Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
THORChain and Rujira: Unique or Duplicate Primitives on the Applayer?
Recorded: June 14, 2025 Duration: 3:43:18Space Recording
Short Summary
The ThorChain community is buzzing with excitement as the app layer officially launches, promising new functionalities and partnerships. Discussions around governance, yield opportunities, and potential token launches highlight a strong commitment to growth and innovation in the decentralized finance space.
Full Transcription
Thank you. you
mike is checked damn right it is how you doing man I'm good thanks my my Oilers are still in it I watched the game on Thursday they're live um so that's exciting for me well you know one thing I
know I've actually never been to a hockey game before um that's something I need to experience
because dude it's high intensity.
I love it, man.
And I love the war.
Yes, you definitely have to.
Yeah, even if – yeah, seeing it live is an experience,
especially, well, obviously, a game in Canada or northeast U.S.,
like real hockey cities.
Right.
It's an experience.
You don't have to know anything about it.
Like, you don't have to understand the rules or anything. It's just, you know, being in the atmosphere and, you know, you'll you'll you'll you can figure out enough at the game to enjoy it.
Yeah, I just love the fact that they let them just go at it on the ice, man.
That just that just makes me so happy because it's like a tradition, you know what I mean?
Because it is hard not to get like, you know imagine I mean it's just pure war
it really speaks to me as a man and I love it you know yeah yeah well and then
and the balance of that um like at the end of each playoff round they you know
they shake hands right they don't they don't do that in any other sport and um
and you know it's still uh you, what do you call it? Uh,
sportsman, uh, sportsmanship, you know, game ship, right. You know, at the end of the day,
at the end of it, they, you know, shake hands and say, you know, good job, you know, congratulations
and move on. Um, so it's a pretty respectful, despite the fighting and all the grit and
everything is actually a respectful sport. That's why there is fighting because it's like you're stepping out of line and
you gotta be put in your place.
Right.
That's a good tension cutter.
It's like the online, like all these kids nowadays, like, you know, our age,
you know, back in the day, you didn't have social media.
If you said something, you'd get your ass worked.
You know what I mean?
And I think a lot of these kids are really rude and confident lines because
they've never been bitch slapped.
You know what I mean?
Oh, that's a hundred percent. You can totally tell when confident lines because they've never been bitch slapped. You know what I mean? Oh, 100%.
You can totally tell when someone's never been punched in the face before.
Absolutely.
All right, guys.
So, hey, share the space.
Let's get, this can be a really interesting conversation today.
I'm actually really glad this is happening because, you know, the app layer is officially
You know, the app layer is officially live air quotes, but it's we're still early on.
live air quotes, but it's, we're still early on.
Right.
Right.
And I think it's very important at this unique moment in time that we really just discuss
like overall concepts, ideas and the design of something that the app layer because going
beyond this point, we're going to get more set in stone.
So I'm really excited for this conversation.
I know people think it's an interesting topic and there's been a lot of back and forth.
So I'm really happy for this conversation i know people think it's an interesting topic and there's been a lot of back and forth so i'm really happy to dissect that today so again guys share the space
if anyone wants to come up and speak and and you know if you have questions concerns ideas now's the time so um yeah let's go ahead and get into it kenton do you want to start it off? Sure. So I guess this whole space cut the topic for today started with ADR20 on ThorChain.
And ADR stands for Architecture Design Record. And that's where, you know, any changes to ThorChain
are proposed and then debated and discussed. Do we want this change?
Do we, is it something we agree with?
Is it, should it be tweaked?
Should we not do it?
And there's been 19 of these previously, obviously, right?
And some of those threads are huge and like big, long debates.
And it's not about, how do I say this?
You know, everyone who's in there, you know, there'd be differing ideas, but, you know, the end goal is the same.
What is best for ThorChain, right?
And, you know, ThorChain is full of a lot of really intelligent, independent thinkers, right?
And with that comes sometimes a differing of opinions.
And with that comes sometimes a differing of opinions, right?
But what's great is it's a venue for those minds to come together and hash it out.
And so in theory, when you go through that process, whatever change has been kind of generally agreed upon between everyone should be the best outcome for ThorChain.
agreed upon between everyone should be the best outcome for ThorChain.
And then after that conversation, then the devs will actually write code or the nodes
will actually go and implement the changes, make them un-mimier or whatever.
And I think it's great.
It's a way to try to introduce some kind of governance on a decentralized system, right? You know, like
everybody's always decentralized, you know, there's no leader, there's no head, there's,
and that's great for, decentralization is great for security. It's awful for governance because
there's no like leader, there's no process to make a decision. It's just like, you know,
I have all these voices just mishmashing together, right. But the ADR process is a way to try and add some kind of order to a chaotic system and, you know, a place for all the different nodes, not just nodes, but even, you know, regular rune holders.
You know, anybody who has a good idea or strong opinion can come and talk and engage.
And so we're on our 20th one, right?
And it's about AppLayer.
And maybe just to, you know, I keep reading that there's tension
between Regere community and Thor chain community.
And I've never met anyone.
I think I'm sure you guys are all great guys.
I'm not saying against anybody.
So if I can try to come up with why there's any tension,
it's because this ADR process was basically skipped a year ago
when all the work was being done to develop AppLayer
and bring Rogira and all the different teams over to ThorChain.
And so it was kind of, I don't want to say that anyone at ThorChain is mad or angry or
doesn't want them, nothing like that.
It's just we've kind of gone, sidesteped this whole process.
And I feel like any frustration that the Rogira people might have could all been this could all been
avoided if we if they if we did an adr before they had done any work to begin with and we just
had these discussions hashed it all out then um there'd be no surprises along the way right we're
all on the same page from the beginning um that's not how it went, right? This ADR20 for AppLayer, it just got posted
like within a month, a month ago. And it's just being discussed in Discord in the last week.
And I have one of the paragraphs in the ADR I disagree with, and I'm voicing my opinion.
are I disagree with and I'm voicing my opinion and just help other people know where I come from,
my biases. I only own Rune. I'm running those on Thor chain. I want Rune price to go up as much as
possible. And I'm partly representing my investors and my bond providers, right? Like kind of echoing their voices too, right?
So I'm representing my nodes and how I think that they should vote and act in ThorChain.
And I'm happy for other nodes to disagree with me.
I think that's what keeps this ecosystem healthy, right?
I'm not always right.
But if I do feel strongly that I am right, I'm going gonna say something I'm gonna you know speak my mind and I hope I
hope others do the same so maybe I should stop there is that kind of helps
set up yeah stage no I I'm really glad you said that because you're
establishing the reason why you know like your main reason here is that you
want to return to form you know and and core dev, some core devs did admit like, Hey, you know,
I bear some responsibility on this because the AD,
ADR process was not respected. So, and I think this is good because Kenton,
you're,
you're establishing the first principles of how this system should,
should run. Now, I think it's, it's an understandable situation,
just given the chaotic nature of
Thor5, that everyone was so busy, there were so many moving pieces that as a community,
we didn't do a proper job in ADR, but we should hold ourselves accountable to that.
And I think your point, Kenton, is a good one, is that I just want the best design,
not only for Thorchain, but Ruggiero as, like to get the maximum amount of the app layer.
And so I think it's always good to go back to our initial assertions or an ADR process that maybe wasn't as done properly as it should have been done.
And let's really like take a step back and talk about it because you're right.
As I'm someone who I have rune in your node, I'm watching the conversation within the node
and a lot of people are just confused, right?
They're not 100% sure of like what exactly is going on.
And I think that's on the Regera side too.
So this is the opportunity
where we are actually gonna take a step back
and kind of do a head nod to the process
that we sort of skipped or was kind of half-assed,
if you will.
And let's have a proper discussion
and then let's figure it out
and let's discuss all the ideas
and see if we can get some consensus on this.
Because as I said, I think your concern is a good one.
Yeah, thanks.
Yeah, that sums it up.
I don't know if any of the Rajera people
wanna maybe add to that intro or setting the stage.
Hey, guys.
Hey, PM here.
Hey, Pragmatic.
So first, I think that's a very fair comment.
Like, the fact that this ADR was skipped is probably the fundamental issue here.
a fundamental issue here. The way to like from us we got kind of parachuted into this torching
ecosystem with very little knowledge at first of all the economic design and the governance design
and all that we were brought in by a GP and we didn't know about any idea process we assumed
like if GP was bringing us in it meant that that it was all clear and we had an agreed plan to deploy the player
as a permission of a run on top of Torchain as it was presented to us.
So it looks like indeed a step was missed, which is this ADR20.
And yeah, that's an issue with the process.
So good to have it finally being discussed.
And I think today the key topic is really
about this contagious point of whether it should be
permissionless or not.
And I'm excited to dig a bit deeper into that
and hopefully give us our perspective.
And maybe I think there's a bit of a mind shift
to be made here.
And I hope I can help you see things a bit differently
by the end of this call.
Yeah, that's fair.
Hey, this is Cal.
I think that's great.
Sorry if you don't mind if I jump in. Do you guys mind defining what ADR20 is core about?
Because I think a lot of people listening probably haven't read it.
And there's a few things in it, but there's the one core issue,
which is kind of what's being discussed here.
Well, basically, it's just what is the app layer
and how is it going to be set up?
Like kind of, yeah, like what is it?
You know, what's it going to do?
How is it going to operate?
Just some general guidelines.
And so, you know, one of them is about having competing apps.
And that's kind of where there's been some disagreement with me and others,
is that the way it's written, the way I read it,
is that there basically should be no competing apps.
And whereas I am of the opinion that there should be,
we should definitely have competing apps.
It should be encouraged.
And so that's the part we're discussing,
we're debating right now.
Did that answer you, Cal?
Did you have a better explanation than me?
Yeah, no, I think that's a great explanation.
I just think, yeah, I think defining it first was a good move.
So I agree, though.
I think the core of the ADR is the definition of applications
and if there should essentially be a process to vet them
or just let it be free-grain.
Yeah.
And I think it's important, too.
It's not just for Thorchain to adopt, but, guys,
everything we do here is great for anybody new to Thor chain or new to
Rijira to do due diligence right that they can go read this stuff and they can see and there's a
record and there's been okay things are laid out this is how it works um um you know so it's good
to have all this stuff Eric you had your hand raised. Were you wanting to say something?
Yes, definitely. So, okay, so you guys were mentioning stuff about the code and about the ADR,
you know, more technical stuff. But also, I think that it's worth mentioning to the community and to the audience right now that these kinds of spaces and the topics that are coming up on these
to the audience right now that these kind of spaces and the topics that are coming up
on these weekly spaces are taking a shift.
And it might be worth mentioning to people that...
Okay, so when we come up with these topics and when we try to put them out for the community
to discuss them, to come up and speak, to drop a comment under the space if you don't
want to come up to speak, but we can read it so we can discuss it. It's because we want to make
both Fortune and Ruggiero a better place and create better synergies between the one and
the app layer, right? So guys, do not think that we are coming up with these topics to try to create pushback or to try to create some controversy.
It's to align and to actually work together.
So that being said, just wanted to put it out there.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
See, this is I agree.
And I don't mean to cut you off, Kenton.
But the spaces here are meant to figure things out on the fly. there yeah yeah yeah see this is this is i agree and i don't mean to cut you off kenton but uh
we're the spaces here are meant to figure things out on the fly um and i saw this topic and i
requested it because i thought it was very interesting and i think it's i think it's worth
debating 100 and just like eric said um we're here to get everyone on the same page or at least
understand where everyone's coming from and then go from there go ahead kenton no eric's absolutely
right like trust me guys it's absolutely right. Trust me, guys.
It's Saturday morning for me.
I'd rather be out scuba diving right now.
Like, I enjoy talking to everybody, but trust me,
this isn't what I want to be having any kind of debate.
This isn't engagement farming.
This is just a debate ensued and we thought,
oh, let's just have a space about, let's talk about it.
It's so much better when we talk, right, than, you know, keyboard worrying each other.
Well, let's, let's maybe get into it. Let me just explain my position a bit more. So
the way the ADR is written is saying, I think the title is of the paragraph is duplicate apps
are discouraged. And, and the idea is to, I guess, encourage development of those apps
so they don't have to worry about competition.
And then, but if an app is starting to fail or the devs ghost
and they're not updating, maintaining the code or whatever,
then fine, that app can be removed.
The throw chain nodes can elect to remove that app
and then make room and approve for a new one.
And the way I read that and the way I interpret all that
is basically it's like Thorchain nodes playing central planner.
And I'm a hardcore Austrian economist, anarcho-capitalist,
so you guys understand my economic views.
And, you know, I believe in free markets.
And I, you know, I think Austrian economics has done a fantastic job of going through
the historical record over hundreds, if not thousands of years, to demonstrate why planned
economy, central planning, does not work.
The freer the market, the more prosperous it is.
And so I want AppLayer to be, as a root investor and bond provider
that's yield from nodes, I want AppLayer to be as prosperous as possible.
And so I want there to be, like of apps thousands of apps like like you know bring
it to me right i want all that yield and um on door chain and uh so i i think there should be
competition from door chain's point of view and um um and just i feel like like I know the rev share is 50% for Regera.
I'm not saying there should be 50% rev share on Regera and 0% rev share on any other apps.
It should be the same across the board, right?
Every team, every app has the exact same rev share.
No one's getting any special treatment.
And so I've had people say, well, you know, with the rev share, you're not going to have any competition.
So you're arguing that your point is stupid because no one's going to accept those terms.
I'm like, all right, well, then there's the Majira has a natural monopoly.
And great that, you know, they have what they want.
And maybe that's true.
We can't get any other teams to come on because the rev share is too high.
Well, then, but if we do want to stimulate more apps,
then maybe we reduce the rev share to get more teams.
But we should also reduce it for Regera.
I'm not saying different rev shares for different teams.
Not at all.
It should be equal across the board.
And I completely disagree with the concept that, let's say,
like perps.
I'm really excited about Levana perps.
I, you know, I think that could be huge for Thorchain and Levana, you know,
it could be win-win for both of us.
I could start my own perps platform, my own app, Kenton perps, right?
And that,
that isn't sucking mindshare or liquidity or anything from Levana because
that's not how markets work,
how business works.
I have my own audience, people that follow the Kenton brand,
and they don't know about LaVanna.
They don't try LaVanna, right?
So they're not going to use it, but they like Kenton,
and they're going to use my platform, right?
So it isn't a zero-sum game where there's just a fixed pool of
users. And if we, you know, like 100 users, and if we have two apps, each app only gets 50 users
each. Like, no, like, Levante could tap out at their 100 users, and I could bring in 100 users.
Now we have 200 users on AppLayer. So the whole idea with the competing businesses in a market is you're
actually tapping into new audiences, you're making the market grow. And I don't know if
you're listening, if Slice is listening, Slice X, he's brought up the strip mall analogy. And
you kind of want to, you don you know too many competing businesses in a strip
mall and I kind of get it but I also I disagree with that too I used to live in San Diego and
they have Fashion Valley this is giant mall with like a hundred different clothing stores
and it's all clothes like all the all the name brands you can think of. There's Macy's, Nordstrom. Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom
are right across from each other. And they both did exactly the same thing, but just slightly
different. But they're all together in this one big mall. And what that does is that I don't go
shopping anywhere else in San Diego. I just go there because I know I'm going to find everything I want there. So from ThorChain's point of view, we have this app layer that can do everything.
And somebody wants to start a new exchange, any kind of exchange.
They're like, I'll just go build on ThorChain.
And ThorChain becomes this mall where like mall of clothing stores, basically mall of exchanges.
And we could have dozens of different
Binances built on top of ThorChain. Maybe Binance and Coinbase even decide to migrate onto ThorChain,
right? Maybe Hyperliquid decides to migrate onto ThorChain. This is my vision. This is what I'm
seeing is that everybody wants to build on top of ThorChain and And as that happens, ThorChain itself is getting that many more fees,
Rune is that much stronger, there's that many more nodes, ThorChain is becoming more secure.
And ThorChain just becomes this de facto base layer that if you're going to build an exchange,
yeah, you just want ThorChain. And so back to my Fashion Valley example, if you're going to have a
clothing store, you put in Fashion Valley. You. And so back to my Fashion Valley example, if you're going to have a clothing store,
you put it in Fashion Valley.
You don't go look for real estate or rent anywhere else.
I mean, you might,
but you're not going to get nearly the amount of traffic as you do in Fashion Valley.
So I think competition on the app layer
isn't going to cannibalize any of regira's potential users you know they're gonna
everyone taps out on their audience and what they can reach and who they can can can attract to use
their product um um you know so maybe i'll stop there hopefully you guys that makes sense and see
where i'm coming from yeah Yeah. I have some ideas.
Go ahead, Pragmatic Monkey,
and then we'll go to Leo Dex.
Okay, no, cool.
So I think, first of all,
very much aligned with the Austrian economic thinking and free markets.
Like, I'm in the same camp,
so not trying to see Torchain as the central planner.
I really don't think it's the intention here.
But there are two points I think that we need to tackle.
First one is a UX point effectively.
And the idea, I think it tie a bit together
in the genesis of all of this.
So to enable this app layer, we have to do a ton of work.
We have to upgrade Torchain base layer to a standard,
create a secure, like
to build it up to
Cosmos SDK 50, create
the concept of secured asset and implement
that and do all sorts of things,
new Lego blocks
that allow the creation of these app layers.
We also build a ton of components like
UI components, wallet connector, which looks
like nothing, but it's a real pain in
the ass to have to handle that
when you have so many connected chains
and so many different wallet providers.
We are building all those infrastructure pieces
to allow a lot of other apps to come
and develop on top of Torchain.
What we were promised, and maybe like it was no ADR,
so maybe we are promised that by GP
without the correct authority to do so,
but is to have at least a 12-month period to have a head start,
to be able to reap the fruits of the hard work
that we put in to enable a lot of other apps
to come and develop.
So that's just one, I think, things to keep in mind.
It doesn't have to be like a permanent monopoly,
but it has, it's kind of a reward,
a third-mo further advantage to thanks us
and the artwork we've been putting
in making this possible in the first place.
So that's just one point.
And then what this enabled,
I think it allows us to differentiation,
initially at least of offering this one nice UI UX.
I don't know if you have tried it, Canton or anyone here.
I hope you did, but it's just starting now.
We just have one app or two apps live.
So pool one is just like to add liquidity,
so it's not really a lot happening there,
but we have the order book live now.
But you can see in the UI, it's all in one place.
It's nice and easy, and it really
looks to compete with Binance.
And so having this nice unified UX,
I think is a good way to differentiate initially.
It allows us to effectively just capitalize on the work we did
and nobody else did before.
That will allow, eventually, much more teams to come on board but more importantly that's kind
of the base layer reason of why at least a 12 month period of exclusivity would make sense but
there are like much deeper consideration here so the first one oh and sorry, on that point, having this exclusivity is also what allows us to have then this very cooperational partnership with Storechain.
And that's why we can do 50% revenue share, which is huge.
Like imagine if you were taking this example of this fashion mall, if each of the stores in the fashion mall had to pay 50% of their revenue to the mall owner, I'm not sure the mall will be there in the first place.
But yet, us as a team, as a combination of teams, by the way, because we are not just one team, we are several teams, part of an alliance building those different products.
We agree to a 50% taxation to build this app layer. And this, one of the reasons we agree in such a
high tax rate is because we have this exclusivity. So from the moment you remove this exclusivity,
you also remove the need to have such a high revenue share. But even if we were to, like, if you were to make it totally permissionless,
meaning you really don't need to ask permission to deploy a new smart contract, you will have no way
to enforce this type of revenue share at the code level. Because once, like, you deploy a smart
contract, it's a Cosmosm envelope and smart contract inside this Cosmosm
are just like standard user account,
but that you can program to do certain things.
You cannot enforce any of the codes that is being deployed
in the smart contract to have a revenue share.
So you could just end up in a situation where you have a ton
of new apps at lunch and don't share anything with Storechain.
And you cannot stop them because there is no longer this process process of uh white listing deployers by uh standard operators and the option to shut
uh shut down a contract for whatever reason is deemed necessary so that's just more on the on the
like technical implementation of enforcing like you can't have a permissionless app layer
and enforce a revenue share.
And therefore, like if you make it permissionless,
you remove this certainty of having a revenue share
that you only get because we are in an actual partnership.
At least that was sold to us.
But of course, it's a decentralized community.
And when speaking with you and keeping the ADR process
and all that, like we were not aware of that.
