►
Description
Gregory Landua takes the lead on this Regenerati News Hour to provide updates regarding product & protocol, and movement in the ecosystem.
A
B
B
A
They
worked
really
hard
to
put
this
event
on
and
I
was
just
reflecting
back
I
think
it
was
at
refi
Summit
last
year
when
the
Terra
Luna
explosion
was
happening
real
time
and
we
were
all
on
our
phones.
You
know
trying
to
reduce
our
exposure
to
that
stable
coin
and
watching
markets
plummet
even
further,
and
it
was
and
at
the
same
time,
having
some
really
interesting
and
Lively
discussions
about
the
future
of
regenerative
Finance
in
carbon
and.
B
Awesome
yeah
I
mean
so
I
think
I
was
I
was
thinking
about
this.
The
the
farifa
summit
happened
a
couple
of
weeks
earlier
last
year,
so
we
were
in
the
midst.
The
Terracotta
Terra
collapse
happened
whatever
like
May,
8th
or
started
May
8th
or
something
like
that
and
was
it
was
it
was.
It
was
done
by
now
and
I.
Remember,
I,
remember,
sitting
next
to
people
at
the
speaker's
dinner
at
refi
Summit
and
you
know
I
felt
pretty
I.
B
This
is
going
to
be
the
stable
coin
of
Cosmos.
There's
sort
of
No
Way
Around
this
so
anyway,
I'm
sitting
there
at
the
speaker's
dinner
talking
to
some
investors
and
some
Finance
people
and
other
people
and
we're
watching
the
de-pegging
happen
live
and
the
consensus
around
the
table
was
oh
yeah.
It's
going
to
recover
it'll
be
fine,
so
how
wrong
we
were,
how
how
very
wrong
we
were.
So
what
what
did
we
learn?
Yeah.
B
C
B
I
was
I'm
kind
of
hoping
that
Christopher
goes
might
hop
in
one
of
the
founders
of
I
mean
he
was
the
lead
product
lead
and
Engineering
lead
for
IBC
protocol
and
he's
the
founder
of
anoma,
and
he
and
I
have
been
just
jamming
about
things
recently
and
yeah.
I
was
like
hey
Chris,
you
want
to
take
this
conversation
and,
and
have
it
publicly
so
we'll
see
he
might
he
might
Loop
in.
B
We
might
have
other
Usual
Suspects,
but
to
return
back
to
sort
of
the
the
thought
train
here.
What
have
we
been
wrong
about?
What
have
we
been
wrong
about
I
kind
of
want
that
to
be
our
theme
for
today
and
I
I
kind
of
want
that
to
be
our
theme
for
the
next
couple
of
months,
because
I
feel
like
this
style
of
learning
and
sort
of
being
willing
to
be
wrong
and
be
publicly
wrong.
B
We
just
don't
do
it
enough,
I
I,
think
Nobody
Does
it
enough
and
and
by
not
doing
that,
that's
what
it's
just
like
it's!
What
creates
these?
You
know
too
big
to
fail.
We
we're
too
invested
in
our
fantasies
to
let
them
go
whether
that's
the
monetary
system
or
you
know
whatever
it
is,
and
so
just
kind
of
wanting
to
you
know
to
celebrate
being
wrong
as
a
as
a
learning
opportunity,
so
I
think
that's
going
to
kind
of
be
our
meta
theme
today,
we'll
see
where
that
takes
us.
B
B
This
is
going
to
land
flat
and
like
who
cares
or
like
no
duh,
and
some
people
might
be
surprised,
but
I'm
kind
of
feeling,
like
I,
have
been
wrong
about
being
a
cosmos,
Maxie,
Dave,
I'm
kind
of
feeling
that
I'm
kind
of
feeling,
like
oh
wow,
invested
a
lot
of
energy
and
a
lot
of
regions,
identity
and
energy
into
this
sort
of
thesis.
That
Cosmos
is-
and
you
know,
I,
don't
actually
think
I'm
that's
wrong
on
on
certain
levels
on
certain
levels.
B
A
I
I
think
I
I,
certainly
empathize
with
that
I
think
where
I've
been
drifting
recently
is
I'm
more
of
an
IBC
Maxi
that
and
I
think
the
thesis
the
the
concept
of
Cosmos
to
me
still
lands
and
I
think
whether
it
is
credited
to
the
cosmos
ecosystem
or
not.
The
idea
of
interoperable
sovereign
blockchains
I
think
is
absolutely
the
right
way
to
go.
I
think
we're
yeah.
B
A
I
know
I,
know
I
I,
you
know
I,
don't
know
I
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
at
all.
You
know
and
again,
transparently
we're
a
validator
for
a
number
of
chains.
I,
you
know,
I,
think
there's
just
immense
Brilliance
and
Cosmos
I
think
the
thesis
is
correct,
I
just
think
the
practice
and
and
I
think
By
Design.
You
know
the
early
stage
of
Cosmos
and
a
bunch
of
young.
A
A
You
know
our
approach
and
our
our
thesis
as
an
app
chain
in
this
ecosystem,
I
think
is
been
a
mixed
bag.
At
best
you
know,
like
the
liquidities,
not
there
for
us
that
you
know
I
think
you
know.
Polygon
and
ethereum
communities
have
done
a
far
superior
job
or
they
just
were
further
developed
along
and
had
in
some
places
a
little
bit
more
of
a
top-down
approach.
A
More
organized
centralized,
you
know,
support
functions
and
you
know
I,
you
know
I
I
can't
say:
I
haven't
been
curious
about
what
things
would
have
looked
like
if
we
had
chosen
that
direction
and
again
it
feels
like
if
we
can,
as
a
community,
pull
through
this
time
of
kind
of
immense
bud
and
and
really
tough
economic
space
that
again
I'm
still
bullish
on
the
whole
concept
of
Cosmos.
It's
just
been
a
struggle.
A
E
Hey
guys,
I
just
want
to
jump
in
here
on
the
on
kind
of
looking
at
technocracies
and
the
stickiness
of
interfaces
and
how
that
ties
into
like
evm
versus
Cosmos
and
just
to
say,
like
I,
have
my
workflow
down
with
Kepler
and
Ledger,
and
people
have
been
talking
about.
