►
Description
The Whiteboard Series with NEAR is a set of video interviews with Founders who are building scalable solutions for Blockchain. We deep dive into their story, what they're developing and how it is helping the ecosystem.
In the first video of the series, our Founder, Alex Skidanov (https://twitter.com/AlexSkidanov) interviews Zaki Manian (https://twitter.com/zmanian) from Cosmos Network. He also the Executive Director at Trusted IoT Alliance and is a known entity in the Blockchain space.
More about Cosmos Network: https://cosmos.network/
Download the video here: http://near.ai/cosmo04e8f
Follow the latest from NEAR Protocol on,
Discord: https://discord.gg/gBtUFKR
Medium: https://medium.com/nearprotocol
Twitter: https://twitter.com/nearprotocol
GitHub: https://github.com/nearprotocol
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/near-protocol/
Telegram: https://t.me/cryptonear
#FutureIsNEAR #BlockchainProtocols #TechTalk
A
Hi
everyone
we
have
anxiety
from
cosmos
today
and
we
will
talk
in
the
preparation
for
the
main
net
launch,
which
is
going
to
be
happening
very
soon.
Like
you
will
tell
more
yep,
we
will
be
discussing
the
the
protocol
and
we're
gonna
go
into
a
lot
of
very
deep
technical
details.
So
super
excited
to
have
you
here
and
can
you
please
introduce
yourself
yeah.
B
I
am
my
name:
is
ducky
I've
been
sort
of
contributing
to
the
cosmos
project
for
almost
two
years,
I
write
now
work
on
sort
of
research
and
development
and
sort
of
new
opportunities
for
for
tender.
Mint
and
I'll
be
talking
explaining
a
lot
of
stuff
that
probably
has
not
been
well
communicated
before,
but
we're
probably
is
like
probably
one
of
our
biggest
goals
over
the
next
couple
of
months
is
to
really
start
communicating
some
of
these
higher-level
concepts
of
the
protocol
about
how
the
blockchain
is
composed
together,
cool.
B
B
B
And
so
the
basic
concept
of
the
initial
vision
of
Cosmos,
though
I,
think
we're
gonna
get
deeper
into
is
each
of
these
are
a
bok
choy
and
those
blockchains
exchange
data
packets
stick
with
each
other,
and
if
those
data
packets
contain
a
token
or
an
asset,
the
hub
will
say:
okay,
there
are,
you
know
100
cVTC,
on
Zone
B,
there
are
10
CTC
and
if
the
packet
says,
if
Zone
A
says,
send
a
cbgc
to
zone
B,
it
goes.
It
goes
like
this,
and
this
becomes.
B
B
B
B
Are
called
atoms.
Another
thing
to
remember
too,
to
know
is:
there's
not
like
one
hub
in
the
cosmos
network.
There
are
going
to
be
other
hubs,
there's
one
called
iris
that
already
exists,
and
it's
going
to
be
launching
sort
of
being
parallel
with
the
main
that,
where
we
anticipate
there
will
be
more
so.
A
B
One
of
the
so
one
of
the
things
that
we've
sort
of
fundamentally
question
in
cosmos
is
the
notion
that
there
should
that
there
is
like
one
common
pool
of
security
that
many
applications
make
sense
to
draw
on.
It
makes
you
know,
part
of
the
sort
of
crypto
economic
model
that
we're
that
is
where
we
are
challenging.
B
The
orthodoxy
is
the
idea
that
unrelated
applications
that
are
not
part
of
sort
of
a
a
common
ecosystem
that
share
common
incentives
actually
make
any
sense
to
host
on
a
single
blockchain
in
a
world
where
pft
consensus
and
BFT
computation
is
scarce,
then
you
only
have
let's
say
the
ethereum
blockchain
and
the
etherion
blockchain
is
your
only
BFT
computation
resource?
So
then
you
want
to
host
all
of
your
applications,
but
the
idea
of
demonstrating
that
BFT
proof
of
snake
actually
works
removes
this
fundamental
limitation
around
scarcity.
B
A
C
B
Hub
that
recognized
okay
and
like
that
designation
of
what
is
so
there
could
be
like
there
could
there,
you
know
in
all
likelihood
will
be
many
pegged
to
bitcoins
in
the
hub
there
could
there
will
be.