And now we are in a situation where it feels like people
like you just, oh, you are just one shop in the mall
and we want much more shop.
But that's lead me to the much more fundamental point here,
which I hope I can help you see things a bit differently.
So if you think of Torchain as a protocol,
Torchain doesn't have three different swap routers and five replication of the same liquidity pools.
It's just one protocol with one set of each of the pair it's serving
and one swap router that allow you to swap any asset to any output routing by rune.
And then on top of that, what you get is a lot of different frontends, and those are your shops, those are your little brands.
And they go and spin out different frontends and create for different audiences.
And you can have the Canton brands having his own frontend and you will have your own
audience using it.
And you can monetize by adding an affiliate fee on top of that.
And that's a very symbiotic relationship because the protocol itself, the set of rules that
define how exchange work is still the same.
You don't fragment the liquidity.
You don't fragment the possible routes, but you can have an expression of a lot of different tastes
and colors and brands via different front ends.
Well, what we are trying to do here with Ruggira is exactly the same thing. You should not think of Ruggira as just a mall in this big shopping center.
Ruggira is actually just extending the mall.
What we are doing here with this app layer and with the score primitive we are building
is providing Torchchain based layer with more capabilities.
But then what we are going to do, and that's an important point in the roadmap, we are going to also implement a framework of affiliate fee, but also referral fee. And let me dig a bit
into that. So we want to replicate, this has been a key success factor for Torchain, having this
ability to have multiple frontends that can add a fee on top and monetize. The issue with the
affiliate fee model is that you add the fee on top. So it means the end user is paying for this.
You charge the end user for this extra service you are providing, which I mean, is fine, but
not optimal, especially if you are operating front-end yourself, because then it means that
anybody can get a cheaper price if they know how to put the right memo, or if somebody's been out of front end with no fee and they could take, if the audience
was just like a cost sensitive, it would take all the market share. But in our case, so having just
this affiliate fee, so we'll have this affiliate fee as well, and for all of the application,
but we also want to create something that I i call a referral fee and the difference between the affiliate fee and the referral fees the affiliate fees what you add on
top of the protocol revenue and the referral fee will be something that we take from the protocol
revenue that would be a parameter tbd but maybe like 10 of uh all the protocol revenue if you
come with uh so so from a front end or an integrator integrator with specific codes, he gets 10% of the revenue.
We get only 90%, which is split between Torchain and Ruggira.
But the end user doesn't support these costs.
And that means that we can create a ton of other alternative front-ends
that are as competitive in terms of costs as Ruggira is.
So that's the first important distinction.
But this also allows us to do,
it means that we can then really think of the app layer
being just this extension of Torchain
and where effectively we want to see like okay so initially
we will probably we will be operating the main front end and we we will have I assume the biggest
market share but we want to see a ton of integrators and ton of alternative front ends that come and
do things differently and by the way everything is open source of you you will have like we make it
super easy for people to to copy paste and replicate what we do.
So to compete with us.
And we will make, with this referral fee, we can make it in a way that they can even compete without having to charge more to their end user.
And that's very powerful.
We also have the affiliate fee for some reasons.
The front end is like for people who have very captive audience that is not so much price sensitive.
And you can add a fee on top if you are a ledger or whoever,
but we can also allow a much stronger competition by having other front-end
that don't have to do all this work, that just like, almost like,
for copy-paste the current UI, just add a referral code relative to them
and change the logo and the color and go and
directly compete with us and maybe add feature and do stuff to try to differentiate.
And that will be happening.
But you don't need to offer the best user experience.
You don't have to have three different order books and three different money markets and
then fragment the liquidity that exists for making markets on the sort of books and for landers who have three different options to provide the liquidity in
three different pools which mean like the user depending on where you borrow you will have a
much more sensitive interest rate because it's a function of utilization the idea is to then you
can keep the app layer very much like Torchain, just one unified protocol with a score primitive,
which just extends the number of primitives.
And you make all the competition and all the branding
and the fun stuff happen at the front end level.
And thanks to the concept of free for Alfie,
we may even make it possible to compete
without incurring an extra cost that you end up
charging to your end user.
So I think that's a very important mind shift.
And if we can agree that that's actually a better model
than having three different order books
and three different liquidity pairs for, I don't know,
the BTC, USDC pool in three different consolidated liquidity pools
on three different decks that don't communicate with each other
and at the end provide a worse cut to the end user i think that's suboptimal and i think the the
design of having just the best possible uh smart contracts infrastructure which by the way is open
source so that means that if certain features are missing other people can come and just like
we improve over time the torch chain base layer you we improve over time, the Torchain base layer, you can improve over time
the smart contract on the app layer and build a better and better,
more robust, more feature-rich core primitive,
and then have this competition at the front end level.
I'm going to... and LeoDex is next, but I'm going to allow Kenton to respond to that.
And once the back and forth is done, then we'll go to Leo Dex.
Go ahead, Kenton.
Well, I've got a few comments and a few questions.
If Leo Dex is, let's add something quick, I'll let him jump in because I have a lot.
No, you're good to go ahead.
go ahead. The one thing I'll mention is, you know, and I've seen a lot of talks about the
The one thing I'll mention is, you know, and I've seen a lot of talks about the strip mall
strip mall analogy. I think, you know, it can be good in certain ways, but the main issue I have
analogy.
with it is like a strip mall has, you know, limited retail space or limited real estate.
So, you know, in the physical world, you know, strip mall can't change its size, you know,
every second of every day. And I would say a big difference here is that,
you know, on the app layer, it can be as big or as small as you want it to be. And what we've seen with other blockchains and, you know, DeFi protocols and whatnot, is that you, you know,
you open source everything, teams are building, you might have 1000, you know, we kind of saw
saw that DeFi summer, you have like a thousand DeFi apps come out. But if you look at DeFi now,
that DeFi summer, you have like 1000 DeFi apps come out. But if you look at DeFi now,
it's concentrated to, you know, maybe the top 10 who really took all the market share
simply by building the best apps. So I think a big difference in the analogy is that when
you're building something digitally that has, you know, infinite real estate, it changes the
dynamic a lot where I think it's much better to just have a bunch of stores open all at the same time.
And whichever store can innovate the best, you know, those stores succeed the most and take the most market share.
So I think that's a huge difference here.
Cool. Thank you.
Okay, a few things, Pergmetic Monkey.
Okay. A few things.
Okay, as far as permissionless,
I view that as a separate subject and concept to competing apps.
I'm not calling for AppLayer to be permissionless.
I agree.
I understand that it needs to be permissioned
so we can force these new apps to implement a rev share.
So that I do want. I do agree with. We need to force that rev share.
So I think that boy should say permission, but it's really just to get that our pound of flesh, our tax, right?
It's really just to get that, our pound of flesh, our tax, right?
The other one is you mentioned the deal you made with JP, having the, you know, if you write the code, having the 12-month lead.
I mean, I don't, I honestly sound like a dick, like that's not my problem.
Like that was your guy's mistake making it with JP.
You know, it's like washing someone's car, then knocking on their door.
Like, hey, I washed your car.
Can you pay me now?
Like, I never asked you to wash my car.
I didn't, you know,
DoorChain nodes never asked you to write any code.
That's the whole point of the ADR process
is that we tell the devs what code we want them to write
so they don't waste their time writing code
that the devs don't want.
That being said, I'm not saying I'm trying to leave you guys high and dry.
I want what you guys wrote, and I think all the ThorChain nodes agree.
But a couple things.
One, maybe you should be paid separately for that, like a one-time fee.
Two, I'm not against a 12-month lead I think I
think that's a great idea that's probably a great great compensation is
you actually if anything you're probably selling yourself short because maybe you
guys takes longer for you to get you know wrapped up in a year right but put
that in the ADR like but I don't see that written anywhere like let's have that written down um and then two is
like what if like if you guys wrote all the code for app layer and you're like you know we're the
ones that have to maintain it and we have you know if we have these other teams come on and they're
just using the code that we're maintaining and they're not doing that work, like what if there's an extra, like of that 50% we're charging these apps,
what if the Ruggiero team gets 10% of that, you know,
for maintaining the app layer code?
So if there are, let's say there are 1,000 apps,
and they're all paying ThorChain or pound of flesh,
well, now Ruggiero is getting a pound of flesh too
because you're maintaining that code that all these other apps
are taking advantage of. So in a way, shape, way shape or form i saying you guys should not get paid for
what you do i want you to get paid i think you should you guys remember when the way everyone
talks you guys are top-notch devs top-notch people like i think it's awesome you guys want to work on
doorchain so i want to get paid i think and you and you should be incentivized. And there's also the 5% rev share dev fund that goes to,
and right now it's just going to Nine Realms.
That's coming up this summer.
Like it's supposed to be reviewed annually by nodes.
Maybe Regera devs get a piece of that.
And, you know, one or 2% goes to Regera devs instead of the Thor chain, right?
So, you know, there's other ways for you guys to be compensated than just having
be granted a short-term monopoly that actually might benefit you guys
and more in the long term and have you more aligned with the with with uh with the room price and and and yield on
the nodes um i personally i mean that's how i get paid i get paid you know fees right um based on
aum i think i mean great for regere does you get paid fees based on activity on the app layer, you know, you get, it's a direct correlation to your work.
So maybe I'll just stop there.
I do have some other questions now,
bring back in the moment,
can you all stop there,
see if you have any comments on what I just said?
Yeah, maybe, yeah, and then we can go
into deep of the think,
which is a duplication of protocol versus UI.
But yeah, I think, so first of all,
it's not your problem that it was no ADR.
That's totally fair.
I mean, we arrived, like we got parat shoots there
and we just assumed everything was sorted for us
and we would have not been asked to work on these things
in the first place.
So that's, I mean, that's totally fair.
Now there is this idea going on i just think we it's too it's bad that it arrived too late but this will sort out things um on the compensation uh i mean so the idea we have our own token ruji
and uh what we try to like at the end, we came here first and foremost to also try to
drive the value of our own token. So the idea was not to be parasitic to the base layer, but if that's
something that nodes would consider, I mean, it could make sense, that we get a share of the dev font
from Torchain for just maintaining the base components
of the app layer and make it possible in the first place.
I think that's actually quite a good idea.
So yeah, something to consider, definitely. And the other thing you mentioned was around the...
If we have more apps that we should get also revenue share.
So yeah, that's something we already thought of.
Like we have different paths for builders, like BuildThis Maps,
still not really public, but I've shared it with a lot of different potential projects wanting to work.
And there is a path for apps that are potentially competing, and there could be a revenue share there with both Rougie and the app player to pay for, effectively, all the dev tooling and infrastructure we've been providing.
So I think that also makes sense, and that's definitely something we would consider.
But I think that now,
like the more like taking a step back
and the more fundamental picture
is really this discussion around what is best.
Is it to have like one extant
Torchain base layer capabilities
with this app layer,
with like a great order book, De book decks that will be able to tap
into the base layer of liquidity but also have several other sources of liquidity and act as an
intense solver almost between all those different source of liquidities and the orders by users or
is it better to have three different decks with each their own liquidity pools on the same app layer and
competing for the liquidity and fragmenting everything. And my view is clearly that we are
much better off to have this one great order book that is open so that everybody can contribute and
add feature on top over time if we miss things or we identify some stuff are lagging. And then
some stuff are lagging.
And then, via this affiliate plus reflux structure fee,
this possibility to foster a huge amount of competition
while all tapping into the same base protocol without fragmentation.
So replicating, really extending the Torchain model
and replicating what Torchain base layer is doing with the crush-ten swap,
but including this cop also the core primitive of the app layer. And then next to that, anything that we've done on top is welcome to come and to tap into those core primitives. But yeah, so
keen to get your view on that. Yeah, I think this is probably where we we disagree so like like the way i look at it is um
you know thor chain is it's uh how do i say this it's a player in thor chain you know it's
its own l1 it's like its own country let's call it like the usa and um um in the us we've got
In the US, we've got Coinbase, Kraken, Crypto.com, Gemini, a handful of other centralized exchanges.
And if I'm understanding you, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand you is that you're saying the US should not have all of these different exchanges. There should just be one. And all of that, all the users, all the activities
should just be on one exchange.
It would be way better for the users to just use one exchange.
And therefore, the US should say, no, no, no,
we're only allowing Coinbase.
Don't start any other exchanges.
You can only use Coinbase because that's what's best for the user.
And that's what, what, what I'm hearing when the way you explain it.
And yeah, please, if I'm wrong.
So, no, no, not at all.
That's what I'm telling you is that imagine the U.S.
was a smaller country.
And now with the app layer, we extend the territory to the US.
And now it also includes Canada.
And it has a bigger space for all sorts of business to come.
But it's still the same core infrastructure.
It's the same physical country with the same provider of motorways and healthcare
or whatever you put in your L1 public good tool sets. It's
just that now we have more tooling and we have a bigger territory. But then you still have the
opportunity to have a ton of competition at the front end level. Because that's the same thing.
Like if you think about Torchain, the competition is not like you have Maya, which is a fork,
and that's pretty much the only competition.
But otherwise, Torchain itself inside the country Torchain,
you have this competition via the front ends.
And what I'm telling you is just that you should see the app layer
and the core primitive we built, the smart contracts,
the protocols that allow to expand the capabilities of the app layer, of the base layer.
That's just an extension of TorChain.
So historically TorChain could only do cross-chain swaps.
Now you will be able to also do an order book, have an order book dex.
You will also be able to have a landing, to have a launch pad, to have perps.
But all of that, you have two components to that.
You have the core infrastructure, the motorways, the same as you have on the base layer,
those liquidity pools and the swap router.
Now you have those new primitive. You also have the order book.
You also have the money market. You also have the launchpad.
And then you have one UI to start that allows you to, like, allow users to actually access the services.
But we can have a ton of other UIs, existing UIs that are already in the ecosystem, or new UIs, or mobile apps, or whoever integrators that can come and plug into this new infrastructure and create this competition.
competition and you can have your
And you can have your Kenton-branded decks if you want.
Canton branded decks if you want.
You can have a lot of different expression
of with different fee levels because you
can do very no fees, compete at the same
exact level as the Regira infrastructure
by just using the referral fee or you can
add a fee on top and do something more
premium because you have some feature in addition to that, that for some reason users are willing to pay a premium to access.
So it's not about having just one application, one Binance.
You still have like all those different frontends, but the core
infrastructure behind it is shared.
The same way that the core infrastructure that facilitates cross chain swap on Torchain
is shared across all those frontends.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Okay, I think I'm maybe starting to understand.
So like, Rejira is like SwapKit. You want all the, like SwapKit packages up DoorChain
and makes it easy for different wallets to integrate.
So Regira is packaging up the app layer
and making it easy for other front ends to integrate,
to like, to set up.
SwapKit could do that by just expanding the app player. to integrate, to set up.
SwapKit could do that by just expanding the app player.
We are one level deeper to that. We are creating new tools that allows functionalities
that are not currently available on Torchain.
Torchain base layer can only do,
well, it used to be able to do also landing and boring via Tor5, that's over.
Now it can only do cross-chain swaps.
We are just extending the scope of what can be done by adding new primitives, new tools.
And then anybody can come, we will have also our own UI, but anybody can come and use those tools,
can come, we will have also our own UI, but anybody can come and use those tools, compose
them the way they want, with their own UI, and add feature on top of it, but still use
the same smart contract, which is that's the infrastructure pieces, the smart contract,
the set of rules executed always for a given input, it gives you this output, that allows
to do all this complex stuff. It's the same and that's what can be shared between a lot of different alternative front
ends without needing to fragment the liquidity again, because it's also like the vision of
Torchain and the vision of what we are trying to do with the app layer is to unify it and
otherwise very fragmented liquidity and what i'm trying to avoid
here is to have like if you look on ethereum or any of those permissionless chain where you will
have like 20 different fork of uh uniswap with each their own liquidity pools and none of those
pools and none of those liquidity pools are connected together and what it's uh it leads to
is that a user on the on one exchange or another and they just access the pricing that's based on
the liquidity of this given exchange and you have all this fragmentation and you have a suboptimal
execution and we can avoid that by having like very good,
very neat infrastructure in the form of smart contract
that we can all together improve over time
if we need to add stuff.
And then add the competition at the user interface level,
at the front-end part of things,
just the way it is now for TorChain based layer
with TorSwap and the swap kit allowing
to integrate with a lot of different integrator and leodex and all the others dorito and all
those guys that are just like alternative uh front-end alternative brands to access the same
base layer pool the same liquidity the same unified set of rules.
So using your Ethereum example with 20 DEXs and all the broken up liquidity, what you're saying
is, or this one here, correct me if I'm wrong, we can have the same, if Ethereum adopted your model,
they could still have those 20 different dexes
but they'd all be funneling into the same pools of liquidity um you will have effectively uh you
could have a a uni swap that's uh put all the the liquidity and uh have all those hooks that allows
people to because it's all about modularity. You need to
provide enough modularity to allow people to, if there are missing features, to build on top of you
to add the feature you are missing, which is very much how our protocols are designed. They are
built to be interoperable. You can express a lot of different vision of how to provide liquidity in the market on Fin.
And we can have plenty of protocols that will come and will build alternative market making
strategies that will all add liquidity to the same order book.
And that is, I think, much more valuable.
And you could have the same model on Ethereum where it's just like one pool of liquidity.
It's a bit what they are trying to do with Uniswap v4 with those hooks like you can have different people that come and plug into
the Uniswap v4 hooks and add feature on top of it but under the hoods it all shares the same
liquidity except that because Ethereum is permissionless you don't have just one you still
have like a ton of different decks
with a lot of different liquidity
and also liquidity that is not in those pools
is spread across a lot of different protocols
and not under fragmenting everything
and not providing users with the best possible execution.
So, your vision of RGIRR
is RGIRR could have thousands of front on it, and you'd be happy with that.
Yeah.
Because it's all funneling into the same pools of liquidity.
It's all funneling into the same smart contract, basically.
Yeah, exactly.
And that benefits the TorChain because thanks to this model, we have currently this 50% revenue
split and you don't create like a competition between the app that will reduce potential
splits.
And that's a win-win.
It works for us because we get a share of the fees, it works for Torchchain because they
get a share of the fee and people can build on top to add additional features and we will,
Neverblock will actually help teams to get there.
And that's, yeah, I think a much more efficient model than just duplicating open source code
and creating 20 instance of the same product.
So, so Regira would be permissionless.
Anybody could build anything on top of Regera.
And you would actually, you want that.
You encourage that.
It's still the same process.
It's the app layer.
It's permissioned via the torture chain node operator
need to whitelist deployers that will be able to deploy
a smart contract.
But we will be, as a Regera team,
so when curating those new teams that are joining to make sure it does not end up
like we are trying to limit the risk of having hackers
or duplicate or whatever.
And we will help those teams to build
on top of the existing primitive.
And then, yeah, we encourage as much economic activity
on top of that as possible because we all benefit.
It means more economic activity, more volumes, be more fees for both store chain and rugey so uh i i see godance and orion and a
lot of people with their hands up so maybe okay yeah yeah you have more questions but let somebody
else jump in yeah so um uh we'll go so this is how i want to do it i'm gonna go we're gonna go eric
code hans and orion but after this i think maybe we'll not do hands because it just, you know,
I think we'll just be a free-flowing conversation.
If we get too crazy, maybe we'll go back.
Well, let's try that.
So go ahead, Eric.
And then I have some things I want to say too,
but I'm going to let the speakers go first.
I cleared it all for me because I was getting a little bit lost.
And if I was, I'm sure that at least 20% of the audience
would have been lost as well.
So to do a little bit of a recap, it's been one hour.
So we're speaking about having duplicate primitives
on the app layer.
But here's the thing.
And what I understood from Kenton at the beginning
was that he was up for having the different apps
and different primitives.
But then the conversation drifted into both being in the same line of,
yes, there can be a lot of apps,
but as long as they build on top of the same primitives,
which is liquidity, smart contracts, et cetera, then it's all good.
Why? Because you're not fragmenting liquidity.
And at the same time, you're allowing Ruggiero
to keep generating some
fees and some income
through using
the smart contracts and the infra they are
building, right? Am I correct, or am I
losing something?
Yeah, that's a good summary.
Separating the
smart contract infrastructure
in the back end and the front end that can all
compete and build on top of those core primitives. Okay. And I'm really glad we're doing this,
guys. I think this is a really efficient way to exchange the ideas because a lot of things that
have gone back and forth between Kenton and Pragmatic Monkey, there's a lot of nuance there
that's just really slow if you were to do like a Discord thing.