Ledger
and
I've,
been
looking
at
other
Hardware
wallet
options
and
they're
these
ones
where
you
scan
these
QR
codes
and
it's
like.
Oh,
do
I
wanna,
that's
a
that's
a
really
different
workflow!
E
There
am
I
ready
to
do
that
and
whenever
I
have
to
touch
metamask,
it's
just
excruciating
I,
just
I,
just
hate,
metamask
and
I,
wonder
thinking
about
like
the
corollars,
the
financial
system
of
like
people
in
their
Bloomberg
Terminals
and
like
these
special
keyboards
and
special
operating
systems,
and
all
these
things
and
and
how
much
of
the
tribalism
of
crypto
comes
down
to
the
the
literal
interfaces.
We're
using
just
wonder
if
either
of
you
have
any
thoughts
about
that.
B
E
B
B
How
do
we
as
humans
shift
that
and
you
know,
and
and
our
framing
at
Region
network
is
always
how
do
we
become
a
keystone
species
on
the
planet
that
is
increasing
ecological
health
and
thriving
through
our
human
economic
activities?
Right,
that's
the
key
question
in
in
I
think
as
a
community.
That's
what
we're
kind
of
questing
after
so
to
get
back
like
that's
a
so
that's
the
core.
B
If
that's
the
core
question
that
region
network
is,
is
asking,
you
know,
then
there's
a
set
of
values
and
beliefs
and
assumptions
about
the
world
that
are
baked
into
that
and
then
there's
a
set
of
well
one
of
the
things.
Sorry,
this
is
a
bit
non-linear,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
pulling
out
of
the
conversation
between
Nate
Hagen
and
Daniel
schmachtenberger,
and
this
podcast
is
just
this
very
nice
language
around.
What's
the
like,
are
you?
B
Do
you
have
a
narrow
problem
scope,
or
do
you
have
a
broad
problem,
scope
right
and
if
you
have
a
narrow
problem
scope,
this
is
intelligence.
This
is
in
in
Ai
and
business
logic
and
Venture
Capital,
and
by
and
large,
most
of
the
technological
tools
that
we
have
available
to
us
are
really
built
for
narrow
scope,
problems,
reductionism
the
more
narrow
you
can
get
and
you
can
scope
the
problem
and
then
execute
on
that
problem.
The
better
within
this
sort
of
narrow
scoping
lens,
and
this
is
intelligence.
B
The
problem
with
that
is
that
it
creates
huge
amount
of
externalities.
When
you
get
that
narrow
scoping,
because
you're
refusing
to
incorporate,
you
know
essentially
reality
into
the
picture
and
so
you're
sort
of
like
externalizing
all
these
things
and
you're
saying
we
only
care
about
this
single
variable
and
we're
going
to
make
decisions
based
on
this
variable.
You
see
this
in
action
like
this.
Is
the
profit
fiduciary
responsibility,
reducing
everything
to
a
single
monetary
value
right,
so
at
regen,
we've
really
and
I.
B
Think
I've
been
very
stubborn
about
this
personally,
there's
probably
other
characters
in
the
community
and
in
the
various
organizations
who
share
this
passion,
but
I
can
certainly
say
for
myself,
I've
been
very
stubborn
to
say
we
have
to
have
a
broad
scope
process
for
our
decision
making.
We
need
to
Grapple
with
the
holistic
problem
set
if
we're
going
to
have
a
regenerative
transformation.
B
However,
that
is
not.
That
is
like
totally
counter
to
the
way
that
Society
our
current
economy
and
everything
else
is
working
right,
and
so
once
once
you
shift
from-
and
this
is
sort
of
Daniel
schmachtenberg
Burgers
framing
once
you
ship
from
narrow
scoped
problem
set,
which
we
could
sort
of
say,
is
intelligence,
which
has
all
these
side
effects
to
a
broader
scope,
you're
shifting
into
wisdom
as
your
approach,
but
intelligence
out,
competes
wisdom.
B
If
you
were
doing
like
paper
scissors
rock
you
know
in
a
one-to-one
competition,
the
cleverness
and
of
narrow
scoping
is
always
going
to
beat
wisdom,
because
wisdom's
gonna
sit
there
and
like
take
a
little
bit
more
time
in
the
decision
making
may
choose
to
opt
out
of
certain
things
that
you
see
are
gonna.
Like
basically
run
you
off.
The
cliff
intelligence
doesn't
care
right.
It's
just
like
boom.
Let's
go
I'll
beat
you
right
now
and
I'll
I'll
deal
with
the
consequences
later.
B
This
feels
like
it's
such
a
powerful
description
of
the
real
challenge
both
that
we've
been
facing
within
the
cosmos
domain
like
as
this
you
know,
techno-economic
startup,
Sovereign,
blockchain,
experiment
more
broadly
in
web
three.
This
is
sort
of
nested
I
I
feel
this
tension
playing
out
in
multiple
domains.
B
B
Like
I,
don't
know
that
that's
right,
I'm
I'm
wondering
like!
Is
that
right,
because
you
know
and
and
if
it
is
right,
is
it
right
like
how
have
the
decisions
you
know?
It's
sort
of
like
parlays
into
many
different
dimensions
of
of
decision
making
as
a
community
and
specifically
I'll
just
say,
I'm
really
thinking
about
this
related
to
regen,
token
health
and
how
the
market
is
interacting
with
the
region,
token,
security,
governance,
value
and
sort
of.
Not
really,
you
know,
there's
like
a
constant
downward
price
pressure
and
I'm
you
know
I'm
just
there
are.
B
It's
very
hard
and
just
sort
of
like
maintaining
that
tension
is
very
hard.
So,
oh
look,
we've
got
a
crystal.
We've
got
a
wild.
Christopher
goes
here,
which
is
exciting,
I'm,
not
sure
when
when
Chris
popped
in.
But
so
that's
that's
just
that's
one
thing:
I'm
holding
and
curious
about
I.
My
instinct
is
that
I
am
wrong
about
something
in
the
way
that
I've
been
thinking
about
this
right
or
or
that
I
could
get
a
deeper
level
of
clarity
in
the
balance.
B
That's
my
instinct
and
I'm
really
really
churning
on
that
right
now,
so
I'm
gonna
take
a
pause,
see
see
if
Dave
will.
