Hello, hello, hello. Happy Monday morning to everyone that's tuning in. Thank you so much for joining us. My name is Bryant. I'm on the growth team here at C. Today we're joined by Vasco who's on his own account as well as
Just checking here, Michael who will be speaking on the Sky Net account as well. Thank you guys so much for taking the time and why don't you go ahead and introduce yourselves to everyone in the fall. Hey guys, am I all the bokeh?
Absolutely. So yeah, Michael, thanks for having me. I'll be here on the office kind of trading. I'm serving as a chief product that's kind of trading so most are responsible for everything related to our products.
and everything that our clients use. So that ranges from institutional trading software to trading strategies on exchanges both centralized and decentralized. So yeah, happy to be here.
Hey guys, yeah, last call here. I need growth at say network also co founded vortex protocol. It's a perps pewter exchange that's going to be live on say in the coming months has been a
part by sushi swap recently. So being, I would say, a say OG for a year, more than a year now. Excited to kick off this conversation. Michael, it's amazing to have you here.
Thank you guys so much for the introductions. All right, all right. So before we begin, why don't we take a go around and just introduce our projects or our teams as well as what we do. I think that this might be a bit more technical space and would love to just take session groundwork and lay good foundations for the audience before we jump into it.
So, maybe Michael, would you like to tell us a little bit about market making a little bit about SkyNet before we jump in? Yeah, definitely, definitely. So about SkyNet, we've been around for four and a half years now, mostly working as a designated market maker for projects, initially on centralized exchanges and in the later years that also
translated to decentralized exchanges as these call traction. We perform our services well in the decentralized exchanges on AMMs as well as order book decks and we do a lot of arbitrage. On centralized exchanges we typically work as the designated market maker which already
which essentially means that we help projects ensuring that their clients can trade, so we help with that liquidity needs and typically guiding them through the whole exchange process and everything they want to. So from listing strategies up to the actual management of their liquidity budgets afterwards.
Yeah, we also do quite a bit of transactional services for our clients, so both the institutional as well as project clients. And we typically do that through our OEMS system, which is a short-hand for order execution management system that basically aggregates
for exchanges and subsequently routes the best trades essentially for our clients. That's what we do as Kindnet. We also work a lot together with projects in anticipation of their listing on centralized or
central-aesthetic changes because we feel that this is oftentimes an exciting time for projects. Typically new for them, they don't know how to navigate the exchange landscape and we always hope to feel a partnership role there for our clients and partners.
Awesome awesome awesome so Vasco, why don't you tell us a little bit about say as well? Yeah, sure on our end the mission at say is to create the best infrastructure for exchanges so we do so obviously by building the best tech stack for exchanges
We're built on the on tendermints and you know our fast block times or kind of like a testament to that we have on chain matching engines on chain oracles embedded in the chain itself and also a bunch of ecosystem partners that enable builders to
to have the best execution environment for their exchanges and defy applications in general. And that's kind of what the liquidity alliance is all about. And I'm sure we're going to dig deeper on this in this call as well. I also wanted to pick Michael Brains a little bit.
little bit on decks, decks market making and liquidity provision on the importance of liquidity provision on new tokens, what are price-ability and price discovered. I'm sure we're going to have plenty of time to talk about this.
Cool, so thank you so much for the individual introductions as well as for your projects. I think that I'm interested in some time. Let's dive a little deeper into this AMA and learn a little bit more about marketing. So I guess in
start with, Michael, this question goes to you. How does market making on Dex's differ from market making and centralizes changes? Are there any nuances there and why have you guys chosen to go on change?
Right, yeah, that's a good question. So I think the main difference lies, well there are a couple of differences, right? On centralized exchanges things are typically faster. So you have basically instant finality because the exchange does the order, the order matching. This is different on chain of
course on chain you have all sorts of rules depending on which chain you trade on for this order matching and this happens as you get from the name on chain which typically takes a bit longer because all validators have to agree upon a certain truth. So that's different if you compare centralized to decentralized
And then there's also the method of order matching, of course. I think most people will know decentralized exchanges from UniSwap or the likes and UniSwap started out with this AMM concept, which is essentially short end for automated market maker. And as the name suggests,
you don't really need a market maker in an automated market maker because the algorithm doesn't for you. This is what they call version 2 or fee 2 version of Uniswap. Nowadays, you also have different forms of Dexys like orderbook Dexys or concentrated liquidity Dexys and on those
type of decentralized exchanges. It's a lot more interesting actually to do market making because you can actually quote orders, you can maintain a spread, you can ensure liquidity at certain price levels, whereas in an automated market maker, so a V2 version, this is done for you.
in an automated sense. So on FI2 we typically help projects with a couple things. We help them set up the liquidity pools, which is challenging for some projects because it's all new. They have to work with private keys, custody solutions and all sorts of things to keep things safe and we help them with that.
