Thanks for joining everyone! We'll be getting started very shortly. We'll just wait for the room to fill up a little bit more and yeah we'll get kicked off.
Again I'd like to thank everybody for joining and we'll be getting kicked off very very soon. Give it a couple more minutes and we'll be off.
Okay, let's go! Thank you all for joining yet another Tezos community call, the Tezos Twitter Space.
Today we're going to be covering quite a lot and we've had quite a few community questions come in as well. So thank you for all of those and your contributions there.
Today we're going to be talking about adaptive issuance down.
I think Jeffrey's having some microphone issues.
So we'll figure it out and resume very soon. Maybe you can try to refresh the page or rejoin.
In the meantime, how's everyone's day going?
They are the worst Twitter spaces as well.
But that's not going to stop us.
We were speaking about the P protocol.
And I was asking our very esteemed guest, Jan, to go into it and give us a highlight of the P protocol.
And I was asking our very esteemed guest, Jan, to go into it and give us a highlight.
And I was asking our very esteemed guest, Jan, to go into it and give us a highlight of the P protocol.
What does the proposal cover?
What can the community expect from it?
So this proposal, called the P proposal, will be actually full of features.
As you told us already, we have very hot topics in there that are the activation of the data availability layer, the adaptive issuance.
So this means a new mechanism for sticking, as well as a better way to slash adaptively.
And in addition to that, we have faster finality with a reduction of block time to 10 seconds.
So without compromising safety, of course, and all of decentralization.
I suppose we will answer a lot of questions about these features.
But we probably also need to say that at this time, and maybe it's the first time or maybe the second time, we'll make actually two proposals.
One with adaptive issuance activated from the very beginning and starting to be active five cycles after the activation of the protocol.
Another proposal that will last with a per block voting system, adaptations to be activated a bit later by typically an on-chain vote.
I think that's it to summarize what's in there.
But again, we are happy to continue this discussion to dive into more details.
Brilliant. Thank you, Jan. And as you mentioned, we can dive into some more details and we're going to do that in just a second.
But I'd like to remind everyone listening that if you have any questions, you can leave them in the comments and we'll try our best to get to as many as we can.
But yeah, you mentioned adaptive issuance there, Jan. And I'd like for us to dig into that a little bit more.
But this time I'm going to be pointing the questions around adaptive issuance towards Julian, Lucas and Arthur.
So I suppose, Arthur, would you be able to give us a general overview of adaptive issuance and what it means for the Tesla ecosystem?
And then we can dig into it a little bit more from there.
Yeah, absolutely. So I've written this about the topic and it's something that has occupied my mind for the past few years.
The general idea is that when you need to secure a chain, you need to have a budget for your bakers.
And you don't know of hand what that budget needs to be.
You know, how much reward or inflation or assurance do you need to have in order to pay people, for those to operate nodes, but also to lock up capital, which is probably the main expense.
And the way this works in Tezos is you make the reward very high, right? So the rewarding Tezos is 5%, or at least it started around 5.5%, and it decreases over the year because it doesn't actually adjust dramatically.
But it's 5.5% for something like 10% state. So the reward to stickers is enormous. It's like 50% a year.
Now, that being said, we have a delegation mechanism so that it gets passed back to delegators.
And so you end up with a system where you have, let's say, like 5% inflation.
And in fact, because not everyone delegates, you get something like 60% reward.
And so net-net, you actually end up with deflation.
It depends on the reasons why people are not delegating. If people are not delegating because these are like lost coins or dead coins, then it's not really deflation.
If they are actually active coins, it's just people don't bother, then it's deflation.
And it's a really good system for an economic point of view. And the way that this adjusts is bakers adjusting their fees.
So if it gets more expensive to bake, then progressively bakers will raise their fees.
And if it gets less expensive to bake, then bakers will lower their fees to try to attract more navigation.
So it works with this kind of a dock mechanism.
The way it works in other blockchains and the way it works in adaptive issuance is that instead of that, you use a dynamic mechanism on a chain where you say,
we're going to allow the amount of staking to vary a little bit.
And based on where it is, whether or not it's above target or below target, we're going to adjust issuance.
So if you did this on dedos, currently bakers get about 10%.
Typical bakers back 10% take. So if they get about 10% of the inflation.