You
know,
Bitcoin,
take
one
big
balloon,
peg,
two
big
three,
but
there's
a
likely
to
be
sort
of
one
Bitcoin
peg
in
this
ecosystem,
that
the
majority
of
the
social
consensus
and
the
largest
amount
of
locked
up
collateral
is
securing,
and
that
is
likely
to
be
what
most
zones
entry
does.
B
Know
like
creating
zones
is
a
permissionless
thing.
Creating
zones
is
permissionless
thing.
Creating
hubs
is
likely
not
as
permissionless.
It
probably
needs
more
assent
on
both
sides
simply
because,
if
you
connect
to
a
hub
and
that
hub
fails-
and
we
haven't
talked
about
how
everything
like,
how
do
you
actually
represent
state
moving
back
and
forth
between
James,
you
do
we've
just
form
and
waved
it
at
this
point,
but
this
is
the
fundamental
question
is
what
happened
like
if
you
have
a
BTC
peg
zone
and
that
BT
see
peg
zone
is
compromised?
B
All
of
the
you
know,
all
the
clutter,
all
the
Bitcoin
that's
stored
on
the
Bitcoin
blockchain
for
that
zone
suddenly
is
stolen.
What
happens
to
all?
How
do
you
reason
about
this
and
the
sort
of
core
design
of
cosmos
is?
How
do
you
actually
think
about
this
problem
and
making
it
so
that
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole
can
understand
comprehend
read
how
a
security
failure
of
one
zone
affects
the
whole
ecosystem,
make.
A
B
B
There
is
really
no
requirement
on
these
zones
that
they
be
written
with
our
software.
Any
fast
finality
bft
consensus
layer
will
work
as
the
consensus
for
a
zone
or
even
a
central
I
mean
even
a
centralized
database
would
theoretically
work
and
it
would
potentially
work
and
the
and,
like
you
can
run
any
state
machine
that
you'd
like
well
what
we've,
what
we
think
is
a
great
tool.
B
B
Read
if
you're
a
mistake,
so
you
have
some
blockchain
that
has
some
state
in
it
that
you
want
to
use
like
a
token
distribution
having
EVM
as
a
module
in
the
SDK.
It
allows
you
to
build
a
blockchain
that
starts
with
that
state
and
then
does
something
interesting
with
it.
So
this
is
what
we
call
what
we
typically
call
a
hard
spit.
B
B
There
are
no
definitive
plans
for
this,
because
we
are
going
to
leave
this
question
up
to
the
governance
signaling
mechanism
on
the
hub
as
to
what
we
actually
do.
But
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
in
the
cosmos
ecosystem
is
that
there
is
no
native
store
of
value
medium
of
exchange
to
the
Kosmos
ecosystem.
B
Atoms
are
intended
to
be
highly
illiquid
and,
to
the
extent
that
other
sticking
tokens
exist
in
the
cosmos
ecosystem,
which
we
expect
there
to
be
many.
We
expect
them
to
also
be
highly.
We
think
that
is
the
optimal
design.
For
a
sticking
token,
so
we
have
three
strategic
initiatives
that
we
are
pursuing
to
help
the
ecosystem
develop
a
medium
of
exchange
in
a
store
value,
and
one
of
those
ideas
is
that
we
would
grab
the
state
of
aetherium
run
it
as
a
zones,
and
you
would
have
this
new
zone
down
here.
B
Jam
first,
this
is
just
a
hypothetical
day.
It
could
be
any
date
ever
assirram
account
state
and
but
the
intent
is
not
to
run
this
as
a
fork
of
etherium
forever,
because
we
think
this
makes
no
sense.
What
are
our
point
of
view
is:
is
that
the
ether
that
is
represented
in
this
state
can
flow
back
into
the
hub
as
photons.
B
And,
to
the
extent
that
etherium
is
a
store
of
value,
even
a
medium
of
exchange
that
people
use,
which
is
it
is
in
today's
world.
We
think
that
there
might
be
a
shelling
point
around
treating
photons,
which
are
a
mapping
of
that
state
into
cosmos
as
a
medium
of
exchange
in
a
store
about
you,
then
eventually,
this
dies
like
the
hub.
Validators
run
this
for
six
months
and
then
turn
off.
Okay
make
sense,
but.
A
B
B
B
Being
a
cosmos,
validator
is
simply
the
expertise
to
run
the
software
for
any
part
of
this
ecosystem
and
for
a
zone
or
hub
to
be
successful.