And what we can then subsequently do is essentially trade algorithmically into these pools. So we can buy whenever somebody is selling. This is called mirror trading. We can sell whenever somebody is buying. This is also called mirror trading or we can, you know, on-time intervals.
we can execute certain transactions for projects or for individuals on these AMMs. Now this is relatively simple all of it but on orderbooked access for example something that I think say is going to be also largely focusing on things become a lot
more interesting because you can actually do sort of the same thing as you could on a centralized exchange but then in a decentralized manner which is of course awesome for a lot of people right they can trade in a non-cosoio fashion. So yeah I'd say that that's some of the larger differences between centralized and decentralized exchanges.
Yeah, those were some really important points that you brought up. And I think that another great question there that I want to ask is, you know, what are some of the key challenges or pain points of on-chain market making? I know that you guys have to be docks. I know that you deal with fragmented liquidity and also just a lot of regulatory uncertainty. But I'd like to hear it from you. What do you think is the barrier for
for people market making on chain and also what are the difficulties or pain points that you guys have faced this time? Right. Yeah. So I think there are a couple very big barriers actually, particularly for new chains. One of them is the availability of custody solutions. So some of the more instant
and these are essentially solutions that allow you to manage large quantities of money on chain without the risk of having a private key stolen for example. Now these are solutions that are really required by
larger institutional players because of their risk frameworks. And since the solutions have to give a lot of safeguards, they typically take a while to integrate with new chains. And there can also be quite expensive for new chains to integrate with because they charge a set of fee.
But it is something that institutions and ourselves include to typically look into when we analyze a new chain for within our risk framework essentially. So that's one. So that's the availability of institutional service providers essentially. Second one would be I think the availability
availability of native stablecoins. So you generally want to avoid bridged assets as much as possible because they're simply a risk of bridges being exploited. I think in 2022 alone we had one and a half to two billion dollars worth of exploits in bridges. Now
This is of course a huge number and definitely a risk so you want to avoid those risk as much as possible So for on ethereum for example, right? Yeah, if you was the t natively you have you was the c natively and also all these other assets But I think within a cosmos ecosystem will have new
the cost of the ecosystem, which alleviates a lot of that risk. So those are some things that a market maker or an institutional player in general will be looking at, I think. There are more of course, like particularly as a market
in the end you need volume, so we are there to provide liquidity for our clients and with our clients. But in order to do that and still have a business case, you need volume as well, right? You need people to trade into your liquidity. If you want to have your capital at work,
And this is sometimes a challenge with new or change where you have this chicken and egg problem like hey what's going to come first right the liquidity or the whole you because If retail users or regular users want to trade they need liquidity, but the liquidity providers want for you to you know provide their services
So that's also a big challenge of oftentimes. And hence, also why projects or infrastructure projects and layers, like saying at work, choose to work directly with market makers and other institutional parties to essentially overcome this chicken and egg problem I think. So yeah, those are some-- - That's interesting.
Thanks Michael. Since I know you have touched upon the risk aspect of things on market makers and you know we know market makers normally generally operate in a delta neutral environment in terms of exposure to the market. I kind of wanted to pick your brains a little bit on how balancing risk and return works for market makers and what are the factors that determine
for example, you know, inventory risk, an optimal bid-ask spread. And how does that work for decentralized exchanges as well? Maybe IMMs even. I know there's been a lot of development with regard to hedging solutions for IMMs happening on chain as well. Have you guys looked into that from Skynet side? Right, for sure. Yeah.
