hey hey, what's up everybody? Chad, ThorChadz, what's going on? Feeling like I'm out here?
What's up, Chad? Are we still getting settled? We could wait for
a minute. Do we want to get people in?
I can't hear you, Chad. I don't know if you're there or not.
Yeah, what's up, Logan? Uh, you there? Can you hear me? Not sure, Chad. Yeah, I can hear
you loud and clear. Can you hear me? Yep, I got you. Can you hear? Can anyone hear Chad,
by the way? Nah, can't hear him. Okay. What's up, dude? How you doing? I'm good, man. I'm
just watching my net worth dissolve right in front of my eyes. It's fucking exhilarating,
boys. Yeah, we're here for it. I love it. I feel alive. Let's go. Yeah, man. You know
what? Hey, pullbacks are just normal in a bull market, man. That's just what it is.
You want volatility up and down. Yeah, for sure. I mean, the way I think about this kind
of stuff with door chain, it just changes the incentives. Like before, there was over 75%
of fees going towards LPs and nodes were getting like, you know, two to 3% yields. Right now,
you know, node APRs are going up. So if you're bonding, it's definitely not a bad
time to be to be doing that, you know, like it just changes the incentives and it just
it just aligns everything, you know, make sure that we have enough security for liquidity.
So it's the natural flow of things the way I look at it. I also look at it like a month
ago, two months ago, with 10 bucks or seven bucks, I only would have got one rune. Now
I'm almost getting two. So that's all that matters accumulate. That's it. Everything
I mean, we're looking at the charts of people using the tech volumes keep going up. I mean,
I checked Twitter, the timeline and you know, saw people are kind of arguing back and forth
with the direction of development and whatnot. And I think, I mean, it's valid points in
the community's voicing, which is great. You know, I think it's it's awesome that
the community is speaking their minds. It's just these are these are complex things to
navigate, like what is the ultimate direction? And I'm sure you guys have some answers today.
And that's why partly this the spaces is happening. I'm very curious to hear the the pros and
cons of both directions, or if there's multiple directions, like what what those pros and
Yeah, and yeah, so today, like, I think we could definitely talk about like, what's
going on in q1, what the short term priorities are. And yeah, there's been a lot of discussion
about like, what the long term is, just for, you know, door five, and like new feature
development in general. Obviously, there's been a ton of discussion on that. But all that
is kind of like, in the future, because there's still a lot of priorities that like, they
need to be done over the next, you know, three to three to five months, which are
going to take a lot of time to get shipped out, like more, more pressing things than,
you know, things like room vault 2.0, and, and things like that, which are going to be
obviously debated. And, you know, whether they even come to fruition one day, like there's
no even solid design or consensus around it yet. So it's like, I personally think it's
better to just focus on the things that are like, for sure, coming like around the corner.
And like, you know, everyone agrees that there's some kind of consensus on like, hey, we're
going to do these, we're going to like focus on these things right now. And then then we
move forward and decide like, where we go from there. And obviously, like safety, security,
and like protecting LPs and things like that need to
Well, can you explain to me real quick, the two different main routes. So there's like
one, one route or one vision where, from what I understand, it's purely cross chain
liquidity and swapping, basically stream swaps. And then the other vision or, or route
that you could take would be Thorify with lending and other kind of more like banking
style products, if you will. So I'm very curious to know, like, what, what is your, what is
your stance on things? When it comes to those two routes? Is there is there, you know,
is it kind of like, I haven't been a part of the Thor chain community long enough to
realize, was there an original ethos, if you will, and now we've migrated from that ethos,
or was this kind of all part of it? And I just I don't know enough, right? And so that's
why I'm tuning in here to learn. But that's just what I'm seeing. I'm almost seeing
people torn on like these two paths. And it's causing a little bit of fud. So I'm very
curious to get your perspective.
Yeah, well, first of all, let me see if Chad is your mic working now. Let's yeah, I just
got rid of the headphone. There we go. Sweet. So all right. I think we can let's dive in
first and say like, what the like, the core of Thor chain, there's, yeah, obviously,
there's some debate around like, you know, where to go. But everyone knows that the
core of Thor shame is around, you know, we're around nodes bonding rune, and then LPs that
provide rune and another asset for liquidity. And really, the debate is around how to scale
liquidity in in proportion to make sure that, you know, obviously, we're not over scaling
liquidity to be unsecured or anything. But there's just the difference in vision on like,
do we get to Valhalla from just dual liquidity, which has been the core of door chain
from from day one? Or do we get there through this, you know, through a combination of
dual liquidity, which is always the core of door chain, but then building things on top
of it, like, like savers, which which is obviously a great product, but, you know,
pushes risk around to the dual LPs, where they're more highly rune levered, and it
changes their risk appetite. So, and then there's things like lending, which are built
on top, which are completely separate, I think, I think the kind of the debate right now is
more around just where to go in the liquidity sphere, and mostly just making sure that
things are safe. Because I think everyone can agree that like savers are really awesome
products, but making sure that dual LPs, which is what the protocol is kind of built
around, like whether that is the is the core product, or whether that can kind of be
abstracted away, and be in the background as part of this, you know, Thorify design, or
yeah, I mean, it's just whether is that is that the core? And like, do we need to do
everything to protect the LPs? Or is the future more like savers plus protections to
make sure that savers is always solved?
Does that mean that so with people, it's like a lot of people fear change, right?
So it's just, is this just the natural progression of things, and people who have
been in the community a long time that were kind of sold on this original vision, they're
just not capable of modifying their stance and realizing, hey, this is just a better
vision overall. Or are they right, in the sense of, hey, we should stick to that
original ethos and not deal with defy because there's other risks with building
out defy, like other risk vectors, you know, if so that's kind of where I like, I
just don't know enough. And Chad, I'd be very curious to get your perspective on
those risk factors. And like, just overall, what you think about that situation?
Is this still maintaining kind of the original ethos just enhanced? Or is it
like, yeah, we're kind of switching it up with these Thorify style features?
Well, originally, Thorify was was not part of the original design, right? So if
you go back to the original white paper, right, you could either look at the
one that was from 2018, or you could look at the one from 2019 2020. But
like, the Thorify concepts weren't designed or, or considered at that time,
because at that time, we were just trying to like, solve the problem of like
cross chain liquidity, which in itself is obviously very complicated and
difficult and this often required a lot of time and research and coding time and
whatever else to get to actually work, right? It didn't make sense at that
time to start thinking about, you know, advanced features like savers and
lending, whatnot, because it just yet you got to walk before you can run. Do you
know what I mean? So it's pure, it is totally respectable. If people want to
stay true to the original AMM perspective, right? I get it. They're not
wrong, right? They're not this on a bad position. It makes complete sense in a
lot of ways, right? At the same time, I can also think about the value of what
savers does. It takes savers by itself just for one moment. The value of what
savers does, right? Offering, you know, especially like BDC yields on BDC. That
is incredibly valuable for the industry as a whole to do that in a
decentralized way, doesn't exist and has never existed until Thorchain really
did it. Do you know what I mean? And that in itself is how Celsius and BlockFi
and all those guys with tens of billions of dollars, you know, had grown in part
from that kind of earnings. Yeah, but they also exploded though, right? Or
imploded. Well, that's not a fair comparison because the reason why
they exploded is because they took people's Bitcoin and other assets and
just like started like throwing it to other locations, making it risky, risky
like, you know, motions with those things. It's not, it's not fair. I get
what you're saying. I'm just, I'm throwing it out there, right? That's what a lot
of normies are going to think though. Just like, Hey, this is, this is like
that. Therefore, that might prevent me from investing in room because the
perceived risk is higher than the actual risk. Yeah. And it'd be fair. That's
true. And that's also true with like Terra, right? Terra created a lot of
PTSD and a lot of people in the industry and a lot of it. And, and rightfully
so, they're, they're more, um, uh, skeptical, right? Of like projects in
general, which is, I think it's actually generally a positive thing for the
industry. But, um, if you wanted to build something like a savers, right? Or
lending for that matter, you, you have to do it with an AMM. You can't, you
can't have savers without the AMM. It doesn't make sense. Won't work, right? Same
thing with lending. You can't do lending without the AMM as well. So like, if you
wanted to go that direction to provide these extra services that in their own
right are just as important and as valuable as AMM, if not more so, you
have to do it with the AMM. Now you can, you can make arguments, right? And
we've had discussions in the past about like the conceptual idea of like
forking, forching, and have one of the two chains be like, you know, the, the
static, you know, uh, AMM basic, you know, base kind of model, if you want to call
it that. And then another one that's kind of like the more advanced DeFi
protocols that are, you know, breaking the mold in many respects, right? And
by doing a fork, you know, people who feel that one way can go on one side.