They
must
come
up
with
a
crypto
economic
model
under
which
the
validators
who
operate
the
software
receive
enough
compensation
that
they
want
to
operate
this
thing.
So
we
have
a
crypto
economic
model
for
our
validators
in
the
hub,
which
we
think
makes
sense,
and
we
think
there's
a
clear
value
proposition
for
why
you
would
want
to
be
an
evaluator
on
the
hub.
B
A
And
then
in
the
in
the
bright
future
of
cosmos,
what
do
you
think
is
gonna?
Be
the
number
of
zones,
thousands,
thousands
and
then
validators
how
they
expected
to
run
like
clusters
of
expensive
hardware
and
operate
multiple
zone,
so
they
expect
a
single
cosmos
holy
data
to
be
operating
like
one
of
few
zones,
we.
B
Expect
that
so
my
perception
is,
and
I've
been
working
on,
you
know
creating
this
validator
community
for
over
a
year
and
there's
maybe
two
hundred
people
who
operate
validators
credibly
in
the
world
right
now.
If
we
are
going
to
have
thousands
of
zones
which
I
think
there
is
a
market
for,
and
we
only
have
hundreds
of
validator
operators
with
credibility.
This
implies
that
most
of
those
validator
operators
will
be
running
many
many
zones
to
secure
them.
B
A
B
B
So
the
question
has
always
been
given
a
removal
time
on
the
orderable
of
of
a
day
or
or
a
week,
you've
been
typically
running
with
about
a
day
of
removal
time
will
people
sort
of
fall
off
the
network
and
the
network
halt
and
what
we've
been
I've
been
really
pleased
to
see
because
in
the
test
net
everybody
is
running
our
tests.
Mint
is
basically
just
like
burning
money
like.
C
A
B
Have
data
on
that
I
could?
Probably
we
probably
let
go
through
records
and
figure
it
out,
but
we
haven't
been
keeping
data
on
it.
I
mean
mostly
like
most
of
you.
What
we
would
have
noticed
it.
We
went,
we
notice
halts
and
we
have
definitely
had
periods
of
time
or
like
all.
The
validators
are
like
where,
where
like
close
to
halting
and
a
bunch
of
validators
or
like
yelling
in
each
other,
in
chat
rooms
or
texting,
each
other
being
like
dude,
you've
got
to
bring.
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
So
censorship
is
probably
the
most
interesting
thing
to
think
about
at
this
stage
of
the
maturity
of
the
system
like
what
is
going
like
all
right
block
proposal:
censorship,
pre-commit,
censorship.
These
are
all
things
that
we
have
thought
a
lot
about
now
you
need
two
thirds
plus
one
of
the
network,
or
you
need
one
third
of
the
network
to
be
concluding
in
order
for
censorship
to
occur,
and
no
one
has
really
ever
tested
this
and
like
how
do
networks
bullet
behave
under
the
presence
of
censorship?
This
is
the
purpose
of
game
of
stakes.
A
Sense-
and
so
here
so
the
bonding
transaction
needs
to
be
included
into
the
block
right,
yeah
so
effectively
if
the
first
block
producer.
If
the
current
block
producer
wants
to
censor
it,
they
can
propose
a
block
without
the
yeah
transaction,
but
then
the
next
block
producer
also
needs
to
exclude.
It
needs
also.
B
B
You
there's
always
a
signature
associated
with
the
decision
on
the
network
so
and
an
absence
of
a
signature
in
the
in
the
case
of
sort
of
non
duct,
so
putting
together
the
evidence
of
censorship
and
like
detecting
censorship,
is
possible
in
this
system
and,
ultimately,
what
we
believe
block
chains
are
for
is
therefore
automating
social
consensus.
So
if
there
is
censorship
on
a
network,
social
consensus
has
broken
down
about
what
that
network
is
supposed
to
be
doing.
And
then
the
question
is:
how
do
we
resolve
that
and
I
think
over
the
next
week?
B
We're
going
to
see
this
in
real
life,
because
I
I'm
in
game
of
stakes
we're
currently
aware
of
people
planning
censorship
attacks?
We
are
aware
of
people
planning
Forks
to
respond
to
those
censorship,
attacks
and
I.
Think
what
we're
going
to
see
is
what
this
actually
looks
like
playing
out
in
real
life
which,
whereby
which
censorship
occurs
on
the
network
and
then
the
social
and
then
people
attribute
that
that
censorship
is
occurring.
