Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
THORSday Updates & Alpha w/ Chad Barraford
Recorded: Dec. 18, 2025 Duration: 1:46:24Space Recording
Short Summary
ThorChain is poised for significant advancements in the DeFi space with its innovative decentralized exchange capabilities, strategic growth initiatives, and a focus on enhancing user experience. The community's commitment to improving infrastructure and attracting new users reflects a strong growth trajectory, despite challenges in maintaining token value.
Full Transcription
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music
Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music so
love that yeehaw that's how we started you guys this is gonna be the last space
of thursday space the store chain specific space of 2025 let's get some more people in here before
we start this introduction hey with the coke i got my man my main man kenton coming in what's
going on sir get you up here welcome everybody it's good what
a year we've had what a year we have had let me get started as a co-host here
there we go got that going love it guys go ahead please share whether you're listening live or the
recording this is going to be the last one the last th. Let's make it a banger, guys. I'm so thankful for all of you. Let's get this introduction out of the way and
we're going to get this party started. For those who don't know, ThorChain is the first ever
decentralized exchange to swap real Bitcoin. And now you can use every Bitcoin wallet in the world
and you don't have to connect it to a website. Shout out to Memolisk.
It's the same thing with Ethereum, XRP, BNB, Tron, Doge, and more.
Eventually, you'll be able to swap any token from any wallet to any token.
It's a beautiful thing.
ThorChain is turning into a full layer one liquidity engine
where apps can be built on top of it.
The new app layer, Ruggiero,
which we're going to be talking about Saturday, you guys.
So you've got to make sure you see that space Saturday. Do not miss it.
The new app layer unlocks lending, perps, Bitcoin back, stablecoin, token launchpad,
NFTs, prediction markets, and much more. We're just getting scratched on the surface there.
ThorChain isn't just a decentralized exchange. It's becoming the protocol of pure, uncensorable liquidity.
Swapping on ThorChain is permissionless.
It is no KYC.
Anyone in the world can use it.
It is also very easy to do.
To swap on ThorChain, go to ThorChain.org and click on Swap.
One more time, ThorChain.org.
Click on Swap.
New features and functionality are being rolled out,
and they'll be rolled over the next few months.
If you encourage any problems on the site,
it's kind of in beta right now.
It's doing really well.
There is an email link on the bottom right of the screen. Click that and please submit any problems or quirks you may see or any suggestions at all. Thanks guys. ThorChain's
token is called RUNE. That's spelled R-U-N-E. You do not need to buy or hold RUNE to place a swap
on ThorChain, but the fees that are deducted from your swap are used to buy RUNE. And this is the
RUNE that yield is the yield that goes to liquidity pools and notes there are no block rewards on thor chain
100 of the yield is real thor chain is currently deflationary with five percent of revenue being
burned and we had some huge burns i think we had like 15 16 000 rune burned in one day insane
if you hold a rune on a centralized exchange you need to withdraw that into self-custody because those tokens are being used to short sell Rune and drive the price down.
And once in self-custody, you should look into bonding your Rune to a node to earn some yield
and help secure the network. A really great site is runebond.com. It's super easy. All you have to
do is find a node, request a whitelist, and then you can bond your Rune once you are approved.
This is another time where we're going to have a community shout out.
Of course, you can bond your Rune, but also if you are somebody who has some technical skill,
please reach out. We want new node operators. We have wonderful people like Runtard and others
who are educating people and getting them trained up on how to be node operators.
We will go out of our way to help you.
There's a lot of tooling out there.
Let's increase the decentralization of the network.
ThorChain is one of the only protocols I've ever seen
where people training their competition
is actually healthy for that person.
So please, guys, if you know anybody
or if you're interested, step up.
We will do anything we can to help you.
ThorChain has another token called TCY.
This token is kind of like a preferred stock
where 10% of the protocol's revenue
goes to these token holders.
If you deposited crypto into Sabres
or took out a loan on ThorChain,
make sure to claim your TCY token
so you can start collecting this yield
and anybody can buy the TCY token
on ThorChain.org as well.
There's a ThorChain community discord and telegram.
You can join, learn all about ThorChain
and make lots of friends.
To find the links, go to at ThorCommunity.
That's at T-H-O-R, community account on X.
Guys, these spaces are aimed at anyone
in the ThorChain journey, whether an OG or newbie.
We will cater to you.
There will always be something here for you to learn about.
Let's get this party started, guys.
My name is Denny.
I have another account, Patriot Sounds. And's get this party started, guys. My name is Denny. I have another account,
Patriot Sounds, and I just want to say this is the last Thursday of 2025. It has been an absolutely wild year. I am so blessed to be part of this community and to have experience this year with
you. It's been a very formative year for ThorChain, formative year for me personally. I feel like I
have grown. I feel like I am better. It's been challenging,
but we, I think have navigated the storm expertly, expertly. And I am so excited to see what is going
to be coming next year. So again, thank you all. It's an absolute pleasure doing these things with
you. And I hope during this holiday season, whether it's Christmas or any other holiday,
enjoy the time with your families, enjoy the blessings because, you know, we are all doing this here for them, right?
We're trying to make the world a better place.
And I really feel like we're going to do that.
With that being said, guys, I'm going to go ahead and kick it to Kenton.
How are you doing, Kenton?
Yeah, good.
Thanks, man.
I don't feel like I've grown this year.
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels.
So I'm looking forward to next year.
Fair enough.
But yeah, here, here, appreciate your, your sentiments.
So that's, that's great, man.
And yeah, last space for the year.
Should I maybe give a little quick update kind of what I've been doing with the front?
I don't know where, should I maybe give a little quick update,
kind of what I've been doing with the front end? Everyone loves hearing those, buddy.
So, yeah, we're still working on migrating the front end to the ThorChain server.
And so until that's done, we can't push any updates through.
But the next updates we're working on are limit orders and the streaming swap settings.
And so, you know, hopefully, yeah, it's a matter of weeks, but like you guys know
with Christmas and everything.
So like, you know, North America and the West, everything kind of shuts down over these next
two weeks.
And then, um, the guys in Kyrgyzstan, uh, they told me they, it's kind of like the first
two weeks of January that things kind of shut down there, kind of slowed down.
So we could be in a bit of a lull for the next four weeks because of holidays in various countries.
But yeah, we're still moving forward, still working.
for it's still working um after those updates go through then the next next thing on the list will
be like all the uh thort chain features like bonding your rune and lp and stuff like that
message deposit stuff like that um the dex aggregator so yeah treasury told me the this
their decision to only do thort chain and my Roots and nothing else um so yeah you know
it's not my call that's what they want to do um and the reasoning the best reasoning I can give you
is that uh they you know they don't want to like they think it's like um I don't want to speak for anyone but these these are what i've
been told like the criticisms is that it's like you know we're sending volume to a competitor
um what if a trade goes bad like something happens you know um a trade going somewhere else and
there's an issue you know how do we support that which i actually do feel like that is probably the one main legitimate uh criticism of it um and then and then also just not to rock the boat with the
other partners you know the other integrators we have so um but who knows you know it's it's
you know i'm not gonna i made my case right i i said what I think, but I'm not going to like rock the boat on this. Like,
it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. But if the community is, I'm not going to, you know,
this isn't reverse psychology to try and, you know, whip you guys up. But like, you know,
if enough people want to get involved and like want to try and change it, I mean, maybe it can,
like, it's not, you know, I don't think anything's set in stone. What I disagree with is the idea of trying to get the nodes involved
and like running a vote or anything like that.
