Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Community Hangout
Recorded: June 26, 2025 Duration: 1:02:00Space Recording
Short Summary
In a recent community hangout, key developments in the Geek blockchain ecosystem were discussed, including the successful launch of a certification platform, strategic partnerships for educational initiatives, and the growing demand for public chains. The conversation also highlighted innovative self-sovereign identity solutions that promise to revolutionize user authentication in the crypto space.
Full Transcription
hey stephanie Hey, Stephanie.
Hey, how are you today?
A few days, yeah?
Yeah, I think a few days, yeah.
Oh, and you're here.
I had family and friends over, so it was a bit intense.
I hope it went well.
Yeah, it went well.
Great.
Hi, Ami.
Okay, Ami is not... Okay, John is asking me for the link, as he does every week.
Hang on a second, please.
Yeah.
Yeah. every week hang on a second please yeah hi emmy how are you
and there's john
let me give him the right to speak real quick.
Well, that's wonderful.
Great, great.
Hey, Johnny D.
Yes, loud and clear.
Oh, I can't believe it worked.
so robbie are your are your friends and family still where you are or did they go back home
uh my mom and my aunt they left today and one friend from my hometown is leaving tomorrow
oh okay so he gets to hang out on uh or she gets to hang out and listen to you.
Yeah, but I think he's doing other stuff right now, though,
because he's on holidays.
What could be more entertaining than this?
Nothing.
So you missed the end of the boot camp, I think, this week.
Yeah, on Monday.
Yeah, on Monday we had a showcase
with two really terrific finalists.
I'm really excited because they were successful
and they've done projects that I've heard discussed
for a really long time in many contexts.
John, you missed it too. The winner was a certification,
beginning of a certification platform. And I know I've been asked by people who run incubators and people who run authorizations for different kinds of educational programs
and let's see what else I'm sure I've heard of it in other places but certifications John
I think we've heard about certifications for car repair people who get independent career training at various locations and want to take that with them.
And then the other finalist was a land registry program using geolocation to define real world asset, you know, for property and wanted
to work toward fractionalization.
So those were both very exciting.
Yeah.
One thing that we can, you know, we started off talking about, you know, tokenization,
of course, a very old idea.
Lots of people thought about it all the way back to 2017 and even before.
I even worked for a project that never really came into anything, it turned out, that was trying to tokenize diamonds.
They had a new process for tokenize diamonds.
They had a new process for generating industrial diamonds,
and they were going to inscribe them and then tokenize them and then fractionalize them.
So, you know, all the technologies were there,
but it never really seemed to come off.
So that project finally died.
But, you know, this, it occurs to me that this,
the geek ID thing that we have is kind of the missing link. Because like you said, things are,
you know, if I have a certification, what good does it really do me if, know it's some random piece of documentation uh who who said it was a
certification of this did i just write it up that it is a forgery i don't know but if you if you have
these identity nfts and say okay this is really microsoft or this is really the local community
college or whoever it is that is
claiming that they have actually endorsed you.
Well now, we have a way of saying, here's my certificate, you can verify it, and it
really means something, and it's transportable, it's interoperable, can go to many different
users.
But after that, I think that a lot of these certificate platforms run into the problem, just like you're saying, I'm saying it a different way, run into the problem that it's not really transparent to the people who might count on these cert the credentials of someone, but they don't really know who signed it. They don't really know the public key, what that means. They don't really know
what cash means. So I think part of this is the key idea, as you say, which is kind of
apparently a little bit of public key.
I don't know if you can do anything. You're fairly distorted.
Oh, really?
Yeah, no, you're better.
Okay. But the public ID, the Geek ID is a public lookup. So that's useful. And then the metadata for the certification is right there in plain sight.
You don't have to just look at hash, right?
You can match up the hash and not know what it means,
but then have all the data that you want in the metadata
to identify things quickly.
So the projects that came out of bootcamp were,
not only were they successful in reaching the blockchains,
the testnet blockchain,
but they look just like web too,
because they put the metadata in plain text and their web's in plain text.
So I love that so much.
Right, right.
There's a long history, of course,
in my vaunted industry of diploma mills.
And, you know, you have a you have a you can pay to get a Ph.D. from somewhere.
And what does it mean? How do we know that it just sort of values the whole thing?
So you can even go a step further to say that.
All right. So maybe I don't know your endorser. Maybe
you're just at school and maybe somebody really never took the trouble to figure out if you
were any good. Well, we can actually get reputation attached to it. Are the people that claim
to have this credential, what are they doing? Are they employed? Are they doing things that
They're doing things that people are saying are useful.
people are saying are useful? But that's another bridge.