So if instead of having this whole mechanism where bakers get a bunch and have to pay a bunch, you just directly net it out on a chain, you end up with something more like 0.4%.
But again, if it's net, then what's the difference?
The difference is larger compatibility with the real world.
So from a tax standpoint, in mini jurisdiction, the view taken by tax authorities is that staking reward is taxable as income immediately.
And all else equal, you dilute the chain. And so all else equal, you would have a capital loss. That's associated with it.
But capital gains are treated differently from income. And so as a result, you basically have the equivalent of a net-to-world tax on business.
And this is in the US when you're not in the jurisdiction as well.
Plus a hassle of actually having to file.
Hey, I got money already. Every two days.
So there's a tax aspect. There's another aspect which is compatibility with DeFi.
If you have large divide pools where you want to use data as collateral, then there's a question of like who makes?
And I can create centralization issues. There are remedies around that, like CTEZ.
CTEZ also introduces its own equity questions.
There's compatibility with bridging, like the reason it's difficult to bridge tails outside of the business ecosystem,
that if you bridge it without staking it, you're bridging a version of it that's basically getting diluted at 5%, which is not attractive.
And if you bridge a version that is like delegated, then in some sense you're creating centralization around like, you know,
who is the baker that is going to be the baker for like everything that's rich.
So it's a pretty big neutrality. It's a problem you see in the scenario ecosystem, by the way, with the organization of stake.
You know, it's basically like, oh, LIGO is convenient. LIGO is a mostly good one.
And as a result, everything ends up being LIGO. It's not a great scenario.
So same thing with LIGO2 as well. If you want to move your tokens to LIGO2, they can't really delegate from LIGO2.
So for a variety of reasons, it's not super compatible with using LIGO2, using DeFi, tax systems.
And finally, we've seen exchanges, so historically exchanges have passed rewards down to litigators.
They take large cuts. So Coinbase, for example, takes 25% cuts.
But recently, Coinbase has also stopped doing that for New York states and California.
I have no reason to believe that it stopped thinking.
I think, you know, the regulatory pressure on them has been to like, you know, you can't make all this money.
You just know a lot to pass it to your customers.
And so, of course, you know, Coinbase is a business and not a business that I can only think of as a developer.
So, you know, in some sense, you're giving a worse experience to people who want to give you common exchanges.
And of course, it would be ideal if everyone just kept their coin, you know, on their own with some custody.
But the reality is that a lot of people are not ready to do that. So they want to use exchanges as custodians.
And right now, the fact that you have a massive opportunity cost to not litigating, and the fact that many places will not offer you litigation,
it makes it makes it less attractive.
So there's basically a host of consideration, which means that it's easier to next.
It's easier to be compatible with the real world, too.
If you next thing on China, that's a main case for adapting issuance.
We've had a few questions come in once you were speaking around adaptive issuance.
But yeah, we'll get to them as soon as possible.
I did have a question for myself.
So, Julian, this one's for you.
How does the new staking UX work and what are the fundamental changes for bakers?
So the new staking mechanism works.
So if AI is activated, so there are two phases.
There is a phase before AI activation.
And where it works like in Oxford.
And after AI activation, where everything switched to manual mode.
So people are using a stake operation to put the test on frozen deposits.
And by people, I mean, it can be the delegate, the bakers.
But it can also be any delegator.
And then you stake, you have your fund frozen for a few cycles.
And then when you want to use your funds and if you want to un-stake,
there is also a command for an operation for that.
Then your funds are frozen for four cycles.
Because they still participate to the...
Because your baker will still participate to the security of the chain
using the right negate from those tokens.
So they are still slashable.
And once the four cycles are passed, then you can finalize with a third operation.
And then your test becomes spendable again.
Oh yeah, that's for manual staking.
And how it changes for bakers.
So at the beginning of AI, any bakers will have the...
By default will not be able to accept stakers.
They have to change their parameters.
There are two parameters.
One for the amount of stakers they accept.
And one for the edge they take on the rewards that would otherwise go to stakers.
And so once they activate, they allow the staking.
Any delegate of this baker can stake some tests.
So the next question I'm going to ask to Lucas.
And this question has just come in from the community.
In the best case scenario, when will AI, and by AI,
I'm assuming they mean adaptive issuance,
when will AI be activated, assuming bakers agree to implement it?
