Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
THORSday Alpha & Updates w/ Chad Barraford
Recorded: Dec. 4, 2025 Duration: 2:34:12Space Recording
Short Summary
ThorChain is revolutionizing decentralized finance with its innovative features, including real Bitcoin swaps, a new app layer for diverse functionalities, and impressive yield opportunities. The community is engaged and growing, with strategic partnerships and a focus on user incentives driving adoption.
Full Transcription
Thank you. check all right i got a thumb yeah all right you guys hope you had a great week happy thanksgiving
to those who celebrated we've had a banger of a week very very exciting guys let's not waste any
time i'm gonna bang this intro out for anyone who has not familiar with ThorChain here.
So what is ThorChain?
ThorChain is the first decentralized exchange to swap real Bitcoin.
You can use every Bitcoin wallet in the world, and you don't have to connect it to a website.
Same thing with Ethereum, XRP, BNB, Tron, Doge, and more.
Eventually, you'll be able to swap any token from any wallet.
ThorChain is turning into a full-layer one where apps can be built on top of it and the new app layer unlocks lending
perps bitcoin backstable coins token launchpad nfts prediction markets and much more and you guys
borrowing just went live on the app layer it is a cage cage release. Okay. So it is limited, but it is live. And Hans is
currently banging that out right now. So very excited. So check that out, you guys. ThorChain
isn't just a decentralized exchange. It's becoming the protocol of pure uncensored liquidity.
Swapping on ThorChain is permissionless. There is no KYC and anyone in the world can use it.
To swap on ThorChain, go to ThorChain.org, click on swap.
New features and functionality will be added to the site over the next few months, including the
Regering primitives like the borrowing. We're just going to let that stuff bake for a little bit,
get stable, and anything will be added to that site, you guys. ThorChain's token is called Rune,
and that's spelled R-U-N-E. You don't need to buy or hold rune to place a swap on thor chain
but the fees are deducted from your swap are used to buy rune and this is the rune that goes
to the liquidity pools and nodes there are no block rewards on thor chain 100 of the yield is
real and that yield is like 50 apy right now i'm just saying you guys Thor chain is also deflationary with 5% of the revenue
being burned. If you hold rune on a centralized exchange, what are you doing? You need to get it
off a centralized exchange in a self custody because the tokens when they're on a centralized
exchange are being used to short sell rune and drive the price down. Once you're in self custody,
you guys look into bonding your rune. i said 50 apy right now wild times
and the great side to do that is rune bond.com super simple you guys all you have to do is find
a node request the whitelist and bond your rune if you have any questions you can dm the rune bond
account 14 also has another token called tcy this token is like a preferred stock where 10
of the protocols
revenue goes to these token holders. If you deposit crypto into Savers or took out a loan
on ThorChain, make sure to claim your T-C-Y and start collecting this yield. And anyone can buy
this token as well. There's a ThorChain community discord and telegram you can join to learn all
about ThorChain, make lots of friends. To go find the links, you go to at Thor Community.
That's at T-H-O-R Community account, and it is on X. You guys, this space is geared to anyone
on their ThorChain journey, whether you're a brand spanking new or a full-time veteran,
there will be something for you here. I promise. Okay, guys, that is the intro. My name is Denny.
I also have another account, Patriot Sounds.
I've been an educator, content creator on ThorChain, going on half a decade now.
Very awesome.
Let me get signed up as a co-host here.
All right, let's get this party started.
We'll get Kenton up here.
Chad, are you there, sir?
Or Kenton?
I'm here. Okay. I hope you had a very good Thanksgiving sir Kenton you want to check your mic see if I got you I'm here yeah mic check hi guys you sound perfect man I'll go ahead and
kick it to you Kenton so you can give your regular update and then we'll get this show on the road
uh yeah well do we I don't know what she will let chad go first or should i go you know people want
to talk about and you know what you did get the most the most um amazing update ever right so
if people don't know what's going on that's kind of funny so okay we'll kick it to chad how you
doing chad hey guys how's it going dude i'm excited. I'm like blazing in my mind right now.
I'm so excited.
I'm not on drugs, but I feel like I am.
Are you excited for the new loans that Ruggie's putting out there?
Oh, baby.
Oh, baby.
You know it.
I'm super excited.
I'm blown away, man.
This is so cool.
And it's based on a proven design, right?
Where they have Aave and stuff like this.
Yeah, yeah.
And guys, if you see any bugs please you know the ui quirks all that
stuff's gonna get worked out please communicate them uh go ahead chad no no i was just gonna say
that it's it's uh i'm excited to see them kind of taking off and adding more things and
obviously you know it's new so expect issues, expect bugs, whatever. So be,
be careful, be cautious, but it's a, it's a really good, you know, milestone to hit.
Yeah. Permissionless, no KYC access to loans. It's a beautiful thing. And people can bid for
the liquidations on those loans. I mean, it's, it's, it's a, and if you, you can use multiple
layer ones and you can choose
which layer one you want to get liquidated first in the event of market volatility i mean that is
there is nothing like that that exists anywhere else man how exciting it's great i love it um
hey kenton did you have anything at all before we get this show started? Well, I guess, I don't know.
Do you want to just jump right into it?
People want to talk about maybe the drama over the past week.
If you don't want to talk about it, haven't been paying attention,
the Dex segregation went live on the site,
on the ThorChain swap site, was it a week ago or 10 days ago?
And since then, volumes exploded.
And it's caught the attention of, you know, some of, you know,
ThorSwap, ThorWallet, and everyone else.
And they're not happy, right, because we're taking volume away.
And I responded to a lot of their comments.
I don't really necessarily want to like rehash everything.
Like if anybody else wants to ask me something,
I'm more than happy to answer,
but I really don't want to go.
What's like the, like give the kind of like summary
of it all.
Cause maybe not everybody knows what you're referring to.
So, I mean, well, the gist is that they're not happy right you know we have our own
we create a new front end and we're taking the users in the volume which is understandable guys
right you know and it's not this is the goal isn't to vampire attack you know steal steal users but
that being said these users were always fortune users. This was always our audience.
And my push, my impetus to do this is actually, but what I should do is give everyone some
background and kind of some history, remind everybody why I'm doing this.
Earlier this year with Thorfa and Bybit, there's some good we can take out of that in that it helped point out issues and problems with how Thorchain is designed, like the business model, not the code itself, but the actual business model.
you know, the original business model was for Thorchain not to have its own front end
and let third parties distribute it, you know, third party wallets and websites,
all kind of stuff to help prevent, you know, regulatory capture, right?
That the authorities couldn't shut us down.
And I bought into that, guys.
I thought, oh, this is a good idea.
This is great.
You know, maximum decentralization and blah, blah, blah.
And then, but what happened in reality in January
and February is the authorities didn't go after anybody.
You know, nobody was charged.
Nobody had a cease and desist.
Nobody went to jail and nothing was shut down.
What happened was our distribution network kind of turned on us and so instead of so the idea that we have to it's a false premise to worry
about the authorities using force to shut us down when in reality our risk is our distribution
network shutting us down voluntarily and we
realize this this happened this is what swap kit keeps reminding us and thor swap that they had to
really fight with with the wallets to keep thor chain turned on and um so it wasn't like like
this was a voluntary action by by the other major wallets right to? To turn us on or off. And so for me, what I realized,
like we have no control, you guys.
Like if these wallets turn us off,
like our volume is done, right?
And then if you boil it down a bit further,
ThorChain is not integrated
into all these different wallets and websites.
Swapkit is.
And ThorChain is not invisible in the background infrastructure
that we all thought it would become i bought into that idea too you guys i thought it was great it's
cool this is this makes sense but isn't how it ended up shaking out what shook out is swap kit
is the invisible in the background infrastructure and we are are 100% at the mercy of SwapKit. If they
decide to turn off ThorChain, it's done. Our volume is zero. We have nothing. And when NIR
intense went live on ThorSwap in June, I believe it was mid-June, I think. For me, that was like
in June, I believe it was mid-June, I think.
For me, that was like the Manhattan Project,
testing the nuclear bomb.
After that happened, every country in the world
was a nuclear arms race.
Everyone had to get a nuke to protect themselves.
So Kenton went on a nuclear arms race
to protect ThorChain.
Because what this means is,
when you see NIR pop up like that on SwapKit, you know they're talking to 10 others, right?
And what's going to happen is ThorChain destined to be at the bottom of the recommended, you know, we're at the bottom of the recommended list of four.
We're going to be at the bottom of the list of 10, right?
And so, you know, ThorChain has zero control over its distribution you know we are
totally at the mercy of others and um um so i recognize this i'm like guys we have to bring
our distribution in-house we have to get control and and we have to monetize our own audience, right? And in turn, make it harder for us to be shut down.
So think about Operation Chokepoint 2.0. The authorities aren't using legal avenues
to censor and silent the crypto community, just using influence, right? And using the banks to
voluntarily do it. That's
essentially what happened with what's happening with the wallets potentially turning off door
chain. Like there's no, nothing legally is happening. It's just voluntary. If we have
our own site and you're worried about the authorities coming to shut down, that's actually
kind of good because it forces them to use the legal routes to do it, which is harder than influence.
So, yeah, so we, you know,
so we'll cross that bridge when it comes.
What matters is we need control.
We need to control over distribution because we don't.
And then by us having our own aggregator,
this is like mutually assured destruction.
So if SwapKit wants to turn us off
or they introduce all these other exchanges
and our volume goes to zero like naturally
for whatever reason, now we can compete.
We can go compete with SwapKit
and find another way to get 4Chain in there. So we can compete. We can go compete with SwapKit and find another way to get ThorChain in there.
So we can compete on price.
If we want to press a nuke button, maybe we open source the backend and just destroy the whole distribution model.
I'm not saying I want to do any of these things.
But what I'm trying to say is ThorChain, we need to be back in control.
We need to be the alpha and be more in control
around destiny.
And what's really instructive, or will be here,
I don't know if we're celebrating the volume right now.
We'll see if this is a flash in the pan.
But if, let's just pretend over the next month,
we do see the majority of the volume is all on STO and it's nowhere else
then these entire times whole last four years it's just been ThorChain's audience the entire time
none of these wallets have brought any any new users to us in this this whole entire time has
been ThorChain's audience and all we've done is push our own audience away, made it harder for them to use
store chain, made it more expensive. When this whole time they want to be with us. And this is
what will protect us and not be so vulnerable to wallets or swap kit just turning us off.
Now we have some agency, right? We have something in our control.
And this is what we can focus on growing. And again, the goal is not to steal users from the
other platforms. The goal is to get new ones, but so that when we're out trying to get new users,
we're not sending them to ThorSwap. We're sending them to our front end. And so we can be more in control over destiny.
We can truly reap the rewards of our labor.
And I don't want SwapKit or ThorSwap or ThorWall or any of these guys
who go to zero.
That's not it at all.
I honestly think we can all grow out of this.
The pie is big enough for everybody.
But right now, we're setting boundaries.
When you set boundaries in a relationship,
sometimes it can be a bit confrontational.
But I think in the end, it's healthy for everybody.
for everybody and um but most importantly it's healthy for thor chain and uh um so i'm and you
But most importantly, it's healthy for ThorChain.
know i'm speaking as someone who is only invested in rune i don't own any other tokens in any other
projects i don't even own tcy i don't own ruji i only own rune and so this is what i'm what i'm
thinking about and um when i think about it from the investor point of view like Roon is uninvestable
if we don't own the distribution
because we have no control
so if we want to make Roon investable again
we need to control the distribution
and start demonstrating we have users
we have a brand
and start growing that
and I'm not saying we should stop with the wallet integrations.
I think we should keep going.
I don't think, you know, our aggregator,
like I'm not saying I want to go and, you know,
go talk to trust and ledger and try and edge out SwapKit.
That's not my goal or my intention.
I think we want to keep SwapKit happy as a partner
and let them manage that
relationship. But any new wallets, game on, right? We should offer them our aggregator.
And so this is part of me marketing and promoting ThorChain to get new users on our front end,
but we want to get new wallets too, right? And so we should offer them our aggregator.
Because right now,
nobody is selling ThorChain,
you guys, to these wallets.
It's all SwapKit.
SwapKit is our salesman to wallets.
And they're dex agnostic.
They might be our friends and we have a working relationship.
But for them,
they don't care how much volume
goes through ThorChain versus Near,
Chainflip, whoever else,
as long as it goes through SwapKit, which is fine.
It's great.
That's their business, right?
That's okay.
But so, yeah, so I know it's going to happen.
We're going to take their users and whatnot.
That's what's going to happen.
But I would argue those are always our users to begin with.
And those other platforms have had a nice run servicing them.
They've made money off them.
They've had a big audience they've gotten for free.
And now we're just taking it back.
So yeah, this isn't about trying to hurt others.
This is about trying to benefit ThorChain.
And the unfortunate consequence is some others will be impacted.
So I hope that makes everything clear.
So like we were impacted as well, right? Like in the earlier days when we had created Bebswab,
very early days, which is kind of the UI,
you know, we'd funded it me and jp and we'd funded
it we you know worked with uh people to to build that thing and then they decided uh to break off
from thorechain then we're like oh we're going to create our own project called thore swap
launch our own token you know do like do their own kind of thing in a sense right and they call
it thore swap because it was obviously ThorChain specific.
And we supported that.
I think I was an early investor into that.
I think JP was also an early investor.
We were supportive of them to break off into their own thing
and do ThorSwap.
And, you know, things kind of continued with like SwapKit kind of came up later.
And things kind of continued with SwapKit kind of came up later.
And they're just trying to do what they think is the best for their user or their community just by being an aggregator.
Or we're going to connect with all the different cross-chain DEXs and we're going to give quotes and offer the best, fastest solutions or the cheapest solutions or whatever,
which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
And I actually appreciate SwapKit and everybody else doing that over the last few years.