But that, you know, that's another bridge.
No, and that's why I really like the idea that we're doing blockchain for data,
because one of the things you're saying is, you know,
great inflation in universities in the U.S.
Back when.
Yes, it's terrible.
Right.
I could get a C in a class. No, you couldn't. You barely can get a C. No, I's terrible. Right? I could get a C in a class.
No, you couldn't.
You barely can get a C.
No, I really tried, and I worked hard for a C. I'm not ashamed anymore.
But now you can barely get below an A-.
Yeah, it's very hard.
It's ridiculous. And the problem with that is you
look at a piece of data all by itself. Oh, A minus, A minus is great until you see the entire
data set and that's the bottom, right? And so we don't have to give away private information
for everybody to look on chain and say, you know, there aren't, you know,
here's the distribution of verified grades and.
Actually, that's interesting.
You could have schools that wanted to be more credible,
published not, you know, not, not,
you can, you can volunteer to offer your grade,
but certifying that you were in that class and maybe even
certifying your grade if you want to, they can also say, well, here was the error. Here
was the distribution. And this guy was at the, with his A, he was at the, you know,
the 30th percentile. So, you know, we can bring credibility back. If we choose, we don't have to, of course.
No, I think that's right.
Having verified data does allow
real data to start meaning something again,
rather than just getting into a race to the bottom
or race to the top, whatever it is.
Should that be our new slogan?
Make data relevant again?
I wish.
I wouldn't mind that, actually.
Hi, Brave.
We were talking about the, we got off track, but we were talking about the finalists of the boot camp.
And now that they're all here,
thank you to Brave and Obi and Emi Wind for really encouraging and facilitating that bootcamp.
All the way to the end.
So let's give it back to Robbie
because I love hearing Robbie's voice.
Okay, like my voice is horrible on speakers and stuff though anyway.
It's very sophisticated in European.
I speak French as well, John, if it may help.
Doesn't help me, but okay.
No, so like,
Stephanie put out a tweet earlier as well
about the topic that we are layer zero.
And then like, layer zero, where did it begin?
How did it begin?
You know, I think that might be a great topic to discuss as well today in Hangouts.
So interoperability, John.
Interoperability, okay, is that later?
So I think you asked me to talk a little bit about how we have this treasury chain
we have this treasury chain that makes us.
that makes us interoperability.
So here's the,
here's the fundamental problem with all of these,
these solutions that look to sharding to scale.
Sharding, the idea of sharding is,
is to reduce the computation and informational burden
that you're facing.
You know, if I have to do everything
through one window in the bank,
then I'm constrained by, you know,
how many people can get through that window.
The advantage of course is that it's all in the same ledger.
So we know that everything has happened
and everything can be reconciled all at one time.
But then again, we face these constraints about throughput.
So we have several windows.
Now, if we're wanting to make sure that nobody double spends
and everything works out correctly,
these tellers have to be aware of what is happening
at the other window.
We have to know that something is spent over here on what in this metaphor is a different
chain, a different instance, a different shard before we can know for sure that what's happening
on our shard is correct.
All right.
So we also have to know, for example,
maybe there's a deposit.
Well, how do we know that the person
that is sending us the fact of the deposit,
even if we're aware of the information,
how do we know that the teller is really a teller?
Do we know that the person that is a representative
of a bank that said, yes,
I received $500 in cash. And so add this to this account and let that person go ahead and draw on
that money. So I have to be aware of who is authorized. And in the case of blockchain,
what it means is I have to be aware of the validators. I have to be aware of the nodes.
If I'm not aware of who is allowed to vote
to endorse a block for commitment, well, then I could just get fake blocks all the time. So
I have to be aware not only of the content of the blocks, who spent what, but I also have to know that the block that I'm seeing is in fact
the correct block. It's not a fork. It's not a fake block. It's not a block that is, say,
endorsed by a bunch of nodes that were voted off the chain or were slashed because they were
dishonest or just a bunch of nodes that claim
they've got more stake than they really have. So in other words, sharding really is kind of
self-defeating because I'm sharding to prevent myself from having to do too many calculations
and have too much information. But actually, I have to have all the information and I have
to do all the calculations. I got to make sure your block is correct make sure that assuming that it's all
correct and the right people are assigning things so how do i do that well uh you know they have
these ideas of zk proofs and roll ups. These are just
a wing and a prayer, you know, they're not there. Unless you do the full verification
with all the information you require, you're just hoping that somebody challenges and the
challenge is correct. And we can get the data to verify the challenge. So it's all just, you know, it's all smoke and mirrors.