I don't want people to feel the other way. They can go the other side, blah, blah, blah.
And, and maybe that happens. I have no idea. I'm not a future. I'm not a
predictor of the future, but it is the value of these things, the value of
thor-chain beams will accomplish cross-chain liquidity and having an AMM
is just one thing that it can do and how it can contribute to the industry
and contribute to the space. It's capable of doing much, much more. Now if
you want to keep things just to the AMM space and effectively doing what
Chainflip's doing, very Chainflip's in the, in the chat here, Chainflip's just
doing the AMM thing, right? And, and that's their choice. And that's a
respectable choice to be made, right? Now, do we want to sit in the same boat
as, as, as Chainflip and just try to compete with them in some sense and,
you know, uh, cross-chain liquidity, blah, blah, blah, swapping. Maybe, maybe
some people feel that way, right? But if there's a capability to do
something like a saver's or like a lending or something like this of
offering, um, um, decentralized, uh, finance primitives for arbitrarily
any chain or asset, especially for something as important as Bitcoin,
there's a lot of value there to be, to be, to be gained by the
industry, a lot, a lot of value. So, um, it is up to not me or, or
familiar cow or anybody else. It's up to the notes and the community to
decide which direction they want to go. And to be honest, neither
perspective is right or necessarily wrong. It's just how you feel about
things, right? So it's at some point in the future, we can talk about
these. Like, so for example, like, you know, lending is pretty close
to the cap, right? It's like nice, not 96.6 right now or something
like this, right? So we might be talking about in the near future
about what we want to do with lending. Now we could say, uh, we
don't like Thor 5 and we don't want to go further down this
road. So let's just, you know, sunset the feature and allow loans
to be closed, but not opened. And eventually lending would just
kind of, you know, die out on its own. Maybe that's the
thing that people want to do. Maybe people want to, you know, raise
the cap. But so why, so why is the community so split though?
Cause it seems a little bit polarizing when I go on Twitter and
some people are like, Oh, the devs, it's not decentralized because
the devs were already kind of moving in this direction without
approval. Like that's what I'm seeing. And I, I don't know if my
timeline is just like that or everyone's is like that, but like,
what is the polarization stemming from?
Well, first of all, devs can't do anything. Like literally they
don't have, they don't in the end, the nodes control anything
in and everything. So devs just can't just move forward with
anything without the nodes just either being complacent and just
like not doing anything or them just allowing it notes and
offers to allow any, any and all changes. Right. So that's one
thing to be clear. The, the difference is like, the reason
why people are so polarized is because some people are more
risk on and some people are more risk off. Right. And I think
for like people like Pluto and other people, like especially
on the nine realm side, they're coming from a more like,
let's just keep it simple and basic and, you know, do the
basic AMM thing. Whereas myself and Lena are more on
the mentality of there's a lot we can do with this, you
know, sky is a limit. Let's, you know, let's not just have
Thorchain be a 20 billion dollar protocol. Let's be a hundred
billion, 200 billion, right? Like whatever we can, we can,
my viewpoint, we can get there. That's in my, just my personal
two cents. Right. But if you want to keep in things, if
people like Pluto or others want to keep things more basic
and, you know, or whatever, I mean, that's perfectly fine.
But like, but people are polarized because people are
scared, in effect, like people are scared from, you know, to
use your, your Celsius BlockFi reference that you made
earlier, people are scared because of terror, terror, you
know, collapsible blah, right. And like, that's just the
state of the industry as a whole of just being more
reserved, right. And more, you know, afraid of death
spirals and things of such. So basically what you're
saying is you don't want rune to be a pussy coin. You want to
go for glory. That's what you're saying. That's funny
because like, and I say that it's like jokingly but
serious at the same time, because it's like, hey, man,
if you're here in crypto and you really want to change the
world of finance, you can play it safe and like not do
anything that's, I feel like there's so many of those
protocols and coins out there and it's like, they know
they can raise some money and they can get to a certain
market cap and then they become, you know, people
become extra liquidity for the founders, they're out,
they got rich, but they didn't really make a true
difference. And then it's just a fucking slow bleed all
the way back down to zero or 99% retracement over time.
And then it's gone, right. So I respect the fact
that you guys are definitely trying to, it sounds
like evolve and adapt based off of tech upgrades
that you guys are facilitating, right. It wasn't a
part of the original vision with what you're saying,
the Thorify, but it's like, as you guys improve tech
and then you view current market conditions and
what other people have done and you've learned,
you guys realize that you can also partake in,
you know, different feature builds and whatnot.
So I get it. I'm in the software world myself.
So I understand it's like, it's, there's a lot of
different directions to take and I, you're going
to upset, you can't please all the people all
the time is what it sounds like to me more so
than anything else. But there could be so like
one group of people could be upset the original
people who want to play it safe, but then you
bring in a whole new batch of people into this
ecosystem that want to use these other products.
And I'm assuming in your vision, Chad, like that
new group of people that gets onboarded is much
larger than the group that's bitching or complaining today.
Well, I don't know. I don't know. I really don't
have any sense of size, right? So you can make
an argument that people are not investing in
room because they don't like, you know,
Thorify features and you can make an argument
that people are investing in room because of
Thorify, Thorify features. And then to be honest,
I don't have a good sense of the size of
to be honest, right? Nor would I consider room to
be a quote, pussy coin or in it for the glory,
as you said earlier in your in your message there.
But like, it's not about it's just about
I see it from my perspective, I see there's a
lot of opportunity to do things that nobody else
in the industry is capable of even doing.
Most people in this industry aren't even have
the stack to accomplish the things that
we can accomplish. And what we can do
theoretically is we can provide services
that are critically important and critically
valuable and far exceed everything else in
the market, right? Let's just assume for a
moment that lending works as as designed
and just make the assumption for one second.