If,
if
that
Sparks
anything
for
you,
we
can
kind
of
keep
keep
churning
again
the
topic
for
today
and
the
regenerating
news
hour
is:
what
are
we
wrong
about
or
or
what
are
we
learning
from.
E
So
he
says
a
member
of
the
Swiss
Parliament
Lucas
fears
recalls
as
a
boy
meeting
his
celebrated
neighbor
Carl
Gustav
young.
In
the
course
of
the
conversation
young
told
us
about
his
encounter
with
a
Pueblo
Chief,
whose
name
was
Mountain
Lake.
The
chief
told
him
that
the
white
man
was
doomed
when
asked
why
the
chief
took
both
hands
before
his
eyes
and
young.
Imitating
the
gesture
moved
the
outstretched
index
fingers
convergingly
towards
one
point
before
him
saying,
because
the
white
man
looks
at
only
one
point,
excluding
all
other
aspects.
E
Many
years
later,
Dr
Fears,
who
is
a
physician
and
a
founding
member
of
the
green
party
in
Switzerland,
recalls
that
a
significant
adversary
of
the
movement
was
a
successful
industrialist
and
self-made
billionaire
I
asked
him
in
his
view.
What
was
the
reason
for
his
incredible
entrepreneurial
and
political
success?
E
B
Right-
and
so
this
is,
this
is
actually
you
know
if
I
think
Chris
is
sorting
out
phone
getting
Twitter
on
his
phone
to
be
able
to
to
chime
in,
but
I
think
this
is
a
core
question,
and
this
has
been
kind
of
a
core
thesis
around
that
a
core
part
of
region.
Network's
thesis
has
been
polycentrism
and
plurality
around
community
and
tools
are
on
communities,
choosing
what
is
of
ecological
value
and
how
to
and
how
to
monitor
it
and
quantify
it.
Because
of
this.
B
Because
of
this
idea
that
we
actually
need
multivariant
approach
to
kind
of
like
in
quotes,
currency
design
and
ecological
crediting
design
and
and
that
it
actually
it's
the
sort
of
centralization
like
if
we're
like.
Oh
we've
got
this
one
thing:
it's
carbon
and
everybody
has
to
follow
this
single
standard.
We
essentially
get
ourselves
into
the
exact
same
problem.
So,
okay,
so
let's
have
this
polycentrism
and
I
think
that
same
value
and
that
same
way
of
thinking
do
I
see
it
manifesting
in
the
way
that
we
engage
with
the
world
and
the
way
we
make
decisions.
B
But
again,
you
know
I'm
I'm
just
struck
with
the
the
quandary
which
is
like
if,
if,
if
the,
if
the
current
economy
is
like
a
Perpetual
game
of
paper,
rock
scissors
that
you
know
and
and
you're
and
you're
sort
of
inviting
optim,
you
know
you're
inviting
multivariant,
optimization
and
wisdom
and
engaging
from
that
perspective
all
the
time
you
kind
of
end
up
losing
a
lot
and
you
like
bake
yourselves.
You
bake
yourself
out
of
the
economy,
so
it's
like
you
know,
I'm
worried,
I'm,
just
to
be
perfectly
Frank.
B
C
Yeah,
when
you
hit
speaker
putting
me
on
speaker
I,
don't
hear
anything
for
a
number
of
seconds.
I
think
it's
seven
seconds.
They
say
so
that's
why
I
didn't
hear
the
end
of
it,
but
this
really
Rings
true
to
how
the
regenerative
AG
movement
has
had
to
deal
with
things
over
the
decades
that
it's
tried
to
do
things,
because
you
know
traditional
conventional
lag
was
really
reductionist
and
to
an
extreme,
and
it
just
got
worse
and
worse,
and
so
many
things
extra
analogies,
extra
analogies,
weren't
just
considered.
C
But
it's
also
made
of
many
components
in
a
lot
of
ways.
You
know
we're
being
pushed
to
Define
regenerative
agriculture
and
we've
talked
about
that
a
lot
in
the
past.
How
you
know
once
we
re
Define
it,
then
we
it
gets
reduced
and
we
end
up
in
that
same
reductionism
trap,
and
so
we
want
to
try
to
keep
it
as
open
as
possible.
C
Even
though
we
know
it'll
get
exploited,
but
as
long
as
we
stay
diligent
in
the
details
of
our
work
and
so
that
you
know
will
be
able
to
sort
of
push
the
real
the
way
we
push
real.
And,
of
course,
you
know.
We
realize
too,
that
the
reduction
is
system
in
writing
papers
in
peer-to-peer
review
and
all
that
sort
of
thing
was
a
problem.
C
So
that's
why
we
had
to
start
collecting
data
and
that's
you
know:
we've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
projects
that
people
aren't
really
aware
of
collecting
data
and
that
data
is
now
starting
to
form
in
a
new
way
of
empowering
that
data
for
the
individual.
For
the
farm,
which
is
this
new
thing,
that's
sort
of
being
called
carbon
intensity
scoring,
which
is
more
private
control
of
your
data.
C
C
It
wants
to
really
create
a
paradigm
shift,
because
we
know
it's
crucial
for
the
future
and
so
and
even
in
how
we
govern
ideas,
we
keep
that
pretty
loose,
because
we
don't
want
to
limit
ideas,
because
we
have
to
push
the
envelope
of
our
science
and
our
knowledge
even
beyond
what
most
people
will
need
to
use.
Just
so
we
understand
it
at
that
deep
level
and
then
back
it
off
to
what
an
individual
farmer
or
land
Steward
is
going
to
need
wherever
they
might
be
in
the
world.
And
of
course
that's
why
regenerative
agriculture.
C
The
basic
thing
that
we
talk
about
is
the
five
basic
principles
of
soil
Health
that
are
Universal
and
then
context,
which
is
your
local
context
wherever
you
be,
and
that
melds
a
universal
language
with
a
local
context
and
I
think
we're
really
getting
somewhere.
I
mean
regen
is
now
understood
all
over
the
world,
even
though
it
came
from
a
bunch
of
farmers
and
it's
even
crept
into
why
you
have
regenerative
Finance
now,
but
I
think
it's
and
then
it
goes
back.