So on the prop trading side, I cannot give away everything that we're doing, but I can shed some light for sure on how inventory risk works. Inventory risk is actually quite similar to what you experience in an AMM, which is called the impermanent loss or divergence risk, which is the same
You have two assets and you pull them together and then one of them rises in price and as it does so you sell a little bit of that asset for the other assets. That has to happen to keep the pool balanced. And we call this, well it's not directly a loss but the
loss in value as opposed to holding both of these assets and doing nothing with them. You'd have a bit more value if you've helped them and the price of one of them increases. We call the difference between those two values divergence loss and this actually also happens on the centralized exchange. So if you don't correct for any
any risk while providing liquidity, then you'll start to see your inventory decrease or there'll be a mismatch and we call that building up a delta or essentially a difference in inventory as opposed to when you start it.
And you can, there are several ways to manage this. You could hatch, for example, your delta on another platform, like you could buy options or perpetuals or all sorts of financial derivatives that are specifically aimed at covering you from any price risk as well.
Yes, yeah, inventory risk. Then other things you could do is arbitrage away your delta. So whenever somebody takes your order on one exchange, you immediately sell that order on another exchange and then capturing the spread while doing that. It's another way to manage your
So now various ways to do so and obviously if you operate on a decentralized platform you have to do the same things right you also have to manage your inventory risk it's a bit more feasible I think for the average user on a decentralized platform because the impermanent loss is
typically also stated within the application itself, but obviously as an institutional partner we always track these things. Yeah, solutions to manage these risks are also very important. So if you want a market make or provide liquidity for a new token for example, you want
to be able to hatch the risk that you're taking on essentially. And this is then typically done by either taking positions in futures or in options or arbitrage in the difference away. And these options have to be available. So far some of the newer tokens, these options are not available, which
makes providing liquidity there one a lot risk here and to a lot more difficult in general because you don't have all the options available to you. So yeah, those are some things. Right, you have to consider as an institutional player in the space.
There are indeed more and more protocols that actually automate this process for you on-chain as well. So they utilize things like GMX or dy/dx, those platforms to essentially always remain what they call Delta-Nutra or you hatch away or inventory risk.
Oh, man, thanks for the very detailed and explanatory response. I guess, you know, since what the liquidity alliance is all about is, you know, help and address builders in the SAE ecosystem to make sure that their exchanges once movedly attract volume and be successful over time. You mentioned the chicken and neck problem, that's something that we're all aware of.
about, especially in D5 and especially in these, in this kind of risk of environments and all of these smart contracts exploits, bringing liquidity on chain, and volume on chain is extremely difficult. I wanted to pick your brains a little bit on how you think liquidity incentives have a chance to change things around and maybe boost
use chocolate equity and volume for new exchanges. If you think these are sustainable in any way and if they work in general, we hope you have your take on this. Right, yeah. That was so for sure. I think there are two sides to this question actually.
As I mentioned earlier, as kind of trading, we largely work on a designated market-maker basis, which essentially means that the project typically provides the liquidity that we subsequently deploy strategies with on exchanges. So that's one way, I would say, for the Chicken and Egg problem
to get solved. So while the liquidity or volume is still relatively low, the project itself essentially deploys some liquidity budget can be however large they wanted, also depends of course on the size of their project, on their market gap and all those kind of things. And we trade with that for them, or we help them trade
with that budget. In that sense, the chicken and egg problem is immediately solved because the project itself provides liquidity. Now the second thing, or the second option, I would say, is where a liquidity provider or a market maker would come in, provide a liquidity and ensures that people can trade.
And in the second case, because the volume is still so low, the utilization of that liquidity or the velocity with which it moves around is also very low. So there are very little fees to be captured in the beginning. This can of course be solved by providing additional incentives, which is what essentially every decent
centralized exchange or AMM does right they provide their project tokens or some other form of compensation for liquidity providers because they take on that risk of divergence or impermanent loss. So this is definitely a way to bootstrap liquidity I would say actually
One of the innovations, I think, of AMMs is simply to allow for projects and also for some AMMs even allow retail users to commit incentives. They allow everybody to, say, pull resources together, set it in the
will come in and provide liquidity to trade into. I think it can be a great way to initially capture liquidity because in the end a liquidity provider or market maker has to put their capital at risk. They need to get some return on that and because of all the risks that you also mentioned, smart contract
risk, the novelty of a new protocol, you may not be able to hedge all of your inventory risks away, right? You need to get a relatively high return on investment on a capital that you put in because it's not as safe as, let's say, like a T-bill or a Treasury bill or something else. So yeah, that's
where liquidity incentives would come in. Yeah, totally agree on that point. And actually, red recently a report from Missouri that stated that liquidity incentives are at most efficient when they're pointing the first three months. You kind of bootstrap liquidity there, make sure that your pricing is in place and hope to get
the network effects that are needed for the flywheel of users, volume on the quick off and make the exchange, top to exchange, hopefully sustainable over time and having some sort of take-or-feel and make-or-rebait model to really make sure that the DEX keeps on its pricing.