Yes, so as told earlier, there are two proposals for the protocol for the next protocol.
And for the first one, it will activate five cycles after the protocol is activated and checked.
That will be around just 13 days.
In the other scenario, there's a vote on chain that decides when, if ever, the adaptations is activated.
And assuming best case scenario, which means that all the bakers say to vote and vote yes for adaptations,
then it would take at the earliest 46 days, around 16 cycles.
So of course, this will hardly be the case on chain,
mostly because the voting mechanism is so that all bakers, by default, vote pass.
So it doesn't change the voting EMA that's implemented,
which means that every time a baker votes pass, it just delays by one block of the voting mechanism.
So if everyone votes pass, of course, it never passes.
But as soon as there's one person that votes yes and no one votes no, then it will pass at some point,
just a matter of how many people vote yes.
I was kicked from being the co-host for some reason.
To a space that's been very buggy today for a weird reason, but we're back.
And next, we're going to be talking about DAO.
So DAO, for all of you who aren't familiar with the term, is the acronym for Data Availability Layer.
It's going to play a role in protocol P, or the P protocol.
And today, with us, we have Francois and Jan to go over that.
So I suppose my first question would be, could you explain at a high level what the DAO is
and its significance for the TESOS ecosystem, Francois?
So the idea of the DAO is to leverage the limitation of the size of blocks in DL1,
and especially with the use case of roll-ups, smart roll-ups for TESOS.
And in particular, in the context of it, I think.
So the idea is, in general, to leverage this limitation
by setting a new decentralized and so permissionless peer-to-peer network
where the transactions of users could be posted.
And the idea is to have the consensus of DL1 that checks that, indeed, this operation exists.
And so it's very important if we want to have roll-ups that runs with a very high throughput,
higher than the 10k TPS, for example, which is what we have for ETERNIC.
So what you're saying is DAO will play a very large role in, I suppose, the success
or the development of ETERLINK.
Could you elaborate on that a little bit more?
So first of all, the DAO will work with all the smart roll-ups,
not only for ETERNIC, but anybody that will build a smart roll-up on TESOS.
And the first one that we target is, of course, ETERNIC.
And if you want to have a look to the transaction per second metric by default
for ETERNIC, if you use only the L1, it could be a hazard law.
And so the point of the DAO will be to increase
this metric, but also to make the cost of posting operations cheaper,
because posting new operations through the DAO with ETERNIC will be cheaper
So there are also economic incentives for ETERNIC to use the DAO for their operation.
And so it should leverage the TPS above 10k TPS and more.
TPS is one of those sort of metrics that a lot of people keep their eye on,
so it's good to see that we're working on this,
and the DAO can be super helpful towards that.
I read on a Spotlight article that TESOS Bakers will operate nodes on the DAO.
Could you go into how this structure contributes to maintaining decentralization
while at the same time ensuring the integrity of the data that's being processed?
So the way that availability layer works is quite complex,
but to summarize the idea is to have a permissionless network
where on one hand you have the sequencers of ETERNIC that could post operations,
and on the other hand you would have actually anybody but in particular
you could have also the Bakers that can ensure and attest the existence of the data
that are processed through ETERNIC.
The main point of the DAO is to ensure that any operations that are processed by ETERNIC
actually exist, are actually somewhere,
and so to do so, the idea is to ensure that publication through this data availability layer.
So the Bakers will check, so actually not all the data because there is this idea of sharding,
so actually the data are split into smaller pieces,
but in general the idea will be that Bakers can attest on the L1
that they have seen the operations or transactions that were processed by ETERNIC.
And since they are sharded, they can process way more,
I mean, the Bakers can attest more data than the number of data of transactions that goes through the L1.
Because each Baker will only download a share of their stake,
sorry, they will only download a part of the data corresponding to their share of the stake.
So, just as Francois said, one key idea of the DAO is to stop having,
as in traditional blockchain, every validator does not do everything,
because that's costly in terms of network boundaries,
but instead of that, indeed, Bakers only download some part of the information
and attest on the chain that they have seen this information.
So, that's extremely important to maintain both, I mean, realize our roadmap on scalability,
so increasing the global bandwidth of the blockchain,
and also providing a good protection against censorship.