I am against that.
I will actually, I will die on this hill to not get the nodes involved with the front end, right?
Because we have, it has, the protocol has to be separate from the front end, right?
The protocol has to be separate from the front end.
And if we give any kind of indication that the nodes do control or influence the front end, then we start muddying the waters.
We got to keep the two separate.
And so the nodes should have no say over the front end and the front end should have no say over the protocol.
Just like the treasury has no say over the protocol and the nodes have no say over the protocol. Just like the Treasury has no say over the protocol,
and the nodes have no say over the Treasury, right?
And that keeps it separate.
But if the community feels strongly about it and whatnot,
maybe they can sway the Treasury's decision, right?
Or maybe alleviate the critics' concerns. But I mean, it's not like we had
much volume on it anyway, you know, so, and you know, with Intense coming out, and also now,
it might not just be a moot point, right? And that was the other part of it, you know, with
Intense coming out on door chain, like, we're really going to need the DEX aggregator when we
can use our own Intense version and stuff for long tail assets. So maybe in six months, it's not necessary anyway, right?
So that's why I'm like, it's not really,
I don't think this is a hill for anyone to die on.
So that's that with the aggregator.
Then the marketing front, yeah, moving forward,
I'm seeing some mock-ups now.
The new website is looking pretty good.
Yeah, just little things.
I don't know if you guys saw the posts on the ThorChain Twitter about the CoinGecko updates.
I've been trying to update the info on CoinGecko, which is fun.
Air quotes, fun.
There's been a lot of back and forth.
They need proof and links and documentation,
all this kind of stuff.
So I've just been doing that.
And yeah, nothing.
I thought I had something about the marketing.
Nothing really is substantial,
just like little things are working on here and there,
trying to move things forward.
Yeah, I'm I'll stop there yeah a couple thoughts what you were just saying like I agree with you were just saying about
like in six months maybe the stuff doesn't even really like matter that
much do you mean because like as you said intense can give us long tail
assets we got like Salana coming out probably in January, I think,
which is like, you know, one source of volume that like Near has that we don't.
And Zcash will be fast following as well.
So like all the, I think a lot of the trades that we get,
that we don't get because Near has them post, you know,
Intense post Solana post Zcash.
Like the volume would be so small that I'm,
I can not even sure it's worth the,
the technical engineering to even maintain that code.
And then also deal with the headaches when something goes wrong.
And like,
as you mentioned earlier,
I think it's a kind of a,
the whole conversation I think is basically moved in six months,
likely, you know? Yeah. I think it's a kind of a the whole conversation I think is basically in six months likely
you know
yeah and we want to keep things
I've always envisioned that the swap
UI to be like very simple very clean
very easy to use not a lot
of like gizmos or gadgets or like options
or you know like keep it
keep it as dumb simple as possible it's like
I actually kind of want to see us do something similar
to what like Coinbase does
or like Kraken or one of these guys, Binance,
where you have like a simple UI that you can log into the site
and you have like a simple little swapping thing,
you know, that's real quick and easy.
A dullard could use it.
And then you have like a pro interface,
which is like where you have like, you know, charts and like trading view
and like, you know, limit orders and and limit orders and more complicated, more powerful things
for more capable traders in the market.
So I'd love to see you guys at some point,
this is just my suggestion,
I'm not telling you to do anything,
it's just my floating ideas out there.
But I would love to see you guys at some point build
trade.thorchain.org instead of swap.thorchain.org
and trade is just like a more like professional interface with like more capable tools and that
kind of thing i think that would be very fascinating well that's that actually is exactly what we've
been talking about um like especially with the uh all the all the smart contract app layer features
all the smart contract app layer features.
Like we want to have all that on the ThorChain front end
and that would be like the pro version.
Yeah, that'd be great.
Yeah, so I totally agree with you, Chad.
Like have like a basic, simple, easy to use the front end
and then if you want to get more complicated,
you go to the pro version.
So yeah, we are definitely talking about that.
Okay, so then what do you think
about the features for bonding and LPing?
Should that be included in the basic version
or in the pro version?
I mean, for me, that stuff is like a separate UI.
That's how I view it, right?
Like you can have like LP.thorchain.org
and you've swapped it to Thorchain.org
and you're keeping it likechain.org and you have...
You're keeping it like instead of having one big giant UI that you like, which is basically what
ThorSwap more or less is, right? You're just kind of having it more like centered on the action
you're trying to take. This is how I would do it. Not that I'm an expert, know all things.
But I would say bonding is probably okay.
I've actually been thinking about bonding a lot,
and I've been thinking about that we should have actually a command line tool
for operators to have to be able to manage their node to like, you know, bond, unbond, leave, maintenance mode,
you know, mate mode, you know, rebond, you know, which is like moving your bond from one note to
another note, like, and have something like, like that's centered around just that management of,
of like your, of your node. But I wouldn't like, I was initially not going to make it into a UI
thing just because I don't want to have something that manages nodes
via a public website that theoretically could capture IP addresses
and maybe docks operators, which we don't want to docks,
or be liable as a project or as a decentralized group of people
to be collecting information about people's IP addresses or whatever,
like this IP address is associated with this particular node or whatever,
that would be kind of a bad thing,
which is why it's better to do it as a command line tool or a desktop tool.
Either one of those two things would work.
I lean command line because you're already using the command line to manage those.
You're already familiar with it.
It's easier to install uh across many different
operating systems so forth and so on but i think for right now like i would just keep like very
simple separate uis to you know and then if you want to you can create like links to the other
uis if you want to but that's how i would do it i actually like that man i mean to be honest i
didn't even think about that like that i actually really like that idea um so i'm yeah i'm already making notes and i'll bring it up
um and like i definitely appreciate your sentiment about collecting ip addresses with the nodes and
whatnot but um you know just because we have like a bond bond.thorchain.org with all the you know
features for node Operator.
It doesn't mean they have to use it, right?
Some people can use it, some don't have to, right?
Yeah, that's true.
We're not forcing to use it, of course.
I hadn't considered until just now
of bond providers,
like people who don't run nodes,
but they provide bond.
That would probably require a web UI
because those people are, you can presume that those people
are non-technical savvy,
and they don't know how to use command line,
of course, and blah, blah, blah, and whatever.
And so for those, you'd want to have probably a UI
or at least something that's downloadable,
like a downloadable desktop app or something like this
if you want to get totally paranoid
about it.
We should have basic
tooling. We've kind of relied
on ThorSwap for a long
time, and they've done a great job. I'm not even
dissing them in the slightest.
But it's like,
the management UI for ThorSwap
hasn't been updated in quite a while
with all the newer features of
managing nodes. I don't mean that as some sort of UI for ThorSwap hasn't been updated in quite a while with all the newer features of managing
nodes.
And I don't mean that as some sort of criticism towards them at all.
I haven't even bothered to reach out to them and ask them to update it.
But it makes sense that we kind of own our full stack a little bit more so that we can
ensure basic functionality, basic usage, and have like control our own kind of destiny, destiny in some regard.
I totally agree. And like, I mean, Asgard X is great for desktop.
Yeah, that's great. Yeah.