without liquidity incentives as well. And I guess right now some of the concerns is given latency arbitrage and the difference in performance between the centralized exchanges and centralized exchanges, the reason why people use DEX is mostly because of incentives or regulatory arbitrage. So I guess the next question that
they had was regarding the future of the central exchanges, whether there is an opportunity to get away from this trap and different trends that you guys are seeing and following and how you are positioning from this kind of perspective towards this future. Right, yeah.
I think one of the more important developments that will likely see over the next one of two years is the ease with which you can move funds across chains. This is already happening with bridges like Axelar, you have obviously
those kind of protocols aim to make it as easy as possible to swap funds between different chains, whether it's EVM compatible or Cosmos 10 or Mint or some novel layer one, they typically integrate those and make it then subsequently as easy as possible. I say that, but the easier
possible part for a lot of people is still too difficult right it still involves multiple steps you need to connect multiple wallets you need to do a couple of transactions before funds are actually at the chain that you wish you that and where you want to trade as this gets easier so as some of these
layers are abstracted away, either to plugins, SDKs or there are multiple ways to do this. It will become easier and easier and you will have to be less reliant on centralized exchanges because of this, because one of the things that centralized exchanges do very well is just also
allow you to trade from one balance sheet, deposit your funds into your account, you have your balances and you can trade anything everywhere. Doesn't matter which layer one it is, doesn't matter if it's on Ethereum or somewhere else, you can trade it from a Binance balance sheet, for example.
And as we get this intro of operability and we get these bridges or even move away from bridges and use things like the IVC standard within a cost must ecosystem where it's a lot easier already. I think we'll see more and more uses of Texas due to retail.
users and those retail users will then also attract liquidity providers which creates this positive flywheel I would say. So that's one thing. I think the second thing is where we initially had issues with things like finality, right? It simply took too long to execute a trade all
on Newiswap or Ethereum for an orderbook that's to be possible, right? I think these are some issues that are now in the process of being so upside-knit work being one of the ways in which it can get sold. And if we then move towards a situation where you can actually have on-chain orderbook
Dexas in an efficient and easy to use manner. I think that will also really help in getting people to the decentralized space because people are used to order boot Dexas, right? They can see an order book, they see, "Oh, hey, if I sell this transaction and make a market sell for
example, I know what I'm going to get. I can visualize this. This is something that was less possible in an AMM. So they think these things combined will really help drive the next push to decentralize the decentralized finance essentially. Yeah, absolutely. I really believe that UX improvements, it's what is
What is really going to bring Dexas to their full potential and make sure that we can offer the same services that Centralized Exchange does today in a decentralized way. On say behalf, obviously we've mentioned say a couple of times, I think one of the core improvements that we've seen, for example, platforms deploying on a blockchain,
itself is cross-margining platforms. You know, places where you could just one-stop shop to trade on different chains and trade with margin and have different positions on different exchanges and maybe lending protocols as collateral as well. There's definitely a UX improvement. A kind of extraction is a huge trend as well.
on ramps is something that has to be fixed and if I'm not a teacher, it's definitely something that say solves quite a bit right now. It's an intestinal but it's one of the fastest chains out there. It's not the fastest. That's definitely a big point. I guess I wanted to touch a little bit upon on this is a little bit of a
of a tricky question, but it goes most towards what is happening right now in terms of regulatory crackdown from US authorities and how you think this is going to shake market-making on centralized exchanges and on decentralized exchanges. Some may say that going to centralize the solution to
to avoid these kind of crackdown and look at that regulatory pressure that we're having from the Western atmosphere. How do you guys see this from this kind of perspective? Right, that is indeed a tricky question. Obviously it's very difficult to estimate or guess what
what the regulations are going to move towards. I mean, ideally, you want to have everybody have access to everything, right? We're here to provide liquidity. We're here to ensure that people can trade, and ideally, everybody would be able to trade everywhere. But that's difficult, that's hard.