So I'm really happy we're doing this, guys.
We're figuring it out in real time
and understanding each other better,
which is the entire purpose.
Go ahead and kick it to CodeHans.
Go ahead, sir.
Hey, guys.
Yeah, so I dipped in a bit later.
So I haven't got the full context here,
but like maybe half an hour as well.
I think, you know,
I've seen the kind of proposed amendments to ADR20.
I don't think there's anybody with any kind of sensible economic mind
that suggests that competition is a bad thing.
It obviously drives innovation.
It drives better products.
It drives better things for everybody.
But I think comparing it to Ethereum is a bit of a...
It's not a fair comparison, right?
Ethereum had the first mover advantage.
Ethereum is Ethereum.
When we talk about competition, we're talking about Near Protocol,
who now has better quotes than blockchain as of this morning, right?
And that's what we should be competing against.
And so when you talk about, it's not about like,
how do you get more protocols to do more things?
It's about like, it's about developer mindshare.
And they're like, cause there are real people here, right?
Behind the scenes that are actually doing things that are writing the code, that are
having the discussions that are actually kind of driving things forward.
Right.
And the people here are doing this.
And if you kind of start suggesting that actually, are we going to start entertaining
more people that are going to come in and do it as well?
You sort of like, I feel like you dilute it a bit um and really you know this even this morning right like you know orion's
waiting so i had a chat with the ryan i checked with jp i had a chat with the um some of the like
the guys from the the jira team about how we can all work together to quote better than uh than
near can and i can and this is because we feel like this is we're
supported by thought chain and supported by zika system and and like i don't know it's whatever
right but like it's there's an element of the fact that we spent the last nine months myself
and star squid and whoever building out these components for the for thornode to allow the
outlay to exist to allow cosmology spark contracts be deployed and the first conversation that happens now is oh hey let's
see how we can get other people to come and do this instead it's it doesn't it doesn't speak well
to the to the developer ecosystem um and it's not a very welcoming uh message i it appreciate that's quite a strong statement. But I love this place. I have found
a home here, right? I think that what we're building is really meaningful. And the people
that I've met and the people I work with are incredible. And I'd like it to stay like that.
Ditto, bro. I want to clarify something.
It isn't about having other people come and develop instead.
It's about having other people come and develop as well.
Right?
So competition doesn't mean wanting anyone to leave.
It's inviting other people to join.
That's exactly what competition means.
Competition means I'm going to try and drive you out.
That's what it means in natural selection.
That's what it means across the board.
So let me interject here because I want to give you a context, Code Hans,
of what the very beginning of the conversation was.
So a lot of the concern in the very beginning of the conversation was that
during the app layers formulation, of which you guys worked very hard,
and dude, ditto on the frigging vibes, man. I frigging love you guys worked very hard and do ditto on the
frigging vibes, man. I frigging love you guys. Absolutely. I think you're great. And I am going
to touch on that after I go to Orion, because I have a, the way I'm seeing like the Thor chain
Rugerian dynamic, I don't know if we've really touched on it. So I'm going to share my perspective
out of that. But the main problem was, you know, the whole situation with the ADR process,
because I think everyone in here agrees that the ADR process was not um followed in a way um that and basically it just wasn't so we're
returning to form basically okay and this whole space is meant uh to get our ducks in a row and
to understand so um a lot like I think a lot of good progress that made in this conversation before. So, you know, it's the ultimate...
Yeah, you're right.
I don't disagree that the ADR20 process was backwards.
I also think that the detail required...
So we came from Kajira.
We built a kind of sovereign layer one,
Cosmos SDK, Cosmism chain that was like super DeFi focused.
And then we partnered to some degree back in August
and committed to doing the work
to bring that kind of like
Cosmism smart contract execution layer over
and integrate it with the fundamentals of thought chain,
right, with the memers
and the nodeers and the
no control and all that kind of stuff um and i yeah i don't disagree that was backwards but there was a lot of you know there were like there were a lot of decisions a lot of very small
decisions to be made and i think if if maybe it had been taken the other way and and uh yeah like
if it had been taken the other way it it would have worked but it would have taken two three four times as long um uh and everybody else would have eaten 14 lunch i think in that time you
know i change uh yeah i change flip and and whatever right um and so the but the the the
the result of that is that you know myself and star squared and a bunch of other people
have have put nine months of their lives into building this out um and and now we're here
you know and so it's it's to a degree it becomes almost like an emotional thing right it's like
hey why why we done nine months of this and now it's like oh now let's open up this work to
everybody because we didn't we, we got nothing from,
there was no commitment from thought to it. And there was no dev revenue. There was no anything.
It was done because we saw this as the future. This is how we're going to build out this
decentralized finance. We're going to do the borrowing and lending safely, all the kind of
stuff that we all wanted. Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. Because, guys, we can't
underestimate the amount of work that Code Hans and other people have put into this. I mean,
just nine months of ruthless hard work. And I think what we said in the beginning of the space
is the circumstance of what we found ourselves in were quite unusual, right? Kujira had their
issue. JP got on board with them, helped them out. And then we had issues of our own. It was a very chaotic time, especially with Thorify. And I think we need to recognize that
during that chaotic time, you know, things got, rules got a little bent here and there. Okay.
And I think that's understandable. So I think, you know, whether people maybe were a little
myth that the ADR process wasn't followed, or maybe on the other side, people recognize that,
you know, they were under a different impression.
I think it's best that we just table that
because it's understandable situation.
It was a chaotic time.
We came through and we did it.
And here we are.
So yeah, thank you, Code.
And thank you, StarSquid.
You guys did a great job.
I'm going to go to Orion.
That's the last of the hands.
And then I want to inject my own opinion on this matter.
And then I think we're just,
we want to open it up and keep the conversation going.
So go ahead, Orion.
Hey, good morning, everybody.
I'm stoked to be here.
I just wanted to change the framing a little bit.
Thorchain has had a very interesting,
an interesting history in the fact that it set out to solve particular sets of problems and build products around those.
And I think that the app layer is kind of the next iteration of that expression where there's an opportunity to build out specific products that solve problems for users.
specific products that solve problems for users. This flips the common crypto pattern on its head,
where there's a generalized L1 that then allows people to build stuff on top of, and then there's
flurry of activity around various protocols, but no alignment. And I think the
beautiful thing here is that taking that totally opposite approach and having full unity and
alignment around a economic unit, you know, can be very powerful. And I'm very excited that we have
the app layer development, the teams around that, and then also this kind of focus and concentration around sets of products that we can bring out to the rest of the space.
So, yeah, I just wanted to kind of change the conversation a bit towards the fact that we're building products collectively that everybody benefits from. And those are the things that we're going to go out and evangelize and help people discover.
And then how that benefits, you know, all of the various folks around the table is,
you know, it drives revenue to Rune holders.
It, you know, Ruge developers and projects are incentivized to build,
and that there is this kind of common thread around, you know, let's collectively bring
value and products to these folks. So I just wanted to kind of change the kind of framing
a little bit there and just hit on that. We also have some interesting things like to,
to Han's earlier point there's a lot of,
where there's a lot of,
of people iterating and product iterating in the space right now.
And, you know,
in order for Thorachain to be as competitive as possible we need as much kind of expressiveness on top of the liquidity
that Thorachain has. And the app layer is our answer there. So I just wanted to kind of give
that message like, look, this is a huge opportunity for Thorachain to continue to grow. And I think of this as like one economic unit
that we kind of need to push on
all these various things together.
Dude, I am so glad you said that
because you just threw me a layup
because I'm exactly,
I want to take a step back
and interject my own opinion in here.
Okay.
And I appreciate you saying that, Orion,
because that was a great transition.
So I have a different view of the app player. I have a different view of Ruggiero than
Kenton and maybe some others here. I don't really see a difference. I see Ruggiero as an extension
of Thor team. I see Code Hans as our dev. I see Pragmatic Monkey as our, you know, business guy.
I see everyone in this room where you have purple and green.
I see you as the same thing.
So one thing I had a question in the developer Discord,
because I was wondering if we're going to go around the route
of just happening multiple apps on the app layer,
what does that look like in terms of a UX or an experience
on the people who are going to use these primitives?
So with multiple apps, you're going to use these primitives. Okay.
So with multiple apps, you're going to have some initially that die and fail.
And so my question was on the dev discord, like what happens to the secured assets?
If there was someone in, let's say a lending primitive on Ruggiero and it, and it fails.
Well, what happens is their secured assets get frozen because the nodes vote, say this lending protocol sucks or whatever.
It's just a random example.
And what is required is a store migration of a new version in order for them to get their secured assets back.
And for me.
Can I jump in?
Sorry.
What does the failure state of a lending protocol look like?
I mean, as opposed to like an explosion.
It's really that nobody's borrowing and so there's no interest.
And so your yield on your deposits
is going to be half a percent.
And so you're going to naturally withdraw them
and move into somewhere
where it's actually generating yield.
And as long as it's generating yield
inside the ThorChain out player ecosystem,
it's generating revenue to nodes,
which means it's generated its own security
or they're going to leave.
Right.
So like...
Well, on my example, I was not... So I should clarify, I'm just saying, I was just making something up.
You could do perps, you could do money markets, you could do leverage trading.
I don't care.
I'm just saying like, if you have multiple apps on the app layer, right.
And if one decides if they suck, like this is going to your argument code, Hans, is if
one sucks, what is required is a terrible experience where we have to
essentially free someone's assets and then we have to migrate them. That was what I was told.
Okay. And I'm coming from the position of what does that look like for the user who's going to
use Ruggira? And if that happens, the PR effect of that is pretty quite damaging. They superimpose.
Yeah. I don't think that's going to happen i think there's those conflating two things here right you're conflating um the potential security risks versus
a fail protocol and a fail protocol just means you're not making any money out of it because
ultimately all any protocol in the space wants to do is generate you yield and if you're not generating
yield then somebody's gonna you know the capital is gonna fly and it's either gonna go to another
protocol inside the the app layer or it's just going to be withdrawn as a good asset and
not be bill chains. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. So as someone who I do not have the technical
understanding, I have to rely a little bit on debts. So I'm going to concede that point. Let's,
and actually it's not really that important to the point I'm trying to make. So I go ahead and
concede the point to you, sir. So the point that I'm trying to make is when it comes to competition. Okay. I'm like you guys,
I'm like Kenton. I believe in like a ruthless meritocracy. You know, the example that comes
to mind is like the dark night, the Batman movie, where you've got the gangsters that the Joker's
killed the henchman of the one black henchman guy. And then there's those three guys in the ground,
right? And then the Joker takes the pool stick and he snaps in half and says, it's time for some
tryouts, you know? And that's how I believe businesses should be, right? I believe in just
the, it's just pure competition and that results the best product, the best services for the
consumer. But I don't necessarily think that works on the Rugerian app layer. I don't think that
works for the ThorChain model. Because when I think about it, the one word I hear occasionally
is monopoly. I don't think that app layers having specific primitives for specific services is a
monopoly, particularly when there are other protocols that exist in the wider ecosystem
that have these similar products, right? Like anything that we
offer on ThorChain, there's another DEX, there's multiple DEXs or whatever DeFi primitives that
offer the same thing. So what we offer is not unique, but our implementation is unique, right?
And so we are competing for those other people that use those other DeFi primitives, right?
And so the competition anxiety is there it
is there like we don't really have to worry about monopoly in my opinion so this is kind of
i want to transition to kenton a little bit and uh this is going to sound gay bro but i've been
thinking about you a lot this week okay um so our spaces dude so the so the teams that we have
talked to on the spaces like whether it's lev on the spaces, like whether it's Levana, whether it's liquidity, whether it's like NAMI protocol, okay?
We talked to like Post Tenebras, like PT, like those are our boys.
And part of the auditing process for the Rogerian ecosystem is being done on spaces, being like not only by the general community and the nodes,
but by you specifically. Okay. So I want to back up and just talk about what Kenton has been asking
for, for years and what he's done. Okay. So we have, and I promise it's going to come full circle
guys. Um, we've been asking for marketing, marketing, marketing, marketing. He's been
asking it for years, right? We want to promote what ThorChain represents, what ThorChain does. Okay. And I think this is a great, great
thing. Going back to what Pragmatic Monkey said about the revenue share, about how, you know,
the Regerian app player is paying a tax to support, you know, the secured assets,
the security of the network, and's fine but i know a lot of
rogerans think of that as maybe too too little too much of a good deal on the thor chain side
and regardless of whether or not i agree with it um i think it's actually worth something
considering because you have a liquidity flow that's going essentially in one direction
rogeron to thor chain and what I want to see is a more
circular system where you have money that's being paid to Thorchain go back to the Rogerin system.
And this is where I bring you, Kenton. You guys, we had the Thorfi implosion. We recovered. At one
point, we were at 83 nodes. Let's just call it 80. Let's keep the math simple. And we started the
Bondur Rune campaign, of which I'm going to bend the knee here to Kenton. He had the greatest efficacy out of anyone here. I helped a lot of people helped a
lot of node operators help, but Kenton by far was the guy to push us. And we went from 80-ish
to 120. That is a 50% increase. And we managed that with marketing. And you know what else? That marketing budget was zero fucking dollars.
Okay. Zero dollars. He did that for free. He sent people to other nodes for free. So this is what
I'm thinking, guys. We have the Regering app layer. It's giving this 50% to ThorChain. I think ThorChain
needs to make a marketing budget. And then we push that marketing budget exclusively to the app layer.
Because the app layer is giving us money.
If we use our marketing budget to promote them,
that makes the liquidity come full circle.
And again, through Jiren's the idea that they are getting something for their money,
not just securing the assets on ThorChain.
Okay.
So if Kenton can have a marketing prowess of increasing
the number of nodes by 50%, what if we give them some damn money, you guys, what if we actually
get serious of the marketing thing? Because Kenton, as you are up here, you are like actively
auditing the teams, like the liquidity guys, they came up here, like PT, our boy PT, you are asking
all the great questions. You asked all of my questions and you ask more because this is what you do, bro.
So what I want to see is I want to think of ThorChain and Rogera as a single entity,
a single team where we offer services and we actually promote those services and we're
competing with other companies, other DeFi protocols, other DeFi primitives.
And we all work together. And if we have Kenton, this is my great idea, my grand idea, marketing for Kenton.
Kenton, then you actually have a stake in the success and agency in the success of the app layer because you are promoting and you're checking in with the teams of, okay, where you're doing this, these are the metrics, this is what's happening.
And then we can actually grow together and work as a cohesive unit and really kick ass
and take names.
Because again, the implementation of the Ruggiero is unique.
There's nothing like this.
And so I think the path forward is to come together and to go hand in hand and kick some damn ass.
So I'll stop there.
Mind if I jump in?
Oh, sorry.
Kensington, go.
I was going to say, thanks, Patriot.
I got a hard on.
I've been masturbating that whole time.
You're welcome.
It's not gay.
I guess you're gay.
Well, yeah, thanks.
Well, thank you for that.
But it's, you know, I do have to, it isn't just me, right?
There's lots of people who, it's only because I'm public, right?
And so it looks like I'm doing the work and it's all me and it's not.
But there's way more people who shy away from the spotlight who are just as important than
just as a lot, just as much.
And the bond providers, right?
The people with Rune. I mean, they're
really the ones who, you know, we had a lot of brand new bond providers. And so kudos to them
for taking action. But yeah, thanks, man. And I feel like I'd love to get in everything you
talked about, but I feel like we should save that for another space and that um i like to i'd still like to ask pragmatic
monkey some questions to try and understand where he's coming from but uh was it uh oh
was it leo dex you want to say something first
or a code code hands sorry um yeah uh yeah no just to speak to the kind of unification point of
view i i mean i don't know if it follows me, but like the things that I find so exciting.
And this was kind of the foundation of, so I guess to go back a second, like we relaunched Kajira back in the wake of the lunar explosion in 2022.
And we relaunched with an order book text.
And then we launched the lending market and borrow market and liquidations.
And each thing kind of followed the status quo of what you do as crypto you have a
new protocol you have a lending protocol we called it ghost you have an order book we called it fin
when you have a market making protocol we call it bow we have a you know like and suddenly end up
this like fragmented sort of ecosystem of products and so towards the end of that, we, we moved towards, like it was ended, well, yeah, last year, we
kind of moved towards a more unified ecosystem, and brought
these products into one kind of more centralized exchange, like
type experience. And so the, the, the opportunity to relaunch and
rebrand with Ruggiero and relaunch, and gave us the
opportunity to kind of really double down on that and make it the best developed, like not, not just the best
customer experience for people that are using our products, but they can then
navigate from their spot exchange to their lending, to their borrowing, to
the liquidations, just cause it's too much like the, the, the, the, the
nav menu rather than having to like know what the name of the next protocol
you want to use is.
But for me as like you know i've been in
software for way too long 15 something years and i wanted to build something and i knew how how
difficult it was to build this kind of like omni-chain experience as a developer if you're
gonna if you're gonna try and connect to ethereum to bitcoin to always connect to chains you got to
understand what the transactions look like how to translate your intent to the transaction.
You have to be able to collect
with like dozens of different wallets.
And so my, you know,
I don't want to sound like altruistic, right?
Cause it sounds too big headed,
but like this was kind of the point.
So I want to see this kind of
decentralized exchange experience exist.
And so I'm going to build the software and the frameworks that allow developers to come in and make this the easiest decision that they make.
Actually, I'm going to build within.
And it's not like, where do you actually kind of put the boundaries around Ruggiero? because I'm giving these developers the software they need to connect to any wallet they like
and to integrate with the ThorChain app player in any way they like.
It's just called Roger.
And the easiest way for them to do that is to integrate in the UI.
And the result of that now has been that we've, I think in the last week,
we've had to put together office hours because there are maybe half a dozen different teams
that all want to put their own code
inside the region ecosystem.
Some of these smart contracts,
they're like, they're just building
on top of core primitives, right?
They're not anything else.
It's really like the whole point of this
was to build a decentralized finance experience
and give the developers the re the incentives to
choose this uh this home and the home is it's like a the it's like a developer's home it's like i
don't have to rewrite my signers i don't have to rewrite my wallet connections i don't have to
rewrite my message interfaces all that kind of stuff and so like when you talk about kind of
competition it's like why you would it's much better to have people come into that same ecosystem
and integrate inside that developer wheelhouse
instead of going and spin up something else elsewhere.
So can I-
Yeah, I think I've got to talk about that.
No, no, it's actually good.
It's bringing it back on topic
because I felt like pragmatic and I were making progress.
I was starting to understand where he's coming from, how Regere and App works.
Because maybe at the end of the day, we're talking about the same thing, but we're using different words.
And so that's why I've been trying to understand the pragmatic monkey in the way he's been explaining it,
describing it.
So like, so Rijira is a place where
like thousands of different front ends could,
like thousands of different teams could develop
on top of Rijira.
Is that right?
Yeah, I mean, Rijira is like,
it's a lot of different things, right? And so then this is my original point. it's a lot of different things, right?
And this is my original point.
It's a lot of different people.
And it's a lot of different people that are doing different things.
And so you have myself and Starsquare who have been doing all the kind of
changes to enable Cosmism, Secured Assets, the Enshrined Oracle,
all that kind of stuff, which as far as kind of like Ruggiero branding goes
is not very correlated
but it's critical we don't get to deploy smart contracts without without those pieces of work
um then you go all the smart contract work and you've got like the data there middleware stuff
you've got like the front end stuff it's like it's i it's it's it's kind of like it's it's not
really branding for us is it it's branding for the people
that are using it and so if we can unify that branding and make it feel like a home like
binance is a home or kraken is a home for somebody that doesn't really understand crypto but just
wants to buy it or wants to use it then that's how you win okay so like let's use levana perps
that's what i'm excited about so levana is building on top of
regira no yeah and it will be integrated in the same well not on top of it it is part of it it's
integrated in the same like the same menu you have to click through go to perks it's the same balances
that you have on on your portfolio page it'll feel the same so is that i think is something going to levana.com
or regera.com how am i interact how am i using levana perps regera.network forward slash perps
okay so uh what if uh i want to canton wants to start his own i want to do canton perps i want to
do my own perps on on app layer can i come touggiero and set up my canton.com slash perps?
And that funnels into the same liquidity on Ruggiero.
At that point, you end up, I mean, yeah,
so you have to go through the same node governance process.
But as far as the front end goes or the contracts go or whatever, right?