It's just introducing ways that things can break
and attack surfaces and optimistic views
of what you might happen to learn.
So, I mean, it's certainly not enterprise level.
It's not zero trust.
It's not even, you know, let's hope that the game
is good enough that people have an incentive not to lie because you've broken the game. You've
gone outside the incentives. I've got no incentive not to send you false data because you can't
sanction me because I'm not even on your chain. So it's just, it's almost broken by design.
It's just, it just perplexes me that people do this.
All right, so.
So can I just interrupt because we have so many people.
No, you can't.
Go ahead.
Can I interrupt?
I'm sorry.
So we're talking about interoperability and how for interoperability and preventing double
spends across chains or understanding that there's a deposit on one chain that you should
pay attention to if you're transacting on the second chain, that John's always back
to the same problem, unless you have the data, unless you really have the data
and you do the work, the computational work,
then you're just guessing basically.
You're just guessing.
Yeah.
And it gets even worse really.
I mean, if you really wanna go down the rabbit hole
and that is, I was just assuming
that you're on the same protocol.
But if you're trying to do interoperability across different protocols, protocols, for example,
have governance. And governance says, well, we have the right votes, then we can change the rules.
And suddenly, I don't know, transaction fees are higher than they used to be. Okay, well,
how do I know that a governance action took place and it was legitimate? Or how
do I know this was actually a thing that was within governance? To know that I would have to
know the entire protocol. And so suddenly a chain comes up and says, oh, we changed our rules and
everybody was taxed 10% to pay for an upgrade. Maybe that's true. Maybe that's fair. But how
would I know? How would I verify a thing
like that? So if I don't even know the rules of the game, much less who is endorsing blocks and
what the content of the blocks is, I don't know the rules. I can't even get started. So it's,
it's, I don't know, it's just so full of places that things can fail that, I don't know, it makes me sad.
Okay, so we're sad.
When we look at a lot of offerings that claim to communicate across chains with different protocols, we're very sad.
So now, how does Geek do things differently?
Well, okay, so there's a couple, there's several things. One thing is we're much less
at business. If we have to make every chain aware of every other chain, there's really no reason to
shard in the first place. So we're, we have to get rid of that as a design goal, first off.
So I don't know who is on your chain.
I don't know who has joined your network, who has left the network,
who has been audited out.
I just don't know these things.
And if I have to be aware of every single action that takes place,
well, then again, that's just too much data.
And so instead, we're much more limited.
We're much more restricted.
I don't actually need to know about everything
that happens on your chain.
I just what we'll argue.
Suppose that you have NFTs and data and somebody issues a bunch of stackables and make some
attestations. Well, those things don't really affect other chains. So in financial economics,
we have this notion of infection, of contagion. So if one bank fails, that causes a general lack of confidence,
there's a need to tap into the insurance pool or something like that, or maybe there's
interlocking loans. One failure can lead to a contagion that damages the entire system.
So what we really want to do is make sure that contagion is
impossible. So within a chain, a particular chain instance, their job is to say, yeah,
that attestation was signed correctly. And proof of honesty, you know, gives very strong guarantees
that everything that goes on in the chain is correct. And if not, the honest people go off and continue the honest chain, the only possible honest
chain.
So all that happens on the chain.
I don't really care if NFTs exist on chain instance five.
Doesn't make a difference to me.
What I do care about, though, is that they didn't somehow meant more geek.
somehow meant more geek.
And they're not doing anything
that is going to impact the entire ecosystem.
And so the fundamental goal of the treasury chain
is just to maintain the gross balances of geek
as distributed across each of the instances.
So if there's a hundred million geek the geek
either can exist in an uncommitted form on the treasury chain no chain instance has it
or it can be allocated to one of the chains and the only thing that we need to check is that the sum
The sum of all the money that's done committed and held by the Treasury adds up to the amount that was minted.
of all
And then some are off in chain 57.
They're playing silly buggers.
Well, that's unfortunate, and I'm going to leave it to chain 57 to work out what's going on in their family.
But I'm not going to take geek from that chain and i'm not
you know i'm not going to let their their actions affect the credibility of the underlying system
so that's the objective that's what that's what we're doing so we only care about it
we don't we only care about the about data about the allocation of people right so so
about the allocation of people.
Right, so the treasury chain is there to make sure
that the monetary base is accounted for, right?
Right, and also, yes, that's one primary,
that's the primary point.
Okay, can you go back and explain
the silly buggers, Chain 57, I didn't understand that.