And at the same time, you also have the risks that centralized exchanges introduced into the system. FTX, for example, being one of them, of course. FTX wasn't so much a crypto problem, but it was more a mismanagement and centralization problem where essentially people had too much
power to do things that they shouldn't. And these are things that are of course not possible in a decentralized manner, right? Everybody can audit the smart contracts, everybody can look into all the transactions that are happening on-chain. So it's, well, I wouldn't say impossible, but a lot more difficult to commit fraud on that scale. So while centralized exchange
have their role, they are good or they are good. They have their role as I said. They make some things easier and for some people easier means that they won't expose their private keys to individuals that may cause them harm, right? So I really do think they have a role. I do also feel that decentralized exchanges have
that role there in being that they are where everything is visible, where everybody can see everything that's happening. Ideally, it would make things even more simple, as you mentioned, you know, cross-margin within a decentralized
space would be amazing right where you have one collateral account where you can seamlessly move assets between different chains between different transactions and all that liquidity is essentially pulled together either through aggregators or some novel solutions that we also see coming up in the decentralized space. There are
there are a lot of ways there. But on that same front, decentralized exchanges also sort of deal with the same issues that centralized exchanges are going to deal with. And that the interfaces that retail users are going to use are prone to get shut down, or at least you get country-wide
restrictions. We also already see this happening where some UIs, which the average user simply has to have to connect to the DEX. They are restricted from that, right? Some countries are excluded from some protocols. Now it's for the technical user, it's always going to be possible to trade with the DEX's
because you can just use a command line interface or something like that. But these front ends, well they are basically functionalized, some centralized entry point I would say. So in that sense you're always going to be dependent on regulations whether or at least for the average usually you're going
be dependent on regulations unfortunately and I think we really are at some sort of an inflection point especially with the US having suits going there or at least serve the well's well's notice to Coinbase to some other companies as well so it's going to be really interesting to see the developments there.
Also, how they're going to judge securities are some of the assets that we formally didn't think of as securities. Are they going to be considered by the US as securities? I mean, we don't know, right? So that's something we have to prepare for. Well, good news for the amazing lead.
politically where you put the question but also a lot of insight. So thank you very much on that. I wanted to touch a little bit again on future priority with respect to the centralizing exchanges and centralizing exchanges. And I think we, you know, maybe I'd go and get the expense of some of our listeners, but I think we could go a little bit more technical on this from
and talk a little bit on the impact that the financial and road trip latency has on market making and how much is important to close that gap between the central exchanges and central exchanges to make sure that we have real price discovery on chain and healthy price action happening on the central exchanges as well.
Right, for sure. Yeah. So to give a little bit of background to the less technical people maybe in the audience or people that simply are not that aware of market making. Typically what you see is on centralized exchanges you have finality, which is essentially how fast a transaction
is confirmed and cannot be reversed anymore. That's in decentralized platforms typically in the order of milliseconds, sometimes even faster. And depending on your connection, you can speed up your process or essentially gain an edge over other market participants by having very fast finality.
decentralized platforms in general have they take a lot longer to achieve finality and at the same time everything you do while achieving finality is visible. So you submit an order that order has then has to get confirmed by a validator set and while that process is
going on, essentially everybody that reads the mempool, which is where all these transactions are stored, has access to what you're doing. As a market maker, what you typically do is you quote orders, and some of those orders get filled, sometimes at the price that is far away from the current market price, and when that
happens you want to arbitrage away the difference because you want to maintain inventory or reduce your inventory risk. Having the fact that this finality takes a while to be achieved on trade makes this process a bit more difficult because one you don't know if you're going to achieve finality right away.