Because today, actually, SmartLabs are able to handle a lot of data through what is called a reveal channel,
but it means you need to trust some actor to provide the pre-mage of a rash,
and it means more or less that you are increasing your trust base,
you don't only trust the Bakers, as we do when we use the TESOS blockchain,
but actually, one actor, possibly one actor that owns the data,
and that's, of course, a weakness, because it means this person could be, at some point, retaining the information.
Here, we are just trusting the Bakers, so this rule is new for Bakers,
but it will really provide a lot of value for our chain,
so it means, I mean, we really need their support for the DAL,
they will have to update the infrastructure, but in exchange,
it means that for TESOS will be one of the only blockchains,
there are not a lot of them, capable of providing a very robust data availability layer,
and that's quite a hot topic for the industry,
that's something that a lot of chains are looking for, are trying to implement,
and we have it in the next proposal on mainnet activated,
so it's really a chance, an opportunity for Bakers to support our chain,
to show that we are really building-edge technology,
and that's why we are really looking forward to see Bakers installing DAL nodes,
running and participating in this new part of the network,
and of course, we are here to support them, to help,
but yeah, we need as much engagement from Bakers as possible,
that's a quite exciting new feature here, in my opinion,
I want you just to add this, thanks.
Thank you, Jan and you're right, Baker engagement is super important,
so any Bakers listening, please join our Discord,
there's a Baker channel in there, and you can reach out if you need support there as well,
so you both touched on scalability,
and I suppose after the last upgrade,
I saw a lot of chatter from those who were monitoring the upgrade,
the community members who were monitoring the upgrade live,
about reducing block time,
and there were lots of jokes about reducing it to 0.001 seconds and things like that,
but right now we're looking at 10 seconds,
and Alvin has joined us today to go into that,
so for those who don't know, can you explain what block time is
and the significance of a 10-second block time on the TESOL block chain?
Yes, hi everyone, so the block time is the delay between each block for the blockchain,
so right now on the mainnet, this block time is about 15 seconds,
that means that for everyone that wants to call some contracts
or do some transactions on TESOLs,
the operation will be finalized in the chain,
after at least some time, that is the next block, so around 15 seconds.
With the P proposal, we want to decrease this block time to 10 seconds.
To do that, we made a lot of tests,
you can learn more in an article about this work.
We tried our best to do something as safe as possible,
and yes, the block time will be reduced to 10 seconds,
so it means a faster inclusion of transaction,
a better finality to be a cutting edge technology,
as it was already said by Jan.
So, I suppose, are there any security or decentralization trade-offs
with a 10-second block time?
Yes, what we wanted to do is that we wanted to reduce the block time
without asking the backers to change their hardware.
That's the first thing, because hardware can be costly.
We can see in other blockchains higher hardware requirements, let's say,
and one of our core belief is that we should keep the hardware requirement
as low as possible so that everyone for every country
can join the Tezos blockchain to improve the decentralization
And I suppose one more question,
and especially off the back of the comments from community members
after the Oxford upgrade,
why 10 seconds and why wouldn't we go further than that?
Yes, that's a good question, and we saw that a lot.
That's a first step to reduce the block time,
and we want to reduce the block time step by step
by doing it safely as possible.
It's, as I said, it's a first step.
We want to be sure that with 10-second block time,
everything will go smoothly for a baker
and for operator of the chain, for dApps.
And then in the future, we want to decrease it even further
to be as competitive as possible.
But right now, we have numbers that prove
we can lower it even further.
And what would be the challenges of lowering it further?
What are the blockers and the difficulties
around getting it to a much smaller number?
Smaller number means, of course,
that consensus operation should arrive
I forgot what I wanted to say.
Sorry, what was the question again?
I was just asking what the, as for blockers
or the difficulties are there.
Yeah, so lowering to 10 seconds,
we discovered a lot of blockers
because we were kind of blind before that
about how the chain would react with heavy load, for example.
So we needed to have the best test scenario as possible.
We have some blockers right now, for example.
All the hardware, all signing hardware
can take a while to sign operation.
So we might want to ask the community
to improve that in the future, for example.
Most of the blockers were in the code.
There may be, there is still on the code.
So we are working on that to decrease
as possible these blockers in the code base.
Avoid as much as we can, asking the baker
to improve their hardware.