That would be one of the most important
advancements in D5 we've seen in fucking
five years. Like, and I don't think you
can reasonably argue with me on this,
right? But that's obviously making the
assumption that it works. And when I don't
know that it works, and we won't really
actually know whether it works or not
until the end of the next bear market,
which was, you know, four years away or
whatever the hell the number is, right? To
be fair. So it's perfectly valid for
people to have the viewpoints they have
and I understand what that is polarizing
and I don't want to drive a stake
on, you know, the things that are
important for Q1 that we've already kind
of talked about as a community and kind
of agreed generally agreed upon. It's not
really controversial or whatever, like
minimalist transactions and, you know,
getting, you know, a scalability like we
just did the swap our club, for example,
and that was like a significantly
improved the speed of which trades and
swaps are done on the network. So like
at some point we can talk about
those things and to be honest even much
like a room vault 2.0, I'm not even sure
I'm a fan of it. You know, I haven't even
read the issue personally. I know I kind
of understand it at like a general high
level, but there's questions and
concerns, legitimate questions, legitimate
concerns to have around it, and which
just requires more time of research
and understanding and vetting and blah
blah blah before we can actually like go
down that road, you know. But to be
honest, nobody's really pushing for it
to be done now or eating time soon for
Probably not even Q2. I wouldn't
want to see it within, you know, Q2
time frame, right, if we see it at all,
right. But for right now I'm more
focused on just let's just
fix, you know, bugs, let's scale the
network, right, let's get
ARBs to be more efficient, let's get
minimalist transactions, maybe older books,
I don't know what, but there's a lot to
be done in the interim for sure.
Yeah, I definitely agree. The short-term
and mid-term alignment is all there and
like, I mean for myself personally, like
I really see the value in a lot of
Thorfied features. It's just making sure
are safe for the network and obviously
you're not blowing up LPs through
basically unhinged Savers
exposure where they're taking on their
essentially and not having the risk of
blowing up LPs or, you know, with
lending, minting rune, which is obviously
mechanics behind it, which is why there's
been so much research that went into
like the design implementation of the
lending system. So it's like,
I don't know, I think the community is
kind of in the middle where it's not
just like, oh, like we only need to be the
AMM, which I'm sure there's some people
that truly believe that, but at the
same time there's definitely a ton of
but it's just doing things in a safe and
scalable way where, you know, there aren't
going to be people that are completely
blown up in the protocol doing it,
with Savers or lending. Like given this,
the pure design of the protocol,
you know, with the AMM itself, the risk
that the LP takes is impermanent
loss, and it's changed a lot since
the first days of the protocol, where now
they're taking on their own IL risk, and
Savers' IL risk, and we introduce things
like protocol and liquidity
in order to decrease that risk, but
protocol and liquidity isn't infinitely
scalable, right? So it's just like,
it's all just trying to answer the
question, like, how do we
curtail all of the risks of DoorFi
and, you know, make this thing just a
incredibly powerful protocol, where
obviously you can do the swaps,
you can do Savers, you can do lending,
but do everything in a safe way, where
people still have access to the
but in a way where, you know, things
sideways given whatever kind of price
obviously if something can happen, then
it will happen, so it's just
protecting against all the risks that
could potentially come, and, you know, in
who knows, like it could come
whenever, so just making sure that
people are protected, especially, you
know, especially the liquidity providers,
everything on Thorchain is built around
dual LP and, you know, pairing asset
So the question is just how to do
Yeah, how to do that safely, obviously.
That's why we launch features, you know,
that's why we have backstop
circuit breaker things that we have
been talking about for a long time, but
one of the reasons why we started to go
down the Thorfire road in general,
which is just trying to address
what we saw to be, what myself and
at least Lina saw to be, like,
problematic problems with the
currently, really original design,
meaning that, like, can we grow
TVL to be a reasonably, you know, higher
you're not going to become the biggest
exchange in the world with
200 million in TVL. Just, it's not
It's just, it's just not enough
and by kind of forcing everybody to be a
exposed to rune, the amount of people who
a lot less than somebody who's willing
to do, you know, Ethereum and
right? And that's what Chainflip has
done. Chainflip has kind of opted
to say, you know what, we're not going
flip tokens to become dual LPs. We're
holders of USDC, and we're going to have
them be holders of ETH or whatever.
And by doing so, they're making a
trade-off. They're saying,
we're going to make it easier for
people to be LPs in some sense, or be
exposed to the assets they want to be
But at the same time, they're just
going to say, we don't really care about
So, and that's just the trade-off,
right? And we could theoretically do the
same thing if we really wanted to. Do you
do a way with economic security and
coming with new designs that allow us
TVL more so than it is now through
there's not much of a taste for that,
at least from my perspective, or
anybody that I've spoken to.
So, like, even like what we have, even
it remains to be seen that that is
to accomplish the task of what this
protocol is trying to accomplish.
Fox McLeod, do you have something you want
Thank you for letting me speak. I have a
with my appreciation to you.
Can Torchain and Torfy split
in two different paths? This is my
Two different paths, two different ways.
I mean, it can be forked into two
That's, you know, something we could
discuss as a community at some point
in the distant future, but
parts within the same chain, I don't
think so. The only way you could do that
is you would need to create, like, two
different tokens. It's like the rune
token, which is, like, the AMM, and then
there's a new token called
rune, thorfy, I don't know, but then you
of the collective value that the
is pulling in. So it's theoretically
possible, I suppose, but I'd have some
Hello. Hey, what's up? How are you?
Mike, can you guys hear me?
Yep, go ahead. My question is, how do you
future advances in thorchain to affect
Yeah, I don't really have an answer to that
It's kind of an arbitrary question with
I mean, I guess, like, if you think about
in terms of just the AMM side of
rune's price would move with its
adoption, right, with its
volume, right? If you think about it in
thorfy, it's a different mechanism, and
it has a different effect,
rune's price would clearly do
Assuming that thorfy works, and there's
no, you know, calamities of any kind,
obviously, rune's price would do better
with thorfy than without it, because you
for the asset. The more demand centers
or the more significant, the size of
clearly the price would be relative to
So if you keep things simple on the AMM
rune can still go to a hundred bucks,
theoretically. I'm not saying it's
no one quote me as I'm giving price
predictions or anything like this,
but even if you just leave the AMM by
itself, could rune go to a hundred bucks?
Yeah, that's totally possible, totally
If you added, you know, lending and
can it go higher than that? Yeah,
absolutely. You know, it's just,
rune can be successful without it,
without thorfy, possibly, likely.
I don't know, it's hard to say to be
having more demand centers for an asset
makes it more, yeah, makes it more.
And those, and having legitimate demand
Terry doing like fixed rate, 20%
will oblige, not legitimate, but
yeah, okay, perfect, thank you.
Hey guys, just joined here, this is Pluto.
I'm just curious, if we were to deploy
60 million rune that's in the standby
doesn't that remove 60 million rune
Like, if the protocol is just
putting up all the rune side,
where's the demand coming from in
Sorry, I don't know, I don't know what you
Like in a, in just a traditional vanilla
people need to buy rune in order to
provide the other side of the liquidity.
If the protocol reserve is putting up
all the rune and allowing savers to
exogenous assets, where, how is thorfy
actually creating demand for
Oh, yeah, so the trade volume of the
is directly correlational, not
necessarily in a one-to-one kind of way
So as you increase the TVL of a
protocol, generally speaking,
the volume goes with it, right?
And this volume goes with it, you
also get higher price execution, better
right, because the pool is, has more
liquidity to it, and it's got, it's
more capital efficient in a lot of
And so it's beneficial to the asset in
you're going to have to naturally see a
higher volume of trading and better
But savers was never really
causing rune price to go up,
necessarily. It's designed
primarily was to increase the TVL of
the network, in which case it's done
rather successfully. Lending was more
designed for the idea of like
creating a strong demand center for the
rune asset, like creating more buy and
That's more of what it was designed,
it's a primary thing that it's trying
to achieve in the lending design.