A
C
A
A
B
Am
I
think
that
there's
these
questions
about
how
people
convince
each
other,
who
is
at
fault,
are
going
to
be
super
interesting
and
ultimately
rise
to
the
level
of
a
social
process?
And
there
will
be
some
end
like
there
will
be
like
when
there
is
disagreement
about
this,
but
what
we
will
have
is
we
will
have
a
signed
block
proposal
and
signatures
on
that
block
proposal
at
the
time
from
the
time,
and
people
will
be
able
to
go
in
and
say,
okay.
This
is
but
like
this
is
the
grand
experiment.
B
This
is
the
experimental
thing
about
running
bft
consensus
if
it
works
and
it
actually
can't
and
peep
and
at
a
social
level
when
these
kind
of
censorship
events
occur,
people
can
can
eventually
come
to
some
sort
of
consensus
about
whether
or
not
censorship
occurred.
This
will
be,
but
we
what
I'm
skeptical
of,
is
automating.
B
There
is
acting,
there
is
automatics,
there
is
a
small
automatic
slash
for
downtime
and
in
game
of
stakes.
We
are
experimenting
with
all
of
this
stuff
being
a
lot
easier
to
do
than
it
is
in
the
normal
world.
So
in
game
of
stakes
you
know
you
don't
have
to
put
down
capital
to
join
the
network,
just
head
SunNet.
So
if
you
get
all
your
friends
to
join,
it
can
be
part
of
your
cartel.
You
joined
gamma
sticks.
You
have
a
large
cartel
Indiana
stakes
in
the
same
way
for
you
also.
B
A
B
New
social
consensus
that
spawns
some
new
blockchain,
that
is,
you,
know
hub
prime,
can
instantiate
those
accounts
of
everyone.
However,
they
want
it's
ultimately,
just
like
the
fundamental
question
of
whether
or
not
uninitialized
a
vaca
as
legitimacy
comes
down
to
whether
or
not
the
operators
and
the
wider
economy
perceive
those
people
as
legit.
A
B
So
we
have
been
running
with
a
five-second
delay
on
ball
creation
for
from
basically
the
reason
was
back
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
we
did
not
have
a
five-second
delay
on
ball
creation,
and
this
resulted
in
the
blockchain
growing
very
large,
very
quickly,
and
so
we
so
right
now,
I'm,
just
looking
at
the
numbers
on
our
test
net
for
a
hundred
and
thirty-five
validators.
We
have
six
point
five
second
box
and
we
have
a
five-second
delay
in
there.
B
A
B
C
B
A
B
B
Be
completely
honest,
this
is
not
a
thing
that
we
have
fully
empirically
understood
exactly
what's
going
on,
the
goal
of
ten
durmand
has
never
a
dis
stage
in
its
maturity,
has
never
been
transaction.
Throughput
like
like
transaction
throughput.
Metrics
are
things
that,
like
there
are
multiple
constant
factor
improvements
over
current
Endermen
that
are
achievable,
like
you
can
make
a
pre
vote
on
block
n,
plus
one
a
pre
commit
on
block
and
why
there
are
so
that
would
take
out
a
significant
amount
of
latency
in
the
system.
B
What
we
are
we
are,
what
we
are
mostly
observing
is
along
the
system,
setups
that
our
validators
have
chosen
to
run
so
far.
This
set
of
parameters
is
working
well
and
the
parameters
are
not
in
consensus.
Even
so,
people
can
adjust
them
and
thereby
just
what
they
end
up
being
a
sort
of
an
emergent
property
of
what
the
operators
choose
to
run
so
the
operators.
You
know
if
the
operators
wanted
like
sort
of
pull
down
these
parameters
and
have
a
more
geographically
concentrated
hub.
B
They
can
do
that
if
they
want
to
increase
the
parameters
and
have
a
larger
validator
set
it
in
a
more
geographically
dispersed
up.
They
can
also
do
that.
This
is
just
sort
of
essentially,
these
are
like
emergent
print
constraint,
free
parameters,
but
like
there's,
also
an
enormous
amount
of
engineering
work
that
we
have
not
done,
which
is
just
like
make
10
Dermot
fast.
B
Our
goal
has
like,
for
this
phase
has
been
make
tender,
mint
robust
enough
that
a
bunch
of
people
who
are
not
something
who
you
know
are
basically
professional
or
a
hobbyist
validators,
but
not
necessarily
like
distributed
systems.