So it's possible that chain 57 could, you know,
agree to let transactions happen that were not properly signed
or in some other way violate protocol
or even to claim that somehow magically they've got twice the amount of heat
that they were allocated.
All right. So that exists as a local failure.
And the proof of honesty and the guarantees we have
will, should, unless something goes wrong insanely,
prevent that kind of thing that happens.
But in the worst case, if something really crazy happens,
then they're a chain that has gone broke.
And it's possible, you know,
it could be that we have a rogue version of chain 57.
And of course, proof of honesty guarantees,
we will also have a correct version of chain 57.
But the rogue version, you know,
if we're in this general case of federated instances, how do we know
it's rogue?
Because how do we know who are the right endorsers?
And how do we know how they got into that state?
How do they get to the point of being rogue?
What's the way of distinguishing the bad guys from the good guys?
Right.
Right. So we don't particularly care how they went rogue because you can tell the good chain 57 from the rogue chain 57. So everybody that cares, we interact on the good chain 57.
That's right.
Okay.
Okay, go ahead.
And so what would happen with, actually, we haven't talked about this for a while.
We're getting the question, what would happen on SkinnyMainNet?
And what are your thoughts currently about geek on skinny
or should i not ask the question well my point is that the treasury chain
is not needed until we have multiple chains is that correct
until we have multiple chains. Is that correct? John? Okay, don't ask a question that you
don't know the answer to. I did know that answer is correct. We don't need a treasury chain until after we have multiple chains.
So people don't have to worry about that, but there was a question in chat about how how do you count from one chain to transfer to another?
And that's where we say, you know, it's only one source.
It's across chains with the same protocol.
We know how to count because that's basically what geek what proof of honesty does it's not voting
it's counting and so um that's geek now john um some of the people in our community are new
and so they don't have probably haven't heard how other assets besides geek are exchanged so they probably have a third of that on the
slots on chain versus just minimized actions across a fascinating question
I'm sure but let me come let me let me answer a different we can come to that
but but here here's the sense in which we don't need,
but it's also good to have.
The way that you would have a skinny chain
without a treasury chain
is it would simply exist sort of in isolation.
It would have a certain amount
of the total geek allocated to it.
The rest wouldn't.
The rest would still be, you know,
living in ERC 20 bill and it would just exist.
But since it doesn't have to move geek across chains and it doesn't have to
answer to anybody else,
we don't really have to have the reporting facilities of the, of the,
and the interchanging the geek interchange
Facilities of the of the Treasury chain until we have at least two two instances
So that's the that's the sense in which is right. You don't need the Treasury chain
The Treasury chain does some other things like prevent stalls
If there's a stall the Treasury chain is a fail-safe that it can use to prevent a stall,
which would be beneficial for a single chain instance too. But it's just an improvement as
opposed to a requirement. You asked, let me again come to the question of other assets in atomic
swaps. But let me just spend a little bit more time
talking about what the treasury chain does.
Okay, so, so far what we've got
is the treasury chain keeps the gross ledger.
You know, we've got 100 instances.
We've got an allocation of geek to all of those instances.
those instances and we've got some unallocated geek and everybody can see that.
And we've got some unallocated geek.
And everybody can see that.
Okay, well, if you want to make a movement of geek across instances, there are two ways
to do it, sort of a soft way and a hard way.
The soft way doesn't require the treasury chain.
The software uses what you described, your atomic swaps.
So let's suppose that we have two chain instances.
And on chain one, we have somebody who is maybe,
think of them as a broker.
And they have Geek in their account,
and they're willing to transfer it to agents on the chain
if under certain circumstances.
On chain two, you have the same broker,
totally different account, but they're the same people.
I want to move my token, my geek from chain one to chain two.
So what I really want to do is give my tokens to the broker on chain one,
have him absorb them and keep them on chain one,
but then give me some of his tokens on chain two.
So I now have an account on chain two.
I have tokens on chain two.
Maybe I pay a fee for that service. But no tokens have actually moved. It's just that I am a user who now
has tokens from my perspective, no longer on chain one, and now
on chain two. And the great thing about that approach is
that nothing moves between chains. And so the chains are
always have integrity, and we don't have to
worry about anything you know and the atomic swap aspect of it is this I may
not want to trust the broker and we want to have a zero trust environment so the
atomic swap is I set up what's called an atomic swap on chain one there's another
complementary atomic swap on chain two,
and they're controlled by a hash.
And so we have these two, think of them as like triggers
that happen on both chains.
So there's somebody who's ready to throw coins
from the broker's account onto a chain two account.