But because lending has been very
subdued, in a sense, we've capped it a
over a long period of time, it hasn't
which is not really surprising either,
because the goal of lending,
you know, over the last like few months,
trying to get rune's price to go to
experimentation, and understand if the
assumptions that are made in the design
pan out to the market. Thus far it's been
everything about lending thus far has
been nothing but green flags. It hasn't
in lending that I can remember right
now. Everything's been green flags
so far. It's been doing very well
relative to what we expect it to do.
The only thing that hasn't happened is
some large market adoption of it, which
you know, that's not going to happen with
it's just like you're basically
replacing organic demand for room to,
for providing the other side of dual
and you're just basically saying, okay,
that'll come from reserve, that'll
supply that is currently not circulating.
So I, what I feel like would be a better
to create organic demand for room, I'm
sure the word organic is not
maybe the correct word, but to create
actual demand for room people
other than the protocol buying it and
And if you, if you were to just take
in the standby reserve right now, like
because clearly the protocol works
If you were to just take that and
just burn the whole thing and reduce
I don't know, whatever it is right now,
you know, total supply 484 million
and you were to make that 424 million,
like you're basically creating,
there's less room now in circulation
and then people have to buy it in
order to provide liquidity, like I just
I just don't see why like, like, like
dual LP will work if the yields are
high enough if there was enough
swapping, cross chain swapping, which is
like the bread and butter of this
it just naturally follows that people
will provide liquidity, it will become
attractive enough to the point where
Like I just want to see dual LPs
making money again and then like if
they're making money again, it's
they don't have this like, there's not
room being put into the pools by the
protocols, people are actually like
buying it to put it in there.
Yeah, but I think the thing you're
it doesn't matter what the APYs are of
if you just don't want to hold room,
like you could put it 300 fucking
doesn't matter, people, if you don't want
to hold room, you don't want to be
it doesn't matter if you're getting
just not worth the risk, right?
And by the way, burning 60 million out of
the standard reserve, A, does not reduce
reserved funds do not include in
but B, it wouldn't create any kind of
long-term economic value, it just
tweet thread and maybe a short-term pump,
which by the way we did that a long
originally the supply of ruin was
and you know back in I think 2019,
I think it was, maybe early 2020,
we burned half the supply, right? And did
bump in price? Yeah, there was a
bump, but it wasn't, I don't
I don't even think that the price
doubled for memory, that was a long
time ago though, so maybe I'm
it's not a, it's not a sustainable,
it doesn't create sustainable growth
in the protocol by burning 60
Yeah, I'd just rather see that never go
Yeah, and the reason why you're saying
that is because you're looking at
ruin in terms of its monetary policy,
you know, and I get why you're
looking at things that way, and I think
you'd be probably in the commonality
but the reality is that ruin is not
a money, right? It's never been
designed to be a money, right? It's not
trying to compete against Bitcoin,
right, or anything like this. It's
barely even a fucking utility, it's
they're primarily to offer security more
than any other thing, and
and offer more capital-efficient ways of
like, you know, not having a thousand
different Bitcoin pools with a thousand
different pairs or whatever,
so it has a role, but its role is not
primarily to be a money where it has a
good monetary policy like
Bitcoin does, or whatever else.
Like, there's a part of me that thinks
that like, if I were to do it all over
again, then like I wouldn't
maybe not even create a cap on ruin
actually trying to achieve,
right? You're investing into ruin not
because you think it's a good store of
you're investing in because you believe
that it's going to be adopted into the
future and get more trade volume and
demand for it, right? Because the
its growth moves with the growth of the
unlike, you know, Unitoken or Sushi or
DeFi tokens that are just governance
But again, like I don't even, I haven't
even read that whole proposal of
the 60 million thing. That's an idea
somebody floated in that concept of it.
I haven't even read it, to be honest.
So I wanted to segment into the
couple that with the recent discussion
RapidSwap's stream and it seems like
we could do a lot of volume without much
So first hand, I would put
the priority for us to, you know, discuss
how to get there faster instead of,
you know, thinking that TVL will mean
What do you say? How to get there
faster? What do you mean?
Instead of like wasting, I mean not
you know, picking fights over this dual
see how the protocol works after
there will be a necessity,
you know, a necessity to give LPs
the non-roon option as the priority,
if that makes sense. You know what I
So once we deliver, you know,
once Devs deliver RapidSwap's,
you know, a cross check to see if
the TV, like the pros and cons are
for any big switch. I think, you know,
another, wait, so my question, let me
My question is, how did this discussion
after this ADR, how will it evolve? Will it
eventually go to the, if it doesn't pass,
take this into account, you know, in the
by the development teams? On the dual
discussion, if we're going to eventually,
so my point I'm trying to make is first
I would prioritize, you know, RapidSwap's.
I think that that makes a huge
capital efficiency, execution, all the
you know, segment that into how
governance works in a way that,
how would we do this even
before RapidSwap's, in a way?
Yeah, this stuff is definitely not put
Roon vault and things like that are not
put in front of things like order books.
Like, order books is on the
near-term priority list, so like Q1,
list of priorities to go out, and
RapidSwap's is, I believe, part of the
order book design, so that's something
like, coming in the short to mid-term
over the next couple months, so that's
that's like in motion and happening
right now, and like, as for how we kind
it's just a, like, proposal from,
you know, from one of the devs for
for this thing, which I believe it was
originally presented as, like, this is
what's happening, and then,
like, you know, and then it kind of got
into, like, well not everyone really
this direction, so now it's kind of just,
like, here's this proposal, and
eventually there's probably gonna,
vote on this, probably an ADR happening
you know, couple weeks or months, but
trying to distract from the short to
you know, shipping things like order books,
which includes rapid swaps,
memo-less transactions, batched outbounds,
all the things that are, like, actual
present an improvement over the entire
that are entirely non-controversial
already determined to be an area of
focus for the next couple months.
Makes sense. Makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, I just think that the rapid swap
one of the major impacts on
how much volume can go through.
Streaming swaps was probably the first
but streaming swaps in combination with
synth speed swaps is definitely a
and I think Lina talked about how
synths, mints, are actually positive
for rune, supposed to meant to pump rune,
which kind of contradicts what Chad
recently said, that synths weren't
really meant to pump rune,
but synth burns actually dumps rune,
so what she said, I don't know,
she, or he, that we should all stop
synth mints, and let Saver's TVL
which Thorchain makes money with TVL,
is something I kind of disagree with
once we have rapid swaps,
because it's kind of like a
just-in-time liquidity, if you will,
for arbitrage, which will
kind of sandwich with the order books,
if, you know, they don't order a book,
they will do synth, and if synths
L1 arbing, so it kind of still
and that's a good thing, that means we
can process a lot of water golf.
I just want to make sure there that,
I made my point about how much volume
and thank god that we'll have
rapid swaps before any of this,
you know, potentially goes through.
Yeah, I mean, the thing I'd say to that
if you have a car, right, and you want
make it faster, you know,
as a race car, or whatever, you can't
one component of the car, right, like the
right, or the humming, whatever, like
you have to think holistically, and so
as you upgrade, you know, one component,
you know, you probably want to upgrade a
right, because the other component
the bottleneck of the speed of the car,
or the performance of the car.