Engineers
can
actually
operate.
This
thing
with
strangers
over
the
Internet
I
see.
A
A
B
In
theory,
yes
in
MVP
yeah,
like
apparently
polka
dot
plans
to
do
this
I
think
that
is
a
great
idea.
I,
don't
think
it
is
a
kind
of
thing
that
anyone
should
deploy
to
a
blockchain
in
like
the
next
year,
make
sense
like
what
I
did
like
infinite
flexibility
and
the
ability
to
like
chuck
and
like
jumping
between
protocol
code
and
between
mike
the
code.
That's
in
the
runtime
and
the
code,
that's
provided
on
chain
or
just
make
the
complexity
of
these
systems
like
greater,
and
we
have
so
little
experience
and
knowledge
running
these
systems.
B
That,
like
we
prioritize
simplicity.
So
if
there
was,
if
somebody
out
like
right
now,
the
only
BFT
protocol
that
meets
our
needs
that
even
exists
in
the
world
is
tender
mint.
So
it's
like
what
are
we
building
to
but
like
in
the
event
that
someone
builds
something
else
that
is
good
like.
That
would
be
a
thing
that
would
be
a
probably
a
great
idea,
like
I,
think
the
progress
so
like
what
are
the?
What
are
the
components
of
IDC?
So
one
is
like
client
purse.
B
B
Usually,
when
you've
sent
an
IBC
packet,
you
send
so
entender
mint.
For
instance,
kinderman
is
a
very
efficient.
Like
my
persistent,
you
send
the
blocks,
so
you
send
the
blocks
that
prove
validator
transition.
So
there's
some
number
of
blocks
that
are
depending
on
how
dynamic
the
validators
that
was
that
are
that
showed
that
the
validator
set
transitioned
and
then
the
current
block
height
and
then
a
miracle
proof
of
your
IVC.
A
A
C
B
B
So
like,
let's,
okay,
what's
this
comes
down
to
like
sort
of
the
core
set
of
diet
of
like
understandings
of
of
how
given
a
system
like
this,
how
does
like
how
it?
How
do
you
reason
about
corruption?
Okay,
so
you
have
some
hub.
Let
us
assume
for
the
sake
of
argument.
Then
the
hub
is
not
corruptable
like
that.
Corrupting
the
hub
is
hard.
This
is
the
the
the
route.
The
reason
for
that
assumption
is
the
sort
of
core
reason
why
hubs
are
a
scarce
resource.
B
If
they're
corrupted,
they
affect
the
integrity
of
a
very
large
ecosystem
and
therefore
they,
so
everybody
has
an
incentive,
run
full
nodes
who
are
participating
in
the
ecosystem.
There
are
many
parties,
and
this
is
why
Forks
and
heartland
upgrade
should
be
rare,
but
so
you
have
and
then
you
exam,
so
you
have
let's
say
so.
C
B
From
the
evil
zone
to
the
hub
to
the
good
zone
and
the
good
zone
is
like
a
decks
of,
and
people
exchange,
their
cats
for
money,
so
the
whole
point
of
cosmos
is
is
that
when
you
see
an
evil
cat
on
an
evil
zone,
it's
actually
labeled
as
what
was
the
origin
and
then
what
is
the
asset
name
and
all
the
honest
participants
in
the
protocol
will
maintain
this
relationship.
So
when
you
see
this
the
good
zone,
anyone
who's
exchanged
in
the
goods
arm
is
gonna,
be
evil.
Cat
will
see,
evil
cat
from
evil
zone.
B
So
you've
good
times,
opening
and
people
are
exchanging
evil
cats
for
good
zones
of
credit
each
other.
Our
expectation
is,
is
that
if
you're
withholding
blocks
and
you're
fabricating
state
transitions,
essentially
eventually
the
market
will
be
like.
Why
is
there
this
blockchain,
where
no
one
can
get
the
box
and
why
you
know
no
one
really
trusts
the
zone.
B
Someone
could
have
lost
some
some,
like
you
know,
good
zone,
wicked
tokens
in
exchange
for
evil
cat
and
the
you
know.
If,
if
you
know
there
is
a
possibility
that
the
good
zone
could
upgrade
their
state
to
try
and
make
these
people
whole
yeah,
or
it
could
not
your
probably
easier
just
not
to
because
this
is
a
blockchain
and
terrible
things.