And that's just like capital markets being capital markets.
They saw a demand because wallets wanted to integrate with cross-chain swaps,
but maybe they didn't like ThorChain alone because for valid reasons of like,
well, ThorChain doesn't support this coin
or this asset or this chain,
or we don't want to be reliant on just ThorChain
because if ThorChain goes down,
our whole swapping mechanism is broken.
So we want to have, you know, redundancy.
So we want to have secondary or third or whatever
so that if ThorChain does kind of go offline
or pause trading or whatever the hell it is,
that there's opportunity.
And that's perfectly fine and valid. Like like and they should continue to do that and we'll i'll continue to support swap kid
any reasonable way that i can or anybody else for that matter um but like they're just doing what
they're what they're doing with like to be competitive in a capitalistic market right
which is like nobody can blame you for that right and i think we're just responding in this in like in the same exact way because it used to be that we would get all the volume
because we were the only ones that existed in the in the industry we were the ones that invented
the notion of a cross-chain liquidity like that was us and then years later other people came out
whether it be chain flip or mayo or or near or whatever and so like we have to respond like we're
not getting the volume we used to get
in part because near came out and started subsidizing all their trades and offering
basically zero slip you know uh swaps which is obviously like you know i don't want to say it's
cheating because it's not but like i don't know what word to use there so we have to figure out
like how do we get more liquidity more more volume, rather? And, you know, we brainstorm about different ways of doing this.
This just seemed like the most clearest and simplest way of achieving that goal,
to be more competitive in a more competitive marketplace, right?
So, you know, I certainly never whined or complained about, you know,
swap kits, choices, or decisions that they've made.
I don't have actually really have a problem with them.
They're just providing a really good service
for a lot of people out there
and give them the best quotes possible.
Like you can't knock them for it, right?
But at the same time, it's like,
we want to provide more liquidity.
We want to have more volume passing through us.
So what can we do in a reasonable way to achieve that?
Having our own UI to do swaps and whatever
seemed like kind of the clear and obvious choice
because we can be more competitive
if we charge zero-bit fees on that.
And by the way, we're not the first one to charge zero-bit fees.
Near did that, right?
And so did Leo De like near did that right and so did like leo decks also did that it's not so much like specific team to us you know so um it's just it's gonna be interesting
to see how over the next like even four years how this is how this market's going to mature
are there going to be more kind of dexes that cross-chain dexes that pop up are there going to be more swap kits that pop up and how they all going to be? Are there going to be more kind of DEXs, cross-chain DEXs that pop up? Are there
going to be more swap kits that pop up? And how are they all going to be competitive with each
other? How does the market respond to those things? It's a very interesting question. I don't even
know the answer, to be honest with you. I don't. I just do the best I can to provide much fundamental
value to the ThorChain protocol to offer the best offerings we can to garner the most amount of liquidity and volume
and feed generation that I can.
That's what guides and pushes me more than anything else.
So I understand why SwapKit wouldn't be happy about it
because maybe they're not getting as much volume
as they did the week before or whatever.
But that's the same thing for us we
were getting a lot more volume before and then swap kit started sending volume to other dexes
and again not incorrectly i i understand why they did that i might knock it in for it but that's
just the reality so we're gonna we're gonna just do what we can to get more volume to be more
competitive so there shouldn't there definitely should not be any, like, any, you know, ill feelings, I feel like.
And if there are, I would apologize to anybody who does.
But, like, this is just different projects have goals to achieve volume and liquidity, whatever.
And we're all just trying to do the best I can to be in the competitive market
and perform the best we can.
That's how I look at it.
And Kenton, okay, first guys, I put up up top.
I put Kenton's article he made
answering every single question he could crowdsource
from everyone over a long time
on various different social media platforms Kenton you
know I have I've been you know I'm in many groups many bond provider node operator groups many
different you know little side things here and there I've kind of been getting opinions from
all the node operators bond writers even even some L And I'm going to give it to you as best I can
in kind of like an aggregated sense.
But I would like to talk real quick about a conversation we had,
I think almost two years ago.
Crazy how time flies.
And actually, Chad was part of the subject.
You mentioned to me how cool you thought ThorChain was
because on Dev Discord, here we have a bunch of developers.
They're coding in the open. Everything's open source and we're building it in real time. And
literally anyone can come in and add their contribution, can make comments, completely
transparent and open for anyone to audit the whole thing. We're building this in real time.
And I think that really struck a chord with you.
And your behavior over the last, I want to say half a year since we've been doing these spaces
is emblematic of that. One thing that I notice on the article thing that I will admit I was
slightly annoyed by was a lot of the questions that you answered, you have been stating them ad nauseum
on X, Discord, Telegram,
and various spaces that we have done, right?
And I understand people don't have the time
to listen to every space,
but I want you to know something, Kenton.
Based on all the opinions that I have gotten from people,
they are overwhelmingly appreciative of your transparency with your team.
And sure, there's probably some open questions to answer with the unstoppable guys.
But if there is one thing I would say the theme is, they say, thank you.
Good job for being so transparent.
Good job so far.
but they want you to focus on what you do best.
But they want you to focus on what you do best.
And that's market Thorchain.
And that's market Thor chain,
because there is no one better who knows how to market Thor chain and is
representative of the ethos that we're all shared,
that we all share and that we're all here to do.
So I want you to know, man,
you have this desire to always be transparent and to always get,
and that's awesome. And you have done that.
Do not feel bad if you need,
if you want to shift and going back to marketing, because I know you spent two days writing that up
and that's labor lost, right? For ThorChain. So great job, man. And you know what? To the
interfaces, I love these guys like Swapkit, Leodex. I see Oleg. These guys help form
ThorChain, help bug fix in real time when we push new primitives or add things or they streamline the process of integrators.
Like they help so much.
And so it was really a shared effort between all of us.
But Kenton, again, to bring it back, you know, you have you are doing a great job when it comes to transparency.
And I and I think the whole community just wants you to know that.
So I'll stop there.
Oh, thanks. I really do appreciate it i i do appreciate people so i've gotten direct dms you know saying thank you guys it does help it does trust me because like i can't we're not in
the same room right we're on the internet i don't can't see anyone's face i don't know what's going
what you guys are thinking or feeling uh so that does help thank you very much and um does keep me going and
um honestly you guys that writing that like i am marketing for chain right now like remember what
i was saying if you guys have been falling into spaces when all the bitcoiners crap on uh on uh
peter schiff is free marketing for peter schiff right remember i told you guys about near
you know if you're so worried about near just stop talking about it because you're marketing
them for free this last week has been all free marketing for thor chain right this this has all
been free marketing for a new front end and i'm letting you know the thorwald and thor swap guys
know this like if you don't if you want people to not know about our front end, stop talking about it, right? Stop making this stuff public. You just gave me a perfect platform
to, you know, showcase the new, the new interface. And, and I like, yeah, I do pride myself. I mean,
pretty honest. And, and so you gave me the opportunity to show who I am.
Right.
And in turn, you know, Patriot, you saying, you know, everybody responding and liking that.
That just goes to show the whole community, you know, is it's not just behind me, but behind being honest and open and doing things right. A lot of the things I'm doing or trying, you know, ideas I have,
I feel like are self-evident and that I'm part of this community too
and that I think you guys will all like them, right?
Because I listen to you.
I know what you guys post and say and complain about.
I listen to our customers.
And so that's what I'm trying to do, right?
And I think that's why you guys all support me
because I do listen to you.
And so the two day write up and everything like,
yes, it's annoying.
Like I got to stop everything I'm doing and respond,
but you guys, it's good.
This is good marketing for us, right?
Because it brings us together,
helps us build morale, right? I've heard from like OG rune holders from like 2019. They're like,
you know, finally, like feels like we're kind of going in the right direction. And like, this is,
this is how we heal guys, right? This, this has been a tough year. And I believe what I'm doing is right to get us in the right path,
to get us going in the right direction,
and something that we can all agree on.
And if this whole community, if we're all on the same page
and we're all moving in the same direction, I mean, like, watch out.
I don't think that that's – I mean, this is why I keep talking about a brand.
You don't have to have like the
cheapest product in the world or the best product in the world you need the best community the best
brand and i think we have that right and that's what i want to you know so it's not just me it's
it's everybody that you're talking to patriot and all those group chats and everything it's just all
of us right and what i'm doing is trying you know, give you guys the ability to really, you know, sell your, you know,
be a part of this too. Right. And help, help, you know,
sell Thor chain and make it succeed. Right. We're all,
we're all doing this together. So, so thank you. Yeah.
Thank you for your guys support. It's been, I really do appreciate it.
It really does help. And guys, Reggie is coming along really well.
He sees how passionate this community is.
He's like,
guys,
you guys,
everyone loves store chain.
And he's like,
he's got great ideas where,
I know he's not seeing a lot of the fruits of labor,
but a lot of it's like playing,
it's like foundational work.
it takes a long time.
It does.
And it's,
I'm telling you guys,
we're planning,
we got,
we have big ideas. We're already working on website It does. And it's, I'm telling you guys, we're planning. We got big ideas.
We're already working on website version 2.0.
Like, we are going to, I expect probably until like February to really kind of, you start
seeing more, but like, we've got all kinds of ideas.
Like, and only thing that's going to stop us is money, right?
We're just, we have enough money to do this, but we've got so many ideas to just get stuff
out there. And I'm convinced have enough money to do this, but we've got so many ideas to just get stuff out there.
And. I'm convinced it's going to work.
I think we have with a product that we have a real product that solves a real problem.
And if we get to get that out to people and with everyone's help and support, we'll get there.
So. So, yes, I have have guys this is part of marketing i'm
working on it so thank you perfectly said kenton and beautifully said as well chad i you know what
we're 30 minutes in you guys think i think we we got it done you guys want to move on and talk
about thor chain stuff now proper sure love it unless somebody unless somebody from the community
wants to yeah to come up yeah okay i think we got some requests here i'll go ahead and get them up
yeah well said and uh yeah kenton i agree i think we do have the best community
and um just a diehard group of individuals, right?
By the way, no quitting us. Go ahead.
The idea of Memolus and having a very cheap 0-bit or 1-bit UI, that's been around in the ThorChain community for probably over two years.
I remember I was living in, I think it was Japan or something,
and I was talking to Eric Voorhees about this notion years ago in 2023,
I want to say, maybe 22.
I can't remember exactly.
It just never got prioritized over other things.
So this idea has been kind of ruminating for quite a long time,
even before like Nier even existed, you know,
maybe even pre-SwapKit.
I don't recall how old SwapKit is, but it's possible.
So it's always been kind of a thing
on the back of my mind for a long time.
And I was actually planning on building the UI myself.
But then, you know,
Ken came with the Unstoppable Wallet people
and thankfully I didn't have to spend my hours putting together.
And they did quite a fine job of it in the end.
But by the way, I did see, I think it was yesterday,
I saw a $6 million trade via Memolus.
I think it was a Bitcoin ETH trade that occurred yesterday.
I was just like, wow, that's a mega, mega huge trade via the MemoList feature, which
is pretty, pretty interesting to see.
Oh my gosh.
You're so right about that.
So exciting.
We have a couple of speakers up here with the Coke.
I think you requested first.
What do you got, buddy?
And then we'll go to WB.
Oh man.
First of all, so much was said already before.
And I think Kenton at chat actually addressed a lot of that in mind.
But Kenton, you're doing an amazing job.
Just want to come up here in the same groups that Denny's.
And yeah, I love your approach.
At first, I was critical.
Like, hey, why are you not responding?
Like there is so much like chaos going on.
But you took your two, three days.
I know it took you a lot of time to make this write-up.
And I absolutely love this approach.
You took your time.
You addressed lots of things going on.
So, Kenton, you're doing a perfect job.
You get my, you're getting my like high five. You're getting a perfect job. You get my you're getting my
high five. You're getting a little baggy
of Coke if you guys ever meet in real life. That's
what's happening, Kenton.
I'm getting out again? That's
crazy. No, you're okay.
You weren't that bad.
I'm sorry. Anyway, Kenton.
Thank you, Coke. You did a really good job.
I actually really like this approach.
The dogs are parking everywhere,
and you don't have to throw a sausage to every dog right away.
You just wait your time,
and then you approach everybody at one point.
So I really like how you did.
Good job.
Oh, Kenton, random question for you.
Do you use a dashboard to track volume through STO
versus other Thor name interfaces?
I've just been looking at Xscanner.
I don't know if there's any.
What else do you guys use?
I don't know.
I know that I've actually used, in the past,
I've used ThorSwap UI tracks how much, you know, one versus another,
but I haven't looked in a while, so I'm not sure if I support STO or not.
I like runescan.io. It's not bad either.
I look at that occasionally.
Okay.
I wonder if Ray Analytics, he might have something.
I can't remember.
That's how you say it.
Ray Analytics?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Ryan something or whatever it's called.
I haven't looked at Thor charts in a while, but there's probably something on there too, I'd imagine.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm always a bit, like, I always try to...
I don't want to jinx it, right?
It's only been a week, right?
So, it'd be nice to see how this, how the next month goes, right?
This is sticky, so...
Yeah, yeah.
We definitely have to give it some time.
I heard something through somebody that, like, some of the volume we were seeing was from
the Bybit situation, I guess.
That's what somebody was saying. I don't know if it was true or not or what, but I just heard some sort of rumor
that like some of that volume is not so much through like, you know, normal,
typical market conditions, but just the Bybit, a hacker setting more funds or
something.
I don't know.
I'm not quite sure.
I've heard the same rumor and I didn't want to like, yeah, it might. That's why I want to see if this is just real volume or hacked funds or not.
Yeah. So hopefully, hopefully it's not hacked funds.
Yeah. We, we definitely do not support criminals at all.
Unfortunately we hate that.
Maybe I'll just quickly say that.
Like, so we do have a wallet blacklist on the front end.