Like, you'd end up in the same
mess that ethereum's ended up in when everyone forks everything or there's a new fork of the
vm and there's a new side chain and now we're just going to relaunch the same stuff on there
and hope that it's better than it was on on the original fork or the original side chain
so maybe let me add a bit of nuance canton here you have two different layers you have so perhaps you have
the smart contract part of it this is one of the core primitives the same way the order books the
money market the imm are core primitives and you have people that can come and maybe so you have
to wait either you could want to build on top of perhaps so maybe you want to develop vaults that do a systematic trading
strategy that you will implement using perps in that case you are building on top of the perps
primitive and you can get integrated you want to get the max attention from the community the
existing community and you will integrate your uh canton vaults into the rogera.network slash
strategy strategies slash canton vaults and you will have your
product in there and it's in the background trading on perhaps doing some specific stuff
you wanted to do that's one way of integrating and then you are part you are in the same unified
ecosystem and that's a great way to distribute and create a great user experience. But then there is the other side of that.
You could also say, oh, I just want to have a different branding for the front end,
so not be integrated into this UI.
And then you could just fork the relevant part of the perp part of the UI for Jira
and redo it with your own Canton branding.
And in that case, you will be using the same
core primitive in the background.
You will be using the PEPS smart contract and the PEPS liquidity.
And you don't need to have to bootstrap your own liquidity and fragment the liquidity.
And now when people want to provide the market maker on the PEPS product,
they have to choose between am I going to have a deposit into a PEPS
market making vaults from Levana or one from Canton?
No, it's the same smart contract with the same liquidity, actually, but you have a different
front end and you charge maybe your own fee on top or you just take a cut of the fees.
You don't have to spend any work on smart contract unless you want to add some additional
feature on top.
In that case, case would be fine. But the core primitive is still the same
perhaps built by Perpstext built by Levana.
And so you have just two different things.
Either you build on top and you integrate it to the UI,
or you can fork the UI and create your own and add an affiliate fee on top
and take a referral fee.
Those two models are possible and those are two different ways to have a competition and roger would be happy with both those ways you don't really care which way either
way um i think for us the unified ui is a big plus but you are totally free to go create your own ui
and actually like use the referral model you don't have to care about uh anything at the smart
contract level about finding liquidity,
all those things.
This will be under, you can create an interface to deposit liquidity in the pool, but it will
be the same pool.
So you don't fragment all that.
And all of that, the revenue you generate, you take your own share because it's your
own brand with your own affiliate fee and your own referral fee.
But there is a big share of the fees that go back to RUJI and to Torchain,
and we all grow together.
And I think that's really the end vision here, what I'm trying to say,
and all of us actually have been, I think, in different ways trying to say,
we are all part of the same team, the same economic unit.
We are here. We are not competing.
We don't want to create this internal competition and fragmentation
that leads to some optimal user experience.
We want to create an ecosystem that is as good as possible, that can have different front ends to express different vision and things,
but at the end don't fragment the liquidity, offers the best possible execution for users, and competes with alternative ecosystem.
We want to compete with Ethereum's money markets and pay apps, and we want to compete with Hyperliquid, and we want to compete with Ethereum's money markets and perhaps we want to compete with Hyperliquid and we want to compete with Solana. And that's really the thing. We want to see Torchain,
we're all part of the same Torchain family. Torchain started to expand with this app layer.
This app layer has RUG as the base layer that has been building all this smart contract infrastructure
and all this connection with the base layer and also first core primitive and then it has new teams building on top of that that may have
also their own token with their own economic and contribute to growing this overall economic
activity on top of Torchain which in turn generate more fees more volumes and more revenue for both
Torchain and RUG and which allow us to compete with the best possible experience with alternative
So the competition is really at the L1 level.
Like we are the Torchain ecosystem building the centralized finance of tomorrow.
And Solana is trying to do the same.
And so is Bayes and Ethereum.
And that's where really we should unite and try to fight.
It's not creating internal worlds and frustrating deaths
and pushing away the hyper talented people like Codans
because we show basically no respect for all the other ones that have been put there.
No, it's collaborate, work together to actually grow the total pie
that TorChain covers in terms of economic activity.
And the real competition is alternative layer ones.
So if I fork the code to make Kenton perps my own interface,
Ruggiero is happy with that because they're still funneling through Ruggiero,
getting paid.
That's great.
So then am I able to kind of tweak the parameters
on the perps, like have different leverage ratios,
different liquidation levels, different interest rates,
whatever, in my own version?
Or is it I'm using the exact same primitive,
the exact same perp contract that Levan
and anybody else would be using?
I'm just putting my own front end on top of it.
So you can do two levels here.
You could, the simplest one is you would be using in any case, at the core,
you will be using the same contracts, which has one set of parameters.
And so you will be constrained to that.
It would be just a UI, but you can still, you could deploy some of
your own smart contracts to add certain features on top of it. For example, I don't know if you
wanted to do something much more risky with Android, like let's say, 11hack and a LODU,
I don't know, 20x leverage, and you want to do 100x leverage, then maybe you can build on top
and have a contract with this own liquidity provider, a very degens type of thinking
that will create some form of loops
and amplify the position you have on the base Perth product.
And I don't know how this will be working,
but you can do something like that.
You can build new smart contracts that be on top of the core primitives
and expand functionalities.
Okay. Well, this is making sense.
Like, I think that's all great.
Like maybe we're saying the same thing differently.
Same thing, but different.
Like what I want is there to be multiple front ends.
Like if it's like, I don't, if it's just regiro.com,
and that's the only way to access AppLayer,
I'm like, well, I feel like that really limits ourselves.
I totally understand having everybody funneled in and having the same, you know,
grow the pool of liquidity as big as possible.
But like to that point, we should have a thousand different front ends all
funneling into the same pool of liquidity like why limit it's just one um for me that's why i'm so
keen on this referral model which i think is in a way more powerful than the affiliates because you
can do that we actually actually will encourage easy competition
by not having forcing us from done to charge more
for the end user.
And that I think is very powerful.
It's powerful at different level because it's also
powerful in the sense that it allows
to replicate what centralized exchange do
with key opinion leaders that get us referral codes
and can just go and say people, hey, use this code.
And now they get 10% of the fee and they drive traffic.
But you can do that either at an individual level
that drives traffic to the main rojira.network app,
or you can spin out your own frontends
if you are a bit more technical,
and have your own branding, and still offer the same price
for the end user.
And if they use your protocol to add liquidity in those perps landing pool,
for example, they still add to the same port. So yeah, I think we, I'm glad that that's why I'm
glad that you start to see things the same perspective we do. Like it's really, you can
have the competition, but you don't need to duplicate the fundamental primitive that allows this competition to foster.
Yeah, because it's like it's not
different having competition with ThorChain.
Someone can fork the ThorChain code
and go start the exact same thing, right?
But how do they get liquidity?
How do they get integrations?
Blah, blah, blah.
Like ThorChain has a natural monopoly already.
And so if I'm understanding Regera, right,
like when you guys launch and you get all this stuff going,
you're going to have a natural monopoly already.
Like even if we made the rev share zero,
there might nobody, nobody might even bother
making another like parallel app layer
because it won't make sense.
You may as well just use Regera.
Like, because everything is built, everything is is there just go build on top of that
right am i saying that right yeah well yes but i i think actually there will be also interest from
uh because torching has actually a ton of different frontends currently and i think
there would be interest from those frontends which have their own uh their own user base
to also integrate with uh expand their functionality and integrate with the core
for Jira.
And they can do that and they can do that at zero extra cost
if they want for the end user via the referral model.
And monetize that without having to care about any
of the smart contracts getting the liquidity
under those things.
So really it's the two models are possible.
And I think we should encourage the two models very much so then is it better for me to think about like so like look at
nine realms and they write all the code for thor chain um and you know they're getting five percent
of the dev five percent of revenue goes to the dev fund which is all going to nine realms right
now and that's how they're getting paid um
is a way to think of regira is basically um like that 50 percent i say this um
like you guys get i'm sorry i tripped up in my own mind i think um
so you guys yeah yeah go ahead yeah i see where you are going like yeah so so it's it's a bit different because so we have uh it's just a different
economic construct effectively because we have our own token and that's uh yes we get paid with
the share of revenue that's uh from all the economic activities that happen inside the
smart contract we developed on top of Torchain and whether this economic activity come from our
own UI or from third-party UIs or from people who built additional features with new smart contract
on top of the score primitive at the end it all flow back to uh to roji and to uh to torchain uh uh and i think
effectively what what you like the long term there was one thing gp suggested since a very
early day which was like merging uh the app layer and uh and the base layer and i think honestly
like it was long term it could make sense because it will serve a lot of this type of conversation
because we feel like we are part of a different community
with different tokens and different value accrual.
If you were to put everything together and Torchain,
effectively, you would need to find a way, a mechanism to do that.
But then you would have just one token, Rune,
and 100% of the revenue from all those apps will accrue to Rune.
And that's, I think, and then you could have like a model with a 5% similar to now, share
going to the team maintaining RuneJira.
And that would be another valid model.
But I think that's a good thought exercise because imagine if that was the case, then
you will definitely not want to have like 20 instances of different smart contracts doing the same thing on the app layer.
If it was all in any way flowing back to just one token, which is rune, you would want to have just one of everything that is as good as it can.
And then just the same expansion via alternative frontend,
just like for cross-chain swaps.
OK, I get it.
I'm getting it now.
So imagine if Nine Realms had its own token,
and it was collecting 5% of the revenue from ThorChain.
And that's how they're getting paid to write code for ThorChain.
Ruji, you guys have your own token.
You're getting 50% of all the fees on AppLayer.
That's how you're getting paid to maintain and develop AppLayer,
which is basically just another, let's just call it, like you said,
it's another 90 rounds might be managing, say, half the code.
Now with AppLayer, you guys are managing the other half of the code,
and that's how you're getting paid to manage that half of the code now with AppleAire, you guys are managing the other half of the code. And that's how you're getting paid to manage that half of the code is the revenue split on the RUG token.
Is that right?
Yeah, effectively, that's it.
And you could totally have a model where there is no RUG token.
So it's just a RUN token.
And maintaining it gets paid instead via a split similar to the 5% going to the dev-fondant to Nairim.
JOHN MUELLER- OK.
So then having other, maybe this is where
maybe there's some friction between all of us.
It's just maybe I'm conflating the term app,
or maybe others are.
Like there's difference between app layer and apps.
Like it's like I'm viewing Ruji like, excuse me, sorry.
Like one interface and like TrustWallet
is one interface in Torchain.
But really Ruji is one interface in Torchain. But really, Ruji is more like, is Torchain.
And we can have thousands of different interfaces
going into Ruji, just like we can have thousands
of interfaces going into Torchain.
Like Ruji is Torchain, it's the same thing.
Exactly, it's an extension of the capabilities of Torchain.
And I think the confusing part as well here is Torchain doesn't have his own UI.
So you only have the third-party UI.
The difference is RUJI has those two parts.
One part is really the smart contract infrastructure parts,
or score primitives that we have deployed that extends the capability
of what you can do inside Torchain.
And then we also have our own front-end, RUJI UI,
where we try to offer this
Binance-like experience with everything under one roof and where all builders in the ecosystem
that build on top of those existing core primitive can come and integrate into this one nice place.
But it doesn't mean that it's the only place where you can put your products, you can also
have all the other UI integrating that. If you think of Index, for example, they will now be in Rugeera.network main UI,
but they are building on top of the existing core primitive,
but you could totally see LeoDex or TorSwap also integrate with Index
to expand the product offering for their own captive user base.
Okay, so just so you, does it make sense
having multiple nine realms teams all competing
for what code gets on ThorChain?
We shouldn't have competing app layer dev teams
competing for what app layer code is put on Torchain.
Is that a good right analogy?
You would not want to have like three different Torchain team
building three different set of base layer pools
and three different set of swap routers.
Now, like when people come on Torchain, they have to decide,
oh, am I providing liquidity in this BTC run pool pool or this other BTC rune pool, which for the end user does the exact same thing.
So allow you swap BTC to rune or the other way around.
But now the liquidity is fragmented between those different instances.
Now you want just one team that builds the best possible base layer pools and the best possible swap router to allow liquidity flowing between those different pools.
possible swap router to allow liquidity flowing between those different pools and then you want
other teams to come and either just offer an interface to actually access this liquidity and
this cross swap pool and potentially build on top of that to increase capabilities and that
historically wasn't really possible on Torchain because Torchain like did not have this
historically wasn't really possible on Torchain because Torchain did not have this Cosmosm
smart contract layer. Now it does it with the work we have been doing. But this means
that we can now be much more expressive and you could have like a frontend that comes,
but that will also add its own DCA strategy on top of it. And now you can do a DCA in
Torchain, tapping into Torchain liquidity, but from a specific front end.
And maybe that's the way they differentiate themselves.
And maybe that's also how they monetize on top of an affiliate fee that they may charge on the standard cross-chain swaps.
Yeah.
So then how do we differentiate between app layer, the code, like another, you know, another piece of, just a piece of ThorChain, and new
platforms being built on top of it, like still on top of Ruggiero. What do we call those?
So that's a part of my job, like outboarding teams, making sure there is no duplicate,
and like we are reviewing, triaging,
and we have different paths effectively.
And you can either, you can,
so at some point I'll publish that,
it's still not public because just
the funding part is still unclear.
But we are effectively a different path for builder.
You have a total of five possible builder path.
The first one is joining the Ruggie Alliance.
So to get there, you are actually building a new core primitive
that does not exist and that adds a new,
that extends the capability of what you can do on Torchain,
on the app layer without competing with any of the other core primitives,
so no duplication.
Then you can be a value-addited application,
building on top of the score application.
That's where I think we will see the most growth and the most economic activity.
We want, for example, the order book decks and the money market but then you could
have a protocol that come and that is going to build a specific market making strategy that add
liquidity to the order book and maybe use some leverage to edge their position or use pair to edge
their position and they are going to bundle that into a product and charge their own fee on top
because they are providing a value added services for their users. And that's great. That's exactly the type of team we want to involve.
And they will be not competing.
They will be adding value on top of the core primitives.
And whenever somebody uses the product of those apps,
those apps can have their own token
and keep 100% of their revenue.
But under the woods, every time they transact,
they use one of the core primitives,
which share the revenue 50 50 with
ruji and the base layer and then we can have like a third set of apps which we call like a
differentiated but out of scope so there might be uh some uh so when you are in the first category
like the core primitive strategy core primitive your revenue flow directly uh Ruji with a 50% split to Torchain.
You can have a third category where you have some teams
that do something completely different,
but for some reason, we don't want to integrate them
inside the Ruji-Rail Islands.
Maybe, I don't know, it's a gaming protocol
or something that we deem not critical,
but that has a right to exist on TorChain,
and then they can launch as an independent project.
And then you could have, in theory,
competing app directly with the core primitive,
but that's what we are trying to avoid.
And if you let that happen, that's
how you start to just get duplicate of the other book
and duplicate of those liquidity pools and fragment everything again, which is what we
don't want to do.
And the fifth category is just public good.
And that's just anything that doesn't necessarily generate revenue for anyone at first, but
add value to the ecosystem.
Okay, I think I understand.
Like, I agree.
It makes no sense to have multiple
bitcoin pools on doorchain that that's ridiculous so um you're saying on rogera
the same thing it doesn't make sense to have like multiple pools of liquidity everyone should be funneling into the same one. And different front ends can offer slightly different things or even the exact same thing as another front end. But so long as they're all funneling into the same pool of liquidity on Ruggiero.
what you guys are more worried about is just like getting everyone onto that same pool of liquidity
you don't care what the different front ends do necessarily to get that liquidity there how they
interact with their users just as long as they're all funneling into the regira pool of liquidity
that is that right yeah that's all right and we even with the referral fee we are even willing
to take a cut on the revenue we take to allow those alternative front-end to compete without adding the cost as an affiliate fee on their user if they don't want to.
So, yeah, it's very much how we see things.
Okay.
And then if it's like, if you're like, you know what, guys, this rev share model between
Rujir and Thorchain, like it's making it really hard to attract new interfaces new users
whatever um you know we can obviously talk about reducing or changing it or something like that
um um because you just pass on those savings to these new teams coming to build on top of regira
and um hopefully incentivizes every hopefully you know you know, you, by reducing the fees, you grow the pie type
thing. Does that make sense? Yeah, no, exactly. I think that's, so, so going back to this different
pipeline, so that's where we will, if, if, for, it's for category trees, it's particularly relevant.
They are like ton of potential projects that don't have a particular reason to build on
TorChain versus another ecosystem. I don't know, like imagine like actually a good example is a
real world project, like imagine because eventually like I'm building like a 10-year, 20-year vision
like what we are trying to do fundamentally is to build the rails for this alternative economic
system for the world.
And we want those rails to be on top of Torchains, so it's cross-chain and accessible from all
sorts of different sources of liquidity, all sorts of different L1s.
And eventually, we want to see real-world business that come and decide to also get plugged into this app layer, like a real business that choose to build on DeFi
rail, not because they are DeFi protocol, but because they just see the benefits of having
access to a very way to raise capital and the real-time accounting and transparency and all
those great tools at a fraction of the cost. it will be for them if they were to launch
as a traditional business in the world.
And if we want this type of business to come and grow,
they won't be part of the Roger Alliance.
They will have their own token with their own economics
and they will raise capital with the launchpad
and they should keep, in theory, 100% of their revenue.
However, if they are doing something completely different
from what we do with the core primitives,
in theory, there should be a 50-50 split
between their revenue and Torchain,
and maybe actually a 25-25,
a part going to RUG and a part going to Torchain.
But if you think about that, it doesn't make any sense.
Like, if you tell a business, oh, I want to come to deploy
on-chain because I want to reduce my cost
and I want to access all those great tools.
And you say, yeah, sure, come, but you have to pay 50% tax.
We're not going to attract anyone.
And so in that case, I think that's
where it actually makes sense to just remove the concept of
fee sharing entirely.
And the way to see things is they will still generate value for RUGGIRA and TorChain by
just raising capital on the launchpad, which generate fees with flow to the two protocols.
And by then adding their token, it's successful that is traded on Regitrade and generate fees, trading fees, which are shared with the TorchInBase layer.
And I'm talking about that because I actually have been speaking very recently with a team that does exactly that.
A bunch of guys, they are called Real Finance.
And what they do is they are a bunch of, they are operating in a very niche market.
They are movie producers and they finance movie.
And the way the financing of movie works
is that they get in the real world some subsidies
or they call it tax credits
from some like the British culture committee or whatever.
And they have a commitment that if they deliver the movies
they want to produce in one year time or whenever, the government will pay back X million of
capital.
But the funds are locked into an escrow in the real world and you can only access once
you have delivered your movie. And so they need bridge financing to do that,
to just be able to have the capital to fund the movie
before they get back the funding they received from the government.
And they are like entries of millions that goes into this industry every year.
And the banks charging those,
offering those bridge financing for this specific industry,
it's very niche.
And so it's very high pricing.
And they often pay 20, 30% APR on those bridge loans.
While there is a very strong collateral,
which is issued by a government
and that you are pretty sure to get back
if you deliver your movie.
So those guys, they wanted to come and build.
They were in touch with us initially on Kujira.
We have lost touch.
They came back in touch now.
They saw we are live on Torchain, so they are keen to come, but from the moment I told them okay but actually
if you were to launch in the current setup you would have to share 50% of your revenue
with TorChain and us, it's not gonna fly and so I think there will be cases where we have to
completely get rid of this revenue share and
just try to see the benefits that growing the overall economic activity on the network with
real business brings to the entire ecosystem. So like keeping with that vein, like if there
was another platform with its own token, its own users and everything, and it had basically
with its own token, its own users and everything.
And it had basically it wanted to clone one of the apps
on Regera and migrate their user base over.
They'd be contributing.
They'd be making the liquidity on Regera deeper, which
has been overall everyone involved, not just
the new platform coming over.
So they should be encouraged, right?
So that's the thing it
depends uh if if a team comes but instead of like they want to replicate to fork our other decks
and end up having a second order boot decks then they fragment the liquidity and that's what we are
exactly trying to avoid we don't want this fragmentation so yeah that's what i'm saying
i i'm saying they come into regira and and they're adding to the pool of liquidity on Rijira,
but the exact same platform user experiences as an existing interface on Rijira.
But that's okay. We want that.
Yes, absolutely.
If they have an existing front-end, like, I don't know, like,
a pancake swap or whatever I want to deploy on Ruggira,
but using our own smart contract infrastructure
and our own liquidity, they are most unwelcome to join.