B
Okay,
what
my
whole
reason
why
I
think
this
is
an
acceptable
design
of
a
system
is
because,
let's
say
that,
instead
of
having
a
good
zone
and
a
hub
and
an
evil
zone,
this
was
all
one
giant
state
machine
and
had
exactly
the
same
security
properties
as
everyone
else.
The
reason
why
I
think
this
is
fundamentally
an
acceptable
design
is
this
set
of
reasoning
where
you
have
to
reason
about
the
state
machine
that
originated
your
asset.
B
It's
still
there
as
long
as
that
state
machine
can
be
upgraded
or
has
an
admin
or
bike
really,
as
long
as
there
are
any
of
the
hooks
that,
like
fundamentally,
are
necessary
for
software
as
we
currently
build
it
like
sustain
itself
over
time,
you
still
have
to
think
about.
Is
the
state
machine
that
originated
by
asset
and
every
asset,
some
level
of
risk
associated
with
it,
which
is
that
the
state
machine
that
manages
it
could
be
corrupted
right.
C
A
A
B
Say
it's
awake.
An
eighth
cat
now
originates
comes
in
okay,
so
each
cat
goes
in
the
hub.
The
eath
cat
then
goes
to
it
gets
shreddin
trait
goes
to
evil
zone.
So
now
you
have
like
each
cat
on
this
on
the
Sun.
Now
what
could
evil
zone
do
with
this
eat
the
cabinet?
It
can
steal
it
from
its
owner.
It
can
be
like
no,
this
is
ours
or
we
transferred
it
to
anyone.
We
want
cuz
it.
They
have
arbitrary
control
over
the
state
machine.
B
A
B
B
C
C
B
Set
of
operators
has
colluded,
has
colluded
and
this
becomes
people
yes.
So
what
is
your
bit
like?
In
the
absence
of
a
notion
of
cost?
That
seems
like
a
negative
trade-off,
but
one
imagines
that
you
know
like
mayest,
I
sort
of
back
in
the
envelope
calculations
like
rough
guesses
is
that
computation
in
the
more
securing
the
ones
that
are
relatively
well
trusted
like,
even
if
you
move
your
Creek
Creek?
Well,
you
want
to
trade.
B
Your
crypto
kitty
on
a
theory
am
you're
gonna,
be
paying
tens
or
hundreds
of
thousands
of
gas
for
to
use
a
Dex
you're
going
to
you're
gonna.
These
conformation
times
will
be.
You
know
on
the
order
of
minutes,
if
not
longer,
and
that
will
be
the
status
quo
and
when
you
are
on
cosmos,
you
will
be
you
know
with
today's
software.
Getting
you
know
one
to
two.
Second
absolute
finality
times
your
gas
costs
will
be
at
least
a
thousand
times
cheaper.
Like
you
will,
you
will
be
so.
B
This
is
why,
ultimately,
this
crypto
economic
model
competes
against
the
the
etherium
crypto
economic
model,
and
then
the
question
will
be
where
it
you
know,
for
what
set
of
users
is
the
decrease
of
cost,
because,
right
now
what
you
have
on
on
on
aetherium
is
you
have
two
choices?
You
have
choice,
a
which
is
I
can
run
on
very
expensive,
very
difficult
to
corrupt
software
on
aetherium
or
I
can
go
to
a
completely
centralized
system
in
which
the
admin
of
that
system
has
arbitrary
control.
B
A
B
I
think
emerges
naturally,
is
whether
or
not
the
market
can
price
security
accurately,
and
it
may
take
five
years.
It
may
take
ten
years
for
markets
to
like,
and
there
will
be
horrible
disasters
of
zone
takeovers
in
that
meantime.
But
my
thesis
is,
is
that
this
architecture
is
is
in
some
sense,
natural
and
as
long
as
eft
exists
in
this
architecture
will
exist
too,
and
the
market
will
eventually
find
an
equilibrium
of
understanding
how
to
price
censorship,
resistance
and
security
versus
the
value
of
the.
B
No
well
I
mean
there
are
many
channels
I
see
there.
There's
the
validator
community
has
like
alright,
like
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
have
to
ensure
censorship
and
resistance
and
integrity
around
the
hub.
If
we
just
said
like
this,
is
the
Blessed
slack
that
all
validators,
then
the
admin
on
that
slack
would
essentially
be
running
the
hub
we
would
be
running
about,
and
obviously
we've
wanted
to
like
avoid
this
case
as
much
as
possible.