And I am ready on chain one to throw my coins out of my account onto the broker in chain one.
And once we see these sort of triggering accounts, these atomic swap accounts set up,
set up and we can verify that everything is what we think they're going to be then i reveal the
and we can verify that everything is what we think they're going to be,
pre-image of a hash a hash that was included in both of those those atomic swap accounts okay so
now we've got the pre-image i release the i go ahead and release my my my tokens to the broker on chain one.
And in doing that, the same pre-image is used
to allow me to release the broker's geek on chain two to me.
So it's atomic in the sense that both have to happen
at the same time.
If chain one transaction happens,
then chain two transaction can always be triggered
by the guy that can't be .
So that's interesting.
And that's, I'm sorry.
So which kind of assets are you swapping in that case?
All right, so the director is actually i take it back we're
getting two we're getting um two for our field two in the weeds yes yes but that's that's not
the same as bridging correct or wrapping i'm sorry is that the same as wrapping and bridging
coins in both places absolutely plain vanilla okay so the geek does not get wrapped
does not get wrapped from chain to chain and it doesn't have to bring.
Nope.
Nope.
It's just being, uh, it's just moving around because you have a broker on each
chain that is willing to swap.
Right.
And this replicates, uh, classic banking technology.
Y'all the Chinese did it.
The Romans did it.
Uh, the Rothschilds did it the
idea is that I give my gold to a Rothschild in Antwerp he writes me a
chip I take it over to Germany at the burn and then or something and then I
give the chip and then I get gold out of that account they're not the same
people but they they trust that the chip says yes, my agent took it in Antwerp so I can give it to you in Berlin.
And so nothing is wrapped, physical gold disappear, you know, goes into some place in Antwerp and then reappears in Berlin.
Right. So this is a potential business for someone, correct?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Okay, so instead of DeFi wrapping and things as the first step, what you would need to
do is be a broker on chain one and chain two.
And it seems pretty risk-free for you if you can verify.
Totally risk-free.
So then you're just providing convenience,
is that correct?
Yeah, you're providing a service.
Okay, so maybe you have an app that's doing this that's convenient for users of chains
one and two and charge a fee for the app, but actually you're just making a nice customer
experience.
And it can be totally automated.
And, you know, if I set up a broker brokerage it's trivial to set up a brokerage all I have to do is have an account with geek on any chain and
if that's the case I can make transfers out of my account done and done okay out one way to replicate trading.
Yes.
Across chains.
But that has nothing to do with the treasury chain.
No, it doesn't.
Yeah.
And so what may happen though is that there actually
is a demand for a gross increase, a net increase,
I guess, on chain 57.
There just aren't enough geek there.
So now we have to actually make a move of geek,
destroy it on chain seven
and actually recreate it on chain 57.
And that's what the treasury chain does.
And so because I don't want to get too much in the
weeds i won't explain the transactions that make that happen but what happens is the first thing
is we have a transaction that destroys the chains on chain that destroys tokens on chain
coins on chain seven that is committed we have a proof that that transaction
took place that's ingested by the treasury chain the treasury chain says ah chain seven destroyed
100 coins okay well that's great so we're going to now remove 100 coins from the allocation of chain seven and bring them back into the unallocated
treasury coins. And then we're going to say, let's now move things, move those 100 coins from the
treasury chain unallocated set into the allocated coins for chain 57. And then that transaction
will go down to chain 57 signed by the treasury agents. And now people on that transaction will go down to chain 57,
signed by the treasury agents.
And now people on that chain will know, yes,
in fact, this is an authorized transfer inwards
of key points.
Right, so the more we do this over the years,
I realized that a lot of the outcomes
that we're wanting are simple, right?
Move some geek that are authentically geek
over to the other chain and keep overall budget balanced.
The way I think that is.
And then, you know,
you look at the way things have been going
and it all looks so complicated
when we're just trying to do a simple thing.
So what challenges might you be willing to share
about how you thought about this
before you thought of a simpler way.
Okay, let's see.
I guess the challenges are
the design allocation, the design goal is that
if something goes wrong it's not harmful so for example it could be that chain
seven destroyed the coins but for some reason they were not recreated on the Treasury chain well
that's unfortunate that means that we've lost some coins on the on the in the system. Hard for that to happen because that transaction
is recorded on the chain instance, chain seven.
So we can always go and recover that.
And unless that information totally disappears
forever somehow, which is very hard to imagine,
then we'll always be able to ingest that
in the treasury chain
and destroy those coins.
Now, having destroyed those coins,
they're just unallocated coins.