And that, I suppose, ties back to baker engagement
and keeping in touch with the teams in the ecosystem
so that we can keep the communication strong
and keep the chain running as smoothly
So I'm going to go into some community questions
that you guys have sent in.
So I think I will start with Tezberry Pi's question,
asking, so this question is regarding adaptive issuance.
Will liquid delegation be kept as an option
for the foreseeable future?
Julian, would you like to take this question?
Liquid delegation is in the protocol
and we don't think it shouldn't be here to stay here.
I have a question from Matt Nova, who's asked,
what does the evolution of the protocols
and frameworks on Tezos mean for artists
and are there ways we might see the technology
be implemented in artistic expression?
So I think I'll point this question to you, Arthur.
Do you have a view on this, insights into this?
I mean, I guess it might be a bit disappointing,
but I would say, first and foremost, keeping the costs down.
And I think one of the reasons that the Tezos platform
was successful with artists initially
is that compared to Ethereum, the fees were much lower
and ensuring that the fees can remain low
in every market condition, even if there's a lot of demand on the chain,
So in terms of to be maximally inclusive,
make it extremely affordable for people to experiment
with all sorts of contracts on the Tezos blockchain.
So that would be number one.
The number two thing is exact latency.
Of course, with lower latency, people have better experience
If the user has a better experience, of course,
that's good for everyone.
I say that these responses might be a bit disappointing
because in some sense, it's true for almost every application.
Any application, of course, they want to have a fee.
Of course, they want to have latency,
but it's not very, very specific to the artists as well.
One thing which I think is perhaps more specific
is that the artists' case is, I think,
one that really requires decentralization.
And the way I explain it to people,
sometimes people don't understand,
well, we have NFT, what would be hard?
Do you think R2NFT is going to last?
And my answer is, like, of course,
because, number one, people are going to keep making art.
I think that's a fairly solid prediction.
People have always made art, and they will keep making art.
Number two is people will keep making digital art.
Of course, the digital medium is becoming more and more important,
and more and more artists are going to express themselves digitally.
So these two things are clear.
Number three, people are going to want to collect art.
And also, that sounds very, very sensible.
Now, if you want to collect digital art, you need a record of that somewhere.
And you don't want to have some sort of centralized commercial database
This is a record that should last for a very, very long time.
The time frame that people have in mind when they collect art
can be in the decades sometimes, or sometimes in the centuries,
you've had art collection to sit in family for centuries,
or a museum for centuries.
So if you have a second time frame, you want something that's sustainable,
and you don't want something that's owned by some corporate entity,
which might be sold, which might be transferred,
which might be wound down.
So I would say having this status of decentralization,
not compromising on decentralization, not taking shortcuts,
not having a small, multi-corporate, multi-sig controller,
but saying, I think that's super important for the use case.
If you're a serious collector, you don't want to be dependent
on some intermediary in order to hold your collection.
And lately, we've seen a lot of centralization in the blockchain world,
particularly in the L2 space on Ethereum,
where all of these are basically owned and controlled by corporations.
And I think it's perhaps not sufficiently appreciated,
but if it is properly appreciated,
then I think it becomes a very strong use case.
And in theory, there's nothing that stops this other chance
from not being decentralized, but it just can't help it.
You go on Solana, and you have a multi-sig that controls
the metadata of every single...
There's a company that, on Solana, that controls
pretty much every single NFT that's out there.
As a collector, if you're just trying to flip something, sure,
but as a long-term collector, being okay with that
So this commitment to decentralization,
like scaling while removing decentralization,
I think is something that can be very valuable.
There's another one which is a focus on developer experience.
That's a big part of Tezos support.
It is having much, much better developer experience
on Tezos and on the user chain.
In particular, one experiment I'm excited about
is the simple justice roll-up, which is supposed to
build technologies that one day will be part of Tezos 2.0,
but it's using JavaScript directly as a programming language.
So that gives you more possibilities of expression.
It allows us to onboard many more developers.
And in particular, like you should do, for example,
on Xash, a lot of journey artists, media JavaScript.
So the possibility of perhaps meeting the school directly
on chain is something that's interesting.
So these are just a few ideas.
Some of them are very generic.
It's just like low cost, high performance.
And then some of them are rounding for experience
and around decentralization.
I would say maybe more focused on the artist case.