You don't just want to keep on focusing
you know, upgrading the engine, but never
the wheels, or its aerodynamics, or
other things, right, and so like,
what we've always said for many years
now is that the three kind of important
pillars of the protocol is that we
always want to be scaling security,
we want to be scaling TVL, we want to
scaling volume, right, and we
many mechanisms, or many ways of
competence things, but we're constantly
kind of like shifting a position on
what thing we're focusing on, right, we
security during the bear market when
we focused on, you know, TVL with
savers until savers launch, and we
haven't focused on that for,
you know, a while now, and ever since
that we've been focusing mostly on
which is what streaming swaps came, and
and, you know, maybe rapid swaps,
another example of that, you know, so
forth and so on, so it's just like
we have to think holistically, and think
about what is the bottleneck of the
and how do we improve that, right, that
whatever that thing might be, and it's
kind of shifting, it's going to change,
it's going to be like whack-a-mole,
as soon as you, you know, improve the
you're going to want to improve the
the effectiveness of the TVL, the
effectiveness of the ARBs,
and so we're constantly kind of shifting
shifting focus more accurately, to
improve one component, so that
because it's the largest bottleneck of the
Largely, I've been focused on not
ever since streaming swaps, I've been
not focused on TVL, I've been not to
I've actually been mostly focusing on
ARBs myself over the last,
you know, month or two, to make them
more efficient, more, you know, be able to
their confirmation counts done,
put into the network quicker, to get
output, their outbound transactions, out
software cloud, you know, trader counts,
another thing to increase capital
efficiency of ARBs, so they can ARB
with 2x more efficiency than they're
again, even with the rapid swaps,
another thing to make arbitrage plots
more effective, to make them, to scale the
and that methodology, that perspective,
but we're going to always just be like
every, you know, few months, or six
months, or whatever it is, to be like,
alright, we've now maxed out the
the efficiency of ARBs, we've added
to make ARBs faster, better, so we have
better volume, that kind of thing, and
maybe you want to focus on something
Yeah, it makes sense. Just to wrap that up,
for us investors of Roon, it would be
higher TVL that would correlate with
price, due to the deterministic pricing
and incentive pendulum, and
a speculative multiple on top of the
So, you know, all gears towards that for
And one thing that I guess we should
address real quick, is a lot of people, I
see a lot of comments on this, and
obviously on Discord too,
just about Twitter comms, so like
obviously there's a lot of
contributors, there's a couple different
contributors to the Thorchain Twitter
and, you know, people post
things on here, like, you know,
I post things, others do too,
and, you know, no one should take
anything that's posted on this account
but at the same time, we definitely need
just making sure that, you know, the
mouthpiece of the protocol, which
obviously, this is not an official
account, it doesn't speak for the
protocol, only the nodes can
but at the same time, a lot of people
look towards, you know, this account, and
obviously, like, the community to,
for the signal of, like, what's going on,
and when the Twitter account says,
like, this thing is happening,
or this is what is going to happen,
when that's not, like, an agreed upon
decision, or, you know, that is not the
that things are moving in, or it's a
controversial decision, or whatever.
Like, I mean, I believe that the
Twitter account should only be posting
in the will of the node operators
and the devs at that time,
so it's like, if things can change,
things will change over time, inevitably,
but obviously, we just need to do
better as a community to make sure that
people understand that, you know,
there's always going to be these
proposals, like, hey, we should do
but just, you know, having clear
communications, because this is where
of, like, what's happening,
and it only, it confuses people
when they see things that, like,
oh, this is happening, like,
I don't understand what this is,
or what, you know, it's so sudden,
when in reality, you know,
it changes where to take place,
they'd be many months from now
after a lot of discussion and decision,
but, you know, it's just not the
place of the Twitter to be,
you know, saying things to happen
as they could be in the future
without some kind of, like, clear signal
of that is the direction which
everyone agrees to go down.
So, yeah, I mean, that's something
that I, you know, I take upon myself,
too, just to, like, make sure
that Twitter comms are, you know,
clean and factual and professional,
but obviously, there's other
contributors, too, so I just want
everyone to keep that in mind,
but I'm going to continue to do my best
to, you know, provide good comms
for the community and make sure
there's clear signal on, like,
what people agree upon and what
I interpret as the direction
of the protocol, you know,
as agreed upon by the nodes
and the devs and the greater community.
So, I just wanted to call that out
because I see a lot of people
that are just confused about things
that this account tweets out
when maybe not all of it will,
you know, come to fruition one day, so, yep.
Yeah, I would just say that, like,
you know, for better or for worse,
like, when you operate a truly
these types of hiccups happen,
you know, solely due to the fact
that there is not some centralized
figure or authority who's kind
of calling the shots, like,
it does consist of multiple
stakeholders, each that have
their own preferences that sometimes
pull in different directions,
except the part that we can do better
on is sort of aligning internally
And so, like, ideally, like,
the Twitter should not be a place
where other devs learn about
other devs' ideas and proposals.
Those conversations should happen
outside of the view of the public,
and then once the idea is fully formed
sort of the next tier of feedback,
it should be taken within, you know,
the Discord dev community,
which contains long-time contributors,
and then once all of that sort
of semi-public discussion happens,
which, yeah, that discussion
not as public as Twitter.
full consensus within the community
should things be happening
on the actual public Twitter.
Public Twitter should just be, like,
discussing things that either
and will certainly happen
or things that already have happened.
Like, you know, for example,
talking about Swapper Cloud, for example,
and I did join a little bit late,
but that was a major thing
but it's always going to be better
to just keep this forum to,
or into the very near future
of things that absolutely
Yeah, 100% it looks chaotic
obviously there's a lot of contributors
and have their own, like,
idea of the way to do things,
Like, the full of information
should always be, you know,
and then people start talking
that's a good discussion,
a good place to talk about things
than just, like, an original idea.
some kind of consensus on, like,
or, like, did this seem solid enough
going to be a vote on it,
to the public forum of Twitter
where there's, like, you know,
there's so many eyes here
that something's happening
it's just like a proposal
or something that may not
or it's just one person's idea.
So, yeah, that's my thoughts on that.
But yeah, we'll continue to,
for the great standard of comms
that I think we all want.
So keep pushing in that direction.
Well, let's hear from Ken
we can move on to Swabber Club
because we actually haven't
really talked about that quite yet.
Let's do, well, let's do Eric first
and then Ken, Eric's been waiting
and then, yeah, let's talk
So, hey, sorry about that, guys.
So, appreciate you letting me,
I have, like, two questions.
One, because I remember hearing
someone say that the lending part
So one question was for that,
is did, was it considered
for, like, physical assets,
Did you guys possibly take that
with any kind of physical assets.
We're purely in the crypto space.
Okay, no, then that kind of
eliminates my next question.
and I want to contribute to it
any type of coding experience.
and skills that you guys hold.
and resources in the real estate world.
And even though you guys said
if I were to have started a company
and I wanted to be a part of it,
would that something like that?
and the profits and benefits
the money-wise revenue into it.
I want to start generating money
from housing into Thorchain.
And if that would be the only way
that I would be able to contribute,
would something like that
also have to be as a proposal
or would we talk basically
because I ended up buying
Yeah, I've actually thought
about a lot about this as well
and how Thorchain lending
for people to sell off their Bitcoin,
that you're talking about
into the core protocol of Thorchain.
But you could potentially create
refinance them using Bitcoin loans
So basically collect Bitcoin from LPs,
then take out loans on Thorchain
and then use those assets
or just buy assets outright
and then basically pay back your LPs
as you pay off those loans
There's tons of businesses
but there's no chance whatsoever
it goes against the ethos
and everything that you just said,
I'm going to have to go over that
and research it a little bit more,
So I'm going to dig deeper
Been a very interesting week
over the roadmap and everything.
at the near term upgrades,
I kind of summarized them
It's like Memos transactions,
And then there's the order books.