And I was actually talking about it this morning about it.
Like I want us, you know, right now it should be good enough,
but it'd be nice to work on one that's like maybe even the best in the world,
right?
You know, put some real effort into it so we can try and prove
and demonstrate to the market that we don't want this.
The base layer is permissionless.
We can't do it there, but we can do our best on our front end.
That would be, say, phase two, I guess.
We'll get everything else shipped, and then we can look at doing a better job on the blacklist.
Absolutely. Absolutely. we have another speaker uh wb you want to check your mic what you got for us hello can you hear me yes go ahead buddy awesome this is a question for kenton
actually two questions um the first question is related to how you're unifying everything for
The first question is related to how you're unifying everything for ThorChain.org.
You're moving the blog there.
You added swap.
I was just wondering if you're going to move and explore their blockchain explorer like ThorChain.net, if that's going to be linked in at all.
I think Nine Realms makes that.
I'm not sure.
But that was question one.
And then question two is, will STO support Ruggiero features?
So let's start with question two.
Yes, I want the STO site to have all of the apps as well.
So it'll be everything.
Sweet.
Yeah, that's the plan um um and then great pragmatic monkey he's on board with that too like and we're just gonna slap it like this is all
thor chain right it's not you don't know anything about regira branding it'll all be thor chain
um but yeah pm is he's on board he sees it's it makes sense too so it's good um and so we'll have
like a little friendly competition between our two front ends.
We're both going to make money.
We'll have two different front ends with the same things, basically.
Your first question is really good. That's a great question.
Right now, no. Thorchain.net, we'll leave that alone.
Thorechain.net, we'll leave that alone.
But basically everything on thorechain.org,
we're going to clean it all up.
That's what we're working on right now.
We just hired a graphic designer.
I have to give a shout out to Emil from Control Wallet.
If you guys remember, Control did their rebrand
from XdeFi to Control.
And Control, they got a nice, clean, good-looking website.
So I asked them who their graphic designer was and put us in touch.
And so we're using them.
And their portfolio is really sharp.
So we're using them to do a light rebrand on the .org site
to basically incorporate the swap
interface and the blog. And that's it. So it'll all be, you know, it'll look like it all goes
together, right? You know, so it's consistent. But this is like a, so we're working on this over
the next couple of months. So hopefully the redo of the .org site will be done
when all the features are done on the swap site.
So they should coincide being done at the same time.
And then after that, we're talking about maybe we'll redo the site all over again.
Like this is just kind of a quick make it look good.
And then maybe and then maybe.
Yeah.
Facelift.
And then, and then we might, we're talking about doing like, I don't know what's after
a facelift, like a full on everything.
And because part of it was all this talk about rebranding, right?
Are we going to get a new name, new logo, all this kind of stuff.
And so I thought, okay, we'll just do a little bit now to get the site looking good, have
it make sense.
And then in new year, next year, we'll see how it's going.
Maybe we need to rebrand.
Because if we're going to rebrand, right, then we'll do a full total, do everything
properly.
Guys, I'm still at the opinion, we don't need to.
I think this past week is a great demonstration
of how strong and good the thor chain brand is and like it's it's tough times what bring people
together and um you know a few years from now we can all look back at this like we're in the
trenches together you know it's like when like soldiers like guys from world war ii they have a
connection that it's impossible for them have than any other human being.
Right. They just had went through something that no one else can explain.
This year is really tough for all of us.
All of you guys are still here.
Still listening.
Still in the trenches.
You know, no one's going to understand what this was like, you know, four years from now.
You know, and I feel like if we rebrand, we kind of lose that. You know, it's it's so, you know, four years from now, you know? And I feel like if we rebrand, we kind of lose that, you know?
It's so, you know, because the idea of rebranding
is to try and distance yourself from the past.
And it's like, well, do we really?
And, you know, you guys all appreciated my openness
and candor in my article.
And I think that is ultimately what all humans appreciate.
And we should wear...
That was the whole reason that Ruggiero was branded the way it was,
was to separate it from the past problems ThorChain had, right?
And in my opinion, it is a little bit confusing for anybody coming into this ecosystem.
There's no app layer type deal on other protocols. And maybe the branding problem doesn't have a solution in terms of if we need a rebrand or not, but it could get unified at least.
Maybe we don't have to go away from the Thorchain brand, but Thorchain could absorb the Rujira brand possibly.
I don't know. I'm just spitballing,
but the two brands is a little bit confusing in my opinion.
That's why the,
I agree with you there.
That's why we talked about leaving the full, like a totally awesome,
amazing job on a website till next year.
Cause let's say we do merge with Rujira.
Do we,
do we change names then?
And,
you know,
then have to do,
you know, proper reb rebrand do we keep the
ThorChain name so I was like let's just deal with this next year right and figure it out then uh but
dude I completely agree with you we are from a sales and marketing point of view and and not just
for users but for investors gotta be so much easier we just just get rid of the Rigi token and just bring it all in-house.
I've been opposed to JP about it earlier this year because I'm worried people are just going to dump on us.
If we did it now type thing.
But from a sales and investing point of view,
it's so much easier if it's just all together completely.
Well, I'm glad that it's being thought about.
Yeah, we've talked about the rebrand a lot, to be honest.
And so, yeah, so to do, when I say full rebrand,
what I'm talking about is like all kinds of images
and graphics, like I'm talking about making it
look really sexy and cool.
Like if you go to MetaMask's website, for example.
So yeah, a job like that is like six to eight months as well.
When you see a site that looks really good and cool,
it takes several months.
So we just don't have that time.
And so we want to do just a light kind of refresh, get the site live.
So it just kind of makes sense in the new year, we can start selling that.
And then we can worry about a six to eight month project after that.
We are going about 45 minutes in the space.
I want to make sure we get to Chad here a little bit.
So with the Coke, if you want to hold your question,
just so we, I want, because I have some questions here
that the community, I want to make sure we get them answered.
So is that okay?
We switch guys, switch topics?
Yeah, if I'm on the...
Okay, perfect, perfect.
Can I say one last thing before stepping down?
Go ahead.
Chad, you're the man. That's it.
Thanks. Appreciate it.
Absolutely.
I will just take one minute, guys. I'm sorry, Denny.
Guys, we don't have a Dexag creator. We don't have Subkit.
How can we end a conversation about rebranding if we don't have our product aligned. It's like
Amazon. They used to sell books. They never discussed rebranding to having
resell everything. And same thing as well. As long as we don't have everything all sorted out,
we don't have AppLayer, we don't have all the tokens that we can swap on STO,
You don't have all the tokens that we can swap on STO.
I think we should even not touch the idea of rebranding.
If we have everything done, everything works brilliant,
and we still don't see users, we still see confusion in the market,
of course, then we discuss rebranding.
But at the moment, it's just like too soon.
I agree, Ko. That was my sentiments exactly.
Let's get everything done first, right?
None of this almost is coming,
should be in a few weeks, whatever.
Let's just get it all done first.
I totally agree.
I agree with both of you.
Yep, 100%.
I think we're all in alignment here.
Okay, Chad.
It's been two weeks since we last talked to you.
Anything you – well, firstly, I'll just give you the floor if there's anything,
what you're working on, progress on things,
and then maybe we can get more specific from there.
Yeah.
So a lot of the last two weeks has been working on bugs or mainnet issues
or investigating things or whatever.
So that's been kind of like been a time suck in a lot of ways.
But I do want to talk about something because the last time we spoke like two weeks ago,
we were talking about intents and Kenton was expressing concerns around some of the aspects of the design around like,
in some circumstances,
funds being like kind of abandoned because people just abandon their funds
and the protocol just kind of follows suit.
And Kenton was saying that he wasn't comfortable with that.
We were kind of talking about it on the kind of throwing out ideas
and kind of batting around different concepts on this space a couple weeks ago.
And I just kind of wanted to come back to it because I've been thinking more about it since then.
And the current kind of solution to this problem that I'm, that I've been kind of working
on and Kenton, you're welcome to tell me if you like this approach or you don't like it, of course,
is that like, if you get to such a situation where somebody provides an intent, like they want to
open an intent, they want to sell some random Solana token for some like USDC or whatever.
sell some random Solana token for some USDC or whatever.
And no solvers come to give them the USDC
because the price is too high or whatever,
whatever the reason might be.
And we can't refund the user their random Solana token
because we don't know the value of that token.
We don't have a pool to tell us the price of the token.
So we can't just spend gas tokens to send them back their funds
because then the protocol is at a loss in that scenario,
which could be exploited in a kind of grief attack of some kind.
So the solution that I'm thinking now is that if you get into that situation,
we can't do a refund because we don't know the price.
Instead of just abandoning the funds, which is what we were talking about last week, two weeks ago,
there's basically like an auction, there's like a partial liquidation, like a 10% liquidation of those assets.
That's basically auctioned off on-chain.
And so people can say, oh, I'll give you 0.02 Ether for that 10% of that token or whatever that is.
It has to be of the gas asset of that chain.
But you can have people start kind of auctioning off this,
and then obviously the highest bidder more or less wins,
which would be fairly close to the 10% of the value of those tokens,
most likely, within a few basis points.
And so then the protocol gets the gas they were using
to make the bid.
The bidder gets the 10% of the tokens,
and then the remaining 90% goes back to the original user
who opened up the intent.
So that way, you do get a loss in that scenario as a user, but you only
lose 10%, not 100%.
Yeah, definitely better than nothing.
Actually, maybe I should say
thank you, Chad, for always letting me
criticize your ideas and not taking it
personally, I hope.
Yeah, what about, could you, instead of going,
forgive me, maybe I misunderstood you,
can it start at like 1% of the trade,
then 2%, then 3% and work its way down to 10?
Yeah, you could do something like that,
but there's a little complexity around that.
And that is that if it's 1%,
then obviously there'll be numerous occasions where the value's not there to provide the initial bid.
Because the minimum bid to start is 3x the gas, just to ensure it's something worthwhile to some small degree.
So it's possible that that 1% is not worth 3x gas, right?
But maybe 2% is, maybe 5% is, maybe 10% is.
That becomes more complicated from a bidder's perspective.
If what you're bidding on is kind of like sliding over time,
do you know what I mean?
That might be kind of like challenging and like adds a lot of complexity
because even just adding this functionality that I'm talking right now,
like more or less kind or less doubles the complexity, doubles the size of this feature
just because it adds an entire new auctioning bidding mechanism
and changing your bids and topping up your bids
and then refunding for this and then the minimum bids above the...
There's a bunch of complexity that comes with it.
So I'm already doubling the complexity of what an intent actually is in the code base perspective.
Doing some like what you're suggesting,
but while it's not a bad idea necessarily,
I have some questions about how that would actually kind of like work out,
you know, logistically speaking,
but I'll also be concerned about even further, you know,
complicating the code base as it is.
I get it. Yeah, that's a sure point um i'm just trying to think am i the only one who doesn't like the idea of of the trade like the trade going to zero after a few days like has anybody
else expressed uh concern about that you're the only one that's expressed it directly to me but
i do think what you're expressing is a valid concern, right?
Like I don't think you're crazy or whatever.
I mean, obviously I don't want anybody losing any money in any circumstance
if I can reasonably help it, you know,
which is why I've been continuing to think about this problem
even after our chat a couple weeks ago, you know?
So it's a valid concern to have.
And it only matters when the asset you're providing
is a non-pool asset.
If you're providing Bitcoin and you want to purchase
some random meme token on Solano or whatever,
then you wouldn't have the auction.
It would just do a refund.
Because the asset you provide us,
we already know the value
of it, we know how much to take out
to pay for the gas.
And even if you do provide a non-pooled
asset to start this whole thing,
you can always just cancel it.
You can send in some Solana tokens,
some dust for
gas purposes, and
we'll just use the gas you gave us,
so to speak, and we'll send you back your meme tokens.
You have the ability to pull back your funds.
It's not like it's going into a black hole, so to speak.
But you can only do that for so long.
We're not going to keep churning your assets forever
and paying the gas to even do the churns.
I just think about it from the
sales point of view. How do you sell this? How do you explain it?
When you have to put an asterisk on something, it's really hard to sell.
Yeah, that's true.
Forgive me, Chad. We're just going to go back to first principles.
Why do we need to use the intense design? Why can't we just use
dex aggregation? Yeah, I think the
intent is that dex aggregation adds a lot more complexity
from a quoting perspective because it's making assumptions about
what the aggregator is able to execute on
because with the price execution you
get on the first swap like within ThorChain you know and what the price is after that point like
say it's like 20 minutes into the future we'll just say hypothetically then like obviously the
markets can shift in that time span and it also like adds more complexity of like oh how much am
I actually going to get on the other side of this thing? And then what if the DEX aggregator fails because of some situation?
And, okay, we have to do a refund,
but we don't send you the thing you're actually looking for.
We have to send you the Ether tokens instead.
There's a lot of edge cases that pop up.
And if you do something internally to ThorChain,
it's more of an Apple-esque way of doing things.
And you kind of own the full pipeline, similar to how you own the full pipeline of volume, like you've been talking about earlier in the conversation.
And it becomes easier to reason about, easier to quote.
It has more reliability, more, you know, a clearer sense of, like, outcomes, in a sense.
And I think one of the things that JP and I have been kind of, like, agreeing on lately is that there's real benefit to ThorChain becoming kind of more of like a one-stop shop
rather than being reliant on other protocols that, you know, have their own intricacies
and complexities and whatnot.
I definitely agree with the one-stop shop. Absolutely.
Yeah, I was just trying to think that... Yeah, okay.
I think we want to be able to go to SwapKit or Wallets
or whatever it is in the future
and just say that we just support 99% of the assets
and trade pairs that you want.
I think JP got a little frustrated
because he works on Voltsig
and they were working on a swapping mechanism
on Voltsig, it's like kind of UI,
and obviously he wanted to use ThorChain,
but he felt quite limited
because ThorChain doesn't support Solana and it it doesn't support this token, and it doesn't support this.