So that's actually, that would be great.
So I think for me, what hang up or hurt my brain
is that doing Ruggira as a, it's its own separate entity.
It's its own like, now I know the tokens
we've got on the Thor chain,
but like they're separate and distinct from Thor chain.
But if I think about it more like,
it's actually more like Nine Realms,
like another developer team working on Thor chain.
And your token is just how you're getting it.
Like, I don't wanna offend anyone, but in theory,
you don't need the Ruji token.
If you were getting paid through the ThorChain Dev Fund,
that might even...
I mean, the history makes it that we had our own investor
and we did funding anyway to be able to do all this building and
stuff so the token was the correct way of uh of doing that but uh and we came from a project that
has his own token so we are not we are not gonna let anybody behind that we are ourselves incentivized
of course in doing that but we also have like a very uh strong very active community.
I'm sure a ton of people like I see here, like they know me, I know them.
We are all part in that together.
They will be the first user of Fujira.
They are the investors, they are the users.
They are like the people we brought along this ride with us.
And it was not even an option to not keep the token and do something.
But fundamentally, yeah, if this would have started as it was not even an option to not keep the token and do something.
But fundamentally, yeah, if this would have started as a greenfield project with no pre-existing token and nothing,
you could have totally had a model like just being built inside Torchain directly
and funded with a share of the revenue.
It's the same way the dev funds works with Nineril.
Yeah.
And then.
Very much.
Rojira is an extension of Torchain.
I think the right framing.
It expands the capabilities of what you can do inside the Torchain ecosystem.
And then going back to AppLayer being permissionless or not,
like really the main reason for making Apple,
keeping Apple permissioned would be to force everyone
into the same pools of liquidity,
that everyone's using the same primitives, right?
We don't want people,
just like we don't want people creating new Bitcoin pool
and door chain.
We want everybody using the same pool.
We want everyone using the same primitives on AppLayer if they're going to integrate on it. We don't want people building
multiple different instances of AppLayer. Is that right?
Exactly. That's totally correct. It's two things. It's to avoid fragmentation of liquidity
fragmentation of liquidity and it's to avoid, I mean, to enforce the revenue sharing with the base
there. Yeah, okay.
You can just deploy anything and don't put any revenue share.
But if we found a way to add some kind of fee on secured assets or do something like that,
then... I think the unsecured asset will completely kill the baby
in the nest because yeah from the moment like as a user if you know oh i'm gonna be uh charged like
my bitcoin my secured bitcoin is gonna uh be charged an interest just to exist to use this
a player you're not gonna use it you are just gonna move on the and use any other permissionless blockchain that allows you to
have a wrap btc or or whatever native token uh without any uh any cost but let's just pretend
we did find a way to build the fees into secured assets somehow that were that made sense for
everybody then we could make app layer permissionless because we already have our built-in fees
built in the secured assets somehow.
You could, but then that would mean
you go back to the fragmentation issue
and the same way, like in that case,
we could also like deploy,
you could allow other devs to come
and deploy alternative liquidity pools.
And now you have two rune BTC pools on the base layer and people have options to deposit
and you could do it, but then it becomes chaotic.
And the reason it never happened is because it doesn't make sense.
Like a store chain, you are one unit and you want to have your liquidity used the most efficiently.
And that's exactly what we want for the app layer as well.
Yeah, so that's kind of where I was going with,
maybe app layer will never be permissionless
because the first reason to keep it permissioned
is to ensure we collect fees somehow.
But if we can solve that,
so I'm just making this up, just pretending. We can, let's say we can solve that, I'm just making this up, just pretending.
Let's say we can solve that somehow in secured assets, and that's automatically predetermined, preprogrammed.
We still want to keep AppLayer permissioned because we don't want to create these multiple pools of liquidity.
We still want everything.
We want one source of liquidity for AppLayer.
So maybe AppLayer never becomes permissionless.
Maybe it's always permissioned.
Yeah, I think to keep things tidy,
we always want to keep some form of permission.
Otherwise, you go back to the chaotic Ethereum landscape,
which has its own merits.
But yeah, I think... Well, I kind of... Yes, I mean, think one of the things we like a lot with Torchain,
we feel like it's very much built as a business trying to maximize cash flow
and user experience,
if they eventually maximize utilization and revenue generated for the token.
And we really see ourselves as an extension of that with adding more capacity,
but it should still be made as a business with like a rational thinking.
And one of the key things about that is an efficient use of liquidity.
Yeah, I think I'm inclined to think there'd be a natural monopoly anyway, just like ThorChain.
Like it doesn't make sense to fork ThorChain and build it all over again.
It may just use and build on ThorChain. So I think if AppLayer, once it gets fully deployed and activity and
there's usage, I'd be surprised. Even if it was, we did make it permissionless. I doubt somebody
would create a total parallel one. I don't think it would make sense. You'd be off just to stay on
top of a Jira and use that because the whole value add is liquidity. You're tapping into that pool, that single source.
So, okay, I'm starting to get it.
I'm starting to understand.
We make it so easy that for sure,
if it wasn't permissions,
some people would just create duplicates
because I mean, it's literally like a click away in GitLab.
Okay, okay. Okay, so barrier entry to create the code is very low.
That's why there would be alternatives.
That's why you see thousands of instances of your Uniswap.
Like it's super easy. Like once the code is open source,
it's really like if you know slightly what you are doing, you,
you can deploy
in a few minutes, literally.
Can I interject here, guys?
Yeah, go ahead.
You guys, this has been an excellent conversation and I've learned a lot.
And I just want to just give a quick shout out to NAMI Protocol and Danago.
I'm sorry we didn't get to you guys.
But as a host, it's important to know when to interject.
And it's also important to know when to shut the fuck up
and just let the conversation flow.
And this was been, I actually learned some things
talking to you guys.
So I'm so happy this conversation had.
And I think it's quite clear
when it comes to just understand the nuances
and because this has never existed before.
We're building this for the very first time.
I think a space is absolutely a wonderful resource
to understand where everyone's coming from.
And it actually turns out that we all agree.
You know what I mean?
Or, you know, we just had to frigging talk about it.
And again, so I apologize to NAMI and the other, but understand this needed to happen.
And I'm so glad it did.
I'm going to kick it to Boone.
You've been very patient.
Go ahead, Boone.
Yeah, also super grateful for this space.
I've had a couple points. I'll try to remember them all. I guess I wanted to kind of clarify
this recent conversation with Kenton and Pragmatic Monkey. One thing that I don't
think has been addressed is like, okay, you say you want to keep all the core primitives
unified, but like, let's say Kenton, you know, he was talking about having his own perps protocol. What if he creates what he thinks is a better, like implementation of perps, like his math is better, it's more capital efficient or whatever. And he wants to deploy a different version of perps. What are your thoughts on that?
to deploy a different version of perps.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think that's totally fair.
And I think that's what GP adds in the ADR20.
There was some wording around that,
like failing team or something like that.
I think, let's say Levana doesn't deliver on perps
in a year time or six months.
I don't know.
It's not up to the level where people were expecting it to see.
Then we could totally entertain getting a new team to come and build something instead.
And that's valid for any of the other primitives.
And then if we see any primitive that is massively underutilized and not living up to the standard where you would want it to see, then onboarding new teams to replace makes sense.
Like, why gate that up front?
Like, why not just say, as long as your code passes audits
and as long as you're doing the 50% rev share to ThorChain,
like, why shouldn't Kenton be able to launch Kenton perps tomorrow?
Because that's exactly what we're trying to avoid.
Then again, you fragment this liquidity,
and now people will come on the ThorChain app a year,
and they will have to choose,
oh, do I deposit liquidity in Perps with Canton or do I deposit liquidity in Perps with the Levana one?
Well, OK, but I guess the counter argument to that is let the free market decide.
Yeah, but so then, yeah, of course, we can go back to a completely permissionless environment.
Well, it's not completely permissionless. It's still permissioned by the nodes. It still needs
to be whitelisted. It still needs to do the 50% rev share. So it's not completely permissionless environment. Well, it's not completely permissionless. It's still permissioned by the nodes. It still needs to be whitelisted. It still needs to do the 50% rev share. So it's
not completely permissionless. But like if Kenton thinks he has a better implementation than Levana,
why shouldn't he be allowed to also compete with Levana? And I do understand like, yes, I mean,
it is better overall if capital is not split. And I agree, like fragmenting liquidity in a general sense.
But you've said a number of times, duplicate.
But what I'm talking about is not a duplication.
It's like an alternate implementation.
And so, yes, it does not make sense to have two identical protocols
and then split the liquidity.
That's just dumb, obviously.
But I'm talking about it's not identical.
There are, for whatever reason, meaningful differences.
And then it's just like, well, let the users decide where they want to spend their liquidity why force
them onto Levana. So I think that I mean that's a valid point and it's a business decision
ultimately and I think that's if we see like let's say if Levana is performing super well
with their peps like there will be no reason to create competition inside our own units,
which is we are all part of TorChain.
We are all trying to compete with Hyperliquid
and whoever is the big perps on Solana.
We just want to get the best possible perps experience on TorChain.
So no fragmentation there.
If it's lag lag then we can say
okay and canton arrive and say hey guys well okay what's the what's the metric to determine if it's
lagging yeah so but that's like there is no uh clear kpi would be revenue i think that's a usage
revenue that's well right but like what's the like it's like i mean is earning a hundred k good or a
million like i mean like i'm just saying why centrally plan this and why not just
say oh okay if if someone can create a better i mean like i mean i think you got like first of
all i think some people think i'm against rogera i'm not i'm super in favor but i'm more in favor
of the principles of decentralization and permissionlessness. And I'm definitely, I favor ThorChain, right?
And so I think it is to ThorChain's benefit
to allow different implementations of core primitives
to exist on the app layer.
And then the market can decide which is better
rather than, you know, you or whoever is deciding,
oh, we choose levana
and no one else gets to do perps i mean that's honestly totally fair but then we go back to uh
having like it's again like either you you go permissionless and then we are just another
well it's not again it's not permission not fully permissionless but permissionless with uh
so there's still always some form of vetting process
and phishing we can enforce that systematically.
But you go back to...
Yeah, then being just Torchain is like Ethereum
and it's a permissionless minus revenue share
deployment environment
and you have all those different apps competing
to do the exact same thing.
Yeah, but that's already happening.
Like, I mean, like, Levana will be competing with HyperLiquid,
will be competing with DYDX.
Like, it's already the case.
Like, I don't see why having two perps protocols on ThorChain
is any different than the fact that there's a ton of different perps protocols
across crypto.
So the point is, it would be all open source.
So instead of creating a different implementation of Levana,
then what Canton could do is say,
hey guys, come, I think I have a better implementation
and let's upgrade it.
I'm going to push those changes in the code
and let's just make it better and work as a unique,
as a Torchchain nation works together to create a better perhaps product that won't be fragmented inside our own ecosystem, but we'll be able to better compete with DYDX and Hyperliquid.
I get exactly what you mean of having internal competition within TorChain.
But yeah, I think it's really just a different way of conducting the business.
Yeah, I don't have a perfect answer to you. It's really a stand we have to take. Either we
allow all sorts of competition and we lose this benefit of just trying to act as a
decentralized unit, but that coordinates to create the best possible product inside each vertical.
And we move back to a system that looks much more like Ethereum,
where we have a lot of different competition inside our own ecosystem,
and which may not end up delivering the best possible competition.
I don't think the picture you're painting would end up being how it is.
I don't think there would be that much liquidity fragmentation. I don't think we're going to see 10 different perps implementations for the exact reason that like, there is a matter of efficiency due to deep liquidity pools, like, like deep liquidity is its own moat. And so, like, capital will naturally in a free, coalesce in one protocol.
I mean, if you look at Uniswap or Aave on Ethereum, they have the vast majority of the capital.
They have de facto one.
Yes, there are competitors, but they're not meaningful competitors.
And so I imagine the same thing would happen on ThorChain.
ThorChain is like the capital, the market itself would choose one implementation and
they would have a natural defragmentation.
Yeah.
So I think we see things at different levels.
Like for me, like what I'm trying to push toward is we are one unit and we want to like
inside ThorChain, there is one perhaps that we try to work together to make better if it's in current implementation sucks.
And another team may come and take over that. But the competition we are up against is external. TorChain is competing with Hyperliquid, with DYDX, which are each their own chain with all Zordex outside of the Torchain ecosystem.
So the thing...
Sorry, pragmatic mind. Go ahead.
I'm sorry, you're breaking up.
If you're trying to speak, I'm very sorry.
So I think the thing that I'm trying to convey to the audience here
is I think of Ruggira as Torchain.
I don't think of it as Ruggiero
anymore. All right. It's Thorchain. That's what it is. It sources the same liquidity pools. Okay.
And we already compete on a variety of different levels with the cross-chain space. And so
Levana going on Thorchain, that is Kenton Perks. That is whatever you want to say at the end of
the day, right? Now there is an argument to be made.
Well, let the free market decide on the implementation.
But there's also the argument that if you do offer two products,
then you are bifurcating Mindshare.
And you could be potentially limiting the success of the Perps program on ThorChain,
which in effect would make it not competitive with the greater environment.
Because again, we are already competing with other pieces.
So what I would like to see,
and this is why I was mentioned earlier is about the marketing campaign,
is that people like Kenton and maybe Scorch and even Boone,
you guys are core auditors of things of what's going on on going on on their app layer on what's going on Thor chain,
I should say. Right. And it's just a ruthless meritocracy in that way.
But if we start app layer with multiple purpose programs,
I'm siding with pragmatic monkey. I think it's,
we're stepping on our own dick and it makes us harder to compete with the
environment, which would mean that we would, we would do,
we would be inferior to the other markets relative if we had just unified under a complete suite.
But also maintaining that if we have a marketing budget going to the regenerate app layer, then there's competition anxiety.
We hold these people accountable.
We hold the teams accountable.
Right.
And that's my thoughts.
That's why I'm worried. Cause I agree.
I'm, I'm, I'm with Boone in the spirit of what he's saying, but I think with the unique
implementation of what Thorchain is with the app layer, I think it, it causes more problems than
it solves. Because again, I think of us all as the same thing. We don't have more than one BTC
pool. We don't have more than this, you know swaps work a certain way. I don't see why the
primitives on the app layer should be any different. Exactly. And I think, Boone,
what I was telling Conton earlier, the good mind shift to do is imagine if Rujira did not have his
own token. He was really just part of TorChain. Because for me, and I think for most people on this call,
it's really how we see it.
It's an extension of Torchain.
But imagine for a minute that all the revenue
was going to Torchain,
was just part of the base layer with extended capabilities.
You will not build two competing perhaps products
inside Torchain, right?
It's the same way we don't have two different implementers,
two different rune BTC pools
and different implementers of the swap router
inside the same Torchain.
No, Torchain has its own implementation,
which all together we work with NetReals,
but with also other individual contributors
work to try to improve to the max.
Just to counter, just to push back a little bit like
actually thor chain is exploring different versions of liquidity provision on the base chain like we
we're going to have the base layer order books and then there's been some talk of like doing like a
unity swap v3 style concentrated liquidity position so actually we will be competing with ourselves like
i mean like i'm just saying different implementations there's a value in innovation
and doing different things differently and like that's that's actually exactly what i'm saying
it won't be competing with itself it's improving the same product thus the rapid swap order book,
if you call it,
it's not really an order book,
but rapid swap or a concentrated liquidity version.
At the end,
we'll all be still sharing
the same pool,
the same liquidity,
and there will be just one swap router
that just gets the best possible.
Well, right.
I don't disagree with you,
but I guess my point is like,
if the Uni V3 concentrated liquidity is just
more capital efficient and it's better it will siphon off liquidity from the AMM
pools which is fine because they're all part of Thor chain and so it doesn't
matter that we're siphoning liquidity from ourselves I agree with you but
like that's exactly my point is if someone creates a better purpose
implementation than Levana Thor chainChain doesn't lose.
It still stays in ThorChain.
So why not allow different implementations
as long as they're doing the 50% rev share with ThorChain?
Well, so that's what I mean.
You could, the same way, you don't...
Like those pools, like the rapid swaps,
it will be an improvement on
the existing torchchain basically your pool infrastructure and that's how i see it like
if somebody has a better implementation that's great let's come and let's upgrade the open source
code of uh root gperps to make it more efficient it's a create an alternative there right but like
if someone is i mean like you guys have like levana right has done the work
to build out their implementation and they're going to get paid i think by their how much
ruji they hold or i think that's my understanding is correct but like if someone else does all the
work to create a new implementation how are they going to get paid for the work they did to do
their implementation if they're like is levana going to pay them to like take over their
code or what well well i think okay i think what's going on there though is if you have another team
with a different perks mechanism the only reason you can determine it's working in the first place
if it's functioning in another ecosystem on another blockchain like you're not going to
just look at code and say oh this is obviously better you want to understand the behaviorism
of that code right and so if that is the case... That's what Hyperliquid did. They're
like, we can do it better. And then they launched their own thing and it just was better. Right.
But why not? If that is the case, let's go to your point, Boone. If there is a better
implementation that's out there thriving in the blockchain, then you can update the open source
code to reflect that design. but that has to go through
the governance program of like 14 itself that's people like you and kenton and and scorch and
whoever else saying look lavana's design is inferior to this primitive we need to upgrade
it or modify it to look like this primitive that's going to give us more revenue all of
these primitives at one point didn't exist elsewhere. Someone just invented them.
I'm not even saying this is going to happen.
I'm just saying, why not be open to the possibility of some super genius being like,
oh, I've discovered better math and a better perp protocol, and it doesn't exist anywhere else.
Why can't they launch first on ThorChain?
They could launch on Torchain,
but they could do it
instead of doing it
as a separated C-load app.
They could just do it
as an improvement
of the existing code.
Yeah, but it's unproved.
Why would Levana rewrite its code
for an unproved protocol?
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I have an idea.
I have an idea, right?
Isn't my protocol
going to add the app layer?
Fuck it.
Yeah, so that was the other thing
I was going to come to.
One thing at least, GP mantra is that eventually,
my app protocol will have a permissionless,
real permissionless, most likely, app layer.
So there you will be able to do all sorts of experiments.
And it could be the grounds to where people can just experiment
and try to develop new things.
And by the way, they can do a Semelson stage net if they want.
And then we can have like once there is a proof that something is better,
it can graduate and be incorporated into TorChain.
And if for like if there is need of funding and all that,
we have this builder incentive pool and we will be using tokens
from this pool to reward
the new team coming on board and contributing revenue to Roji.
Yeah, because I agree with Boone in the terms of it.
I don't want to limit the innovative spirit of people on the app.
I totally agree with you, Boone.
But I think that's a good middle ground.
No, it's like my protocol had their own implementation of the app layer.
And then, you know, like you can just be a cowboy over there But I think that's a good middle ground. No, it's like my protocol had their own implementation of the app layer.
And then, you know, like you can just be a cowboy over there and do the Wild West.
And that would be a great playground for that.
I mean, we could have the best of both worlds, maybe.
Yeah, absolutely.
And graduate to Torchain.
Yeah, I know I can come across as antagonistic, but that's not where I'm coming from. I just like, hopefully, I just really believe in the general principles of the crypto space of being, you know, has been a little tiny bit contentious is because I think different things were told to the Thor chain and the Kujira communities. Like, I mean, I was very
strongly under the impression that the app layer would be permissionless. And that's
apparently not the case. And so like, I felt a sense of like, being hoodwinked or whatnot. And so that's, you know, partly where this is coming from.
But like, I want Ruggiero to succeed. I want I mean, I think it's a great innovation. I think
secured I think, yes, secured assets are the best custodial solution to especially wrap Bitcoin.
I think, you know, to do Bitcoin on like DeFi on Bitcoin, I think to do DeFi on Bitcoin,
I think secured assets and Ruggiero will win.
I think it's better.
It's like the most trust decentralized implementation
of custodial assets.
But at the same time,
I do still have my values of permissionlessness.
And so hearing that we're going to gatekeep access to
ThorChain's app layer, that's against the ethos that attracted me to ThorChain. But like, you know,
at the same time, you know, like, so instead of the app layer being cross-chain Ethereum,
it can be cross-chain Binance and like we can, you know you know gatekeep like I'm not trying to like fight everybody I just I do want to put forth my values and vision for the app layer no and I'm glad you're
here and I'm glad you're speaking out and I think what's clear from the space on many different
levels myself included Kenton everyone pragmatic monkey it was just a lot of confusion and I think
that ties back to the chaotic period that we all found ourselves in
with the exploited funds going through ThorChain. We had to do like an ethos gut check all of a
sudden. We had the ThorFi implosion. We had teams moving in a hundred different directions. So
that's why I'm so glad we're doing the spaces to kind of consolidate. Because I'm glad you're
speaking out, Boone, because your point is a good one. And I think it's something worth considering.