I kind of want to hear more about
where the consensus is at
an agreement to a certain level
I'm curious to learn about
known as like trade assets,
So like how confident we are
That would be like one question.
like the reason I'm interested
in this is because I think
I want to like underscore
like Mariana's point here.
with streaming swaps, like
a big opportunity for Torchain.
Like before streaming swaps,
However, like with streaming swaps,
the pools, like the effect
it's like 10 times bigger.
And like with order books,
like there's a very plausible
plan to make streaming swaps
So I feel like, you know,
we're quickly going to realize
that larger pools in order
to get where it wants to be.
But yeah, that's just my two cents.
was pretty much established
and there hasn't really been
from any of the other devs
or community members about
its implementation details.
It's already it's actually
streaming swaps within order books.
And I kind of like some work
But you're right in the sense
kind of allows you to have
getting it now in a sense.
And that's an accurate thing to say.
if the pools were 10 times
two times deeper right now,
executed twice as fast, right?
Now, rapid swaps might be,
you know, to have execute even faster.
And that's kind of what the idea
But it also requires arbitrage
bots to be like mature enough
to support such a thing, right?
that every swap will be executed
It requires arbitrage bots
to be, you know, to show up,
you know, and do their job,
But like, I think there's
because that they're just
dollar to be made, right?
not AMM, but it is liquidity
will trade against, right?
So like, there's going to be orders,
and then there's going to be
the limit order is going to
execute against the same pool,
but in the different direction.
And so like, it's just going
to increase the liquidity
And because you can update
perhaps like every block,
like, you can be very sophisticated
with that, like you're not
to experience the IL for sure
that you're experiencing an AMM.
And I feel like that plan
and like, it's a very exciting plan
that we all want it to be.
Yeah, that's absolutely true.
here's the bear case for that, right?
Chainflips in the audience,
Instead of using stream and swaps,
which is another legitimate way
of approaching the same problem
that Chainflips could have
if it has deep enough pools, right?
So we could have more shallow
but still a better price execution.
But that's probably not true
if Chainflip has 10 times
the pool depth that we do,
to be honest with you, right?
of different kind of variables
that'd be taken into account.
But I think like, I mean,
I definitely agree with you
rapid swaps or the concept
of rapid swaps to be pretty valuable.
And I'm excited to see that happen
and something I'd love to see
And I definitely want to do that
before making any changes
that, you know, room vault
Much rather to limit orders
before we touch anything like that.
Yeah, if anyone doesn't know
it's doing a streaming swap,
or people that place limit orders
or ARBs that place limit orders
basically filling a streaming swap
all entirely within one block.
So instead of needing to wait
the ARBs have already placed their,
where they can make a profit
or decentralized exchanges.
just fill in your streaming swap
in one block so you can get
those five basis points of slippage,
but you have that guaranteed
of both worlds for streaming.
of limit orders slash order books,
or like what's the primitive
that order books are built
we're kind of moving away
in the context of savers.
of order books right now?
And the reason why that is,
you have unsecured assets
But now you're holding Bitcoin
And so we're going to be launching
Everybody seems to be for it.
There hasn't been much pushback
Probably the next, you know,
few weeks or a month or so
will play out of trade accounts.
That won't obviously support
initially it would just be
for ARBs to use primarily.
downstream another month or two,
whatever hell it's going to be,
so that you can use order books
I'll just offer my view on it.
You know, I love order books.
I want to see order books
in door chain, of course.
And it does unlock things
and, you know, just it brings us
with centralized exchanges,
which I think we can all agree
what we're trying to disrupt.
in the community held by myself
and others that, you know,
order books as a feature,
it just adds more demand for synths.
that relies on synth capacity
you're introducing one feature
You're going to have people
simultaneously taking away
available for order books
a cannibalization effort there.
I think there's other designs
For example, the idea of like
a liquidating order book,
like where your part of your order
can get partially liquidated
if like the price of some asset
falls below a certain amount.
We obviously scrapped that idea
and it's like your limit order
that we could potentially explore
where we allow limit orders
to post just the exogenous asset
without actually having to swap
or affect the synth utilization
up to the security limit,
the incentive pendulum back towards.
to post exogenous assets,
the existing overbonded rune
So limit orders would really
just be capped at the amount
And then as we start to approach
that amount of the security cap,
we could just start expiring
limit orders to basically
So I mean, because limit orders
are naturally a short-lived thing,
at like a really, really low price
and they never get executed
but people want to have them there
if the price of an asset does dip,
they can fill it a low amount.
But I think it would be more,
it would encourage people.
So I guess what I'm saying
as we approach that security cap.
you know, you wouldn't have to do anything.
You wouldn't have to change
And I think it wouldn't be
a terrible user experience
to basically place a limit order
or rather, you know what it could be,
you wouldn't even have to
put the fee to place a limit order.
It's just that if your limit order expired
after a certain amount of time,
all you basically having to be doing
is paying the outbound fee
to send you back your asset.
I would love if we could avoid
trade accounts will be used
for ARBs and for order books.
I don't think we're going to be using SINTS
for that was the original design
like back when we first talked
we wouldn't use SINTS at all for this.
just deposit some Bitcoin,
which basically gets automatically
traded into a trade account,
as a trade asset on the network
waiting for execution of some price
you're waiting for the Bitcoin ETH price
And then it just has an execute.
like a just like global expiry,
like you can't have an order
I'm making up kind of a random example.
if security does become an issue
and maybe you won't be able
to build new order book items
just because of the security concerns.
We didn't think more of the details
I don't think we're going to be using
the problem with trade accounts
drops relative to the asset
that it's securing correct.
the original like implementation
we said that that's an acceptable thing
because ARBs are relatively advanced.
They're very advanced actually.
They're probably the most advanced actor
certainly more so than savers,
which is kind of just like
Trade accounts actually have to like
monitor the sort of that point
at which they get liquidated.
trade accounts and synths
They're only purpose of holding them
is to like rebalance the pools.
basically we want to avoid
who sets like a limit order
monitor whether the capital
that they posted in their limit order
So that's why I was just thinking
like instead of even ever getting them,
if there was some like special mechanism
that prevented that from ever happening,
like it just ejected their order
and basically refunded it,
less the outbound fee back to the user
if they were ever anywhere remotely in danger
of getting to that point.
Like and then like potentially
not allowing new limit orders
when you're like below 10% or whatever
from like the security cap,
then that would at least provide
a user experience that like prevents people
And I do like the idea of
essentially ejecting the people
who are furthest from the spot price first,
to get their order filled.
And so most best eligible
for having their order ejected.
some implementation details
I haven't really thought about
it in any kind of depth quite yet
because I haven't been focused
the union of trade accounts
That's just like where a ways
away from that from that mentality.
One thing to clarify though,
there's no like liquidation.
It's more accurate to call it
is applied to the trade account.
you lose all your trade accounts
you get zeroed or anything like that.
Sorry. Yeah, like a partial
like a partial liquidation.
You're losing some of the principle
to put a one Bitcoin order
oh, sorry, you only have like 0.9 Bitcoin
That's like not an acceptable explanation
Right. And that's partially
why I was talking a moment ago
that an order item can be
Which is what a lot of other
decks have done in the past.
Then the because the the math
of how the negative interest works,
it's not aggressive at all.
It's actually quite quite weak
that it approaches it for the most part.
So it's it's pretty fairly small
and so the the order would expire
or three days or how the number might be.