Because the transaction that that was going to fill your order may get rejected for various reasons, right? Not enough gas, not enough Another transaction may take some priority over it There may be MEV attacks, you know, present while doing this so this all makes The whole process of managing your risk of a lot more damage
difficult a lot more challenging but at the same time also a lot more interesting because if you are able to capitalize on this or you have your strategy set up in a proper way you actually gain a significant add show or other market participants. So this is where where where improvements in finality like say I think say
has what is it 600 milliseconds or 500 milliseconds finality is a huge improvement over something like Uniswap on Ethereum right? So yeah that's essentially where finality comes in for a market maker or liquidity provider or in general a more institutionalized player in the trading space.
interesting insight on this. You touched MEV, which is definitely, it's kind of like elephant in the room when talking about all of the issues that the central exchanges have today. We know that they implement frequent batch auctioning to make sure that, you know, MEV within a blog,
It's not possible, which is obviously a huge advancement, but there's still a long way to go before this value extractive problem for LPs and traders is completely pushed out of the system, or at least internalized in some innovative way. There's a lot of teams
in the cosmos as well, would which say probably will be integrating that they're working on a lot of cool stuff to make sure that this becomes value added for the chain itself and possibly also for users of the chain. I guess you kind of mentioned and I would like to
little bit deeper on this. How do market makers take into consideration this? Do they see it as a risk? Do they have some risk management strategies, or also maybe some value extractive strategies with respect to this feature that blockchain has today?
Right, right. Yeah, no, of course. So in general, I think MEV, well, we call it's a term that's made popular, I think, in the blockchain space and in the cryptocurrency trading space. But essentially what high frequency traders are doing, I'm going to stop my
market is also MEV, right? They take a bit of value that was otherwise going to go to some other market participants and they extract that essentially because they are faster than the rest. That's also MEV. So I think you're never going to get completely going to get rid of MEV because that's
simply the way in which efficient markets sort of are formed, I would say. So it's a bit of a price that the market pays to liquidity providers and other market participants to be able to trade in an efficient way. That being
set of course within blockchains, especially with the introduction of things like atomic swaps, which what you mentioned is essentially where you bundle and batch all transactions that you want to execute to capture that MEV within one transaction.
transaction and essentially nobody can get in between those transactions and it only execute if your transaction is possible. That's the atomic swap concept very briefly explained. That's of course an issue, particularly for less technical
Technically savvy people because they may have their slippage settings too high where they accidentally have three or four or five percent slippage set in the allowance of their trade and there will always be an MEV bot essentially that captures these slippage right they will buy before you and the newer transaction
get spilled and then they sell after you and they make profit on your behalf. I think it's very good if these things get fixed on a protocol level and this can be done like batch orders indeed because especially for like the average user they may not think about these things but
it is costing them a lot of money in some cases. So that's very good. I also know, indeed, of other projects that work within the Cosmos ecosystem, I think skip is one of them and there are some more that are working to indeed either internalize the MVV
or just get rid of it altogether, that being said, like completely getting rid of it is probably not going to happen, but also maybe not necessary, because in the end it's going to be so competitive that essentially it averages out to a very, very, very small amount.
Michael, thanks for answering like relentlessly every question that I have. It's just that, you know, I'm generally curious and I'm going to fire out the last one on my side and then Ryan want to hop in. Happy to have him ask some questions as well. I'm taking all the show, but I wanted to talk about
There is a lower bound in terms of time for the centralized networks to operate and process transactions. That is bound by the speed of light. An information has to pass between all the network nodes.
there distributed geographically, there has been a couple of studies that talk about a lower bound of around 120 milliseconds, which is enormously higher than what centralizing changes see right now, which is in the order of microseconds. So this is obviously something that is extremely difficult to overcome.
Say has done a huge leap forward to decrease this time to finality nearly 10X with respect to other high performance chains, but it seems increasingly likely that the true decentralized solutions will look like
some kind of hybrid with respect to settlement and matching, so on-chain and off-chain stuff, so a little bit of trade off between performance and decentralization. Do you think that's the case? Do you think Fanaticty and the store where bound is actually a deal breaker for decentralized exchanges and
And what would you suggest innovative builders looking to deploy in a high performance chain, like say, to look into to make sure that this doesn't avoid innovation and avoid decentralization going forward? Right. Yeah, that's a very good point. And you're completely right in the end.