C
What
I
see
the
problem
in
the
crypto
world
or
the
refi
Community
is
not
looking
at
what's
already
been
happening
and
advancing
that
because
there's
so
much
already
happening
in
decentralizing,
Food,
Systems
and
in
the
agriculture
part,
and
then
the
AG
in
the
land
stewardship
part
and
it's
taking
an
understanding
from
the
core.
What
what
are
the
changes
that,
like
a
regenerative
Finance
system,
needs
to
support
that
the
regular
system
won't
support,
and
how
do
we
advance
that?
C
And
there's
got
to
be
value
to
that,
because
the
value
of
US
changing
the
food
system
that
we're
in
the
process
of
changing
now?
This
is
now
definitely
happening
and
catching
on
unbelievably
fast
around
the
world.
It
just
needs
more
knowledge
spread
is
going
to
create
incredible
Financial
opportunities,
especially
in
the
decentralization.
So
just
add
those
points
thanks
so
much.
This
is
a
great
talk.
A
E
It's
like
that's
something
very
Universal
that
we
can
talk
with
anybody
about.
You
can
publish
stuff
and
people
can
understand
it
in
all
these
different
places.
The
the
more
Universal
your
your
data
structure,
the
more
of
the
context
you
need
to
let
go
of
the
and
and
vice
versa,
the
more
deeply
you
are
enmeshed
in
your
local
ecosystem,
the
harder
it's
going
to
be
to
express
those
intricacies
to
you
know
the
the
the
the
government
to
funders
to
Consumers
to
all
these
different
stakeholder
groups.
B
I
think
so
weaving
back
to
the
central
theme.
What
are
we
wrong
about,
and
you
know
and
welcome
everybody
I
see
so
many
great
folks
out
in
the
audience,
feel
free
to
raise
your
hand
if
you,
if
you
want
to
opine
either
on
the
central
thread
of
what
are
we
wrong
about
that?
We've
been
talking
about
up
here
on
stage
which
is
kind
of
an
exploration
of
the
balance
between
brain
hemispheres,
the
balance
between
wisdom
and
intelligence,
the
balance
between
single
variable,
optimization
and
multi-variable,
optimization
processes.
B
So
that's
kind
of
what
what
I've
been
sharing
I
I
feel
like
I'm,
I've
I'm
learning
about
her
I've
been
wrong
about
in
some
way.
If
you've
got
other
things
that
you
feel
like
you
have
been
wrong
about
or
we
as
a
community
have
been
wrong
about,
feel
free
to
raise
your
hand.
So
I
think
you
know
when,
as
Ed
was
talking
and
I
missed
a
bunch
of
it.
B
So
apologies
for
that
Ed
I
had
a
little
technical
hiccup,
but,
as
you
were
talking
something
that
struck
me
is
there's
a
lot
of
learning
as
well
and
I.
Think
you've
been
a
tireless
champion
and
voice
for
this
in
the
community,
but
I
don't
know
that
we've
done
I,
don't
well.
I
I
know
that
we
have
not
done
a
good
good
job
and
we
need
to
adjust
our
approach
in
how
to
really
solidify
the
connection
with
land
stewards
with
Farmers
and
have
them
in
the
driver's
seat.
B
More
and
the
practical
wisdom
of
tending
the
landscape
extracting
value
from
the
landscape
in
a
way
that
still
regenerates
the
soil
and
and
linking
that
up
into
sort
of
the
expression
of
the
success
of
that
and
and
making
explicit.
The
value
of
that
has
always
been
kind
of
the
core
pillar
upon
which
this
mission
of
re
connect
or
reject
making
humans
regenerative,
that
is
to
say,
our
human
economy.
B
Having
regenerative
ecological
outcomes
through
its
activity.
Right
and
I
was
framing
at
the
beginning
of
this
conversation
that
that's
kind
of
the
core
mission
of
region
Network
and
one
of
the
core
pillars
of
that
is
making
ecological
Health
explicit
and
making
ecological
Health
increases
valuable
in
the
economy
and
expressing
that
value
in
a
way
that
people
can
invest
into
and
therefore
Drive
change
quicker.
This
is
you
know,
kind
of
like
the
regen
thesis
101.
B
B
Oh,
we
would
succeed
with
that,
but
then,
if
you
sort
of
expand
the
variables
out
a
little
bit
and
add
other
variables,
on
top
of
that,
you
start
to
diffuse
the
energy
right,
and
so
this
is.
This
is
the
again.
This
is
like
the
My
Personal
Learning
Journey
or
quandary,
as
it
is
bring
that
back
up
so
Dave
you're,
just
hopping
off
sounds
like
you
want
to
yeah.
A
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
explore
a
little
bit
I
think
it
ties
into
this
where's.
The
building
block,
at
least
you
know,
we
at
regen
I,
think
are
we're
trying
to
straddle
this
web
2
and
web
3
Universe
right.
We've
got
web3
where
we
clearly
and
I
think
wisely
and
disruptively
chose
blockchain
as
a
concept
as
an
ecological
data,
accounting
Tool
that
allows
for
really
agile
and
special
governance
opportunities
that
are
critical
for
what
we
believe
is.
A
You
know
way
to
decentralize
the
originate
creation
and
origination
of
ecological
assets
that
are
marked
by
you
know
substantive
changes
and
ecological
behavior
that
ideally
are
moving
quickly
across
the
land
right,
so
we're
we.
We
have
this
wet
three
choice
that
still
largely
is
in
its
early
stage.
Clearly,
under
the
eye
of
regulators,
often
is
kind
of
over
sampled.
A
You
know
Degen
values,
and
so
we
we're
trying
to
satisfy
and
engage
that
community
in
a
way
that
honors
how
we
show
up
in
our
value
set,
and
then
we
have
the
web
2
side,
that's
suspicious
of
crypto,
and,
frankly,
is
you
know,
half
the
time
suspicious
of
one
of
our
major
products,
which
are
ecological
assets,
also
known
as
carbon
credits
for
kind
of
the
general
term
and
we're
struggling.
It
feels
like
to
connect
and
deeply
pray
your
conversation
or
pray.
A
Your
note
about
farmers
and
others
there,
and
you
know
and
I'm
curious
just
to
like
reflect
on
what
needs
to
be
true.
In
order
for
us
to
live
in
both
worlds.
Is
it
a
fusion
of
the
two?
Is
it
emphasizing
moving
want
toward
more
one
than
the
other?