And, but yeah.
Familiar Cow just launched his own like Rune Tools desktop app recently.
just launched his own like rune tools desktop app recently yeah and like um but yeah so that's
what i'm thinking with with the storechain.org it's just it's just another place for people to
use or it doesn't have to be the only place yeah of course yeah yeah of course yeah oh one more
thing like when we're talking about the uh the more like pro ui for trading
like are you thinking that um that it only works with like secured assets like that's how i think
about it like you have to you have more of a traditional like sex experience where you
you first deposit money you deposit bitcoin you deposit you know usdc or whatever and then you
get you know which is effectively a wrapped asset, which is what they do.
This is what a secured asset effectively is a wrapped asset in effect.
And then from there you can trade and it's a good experience because the trading is fast.
Trading is cheap.
You know, there's not like a huge gas fees or like 10 minute wait time for Bitcoin transactions.
You can just like trade, trade, trade, trade, trade, trade, trade, trade, back and forth as fast as you want um just gives you a better experience are you thinking the same
thing as i was yes exactly um yeah that that's the idea that's awesome love it love it the only
thing that like you know since we're chatting about this it's like with limit orders, we can have limit orders on L1 assets, but
you don't need to create assets.
So, you know, so the right now, the devs, the guys, they're going to build the limit
orders into the current UI.
And so I'm not sure how that's going to like, if that's going to complicate things, make
it more messy, what it's going to look like. But that would be the only one that kind of, it kind of lives between the
basic version and the pro version. You know, how do we handle limit orders on on L1s? Because if
you can do limit orders on secured assets, right? Yes, correct. So how are we going to
differentiate between L1 assets and secured assets and guide the user?
Yeah, that's a good question.
On the one hand, you have these two groups or two classes of users.
One is an L1 hobby swapper who's maybe not the most savvy, you know, just kind of buying or selling
a little bit here and there.
And then the other one, you have like somebody
who's an actual trader trader who day trades
or does price charting and, you know, Fibonacci,
whatever the hell and whatever that stuff is.
But then you have the problem, as you're kind of alluding to,
is that like the limit order on Thor chains,
like the base layer supports secured assets and also like layer one assets.
And so where does that layer one limit order kind of like sit?
Is it kind of the pro UI or more like the casual UI?
It's a good question.
I don't really know the answer to that question.
Like I do feel like if you put it into the casual UI,
it would just be overly complicated, you know?
I think it would just be another hurdle,
like a mental hurdle that people have to jump through.
Unless you have like a tab that's like basic mode
and advanced mode of the basic UI.
Does that make sense?
I don't know. I feel like we might be just like overcomplicating it,
you know?
Yeah.
For me,
when I approach things like this,
I just start putting it together and just seeing how it looks.
And I think the unstoppable guys have done a pretty good job of this,
but they just start building it.
And then they kind of show me this,
what we got done so far.
And then,
you know,
I go back with my feedback and we kind of go back and forth until it starts to make sense.
And then I think in that process, we'll find out,
I'm like, man, it's just becoming too complicated.
And we do have to do completely, you know, start over again,
or maybe we can iron it out so that it is simple to use.
So I think it's just
i think it's just something we're just going to have to uh fix on the fly you know and see how it
goes yeah it's possible that like that that limit swaps on thore chain space layer for layer one
assets is just like a rarely used feature because people are like ARBs are not going to be using
that. ARBs are going to be using secured assets or even trade assets. And pro traders are going
to also be using secured assets because it just gives a better kind of UX. So maybe that's just
the outcome. And I'm okay with that. That's perfectly fine by me. The feature still accomplishes
what it's designed to accomplish. But it's kind of an interesting thing that like,
you think naturally that there would be like some interest
in a layer one limit order, but maybe that's just not the case.
You're absolutely right.
And like, you know, if we start to find that
it's just not being used on the basic front end,
I'm like, maybe we can consider getting rid of it.
And then kind of forcing people to the pro version
and not where they actually do want to you know they're gonna you know pro order is probably
going to stack their bids right have like 14 open orders outstanding type deal and he wants a nice
place to look at it and um so yeah well yeah that'll be another thing we'll just see how it's
being used and that'll help guide us on the design too right right i have a question from the community and uh real quick you guys um please
if you have any questions at all go to the thor chain telegram and please ask them um i'm also
monitoring the rogerian one as well if you're on that side of the things um but remember this is
the last thor space of the year.
So please, if you have any questions, ask them now,
because we're going to be having a bit of a break with Chad here.
Or it could just be comments.
This is more or less a well-wishing one,
because it's close to Christmas time or the holiday season.
So if you want to tell Chad he has a sexy voice,
or if you want to say Kenton looks young and has great hair,
despite the fact he's 83 years old, please do that. That great but the first question I have is from Artem and he's this
question's for you Chad he says what are Chad's plans for Thorchain next year does he have any
plans what he will build after intense rapid swaps limit orders what else uh, so I think there's the current kind of roadmap,
which we have, as you mentioned, intense.
We have opt-in chain security so that we can add more chains faster,
help to add more chains faster,
and be able to scale to a much larger quantity of chains in theory.
There's limit swap, which is still kind of ongoing,
getting that kind of tighter,
tighten that up some.
And then after that,
it's rapid swap,
which will also take some time
to tighten up as well
because it's kind of a complicated thing.
I don't think everyone's ever done that before
to do like limit swaps
with an AMM,
like hybrid mixture.
I think we're the first to do it,
at least the one I'm not aware.
So that'd be pretty complicated to do.
Post all that,
I think there'll probably be a switch.
I mean, there's other things too before I get to the switch.
But there's the intent to do DKLS,
to migrate our cryptography from GG20 to DKLS.
We're still waiting on what's called identifiable aborts,
which is currently not supported
in the current DKLS libraries.
I'm not pushing hard for that
just because I'm already busy
working on all these other features,
so it's not like a top kind of priority in my mind.
We're still talking about batch outbound,
so we can sign multiple Bitcoin transactions
or multiple Ether transactions
in a single signature, so to speak,
and kind of have a faster signature, so to speak, and kind
of have a faster throughput, which is maybe positive.
There's a bunch of changes that I wanted to make around making the protocol faster in
its trades, rapid swaps being kind of the most obvious one.
We mentioned before, and what I've been working on lately is this like zero-conf trading where the trade that you execute, that you trade executes while it's in the mempool
and before it gets onto the block and the Bitcoin block.
That just, to speed up, it can, you know, reduce the trade time by 10 minutes theoretically
and that kind of thing.
and then there's other things like
I wanted to get the infrastructure for the nodes
so that you can specify multiple daemons
and multiple providers of daemons
so you can run your own daemons locally
and or you could run
you could like connect to some sort of hosted version
like Anchor or Blockchair or like connect to some sort of hosted version, like Anchor or, you know, Blockchair or like, you know,
one of these kind of characters.
Or even like Archeo, which is a decentralized version of that.
So you can have like failover and like primary, secondary failover.
We call that in the industry, we call that master-slave relationship.
So that you have like more reliability.
I'd love to see more improvements around more quality of life things
for the nodes to be able to more easily track how many slashes
you're getting and why you're getting your slashes
and what the problems are to make it easier to track down
if there's a problem in your cluster to make it more obvious
and just easier to find out where that problem is, you know,
and what to do about it and so forth and so on.