And it's like, well, I'm kind of forced to use SwapKit, you know, because if I really want my users of my Vaultsig UI to, you know, have a great experience, a great UI, a great UX, then just using ThorChain by itself is actually quite limiting because of the lack of support for certain chains or certain assets and whatnot.
And so that was kind of, for him, that was like, I really need to work with Chad to help make ThorChain more one-stop shop so that I could integrate with ThorChain and still have really great, you know, wide range of assets and chains supported so that, you know, all the users of my Foldsig wallet are happy
and can do all the things they want to do and all that kind of stuff.
So that's kind of the driver behind it all, if that makes sense.
Yeah, totally.
I'm just wondering if you go live with intense on your initial design,
where after three days you lose your money,
if that code is simpler, get it going, get it live,
see how it works.
And then maybe it's not an issue.
People are losing their money.
And then we don't have to worry about it.
Or we do see it's an issue.
They're like, okay, we really have to come with with some backstop um i don't know yeah like i said earlier like i don't expect
intense to be um like a high throughput of volume like i don't expect our volume to increase
by any more than like five% to be honest with you.
10% if we're lucky, if we're really lucky.
That would be high in my mentality.
And I don't really think we'll see a lot of volume.
Therefore, like how big of a problem this is,
is probably not going to be that huge.
And I don't think people are going to be making like $6 million trades
with random meme tokens like that.
Is it possible? Sure, of course it's possible.
But people aren't investing huge amounts of money into very small market cap tokens in general.
That's generally true, obviously not definitively true.
So I don't think it would be that big of a problem.
So I don't think it would be that big of a problem, but if there's a reasonable kind of design or reasonable approach we can make to minimize risk or minimize people's having a bad UX or whatever, as long as it's not overtly complicated or might cause more problems than it solves in some way or shape or form, then I want to make every reasonable effort I can to make the product as idiot-proof as we can reasonably make it.
You're absolutely right, Matt.
I'd be surprised if it's 10% as well.
I think the volume is going to be really small.
But we can't look at that in isolation because someone's got $100,000 in crypto and they
go buy $2,000 of a meme coin.
Well, they also have $50,000 of Bitcoin
or in Ethereum, right?
So if they place a $2,000 trade on ThorChain Intense
and they lose it,
they're like, screw this, this sucks,
I hate ThorChain, I'm never coming back.
We lose their other $100,000
that they otherwise would have traded on ThorChain, right?
So it's a holistic thing right
so that yeah do we want to put in this effort and work to get five percent more volume well
we could get uh how do i say you you understand what i'm trying to say right it can grow the
whole pot yeah yeah yeah get the whole wallet yeah which yeah exactly which is why i've been
i've been continuing to think about this problem the last couple of weeks
and trying to find a decent solution.
And if somebody puts a $2,000 trade and they lose 10% of their thing because of some edge
case scenario or whatever, it's not great, of course, but you've still got 90%.
So it's not crazy bad or anything like that.
And in the protocol, that 10% that you lose actually becomes system income for the protocol.
So the protocol actually makes a little bit of money in that scenario.
What do you think the likelihood of someone's trade not getting filled?
Why wouldn't an intent trade get filled?
There's really two primary reasons I think about and it's probably more but
these are the ones i think are the most likely either a is you put up some number of tokens
and you're asking for y number of tokens and the value of y number tokens is just like
this is not enough meat on the bone so to speak for a solver to like say i'll solve it you know
if you're putting up like a hundred dollars Bitcoin and you want $150 worth of,
this is obviously a really extreme and stupid example,
but $150 worth of some Solana token,
then obviously nobody's going to solve that, right?
Because it's a loss for them.
Or maybe it's like you put up $100 and you're asking for $99 worth of, or $99.90 worth of this and just not enough meat left in the bone to make it worthwhile for a solver to solve.
Because that solver's got to go out and acquire those tokens somewhere.
And they're probably going to pay, you know, 5, 10, 15, 20 bips, whatever it's going to be, to acquire that token. So they still need a little extra meat in the bone
to make it worth their time or effort to do so.
So that's kind of one scenario.
I think the other scenario is that it's just a token
that nobody really cares about.
It's like nobody really wants to solve it
because it's just too
too far a small market cap and there's the price fluctuations too high to warrant the time or the
price exposure because that person solving has to take on the price exposure of that asset for
whatever time period that is it may not be long and maybe just be a minute or five minutes or
something short but maybe in that time span i'm just like i don't want to take the risk of this
token kind of going down in value and i get less or or something of that nature
one direction or the other you know um but that those are the most likely scenarios or the the
third scenario is that like just nope they're all the solvers are out to lunch you know and nobody's
actually paying attention you know but we're we're going to work on some relationships with some some individuals and to help kind of keep an eye on on intents and and and be solvers to solve
all the intents coming into the protocol cool patriot you want to go or does anybody uh no i
have you got you did a that was a great conversation guys um i had nothing interesting to contribute i
i do want to pass the mic to scott he does have his hand raised if he has something he wants to add scott if you want to check your
mic and we'll move on hey guys can you hear me yes sir go ahead yeah i was one of the ones who
had the concern about the intents when chad was discussing them i wanted to thank you for taking
the time to to work this out it is a far better solution than just having it drop so i'm feeling way better
about this my only question is if you do a 10 auction um if say the gas ends up only being
four or five percent instead of 10 do does store changes keep that other five or six percent as income or is there
some way that could be sent back to the the original crater because if you could send any
unused back to them um that i think would be absolutely ideal although it's already i'll say
it again far better than what you were talking about. I feel much better about this.
Thank you, Chad, for working on this.
In the current design,
and like two weeks ago,
I'm still open to modifications or ideas or whatever,
but the current design is like,
you're auctioning off the 10%.
And so if you're auctioning off 10%,
and that's worth $100, let's say,
and I'm putting up $45 worth of Solana tokens, you know?
Did I rug or did Chad rug?
I think Chad rug. I can't hear him.
Okay. Okay, we'll have to get him back.
Oh, there he is. Sorry. can you hear me guys good yep yep
sorry i got a phone call somebody called me i had to hang up on um
if i'm putting out 45 for this hundred dollars worth of this token then like in theory somebody
should provide you know i'll try to outbit me at 55 or 60 whatever, right? Unless you want to do a thing where you're, when you're,
when you're auctioning this thing, you say like, I'll give X tokens per Y tokens. So instead of
being like the full 10%, you say, I'll buy 2% for this price. I'll buy 7% for that price.
You could do something like that. But in the current design, you're auctioning off the 10%
for whatever is the highest bidder in this market, whatever that is.
And in theory, that should be close to the 10% value
if it's a healthy market.
But if it's not, the protocol would get $45 worth of the Solana tokens
as system income.
The bidder would get the 10% of the tokens,
whatever the market value of those things are.
And then obviously the person who created the intent initially gets the 90%.
Does that make sense?
Scott, if you're speaking.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
Yes, that makes sense.
And yeah, way better. I'm really
excited about this now because Kenton's absolutely right. You know, being a one-stop shop, that is a
huge thing to be able to say. So I think it's important to do this if it's if it is workable
and practical. So keep up the wonderful work, Chad. Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you
very much, Scott. You're you always ask good questions when you come up. Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Scott.
You always ask good questions when you come up.
Chad, I do have a question.
Actually, it's like three people.
I'm just going to roll into one.
They just want a general update on limit swaps, what's going on, how's the behavior been, things like that.
Yeah, limit swaps has been frustrating, to be honest with you.
It's not gone as well as I'd like from a coding perspective.
There's been, you know, issues and bugs, and we're working through them, of course.
But what's, like, really annoying about it is that, like,
and this is just, like, a thing about especially mature blockchains,
blockchains in general, but especially mature ones,
is that, like, your kind of your dev cycle is very, very slow, right?
So if you have a bug and you want to fix it,
the amount of time that it takes to actually get that release changed
and then see how it fares, how it does,
for us is typically a month on the low end,
maybe a month and a half.
That's a really long time to wait.
So it's very slow.
Versus if you're like unstoppable wallet and you're creating the
you know you got some bug you can find the bug patch it you know and have it like live within
hours you know what i mean it's just like a much faster cycle in fact i remember when we first
launched thor chain a single chain casnet this is back in like 20 2020 i guess there were so many
issues in the first like two or three months.
There were just like tons of bugs and issues.
And again, when we launched MultiChain KSNet.
But it was so young then that we could like make patches and changes
and then release a new version like the same day or the next day or whatever.
So it was like you could iterate a lot faster.
So you could find these issues, patch them and get them done.
But like because ThorChain is so kind of mature as a protocol and we have a much slower kind of dev
cycle in part because of like of requirements and agreements with like some partners about
how we how we have to release a new version and then we have to wait weeks before it can actually
like hit the chain so to speak it just the process, which just makes it much more painful
to actually like get all these things
kind of like sorted.
It's a lot slower than what it's been historically.
So it's actually rather quite frustrating.
So I'm actually a little bit annoyed actually
with the limit swap stuff.
But as we're finding issues or bugs,
you know, things are getting patched,
the next release 3.15,
which will come out,
I think in the beginning of january um you know we'll have patched all the bugs that
we're aware of at this time at least and we'll continue just to kind of like iterate as we need
to but the problem is it's just it's just taking much more time to do all this than it would have
you know years ago that's just kind of frustrating. Yeah, I understand.
I'm sorry, are limit swaps currently going or are they paused until the update?
I think they're currently going,
but there's like a couple of bugs of like limit swaps,
like not executing exactly like when it needs to,
like it kind of executes a little bit like,
with a little bit slower, if that's the right word to use,
or needs a little bit more space to execute than it should, for example.
I think trade assets is having some problems
because of the way trade assets is structurally different than secured assets.
So there are some bugs now, but you can do it now.
You're not going to get the execution to be like right on time,
so to speak, unfortunately. Again, this will all be passion 315 gotcha but but yes perfect um okay i got those
those questions are done um and now uh simple lateral move um how's memelus going i know we
had those big swaps are are you happy with memelus, or has there been a few hiccups there?
I haven't seen any bugs with Memolus quite yet.
I've seen somebody, I think it was like earlier today,
had done a Memolus transaction from a sect,
and that's not recommended for a host of reasons.
And I'm not quite sure.
I haven't actually looked into the depth of it quite yet.
I'm like, if that resolved or didn't resolve or whatever.
But I think other people might be already looking at it.
I haven't seen any MemoList bugs quite yet, knock on wood.
And I do have it as an action item. I actually have a branch and a pull request, so to speak,
to add native assets for Memo.
That's something that Kenton was actually asking me for
a couple of weeks ago.
I don't know if that's going to get into 3.15 or not,
maybe 3.16, but yeah, I haven't seen any issues.
It's been quite smooth in that regard.
Excellent. Perfect.
I'm sorry, yeah, not Kenton.
With the Coke, you have your hand up.
What do you got?
Chad, you said we had a memo-less swap from the SEX. Was it known pre-hand? And if so, can't we just not allow the swap?
Say like, hey, you're executing from it a centralized exchange and that's not recommended or not allowed to do to do uh it's a bit harder to do that because
you don't necessarily know which which addresses are owned by sexes and which are not
sometimes you do depending on the sex um but we generally don't hard code you know addresses to be
mark them as like sexes or not i think in this particular case because of something about i
again i haven't looked into the depth of i just kind this particular case because of something about i again i haven't
looked into the depth of i just kind of glanced at it something about the way that the sex had
signed the transaction just made it really confusing for bifrost to pick up for some reason
i don't know why i haven't looked at it quite yet but uh i think that's part of it and then also like
if you do a swap and like the swap you know fails because it doesn't get the price execution that it
wants and it tries to do a refund it going to send the funds back to the sex.
And I don't, who the hell knows how the sex would handle that in that scenario?
Like, would it, would it, you know, take the funds and re-accredit it back to your account
on whatever sex this is?
Or would it just like go into this abyss within the sex's wallets?
And then you have to go through like, you know,
customer support to try to like unwind
whatever the hell happened, you know?
So I don't know of a way that we can like
stop people from doing that,
either swapping from a sex or swapping to a sex.
Neither one are supported.
And we, you know, publicly tell people
to not to avoid such a thing
because it just adds a layer of complexity
where things can go wrong.
And if things do go wrong, then like there's really not much that we can do potentially
to help you get your funds back.
So it's just safer just to operate from your own, you know, your own wallet.
I understand.
I thought it was maybe like we already knew pre-hand it was sex, but if you just discard
afterwards, understood.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
But even if we knew it was a sex it was coming from,
then it becomes like, well, what does that change?
Like, okay, are we going to reject the funds coming to us?
Well, what does that mean?
Does that mean that we're going to, we can't...
Maybe just display a user that, hey,
you're doing the swap from centralized exchange.
Oh, yeah, you could do it on the front-end side.
In theory, the UI could do that.
Ah, I see.
There are so many ways to do it from code base.
Okay, I got it.
Or maybe that's just a way to do it within the unstoppable wall.
At least front-end we should display.
The front-end can display.
If you're doing a memelist, don't send directly from a sex or send to it a sex.
You know, make sure you own, you know,
the wallets that you're sending to and from.
Otherwise, it could cause, you know,
compatibility issues that could lead to loss of funds.
I mean, my idea was that since the SDO has
the known blacklist addresses,
you should have, like, known sex addresses as well.
And if somebody tries to do memo-less,
we just can display the message.
Hey, buddy, there.
Right, but that assumes that sex addresses are static,
which they're probably not.
Like if, for example, like on Kraken,
if you were to deposit funds into Kraken,
they have a unique address per user, per client, right?
So then the number of wallets that Sexts have
is like hundreds of thousands, right?
Millions maybe.
No, I don't understand.