I think there's, you mentioned decentralization
I think in terms of artistic expression,
there's probably a lot of artists in the space who are here
because of that decentralization aspect
and perhaps you can see that being expressed in their art.
So I would definitely back the claim that
sticking towards that will, well, depending on
what's the hot thing at the moment,
will definitely strengthen us in the future.
But our next question is from Krip Temeth.
And this is on the topic of adaptive slashing.
So I think it would be a great thing to differentiate
between accidental double attestation
and willful manipulation of the chain.
But I wonder how would that be differentiated
and how different would the penalties be?
Julian, would you mind answering this one?
So that's what we call the adaptive slashing mechanism
that comes with adaptive issues.
And the idea is that as a delegate,
if you do a mistake today, like if you double attest,
that is you produce two blocks for the same level
and you will probably attest your own blocks.
And a double attestation today,
you will slash 50% of your stake,
What we have with adaptive slashing is that
the percentage, the slashing percentage
is adapted to the amount of stake
that produce a misbehavior.
If this is just a mistake,
it's just probably one attestation
and globally, for each attestation,
you have a number of slots that is proportional to,
roughly proportional to your stake,
to your share of the stake.
And so if you replace your attestation,
just represent a small share of the stake,
you will have a very low slashing.
I think that a usual baker will be slashed
around less than one person probably,
unless it's a really big baker.
And on the other hand, if there is a coalition,
and if on the same level,
a lot of baker are doing double attestation,
which is very unlikely in a normal situation,
so we detect this as a coalition,
and then the slashing amount of percentage is raising,
and if up to 30% of the stake is misbehaving,
then we slash up to 100%,
because it's clearly a sign that there is a coalition
that tries to manipulate the chain.
So the next question comes in from Tezos Online.
when will we see more corporate bakers?
For a while, it seemed like we were getting one every month.
Jan, would you like to answer this one?
So there are still a lot of corporate bakers in preparation.
People are wanting to take part to the core building
and support of the blockchain.
So it's true that maybe this last few months,
no new large corporate bakers have been advertised,
but actually, I know there are some projects.
I cannot be confidential for now,
but in Germany, in France,
Benelux, and other countries,
there will be, you'll see,
based on new corporate bakers coming.
It's really active these days.
It's a model that has been, I mean,
well executed for many years now.
It is also a model that is copy and paste by competitors.
So going to knock at corporate doors,
explaining why it is great, why they should participate,
supporting them in setting up bakers.
It's really something that we are continuing to do.
it's a first step in our ecosystem for this corporate.
I think it's a good way to develop business.
And yeah, it's not stopped.
Maybe you have not seen a lot this few months,
Exciting stuff. I'm looking forward to it.
Our next question is from Blind Rippetez.
What innovations can you imagine
that would make a blockchain indispensable
for a business or businesses and an average job?
Arthur, could you take this question, please?
So what innovation would make a blockchain indispensable
I mean, I think, you know,
I keep thinking that blockchains have very deep use cases,
generally more narrow use cases than the market imagines.
I think the use case of sensitive resistant store of values
is a resistant sort of value, super important.
Setting money across borders, digital collectibles.
So, you know, I think these excuses are really real.
But the fundamental idea of like this deep corporate adoption,
I'm very skeptical of that.
Always have been, you know,
it's nice to explore and keep an open mind, of course,
who wants to experiment with this.
But on a personal level, for me,
the value of blockchains is decentralization.
You have to start with that. That's what you offer.
If you don't have decentralization,
you know, why are you committing essentially with a database
or are you committing with a device?
So in which settings do businesses really need decentralization?
Sometimes for your true arbitrage, that can be a thing.
It could also be that decentralization essentially makes it more international.
So if you want to have something that's low friction and international,
fewer intermediaries, that's possible.
So cost reduction, cost reduction in highly regulated business
But none of these things are like indispensable.
I think they're nice value ads.
But if you want something that's indispensable,
you want, you know, you're looking at people fleeing war zones,
like these are people for whom separate technology might be indispensable.
For businesses, I think it's,
and things become indispensable once you have network effect.
You know, if somehow like you're in a position
where you had enough of a value prop,
you know, in some verticals to like
bootstrap a huge market on a blockchain
and somehow like it's very important that
for a business to access that market,
it's not a feature of the blockchain that suddenly makes
the blockchain is indispensable.