And then after that, that's going to be like a switch
to like a lot of like what's called technical debt,
which is basically switching to like focusing on reliability,
shorting up some tools, refactoring code,
pulling out some things, you code, pulling out some things,
pulling out some code we haven't used in a long time that's kind of dead.
Like Ragnarok, for example, we might partially remove that, maybe, for example.
And there's a lot of changes with that.
And then I also want to build, like, I'm interested in engaging more in the AI space
and applying it to ThorChain's infrastructure,
ThorChain's code, ThorChain's community.
So I'm interested in building these kind of AIs
that are operating as like partial developers
to assist us in the process
so they can help us not only like build new things,
but find bugs and help solve them.
I want the AI to be monitoring the protocol
and basically real-time, looking at logs,
looking at metrics, looking at data,
looking for anomalies, something that's weird,
notifying when the AI sees something odd or weird,
and then kind of maybe taking action
to help mitigate or possibly or whatever.
That I'm kind of interested in doing.
I kind of want to build one of those LLMs to be pulled into our Discord
so that you can talk to kind of like a chat GBT kind of thing
within our Discord, and you can have conversations
and ask questions about the protocol or about, you know,
how much room this Thora address has or the volume of the past three months or
something like that.
Like just building more stuff like this for the,
for the kind of community as a whole.
There's a lot of things I have,
I'm interested in kind of expanding out into.
Yeah.
Is that enough things for you?
For me it is.
Yeah.
Did you have anything you want to add to that,
Kenton?
Yeah. I'm going to give you more work to do, Chad.
Just a question.
You mentioned getting rid of Ragnarok.
Why get rid of it?
Isn't it so good to have it in case we want to get rid of a pool?
So Ragnarok was never,
originally it was not designed for getting rid of a pool.
It's not actually really designed for that at all.
Although maybe we made some changes to it a couple of years ago
that I'm just forgetting now.
But originally it was designed to deal with the scenario
where say there was a mass exodus of the 4Chain protocol.
For whatever reason, something's happening
and all the validators are like,
I'm getting the fuck out of here you know
and they're all exiting and it was designed that like it only actually executes when you get down
to like four nodes remaining like today we're at like a hundred and something whatever the number
is but like if it got down to like something where you're actually starting to lose like
you know byzantine fault tolerance then like that's a problem and so at that point the network kind of detects that and
then it just starts like ejecting all of its funds all the bonds all the lps everything just kind of
goes through a process just ejecting everything and giving everybody back like you know all of
their money more or less um and so that it can like gracefully shut down and self-destruct in a sense. We built it there just as morally,
I guess mostly as a theoretical outcome
we want to be prepared for, I guess.
And we only used it once when we triggered it.
Excuse me.
We triggered it intentionally
for a single-chain chaosnet
a long time ago, and
it worked pretty well. It was a little bit slower than we thought
it was going to be. There was a few bugs to patch
when that happened, but we haven't
used it since, and it's just a bunch of code just sitting there
and hasn't really been executed or been
run in a long time.
There is an
argument you can make, and a good one with that one, as you're kind of doing now,
that if we want to reject a certain pool, which is not really a Ragnarok necessarily,
that's a partial Ragnarok, but if you want to reject a certain chain, right, like if we're
going to get to a place where the security of each individual chain is going to be like an opt-in system
rather than like a global, like all validators validate all chains.
Then you run into a scenario where the idea of ragnarocking an individual chain
and all of its pools becomes a lot more likely, right?
A lot more higher probability of that actually happening
because there's not a lot of support for this particular chain
and it dies out because that chain's not doing well.
Or just it literally dies.
We've seen a bunch of chains die in the last 12 months effectively.
So we might keep it for that particular purpose.
But there's a whole bunch of other code too that we could rip out
that we don't even need to have anymore
and just to simplify things and clean things up and kind of like do some house cleaning so to speak uh okay sorry my my bad i
i got confused i forgot it was for the whole network i thought it was for like
because like when when luna and ust blew up that didn't we technically ragnarok those that yeah i guess in some sense we did i don't recall
like we i think we had to build like at that time we didn't have ragnarok on a per pool basis
and we had to build build an entire new like addition to ragnarok to to allow you to ragnarok
a specific pool or a specific chain and i it's been a few years since then,
so I don't quite remember off the top of my head
what that implementation looks like.
But yes, we expanded it to support a specific pool later on.
But the initial intention was really supposed to be global.
And obviously, Terra was a rare instance.
So then it becomes a conversation of
having the technical capability
and putting all the engineering effort
to support ragnarok in a pool
versus doing it somewhat manually.
What does the actual make sense?
Is there enough ROI there
to spend that engineering time
to build and maintain and test
and blah, blah, blah,
the autonomous system
versus a more manual one.
I don't know.
You could argue it's in both directions.
It's probably good arguments in both directions to be fair.
But maybe if we're heading towards a place where we're going from like,
you know, however many chains we have now to, you know,
30 chains or something like this,
then the statistical likelihood of us, you know,
ragnarokking a chain or a pool probably goes up with each chain that we add you know yeah um and i keep thinking
the x rune pool it really bugs me because it's like i'm kind of a bit of a need freak i'm pretty
tidy you know so i'm always you know i keep a clean house type thing so like i feel like that's
a dead project and it's got Rune attached to it.
And like, in my mind, like, should we get rid of that pool and just eject it?
And it's just kind of like, you know, it's just kind of, yeah, maybe.
And I wonder, maybe I'm changing the subject a little bit now, I guess.
What are your thoughts on like kind of arbitrarily, you know,
axing pools like that, that we just don't feel are in thought chain's interest.
I mean, I don't have a strong intention to do something like that, because I don't want to
come down on the protocol as some sort of manager of some kind. What should happen,
on paper, in theory, what should happen is that when you have an asset, there's a dead asset,
In theory, what should happen is that when you have an asset,
there's like a dead asset,
and let's say X rune is an example,
it's got a handful of LPs, whatever.
The X rune, the value of the X rune itself
should decrease over time because it's a dead product.
People are selling it to something that's not dying.
And so the quantity of rune in the pool
would just decrease over time, right?
And then there are rules about, in the pool, which would just decrease over time. And then there are rules about, in the protocol,
that we call a pool cycle, where if the pool,
the quantity of rune in a pool drops below a certain quantity,
it goes from an active status to a standby status,
or whatever it's called. And then it starts charging, if your pool is in like a standby status,
it starts like charging the LPs a little bit of extra like rune per churn effectively.
I don't know how much it is off the top of my head. It's been a long time since I've
looked at that code. But it's just like kind of charging like a fee for the security of
it because it's not actually being used for trading because trading is not allowed. It's
in standby status, not active status. So it starts to charge the pool money
for that. And then once it gets so small that the value of the pool goes down and down and down,
because it's like every three days, it's charging some sort of fee on that pool.