Same with Blacklist addresses.
We have static address every day.
It gets updated every now and then,
and we do our best. And same with gets updated every now and then and we do our
best and same with the memos we just do our best yeah yeah yeah i don't know if black lessons are
different because that that is generated from like on-chain analysis typically like if you know
hack funds going from one wall to another wall and blacklist all these addresses this is different
because you wouldn't even know if an address was a sex or not because you'd be cracking or whomever would just generate
a brand new address that didn't exist a moment ago and then send funds from it you know or send
funds to it more more accurately yeah that makes sense to me. Yeah, very difficult thing.
I think the bottom line, guys,
just take your sex.
When you're on a sex,
put it in a wallet first
and then do what you got to do.
Yeah, just make sure you own
like the whole, you know,
as much as you can.
Otherwise, you're just,
you're leaving an opportunity
for something else
in the pipeline
to kind of like go awry.
And you just don't want to deal with that
if it goes awry, you know.
Even like even within
thor chain like we've actually made a handful of like code changes to make thor chain more resilient
to fuckery right like we had a situation recently where uh somebody swapped to some wallet on i think
it was xrp and there's some sort of i don't know know a lot about XRP to be honest with you, but there's some sort of like label or tag you can apply to a wallet within the chain that makes it like, for whatever
reasons, not receive funds. I don't know why. It's just the behavior that we saw. And so the
protocol is trying to sign and broadcast an XRP to somebody's wallet, but like XRP itself is like
saying, fuck off, you know? And so we've made a change where like,
where we try to send your funds, you know, a bunch of times.
And if it's not able to do it on its own,
then it does a reverse swap where it takes the XRP tokens,
like swaps it back to the original source asset.
Like let's just say it's Bitcoin, for example,
and then sends a Bitcoin back to your wallet.
You'll pay extra fees in that scenario for obvious reasons,
but at least you get your funds back, you know?
Otherwise, it would have required like, you know,
some devs to manually go through and you got to go to Discord,
you got to find a dev, you got to talk to that dev,
you got to give them your information,
then we got to go look at the chain,
you got to figure out what's going on,
bug patch, da-da-da-da-da,
then do a migration, the transaction.
Like, it takes, like, weeks, if not months,
to, like, for us to be able to, like,
go through a manual process
to recover people's funds
when they do something silly,
like sending funds to a sex
or, you know, to a wallet
that won't even accept the funds to begin with.
And it's a huge kind of, like,
time suck for us in some ways.
So we've recently added a handful of kind of autonomous processes that, you know, that determined when funds get stuck and then figures out a way to kind of return the funds when possible.
solution though given uh you know the the constraints of that particular situation um
okay so i think i got my questions all answered that some were previously answered by you and
kenton um chad do you have anything else that you want to discuss or maybe kenton's got something
uh no not really i think that's more or less it for me nice nice nice uh kenton um do you have
anything additional you want to uh actually i do
but coke has his hand up maybe we should i do not oh it's frozen up okay okay um yeah maybe
i think we could talk about dex segregation on the front end um which seems to be a bit
controversial and um yeah maybe let's walk people through my thinking, my reasoning.
Can I ask one thing to Chad first?
Yeah, go ahead.
Chad, just wondering how DKLS is looking.
Not sure if you're working on it or anything,
but with RUG lending going out,
just curious how that's going
because we probably need it to shift to optimized security.
I don't know how any of it's looking, so just curious.
Yeah.
DKLS, there's not a lot going on in this moment.
We're really just kind of waiting for one of the DKLS library
or packages,
whatever you want to call it,
that will support what's called identifiable aborts,
which from my understanding,
DKLS is not,
and its original design doesn't really support
identifiable aborts.
And for people who don't know,
identifiable aborts. And for people who don't know, identifiable aborts just means that
when you're a group of, you know,
entities are, you know,
collectively signing some sort of transaction
and then one of them just kind of like fucks off
and doesn't, and like screws up
the entire key signing process
and just kind of goes away
or refuses to participate in the rest of the process
or whatever happens, happens.
You can figure out who was the person out of those group of people, who was the person
that disappeared for whatever reasons.
And then you can slash that person or put them in Thorchain jail so they don't participate
in other further key signs in the future or whatever, right?
The problem is that I don't think the original mathematical
cryptographic kind of implementation supported
Identify Outdoor Boards in the first version.
I think DKLS 23 might support it,
but I think part of the issue is that
a lot of the people that are using DKLS,
like Coinbase, for example,
like I was talking to the head of cryptography
over at Coinbase recently.
And he was saying that they don't really support
Identify Upwards in their kind of implementation.
And it makes sense that they don't because for their case,
they don't really care who screwed up the key signing process
because they run all the servers.
They're not a decentralized organization.
So they don't really need that kind of feature.
So it's not really high priority from their perspective
to be spending resources to support a feature
that they probably wouldn't even use themselves.
So that becomes kind of part of the thing,
but we're just kind of in like a kind of holding pattern
until one of these libraries updates
to support identifiable aborts.
Or conversely, like, and we talk about this idea,
like JP and I and others,
about like, just like, you know what,
forget about identifiable aborts.
Like, if somebody wants to be a dick and, you know,
and screw up a key signing,
then we can deal with that in another kind of way
or find another solution to that scenario. But we've kind of gone back and forth on this a few times. And in the current moment, then we can deal with that in another kind of way or find another solution to that scenario.
But we've kind of gone back and forth on this a few times.
And in the current moment, we're still just waiting for somebody
to add that particular feature so that we can throw it in.
But by the way, DKLS and loans for RUJI complete separate things.
One does not require the other.
There's no relationship there.
No, but we need optimistic security
or at least enough room to raise the cap
because if there's no exit liquidity for the guy
or if the cap is at its limit
and he has to provide more liquidity for his loan
to prevent getting liquidated,
that's my concern there.
I know they're totally separate, but yeah.
That's fair.
That's a fair comment.
Yeah, in that scenario, we're probably more likely just to do another kind of node vote
to increase the kind of security cap or whatever.
If we had DKLS, in theory, possibly we could actually move from a six-Asgard kind of setup to a single-Asgard setup.
That might be possible. I'm not 100% certain on that.
We have to do some benchmarking to see if it's even reasonable.
I believe that it is, but I'm not 100% certain that it is.
It's just so funny.
When you implemented ThorChain for the first time, you were waiting on TSS, right?
Now we're waiting on DKLS. It's just kind of a throwback to the original development.
Right. Before ThorChain even started, well, the first version of ThorChain that I wasn't even involved with,
I wasn't even involved in the project at that time.
TSS didn't exist yet.
And so it's one of the reasons why it didn't work.
It kind of crashed and burned in its first attempt to exist in this world.
And then TSS came out, GG18 came out, I think it was a year later.
And that's when I joined the project with JP. And we kind of co-founded it together to build out this new version.
It was a Cosmos SDK before.
It was not a Cosmos SDK because Cosmos SDK didn't exist at that time.
But Cosmos SDK first was barely launched.
I don't think there was documentation at that time,
or there was very little documentation.
TSS didn't exist until that moment.
So we have to wait for i'm
not a cryptographer myself i'm not a mathematician um uh i i respect them but i'm i'm that's not
what i do professionally so we have to we have to wait for people who are you know
experts in these fields that help us to achieve some of these goals
damn that was a throwback, WB.
Thanks.
No, you've been around for a while.
Okay.
Portain's the best.
That's right, buddy.
All right.
I think we got that handled now.
I think maybe now we'll kick it to Kenton
about the DEX aggregation conversation.
Go ahead, Kenton.
Yeah, sure.
So I think that raised some eyebrows and uh some people are
so confused or don't agree um so i figured maybe we should walk over it but the i guess the gist is
when you go to the store and they have all the products you want to buy does that make you happy
or mad and you know if you go to the store and and they don't have all
the products you want to buy does that make you happy or sad right and so it's obvious the answer
is obvious right you're happy when they have all the products you want right if you if they don't
have all the products you want you got to get in your car and go somewhere else to go buy and you're
like god damn it i gotta go somewhere else right so the sto is is a store right we're you know it's a storefront and um we're selling
thor chain products um but unfortunately you know thor chain doesn't carry all the products that
uh the user wants and so um in my mind it's itself it's it's a no brainer, just offer them, you know, the other products they want through through different decks through deck segregation. And I am not talking about best execution on price, every trade that can go on door chain goes authority, right door chain is a priority.
go on doorchain goes to thor chain right door chain is is a priority if if door changes and
have that token then it looks to maya at the token trade oh let me first sorry say
the token trades on doorchain is zero fee then if it's on a third chain looks to maya
if the token trades there uh then it goes there zero fee then after that it looks at all the other dexes
and then charges a fee and so um i view it as win-win uh the user gets what they want they get
to stay at the same same store buy all the products they want you don't have to go anywhere else that
user is is now more sticky because He's like, this is great.
I can get all my shopping in one place.
And then we make some money.
And by we, right now it's the treasury and the devs
and unstoppable devs.
And this is a way to pay the devs,
like with, you know, not out of pocket, right?
The treasury is in our pocket.
The protocol is out of pocket.
The user is paying, right?
And so, so actually thing is win, win, win that everybody's happy.
And, and so obviously, and so right now, one of those other decks is still looking for
other tokens is near.
I know that's contentious and might, you know,
maybe get people riled up, but,
and people say, well, you're just supporting our competition
and this and that, and it's like, well, yeah.
But I mean, as long as the user's on our site,
they're using ThorChain, right?
And so, I mean, all kinds of businesses
in the world do this. Like the biggest businesses in the world do this all the time, right? They're
not always selling only their products, right? They'll often sell third-party products. It's
not crazy. And so, you know, we want to capture the whole user experience. We want them staying
on our site. We don't want them to ever leave to go a different site.
And then what will happen over time is as we add new chains,
in theory, we already have an audience.
We're going to have instant volume because people are already on our site trading these tokens through the other DEXs.
And so when it goes live on ThorChain and then the ThorChain route is prioritized,
then boom, we have instant users.
How often does this happen to you guys?
When we launch a pool, everyone's like,
well, where are the users? Where's the volume?
It's like, well, we got to tell people about it, right?
And so this is kind of a way to prime our own user base
and that they get used to trading these
tokens on our site that when we introduce the pool we should have some instant volume there um
so that's that's the that's the overall broad idea of of the aggregator and um and then also
to be able to use that this is what we want to sell to other wallets you know so we want to offer
wallets uh the aggregator basically the exact same way we have it set up on our site you know
all the routes go through ThorChain um for free all the routes go through Maya uh is free and then
if they go anywhere else um we charge a fee and that because that's what helps pay is the support of
the aggregate we got to pay devs right people have to support this right and um um well and it you
know and the treasury gets their share too so um um but when you go to the wallets like it's not
enough just to offer them a free for chain uh integration right like right? Like they want the whole package, right?
And again, there's countless examples of this in Meatspace
where a company, a big brand will own its own distribution
and also distribute their competitors' products
because they know the end user, the real clients.
They want the whole catalog, right?
They want everything.
And so, and again, with the wallet, we do this.
We just slowly keep adding the ThorChain routes
and we just keep, you know, that wallet is used to using,
they're getting all their tokens,
but then just slowly over time,
we're turning off the DEX segregation
and just routing stuff to ThorChain.
So we have that that audience
variety in place um so i think it's very elegant um um but i'm definitely i promise you guys i don't
want to just be like i'm confident i'm right but this this is this is the community site right this
is what everyone has to get behind and believe in and sell, right? So if, you know, I want to be open to criticism, you guys don't think this is a good idea or whatever.
Because I have had people reach out thinking this is not good. So I think, I think we should talk
about it. So I don't know if you guys page here, Chad, if you have any comments or anybody else.
Well, you know, I'm in many groups, as I said, and overwhelmingly, again, I know I'm speaking from authority because I'm just telling you that I am and, you know, I could be making it up, but I've got to say it.
I mean, overwhelmingly, people are supportive of the idea because a really great argument used in a previous space as well, Kenton, is that if we support other routes, then that's analytics that you can capture that also maybe gives priority to Chad or other devs of what change would you add next.
Or maybe analytics of maybe intense really flies off, you know, it's really awesome.
And, you know, you're going to get information and then that information is actually worth something.
So you said it's a win, win, win.
I might disagree.
I think it might be a win, win, win, win.
Right.
There's four wins there.
Right.
So to me, from what I see, I think it's good.
But with Coke, you put your hand up.
What do you got?
Well, I want to respond to you first, Patriot.
You're right.
We're actually, the user is paying us to tell us what he wants.
Right.
Like, how can, you can't ask for a better situation, right?
Companies spend millions of dollars
trying to figure out what their customers want.
And in this case, the user is actually paying us.
And some people have criticized me,
like, well, you just got to go look at the volume on near
and whatever.
Those are different interfaces.
Those aren't our users.
We want to know what the users on STO are doing.
Maybe they have different appetites for different tokens, right?
That are, so, you know, we could, maybe we think,
oh, this one token is going to be sending all this volume
on another platform.
We should do it first.
So we get that volume.
But in reality, none of our users are actually trading it.
They're trading token B and which has little volume
on a different platform, right?
So, so that, yeah, yeah, that information is valuable.
Yeah, I agree with it.
I was going to say, like, I'm just looking at the near-intense dashboard
right now just out of curiosity.
And, like, what percentage of their trade volume
is a token that we don't support is extremely small like
the only one that we don't that they the only two that has anything of value is solana and zcash
which are two chains we're you know planning to add in the nearest future so once those two are
added to thor chain and obviously you know the st um swap would
would swap with us first before them you're only remaining is like 98 of the volume would would
would go into thor chain and like a small two percent it's it's very very very tiny and it's
going to be like as time goes on and we add more chains and blah blah like it's just going to have
even less and less and less volume goes to Nier,
you know, to be honest with you.