You know, we've just removed them from,
to reflect the destruction on chain seven.
Chain seven destroyed them and we reflect that
by removing them from its allocation.
And at worst, we just have coins that are burned.
Oh, well. Now, they're not necessarily going to go to chain 57. They could go anywhere.
You know, there's no necessity that they go any particular place. So this is happening with geek agents. Geek agents are moving these things across chains. And then the agent on Geek Chain 57 can go ahead and facilitate the atomic swaps if it wants to or can just transfer coins to an agent, to a user because of some private agreement.
of some private agreement.
But whatever it is, the coins exist,
they're controlled legitimately,
and then they're transferred to whoever has
the appropriate claim by whatever agreements people come to.
And it's all verifiable.
It's all verifiable.
Right.
So, go ahead.
Nothing, I was just going to invite, I was just going to invite
I was just going to ask
Robbie if he wanted us to be quiet
and ask other people to ask questions
or something
yeah I was just about
to ask if people have questions
and then maybe
for the last 10 minutes or something
Stephanie to discuss some milestones.
Is that okay for you?
Sure.
I don't know if it'll take 10 minutes, but yeah, I'd be happy to.
All right.
So if anyone has questions in the meantime, just raise your hand.
So while we're waiting for hands,
let me tell you some other things the treasury chain does.
Yeah.
So I developed what I think is a very nice,
clean cryptographic method of showing the linkage between blocks.
So we call this chain hash.
So the elegance of it is it's very parsimonious.
It only takes one hash per block and it's provable.
And it also can generate Merkle proofs
to show the current summary state of the chain.
For example, what does the chain believe its allocation is?
And who is the chain administrator?
And a few other things like that.
So this allows us to periodically create checkpoints.
So every chain, so the chains are actually generated on the
treasury chain. So the treasury chain is a transaction that says, let's make a new chain
instance. Let's give it a Genesis ledger. We don't give it a Genesis block. It is a Genesis ledger.
We might have pre-provisioned accounts,
a set of network actors,
everything that a ledger might contain.
And the only rule there is that the amount
that we've allocated to all of the various new accounts
that are on the new chain instance,
the sum of all of that geek has to add up
to what is transferred away from the unallocated tokens
that exist in the treasury chains account.
So new instance, we use some of our wealth
and we distribute it in a bunch of accounts
in that new instance.
So that account now goes off on its own.
It's got a signed Genesis ledger
and it just does its thing.
And then after 10,000 blocks, it comes back
and it sends this checkpoint transaction.
And it says, okay, well, as of today,
here's what we think our allocation is.
And here's a list of the block routes
that goes back to the Genesis ledger. And then that's recorded
in a record, in a checkpoint record that exists for that particular chain instance.
So the chain instance has a chain instance record that describes its allocation, and then
a chain instance record that describes its its allocation and then this this checkpoint
record that says what we believe the state the summary state of that chain is and so users can
see that they can say am i dealing with the real chain you know i can verify yes the blocks are
linked and yes what they think they have corresponds to not only what the treasury chain thinks they have,
but also what I see they have on the actual chain instance I'm dealing with.
And so now you can view this as being in good standing.
If you want to do a transfer across instances, you have to show us before that happens that what you think you are as a chain is what we think you are as a chain.
And if that's the case, we'll go ahead and do the transaction and we can move things.
Now, if you go rogue or you think that we're crazy, maybe we've been taken over by the mafia, and we're not behaving
appropriately as geek. Well, you can leave our ecosystem. You can say, well, those guys
are lying. And so we're going to set up our own thing. We can have our own treasury chain,
if you like. And if users agree with that, that's fine. But it's a family. So in other
words, everybody that is in good standing on the treasury chain
can interchange geek through the treasury chain.
If you're not in good standing,
maybe you can do it on your own.
Maybe you can't,
maybe users believe it,
maybe they don't,
but we're not going to force anybody
to either believe us
or not believe anybody else.
We have ways you can prove what's true.
Right.
So that's really verify prove it or get out of here.
That's correct.
So, you know, the old thing trust but verify our view is don't trust and verify.
Okay, cool. Did anybody else to speak, Robby?
No, didn't see anyone. I'm sure people will ask some questions in the telegram along the way as well.
So I think we might wrap it up with some milestones.
I think you've been poached by the community. OK.
Doesn't need to be long.
Just a quick run.
Yeah.
So we are talking about the treasury chain today. We're talking about how we don't need it for a skinny mainnet first release.