And if you do get some kind of
you're not going to lose like half
of your fucking position, whatever.
That would be pretty extreme,
but it would be rather quite small.
I think it's going to be designed
it feels like we're just kind of going
on the implementation details.
you know, this is kind of
goes to show that like, you know,
until a design is sort of agreed upon,
things are still very much fluid
And so, you know, the introduction
of new primitives like trade accounts
kind of changes the implementation
And and so like, you know,
it's also like not the kind of thing
and their users will be sort
and ARBs and advanced people,
you know, will be advanced actors
will be sort of the beta users
that we launched on Thorchain,
and we'll monitor the behavior
and respond before, you know,
before, before at least trying
to like roll it out to UIs and stuff.
you know, other users use the feature.
Oh, like, what's up, man?
Sorry to keep you waiting up here.
Yeah, I have a few questions
So if you want to just continue,
Kao, I'll just ask my questions
I know you mentioned going
Yeah, we've couple of people
So let's talk about Swapper Cloud.
And then if people have related
questions, like I don't want to go back
to like the previous topics
of like door five and stuff like that.
So let's just keep it kind
Let's talk about Swapper Cloud
a little bit because we finally
And so Swapper Cloud is live.
So let's kind of dive into
like what Swapper Cloud is
and what kind of improvement
you know, how to get Swapper Cloud
to the protocol in general
and then what the plan is
for scaling up Swapper Cloud.
Yeah, I would love to talk about just,
that wrote the code for it.
But it's probably the feature
that I'm most excited about
other than streaming swaps.
Because again, it's one of those things
that, you know, just enhances
the core product offering of Thorchain,
So anybody who's swapped through
in the last couple months
and when they receive their funds.
And that's due to the scheduled
which is basically a defensive measure
that was introduced as a result of
a number of security enhancements
that were made over the last few years.
But basically the idea behind
is that if anyone were ever
to try to attack Thorchain in any way,
we would basically have up to
and allow the community to flag it
and basically pause trading
while an investigation takes place.
like swapping isn't super fast
on Thorchain already today
is because of the decentralized nature
And in wanting to constantly
improve the user experience of swappers,
we're constantly looking at ways
between that user experience
and security of the network.
And because we are a decentralized network
and because we can't just,
you know, pause things instantaneously
or roll out patches quickly,
we want to take an overly defensive
network posture to security
that, you know, for better or for worse,
don't really have that limitation.
So basically Swapper Cloud
was built as a feature to counteract
the negative effects of a different feature.
It just so happens that those two features
have opposite but both equally relevant
standing for the protocol,
which is again, you know,
balancing the user experience
with the security of the network.
So what Swapper Cloud does
is it basically keeps track
of all of the liquidity fees paid
by each from and to asset addresses
that's ever taken place on Thorchain.
So this even includes transactions
that happened in the past.
We backfilled all of the,
and applied those retroactively
that's ever transacted on Thorchain.
So if you've already paid,
$2 million worth of liquidity fees,
you know, you're a legitimate user.
for what an attacker would have to do.
They basically have to like
swap tens of millions of dollars
But, and so this discount
doesn't apply to the majority of Swappers.
But importantly, what it does do
is it excludes the volume
from the security feature.
that takes place on Thorchain
formerly arbitrage volume
and just like organic Swapper volume,
Joe Swapper from Trust Wallet,
count equally towards engaging
the scheduled outbound delay.
And so basically what this does
is this kind of looks at it
this, our bot has been swapping
back and forth on the network
millions of dollars of liquidity fees.
tons of utility from the protocol.
their volume towards that,
that scheduled outbound queue.
both the ARB is getting a better,
they're basically getting better execution
because they're not waiting as long,
but also everyday swappers
who are just swapping through wallets
are getting better or faster execution
because the total amount of
volume that's being looked at
is lower due to the ARB volume
from the security feature.
it really kind of like a novel concept.
don't need to know about this at all.
But it's just something that
are going to get much faster.
actually execute quite quickly.
Even on an unbounded streaming swap,
you know, the most I've seen,
you know, certain swaps go for
like under millions of dollars
is around 30 blocks or so,
which is like three, four minutes.
but it sits in this queue
if it is a suspicious transaction
by anyone in the community.
it needs to be sitting there that long.
And so what this feature does
is it basically allows us to,
you know, get things moving faster.
And the last point I'll make on that
is that, you know, there's ways
that we can, you know, we could just
But that wouldn't be like
a very prudent security posture.
That said, as the protocol
and you'll hear me talk about
a lot about this, because it's,
I think, like where we should
eventually try to get to where
we're not releasing new features.
We're just, you know, letting things run
these security measures to allow
things to move through the network
more quickly and process more volume.
So basically, you know, this entire journey
between security and user experience.
And we're just now starting
to feel comfortable enough
and, you know, shipping features
like SwapperCloud to be able
So right now it's rolled out
So I believe we rolled it out
to a SwapperCloud maximum value
it would apply up to a swap
with the value being 50,000 rune.
Or how exactly do these caps work
in relation to like the rollout
of SwapperCloud and scaling it up
to what the bug bounty is?
Yeah, so the, on any particular
outbound, you can, you have
Say your clout number is 200k rune,
just for the sake of discussion.
Any one particular outbound
could only use 50k of that 200k.
So you can use the full 200k,
you know, in a short period of time
if you had, you know, four transactions,
four outbound transactions,
but you couldn't use it all
And so the original intention,
at least how I was thinking about
was just to have the outbound,
this kind of cap be the same
which makes logical sense.
But I think like once we've launched,
the SwapperCloud concept,
to see like are we even using the 50k?
Or even like, does it make even,
are we actually getting anything
And so I think what I'm just doing is,
who's also in the audience here,
will help me with is that,
you know, maybe in about a week's time
One is to figure out how often,
how frequently are we hitting
And then the second thing we want
how much effect is SwapperCloud
having on the upbound queue?
How much is it reducing on average
or either as an average or as a median?
How is it reducing the time delay
And so we can compare like,
you know, last week to this week
and, you know, see the differences,
like see how much of an improvement
on the average time that swaps
are waiting to be sent out.
I'm just going to wait like a week or two
and just kind of let the network
and then I'll probably work with Orion
to do some analysis around it.
that are getting stuck for,
in the scheduled outbound queue
have benefited from any higher
Meaning those are just like new wallets
making large swaps through,
you know, they basically haven't
so they're not even eligible
we'll just have to collect some data
and see whether it even needs
to be raised higher than it is.
Correct, it may not need it,
but we'll make that decision
based upon what the data tells us.
I have two quick questions
around the Swapper cloud.
Just so we can get some perspective,
if I'm doing a $1,000 swap,
$1,000 rune, say, of value in a swap,
how much cloud am I getting?
Is it just depending on the volume
or is it strictly depending on?
to answer the question would be,
store chain for your transaction
to bypass the security measure
Maybe that's a good way to phrase it.
Well, the Swapper cloud number
increases with the amount of fees
you're paying in the trader swap.
So if you're doing a $1,000 swap
and you're paying five bips,
that's increasing your number.
So in order to get to that point
where you're doing a $1,000,
whatever, you'd have to make
Not 50 times, it's 400 times?
$100,000 through store chain
We don't follow your outbound.
Because if you do a streaming swap,
obviously you'll pay less than fees.
You get less cloud for that.
If you did a non-streaming swap,
you did like a regular swap.
Obviously, you'll pay more in fees,
in which case your swap or cloud is greater.
Instead of doing 400 times,
you could do it maybe 200 times
if you just paid more in fees.