It's just an application that's on a blockchain
that becomes indispensable to the business.
And the key is that maybe that application serves users
that need it to be on the blockchain
and it serves a wider range of people.
But fundamentally, you know, what the blockchains do today,
the innovation is like doing it more privately,
doing it more cheaply, doing it faster.
But not, they are fundamentally accounting software.
I think that's something that people often forget.
Yeah, I suppose from my point of view,
they kind of see blockchain not being anything
the average Joe is really going to pay attention to.
The same, the average Joe doesn't really pay attention
And what they really pay attention to
is things that are built using it.
And if those things end up becoming like everyday users,
then they become indispensable.
But blockchains themselves like don't see that happening
with the average Joe at least, from my point of view.
But we're coming into the closing minutes of this call.
So I'd like to end it by going around
to all of our guests today
and asking them to give us quick 30-second drop
of what they're most excited about
or looking forward to the most out of all the developments
we've covered today and why.
I think I'll start with you, Albin.
As a core developer of Tezos,
I'm looking to continue our work
to improve the overall Tezos blockchain
and for my part for sure improving even further the block time.
Yes, so of course I'm very excited to see
an electrician and an electrician landing in Tezos
I'm very happy to see that there are a lot of projects
that are flourishing and starting to make Tezos a blockchain
that stands apart from the competition.
So I'm very excited to see what happens in the future.
Nice stuff. How about you, Julien?
That is very interesting in Tezos.
I mean, we are working on an amazing protocol
and we are still adding a lot of things.
Also, we have the octaves node
and also many things to do in the not protocol part
to improve the efficiency of the node.
And so I'm not sure on what I will work after adaptations.
Right now we are focusing on doing a lot of tests
to be sure that everything is fine.
And yeah, let's see what we do after that.
Brilliant. And you saw Francois?
Well, I think that the P with the DAL
is the beginning of the journey.
We have many upcoming big words,
but let's say we plan to have many other features
for the data availability layer,
in particular with sampling, for example,
but also maybe other use cases.
I think that the opportunity to have Ethernet with DAL
is I hope would be a game changer in the blockchain industry.
It would be probably one of the first holops
which is fully decentralized
and solving the scalability problems
So yeah, I hope to see a lot of things with that
and to have the people that share with us
this taste for very good technology,
completely decentralized.
And yeah, I hope they will like it, a little bit even.
Well, I'm seeing a lot of maturity now in the L1.
I think we're seeing still the major things
which are coming to the L1 itself
are going to be largely, I would say,
well, potentially adaptive issuance,
the latency reduction, and the DAL.
But those are the fundamental things that the L1 do.
It does that providing that availability,
providing consensus, and this is really the core of it.
And I'm very excited for the work that's going into
the work around developer experience
and having a prime developer experience.
I would say a lot of the early design
of the smart contract was really focused
on smart contract security,
on giving away for people to write very, very secure smart contracts.
There hasn't been enough of a demand for that.
I would say we're still in the phase where
a lot of people really strongly prefer having
the easiest possible developer experience over security.
It's a choice that the market has made.
This is a wise choice, but it's the market's choice.
And answering that and being able to provide
a really, really positive, really, really good experience
where people can use any programming language,
any libraries making it as easy and simple as possible
to develop, I think is a great engine for adoption.
So I'm really looking forward to that.
Well, a lot has been said already.
Maybe what I will be working on is to continue
helping core devs building this amazing technology
implementing the vision of those two typically
and selling of course for more short terms.
In addition to that, what we want already said so a bit before
is really to co-build this chain with Bakers
to have them support the technology.
And I think with all that will probably be
in the best condition for success.
Brilliant. Thank you Jan. And well said.
And just another reminder, if you are a baker,
please join the Tezos Discord.
I'll leave a link in the comments
for you guys to jump into it.
It's really, really important that we have that
closed line of communication there.
So I'd like to thank my guests today, Arthur, Jan,
Francois, Alvin, Luca, Julian.
Thank you for joining and answering the community's questions,
giving us insights into what you're working on,
what you're looking forward to.
It's been brilliant. It's been insightful.
And thank you all for joining and listening
and for all the great questions you've sent as well.
We'll speak with you soon.
There'll be more community calls to come.