I think from probably. So what have i been doing when i haven't
been in chat i've been working really hard um this is a little personal uh milestone update i guess
um and there are people who are interested in starting public chains on geek they're asking for um different
capabilities i guess you'd call them features that we've been talking about like do they want
nfts or do they want fungible tokens um all of which are going to be in the hooks of the skinny main net
so that everything is uniform across all chains that we put out.
So I guess that's good news because what that says is there's going to be demand
for the allocations that are given to those new chains.
And I'm working really hard to put that in place.
I don't have announcements, but you know me,
I don't want to announce anything until it's really buttoned down.
But the sentiment looks great.
And I see their use cases that they want to do.
And so that's part of why we're trying to figure out the milestones to Skinny Mainnet, to products, and to marketing, so that we can kind of pull all those demands and requests together to decide, okay, what's going to be in the first chain?
When are we going to get paid to do the second chain? That kind of thing. And so it's not that these things are not in sight, but these are
the reasons why I wanted to explain to the community. It's a lot of coordinating. It's not
just like, oh, hey, we're working. It's now interacting with people who are wanting to build.
So that's one thing.
No, my turn, John.
No, because you don't say things you're not supposed to.
I was going to say something.
I wasn't supposed to.
No, no, no.
I'm the one who has to enforce the NEAs.
And so they're really cool.
And maybe what you can say, John, is a lot of them revolve around GeekID.
Would you like to talk about that?
In fact, that's what I was going to say.
So I'll be careful not to say anything.
So we are working on these Geek ID solutions that let people do logins and authorizations
and permissioning and so forth.
And recently I've developed some things that relate to self-sovereign identification and
authorization in various ways that really requires the use of geek because you know if you go to
auth one or auth zero i should say or google as a as a or or okta as a as an authorization for
your security key either you or or your organization has to pay.
It's quite substantial, really,
what you have to pay on a monthly basis.
So it's not a free service.
And then you get into the whole problem of,
well, you know, billing has to take place every month,
which means there's a transaction fee with a credit card,
all these frictions and so forth.
And you don't know how often you're going to use it.
So a lot of people don't use it at all because I don't want to pay $20 a month when I'm only
going to use it for two authorizations. So it limits its scope. But with the geek model of
self-sovereignty, each one of these things operates through NFTs and attestations. And
these are relatively inexpensive transactions.
And they're also more importantly, ad hoc transactions. So you as an independent user
with a small amount of geek can go ahead and whenever you happen to feel like it,
go ahead and use this auth service. So not only is it therefore self-supporting,
which is important, nobody does anything for free.
Somebody's giving you something for free.
You're the product, as we always say.
But here, you pay your freight.
And so that means people want to serve you.
You pay people, they want to serve you.
That's the Adam Smith idea that it's not from the benevolence of the butcher and the baker and the brewer.
I get my lunch it's because he's
selfish and I pay him and that makes his my interests his interests the the idea that that
rewards align incentives that's the fundamental that makes everything work so geek is that
fundamental we can make people do these important services in this very secure way because you
have an ability to make these kinds of payments and the payments are at a reasonable level
because we don't have these high transactions fees like credit cards do. So self-sovereign,
self-supporting, sustainable, and that all fundamentally relies on the use of heat as the device that aligns everybody's incentives
and keeps everything going.
Yep.
And if it took us a while, right?
Because blockchain was supposed to use the data on chain
and everything is supposed to be transparent
now we know that's not true um you mint an nft and it's supposed to authenticate who the
who the minter was and it's a famous artist or something but nobody really understands a hash
or a smart contract or who really who really wrote it and who really minted it.
So it took us a long time to figure out that actually you need all these things plus a very secure identity system.
And once you go with the identity system and it's not, you know, you put you KYC to some chain and then that's kind of all you can do.
But once we get into this identity system so you can identify yourself to a good website
or the website can identify itself to you without going through these points of failure on the internet,
suddenly we have a whole bunch
of use cases that nobody else has um so that's that's really exciting and john can talk at length
some other time about you know all the man in the middle attacks that he's been looking at
um stolen session cookies and things like this that the identity solutions prevent.
So that's kind of a milestone that we've arrived at that really has changed geek into a commercially viable, we hope, you know, I can't say things,
I can't make promises, but whatever.
It's a very good milestone.
And then from the deaf side, I said, well, you know,
the community really wants to know what we're doing.
And I've talked about roadmaps that we're working on,
bringing together and finally pushing out.
I appreciate the patience because it's just all these pieces are really
in the background.
But I said, devs, can you tell me a milestone for this?
Space is.
And so they said, well, look.