What
does
that
look
and
feel
like
in
your
mind-
and
you
know-
are
there
choices
that
we've
made
or
choices
to
make?
That
should
be
reconsidered?.
B
B
You
know
and
I'd
just
like
to
say
for
our
audience
out
there
the
amount
of
time
that
it
took
us
to
build
that
the
bridge
and
launch
the
NCT
liquidity
right
for
case
in
point
was
huge.
It
was
a
huge
investment
of
engineering
resources,
time
and
effort
to
serve
an
audience
right
and,
in
this
case
kind
of
IBC
Cosmos
audience
to
bootstrap
liquidity
for
Cosmos,
zero,
with
a
vision
towards
automating
kind
of
carbon
markets
and
offsetting
for
the
cosmos
community
right.
B
So
that
was
a
big
bet.
It
was
a
big
gamble
and
the
technical,
Integrations
and
resources
that
went
into
that
as
opposed
to
serving
like
land,
Steward,
community
and
building
interfaces
for
them,
or
data
management
tools,
or
serving
like
a
community
of
of
corporate
offsetting
clients
to
build
interfaces
or
do
a
sales
Outreach
or
whatever
kind
of
with
limited
resources.
You
know,
I
I
am
definitely
holding
the
question
and
at
this
stage
would
transparently
say,
like
I
think
that
was
wrong,
like
I.
B
Think
we
were
wrong
that
no
one
seems
to
care
in
Cosmos
I
mean
certainly
a
set
of
actors.
We
I
mean
maybe
I'm,
maybe
I'm,
being
a
little
harsh,
because
a
bunch
of
chains
did
participate
and
do
offsetting
right
and
I
think
that
that
will
continue.
So
we'll
continue
to
have
this
core
committed
crew
in
Cosmos,
maybe
I,
don't
know
what
we're
up
to
Dave.
You
probably
have
that
I
see
Sarah
Sarah
backs
in
the
in
the
audience
as
well.
B
You
know
I
think
something
like
six
or
seven
chains
committed
to
offsetting
and
did
a
round
of
offsetting,
but
it's
still
even
with
that.
It
just
feels
like
there's
so
much
noise,
there's
so
many
other
things
going
on.
There's
like
this
Perpetual
drama
cycle
in
that
specific
corner
of
the
web
3
community.
That
to
me.
D
B
Look
at
that
decision
and
I'm
like
man
that
feels
like
we
wasted
a
bunch
of
time
and
effort
and
energy
human
capital
to
pull
that
off
and
it
does
just
doesn't
seem
like
it's
sort
of
like
a
user
group.
That's
never
going
to
be
satisfied.
So
let
me
call
that
out,
as
you
know,
oops
you
know
and
right.
My
question
is:
what
do
we
learn
and
I
see
a
bunch
of
folks
from
the
cosmos
community?
B
So
we
just
need
to
wait
and
see
or
or
did,
was
there
a
way
in
which
launching
and
bring
that
products
could
have
been
more
elegant
or
spoken
more
deeply
to
this,
like
intersection
of
seeing
the
opportunity
in
ecological
markets
as
a
as
a
market
opportunity,
but
also
having
that
aligned
with
values
which
I
think
is
our
perspective,
that
this
isn't
just
like
a
do-good?
Oh,
we
can
sort
of.
You
know,
you
know
like
attacks
sort
of
perspective,
but
actually
like
these
are.
B
D
A
B
So
again,
we're
we're
in
this
really
fun
conversation
about
what
are
we
wrong
about
and
we've
been
listing
something,
so
this
is
sort
of
like
a
humble
coming
to
terms
with
things
that
we're
wrong
about
Chris
now
that
you're
up
here,
I,
actually
kind
of
want
to
Circle
back
to
this
original
topic
that
we're
wrestling
with
and
I'm
kind
of
thinking
like
I,
don't
even
know
what
I'm
wrong
about,
but
my
instinct
is
I'm
wrong
about
something
which
is
this
like.
What's
the
relationship
like?
B
How
do
we
create
economic
games
that
optimize
for
multiple
variables
that
actually
compete
with
and
even
win
against
economic
games?
That
optimize
for
single
variables
would
be
the
way
I
would
put
this
that
I
think
we're
not.
We
haven't,
succeeded
in
in
understanding
that
and
there's
some
some
set
of
things
that
we're
wrong
about
in
in
relationship
to
assumptions
or
ideas
about
that,
so
welcome
up,
Chris
feel
free
to
introduce
yourself,
but
also
just
love.
Your
thoughts
on
that.
D
D
Yeah
I'm
Chris
I,
worked
before
on
the
design
of
IBC
and
I.
Now
work
on
you
know
and
Amada
projects
I
mean
I,
guess
you
know
to
me,
there's
sort
of
two
questions
and
I
think
it's
important
you
know
in
in.
Are
there
two
parts
to
this
question
of
like
what
are
we
wrong
about
or
how
do
we
design
a
system,
an
economic
system
that
can
really
optimize
for
multiple
variables
and
I?
D
D
Is
that
I
think
we
could
be
right
about
the
first
and
still
wrong
about
the
second
as
in,
if
you
try
and
like
launch
the
you
know,
theoretically
optimal
new
economic
system,
now
the
problem
is
that
even
if
you're
right,
you
know,
if
you
end
up
being
kind
of
still
dependent
on
the
old
system
for
too
much,
then
maybe
you
can't
like
you,
can't
get
it
off
the
ground
right.
In
some
sense,
it's
a
double-sided
Market.
D
You
know
there
need
to
be
people
who
produce
things
of
value
in
sort
of
multiple
Dimensions,
such
as
something
like
carbon
credits
and
also
people
who
want
things
like
thing.
You
know
or
value
things
in
multiple
dimensions
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
find
each
other
right.
You
know
to
me
kind
of
in
the
spirit
of
what
we've
done
wrong.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
the
blockchain
space
as
a
whole
really
hasn't
done
is
even
just
from
a
perspective
of
like
physical
flows.
It
hasn't
created
a
kind
of
separate
economic.
D
You
know
closed
economic
cycle
right.
We
have
all
of
these
companies
who
you
know,
raise
lots
of
money
and
have
just
really
high
expenses
that
are
denominated
in
dollars
right.
They
have
like
developers
who
expensive
they
have
to
pay.