A
B
B
Is
definitely
a
risk,
and
this
is
why,
being
an
operator
of
any
of
these
PFT
systems
that
we're
building
is
what
requires
a
sort
of
operational
security
mindset,
sort
of
deep
suspicion
about
the
world
like
deep
suspicion
about
what
you're
seeing
and
it
has
been
very
interesting,
seeing
that
evolve
over
the
time,
like
we've,
definitely
seen
social
engineering
attacks
in
these
channels
before
like,
we
will
see
them
again
like
yes,
as
long
as
validators
are
communicating
with
each
other.
Those
communication
channels
are
exploitable.
B
Our
main
form
of
resilience
2
is
to
encourage
as
many
of
them
as
possible.
But
yes,
this
is
a
like
what
we
are
creating
with
the
main
launch
of
our
main
net
and
with
with
with
game
mistake,
he's
a
bit
of
a
like
of
a
Hunger
Games
style,
a
competition
in
the
world
of
who
can
run
systems
like
this
in
a
trustworthy
manner
and
know.
I.
Think
that
the
you
know
the
the
practice
of
the
last
year
of
running
these
systems.
Intestine
is
enormously
valuable
and
but
we're
going
to
see
where
does
this
come
from?
B
And
in
many
ways
of
like
the
last
10
years
of
operating,
a
cryptocurrency
exchange
has
have
tested,
like
many
of
the
same,
has
like
produced
a
population
of
people
who
had
the
operational
security
chops
to
have
hotkeys
on
the
internet.
In
the
same
way,
this
in
world
of
validators
that
is
being
constructed
is
going,
is
creating
a
world
of
specialists
who
have
the
skills
to
operate
a
system
where
you
are
running
BFT
consensus
and
you
have
the
consensus.
Keys,
live
on
the
internet.
B
Ultimately,
the
world
is
not
going
to
think
or
care
very
much
about
the
low
level
proof
format,
but
the
world,
every
user
of
cosmos
is
going
to
have
to
have
a
mental
model
of
what
does
it
mean
when
I
see
this
evil
zone,
such
evil,
kitty
or
good
zone
liquid
token,
you
know
in
another
zone
and
one
of
the
fundamental
question
and
right.
We
are
clearly
in
a
very
immature
place
of
being
able
to
reason
about
that.
I
think
we're.
B
That
first
starts
to
emerge
in
this
ecosystem
and
I
start
accepting
tokens
that
originated
from
Goods
own.
Do
I
believe
that
do
I
run
a
full
note
on
goods
on
better,
on
a
full
note
on
good
son.
In
fact,
if
you
are
an
economic
entity
and
you
are
a
counterparty
to
any
of
these
things,
you
should
be
running
a
full
note
of
everything.
You
are
a
counterparty
to.
A
B
Or
what
I'm
hoping
is
is
the
system
that
we've
laid
out
can
be
more
or
less
in
place
by
sort
of
middle
like
by
q2
of
2019,
then,
hopefully,
at
that
point
we
can
leave
the
hub
alone
and
do
most
of
the
innovation
in
like
we
can
have
like.
Okay,
we
have
the
hub
at
the
hub,
is
reasonably
stay
about
what
we
like
hard
spoon,
every
all
the
atom
distributions
and
do
crazy
experiments
of
hub
and
crazy
experiment
hub.
We
do
we
upgrade
it
like.
B
Code
is
written.
Six
months
of
politics
happen,
maybe
a
hard
fork
that
upgrades
that
protocol.
This
is
like.
We
are
never
going
to
get
to
a
system
that
the
global
economy
can
work
on
using
that
as
the
way
of
doing
things,
what
we
need
is
the
ability
to
launch
new
block
chains
have
them
handle
real
assets
in
small
amounts,
see
if
they
work
see.
B
If
these
big
new
ideas
make
any
sense,
if
they
work
at
scale,
if
any
of
the
economy
has
any
appetite
for
them
and
then
move
them
up
the
ecosystem
into
the
hubs
and
so
I
guess
what
I'm
really
excited
about
is
once
you
have
these
primitives
it
unlocks
the
building
blocks
to
build
everything
else
it.
Basically,
it
makes
it
very
easy
like
if
you
are
playing
around
with
like
actually
getting
the
shared
security
thing
done.
You
plug
into
this
ecosystem
very
easily
and
very
early
like
any
beacon
chain
design
plugs.