They didn't say it like that.
They said, oh, of course, you know.
Here's one we're working on the stability of the chain and one of the things that we're really working on and there's no need to
release a new testnet for this because you know users aren't really going to see the differences in stability changes
but one of the things they're doing is they're moving to a different transport layer
away from captain protobuf which did not become as popular it was more efficient but i'm told it
didn't become as popular as we thought it should when we started. So they're doing that, and that will help with stability.
And they're also, after that, they're planning to do a lot of memory adjustments
to, I don't know, lower memory requirements for any of the chain.
chain so again but actually we've in the design of the chain you've made it robust so that we
So again, kind of invisible.
we don't have to use uh Captain proto buff had some very nice features which made it more difficult to spoof things
and was more efficient at encoding certain information.
But we've now designed around that
so that we're robust to the less good elements
and typing that we have in protobuf.
So we've done a bit more work
so that the underlying dependencies don't have to do it.
That's cool.
Okay, so that's about all I have, Robbie.
Yeah.
I also want to reiterate the fact that you mentioned earlier,
even though you're not sometimes in the Telegram channel,
it's not because Stephanie is not in the Telegram channel
that nothing's happening, right?
There's so many pots cooking and talking to so many people.
Things take time.
We had some internal meetings as well um on like how to
commercialize geek more and like i think it's going very well actually um and i mean these
are stuff that we uh cannot really say much about obviously and we don't want to sell
or like bear shooting sell the skin.
In English expression,
you know what I mean?
There's a lot of stuff
happening. Myself,
I'm really happy on
how stuff has been going lately
as well. Stephanie's working really
hard. Everyone's working really hard.
We're really excited
for what's to come for geek definitely
they don't let me speak very often because like stephanie said i'm i'm a security risk
operational security is is uh yeah no i i say things that are happening that i'm not supposed
to say i keep quiet well thanks quiet. Well, thanks, Robbie.
I think people really love to hear your perspective.
They're tired.
They don't want to hear from me.
And so that's really great.
I didn't actually, again,
we haven't spoken for a couple of days,
but I do see some people here like Tony, Tony C and Zorba.
And you've been around for a long, long time, I know.
And we've been trying to put Geek in a place where the infrastructure for apps that really do things.
the infrastructure for apps that really do things.
And I remember you were around
when we were just working on attestations
for like creating data on chain for IoT devices.
And we thought, oh, this is going to be a breeze.
Here we have this multi-chain system and it's so simple.
And I think one of the things i'd like to say to you guys is first of all thank you um second of all it really wasn't such a breeze because when
we went around to the iot um use cases they were really thinking about iot not so much accountability
were really thinking about iot not so much accountability and then um different iot devices
were not necessarily compatible with each other and it was kind of a hassle so we went to the nfts
and then we at every point we've tried to exceed right to try to not be perfectionist but try to predict where the future would go
and whether it was worth doing that feature so when we started nfts we were already thinking
we have this great security and it will go to tokenization real world assets and so we want
to go to a place where our entities could be sold that way.
And I think I think things are working out now that we finally have the identity piece.
We're not talking about, oh, yeah, you guys were working on enterprise adoption
for the blockchain use cases that everybody said that they could do.
And we know we could do better.
We're actually highly differentiated now.
And so I think that's that's made the team feel good.
That ID piece, when we were developing,
I didn't actually realize what it allowed us to do
until I started to go down the trail.
And it is unique and it allows so many things.
And the good thing from our perspective at least
is that you can't replicate it without being us.
You know, you can't do it on Ethereum.
You can't do it on Solana.
It just cannot be done because of the way that they handle data
and the way that they generate their data-driven applications.
So we're not going to be scooped, which is fortunate,
because if things take a long time,
you're always worried that somebody's going to take us.
But they can't do it because they'd have to go through the whole
development process we went through.
And I don't believe
they're going to be able to do that.
Yeah, good luck.
That's right. Nobody ever write
another blockchain again is what I think.
All right.
Okay.
Well, I mean, nobody raised their hand for any more questions like anyway
like people will listen in will listen in uh along the next 12 24 hours question will questions will
come in in telegram channel um thank you stephanie and john as well, for the elaborate talk today.
And thank you, everyone, for joining again.
As it was the last Thursday of the month, so it's a community hangout.
So I'm looking forward to see you guys again next week, Thursday.
It's not nearly as elaborate as it should be, though.
I could go on.
Yeah, we know, we know.
We all know.
Thanks for your patience anyway
thanks robbie all right thanks everyone have a great bye all right everybody take care bye Thank you.
