
apart
from
the
FD
means.
We
also
want
to
provide
very
smooth
user
experience.
AU
In
that
case,
there
will
be
like
sort
of
first
car
for
the
serve
and
also
a
bunch
of
add-ons
to
make
sure
like
it
can
relatively
easy
to
onboard
empty
projects
and
also
for
some
game
projects
beyond
that.
As
you
know,
right
for
a
lot
of
games
or
even
some
derived
exchanges,
they
want
a
dedicated
layer,
not
just
for
short
leave
your
time,
a
short
period
of
time
right
also
for
a
long
time
for
months
or
even
years.
AU
In
that
case,
we
will
have
this
typical,
optimistic
roller,
for
it
either
like
our
platform
right,
the
performance
is
quite
good.
At
the
same
time,
it's
both
evm
equivalent
and
also
was
I'm
compatible
beyond
that.
We
also
have
a
bunch
of
implementation
for
the
like
clients,
for
example,
in
the
future
users
or
developers,
can
just
run
the
like
client
or
the
verifiers
in
their
browsers.
In
that
case,
you
don't
need
to
wait
for
the
confirmation
from
the
L2
Network,
so
they
can
quickly
verify
the
latest
transaction
or
the
latest
block
themselves.
AU
AU
Beyond
that
right,
as
we
all
know,
there
are
a
bunch
of
state
of
Art
and
new
ZK
libraries,
and
also
a
bunch
of
game
and
metaverse
sdks,
which
are
not
solid
compatible.
In
that
case,
we
still
want
to
support
these
libraries,
so
we
have
this
wazam
compatibility,
so
we
can
allow
the
developers
to
deploy
these
libraries
and
literally,
can
use
the
solid
contract
to
call
these
libraries
to
really
have
a
versatile
execution
environment
for
the
applications.
AU
Beyond
that
I
write,
we
also
did
a
bunch
of
like
sort
of
campaigns
and
use
cases
ourselves
to
show
up
like
sort
of
the
capabilities
of
all
year.
One
night
we
did
one
of
these
OG
badge
mint.
Like
two
months
ago,
we
got
like
over
12
000
people
participate
in
this
campaign
and
all
the
ifts
minted
within
18
seconds
on
the
dedicated
like
sort
of
flash
layer,
as
I
mentioned
right.
AU
So
after
the
empty
mint
minted
like
within
minutes,
so
the
protocol
can
automatically
roll
up
the
activities
back
to
ethereum
so
right
now,
everyone
can
just
treat
the
isotherm
empty
around
for
price
of
0.6
liter
or
something-
and
another,
like
sort
of
example,
is,
is
about
game,
and
we
hosted
this
like
Community
round
for
that
Forest
like
three
weeks
ago,
and
we
attracted
like
tons
of
100
players
to
play
the
game
and
and
basically
precise,
around
100
000
transaction
per
day.
AU
The
feedback
we
got
from
the
players
that
basically
they
didn't
really
notice,
is
a
full
launching
game.
So
the
performance
and
also
experience
are
quite
good,
and
in
that
case
right,
as
you
can
see,
apart
from
this
good
performance
and
also
seamless
experience,
we
can
definitely
support
both
nft
and
also
game
projects.
AU
Yeah
and
right
now,
like
last
week,
we
launched
the
evm
equivalent
test
night,
so
everyone
can
just
try
out
the
like
sort
of
the
product
for
both
of
the
systems
and
beyond
that
soon
we
will
just
connect
to
more
air
ones,
especially
the
evm
compatible
ones,
and
just
try
to
provide
much
better
solution
for
both
rft
and
the
game,
and
also
derivatives
exchange
applications.
Yeah,
that's
sort
of
like
all
about
the
earlier
and
if
you
want
to
find
more
information,
just
feel
free
to
DM
me
on
Twitter
yeah.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
H
T
AB
AV
Okay,
hello,
everybody
how's
it
going.
My
name
is
Martin
I
work
at
Urban
Zeppelin
and
today
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
construction
and
why
it's
probably
the
future
of
crypto
ux
I'm,
probably
security
tube.
Let's
begin
so,
let's
first
Define,
what
a
kind
of
traction
is
and
to
better
understand
this,
it's
better
to
speak
about
smart
accounts.
You
might
be
familiar
with
them
already.