So I was kind of against adding Nier support personally initially,
largely because I just didn't think it was worth the engineering time and complexity.
And I've always kind of envisioned this kind of UI to be as super simple
and dumb as possible just so that it doesn't require a lot of dev maintenance or
long build times
and that kind of thing and easy to test,
easy to verify, easy.
But in hindsight,
after hearing the arguments
that Kenton has made
and whatnot, I kind of come over
to his side, his view on this
to be honest.
But I think, again,
probably four to six months from now,
it'll be kind of a moot discussion
just because so few volumes
would be passing through an year.
It wouldn't really matter.
Okay, so now here's the next one,
which could be, I admit,
could be controversial um what about
when trading is halted on door chain and then um and then say maybe that route maybe it's halted
on door chain in maya and then that route goes goes yeah i would still send it to near that in
that scenario yeah me too okay the swap you know yeah that's what they want exactly that
that's why I'm looking at it too right and um I think it it's like it's like it's like choosing
the least which is which is the um am I trying to say the the least worst scenario right oh you
can't trade on on our site and you have to go somewhere else or oops embarrassing
us we you can't do bitcoin on our site we gotta send you through near i think that second one is
like less embarrassing than than the first one right agree yes sir and honestly where maya is
has is its own separate set of rails and this is one of the beautiful kind of bonuses of having them is the odds of both of them
being down simultaneously are pretty small.
So that, I imagine that would happen like once
in some weird black swan.
I just wanted to chime in on that.
Yeah, we're really down as soon as Maya.
So it would be very weird that we were both down.
Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. With the Coke, I think it's... Go ahead.
Yeah, I totally do agree with Kenton. As long as we don't send people off our site,
like when it comes to near swap, and we just do it silently. I don't see any issue with that.
We just do it and the user doesn't know.
Same in SwapKit.
They don't know who they swap through.
But I didn't understand Chad's argument.
Like we have like a few Ccash and Solana going through NIR, But it's only 20% of NIR volume.
Yes.
Other like ETH and Bitcoin, 80%.
So I didn't kind of catch that.
Yeah, I think looking at this, it's about 10% of the volume that NIR has right now
is between Zcash and Solana.
Beyond that, if you kind of skip those and you go further down the kind of the
road there, you have like XRP, BNB, WNIR, which, you know, we don't really care that much about
that one, DAI, DOGE, WBDC, TRX, Litecoin. We support almost all of these tokens, even these
very kind of long, relatively speaking, long tail that are like a sliver of volume like their litecoin volume for example if i could bring it in here so in the last 24 hours
is about 215 000 which is obviously like a very very small sliver of the you know i'm not sure
how much the how much volume they've had in the last 24 hours it was at uh 78 million so you're
talking about half of about half a percent or whatever how that number would be.
So it's just not significant enough
to be worrisome.
And I think as we add more and more changes,
it's going to just get less and less, like I said.
So it doesn't really matter in the long term.
Yeah, and Zcash...
I understand what you're saying.
So Zcash is 10%, let's say.
Zcash and Sol, yesterday it was 10%.
It was 10 million.
But at the same time, ETH, USDC, Bitcoin was 80 million.
So how do we attack that volume vector?
Well, we hit them automatically
through the, as
Kenton was saying, that we prioritize
ThorChain over Near. We only use Near
when we just don't support the route.
Right.
The pair.
Okay, I see you.
You're looking from the STO perspective.
I was looking from the
side-by-side. That's marketing. That's what we're going to do. I was looking from the competitive side by side.
That's marketing. That's what we're going to do. I mean, marketing hasn't even started yet,
and we've already had tremendous volume. And with the fees that we are getting,
the marketing budget is getting deeper, which is great. We have a healthy stream of income
to the marketing budget. So Kenton, he's flexing, right? He's pumping. He's doing pushups. He's
doing crunches. He's getting his plan. He said, what is it, Kenton, February's flexing, right? He's pumping. He's doing push-ups. He's doing crunches. He's getting his plan.
He said, what is it, Kenton in February next year?
Maybe keep some eye out for some things.
So let's hold on to our butts here.
I think let's give this man some room to flex his muscles.
Let's go for it.
You know what I'm saying?
By the way, I'm looking at a different dashboard right now about the swap volume.
I'm looking at swap volume relative to like Thor names, like
you know, ThorSwap, ThorWallet,
AsgardX, SwapKit,
TrustWallet, whatever,
Rango.
Right now, ThorChain
Swap UI has
79.1, this is just, I'm looking at yesterday,
December 3rd,
has 79.1% of the
total volume of our affiliate volume.
The second one is SwapKit with 8%, a little over 8%.
So the UI that Kenton has made is already, you know,
is doing basically 80% of the volume on the entire protocol
is just from that UI.
And that should be a really good indicator of like
whenever you launch a new feature or product or whatever and there's like really significant
adoption and you know especially in a short period of time that tells you that you that
whatever analysis you were making was accurate and that you've done something that the community
of the world has like reacted positively to 100% cannot can I be a little bit downer? I mean, if you want to be
boo me out, I will not address it. No, go ahead. No, with no sense. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So at last
three days, yes, we have been lucky. We have had a lot of big swaps coming through us from SDO.
But I think today was a good example where like a lot of aggregators, we didn't get a lot of volume, we didn't get any big swaps, the market was going sideways and we only, I think, we are at the moment about 15 million in swaps.
And near most likely still hitting like 100 billion. We are only at the moment kind of competing
when it comes to high swaps,
but NIR gets from that aggregator
all those small nibbles
and it kind of adds up.
So is there a way to attack that market?
I know there's subsidized gas and stuff
and I know we have gone through this topic
last month yeah so uh i'm not i'm gonna ignore their whole subsidization thing because i that
cannot be a sustainable model um so eventually they're gonna stop at some point if they haven't
already um the other way we can if we don't we could we could become cheaper in price if we
really wanted to.
It's because of the mathematics that I literally had to create new mathematical equations for this.
But because of the new equations that I came up with a couple years ago in streaming swaps,
we can arbitrarily charge whatever fee basis points we want.
It can be five basis points, one basis point, 100 basis points, arguably.
It's an arbitrary number. So we could be more competitive, right, if we wanted to,
in terms of getting those people. But then you also get less fees collected, right? And we also want to collect fees because we want there to be good yield for the node operators and the LPs and
blah, blah, blah, whatever. The other way we can be competitive and kind of get more volume,
The other way we can be competitive and kind of get more volume, specifically like sniping some volume from SwapKit, sending it to Nier versus us, is just getting more competitive on time.
And they look at not just price execution, but they also look at like how fast swaps are.
And for Nier, like all of their swaps, doesn't matter if it's like a small trade or a big trade it's 26 minutes to do a trade on the near protocol
which is fairly long to be honest with you especially for small you know small sub small
trades um and so you know um there's a couple of things that i'm looking to change in the protocol
to make it more efficient and more competitive so in terms of like time and we can get like our swap
time to be a lot faster.
One of those things is like probably the biggest thing is probably gonna be rapid swaps once that gets going.
As soon as we implement rapid swaps
and even set it to a configuration of two,
which is obviously very small,
you basically divide the amount of blocks needed
to do the swap by whatever this value is.
In our case, it's two.
So you just have the time it takes to do the swap.
You put it at five, it's one-fifth.
You put it at 10, it's like one-tenth, so forth and so on.
There's also like the zero-conf thing I've been thinking about
where you can send in some Bitcoin.
It's a 10-minute block time, so it takes a while for us to even get one-conf.
But what we can do is that we can see the incoming Bitcoin coming in in the mempool
and then execute the swap before we even receive the Bitcoin
and then hold on to the output.
So if you're swapping from Bitcoin to Ether, for example,
we would just swap it to Ether and then just hold on to that Ether.
And then as soon as we get one conf, we would just release the Ether to you.
So that this time that takes through the streaming swap, the time it does the delayed outbound,
all that stuff is already done before you even get this first confirmation on the Bitcoin blockchain.
And by the way, you also get better kind of price execution potentially because
if you try to do a swap or a trade
and then you have to delay it 10 minutes
before your trade actually executes,
what happens to the price of the assets you're trading
in that 10-minute time period
versus if you do it immediately?
You kind of get a better kind of UX because of that.
So that's something I've been considering doing.
I'm not 100% sold on it quite yet.
I want to have a deeper conversation with JP
and anybody who wants to argue with me on this, you're welcome to.
But that's the other way that I want to compete with Nier specifically, kind of sniping some of their volume on SwapKit, is by just getting our trade execution view a lot faster.
Yeah, that's something I've been thinking about as well.
Why can't we have those mini swaps swaps to upfront like just you described?
And as soon as somebody cheats us,
we just delay the outbound
and we go back to what we used to.
And same with Monero.
The talk that we had yesterday,
not yesterday, last week,
like it runs through centralized exchange and at the moment
they haven't stopped any swap, right? But why can't we just do this in a way that as long as
it's a 10k week guarantee that any swap that goes through, even if it gets stopped or seized,
we will just reimburse the user. And meanwhile, when it doesn't happen and as I understand through control, uh,
wallet, uh, in years, it, it hasn't happened.
It's no, it's no like an issue.
Like, but as soon as it happens, we stop it.
The, we stop the policy that we impulse.
We impulse one user that got seized and we go back. Same with the small swaps.
As long as nobody cheats us, we are really competitive.
We make the swaps up front.
We tighten up with the security.
We say, okay, we have to wait 10 minutes.
No longer this up front stuff.
And same with Monero.
We set the limit that Treasury is willing to take the hit 10k and
as long as you stay under 10k no no no issues there you will have a current did swap yep yep
no i agree um yeah i agree all right there you go perfect um so yeah kon, I think, you know, your one question about,
you know, should we dex aggregate in the event that ThorChain is down on STO? I think absolutely.
I think your same logic applies, right? You give the customer what they want. You don't want them
to leave. That is the worst thing I think that could happen. Having a customer leave to go
elsewhere because we cannot facilitate it one way or the other. So, yep, I think that's right.
All right. Well, cool. Thanks. All right. Then I'm on the right track.
You guys, you guys agree. Okay. Let me,
I want to throw another thing at you guys.
What about adding a centralized exchange that supports Monero?
And I know I've spoken really poorly about wallets that integrate
changely and change now because they freeze trades on some of their users
and lock it up for like sometimes months and demand all this KYC.
Apparently, there's some sexes that have never done that
because they have really good wallet screening.
So they prevent somehow, I don't know,
prevent or they just refund the money, whatever.
But we could add a sex-like dex that supports Monero
and have Monero on our site.
And following the same logic before,
we start building that audience that wants to trade Monero
so that when we go flip it live, the Monero pool on ThorChain,
we've already got that user base.
But it's still the sex.
I'm curious.
This is one where I'm not going to die on any heel here.
I've been fighting enough battles, so this is what I'm
going to leave up throughout to the community
to see what everybody else thinks.
If you go
centralized, I think you've got to show
the routes. Right now,
we're not showing any of the routes on
or which protocols
you're providing the swap, but if we are using centralized, which, uh, protocols even providing the swap.
But if we are using centralized,
I think that the user should know.
Correct.
Absolutely.
and I think that's,
we want to change that too with the current,
actually let's stick with this subject and I'll change it later,
but go ahead.
Yeah.
I was going to say that like,
I wouldn't do this personally because as soon as you bring in a sex like that,
I think there's questions about sensibility
but also taxes.
You know what I mean?
If you're doing the trade on this sex
as whatever entity that's doing this actual trade,
then it becomes a question of does that entity
owe the taxes of something or whatever?
Do you know what I mean?
Or am I being a tax CPA professional for sure?
But I would be concerned about that angle.
Oh, you mean for the user?
Yeah, for the user or for you,
that you're the account that's actually doing the trading, right?
If it's like Kenton's account on Coinbase,
I'm just, this is probably not the reality,
but hypothetically,
like you're doing all this trade volume on,
you know, Coinbase, Kenton.
It's your account that's actually doing this trading.
Not, you know, not me who's sending you some funds
through this UI or whatever.
And then it becomes a question about like KYC
and like tax tax questions and not
that that might be kind of like I don't know a little bit too um not worth the risks that of
just adding Monero um to be honest I never thought of anything like that. So if I have Bitcoin and I want to trade it for Monero through,
let's say we had this exchange on the ThorChain STO,
I might have to pay tax?
I mean, if I'm paying tax, I'm still recording all my transactions,
all my buys and sells.
Why does it matter where I actually bought my token from?
I'm not a CPA, and I'm obviously trying to give tax advice, whatever,
but it would give me – I would at least talk to a CPA first
before doing something like this because I don't know who wears the tax
in that scenario because it's like on one hand it's like their money,
but on the other hand it's your account
do you know what i mean so i don't know how that works you know especially fine with
it would probably be fine with monero right because of privacy but i'm assuming kenton
is talking about using one account for the dex aggregation and everybody would go through that
one account but at the same time the centralized exchange is sending out from that account
to the wallet of the user.
So you're identified that way as well.
Yeah, I don't know.
I would just be cautious.
When it comes to like,
generally, especially with investing and stuff,
we just always ignore taxes.
That's just up to the user.
That's their business.
They figure it out.
Because everyone's tax situation is so completely different.
Like WB said, if we just disclose it, hey, this is what's happening,
then that's up to them.
That's their responsibility to figure it out.
I have to agree with Kenton with with Texas, because it's up to users.
Torchain cannot be accountable for Texas, same with North Korea.
They go through us.
So, yeah, I don't know. I don't see any relation.
But I think what we should discuss is what is decentralization.
Is it like, uh yes it is a
protocol but at the same time we can have the second layer like having a service for users
and that's what i said before like if we currently for users like if you go then then k
we guarantee that you you can do the swap and even if it gets seized we will reimburse the user and as soon as this uh cease happen we
just stop the route through the centralized exchange so i think there is a shape shift
went through this whole process years ago because initially they were they were a dex right and they
didn't kyc their users um and the only way they could do cross-chain swaps was through Sexyz because Dexyz didn't exist yet.