And then at some point, it gets to some other number where the amount of rune is under 100
rune, or I don't remember the exact
numbers on top of my head but like something like this then it just like abandons it right
the pool's only got 100 rune in it then like fuck it and just like abandon the pool entirely
so there are like mechanisms in place to actually remove these things on its own uh i don't know
how deep that pool is i don't know if you know top of your head how deep uh the x-run pool is
um but i presume it's not that deep i actually just went to go look and find it i don't know if you know top of your head how deep uh the x room pool is um but i presume
it's not that deep i actually just went to go look and find it i don't maybe it's not active i'm not
seeing it on uh thorchain.net so maybe it's already gone into standby um that's possible
it's possible but oh wait there it is um there's 102 000 it's actually yeah 102 000 so there's 102,000 it's actually 102,000 dollars
so there's
181,000
yeah it is
it's actually
it's like in the middle of the pack
yeah which is interesting
so like the people who
are LPing in that pool right now
they are LPing in a pool that
I presume has near zero volume,
like trade volume, right? It's making no money. It's not a good allocation or, you know, an
efficient allocation of their capital. They'd be better off to like sell the, you know, remove the
LP position, sell their X rune for rune or Bitcoin or,E or Bitcoin or even a fucking stablecoin, for Christ's sake.
And then kind of carry on.
But the free market is effectively going to decide whether that pool should stay or not,
just because the act of LPing is not necessarily like a free thing.
You're locking up capital and you're taking a long position on both assets, both RUNE and the XRUNE.
So there should be a natural thing
to happen but that's what it is on paper in practicality people forget you know people like
lp into some pool and they forgot that you but if or whatever you can did it and you know and it
just kind of stays there basically forever you know yeah okay but basically to summarize what
you said earlier it it kind of takes care of itself
if the pool really yeah it will just shrink and eventually go away on its own i mean we could we
could be a little bit more aggressive about it like we like for example if the pool's daily volume
is below something really small like i don't,000. I'm making up numbers here, but some small number,
then we can charge some sort of fee to the pool
for just not producing enough value for the protocol
to make it worthwhile to maintain it.
Because every time we churn, we have to churn that X room, right?
And that costs some gas,
but you're not even producing much in fees in that pool.
So are we spending more on fees than we are in gas?
And so we could be a bit more aggressive on that,
just a little bit, and just say,
hey, we're going to require that this pool
makes enough money to pay for the gas
that it takes to churn each time we churn
so if it doesn't do that then you know we'll just deduct some rune from the pool you know
autonomously and then put it into the reserve to pay for the for the gas and that will just like
kind of over time chip chip away at that pool you know i think um it makes me a little because i think with kenton i really like
you ask this question kenton because if you look at thor chain.net you got to think of someone who
comes into our ecosystem for the very first time there's no idea they just know thor chain's
awesome it's 2026 let's say ruge is going awesome the front end's going awesome we're kicking butt
i feel like that might be a very likely way for people to get confused.
Because if you look at the pools on ThorChain.net, it doesn't say, right?
It just says, you know, stablecoin, BCH, Ethereum, Bitcoin, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They may look at XRUN and say, oh, that's the assets I need to get in order to bond or whatever.
So I'm wondering if it is worth, I mean, usually I would agree with your side, Chad. I need to get in order to bond or whatever.
So I'm wondering if it is worth,
I mean, usually I would agree with your side, Chaz,
like just let the market do its thing.
But because the name is so similar, I wonder if it's something
that we should consider prioritizing
on being a little proactive, like you said.
Yeah, I'm not sure.
I mean, from a dev perspective,
I care very little about this.
I mean, this is kind of like Kenton's OCD a little bit, right?
Not to offend Kenton, of course.
I'm just wanting things to be a little bit cleaner than they are.
And from a dev perspective,
we have a lot of things that's on our plates
and busy with a lot of things
and we don't have a very large dev team
unlike most other projects
we have a very small team
and so we don't have that much
in terms of resources
so we have to be efficient about how we apply those
resources
yeah
I mean that makes sense too
my thing was just like I'm thinking from like the marketing
selling part of you like when you go type in rune up pop yeah pops up x rune people go what is this
yeah no this must be rune as well another cool rune token i want to buy rune and it's like
then we have to explain it and it's like an explanation you just don't want to go down.
And so just avoid the conversation altogether.
Yeah.
But at the same time, anybody can name anything they want. Like there's X rune and there's B rune and there's like Thor token
and all these things can easily be confused with like, you know, real rune.
know real rune and there even was like bep2 rune back in the day right um but any project can can
And there even was like Beptu rune back in the day, right?
create a token that's called rune or b rune or a rune or u rune or whatever known rune whatever
you know yeah we still occasionally would have people come in and ask this year about bep2 rune
i'm like oh my god have you been in a cryo chamber?
What is going on?
Yeah, I mean, that's been gone for years at this point.
You know, and we're probably going to see the same thing with like, with TCY to some degree.
You know what I mean?
We're going to have people five years from now saying,
how do I get my TCY?
You know?
Yeah, that might.
At least they'll be able to get it, right?
Like their claim doesn't expire, right?
Yeah, I'm not aware of any kind of expiration on that.
On the BEP2 room, we kind of had to expire to some degree.
But this you can be a bit more flexible on.
Yeah, I mean, the beacon Binance, literally, the change ended.
So, I mean, really the our fate was tied on
that front right right our hands were tied to an extent you know yes sir um i have another question
here um again for you chad kind of a playful speculation one here um How is, the question is, how is Rune, the token,
being impacted by all those things
Chad mentioned for the future, including
Intense? Are there plans to improve the tokenomics
or will we live to see Rune
climbing back up higher?
Smiley face.
So this is an interesting question.
Generally speaking, I don't
really comment much on price stuff and there's a good reasons, there's a So generally speaking, I don't really comment much on price stuff.
And there's a good reason, there's a handful of reasons why I generally don't do that.
But what I do talk about is things we do or things we want to change with the protocol to improve its value proposition.
And by improving its value proposition, you're improving the fundamentals.
And in theory, the price should move with the fundamentals.
If the fundamentals get better, then the price should go up.
If the fundamentals get worse, the price should go down, so forth, and so on.
But that's not always the case, right?
Because sometimes, I think, even now, the market just feels a bit bearish.
There's not a lot of interest in paying attention to what's going on,
quote unquote, not just ThorChain, but just projects in general, I feel like,
except for the primary ones. I don't get that much love these days.
And so it's like, part of me is just like, I could do something amazing on ThorChain right now, theoretically, that would be incredible.
And it may not have the effect on the price that I think it would.
Whereas in the past, when we launched major features in the past, we would see the price almost double within 30 days or so, historically speaking.
I don't know if that would be the case today in today's macroeconomic
situation. That said, I don't really care how the price is affected necessarily. What I care
about is just changing the fundamentals and the price should hopefully follow suit in its own time,
which may not be today. It could be tomorrow or whatever. I try to stay focused on the
fundamentals and the value proposition. And my thesis is as long as I do that, the price,
in theory, should move with it. But if it doesn't, it's like, well, then there's nothing I can do to
make the price move in any particular direction because any action I take would have no effect.
So the only choice I have is to focus on the things
that I think would affect the price,
like launching some new feature that improves swap performance or speed
or limit swaps or whatever else
that would, I think, increase liquidity, increase volume, increase whatever.
And there's some things outside of my purview,
like what Kenton's doing in the marketing side.
That, in theory, should have an effect on the price.
Whether it actually does or not, that's a different thing,
because sometimes the macro is just not receptive to this stuff.
Do you know what I mean?
There's nothing you can really do in certain kind of economic scenarios. Whether that is the scenario now or not, I don't really know.