I think we're going to actively figure this out together, honestly.
And I go back and forth a little bit
because I'm on your side, Boone, on that front of permissionlessness.
I love that.
But then I have to square my own values
with the design features of the app layer,
which then I kind of counter.
I go back and forth a little bit.
So I'm totally with you.
We have a couple of speakers coming up here. Just one quick, I think it's really like at which level do you think? Either you see the app layer entertain a single economic
unit competing with other layer one, and your permissionlessness is you can permissionless the permissionlessness D, copy paste the code of Torchain
and fork it and do something different.
Or you want to expand Torchain as just a generalist layer one
with a lot of different apps competing,
doing similar things.
And then it's just a different design but i think
you the two are not incompatible again like i i mean i don't know like i'm not sure if we understand
each other but for me the same way that we are not creating two uh run btc uh liquidity pool on
the apply on the base layers that are fragmented we are just uh improving the existing one with
better algorithm to to make the swap more efficient we should aim to improving the existing one with better algorithm to make the swap more
efficient we should aim to do the same thing with all the other functionalities that exist on a tor
chain thanks to uh rogera and the smart contract that it brings to the table and try to improve
each of those individual vertical as part of this one single core unit instead of trying to starting
to replicate uh and if you want
to replicate then just fork the whole thing or go on a permissionless chain to experiment or go on
on stage net with real money and experiment there and once you have something that is proven and
it is worth the upgrade then that's become uh there's a social consensus to like everything
we do on torchain and it becomes the new standard, and we start
to upgrade the existing
perps vertical, or whatever it is,
to this new standard.
Yeah, I think
there's both points.
Very interesting, and I
appreciate everyone's perspectives up here.
I'm going to go ahead. We've got two new speakers
here. ShockRocket, you were up here first.
I don't know if you want to interject, and then I'll go to Al. Go ahead, Shock Rocket, if you can hear me. I'm going to give you a few seconds as you run back to your phone trying to start your speaker. Go ahead. Let's say I am Uniswap or PancakeSwap, some big entity.
I've got my hands full with work, much like all the teams on Ruggier have their hands full with work.
Or maybe I'm a big influencer, a trader that has a big following.
But I want my own purpose platform
uh the ruji lavana can be forked as it was mentioned um but i like i don't have the time or ability to do that. Is there an opportunity for Ruggiero or anybody to offer a white label service,
a purpose as a service or DEX as a service?
It will be.
So you will have to do the work.
You have some data that's not the minimum of code to do that.
But it will be built in once we implement this affiliate and
referral model I was mentioning earlier. All the code is open source, so you can very easily come
and fork the front end part of it, change the branding, change the name, and just tap into the
existing smart contract infrastructure and the existing liquidity and launch your shock rocket
the existing liquidity and launch your shock rocket platform.
You can either do that and just, so with minimal work,
just trying the branding and take a referral fee,
which is directly taken from the protocol revenue.
So your end users won't pay anything more
than if they were using the rogira.network front-end,
but you get a share of that by driving traffic into your front
end.
Or you can do that plus add an affiliate fee on top if you have a captive audience that
is willing to pay a bit more and don't know that there are alternative front end that
don't offer six traffic.
So that will be totally possible.
And that's something we'll even encourage.
That's why we want to build this referral model that takes a fee from the protocol side
instead of just adding it dot top, like the affiliate fee on top chain okay cool thanks
okay um al i'm gonna go ahead and give the four to you go ahead
hello guys um i'm alejandro from autorushira
uh this is a great talk.
Glad to have you here, mate.
Hello, man.
I don't know if you already talked about it because I just hope in.
But there's also an UX thing about duplicating products.
If we really want to compete with Binance,
Binance is a product suite that has one product
or one feature for each thing.
So if we really want to compete with Binance,
my thought is that we should be like them.
I mean, we have to be a product suite and and compete
uh with binance with uh hyper with whatever it is but no no internally don't have duplications
um in our products with because if that happens we won't be a binance we would be a generic blockchain where everyone could deploy
their product so my question is do we want to be the decentralized binance or not yeah
and this conversation has gone back and forth on that point you know that has been cutched it's
it's one of the things it's like if you offer a unified product suite, there is huge advantages to that. But, you know, people
like Boone and Kenton and some others, like, are we limiting the efficacy or the growth potential
by doing that? So yeah, that's, go ahead, Boone. Yeah, we've been going around in circles, and
this is the last I have to say, but just to kind of like, like, so for example, the Ruggiero front
end has that centralized suite of products that you're talking about. And also like, I don't,
you know, no other perps product is available to launch, but like there will be a huge natural
moat to Levana perps, right? It'll be integrated into the Ruggiero front end. It'll, you know,
like there's Ruggie trade, Ruggie pools, Ruggie perps, it'll be right be integrated into the Ruggiero front end. There's Ruggiero trade,
Ruggiero pools, Ruggiero perps. It'll be right there. And so all of the mindshare and attention
will all be funneled to Levana perps. But because it has that moat, does it really matter if someone
wants to try to compete? It'll probably lose. All the liquidity will already be on Levana.
All the mindshare will already be there.
If someone wants to compete, why stop them? That's just really the permissionlessness.
Because I don't really think it'll be a valid competition because of the moat, but why not let them try? Yeah. I think one of the hard things about this, because this has never existed before,
right? Everyone in here understands this is a zero to one in terms of what we offer.
And we have to make arguments based on tautology, right?
We have to use logic and we have to try to predict what's going to happen in
order to like set a framework in our mind.
I think what's probably best you guys is maybe just to see what actually
happens and take it with the flow.
And that's why we're going to do regular speeches or spaces, excuse me,
to take it as we go. Cause there might be a team that pops up and then it's like, well, let's,
let's talk about it because,
or maybe like people will say Lovano will be so successful or liquidity or
whatever, you know, NAMI protocol, it doesn't matter, whatever the,
whatever the premise and there may be no competition that arises that might
literally happen. So it's, you know, it's, it's an interesting conversation,
but I think we're a little hamstrung because it's very difficult to parse what actually was going to happen because again we are like we
have to revert to tautology when we when we're thinking about these things al are you trying to
raise your hand or is that a bug i'm i don't not sure al i'm giving you the floor if you want i'll
give you a few more seconds sometimes it bugs and looks like you're putting your hand up and down rapidly okay oh go ahead
no yeah it's okay oh okay um yeah the hand thing that drives me nuts i never know what the hell's
going on go ahead kenton uh i was gonna say bring I think Pregmat and Mucky said that the handshake deal was to have basically no competition for a year and then open it up.
So it's not like if there is no competition, it is forever.
That was never part of the deal to begin with, which I'm fine with.
I'm kind of just talking.
I have no problem honoring something like that.
I just think it should be
documented.
I don't think it should just be
figured out as we go.
We have things sorted out and agreed upon.
We should just have it written down.
Especially if it is
if there is competition
like somebody doesn't want to do something
different or not in competition,
but somebody wants to contribute to Thor chain.
It's good to have a record of all this stuff, right?
So they're reading through and they're learning
and they're trying to like get up to speed.
Like it's good.
It's good to have all this stuff written down.
I totally agree.
Yeah.
And yeah, I agree with your point.
Hopefully I hope I didn't make that
price. It's a lot of things to put in your mind to accurately describe, you know, everything that's
going on here. So, okay, dang guys, that was, that was a very epic conversation. And, you know,
Kenton, to kind of bring it back a little bit, that's kind of like why I really want to do
marketing. Like I am so in camp of the marketing camp of like why i really want to do marketing like i i am so in
camp of the marketing camp right now and i want to have the thor chain like the aggregate revenue
to go and because i want to push push um the app layer as hard as possible because i was i had a
conversation in las vegas um and i remember we talked about like you know how are we going to
increase swap volume on 14 right and we had talked well, maybe we just tell people to use like trust wallet and to use swaps.
You know what I mean? But you know, there's, there's something that I've been thinking about.
I kind of figured out is that like some of our competition, they use optimistic quoting,
which that's a problem, right? Something that I'm, I'm not very happy about. And so it's like, well, shit,
if we try to promote swap volume on other wallets,
we might be getting beaten out by a competitor,
but they're not using correct data, right?
That's a first principle problem.
So what I'm thinking, man,
I'm thinking that the marketing,
actually, we just, we punch it right into AppLayer
because that is solid 14
swap. That's, that's all 14 swap volume. Right. And that's what really is going to get, I think,
the wheel going. Um, I wonder where your thoughts on that are. Yeah, I've got a few thoughts. So I
know you're talking about the optimistic coding and I don't really, I've talked to some people
about that. And I think that will think that will eventually sort itself out.
I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.
Can I add something there?
Sure.
So unfortunately, some interface, I'm not going to say names, but there's some and they
kind of let it slide a little bit.
So I think we're going to have to make a stink about it.
Go ahead.
I know, but I've had conversations, like private conversations,
like people are becoming aware and want to fight that.
Like front ends don't want to support that.
And if there's evidence or whatever, they will do what they can to stop it.
So I'm hopeful that that can be sorted out.
um i'm hopeful that that can be sorted out but um um as far as like marketing stuff
so uh i agree we definitely 100 we need marketing guys i'm working on it i've run into a bit of a
snag and what i'm what i'm working on um just a hurdle we'll get over it we'll get moving again
but um um i'm still working on that behind the scenes. And my whole view with marketing is that it's not to promote ThorChain.
The front ends have to promote themselves, right?
And I would apply that same concept to AppLayer on ThorChain.
It's not about promoting Ruggiero.
It's about promoting the front ends to Ruggiero.
And this is where I'm coming from with the point of having competition is like,
we don't want just Rijira.com.
Like we want a million websites funneling into AppLayer like Rijira, right?
And like, I don't know if you guys have, there's like an interesting case study,
you know, Payless Shoes.
It's a shoe store in
the US. The shoes are like 20 bucks, 30 bucks, maybe 50, like they're pretty cheap, maybe $100
with most expensive shoes. And then they did like a pop-up shop. They just like kind of made this
like makeshift pretend, you know, high fashion shoe store, you know, spelled S-H-U or something stupid silly.
And all the exact same shoes from Payless,
the exact same shoes is put them on like different pedestals and different,
different branding in the store.
And the shoes are selling for like 500, they're labeled 500, $600,000.
And they're selling them, they're selling them off the rack. And people are talking about how amazing these shoes are and how high end they are and blah,000, $600,000. And they're selling them off the rack.
And people are talking about how amazing these shoes are and how high-end they are and blah, blah, blah.
They're the exact same shoe that Payless is selling in another store for $20.
And it's a commentary on marketing and branding and how people think.
People don't look at the shoe and think, they go this is the exact same shoe and pay
list it's for twenty dollars i'm paying five hundred that doesn't register in their brain
and that's not that's not a look at a product the humans look at products based on branding and
marketing and um and that's my point with competition on on regiro and app layer is like
we should have like 10 different websites,
10 different front ends,
copy and pasting Levana perps using the exact same code,
putting on their own branding and marketing, and they're going to get different audiences and bring in more people.
And if I understand correctly from our conversation today,
that is real, that exists.
We can, that's going to happen.
That can happen.
We want that to happen that can happen we want that
to happen on we just want it all funneling on to the regera uh pools of liquidity we can have like
dozens of different front ends doing the exact same thing that's great that's what i want and then um
um and then you know maybe we pick one of those front ends you know maybe slovana and then maybe we pick one of those front ends, maybe a Slavanna and then they're the most prominent one.
That's the one we promote, right?
But like just promoting with your app layer,
it's no different than promoting like ThorChain.
Like it's not, it's too far removed.
Like we gotta promote what the actual user wants to do
and is doing, right?
And then that funnels into ThorChain.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I agree.
I think that's an excellent point.
And I,
man, humans are really silly creatures, I must say.
But you make a solid observation and a great point there.
And I agree with you.
One thing I want to do real quick, Kenton,
just because this guy's been so patient
and we haven't gotten to him, Danogo, that's how you say a name or dan you know what you can tell me
um i want to give you the floor real quick go ahead oh thanks guys can you hear me sorry my uh
it seemed to be rubbing me yeah it's a little little it's okay we'll deal with it go for it
yeah so i want to ask the ruja team right in terms of like um lending for example
um can different finance come up with like like different economics for between supplier and
lender or all the economic between supplier and lender and borrowers are determined by smart
contracts and the front end i just you on different cosmetics, but the economic between supplier and borrower
are pretty the mean.
Because if you think of,
is Brugira acting as a central bank
and different banks can actually operate
on top of that central bank or is Brugira the bank
and different front end,
and just like branches of that bank.
So I think that one.
You have the two models possible.
Like at the basic level, you can just, you'll be able to fork the front end effectively
or create your own ones and integrate in the same smart contract in the back end.
What we want to avoid is the fragmentation of liquidity uh by having like
uh tons of different uh liquidity pools for landing no no no but i think i i want to go to
the the question is the front end is that just a different branch of the same bank or is the front
end can be a different bank that working off rujira as a central bank you know like so even
banks can offer different interest rate to borrower right so and
you know they can have like different interest margin so that's what i'm trying to ask if you
do the what i was explaining the simple version it's just a front-end stuff the the you cannot
tweak the parameters of the contract and the interest curve and all that it's it's one single
contract but then what you can do is build on top of that and tap like have your own smart contracts that tap into the same liquidity but maybe offer like a different
interest rate curve and maybe you add also an extra landing pool that just for your app that's
maybe taking more risk i don't know if you want example, to offer like a two-tier lending system
with a very fixed interest rate for a while,
but if it goes above certain thresholds
and it goes to variable
and you can have like a new liquidity pool
that acts as a buffer.
And under the hood,
you tap into the main liquidity
of the main central bank,
of the main regional lending contract, but you add a primitive on top another set of smart contracts that expands the
possibility so it's possible it's more complex but you can you can do uh both ways no but so but
but i mean so basically what you are saying is that rogera is the only bank on porchain right
and everybody else can build like you know can build can open
a new branches for that bank but nobody else can you know operate open a new bank with like
different economic you have like in the banking system you have like merchant bank you have
retail bank you have like different bank like investment bank right different bank operate in
different ways they take different interest margin things like that right i mean because
there's many different economics involved for different banks that's why it exists so what you're saying
right now is that we dictate that and there's nobody else can actually offer that right and
everyone can just have a fund end which is just cosmetic you can have different bank teller
different bank branches a different location but you're not allowed to change the economics of the banks right you could build on top of it you could build something uh for example yeah yeah but but but we're on top
is very different right because say if you decide that the interest margin between the supplier and
the lender is five percent that means everywhere else would be on top that will not be able to offer
a lower than five percent interest margin between the supplier and the lender. Things like that, right? I mean, that's what I'm saying.
Constraint by the liquidity in the bank.
Yes, so that's the issue as well, right? I mean, in a way that's kind of a key of competition, right?
How do we know that Rujirat had the best economic design for the banking system, for Torchains?
Like, why are you limiting it, another team, from designing a different economics
between supplier and borrower, right?
You know, between the bank depositor and the bank borrower.
That is a point that Bon was making.
We try to avoid that.
But then if you have like a so first, if you have an implementation that is very
different from what is going to be implemented in the current version, come and talk to us.
And maybe actually it's different enough that it can exist as its own vertical what is going to be implemented in the current version, come and talk to us.
And maybe actually it's different enough that it can exist as its own vertical
within the RUJIRA Alliance.
Or maybe it's differentiated enough
to justify launching as an independent app
with your own token and your own economics.
But you will have to have some form of revenue share
with the base layer and with RUJI.
Yeah, sorry. Can I just one last question right so um um sorry guys can you okay yeah i can hear you well am i rugged i think it's you yes it's you
can you hear me now hey kenton can you try and say something eric i'm i don't know i think it's Donnago. So can I ask the last question, right? Can you hear me now? Hey, Kenton, can you try and say something?
Eric, Chuck, I don't know.
I think it's Donnago.
There's feedback.
It's almost mic.
I think it's Donnago.
Can you guys hear me now?
Yeah.
Yeah, but when you're done talking,
can you meet your mic when you're done talking?
Okay.
Sorry, sorry.
Okay.
Yeah, sorry.
So, I mean, the last question would be like,
so who does determine whether, say, say Danogo want to build a lending
platforms on purchase, right, which is slightly different from
Rujira in terms of economics between supplier and morrowers,
right?
Who's gonna be who's who's gonna decide? Is it Rujira team?
When do you say is it pragmatic monkey? Or is it the Torchen node?
Where do we determine that?
So it's the Rujira team curating it,
and I'm your first point of contact in this process.
And that's how we will work for now,
just to avoid this fragmentation,
having 20 things that functionally do pretty much the same thing but if it's differentiated enough we can definitely entertain having the danogo money
market as an alternative so right i mean like so you know in a way that that's a bit centralized
right in the end it's just you deciding you know whether somebody's competing with you or not yeah
right so that shouldn't be the way
you know well it really depends like what we are trying to do is the app player is really
an extension of torch and offering more capabilities not a permissionless ground
where everybody can do everything maybe it will move toward that at some point I don't know but
at least not in a in the short term and But you can deploy on a stage net,
prove what you are building.
And if it's differentiated enough,
or we can add you to the RUGGIRA Alliance,
and you can earn a share of the Builder Incentive Pool,
or you could launch with your own token.
It's not black or white, but yes, there is a level of curation,
and those things have been built to that point.
DANA GALPINIERAANI- Donnago, I muted you.
You have to mute.
When you're done talking, please mute your speaker,
because there's all kinds of feedback.
DONNGO ANDERSON- Yes.
Sorry, sorry.
But as a builder, as a developer, nobody's going to build the
food deck out and then waiting for, you know, like, Rujira to decide to approve or not.
Right.
You got to have a, of course, agreement before, before that, before, you know, you're going
to build it.
You know what I mean?
So, and how do we know that the economic that rogera design between supplier and
borrower is suitable because like i think uh canton or boone just mentioned earlier certain suppliers
you know they only want to supply to us by a certain term and condition based on their own
needs that's why people deposit money in different banks right so but why is trying to force everybody to deposit
in the same term that rogera offer so that's a you know that's the question i'm asking but that's
the one uh point of this debate like do do we uh uh keep this curated set of application and avoid
fragmentation inside our own nation which is torchain or do we allow like a permissionless
environment where everybody can do everything?
But if you want to, for now, it's permissions.
And if you want to build something,
like DM me and let's talk,
and maybe there is something that is not competing directly
with the current app, and that could make sense.
Yeah, thanks.
I think just one last comment is,
I would totally agree with the fact that if the app layers ad layers has different liquidity pool, it will be fragmented.
Because actually, it's very easy for fund end to aggregate different pool from different smart contracts.
We have seen that multiple fund end have aggregate between core chain and flips, chain flips and, you know, different.
So, and on Ethereum, they are multiple decks aggregator so
actually it's very easy for front end to upgrade from different liquidity pool from different
order books to offer the user the best experience like even for banks right they are like front end
right now to offer people with like multiple deposit option multiple borrowing option for
mortgage is the same thing and it's only permissionless
the fact that you build a smart contract is always permissionless anybody else can be a front end on
top of your smart contract so i don't agree with the fact that if you're saying that there are
multiple smart contracts you actually fragmented actually the best user experience because actually
it's up to the front end to offer to a great from different smart contract offer the best user
experience to the user and get keeping the smart contract level actually basically you are good keeping the economics of
the of the bank basically imagine america would have one bank with one policy on supplying and
borrowing and everyone else just have to follow it yes i think that's with my last point thank you
i mean that's the the debate is about.
Do we allow different apps to compete or do we try to keep a coherence that have just one vertical for each type of things and try to improve this incrementally over time?
Yes, that's the whole debate.
Yes, that's the whole debate.
But I guess, PM, I guess kind of in your defense,
you are open to Appler being premiered in a year's time type thing,
in the future, in the near future.
It's just not now, just to start.
It's better to get you guys off the ground without having to worry about anybody else.
So is that a fair statement?
Yeah, it will be up to at the end,
the node operators really to decide on that.
I think we always need a form of permission,
permissioning just to enforce this revenue share part
and avoid it to become complete chaos
where you have like potentially malicious apps being deployed.