And eventually, the SEC came after Shapeshift
and put them under a lot of pressure.
And they ended up having to add KYC to their swap interface because of it.
So I don't know. I would stay away from Sexyz myself.
Then third chain will drop the route because of it. So, I don't know. I would stay away from sexist myself.
Then Thorstein will drop the route because Control Bullet has done it for years
and no issues.
Yeah, even if so,
they might not have the volume or whatever
that would get the eyes of the SEC on them or whatever.
And maybe this SEC doesn't give a shit.
It wouldn't even do anything
because it's a Trump them or whatever. And maybe this SEC doesn't give a shit. It wouldn't even do anything because, you know,
it's a Trump administration or whatever.
But, like, to me, it just inserts a lot of risk
and a lot of unknowns, and things can go awry quite quickly,
all just to support Monero.
I'm not sure where it's worth it in my opinion to do that.
I'm not sure it's worth it, in my opinion, to do that.
It's an interesting argument that Chad's making.
I actually don't know enough about the subject material to have an informed opinion on that specific case.
But let's just assume for the sake of argument that, you know, Kenton does his due diligence, CPA, and he says it's okay to go ahead.
CPA and he says it's okay to go ahead. With that concern out of the way, I would say that adding
the centralized exchange, provided there is zero history of any malfeasance or freezing funds or
whatever, I think it is acceptable to have an STO. But WB mentioned, it's also my opinion as well,
there should be the biggest, fattest disclaimer. It should be scary like you should you should tell people
exactly what's going on that if it's going to a centralized third party it's beyond our control
it should be something that's extremely visible for the person who's making the swap so there's
zero ambiguity that what is happening here um because i do like the idea that kenton says that
we want to build a monero audience because you know, there's a lot of people in the audience I'm looking right now
that are huge Monero people.
And I'm curious their opinion, actually.
But that's what my gut tells me.
But the tax side thing, that's an interesting thing.
I'm going to sidestep that.
I'm not sure.
Yeah, taxes and regulation.
And Kenton, I can connect you with some people over at ShapeShift
who literally have done the thing that you're talking about,
whether they have a DEX that they're wrapping around a sex,
and they can tell you what their experience is
before you kind of dip a toe into this.
Yeah, that'd be great.
I'm from Canada, and Binance is banned here.
So in a situation where
the centralized exchange
isn't even allowed to operate
in the parameters of the user,
I don't know how that would tie in either.
Just another thing to think about.
That's where KYC comes into place.
I don't think it's legal for me
to open up a Coinbase account or whatever and then just take money arbitrarily comes into place. Like, I don't think it's legal for, like, me to do, like,
open up a Coinbase account or whatever,
and then just, like, take money arbitrarily from, you know,
any random person on the internet, and then, you know,
execute trades on their behalf and then give them the Ethereum
or whatever token they're talking about, and not KYC those people.
I think that might be grounds of regulatory concern.
Agreed.
But it also means crypto is great.
That you can't even do that.
That's why we, you know, build things in part as a DEX is to,
like, this is like the greatest contribution that crypto has
to the world in general,
that it's for the first time in human history,
we are granted a tool, in this case it's cryptography,
that allows us to protect ourselves from tyrants,
protect ourselves from government.
There's no other methodology that really existed prior to that,
to be honest with you, not in my opinion.
And so our ability to have our sovereignty,
our self-sovereignty, and a lack of ability for government to fuck
with individuals in this kind of way, but using cryptography and privacy and all these
things is like an absolutely incredible tool to empower people and to grant inalienable
human rights to humanity, not granted by a government, but by granted by mathematics.
That's an amazing concept.
Here, here.
That's what we're all, this is what we're doing, guys.
This is why we keep going, right?
This is what's the solution.
I actually understand Chad's point of view.
I actually understand Kenton's point of view and actually understand Danny tennis point of view. When it comes to Chad points of view,
we did not a winning way,
but we did serve North Korea and nobody came after us.
So I don't know, having some Monero swaps,
not sure if somebody is coming after us.
I understand Kenton that we should have a lot of routes on our STO.
And my ideas are, of course, just let's set the limit that the treasury is willing to refund if
something gets stuck. And when it comes to Denis idea, I would say let's not display the big
display or do not swap here because it's going to center as drought because
it gives like the opposite signal to the user. Let's just, if something bad happens, let's just
pay for this user and not display the message. But if it goes above like, let's say 10k, then
of course we say like we are, we don't immerse this transaction. You're on your own, of course we say like we are we don't impurpose this transaction you're on your own
of course but uh in that case but if it's like a small transaction and we're willing to take the
hit as long as nothing happens we should just uh serve the user yeah i i see everybody's arguments
uh real quick i just want to mention about bybit so when that happened um i don't know people are
aware but there was a lot of work being done in the background to actually help people track those funds.
I know FamiliarCal hacked something together, a tracker.
I personally was in a telegram with Sam Yap and others with ZachXBT, and we were identifying people in telegram.
And so the 14 community really went out of their way to help fight
against this. It wasn't, you know, we just let it happen and, you know, we didn't do anything about
it. You know, we saw, you know, ultimately our ethos is permissionless, but we did everything
we possibly reasonably could do to help authorities while not surrendering the most precious ethos we
have at all, which is permissionlessness.
So just want to say that for the record.
There was a lot of work done behind the scenes.
Yes, yes.
I understand.
It was proactive work.
But at the same time, how the Thor chain is set up, we always have inbound, outbound.
outbound. In a sense, we didn't have to do it, but of course, as a protocol, and we have
In a sense, we didn't have to do it.
stance that we don't condemn the illicit fans through us. Yes, understand that we always want
to help everybody. So in a sense, we didn't unsolve the problems that happened. We just
helped people.
That's a very interesting point you made there.
What is the problem? Because we didn't help anything.
We just signaled, we virtually signaled that, hey, we're helpful, kind of.
Well, here's the thing that I think there's a deeper part of that conversation is you
mentioned the word problem.
What is the problem, right?
The problem is centralized custodians losing funds of other people,
right? Which is something that this community has fixed with like JP's Vultisig, where we've
actually made a whole new standard of security. And that's the argument I always push forward is
4Chain is not here to help criminals. We're actually here to solve these problems, to make
the whole industry better in every way imaginable.
And so, yeah, if people just get on board with what we're doing, they take that they
dip a toe, as Kenton said, then they understand that what we're building here actually is
just the biggest, most powerful emancipating tool in the existence of crypto.
Yeah, I'm biased, of course, but point to the protocol that's doing more things than this shared ecosystem.
I don't think they exist.
100% understand, and I contend this as well.
We are, instead of just waiting and just saying, hey, it's your problem, we are actually producing solutions as well, like full-tseek.
And it kind of comes so full circle. As you know, I'm catching like a pickpocket in my city as well, like Fultiseek. And it kind of comes so like full circle.
As you know, I'm catching like
big pockets in my city as well.
And the problem is not
people using the backpack.
And if they use it in the chest,
they will save themselves.
But yeah,
it doesn't matter how much we try
to help fight. Some people
will still fall the victim.
And that's just how it is.
We cannot save everybody.
Save it, MLS, and people will still send puns from the centralized exchange and etc.
Was it you who were pickpocketed or was it a good-looking girl and you're trying to save her day?
What was it there with the coke i want to know no i'm just trying i'm just running
around with my oh okay i'm running around with my hidden camera i'll just have fun with you buddy
you're hey good on you brother that's awesome we all every every single human has agency and we can
make society better you know and every action don't be don't be a sheep, be a warrior, be a man when
you're out there. Okay. Um, Kenton, I'm curious, um, you know, you asked the question, um, do you
think there should be a disclaimer? Um, if we go to the centralized change, how do you feel about
that? Oh, definitely. Of course. Um, yeah, a hundred percent. Um, I was going to say,
Patriot, I'm not going to talk to the cpa like that's because it's impossible
everyone's tax interest is clearly different um um yeah but i and i do i think we're gonna
we want to change the site so it does tell you like where the trade's going whether it's myer
near anywhere else um and so if we did do if everybody was on board with the centralized exchange we
would definitely say that and we would definitely have a warning that this is happening um chad you
mentioned with shapeshift that isn't the issue with shapeshift they were settling the trades
themselves that it wasn't that they were providing the route is they were actually providing
settlement that's yeah but wouldn't you be
doing that in a sex sex situation no we're just we're just like a broker we're just we're connecting
the user to the sex and so the sex might have to do kyc for whatever reason this is the problem
right like we wouldn't door chain wouldn't we okay maybe i maybe i misunderstand what you were
what you had had in mind so well you know how change and change now work uh vaguely yes
i mean you can go on a ledger and you can place a trade right on change now
and it's all no kyc but then every few months somebody's trade gets frozen and Change Now actually asks for KYC.
And because it comes from a weird address or whatever, and they freeze the trade because Change Now is technically centralized.
And so the reason they don't ask for KYC on any other routes is they do their own wallet screening or whatever to ensure it's all legit but if they
get a trade from like a suspect address then they're they're forced to freeze it and and and
look into it um but this is on ledger right this is uh i think trust wallet even uses them okay um
and um but apparently there's other players like that, um, that have never frozen
a trade ever in their history.
And, um, this, this one called let's exchange, um, is one of them and they offer Monero and
I don't know, they're probably at a Seychelles or Bolivia.
Olivia, I don't know where they're based, right?
I don't, who knows where they're based.
Right.
So somewhere where they don't need to do KYC.
Somewhere where they don't need to do KYC.
And so the risk for ThorChain is that somebody does a trade
and that SACS freezes their funds.
And then the user's like, ThorChain, what the heck?
We thought this was decentralized, permissionless, no KYC.
And now my money is stuck and i have to provide kyc
that's our risk that uh you know it could be real that could burn us right it'd look really bad um
yeah yeah okay
yes i mean i'm a i'm a if you can do it in a way that doesn't create any risk for you or for an unstoppable wallet or whatever, then I'm okay with it, personally.
Likewise.
Yeah, the main risk is just somehow one trade gets screwed.
And, you know, maybe it's, you know, I know nothing is perfect right but like it's just i'm just
sensitive to that right and so anyway i think it's a conversation we should all keep happening
having um i'm not going to push it if we have majority support if you want us to do it then
fine let's go for it if if we're 50 50 then maybe we shouldn't i don't know anything about the
centralized exchange but can they get on a space? Do you think they do that? Are they on X?
Patriot, that is a brilliant idea.
I will find out.
Excellent idea.
There you go.
Boom.
Ask them all the questions.
Well, gosh dang it, you guys.
I have exceeded my questions.
So thank you everyone for giving me questions and DMs.
You guys already took care of them.
WBSU unmuted yourself.
Do you have something else?
Yeah, I just had a question for Chad again.
I don't know if you're aware of the problem, but Ruin Bond.
Actually, Be Ruined, the feature Ruger is working on,
where anybody can bond their ruins for the feature
they're working on but they had a problem where the payouts can't happen until the node turns out
and i just think it's a huge feature and once it goes ruin is going to take off big but i don't see
it talked about much yeah so if i understand you, what you're asking is that like, can I get my Ruin rewards from my node without my node churning out of the network?
I think that's what you're more or less saying.
Yes, but the person working on B-Ruin posted that in Discord, and that was the last I heard of it.
Yeah, it's theoretically possible.
It's nothing that Rooji can do, I don't think.
I think it has to be done on the base layer probably,
although I haven't spent that much time thinking about it.
Historically, we've been concerned about,
you don't want to be a node.
I'm going extreme here just to be illustrative.
You don't want to be a node that's churned in the network
and then unbond all your rune
and then your node's still in the network as an active node
but has no rune associated with it.
That's obviously a ridiculous situation you would be in
because otherwise there's no security anymore.
You could just remove all the security of the protocol
and there's nothing securing anything.
That would not be a good thing for obvious reasons.
But that said, I would be open to the idea
that the principal would have to stay in the protocol
until you churn out,
but the interest could be churned out.
We'd have to make some kind of code changes
to track how much is principal
and how much is interest or yield.
And then you could say, I want to unbond my yield, right?
And then it could allow that as long as it's not like too much
or maybe we hit that limit.
Like you can only unbond, like I'm making, I'm just spitballing here,
but you can only unbond, you know, 1% per day.
Just so that people don't like, you don't have too much extracted all at once
and all of a sudden the security kind of, like, gets lopsided or something like this.
I just spent some time thinking about it, but I'm open to that.
I don't think it would be a bad idea necessarily.
I don't know if that's, like, if it would create the avalanche
that you kind of insinuated with your B-Rune kind of reference.
Maybe it would. I don't i don't
know but uh i'm open to to exploring the idea i'm optimistic but sorry go kenny you had wb sorry
buddy well just like i know ruin bonds out there in my opinion like i'm waiting to bond my ruin i
haven't gone through ruin bond yet i could have it just seems like too many steps
to be easy enough for a mass audience to use and if b ruin was a thing and anybody at any point
could bond their ruin i think it would take off but i am pretty optimistic on it uh since you
mentioned yeah i think i think that would be problematic, I think, in some ways,
because the problem that I would have with that is that, like,
if anybody could bond their rune at any time like that,
just arbitrarily, whatever amounts, whatever,
then the yield that the bond makes,
like nodes, you know, in theory, wouldn't like that,
because it just means that they would get a lot less yield, right you're providing a lot more room to the protocol which is adding more security in a
sense but um you know it's being divvied up between more more hands or more wallets whatever
and then you just get kind of like a reduction and and yield generation so there's a little bit
of a a push and a pull to that scenario not to Not to say that's not a good idea or we shouldn't do it necessarily,
but there's the other side of the coin of if I was a node operator right now,
I might be hesitant to accept that feature because I want my rune
to give me as much of the highest rewards as possible
to speak selfishly for a moment rather than just having it be diluted by a fuckton.