I just stay focused. Whatever we can do to contribute to the value proposition of the
protocol and then marketing's doing what it's doing to get the word out of what it is that
we're actually doing and why they should be excited about it and why they should be interested
and why it's a real know, good for the,
why it's like a real product with real usage
that actually does something for real people
rather than just like, you know, selling copium all day.
Like most projects in the space, they live on copium, right?
Like they don't really have a product that actually anybody really uses,
but they think that it will in the future, you know?
Like Cardano is probably a good example of that.
They've been talking for how many years now think that it will in the future you know um like cardano is probably a good example of that they've
been talking for how many years now about how africa is going to adopt you know uh ada or um
xrp's been talking for years about how it's going to be adopted by the banks of that way of
transferring between banks and that's just like never meant it's like it's just living on hopium
you know and that's really not like Solana is probably the same thing.
Like, you know, it says we can do 300,000 transactions per second
to whatever the number is,
but like nobody's really using it for anything
other than like just, you know, pumping meme tokens,
which is, you know, not much.
Maybe one day that'll change
and they'll get like stocks and bonds thrown on Solana.
I don't know.
Like legitimate stocks and bonds,
like the Nasdaq being run on it.
Who the fuck knows?
But like, you know,
I try not to live on hopium.
I try to just like actually deliver real things
and deliver real product,
real value to real people.
That's my thesis.
I stay focused on that.
What happens to the price after that effect?
It should follow it in theory,
but if it doesn't,
that's just more of the macro rather than the micro, which means there's nothing i can do about the macro i can can i add
to that go ahead yeah i got lots to say um so like we're we're we're still in a bear market like 24
was just a bull trap like this this year has been bad and like when you're in a bear market in any
industry it doesn't matter what you do like your your share price doesn't move right um you know
that's kind of the sort of bear market is like nothing good is happening it's all just bad um
so there's that and then i always get frustrated people talk about adjusting the tokenomics on rune like look compare the tokenomics on rune to
every other crypto like rune has incredible tokenomics as it is um this this is one of
the reasons why i pushed for years i was pushing to get rid of block rewards um to try and position
rune like the token and tokenomics as being like top notch top tier like we have zero
inflation um it's now deflationary because of the burn um we have no more debt um all the tokens are
fully distributed right there is no more token unlocks right there's no one gonna dump on us
if they're gonna dump they're done they're're gone. So our circling supply is as
distributed as you're going to get. And we make money. If you look at the last, I just did this
math yesterday, the last 12 months, trailing 12 months of revenue, I think it was about 28 million.
revenue, I think it was about 28 million.
Store chain's PE right now is eight.
Like you go to any TradFi investment,
whether it's like a, you know, a convenience store,
a t-shirt maker, a lemonade stand, whatever.
If your business has a price to earnings of eight,
that's a cheap valuation, right?
In any industry.
And so like right now with ThorChain's problem
is just like how much cheaper is it going to get, right?
And when is the market going to recognize that?
And like what other cryptos
are actually running like a genuine business?
Like, you know, most of these projects are just,
you know, solutions looking for a
problem. Whereas Thorchain actually solves a problem and, uh, and people are paying to use it.
And, um, the, the issue with Thorchain isn't tokenomics is that nobody knows about it, right?
No one's using it. And, um, so that's, you know, my job, but I've taken on to do for you guys is
to try and get everyone to know about it and start using it and um so like the funnel we're trying to build here is we want to start with
users right so that's why we're at the front end going working on redoing the website so that when
we go to get new users they come to the site uh it makes sense they like to use it and they come to the site. It makes sense. They like to use it and they like to trade on it, whatever.
And we can find a way
to start growing our user base.
Once we start growing our user base
and getting volume,
then we can go to investors
and say, look,
look, all these great things
about DoorChain.
It works.
It's growing.
Invest in DoorChain
because what investors want to see
is blue sky.
They want to see how big can this get and then discount that to today. And whatever that delta
is between their assumed projections versus the current price, that's their decision to invest or
not. And if we can actually, this is why I keep comparing ThorChain to Binance and the volume of centralized exchanges.
The market we're going after is like a thousand times bigger than we currently have.
And if we can communicate that to the investment community and show them how we're actually growing, how we're actually on a trajectory to reach that.
actually on a trajectory to reach that.
It doesn't take, it's very easy for anyone with half and a brain in the investment world
to start connecting the dots and be like, holy smokes, ThorChain is incredibly undervalued.
So, but my position is if we go to, if we try to go to the investment community now
and we spend all this time and money on trying to get new investors now but thor chain doesn't grow then we're not delivering on the promise
right and then those new investors will just they'll just leave after a year because oh
thor's not growing it's going sideways so um that's why i want to focus i think we should
focus our efforts on getting the users into growth now so that when those new investors come, we're in that growth stage.
It's already happening.
And I'm of the opinion it'll be easier to attract new users than new investors.
Everybody wants to swap Bitcoin for Ethereum, for Tether, whatever, right?
for Ethereum, for Tether, whatever, right?
But not everybody wants to invest in something new.
But not everybody wants to invest in something new.
So it should be easier for us to get the new users,
easier for us to grow,
and that in turn will make it easier for us
to get the new investors.
So that's like the big funnel I'm trying to build for us.
And yeah, to bring it back to tokenomics,
I don't think tokenomics are issue it's
just communication we just got to get get the story out get people to know about it um you
know like you guys keep seeing you know thor chain not showing up on these charts on these research
platforms um so we're looking into that you know to try to get thor chain integrated and like
they're expensive like they're quoting us like 30 50 100 grand 150 grand like you know, to try to get Thorchain integrated. And like, they're expensive. Like they're quoting us like 30, 50, 100 grand, 150 grand, like, you know, to get Thorchain
And so, you know, we got to try and negotiate better pricing.
We got to, you know, pick and choose which ones we want to do and when.
We are moving forward with Masari.
So we'll get into their system so that when a research analyst is looking up a
protocol, looking at protocols, like what are the top 10, top 20 protocols in revenue,
blockchain will start showing up in the list of Masari. But we want to get a token terminal,
Artemis and all the rest, right? So it's coming. We want to do it. It's just, I feel like that's phase two.
And the other thing is, too, we're going to focus on phase one
and get new users more volume.
And that's more money for the marketing fund.
And then we can better afford to pay to get into all these different research platforms.
So we start showing up on the radar of analysts.
Because that's ultimately going to be the goal, right?
For us with marketing is we want ThorChain to show up in people's search
results that they've never heard of ThorChain before,
but now we're showing up in the results when they're looking for, you know,
something to invest in or something to use to trade. So that's,
that's what I'm working on. That's the mass, that's our master plan.
So I don't, yeah, bring it back to tokenomics.
I don't think, you know,
adjusting tokenomics is going to change anything
because no one's watching.
No one's paying attention.
No one's going to know about it.
Only us, you know, us geeks on this space.
No offense, everyone, but only we know about it, right?
So if we don't have any vehicle
to get the message out to the world,
we can change the tokenomics a dozen times over and it doesn't matter because no one's paying attention so
we gotta start getting out of our echo chain i'm not saying we're in an echo chamber but you guys
know what i mean we gotta start getting the message out to the to the to the world to the
audience um so they can just see what door chain is currently. Yeah, so I think that's our problem, and that's what I'm trying to solve.
Yeah, I don't even know what the...