They
have
audits
which
are
expensive
to
pay,
for
they
have
like
all
of
these
really
high
dollar
denominated
costs
right.
They
have
like
the
cost
model
of
Silicon
Valley
startups,
and
then
they
have.
You
know
the
things
which
they're
producing
are
not.
D
You
know,
they're
kind
of
only
valued
by
the
current
market
of
dollars,
not
of
everything
but
just
dollars
in
these
sort
of
very
speculative
terms,
and
one
way
you
know
at
least
sort
of
in
my
personal
experience.
One
way
I've
seen
this
play
out.
That's
interesting
and
terrifying,
but
also
in
some
sense
kind
of
clarifying
is
that
you
know
at
various
points
and
times
I've
been
involved
in
trying
to
raise
money
for
a
Noma
and
other
projects,
and
at
first
I
would
say
we
sort
of
started
with
this
theory
that
like
well.
D
D
That's
true
I
think
if
you
go
ask
people
on
the
street
like,
and
you
kind
of
explain
what
you
mean
by
the
language,
because
it's
abstract
vague
it's
hard
to
like
pin
down
it,
takes
a
while
to
think
about
what
is
wrong
with
the
current
economic
system
right.
But
if
you
explain
it
I
think
most
people
want
it
right.
So
I
think
the
demand
is
there,
but
what
we
realized
is
that
well
kind
of
among
you
know
Capital
allocators,
who
are
optimizing
for
dollar
returns.
D
It's
not
it's
not
so
much
that
they're,
like
they're,
not
evil,
they're,
just
highly
selected
to
do
that
and
optimizing
for
dollar
returns
has
very
little
to
it's
like
unrelated
to
what
we
were
actually
producing.
This
is
what
we
realized,
because
the
one
single
like
correlating
variable
in
how
easy
or
hard
it
was
to
raise
money,
was
the
U.S
federal
bank's
fund
rate.
D
If
the
U.S
interest
rates
went
down,
Capital
was
plenty
anyways,
U.S
interest
rates
went
up,
Capital
dried
up,
and
you
know
I
think
this
is
like
at
least
for
me
at
first
it
was
jarring,
but
then
it
was
much
better
like
to
understand
this
right,
because
then
you
stop
trying
to
fight
this
sort
of
losing
battle.
Then
you
just
have
to
realize
that
okay,
well
we're.
You
know
we're
dealing
with
this
very
unstable
system,
and
if
we
have
these
costs,
which
are
denominated
in
dollars,
you
know
the
most.
D
Whoever
really
going
to
do
is
like
say:
oh
well,
we
have
this
many
dollars
right
now.
Here's
kind
of
the
duration
of
time
for
which
we
can
make
those
dollar
denominated
promises
credibly
and
in
that
duration
of
time
you
know
at
least
to
me
what
we
you
know
speaking
not
only
from
my
own
project
but
I,
think
also
for
the
ecosystem
need
to
do
is
shift.
D
Those
dollar
denominated
costs
right,
like
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
internally,
in
some
sense,
start
producing
the
things
which
we
need
and
may
it
will
take
a
while
before
we
get
to
food
right,
but
maybe
there's
some
stuff
we
can
already
do
like.
There
are
many
projects
which
you
know,
do
audits
for
each
other
or
do
technical
development
on
similar
stuff
right
and
to
me
it
seems
like
we
have
all
these
great
new
fancy
accounting
systems
which
could
be
used
for,
like
circular
credit
clearing
and
all
this
sort
of
thing.
D
D
Everyone
takes
them,
it's
hard
to
convince
them
to
accept
something
else,
but
that
you
know
that
state
didn't
last
and
I
think
if
we
don't
transition
out
of
this
world
pretty
soon,
then
we're
just
not
you
know
not
going
to
be
resilient
because
we're
kind
of
dependent
on
this
at
external
economic
Force,
which
is
sort
of
disinterested.
So
that
was
a
long
skill.
So
I
can
curious.
B
C
B
The
way
David,
Fortson
and
other
folks
I've
got
a
little
bit
extra
time,
so
I'm
I'm
happy
to
keep
the
the
room
open
a
little
long
and
and
can
kind
of
go
along
on
this.
So
I'm
gonna,
just
kind
of
keep
on
this
thread
a
little
bit.
Maybe
another
15
minutes
for
those
of
you
who
are
in
the
room
so
feel
free
to
stick
around
so
Okay.
So
we
so
I
think.
B
To
summarize
what
you're
saying
Chris
is:
we've
been
wrong
to
overly
focus
on
dollar
denomination
market
value
and
runways,
and
we
need
to
remedy
that
by
making
use
of
the
tools
these
Advanced,
accounting
and
exchange
tools.
We
have
to
internalize
into
our
own
economies
the
as
much
of
the
functional
work
as
we
can
of
like
getting
software.
B
Shipped
of
you
know,
getting
people's
basic
needs
met,
Etc
and
and
as
we
hone
in
on
that
as
a
core
part
of
the
the
problem
set
instead
of
asking
ourselves,
how
do
we
get
more
US
Dollars
into
the
system?
How
Are
we
more
efficiently
and
effectively
using
our
currency?
Is
that
accurate
summary
of
what
you're
sort.
D
Just
add
one
little
kind
of
a
angle
inspired
by
your
reply
there
you
know.
The
whole
thesis
here
is
that
we're
building
a
better
accounting
system,
which
can
capture
multiple
variables
and
I,
mean
personally
I.
Think
that
that's
right,
but
you
know
I'm,
very
biased,
so,
but
the
only
the
way
to
test
this
right.
The
way
to
prove
that
this
right
is
that
it's
right
is
to
actually
do
it
right.
B
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
don't
know
you
know,
I,
don't
know
all
of
the
economic
flows
within
the
regen
Community
I.
Do
think
that
the
kind
of
you
know
the
kind
of
situation
which
I
hear
you
describing
to
me
is
one
which
is
actually
not
very
unique.
As
in
it's
not
unique
to
regen
I,
don't
even
think
it's
Unique
to
proof
of
stake,
like
I,
totally
hear.
B
Some
of
the
people
who's
thinking
it
might
be
somewhat
unique
to
proof
of
stake.
But
it's
interesting
to
hear
you
say
that
it's
and
I
guess:
maybe
it's
not
because
I
can
think
of
non-pos
based
sort
of
digital
currencies
where
they're
just
not
not
being
used
right.