Smart
accounts
are
basically
smart
contracts
that
behaviors
accounts.
They
verify
transactions,
they
hold
assets,
privileges
roles
like
owner,
they
can
also
call
other
contacts,
which
is
very
important.
AV
AV
What
can
we
do
with
them?
Well,
basically,
we
can
have
custom
validation
schemes.
This
means
you
can
use
ethereum
signatures
victim
signatures.
Whatever
signature,
you
want
multi-signature
or
any
other
criteria
or
logic
you
want
to
implement.
For
example,
this
is
only
valid
on
Wednesdays.
You
can
Implement
key
rotation
in
case
picture.
The
scenario
in
which
you
lose
your
you
compromise
your
keys.
Instead
of
migrating,
all
of
your
assets
and
roles
and
whatnot,
you
simply
rotate
the
keys
and
you're
done.
You
are
safe.
AV
We
can
also
have
Origins
social
gory,
which
is
a
very
good
feature
and
session
Keys.
Think
of
session
Keys,
as
basically,
for
example,
a
Json
web
token,
or
a
set
of
pre
of
permissions.
You
grant,
for
example,
a
website
a
web
application,
so
you
sign
once
a
set
of
permissions
defined
by
some
policy
or
something,
and
then
that
website
that
can
can
act
on
your
behalf
without
you
having
to
sign
each
transaction
every
time
which
basically
gives
us
web
2
experience
on
web3.
AV
AV
We
can
think
of
this
in
a
two-step
execution
flow
first
evaluate
step
the
valid
step.
You
can
Define
arbitrary
logic
to
determine
whether
a
transaction
is
valid
or
not.
There's
there's
a
few
limits
here.
For
example,
you
cannot
read
other
contracts,
storage.
This
is
to
prevent
spam
picture,
the
scenario
in
which
there's
many
transactions
that
depend
on
the
storage
of
another
contract,
that
contract
changes,
that
storage
and
then
invalids,
lots
of
transactions
that
could
be
a
Spam,
so
that's
a
prohibited.
AV
So
this
valid
function
is
used
by
sequencers
to
know
in
advance
whether
a
transaction
is
valid
or
not,
because
instead
of
an
eoa
in
which
you
can
only
you
simply
verify
the
signature,
you
can
only.
You
cannot
do
that
assembly
in
here,
because
you
need
to
execute
some
code
and,
let's
execute
step,
does
what
you
would
expect.
AV
AV
Yet
then,
there's
this
validated
deploy
function
that
the
protocol
uses
to
validate
whether
the
funds
on
this
address
can
be
used
to
pay
for
this
transaction
or
not,
and
then
basically,
you
deploy
your
smart
account,
well
account
abstraction
and
finally,
in
starnet
you
can
use
open
sampling
contracts
for
Cairo,
in
which
we
have
an
account
or
a
regular
account,
which
is
the
stagnet
signatures
game.
AV
We
have
an
ethergent,
which
is
a
theme
signatures
and
an
account
library
that
you
can
use
to
build
your
own
custom
accounts
and
I
hope
that
by
now
you,
you
got
the
idea
that
it
means
a
huge
Improvement
in
onboarding
user
experience
and
security.
AV
AV
AW
T
So
in
the
ethereum
version
of
account,
abstraction
you'll
have
a
separate
mempool
and
the
boundaries
and
stuff
so
I
guess
in
stock
net.
This
role
will
be
replaced
by
the
sequencer
itself.
T
AW
AV
Right
and
you're
asking
about
the
pay
masters.
AW
AV
So,
basically,
you
send
a
transaction
and
the
sequencer
picks
that
transaction
validates
this
valid
function.
If
it's
okay,
then
it's
inserted
into
the
block.
I'm,
not
sure
I
got
the
question
right.
AV
Okay,
sorry
yeah,
so
that's
part
of
the
limitations,
so
you
cannot
read
any
external
information
from
the
contract
that
includes
like
blocked,
timestamp,
other
contract
storage,
so
you're
gonna
use
anything
that
depends
on
anything
else
that
the
very
same
contract.
T
D
AV
Definitely
so,
but
there's
a
smaller
chances,
so
you
for
some
other
reasons
the
so
you
could
you're
saying
that
you
could
invalidate
the
transaction
on
the
executions
part,
not
the
valuation
I.