Like, if I could make any changes
to the token economics of ThorChain,
I don't even know what would be off the top of my head
to improve it.
It's already, like, as you said,
like, it's pretty freaking solid, you know?
Yeah, I agree.
I think it's done.
I don't know what else you could do.
We already got, I mean, we have things in the token economics
I don't even really agree with, like the burn, for example.
I don't think that's actually good.
And I actually, I still would, if I had things my way,
I would still have the block admission.
I think we did that just too early if I had my say on this thing.
But still, I don't know what else we could do to make it even better than it already is.
I agree, man.
I think we're done.
We're good.
We just got to get the message out now and get people to think about it and realize it.
And that's what I'm convinced on.
The next wave of money, the next trillion dollars coming into crypto
are their normies, their generalists, right?
And they're going to view crypto from the Warren Buffett way of investing.
You know, they're going to, where's the value?
Where's the revenue?
You know, how does this, this has got to be a business.
How does this work?
I mean, ThorChain has it in spades.
Where's all
these other projects even the big ones like like you mentioned xrp like what if they there's like
40 a day they have on yeah rp like how do you justify whatever 80 billion market cap whatever
it is like it just it's crazy um yeah yeah so yeah well said yeah um i don't mean to derail the conversation um but i do have
another question um well said both of you by the way um and this is a slightly embarrassing for me
because it's a deal with bonding your room but it's a little nuance and i i just can't quite
remember so if chad or kenton if you know the answer to this, comes from a node operator.
They said, I should know this.
Sadly, I don't.
Does the rebond command allow you to move bond to another node
with the same operator while both are churned in?
I thought there was something about having nodes
within the same operator had stuff like this,
but I can't seem to find it in the docs.
Could one of you guys comment on that?
Let me look it up real quick. I actually don't
know off the top of my head. Yeah, I couldn't remember either.
You're trying to rebond
between two nodes that are currently active?
Right? I will repeat. I'm going to repeat the question.
So, does rebond
allow you to move bond
to another node with the
same operator while both are churned in is the
question uh i'm gonna look i'm gonna look on in the code real quick actually i don't know the
answer all i know is you can rebond within the same node yeah like my guess is probably not um that's my guess too but yeah i don't know
very good question very good question i think there's something um i'm not the one that
actually built this feature so i don't have all the on hand but I do have once you're done looking up I'd actually bring it back to
tokenomics I do have a an idea question about it but I'll wait till you're done looking okay
I don't think you can do this while the node is active.
Yeah, I think it has to be in a standby status in order to rebond.
So I think you have to do a leave command to have your node leave the network,
then you can rebond.
Would both nodes have to be out of the network then?
Probably not.
I'm not quite 100% sure, but probably not.
I think it's just the one you're rebonding from.
Sorry, it's a bunch of code to read through.
It would make, wouldn't it make sense?
You don't even have, it doesn't even matter if it's the same operator address.
Yeah.
As long as the idea is keeping the Ruin bonded in the network.
Well, I guess a node could go,
I wonder if it goes below a threshold. they're very bonded in the network. Well, I guess a node could go,
I wonder if it goes below threshold, like I said, just get churned out.
Yeah, my wheels are spinning on this one
I'm thinking about.
I mean, the one with that person is that they're welcome
to like hit me up on the discord
so I can take more time
and actually look through the code more carefully.
But I don't think that you can just do that the way they're suggesting.
Although, to be honest, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to.
We can make a code change that would allow something like that.
Moving bond between nodes that are both active,
that should be allowed in theory just because you're not actually removing bond.
Rebonding out,
taking bond from an active node
and moving it to a non-active node,
that would be a faux pas
because all the security could just
leave the network in a heartbeat
and then you have a problem.
You don't want that.
But rebonding from a non-active node
to an active node, that should in theory be possible. I wouldn't have any problem with that. Or rebonding from a non-active node to an active node,
that should, in theory, be possible.
I don't have any problem with that.
Or rebonding from two active nodes, that should also be allowed,
if it's not already.
Well, Cal from Leodex came up.
Maybe he knows.
Go ahead if you want to add some context, Cal.
Yeah, I actually, great conversation.
I actually don't know the answer to this,
but I wanted to come up and say,
this is a great use case of the AI
that Chad was talking about building,
having something where you could go to Discord
and ask a question like this
so that he doesn't have to read the code.
Yeah, you can get the AI to read the code.
I literally want to build that at some point.
There'll be some chatbot,
some username, whatever, in Discord, and it has access to all the code. I literally want to build that at some point. There'll be some chatbot, some username, whatever,
in Discord. It has access to all the code.
It has access to all the documents.
You can kind of just engage
in conversation. Obviously, there's always the chance
hallucinating, as AIs
tend to do. LLMs tend to do
these days. I'm sure that'll be
figured out in a couple of years.
I'm sorry, Chad. I didn't mean to cut you off um the no go ahead the pfc is the node operator it's public they're doing
on thor chain they said uh might be challenging as it would cross vaults potentially and i just
want to throw that in there nah so bond is not a part of vaults. Vaults is about securing exoneroous assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
The bond goes into a module within the network itself
that is like a single module for all the bond of the entire network.
So the vaults have no relevance to this, really.
I think the only thing you have to be careful about
is you can't just rebond or move your bond from one node
to a non-active node unless they're both non-active.
You can't go from active to non-active.
That would be probably the most important thing.
Good point.
So I do have a question.
Cal, did you still have your hand up?
Did you want to keep going?
No, sorry.
I just literally wanted to add that I thought that that was a great use case of what he was talking about.
Yeah, it would be a good use case.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, so I do have something about tokenomics, Chad.
It totally reminded me.
So this is part of my OCD.
So right now, the maximum supply is 500 million of RUN.
And the current total supply is 425,074,000.
And so I've been thinking, you know, with the burn, you know, probably in the next month, we're going to get below 425 million total supply. And I was thinking, well,
would it make sense to change the max supply to 425 million?
And just, because the only reason we had that there
was to make room for the lending feature,
which we don't have anymore.
And if we lower from 500 million to 425,
maybe just helps signal to the market that, you market that we can't create any more tokens and maybe might actually help prevent any kind of infinite mint bug or something like that, that would only mint to 425 instead of 500.
And maybe that's one way, just a little housekeeping, we can kind of tighten up the tokenomics, like when people pick it up.
I mean, this is more,
this actually doesn't change the token economics.
This is more about how we talk about it
rather than how it actually is.
So you're saying 425,
but the reason why you're saying 425 and not 500
is because I think there's like 74 million
approximately in the reserve right now.
And there's like a million that's been burned through the burn mechanism.
So that's the 75 million that's missing from that 425 number.
No, that's included, Chad.
Oh, that's included?
Yeah, the circulating supply is 351.
Then the reserve is whatever, 70-something.
So then the total is 425.
Yeah, Yeah.
I guess like the max supply
is set to 500 million
and like all that really means
and this is like the only thing
from a coding perspective
all that really means is that
if the supply were to somehow go to
500 million
plus one
the network itself would like completely halt because it's like there's some problem the supply were to somehow go to 500 million plus one,
the network itself would completely halt because there's some problem, obviously, right?
And it would just stop everything
and to give devs a moment to figure out
what the hell is going on
before we just allow things to continue going on.
But there's nothing actually minting coins right now.