There's
a
vision,
there's
a
few
people
who
are
like.
Yes,
we
want
this
to
happen,
but
it's
just
not.
There
isn't
a
robust
circulatory
flow
of
usage
that
actually
brings
the
utility
so
you're
right.
It
may
not
be
at
all
unique.
D
D
I
think
one
side
is
kind
of
like
just
due
to
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
easy
money
for
a
while
and
I
think
this
led
to
some
very
high
cost
structures
that
are
probably
not
sustainable
like.
If
you
look
at
you
know
the
cosmosis,
decaying
tenderment
or
something
like
this
and
the
way
we
architect
blockchains.
D
At
the
moment
they
are
just
not
very
efficient
pieces
of
software.
Like
you
know,
Cosmos
SDK
chains
are
validated
by
150
validators
they're,
like
you
know,
a
few
hundred
dollars
a
month
each
and
if
you
have
150
validators
at
500
a
month,
that's
75,
000
a
month
of
server
costs,
it's
just
like
very
high
right
and
if
you're
running
a
sort
of
smaller
blockchain,
that's
a
huge
amount
of
pressure
right
of
just
cost
pressure,
and
it's
not
clear,
you
know
I
think
it's
necessary
right.
D
D
That's
kind
of
the
individual
cost
perspective,
but
I
think
there's
also
a
kind
of
community
coordination
perspective
I
mean
if
you
look
at
a
lot
of
these
blockchain
projects,
I
mean,
on
the
one
hand,
I
think
it's
amazing
that
so
many
people
are
doing
protocol
development.
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole
is
not
very
deduplicated,
like
a
lot
of
people
are
building
almost
exactly
the
same
thing,
but
like
ever
so
slightly
different
that
you
know
in
some
sense,
from
the
kind
of
whole
ecosystem
perspective.
D
That's
not
very
efficient,
like
it
has
very
much
higher
cost
than
if
you
could
sort
of
properly
agree
on
the
interface
boundaries
and
share
more
of
your
protocols.
Right
I
mean
I.
Think
you
know
the
cosmos
attack
did
a
good
job
of
this
originally
was
sort
of
tender
mentally
SDK
and
IBC,
and
those
are
all
still
kind
of
common
public
goods,
but
some
of
the
protocols
on
top
are
not
you
know,
not
necessarily
so
standardized.
D
So
there's
a
lot
of
like
duplicate
work
going
on,
but
I
also
think
that
I
I
actually
I
think
that
the
like
individual
blockchain
token
economics
question
is
it
to
me:
it's
not
the
most
important
one
I
mean,
of
course
it
matters,
but
it's
it's
sort
of
not
it's,
not
even
one
that
has
a
general
answer.
Maybe
like
it
depends
on
what
the
actual
flows
you
want
to
kind
of
circulate
around
the
network
are
right.
D
You
know
to
me
what
kind
of
the
the
the
step
that
we
haven't
yet
taken,
but
really
need
to
take
is
creating
flows
between
these
communities.
You
know
IBC
is
the
technical,
substrate
right
or
a
technical
substrate
which
allows
for
this,
but
the
technical
substrate
is
necessarily
not
sufficient
right.
So
if
we
want
a
bunch
of
you
know,
we
need
Mutual
Credit
between
blockchains,
basically
right.
D
Let's
say
that
regen
provides
some
Services
which
are
valuable
to
other
parts
of
the
cosmos
ecosystem
and
maybe
other
parts
of
the
cosmos
ecosystem
provide
services
that
are
valuable
to
regen.
Connecting
those
blockchains
via
IBC
is
not
sufficient.
I
mean
it's
nice,
but
it
doesn't
create
kind
of
economic
interdependency
right.
It
doesn't
create.
This
sort
of
you
know,
Mutual,
Credit
and
I.
Think
that's
you
know.
D
That's
really
a
community
level
problem
like
to
some
extent
we
want
to
tie
our
Fates
together
because
it
will
allow
individual
you
know,
chains
or
projects
to
ride
the
waves
with
a
little
bit
more
buffer
right,
especially
if
we're
still
dependent
a
lot
of
Fiat
capital,
and
it
will
allow
just
more
efficient
coordination,
because
people
will
have
more
reason
to
like
de-duplicate
their
work
across
these
projects.
Right
so
I
guess,
I'd
give
those
two
sort
of
angles.
B
D
B
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
have
to
say,
though
my
early
attempts
to
you
know
that
was
something
I
saw
really
early
I,
maybe
like
2018
or
something
was
this
sort
of
like
kind
of
Mutual
Credit
Mutual
liquidity,
Mutual,
use
efficiency
around
public
goods,
and
maybe
a
lot
of
us
see
that
I
don't
know,
but
coordinating
action
on
that
I
I
mean
there's
something
to
learn
about
that,
because
I've
kind
of
lost
hope
I
mean
it
feels
like
there's
too
many,
maybe
Divergent
interests
or
something
going.
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I,
think
you
know
to
me:
it's
helpful
to
zoom
out
a
little
bit.
I
mean
I
share
the
kind
of
frustration
right
like
I,
don't
know,
I've
been
working
on
at
first
at
first
I.
Think
I
was
like
way
too
much
of
a
techno,
Optimist
or
techno
utopian,
or
something
when
I
started
working
on
it.
Ibc,
you
know,
just
like
all
we
have
to
do
is
build
the
protocols
and,
like
you
know,
everyone
will
realize
that
they
should
want
Mutual,
Credit
economics
they'll.
D
Just
do
it
like
that's
the
easy
problem
and
I
was
wrong.
That's
the
hard
problem
right.
The
protocols
are
the
easy
problem,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
if
you
zoom
out
and
kind
of
like
look
at
other
parts
of
the
space
or
look
at
you
know.
The
little
experiments
like
I
went
to
this
I
went
to
this
circles.
You're,
probably
familiar
with
circles.
Right
I
went
to
the
circles
Market
in
Berlin
about
two
weeks
ago
and
I
bought
groceries
with
circles.