But yeah, eventually, like, I mean, at least,
I'm just a messenger here, like,
but GPs as a way the mentioned that in the long term,
it will become permissionless to a certain extent.
I'm not sure we can make it fully permissionless,
but it will be relaxed for sure.
I agree.
It may not make sense to go totally permissionless.
Maybe it should stay permissioned,
but that'll be part of the learning process, I guess.
Boone, you have your hand up?
Yeah, I just want to kind of go back a little bit now
to just the broader strategy,
and I'm going to say something that's probably going to be a little bit now to just the broader strategy and i'm going to say something that's probably
going to be a little controversial but um whenever rogera was first launching they were going to have
no affiliate fee on the base layer pools and the other front ends were like whoa whoa whoa that's
not fair but i honestly think that would be great for
thor chain um like it would basically be a loss leader for rogera they wouldn't be making the
affiliate fee on the base chain swaps but by offering only the 10 dips that the base chain
charges they would draw a ton of activity to the rogera you know front end ui and then that would
people already be there,
and then they'd be that much more likely
to use all the app layer apps on top of it.
And then ThorChain could compete.
I think like Chainswap, for example,
they run their own front-end in addition to their back-end,
and they don't charge any affiliate fees.
So the fact that the most user-friendly front-ends all charge extra is actually a detriment to Thorcane.
And if Ruggira did not charge extra to access the base layer, that would be a great loss leader and drive a lot of revenue and use for both layers.
So that's why I kind of controversial throw that out there.
So that's my kind of controversial throw that out there.
And that would be, yeah.
Yeah, so on that, I think the idea first,
so I don't think we ever discussed not having an affiliate fee.
We just never initially, we're not planning to even have a front-end,
direct front-end for our chain.
We did more as a proof of concepts to experiment with all the components
we have been building, the wallet connector and all those things.
But for me, this front-end we have.
So first, we don't want to open an outright war
by having a zero-fill front-end and compete with all those other front-end,
which eventually we actually want them to integrate with also
the expanded capabilities that Rojira brings via a smart contract to the ecosystem.
So no, really, no willingness
to just make
a fee-free front-end and piece-off
all our potential integration partners.
I mean, anybody could do that
if they want.
They can fork the...
Yeah, but I guess my argument is
if we're going to consider Ruggira
and ThorChain to be one thing,
then why not just make, why not have zero affiliate fee?
It would be better for, it would draw more users to ThorChain.
Yeah, but because for now, there is still a different token occurring different fee,
so it needs to also generate some value for Ruggiero.
So that's a key component here.
And another part of that is,
I think it was always temporary.
Eventually, we are gonna have,
actually that's a big step next on the roadmap,
this virtualization strategies that will allow us
to tap into a base layer liquidity from the app
layer and once we do that the most likely thing is that we'll turn the root g swap as it is now
it will not be tapping like it will not be a typical front end of tor chain with an affiliate
fee as it used to be before but instead it will be tapping into the liquidity that exists in both the app layer and the base layer via the virtualization strategy. And every dollar of swaps
generated with the base layer as counterparty is generating a dollar of volumes on the app layer.
So you have like a direct revenue accrual for the chain from that way. And we won't have an affiliate fee on that.
But the market making strategy will take a little premium towards the base layer pool
quotes.
So there will still be a little fee on top just because, well, we have to cover for the
risk we take by front loading via the strategy strategy the proceeds for the person who swaps,
and then we have the risk of the price moving in the back end on the base layer pool, and we don't
get as much as we're expecting to repay the very short-term loan that was used to front-pay the swap.
We had Phil join us here as a speaker. Phil, you have something to say?
Something to add?
Question?
Yeah, I just wanted to ask about integrations with other chains
and how the process works
and if you guys have any plans to integrate with Cardano.
Oh, so that's a more of a question,
like a TorChain level question.
They are looking to integrate as much as possible in the next year.
So Cardano, I think, would make total sense.
I think it's already integrated with Maya protocol.
So I don't want to speak too much here because there is also,
if you are on Maya, maybe they want to keep some certain benefits, but fundamentally it should also be connected to Torchain at some point.
But that's really not my, that's outside of my scope totally. So I don't want to speak too much about that.
The answer is yes, Phil. It's being worked on and it's a perpetual, we're always, everyone's always frustrated how long it takes to add new chains,
but yeah,
Cardano and other chains are being added.
Tron,
Ton,
Solana has been,
gosh,
two years now.
And so it's always soon TM,
but it is being worked on and in parallel to everything else being worked on
in Thor chain.
So the new chains are being worked on in parallel to AppLayer.
It isn't, you know, one isn't taking a backseat to the other.
Pragmatic Monkey, I saw a question for you.
So if all the fees that are being generated on Ruggier or AppLayer are 50-, 50% is going to ThortChain, 50% is going to Ruggi, Ruggi token.
So wouldn't you guys want to have like hundreds of different apps built on top of Ruggira?
Because even if some of them are duplicates, you don't care because you're
collecting the fees from everybody.
So don't you want everyone to build?
Yeah, if they build on top of the core primitive, 100%, we want as much as possible.
And we want them to launch their own token via the launchpad and we want them to
prosperate and yeah, exactly.
What we want is teams that build on top of the core primitive.
What we want to avoid is teams that functionally
do the same thing,
but just with a different set of smart contract.
So going back to Canton perps,
I want to build that on top of Ruggiero.
You're like, heck yeah.
You don't care how similar or different it is in Levana.
As long as I'm building it inside of Regera, it's free game.
I can go for it.
I can do it.
And again, if you just fork the front end and brand it your way,
and maybe add an affiliate fee on top,
if you think you can still drive volume with that, yeah, absolutely.
Go for it. And it's all great, it's a fair game.
And if you want to add more advanced features to differentiate, you are the brain behind, you could do that.
And people could only, so you will deploy new smart contracts
that tap into the perhaps core smart contract,
but do more complex stuff, trading strategies in that case.
And you could only offer that in your own Canton front-end
if you want,
as a point to differentiate to drive traffic,
or you could choose to also offer this specific product,
also get it integrated into Roojira.network UI,
and have a different distribution network for your vault.
And so,
and both are working,
are stuff that we really want to encourage, effectively. And when you say primitive, that'd be like a, like one smart contract design, feeding
into, like if I'm using the same primitive as other front ends, we're all feeding in
the same pool of liquidity.
Because we're using the same contract, same smart contract.
Exactly.
So one order book, and for the order book, it's quite different
because we have a lot of different, like you can take liquidity
from a lot of different places, but one order book,
one DEX protocol with its own liquidity pools,
one money market, one lunch pad,
and then you can do whatever you want on top of that.
And then, okay, I'm hard-headed. I'm like, I got to do things my
way. I don't want to use your primitives, your smart
contracts, I want to come up with my own. I'm so happy to stay
inside the Ruji Alliance and build on and give you your pound
of flesh and everything. But I want to create my own, my own
primitive. You guys, you encourage that.
You're like, sure, go ahead.
Do your thing.
That's exactly what we don't want to encourage,
unless, of course, we can come up with something
that is very differentiated and that's clearly
like it's a better version or add value.
But I think this will have to be proven in some way.
Like it has to be either you
have already an implementation somewhere else and uh or you're replicating an existing implementation
of other protocol and we can really see it's a better version of what we have then yeah that's
that could work but uh if it's just uh duplicating things that's what we've been trying to avoid all
along with this concept of non-duplication.
But you'd still get your account in the flash, RUJI, you'd still collect fees from that new primitive. If you launch as part of the RUJI Alliance, yeah. And I mean, that would be,
again, that's what is in the ADR20. It could be actually something that we encourage, Raj,
if we see the core primitive
you're trying to replace is failing. And I think it was Boone asking earlier, we don't
have like hard rules around that. We will need to get to a social consensus. But if
we see that clearly a certain product is below what we will reasonably expect and in terms
of revenue contributions
versus other uh verticals for example then that's totally something we could uh we could consider
that's hard for me because in my in my mind the way it works is the market
like kind of strong survive type thing right it'll force out the weak um so that's that's
the advantage of competition so it's kind of like like a bitcoin
and fiat money you know why do we use a dollar why do we use fiat money there really hasn't been an
alternative we're stuck using it and until there's an alternative that we can actually viably move to
then we will and that's not that point in crypto right um but if we wait if we wait to the dollar
to fail to then build bitcoin it's's like, well, we're stuck.
I mean, I'm sympathetic to this argument.
But again, that's the whole thing of seeing Torchain as this one unit with the app here being an extension of this one unit and just trying to improve each of the vertical inside it or on competing against other application external
to TorChain doing the same thing?
Or do we make TorChain a generic permissionless layer one
where a lot of things, a lot of contracts
can be deployed that do the same thing?
You just argued, though, that TorChain is not one unit,
which was your explanation for why you shouldn't charge zero affiliate fees.
Yeah, for now, no, because that's also the point I was making earlier.
I think in the long term, like so GP has mentioned merging Torchain and Ruggira.
And for me, I think that's a good way
to frame things, to think about it.
If we did not have
two separate tokens, and it was just
all part of Torchain, and everything was
occurring back to Rune,
then I think it would make sense not trying
to have two different
competing perfs platform
inside the same...
30 seconds ago,
said that to look at ThorChain as one unit.
Like, you're arguing both sides.
You're saying it's not one and it is one.
Yeah, no, no.
So for now, it's not one,
but I think long-term, like,
it could make sense to make it one.
Well, so if it's not one,
then it makes sense to have competing perps,
like, primitives.
Well, not if we take this view that even if we have different, the reason it's not
one yet and we have like a different tokens is because of the history of how we came together
and how we migrated to become, to come here and build this app here on top of Torchain. But I
think having the vision that eventually we really become one unit is probably a good way to stop those
endless arguments and align everybody behind the same value capture mechanism.
So I'm viewing different primitives, different smart contracts, like having different pools on
Torchain. Like I want as many different pools like a Bitcoin pool, Ethereum pool, Ripple pool,
Cardano pool. Like, I don't, I see those adding value to each other. They're not taking from
each other. So if I, if there's two different primitives, like two different perp smart
contracts, I don't see those as taking away from each other
if they're both on top of regira and you're getting paid everyone's getting paid i don't see
i get it i understand that that is that is now um uh that is splitting liquidity they're not they're
not contributing the same pool of liquidity.
But that's up to the competitor.
Somebody's coming up with the new primitive.
If they want to take that risk, that's their risk.
To me, it looks like an order book, right?
Is there any pool?
I'm using primitive monkeys. It depends on which product you are talking about.
The order book for spot exchange is that you have two different components you have another book that just
aggregates it's acting as a an internal matching engine effectively aggregated liquidity from
various different source and then one of the source will be a virtualization imm strategy
the base they are pulled from the chain uh from the trade base. But also we will have a lot of different pools
with different strategy, concentrated liquidity,
standard XYK, and various other things
that anybody can come actually and build more strategies
that all add liquidity to the same order book.
That's for the spot part.
So with an order book, you actually do want
as many competing order books as possible
because it is sort of the same liquidity, right? So with an order book, you actually do want as many competing order books as possible,
because it is sort of the same liquidity, right?
Like what you get as market makers, which will just take a maker order on one order
book and facilitate with one.
So you mean you want as many sources of liquidity as possible on one order book?
I mean, it doesn't matter how many order books you have at the end of the day, because all
of the liquidity is... If there's a competing order book, you matter how many order books you have at the end of the day, because all of the liquidity is...
If there's a competing order book, you can match across order books.
That's exactly what happens.
For instance, you have the Binance order book and the Coinbase order book,
and there's market makers that just facilitate trades between those two order books.
But you fragment inside your own ecosystem, like it's much more efficient to have one order book on the chain that's gathered liquidity from all different sources.
But you fragment inside your own ecosystem.
And then this one order book is the venue where you arbitrage against the Binance and the Coinbase order book.
But there's no fragmentation because at the end of the day, they're all composable, right?
And when you say it's so much more efficient, do you have numbers?
Is it twice as efficient?
Four times as?
When you say so much more efficient, how much?
So I really cannot quantify that.
But if you have one venue that has a much deeper liquidity,
because all the various entents of order from all the base layer pools and different
users and different strategy all go into that. That gives you a
much better visibility and chance and the volume
opportunity to be used as a venue to trade against other
major order books from Southrise Exchange, notably, than if
you are like small,
fragmented little order book here and there.
And this would be once that once in a while
grabs the arbitrage and the other time it's a no.
But it won't be once in a while, right?
What you get is DEX aggregators
or order book aggregators
that everyone trades on to get the best price anyway.
Right?
And everyone trades through that.
And when you trade through that,
you'll get all the liquidity on all the order books yeah so again like it's back to uh
we can we we will have is you will have aggregators that aggregates liquidity from different sources
and do we want tor chain uh to have inside its own ecosystem a lot of different order books and
the and liquidity and aggregators that
aggregate that on one part and there are other aggregators that aggregate across different
chains or do we want to keep everything united inside this ecosystem? I mean yes that's I mean
that has been the world debate of course like I'm in the camp of trying to keep everything as united as possible inside Torchain.
And that's what was the vision we had and the deal we were promised when we came to build this app layer.
But eventually, we may open to more.
What were the terms of this agreement when you came to the app layer?
I haven't seen this written anywhere.
It was a 12-month exclusivity.
It was just GP mentioning that, and I think it's in the ADR.
Do you guys have a signed contract or what?
It was a contract signed, but I don't know how binding is that
because it wasn't signed with a decentralized protocol.
Could you share that somewhere outside of the space?
No, I'm not sure.
I don't know.
Ask JP.
I'm not going to...
Well, I have asked.
He's ignored me when I've asked him.
Yeah, so I'm not going to take this.
Sorry about that.
I totally get how it is, but...
Well, yeah, I mean, but you're like referring to an agreement that you're like, and again,
you're absolutely right.
Like JP does not speak for all the Thor nodes.
So, yeah, I mean, I don't know how binding that agreement is.
But like, I think this is a big issue is you guys were promised something that, you know, might not be the case.
And I think that's the underlying driver of a lot of this confusion.
No, exactly.
And that's why you don't want no competition.
Right.
Like competition is what drives innovation.
If you have just one protocol that everyone has to go to, then there's no reason for that protocol to innovate and compete.
When you have multiple, that's what breeds people to innovate and push their fees lower, etc. Right? It's like, you know, that's a Australian economics 101. But you could have this competition outside
that's, that's, that's the whole thesis here is we, as an
economic unique TorChain are competing against other
ecosystems, other blockchain applications on other places. And
we may not want internal competition on top of
that we can just like all strive together try to build the best possible product collaborate
to improve things if we see it's lagging to allow torchain to offer the best possible quotes and
best possible rate and whatever there's a huge portion of the market which is native torchain
users that you know that's what they use, right?
That's it.
So if you don't have competition within that ecosystem, then this market will just be,
you know, defalto going to the only solution available to them, right?
Like not every, like you can't consider your full customer base, like other ecosystems
other ecosystems and cross-chain etc
and cross-chain, et cetera.
you know i mean valid point but you you and you have the competition uh i mean it's just just like
on tor chain like you have the competition at the front end level at least and you get a ton
of different places but at the end it all tap into the same base layer pool and the same swap router
on on tor chain right and i mean i'm very sympathetic to your
position you know especially if you guys are promised you certain things had certain expectations
and now that's being called into question but like just in the you know to serve truth like
if it's all happening on torchain and let's say torchain is charging the same 50 fee
it torchain doesn't care.
It's not competition to ThorChain.
It's all happening on ThorChain.
It's only competition to Regera.
And I understand, yes, we don't want,
I mean, you're interested in Regera.
You don't want competitive,
like nobody wants a competitor, right?
But as far as ThorChain's concerned,
competition is good,
which is the point Phil's making.
You know, I mean, that's...
Hey, can I chime in for a second?
Am I audible?
Yes.
Yeah, we can hear you.
Oh, finally.
Thank you, Kenton, for sending me that link.
Go ahead, Eric.
Oh, there you go.
I thought I'd try it.
Sorry, guys.
Patriot was rubbed there for me, guys.
Thank God he's back.
Nice. Yeah, so I just want to add something.
So, Boone, I totally get where you're coming from,
but I do think that we have to take all of this with the perspective
that without Rogera, Thorchain wouldn't have an app layer.
Yes, you're talking from the principles of decentralization,
competition brings innovation, etc., but you also have to think that without Rogera, ThorChain does not have an
app layer. And I don't see seven or eight different teams trying to get an app layer working on
ThorChain. So working together with them for, let's say, 5, 10, 20 years, whatever, it's in the best interest of ThorChain. So in theory,
you are right. In practice, it doesn't make any sense to create any kind of controversy between
the thought that Regira and ThorChain are one entity and should be working together.
If there were seven different teams saying,
hey, we want to develop another player,
then your argument would be completely valid in practice.
But in theory and in practice,
I don't see any validity to what you're saying.
Yes.
Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you,
but that's why I was asking what the agreement was.
I was asking what the agreement was like that's like I feel very much in the dark because like
I feel very much in the dark.
what was the and like I mean to agree with Kenton is like I have no problem with
Ruggiero not having competition for say a year like 12 months or that was the that's what
apparently was agreed upon I don't personally have a problem with that for exactly the reasons
you raise is they've done a lot of like the infrastructure work that will be used by anyone
who deploy deploys on the app layer.
And that's valuable and should be paid.
But like,
just,
yeah.
I mean,
what is the,
what are the terms of this agreement?
Like,
you know,
it was a 12 months at start and then TBD.
And I think that's what will happen.
Yeah.
Okay.
Here's an idea.
So it's,
it's going to be pretty quickly. So yes, Yeah. Here's an idea.
It's going to be pretty quickly.
So, yes, there was an agreement between JP and Ruggiero, right?
So, I mean, you have a ton of node operators right here.
You have the Torching community.
Maybe it can be something that can also be agreed upon, you know, the broader community. their community because i know that regira regerans or rudy holders you also feel a little bit like in the dark because you cannot really make a lot of decisions because the decisions
are made by node operators who hold rune and regerans do not hold a lot of rune or are more
staked into rudy which is understandable but i mean these kind of spaces are also very good for us to reach some
sort of mindset consensus so if people actually agree with the terms that jp and rogera agreed
upon maybe we can also add that to to the to the adr in the end the community rules right
yeah it's a little tricky right right? Because, you know,
Kujira had its issue and then JP
stepped up rightly. And by the way, guys, we should
respect JP
for having the vision to see
and understand the potential in conjunction
with CodeHans and
PragmaticMonkey. I mean, this is absolutely
the best thing to happen for our ecosystem
is to have our two ecosystems
permutate into what we're
building here on the 12 month leeway. I think that's reasonable. I think Kenton said as much.
I think, and, you know, in fairness to Boone, it's all about just trying to figure out what
the heck we're actually going to do. And in fairness to Kenton, it's the ADR process. We're
just all want transparency and clarity. And because, you know, we were a little bit in the
dark, that's why it's just, there's been some edge points in this conversation right um but i think we've made a lot
of progress in this regard because you know we're trying to understand a process of which we can
determine you know is this going to be permissioned and in what ways it's going to be permissionless
um kenton go ahead i think you're trying to speak I'll just add some more color to it. If people are maybe a bit unsure on both sides.
So like when JP started working with the Kijira people,
that was about a year ago now, maybe a bit longer.
You know, back then everything in ThorChain was fine.
And, you know, JP had a lot of political will in ThorChain
and, you know, driving things forward.
And then you fast forward to this year and Thor5 blowing up in January
and JP lost a lot of that political will.
And like, like I've had, you know, large, not just ordinary,
like I'm not saying the size matters, but even,
even large ruin holders talks to me and they're like,
they'd be JP is like one of the biggest risks in Thor chain right now.
And, and Thor5, and they're like, you know, how much control does he have?
What is he doing?
This and that.
And is he in check?
And I'm willing to bet that echoes throughout
the broader ThorChain and Runeholder ecosystem.
And so Thorify was kind of pushed onto Thorchain by JP. And look what happened. And now
we have AppLayer kind of being pushed onto Thorchain by JP. So everyone's antennae is sticking
up and like, hey, you know, we don't want to go through that again. And believe me, talking about
beating apps is not going to blow anything up. Like, you know, we're really, you know, we're getting into the minutiae here. But it's just kind
of, if there's any contention or concern about app layer, it's just, it's just the way it's being
pushed through. And it's just putting people on, you know, getting them to perk up and be like,
well, hey, I want to make sure this is being done properly.