Yeah, I'll be right back here.
Also brought up Alfonso here.
when Thor USD will be available for everyone?
what is the possibility to put Luna and USD
So for the first question,
it's not called Thor USD,
it's called Tor, by the way, T-O-R.
But my personal intention,
this is my personal opinion,
is to let Tor kind of operate
which has already been about
But let it operate for six to 12 months,
let it kind of show how effective the peg is
prove to the community of its viability.
And then we'll do an ADR vote on it,
right, and the community will vote it down
whichever direction it chooses to vote it.
Yeah, before we even get to that point,
I would like to see more chains,
with more USD-based assets on Thor chain
before we even consider that.
And also, we should make some tweaks,
when there's any less than
two or three pools in the Tor peg,
and sorry, in the Tor anchor pool.
I think one thing we noticed recently
when there was a number of chain halts,
we had both Ethereum and Avax halted,
and so the only USD anchor asset
and people were still able to mint and redeem Tor
So I think obviously that's undesirable.
I would like to see at least six stable coins
across four different unique chains
I think Tor is one of those things
that can greatly benefit the network,
but it should only be launched
once we're certain that we can keep all the chains live
It's good that we recently went through
a lot of these growing pains,
which were the result of record transactions
we put on chains like Avax and BSC,
because those kind of forced us
to meet those scaling challenges.
So right now we're once again
where the work we're doing now
will actually impact our ability
to ship features like Tor in the future.
I think I agree with Pluto
in the sense of adding more chains would be good.
The more anchors we have to Tor,
the stronger the token is,
I'm not sure I'd agree with the thing
of like having a minimum of two or three.
It's actually, at least in my view,
it's perfectly fine to have it down to one.
We had the BSC the other day
because Avax and ETH were both paused.
Whenever you pause trading,
those get dropped from the kind of calculation
is the depth of the Tor pool also goes down.
So usually it's around 6 million in depth.
it was down close to two,
which means that the fees
are going to be higher, right?
It's harder to price manipulate
because the fees are going to be much higher.
And in the calculation of the depth of that,
of that depth of starting at two,
and it can be one and a half
or one or less than one million
relative to the depth of the pool.
So it should be fine and safe
even to do a single asset.
Obviously, you don't want to sustain
that for long periods of time
because you don't want that one token
to be like BSC to suddenly de-peg
But even if that did happen,
you would just have the community
and use operational amirs
to just pause that particular anchor
as well until it's recovered.
to have one or two assets in general,
It's healthier for the protocol
Oh, and the other question,
yeah, second question too.
The second question about
there's not much talk about that
and it doesn't seem to be there
might be much demand or interest
but there has to be a demand for it.
I certainly wouldn't put that
I'm open to pretty much any chain
as long as it's going to contribute
Cool, let's keep it moving
because I got a cop here pretty soon.
But if I would just say one thing
before we continue on any further,
there's obviously probably
a lot of you joining here today
because you've seen a lot of stuff
Just want to catch everyone up
basically on the current state of things
right now in the Thorchain community
all of the proposals to Thorify
and Thorchain economics in general
are still all in early draft.
there's going to be plenty
of other discussion that happens
before those are taken to a vote
there's a community sentiment
towards gradually scaling
and managing the risk of Thorify
in terms of like new things are
just anything that really
can result in more stability
or a better swapping experience.
So we just recently spoke
We have memo list transactions
So those things are obviously
taking precedent right now
because those are the things that
benefit the core functionality
performance and stability
remain as the top priority.
So just felt the need to,
you know, what the future
it will continue to evolve
as devs and the community
But in the immediate thing,
Let me ask you a question,
Pluto, because I'm curious
to hear your perspective.
on the idea of perpetuals?
we're going to do this or whatever,
to your high-level viewpoint on it.
I think it's hard to deny
for the economics of the project.
we're all seeing the headlines
you know, surpassing volume
But I think those comparisons
don't create spot volume,
which is what everyone else
it's kind of like apples to oranges.
I don't think that perps,
like, as in the same way,
any of the four or five features
for the success of door chain.
But I do think if they're designed
I think all of these things
can have really outsize impacts
Like, I think it's fun to,
or long things in size sometimes,
even when I don't actually have
make me feel like I have size.
So I think they're just fun.
and they obviously generate
anything that we can build
that can generate more fees
We just have to make sure
we just have to figure out
how to do them, you know,
And I haven't seen any way
that they're going to be able to
basically, it's just very complex.
at a lot of different things.
kind of see how the DYDX story
see if it's even possible
and not have the possibility
Because things happen faster than,
as to whether there's anyone
without, like, a separate oracle,
more fees on the protocol,
Most likely, and we haven't really,
we don't really have a design
we've kind of thrown out,
but we don't really have an
going against a stablecoin
in one direction or the other.
you're creating a demand center
So it's an interesting concept,
I mean, I feel very mixed
about it myself in some ways,
and I wouldn't really have
a strong opinion to do it
until I've seen a proposal,
of how that would be done
I'm not even going to be thinking
about that personally for,
you know, maybe not until
So it's not even on my radar
but it's an interesting concept
to get your viewpoint on it.
I think it's one of those things
of all the connected chains
and we can add more chains
to start those discussions
But I think at the moment
I have absolutely no idea
I know very little about them.
we could be good for today.
having good having everyone on.
to keep the flow of information
going in the right direction.
and talking with the community
because then we can kind of like,
I feel like everyone gets
because everyone's kind of
put things into a structure
which is like the near term
priorities of stabilization
and the things that we want
So that's going to take up
we'll be thinking about this stuff
we'll have some better ideas
of where we want to take things
and to keep making this protocol
safe and keep scaling things up,
Things have been going crazy
for the last couple of months.
no big complaints over here
seeing how many million dollar
on a daily and weekly basis
with that would have been
the biggest swap in our history
just about six months ago
and now it's like a daily thing.
and limit orders and things.
I'll just take them a moment
that I've been with this project,
which is that one affiliate
is about to cross $1 million
in affiliate fees generated
we always knew affiliate volume
was going to be a major driver
But ever since that got turned on,
the amount of interest we've seen
has been very, very positive.
as more integrations come online
start to flow to these businesses
and they continue to provide
a ton of more positive metrics
heading in the right direction.
this is kind of just the beginning.
And when that particular affiliate,
it was really this time last year
that they turned on swaps
almost a year in the making
getting their affiliates turned on.
and the money is flowing,
a lot of people are starting to notice.
So it's a really, really awesome thing to see.
Yeah, that's actually a fantastic marker
and it's going to motivate
other integration partners
because it's very profitable.
See, I was hoping you were going to go
the, you know, John McAfee wrote
and say you're going to eat your own dick, but
I'll settle for a shoe, I guess.
I think you got enough salt
in there already, to be honest.
Well, this has been really fun, guys.
I'm glad we all jumped on
as tight as tensions can run sometimes,
you guys can obviously tell
we're generally aligned on everything
and we are just a very passionate
and the all things store chain.
and, you know, got to hear
a little bit more about, you know,
and the state of play of things.
So our biggest space in a while.
I think I saw like 250 people
which is like pretty crazy.
a couple of us are going to be
thrower Chads will be there.
you know, be looking forward
or just something at EAT Denver
because I'm sure a lot of people
from the community will be there.
then just look out for some tweets
about where people are going to be
because we'll definitely,
some kind of appearance there.
and you know, Apple podcast,
Spotify, wherever you get your podcast,
you can you can sign up to,
whenever we do the next base.