D
D
There
are,
of
course,
isolated
some
of
some
of
your
work,
of
course,
collaborative
Finance
kind
of
isolated
attempts
to
push
what
I'd
call
a
sort
of
product
understanding
of
what
a
financial
system
should
do
and
why,
but
there
hasn't
been
any
kind
of
like
you
know
that
hasn't
percolated
across
the
ecosystem
in
a
sort
of
unified
way.
So
yeah
I.
Would
you
said
something
like
there
are
too
many
different
interests,
I
think
I,
agree.
I.
Think
there's
like
there
hasn't
been
a
strong.
D
You
know
not
in
any
sort
of
legal
control
sense,
but
just
there
hasn't
been
a
strong
enough
Vision
that
was
kind
of
broadly
enough
adopted
by
the
ecosystem
to
coordinate
right
I
mean
it's
not
not
necessarily
the
case
that
you
know
there
isn't
one
perfect
vision:
they're,
not
necessarily
the
right
answer,
but
I
do
think
that
Cosmos
you
know
it.
It
succeeded
at
the
technical
things
and
then
that's
The,
Next,
Step
kind
of
requires
or
will
require
a
you
know,
a
political
consensus
that.
B
Quick
question
for
you
do
consider
kind
of,
as
as
one
of
the
core
architects
of
IBC
do
you
do.
You
think
IBC
has
achieved
kind
of
a
shelling,
Point
Network
effect
moment,
a
more
broadly
outside
of
the
cosmos
ecosystem
like
are
we
seeing
an
adoption
of
IBC,
specifically
or
and
or
the
idea
of
sovereign
interoperability
in
which
maybe
IBC
isn't
exactly
the
spec
that
that
takes
place,
but
something
very
much
like
it
is
universally
adopted.
D
Right
I
mean
there
are
still
a
lot
of
bridging
protocols.
Many
of
them
try
to
add
new
intermediaries.
Many
of
them
raise
lots
of
money,
but
there's
a
lot
of
noise
but
I
think
Sovereign
interoperability
is
you
know
if,
if
you
talk
to
succinct
or
you
talk
to
the
the
kind
of
idea
of
IBC
has
sway
over,
you
know
people
who
think
about
these
problems
and
it
makes
long-term
economic
sense
right.
D
So
it's
not
it's
not
only
that
you
know
adding
intermediaries
works
when
you
can
kind
of
politically
capture
the
system
or
when
there's
control
over
data,
or
something
like
this
right,
but
I
think
it
actually
doesn't
work
very
well
when
the
system
is
too
hard
to
capture
and
when
you
don't
own
the
data.
So
all
of
these
projects,
which
add
intermediary
blockchains
do
their
bridging
or
whatever
I
mean
I.
Think
many
of
them
will
be
helpful
for
a
while.
D
So
I'm,
not
you
know,
I'm
not
trying
to
say
that
that's
a
bad
idea,
but
you
know
in
the
long
term,
IBC
is
not
just
compelling
because
it's
an
open
source
protocol.
It's
compelling
because
the
economics
of
directly
connecting
to
your
you
know
the
other
blockchain,
without
paying
some
counterparty
in
the
middle
or
better
right.
So,
in
the
long
term
you
know,
as
costs
come
down
and
protocols
become
more
standardized.
B
Nice,
so
what
do
we?
You
know
circling
back
to
what
you're
saying,
which
is
kind
of
that
we
need
a
higher
degree.
You
know
sort
of
centering
this
in
the
in
the
cosmos,
ecosystem
and
and
I
wonder,
do
you
think
juxtaposing
Cosmos
against
other
web
3
ecosystems
like
ethereum,
for
instance?
Would
you
say
you
know
it's
do
you
think
ethereum
kind
of
has
the
sort
of
political,
economic
consensus
that
is
needed
for
their
Cosmos,
plural,
verse.
B
D
D
You
know,
for
I
mean
it
has
a
lot
more
US
dollar
denominated
capital,
just
in
general,
for
various
reasons.
It's
not
it's
not.
Why
is
maybe
not
the
most
important
question
but
I
you
know.
If
you
compare
them,
it's
not
what
you
see
is
kind
of
still,
because
we're
so
reliant
on
US
dollar
denominated
Capital
right.
D
What
you
see
is
kind
of
the
product
of
like
well
how
much
capital
is
available
for
long-term
projects
and
how
coordinated
are
people
and
how
kind
of
compelling
are
the
ideas
you
know
it's
difficult
to
identify
any
one.
Individual
Factor
I
think
that
to
some
extent
both
ethereum
and
Cosmos
are
you
know.
Maybe
I
noticed
this
because
at
one
point
I
think
it
was
something
I
was
very
wrong
about,
but
are
over
focused
on
protocols
or
not.
Protocols
are
very
important
but
they're
over
focused
on
like
implementing
more
of
them
without
understanding.
D
D
This
happens
at
the
expense
of
kind
of
coherent
Theory,
crafting
of
of
like
what
the
economic
flows
of
the
system
are
actually
supposed
to
be
and
how
you
know
like
why?
Don't
we
have
I
mean
ethereum
and
Cosmos
together
have
like
billions
of
dollars
right?
It's
enough.
You
know
we
have
enough
US
dollar
Capital
right.
If
we
need
more
than
this.
It's
our
fault.
It's
not!
You
know.
We
can't
blame
it
on
the
rest
of
the
world
anymore.
D
B
B
Keep
the
room
open
Dave
if
you've
got
capacity,
for
that,
that's
great
I
mean
my
sense
is
probably.
This
is
a
good
place
to
sort
of
put
a
a
punctuation
mark
at
the
end
of
of
this
conversation,
but
kind
of
noting
that
this
is
going
to
continue
because
I
think
you
know,
Chris
I
just
really
appreciate
how
you've
kind
of
identified
some
of
the
core
challenges
and
it
and
it
actually
it
helps
align.
My
thinking
of
you
know
if,
if
and
how,
how
do
we
tackle
that
problem?
B
B
A
B
Here
today,
yeah
and
and
Dave
whistle
super
sorry
I
do
I,
have
a
hard
stop
here,
so
I'm
gonna
hop
off
and
thank
you.
Everybody
for
listening,
really
appreciate
everybody
in
the
audience
and
everybody
who's
who's
spoken
and
Dave.
Witzel.
Apologies
that
you
haven't
gotten
your
voice
in
here
I'm
quite
sure
that
it
was
going
to
be
helpful
observation
no.