We're not walking into anything else that could hurt, hurt ThorChain.
I actually, I think it's fine.
I think, I think AppLayer is actually going to be quite,
what's the word, like benign.
Like I don't,
I don't think there's any real existential threat from, from bringing it on.
I think, I think the the bigger the bigger risk in my
mind is going to be you know how do we scale it right you know um removing the hard cap i think
that's our our main conversation there but that's another space um but i just wanted to bring that
up if they're you know jp this and how is this happening and why things change i think that
helps hopefully that helps with people get some color on what's going on um in the community
yeah and you know what that's a fair point kenton i mean what other ecosystem is as transparent as
this one right like no one is up here censoring i mean pragmatic monkey is has taken a lot of slugs
today right and and we just let it go and that's fine it's just a ruthless meritocracy up here but
at the same time we do have some respect and decorum for each other. But yeah, we have a little bit of dirty laundry and, you know, we have to just be honest and frank about that. And that's why I think this base is so important to do, you know, just to get everyone on the same page or at least on a very similar page, because, you know, everyone here has really great points. And, you know, in the way that that player is being built you gotta you know for a
permission system you have to have that revenue sharing mechanism you've got to do it a certain
way i think at the beginning it's like four chain in the beginning right like we had a small amount
of nodes a very subset amount of nodes and you know the nodes really didn't have much autonomy
at all like it was pretty much all the the devs honestly during the chaos net days and as we reach
more and more maturity and you know and the devs you during the chaos net days and as we reach more and more maturity
and you know and the devs you know thankfully they they stepped away we've gotten rid of them a mirror
um we've made incremental changes i want people to think of the app player right now in that light
like yes we all like a lot of people like believe in permissionlessness like myself but when
something's getting off the ground when it's like a a chick, like fledgling, trying to learn how to fly, you know, sometimes you got to just have a different implementation,
have a different subset of rules, or at least be willing to have a concession on one's own
principles in order to try and make this thing achieve its full potential. Because again,
all of us here, we don't really know. We don't really know like what truly works and what doesn't.
We all have a really good idea. I think everyone here agrees on a lot of fundamentals. It's just this really interesting
nuanced perspectives that we have. And so I think I just want to encourage everyone to just be really
understanding, accepting, and be willing to sacrifice maybe a little bit of our dogma and
my own dogma, because I'm very dogmatic like boom, when it comes to permissionlessness, but I'm willing to just see how that goes. Because again, this is a decentralized system
of centralized planners, right? The node operators are all decentralized. They're all individuals or
entities or whatever. And they're centralized as in they control the network. And I honestly think
that's probably one of the most interesting permutations of decentralization and centralization.
Because again, decentralization, as Kenton said early on in space, there's disadvantages when it comes to governance.
But then if you have a centralized system, it can be really good for mobilizing the troops and pushing someone in a certain direction.
But, you know, we have to basically blend those concepts here.
So it's really interesting and confusing.
So yeah, does anyone else have anything you want to add to that?
I'm trying to approve two speakers.
I'm trying to approve NIK, Nick.
He's not working for me.
And I approved somebody else.
I can't remember who.
Justin?
I think you approved me.
Thanks.
Thanks very much.
There you go, Justin.
Okay, Justin, did you want to have something you wanted to say? Yeah, for me, permissionless. And I totally agree with some of the things that were said in the last five minutes.
Like, shout out to JP for, like, having the vision and, like, buying all the Coogee tokens.
having the vision and like buying all the cuji tokens and like then then to me the idea of an
app layer as a part of blockchain is like a 20x 50x proposition because think about perps traders
there's so much volume sometimes like if i look at my hyper liquid account it's like 500 I'm gonna exaggerate
there's like 25 million dollars of volume and there's like I'm 50 dollars in loss do you know
what I mean so it's like it's just it's there's a there's a lot to be excited about um and then
some of the other things I agree with is about we must try not to be too dogmatic.
Like there is a practical thing to permissionlessness when you can swap
something without asking anybody's permission.
When Binance, you log onto your Binance and there's another,
there's another dark pattern.
Oh, please provide us with another photo.
Please provide us where you got this money from, blah, blah, blah.
That's not permissionless, you know, But like permissionless is like this empowering thing
that you experience when you start to like
trade one coin for another, you know?
And that's the practical sense of permissionlessness.
And for me, like, that's all I have to really add.
It's just fun to take part sometimes.
So I might even switch back to listening, but thanks so much for the interesting talk guys.
I think I learned a lot. Yeah. Thank you, man. I'm glad you said that because really like,
you know, Boone and others up here, like it's, it's, it can be a really terse conversation,
really intense, but the stakes are quite high guys. Um, you know, pragmatic monkey's a tough
guy. I know he can take it. Like we are building something here that is truly revolutionary and we got to get it right.
Or is it right? Is we got to get, we have to make as close as approximation to the best system as
possible. Um, a lot of people are depending on us. They don't even know they're depending on us.
So, um, this is, this by virtue has to be a very intense conversation and embrace the process, guys.
I know it can be uncomfortable, but don't be a pussy.
We have to work hard on this.
We have to figure this out.
And so I appreciate everyone coming up here and spending their own time on their own Saturday
or our own weekend or staying up late.
And I'm sure it's late for you, Pragmatic, figuring this out.
So yeah, I'm glad you said that, sir, because ultimately we're building
something that's never existed before. And Phil, I didn't get to interact with you. I was rubbed,
but I see you do Cardano. I hope you know that my protocol is adding Cardano. There might be
some fusion there. That's a little bit of a side quest in this conversation, but I just wanted to
say that to you because again, we just want to connect all ecosystems. I'm agnostic.
I don't care.
XRB, Cardano, let the market decide.
That's how we're going to do it.
Okay, guys, wow, we've been going on for three and a half hours.
And I'm willing to go as long as it takes to make sure that we're all on the same page.
I don't care if it's three, four, five hours.
You know, I want to make sure that i um this community
feels heard and all opinions are voiced and everything is said um uh because like i said
like there was a lot of going back and forth in the communities like what the heck's going on and
you know it's best just to talk about it and again i don't think there's any more efficient
way to do that than to get a space and have people like Code Hans come up here and break everything down because everyone's coming from a different angle.
Like Boone's very good when it comes to economics.
So is Kenton.
And, you know, I'm good with sort of good with first principles on being modest.
And then we had developers who are really good with code.
And it's like figuring out if there's flaws in our argument just due to our lack of understanding.
Like it literally takes all of us to figure this shit out.
So does anyone else anything else to add i do have a few things i
want to mention um before we wrap it or maybe just keep going doesn't matter to me i would love to
just echo the thing you just said like we really are all on the same side we all want the same thing
like i mean what attracted me to sword chain was and you you're great about this
patriot is like we're doing this for the next generation like you know there's a lot of forces
that are trying to control humanity and like i mean i think enslaved humanity and like crypt like
that's why i'm in crypto is like it's one of the few things that can allow us to maintain individual
human sovereignty and freedom and that's i mean that's why i'm
emotionally invested in thor chain is i think that's this is the best shot to have to separate
money from state and i mean that's why i care and i think most people in this space are in for the
same thing and like yeah so i just we are all on the same side even when we disagree yeah god bless
you man for saying that go ahead pragmatic you know, I'm just fully aligned with you on that as well.
I mean, that's why I like this touch in community,
because I think in theologically,
we are all here for the right thing,
like building a better future
and one that is more fair and decentralized
and without any middleman.
And I just wanted to add another thing.
I think, so coming back on the core of the thing,
whether it should be a permission or not,
and we have, what do we put in the ADR and all that?
I think bottom line is we have done a ton of work
as a Ruggira team to get,
it's even possible to have an app player on Torchain.
We just don't want to get rogue.
So maybe the reasonable thing to put into this ADR is this 12
months exclusivity periods, so to say.
And then after that, we could allow competing protocol, but we need,
like, so in that case, I can say, assuming the revenue split with Torchain
is still supposedly 50%, in case of competing up, it would be 25-25.
So we share between the Rojira team,
which made that all possible
and would be holding all those teams
that are trying to compete with their own products
and provide all those dev tools, wallet connectors,
UIN components, and also the basic infrastructure
that was needed for the smart contract.
And so I think that's also a totally possible way
of doing things.
And maybe one day it will become part of the same token
and we can stop having this type of conflict altogether.
Pregman and Monkey, aren't you going to get in a bunch of trouble suggesting
combining Ruji token with Rune?
I thought that's a no-go.
A lot of people in our community would not like it,
but I have been fairly transparent with that.
For me, I see the long-term benefit of that just because, I mean, at the end, I'm all into about trying to reduce friction as much as possible.
And here, having these two tokens effectively create a lot of friction and tensions between our two communities.
And it's just because, yeah, value, like, yeah, value is the core of everything.
We build, like, a token only has value if it has cash flow occurring to it. Because yeah, value is the core of everything we build.
Like a token only has value if it has cash flow occurring to it.
That's unless you do meme coins, of course.
And I think we are all very much aligned on that.
And yeah, I think eventually unifying
and releasing, like becoming part of the one and only same economic unit
will make sense.
So there are several things I don't agree with, but on this one, I think it would make
sense and we just need to make sure that if we do that, we can feel the need of uh of our community as well and i think one of the main uh hurdle is the
with stacking work on door chain like bonding and bonding with not operator it's a very
not seamless process we speak with humans uh you need bonds you have like a
period where you have to transform it's not easy oh i come one week i deposit in smart
contract and then it's done we just need to replicate that and whether it's a lsp or which
something i know some people also have commercial view on i think it can be done very safely and
the benefit of uh 300 percent uh but we just need to have like a mechanism that allow easy access to this cash flow uh for people and uh and there you go uh i think that's a thing and of course uh
if there is a major we need some mechanism to come to that maybe like
if we would have to assign actionable terms from both side maybe it's redirecting a part of uh by uh ruji uh and uh and keep this revenue uh 100 in cyber stack
okay like honestly i don't want to enter this debate just i'm mentioning it because
uh that's something gp has been vocal about in the beginning and i'm mentioning it because i think
a lot of those attention we have between our two communities
at their roots in this dichotomy of tokens
that kind of misalign interest in a way.
And in just one token with one,
one value-accurate mechanism,
where every cash book is in place,
it will solve a lot of them.
Well, if there's any kind of, I guess,
silver lining having that token, like I understand.
If we were to start from scratch, there
wouldn't be a Ruji token.
Everything would be structured differently.
But we have it.
It exists.
And it's there.
And if I'm understanding you guys right,
it's like you obviously want the best for your token.
You want it to go up as much as possible.
So you want the Ruji ecosystem to grow and make as much money as possible.
And you're, correct me if I'm wrong, but your guys' position is that you think you will make, Ruji Alliance will make more money.
The token will go up more if there's only a handful of primitives.
You know, you don't want, like like hundreds or dozens of different primitives. You want them all kind of, you just want several kind of doing this, each doing its
own unique thing. That's how you think you're going to get the most usage, get the most volume,
and drive up the price of RUGI token. Is that right? Yes, absolutely. Am I paraphrasing that right? Yes. Okay. And there is also like this, if we allow competing protocol at the same verticals,
then effectively they piggyback on our work and there is zero value creation for our own token.
But that's why I say like maybe there's a bridge into that is to say, okay, if we allow computing protocol to exist, fine.
But the same way there is a 50% tax effectively for Torchain
become a split 50-50 between RUG and Torchain.
And then it's also...
Yeah, I think that's the most elegant way to solve it.
And if TorNodes effectively want to optimize for competition over like having this united
approach, it may be the most practical way of doing that.
Yeah, like that makes sense in my mind too.
Like, because in my mind, Ruji should want as many apps
as possible built on top of Ruji.
You should want as many primitives as possible
built on Ruji so you're collecting those fees
and driving up the value of your token.
But that's where we have to be specific.
We want as much apps as possible
building on top of the Ruji primitives, which in turn
accrue value to both
ruji and torchain but what we don't want is competing products that don't accrue any value
to ruji so that's the thing but if we add this mechanism where actually the the tax uh torching
tax is split with a ruji then we can open up the door for more competition i'm not sure that's the optimal but we can still have our own
like uh rogy.network front end uh where where we the issue is it's decentralized so anybody could
make prs and and that stuff there but we could like just have this curated binance-like experience
from the from this front end and uh i still have uh other uh competing protocol with their own
front ends doing uh stuff on the app layer.
But yeah, between that, the concerns around security budget and all that,
I'm not sure, especially at this stage, it's a good idea to open the floodgates.
Okay. And where I was going with it is that like you, the way we're
designed is that you guys are trying to make money too. You're trying to get the Ruji token up.
And so you want as much activity as you can get too.
So we're on the same team here.
We all want growth.
And we maybe just are disagreeing a little bit
on how to get that growth.
But our end goal is the same, to get volumes up, get fees up.
So we both make money.
It's all about amazing cash flow to token holders.
That's the end game. But create great product and great experience, It's all about optimizing cash flow to token holders.
That's the on game.
But create great product and great experience,
but being rewarded for that in the form of usage,
which ultimately means cash flow.
Can you guys hear me?
I can hear you.
Should we start wrapping up, Patriot?
Oh, I'm sorry. I was starting to rug there. Um, that didn't mean for the,
the, uh, pause there. Um, oh, we can, um, I'm really glad. I'm glad you said that stuff,
Kenton. I heard most of it. Um, you know, and like we said, like I said earlier,
like the app layer is a fledgling bird. It's learning how to fly. So, um, you know,
I think it's really good. And that's why Ken and I mentioned the marketing thing earlier because i just i really would love to have someone like because i think i saw a space
from you a while ago that you were a petroleum engineer were you not and you were you didn't
find satisfaction in that job and you came into finance am i correct about that that's right yeah
i was a rig pig for yes right so like dude i just think especially when i hear you on spaces like
asking the nuanced question on these new primitives on, on the app layer, I just think you really are the perfect
guy when it comes to marketing and it'll create a good feedback loop. If we have money from Thor
chain base going to Ruggira. And so we are investing in the app app layer. And that's
kind of a flywheel on itself. And then someone like yourself, who's really good on this stuff,
you are better when it comes to economic primitive design than myself and boon and
And probably scourge to um having guys like you being intimately involved with the team
And then that way there's less friction and there's more hands-on stuff
And and so we avoid the delays or like these gaps of understanding between what we're doing and what we expect to happen
So I I root I would encourage
Um the developers of Nine Realms,
anyone listening to this,
let's get some Kenton some money
so we can do some marketing shit.
I am just going to bang this drum, okay?
I really believe that.
So yeah, we can start to wrap.
A couple of things I want to mention though.
Guys, me and Eric, we were on many XRP spaces
and fucking A, we finally got a foot in the door
with some XRP guys
Um, that was that took a lot of work
But i'm finally now I know these guys i've told them what we're building at rogera and thor chain
And i'm pushing there and and I have an idea. We've been floating with eric
I think I want a team of space crashers. Okay, where we where we just go out and we attend spaces on varying topics and ecosystems
like if if
um i don't care what it is you know what i mean we add solana well then we go find solana spaces
like maybe we'll call ourselves space cadets space cadets okay and and so i just if anyone's
interested in that you got to have an understanding of rutira and thorgin you got to be able to
articulate what's going on and if you have those skills most knowledge i think if we get a little
team together where we just go out and try and get on spaces to increase mindshare because
Eric and I made a lot of progress with XRP. It would felt really good and we're gonna keep doing that
So if anyone's interested in that, please join go ahead Eric. We're gonna say something i can't hear anything did i get rugged are you guys yeah okay um eric i can't hear eric i thought
i thought maybe i was getting rough can you hear me i can hear you patriot okay cool then i'm just
gonna keep going sorry eric i don't know what's going on. So, yeah. So, if you guys have a team, let's go.
Okay? And let's do that.
So, yeah.
Another thing as well.
Let me catch my thoughts here.
Oh, yes.
I always make this a point to add this, guys.
Maya Protocol, our hot Mexican girlfriend,
she's added privacy, guys.
And this is a very huge layer.
This is a huge zero to one
Um, and I just want everyone to always be aware that there's probably going to be a time where the daggers are going to be out for my protocol
When maybe illicit swaps go out through their for their blockchain guys, please be prepared to defend my protocol on a moment's notice
Um privacy is a human rise. You all know
I don't need to tell you this and I just encourage everyone
Please be ready to do that. Okay, because they were there for us ultimately thorfy right
um okay i think that's me covering everything i wanted to say did anyone else have anything else
and again sorry eric i think you're rubbed i'm good uh Thank you. All right. Yeah. Okay. This was a long space. I have a pretty, uh, yeah, I'm pretty tired guys. Um, I hope
everyone got something out of this. Um, I think, I think everyone feels better now. I feel better
now. Um, I think, uh, Kenton, I hope you feel better as well. I think we got, I think we
understand each other. That was the whole point of this space. Talk it out, work it out, figure it
out. Um, and that's why we're going to keep doing this. And if anyone feels like something
doesn't make sense or there is a disconnect between the communities
or, you know, like I said, I'm trying to make sure I think of
Ruggiero as Thorchain and I think of myself as a Ruggiero. Like if there's money from Ruggiero going
to Thorchain, we're brothers, we're sisters. You're my boys, you're my sisters, we're
on the same team here. We do this this like just say something and we will start a space on a moment's notice. I don't want
misconceptions to
Metastasize into like huge drama points just because we have to wait on a certain day to have a space if there's something we don't understand
Reach out to me. I'll fire up a space. We'll figure it out right then in there
Reach out to me. I'll fire up a space. We'll figure it out right then in there
So it's great doing these with you man. Thank you. You're a great host
Likewise brother and great job with the questions pragmatic monkey great job, you know explain everything and thank you to all the speakers cons everyone else
We're in this together guys. so I really appreciate everyone attending this
was a long one but we'll make them as long as we need to in order to fix problems that's no big
deal so okay guys go ahead Kenton oh I was just saying just I think it's great like it really
bugs me when people get on online say we can't you know why does what do we have to have this
conversation getting you know arguing I'm like I don't have to have this conversation and getting, you know, argue.
And I'm like, I don't, I don't think we're arguing. We're just,
I'm trying to understand, right.
And we're trying to hear each other out and walk things, walk through it.
So yeah, I think these are conversations are great. I hope,
hopefully it helps others as well. You know, it's the best,
best way for understanding things, the best way to move
forward. Absolutely. Absolutely. If you're not taught, if you're not communicating, we're,
we're, you know, we're chasing our tail, you know, especially when we have, cause there is still
that, unfortunately, a stir is that the bifurcation, the community where we have like the
Regiran telegram and the Thor chain telegram, and you know, one conversation we go over here and
the other one, and it's just, it's a, it can be a bit of a mess so um i just want to make that bandwidth of information flow between ecosystems
more and more um broaden that to make it more information go through um pragmatic monkey um do
you have any final thoughts on this my friend no good no i think it's it's good we we clear the
bit around that and uh hey i hope we just find a way that is acceptable.
I guess this ADR20 eventually will go for a vote.
I don't know if you are gonna make any change to it,
Kenton, but if you do, please keep me posted
and I will be keen to review and make sure
we are in agreement with what goes there for vote.
Well, what we talked about, right?
Slipping that 12 month leeway period for the R Well, what we talked about, right? Slip in that 12 month leeway period
for the Ruggieren app layer core teams, right?
I think that's something we want to slip in there
and we can clean up the language.
What do you think, Kenton?
Yeah, I think the 12 months period
and the fee split on the 50% revenue going to Torchain
if it's for an app that is't, is not part of the Ruggia
Alliance and therefore is effectively competing with Corp Vertical from Ruggia.
Yeah. I actually think you guys can negotiate better than that.
But yeah, that sounds good. We should have some language like that.
That'd be great.
And I'm happy to PM if you want to talk a bit more offline,
maybe JP or something.
We can just between the three of us iron things out a bit better.
But yeah, having something, yeah,
something a bit more clear written out would be great.
Sounds like we've got a plan, boys love it okay cool let's uh let's we've we've talked it through
said all the things we got a plan let's execute the plan and let's move forward and let's kick
them fucking ass you know i'm saying boys kick some fucking ass that's what i'm all about so
i've had 14 cups of coffee so as you guys guys know, I'm pretty pumped up. This has been a great space
The 14 accounts you can close it at any time. I'll give my final salutation
Pragmatic monkey Kenton. Love you guys all the other speakers. Great job. Everyone. That was fun
Thanks guys. Thank you.