Agreed.
Yeah, go ahead, WB.
But it's removing a lot of buy pressure
that would be caused by the people
who would want to add more stake,
even though it's reducing the yield
of the people who are already staked.
I get it, but I think that the price will go up higher than the yield
and it will offset the drop in yield.
I don't know about that because it's like, I think a lot of people,
like for you as an example, like you're not, I don't know.
I don't know what you're doing, but like I'm going to make an assumption here.
Like you're not selling your room right now, right? You haven't sold your
rune in the last, you know, whatever weeks or months, whatever. Uh, you're just kind of having
a sit in cold storage probably. And you're just waiting for the opportunity to, to bond it by a
like B rune or whatever. And so like, it doesn't really create any cell pressure necessarily. It
just sits in cold storage, you know? So how much so of the room we would get what
percentage of that room we would get is like this cold storage just now becoming part of the the bond
versus would have sold but is not selling because now that's in the network as a as a you know yield
blah blah and i don't know like if getting a yield or not getting yield like how significantly that
would really kind of stop people from selling?
Do you know what I mean?
Fair. Totally fair.
Yeah, I don't plan on selling even if the feature doesn't come.
So, fair point.
Well, that's true.
This is obviously a reductive argument
because we're just talking about you and your personal opinion
and your personal experience.
But, you know, thinking more on the kind of macro scale within the community,
like how many rune do we see sold per day
because they just got a little bit bearish on the asset
or they needed to sell it because they needed to buy dentures
for their grandmother or the fuck it is.
And they wouldn't have sold if they were getting a, you know,
8% yield on that rune or whatever is typical for the protocol.
I don't know. It's an interesting question. I don't know the answer to.
If we do implement B Ruin, we're pretty much going proof of stake at that point
because if we go no economic security, anybody can bond their Ruin,
it's pretty much stake at that point.
Right, and that becomes a problem because,
well, less so in our case.
Usually proof of stake is a problem
because you're just minting tokens to pay out the rewards.
And if you have a proof of stake network
and 100% of your token is staked in the network
and everybody's earning a 5% interest, right,
because of the minting of of this, you know,
the minting of new tokens.
In reality, nobody's making any interest, right?
So it's like the more of a higher percentage of people that are bonded or like staking
in a proof of stake network,
the less reward you're actually getting.
You're getting numbers like,
oh, you're getting a 5% increase.
The reality is, no,
you're getting the same amount you had before. You you're just you're getting a five percent increase but
you're also getting diluted at the same time so your dilution and your increase are equal to each
other if 100 of the token is staked into the protocol if 98 is staked into this proof stake
network then you have like a five percent increase but a dilution of 4.8% or something like this.
I'm not giving accurate numbers,
but just to kind of paint the picture,
like you believe you're getting a 5% interest rate,
but the reality is you're getting 0.2
and you just haven't figured out the math
that you're not getting what you think you're getting.
Inflation's a bitch.
Inflation's a bitch in a sense.
Like obviously in our case,
it's a little bit different
because we don't really have inflation anymore right so in this hypothetical scenario where 100% of the
room was bonded into the network you would actually get a real interest whatever you know
let's call it you know two percent because if it's if it's everybody's bonded to a year this
either divvy up the you know whatever million dollars per month or quarter you're getting and then
divide that by the number of, you know, hands or sort of speak, you know, they're each getting it
or number of tokens. And it just becomes such a very small number because the fees that we're
generating as a protocol is not big enough to give the entire ThorChain community, everybody to get
like 10% yield like that. We just don't make that much money, right?
So then everybody just gets like a 1% yield or a 2%
or whatever the number would actually be.
And that kind of like takes away from the experience.
Yeah, it's just a weird thing because it's like to preserve yield,
you're denying security, if you get what I mean.
Yes.
So this is where we've changed our kind of stance,
or I've changed my stance, I should say,
is that I've always held historically a very strong opinion
about a strict security perspective.
Chad, we lost you.
Maybe he had a phone call.
Another phone call.
Sorry.
Sorry, I got another phone call.
Go ahead, Chad.
I apologize for that.
In the past, we wanted more security because then we could have deeper pools,
right?
And then we could have more volume because we have deeper pools.
Like there's like a conga line that happens when you have more security,
where you have more security, you have more space for more deeper pools.
The deeper the pools, the more volume, the more volume, the more fees, the more fees.
It all kind of works that way.
But in our kind of newer kind of stances,
we have a less strict opinion on security.
Having more security now,
how much does it really benefit the protocol to have 2 million more rune in security?
Are we going to see more deeper pools?
Probably not.
Are we going to see a lot more volume?
Probably not.
So what is the actual value
to getting even 30 million more rune to the protocol?
How does that benefit the protocol
in terms of its
main KPIs? I'm not sure it does, you know, other than the scenario where you have, you know, the
loan system of RUJI blow up and getting tons of interest and tons of volume. And that's when it
starts to matter in that particular instance. But until then, I'm not sure how much value it provides.
Okay.
So I'm trying to formulate my thoughts here.
So the way I figure it is, because Chad's totally right,
we've changed our posture on the security posture of ThorChain.
So the way I figure it is,
like the decentralized nature of Thorchain is the best defense and just how uncensorable.
So when Ruggiero really takes off,
let's say STO is just absolutely crushing it.
We've got billions in swap lines.
There's so much money being slung around.
Everyone is just so happy and euphoric.
We're going to try, you guys.
I'm literally looking forward to that day.
To me, that's when you really just switch gears
and you just go to adding more nodes
and increasing the decentralization of the network.
Whether it's DKLS, I don't know.
There's a lot of unknowns there.
But I have a real quick question about B-Rune.
I want to just double check
because it's something I had a conversation with months ago
and I'm making sure I don't remember it correctly.
So how it works, you have your Rune,
goes into a
smart contract that contract you know then then it's it's air quotes bonded right and let's say
you have like millions of room that's bonded via b rune um uh how's it work every like every churn
like there's a percentage that can be withdrawn but you can't just like you can't just have a
mass excess of b rune from everybody, right?
Is that my understanding correct?
Yeah, but you still had to wait until the node turned out to get anything.
Okay.
Okay.
I heard you say something, and I wasn't sure if I heard it correct.
So, yeah, it's still contingent.
There's still friction.
It's easier to enter from a UI perspective, and RuneBond is going to be adding B-Rune.
That's the dev's intention immediately,
but there's still that friction to leave.
And to me, okay, yes, that's all.
That's what I wanted to clarify.
Can I add my two cents on B-Rune?
Yeah, I'm not a fan because,
especially with the security cap being relaxed,
it's more important than ever for the bond provider to have a relationship with the node operator.
And B-Roon just divorces that relationship even further.
So, you know, if we remove the hard cap altogether, you know, the only thing really keeping this together is node operators being good, doing good to their bond providers. And
the only way you can do good to someone is if you know them. And if you don't know them, you don't
care about them. Right. And, and then directly for the node operator, the higher his yield,
the better, right. You know, he making more money, less chance he wants to do anything malicious.
That's kind of the point of DKLS, though, to increase security
so nobody has the chance to steal anything.
So we don't need economic security anymore, right?
And I kind of view it that the node operator needing to have a relationship with the bond provider as a problem, not a good thing.
Like, why? Why do they need to have a relationship? I should just be able to provide my liquidity.
It's both sides of the relationship are helping each other.
The bond provider is now getting yield on their ruin and so is the note operator.
They're getting a cut of whatever the fee
they're getting from the provided bonders and that's just my two cents there's no right answer
here but yeah it's a good place to talk about it if there's no relationship then
why have a bond from the node at all? Just have nodes, node operators, no bond.
It is an interesting point.
I think even if you go to DKLS,
you still need security in that sense.
The only thing that DKLS really changes
is that you're going from a 620,
6 Asgard with 20 members in each
to a single Asgard with 100 and, you know,
whatever the current number of nodes are,
110 or whatever the number is.
And so the idea of capturing that one Asgard vault
with 110 things, you know, it's a lot more required.
You would need like 70 some odd, you know,
72 nodes to capture that,
which would be obviously extremely difficult to do,
even with a B rune thing.
Because even in that B rune scenario,
you can actually like, you know,
limit the number of nodes that B rune actually runs,
quote unquote, sort of speak so like
i still think you need to be considerate but dKLS does make things more difficult to to collude or
steal funds and i'm looking forward to that to that day when we kind of move to that one when we can
but you still need security no matter what and i think what kenton's trying to say one of the
things kenton's trying to say is like the part of things Kenton's trying to say is part of the reason why,
if you're bonding to a node
and you don't know the operator,
then what's to stop them from fucking you over, right?
Protocol protects you in some sense.
You can't steal your rune necessarily.
But if that operator were to spin up a second node
that has the same private key as the first node, and then they start double signing all the blocks, which is like a big no-no in proof-of-stake networks, your rune will start to get slashed.
And then all of a sudden you can get slashed to freaking zero. where somebody accidentally spun up a backup node that was a clone of the first node,
and they lost, I think it was like 250,000 rune
because of that mistake.
And so you would want the ability to yell at Kenton
for losing all your rune in that hypothetical scenario.
But the ways that an operator can lose your rune
is so small and really difficult to happen.
It's extremely small to occur.
The thing I think about is when we go to individualized chain clients per node, right, where maybe XMR only has 20 nodes that run it.
I have no idea.
I'm just making up numbers. But would – okay. In your calculus, Chad, does that change the game theory when it comes to the decentralized nation of the network?
Yeah.
Not a lot.
I mean, the way that I was thinking about it, and I'm working on that feature when I have the time to do so.
when I have the time to do so.
But when we have a scenario
where we have opt-in chain security,
where you can have Monero, right?
Monero is a kind of a hotly contested chain, for example.
Maybe not everybody would want to run a Monero,
Daemon and whatnot.
The security of those chains are a little more aggressive,
a bit more strict, right?
And for a good reason, right? So
we will probably say, like, if you have five nodes that are validating, you know, Monero,
for example, then the maximum amount of depth to the pools, the Monero pools can be 500,000 room,
which is like, you know, basically like a 10th of what those nodes actually have. So in that
scenario, you go back to what's closer
to a more stricter mentality about security
just because you only have five nodes
that are validating this particular chain hypothetically.
But once you get to the entire protocol,
all the nodes combined together,
then it becomes a little bit like,
you can be a bit more relaxed
because the amount of effort and time and money that it would take to capture the entire protocol
is just like, you know, pretty, pretty goddamn arduous if you ask me. Yeah. I like that. I would
think if we did that, like you had that, you had the arbitrary limitation, just use your 500 K
example, then we would pretty much be a solely pol model right because when that limit was hit there
would be no rewards going to that pool even if there was massive swap volume is my understanding
correct uh there would still be rewards going to to the pool could that push it over the 500 000
cap yeah i suppose so but you're not going to go from 500,000 yeah you know right five million you know that's
just unlikely and not to mention that like as the rune price performs well in a hypothetical scenario
the 500,000 rune would actually go down like the quantity of Monero would increase in the pool the
quantity of rune would go down in the pool and obviously conversely can go the other way around
if rune price absolutely dies the quantity of run room in the pool would go up from 500 000 to
a million or whatever and then monero quantity would go down right either or right and in the
example where let's just say there was stupid volume in the monero pool and there's only five
nodes kenton if he wasn't a node he'd be like oh my god i'm wanting in on that action so
yeah i think i think the game theory covers it from all aspects.
So yeah.
Right.
If you have a shallow pool, you know,
like we did Monero, Mare's a good example,
because we would be the only Monero supporters in the industry,
which I think would be pretty amazing, right?
And we probably would get a decent amount of volume from that.
And if we are getting a decent amount of volume,
those five nodes supporting that volume
are getting massive rewards, right?
They're getting like 80% rewards.
I don't know, I'm making up random numbers.
But they're getting massive rewards
for supporting a chain that no other DEX supports
in the world.
And then all of a sudden, you know,
I think if Kenton was an operator,
Kenton wouldn't say,
well, I want to get a piece of that action.
I'll be the sixth node.
I'll be the seventh node.
I'll be the eighth node. I'll be the seventh node. I'll be the eighth node.
I'll be the ninth node.
And so that the natural thing to occur, I think, is just like,
is that as chains are in demand in terms of volume,
that will just garner more or less security for those chains.
I like it.
I like it.
Yeah.
Gosh dang, guys.
It's been a great conversation.
Kenton, did you have anything else you want to add to that or whatever?
No, that's good. It has been a great one. I have to get going here anyway.
So I'm good to wrap it up.
Yeah. Yeah. Chad, do you have anything else you want to,
are we all good to go?
I think we're good to go, bud.
All right. Hey man,
thank you guys so much for coming up and asking questions and thank you,
Chad, for your time away two and a half hours half hours. Very generous and great job, Kenton, on your introduction regarding the marketing stuff and your article. And again, it's up at the top, guys. I know it's not going to be for the recording, but it's up there if you want to click on it. Please do read it. He worked very hard on it.
Saturday, guys, we're going to have Thorwald.
I see CryptoXZ in the audience.
What's up, buddy?
We're going to be talking to you.
I love the Thorwald team.
Excellent, Chad.
Really looking forward to having with them.
And then next week, we have a couple ideas of what it might be.
We'll make an announcement later.
I'm not 100% sure.
But yeah, guys, so we'll be in touch.
But otherwise, guys, thank you guys so much for listening.
This has been an awesome episode.
It's been fantastic. We'll see you guys. But otherwise, guys, thank you guys so much for listening. This has been an awesome episode. It's been fantastic.
We'll see you guys Saturday with Thor Wallet.
Have a great day, everybody.
Bye now.
All right, guys.
Later. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