reliant on the speed of light for for for finality. I mean you see this happening on the in the traditional Threats Phi world right where where you have large trading firms essentially you know shooting up satellites into space to make sure that they shave off those lost
of milliseconds or microseconds even off of their latency, right? And they use microwaves for this, I think, to essentially make sure that they are the ones that receive the information first and then push out transactions first as well. That's just a hard boundary and sadly because of the way
or simply because of the way that decentralized networks are set up, you have to go through more hoops to get the information, yeah, well, final and concluded upon and validated. So that's always going to be an area where decentralized
spaces are going to lack behind centralized spaces that being set. I think there are multiple ways in which it either doesn't matter or you could find, as you say, hybrid or intermediate solutions. The way in which I think it will matter less and less.
is that even though the finality may be slower and there are some technical boundaries that simply persist in these centralized spaces, I think it will always feel a role, right? I think there will always be a large swath of people that want to trade peer-to-peer, they don't
want to have the risk of their exchange going bankrupt, they don't want to be involved or they don't want to do KYC, they are various reasons why you want to go decentralized or you want to be able to create your own youth, right? You want to be your own LP, you want to farm those LP tokens and farm those
for trading rewards, which is not possible in a centralized exchange. So that there are multiple ways in which decentralized exchanges are always going to be present, I think. That being said, of course, you always have the option to go for hybrid solutions where part of the logic or part of the
trading system is essentially hosted off chain with some pointers on chain right I think the wide access solution like this I know that woo network which is another decentralized exchange has a solution like this where you essentially you remain on chain with all of your funds and you essentially
give through smart contract permissions, the trading smart contract or their clearing house so to say access to your funds only when you allow it. So essentially keep the funds on chain all the time and you remain in control of those private keys but then through smart contract permissioning you give the
system access to your funds so you can actually settle trades off chain but then all of the transactions are matched again on chain which is sort of skipping over all of the technical details involved but such a system can avoid some of those finality problems as you mentioned.
Awesome. So Michael, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us and to answer our barrage of questions here. I really appreciate that you were able to kind of explain to us all the new shifts surrounding arbitrage, MV, transaction speeds, finality, and the like when it comes to market making. So I guess in closing here,
We want to ask before we wrap things up because I know we're about to hit the 45 minute line. Are there any announcements or anything you want to say to the community before we wrap things up here? Anything you want to mention about your project? Or the floor is yours? Sure. Yes, as I mentioned, maybe in the beginning, for any new project.
projects, looking to launch either on the same network or within the Cosmos ecosystem, we're happy to help with anything related to your token essentially, right? We're trading firm, we've been working with exchanges and on exchanges, both centralized and decentralized for
a number of years now. Typically as a partner, also before the whole launching process is actually concluded. So yeah, if you're in need of help, you're a new project. You are doing novel things in the DeFi space or anywhere else in the blockchain space. Feel free to reach out to us. We're happy to help.
We have the experience and knowledge to help you navigate this space. I think on my end also a call to action to get in contact with China. Amazingly experienced team and very trustworthy.
All of ways to get in contact with them obviously. The liquidity alliance campaign is specifically to address builders and help builders navigate the intricacies of liquidity and the difficulties in bootstrapping liquidity for new exchanges on say. We have a Google form in which you can input all of the data regarding
project and we're going to put the directly in contact with SkyNet where I'm sure you can contact them on our website as well. Yeah, Brian, Michael, thanks for taking the time. It has been an amazing chat. I had a lot of my questions answered, which is amazing. Brian also, thank you for hosting.
Yeah, no worries. A couple of quick points before we head off. So just for the community, if you guys want to get more involved, they say do check out Atlantis and start an international ambassador program. It's about 3,000 people in large right now. Again, it's a great way for you to learn more about the project, get learn about creating content, and also just stick deeper into say. And finally,
in terms of roadmap for the team and just things coming up. Say, his mainnet launch is scheduled for Q2 this year. We've just launched at 9.2, which is the final version of our testnet. I recommend that you head on and try it. We have an NFT, a loopbox NFT campaign right now, which is in its gifting phase. So head on to our testnet, give some entities around and the reveal phase.
to determine rarities will be start tomorrow. So today's the last day, go check it out, go have some fun on TestNet. And yeah, thank you guys both for taking the time to speak with us. And thank you so much to the audience for what you tuned in, who learned a little bit today, and spent some time with you today. Hope to see you guys soon, and hope you guys have a great week ahead. Thank you so much#
Awesome guys, thanks for having us. Have a good day. Cheers guys.