There's like, how can you actually mint a coin right now?
I guess derived assets can do that,
but they're like, they're not even turned on.
So that doesn't work.
Not even the emission would actually like mint more.
It doesn't mint the coins.
It just moves it from the reserve
to the more like circulating supply. So there's no actual just moves it from reserve to the more circulating supply.
There's no actual... I can think
of it off the top of my head. Maybe I could ask
that Discord AI
the question. If there's any
other spots in the code that I'm just not recalling
off the top of my mind.
I don't think that would actually
really change anything. Do you know what I mean?
Other than just how we talk about it.
Yeah, exactly.
That's kind of what I'm thinking.
Just so the metrics on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap,
people are looking at it for the first time.
Everyone looks at FDV, right?
And so you see max supply.
Okay, that's what I'm going to look at.
Max supply times the price, that's my FDV.
That's kind of how I'm looking at it. I guess we, yeah. Yeah, okay, that's what I'm going to look at. Max supply times the price, that's my FDB. That's the way I'm looking at it.
I guess we...
Yeah, okay, that makes sense.
That would make sense to me.
We could set the number.
I don't know where that number is
actually stored other than in this one instance
of setting up an alarm
that holds the network.
It's funny because even
Bitcoin's max supply of 21 million, it's actually not 21 million. It's funny because even like, you know, Bitcoin's max supply of 21 million,
it's actually not 21 million.
I think it's a very kind of, it's a bit nuanced,
but like the supply of Bitcoin will actually never hit 21 million.
That number is not even in the code base anywhere in that code base.
The 21 million comes from a mathematical eventuality
and never actually gets 21 million.
It gets to 20 million point, 20.9 something, whatever the hell the actual number would be.
It never actually really gets to 21.
But we talked about that, the supply of Bitcoin being to a million,
even though technically it'll never actually even hit it.
It's kind of a funny thing.
Totally.
I was wondering, like, do we even need to show the max supply on these platforms, and we can
just show the total supply?
Yeah, I mean, total supply would make more sense than max supply, I guess.
And maybe there's like some, maybe what we need to do is just like create some sort of
API endpoint, like the slash network, for example, and just like add the total supply number, which maybe
it's already even in there. Again, another question we can ask this Discord AI bot.
I'm quite sure it's already there. There's already an API for that.
Yeah. There might already be, you know, which is very well possible.
But yeah.
Yeah. No, it's, I'd be open to something like that, of course.
Especially if it's like, you know,
being presented on the market cap or Queen Gecko
or one of these characters as a 500 million.
The node operator that asked the previous question,
and by the way, welcome Boone to the space.
I'm just going to follow up.
This is more of a comment or a request.
PFC says, thank you.
I'd love a more flexible rebond or at minimum changing the effective amount from, say, $900,000 to $99,000 to, say, $2 million to give most of the nodes some breathing space.
Yeah.
Yeah. So the max effective bond is not something, it's a mathematical kind of algo that determines this number by looking at the highest, I think it's the highest bonding node that is in the top two, the bottom two thirds.
that is in the bottom two-thirds.
So whatever has the most bond of the bottom two-thirds,
that's the max effective bond.
And the reason why we kind of put it there
is because we didn't want to have too much bond in one single node.
And the reason why that's important in our case
is because in another case where you have like Cosmos, for example, like the Atom Gaia chain, they don't secure external assets.
And the voting power is represented by the number of Atom tokens that you've bonded into your node.
That represents how much voting power you have.
And that's all well and good for their design and their requirements.
And that's all well and good for their design and their requirements.
For us, obviously, we secure external assets.
And we don't want to get to a place where we have like, you know, six vaults.
And these vaults have like varying amounts of value in them.
One's got 2 million.
One's got half a million.
One's got 10 million.
Because once you get into that place, it becomes really kind of complicated from a coding perspective to kind of maintain all that
because, okay, there's only one vault that actually can't send out
a million-dollar transaction, and it becomes a hard thing to balance.
And then you have to figure out, okay, when you're accepting new funds
into the network, which of the six vaults should it go into?
Should it go into the small ones or the big ones?
And how do we balance those things?
And oftentimes, the bigger vault faults will probably just be called more frequently
than the smaller ones in terms of like sending funds. So your TSS signing is not really being
balanced correctly across all six chains, all six faults. It's being kind of heavy on two and
not so heavy on the other four or whatever. So there's a handful of reasons
of why it is the way that it is.
That does change, though.
Like, you know, if we were to go to DKLS, for example,
and say we went from six Asgard vaults
to a single Asgard vault,
then at that point, you know,
it doesn't really matter so much.
And you could actually just get rid
of the max effective bond entirely, probably.
Like, this is another example of something
I would like to rip out of the code base
and kind of simplify things, as I was mentioning earlier in the conversation.
It's just like kind of getting rid of some of these mechanisms
that kind of, like, they made sense when we implemented them,
but if there's a situation we can do or something we can change,
like going to DKLS, for example, that makes it no longer required
that makes it no longer required,
and it kind of simplifies our overdesign.
and it kind of simplifies our over-design.
And as a node operator,
maybe you prefer running one node
versus six nodes or whatever it is,
because it's just cheaper from an infrastructure perspective
to do it that way, which is nice.
So it's cost savings, which is a positive thing.
But then we have to think differently about
MAMIR voting capabilities.
The voting is done per node right now, not per rune bonded, so to speak.
So we'd have to change that as well so that if you were to condense
all your six nodes that you have into one node in a theoretical feature
where there's no max effective bond,
that kind of forces you to split your rune across multiple nodes.
Then we have to change how the voting works.
So there's some downstream effects to all that.
It's not as simple as it sounds.
It's actually quite, there's a lot of nuance to the economics to this.
But I agree with the general sentiment.
I'd rather there not be a max effective bond.
And we can get there by making some changes to simplify things and make it easier
and less complicated,
that's probably a win for everybody.
Excellent.
Kenton, did you have anything to add to that?
Or I'll move on to our new speaker.
No, go ahead. Move on.
Perfect. Welcome, Boone.
Happy December to you.
Nice to have you up here.
What do you got for us
yeah happy holidays everybody um just two minor things i guess the first for chad is you a moment
ago you guys were talking about rebonding um between any active node and then how i think
somebody raised the point of like the different vaults and you kind
of said that wasn't a concern but like that just struck me as funny like let's say you know of all
the node operators of one vault all rebonded to a different vault wouldn't there be no economic
security of that one vault yes yes sorry you are correct i was thinking differently about the
question than how you were just how you just phrased it.
You're right.
Okay, and then the other thing is we were just talking
about the supply, the rune supply,
and this has been, but I've long thought
that it would be nice to burn,
mostly for the same reason Kenton just mentioned,
the FDV numbers,
but to burn most of the reserve and leave only like,
you know,
like five to 10 million or something like in there.
I just wanted to kind of throw that into the mix.
I don't know.
It's to me like here,
the reserve has no,
it currently has no mechanism to release those funds.
It technically has a few different ways, but they're very small.
We use the Reserve to pay for gas, for example.
But it's a minuscule amount.
It's not going to bleed 50 million ruin into the circulating supply, obviously.
lead 50 million ruin into the
circulating supply, obviously.
So it's like,
to me, that 74 million ruin that's in there
now is effectively
not part of the circulating
supply, in effect.
I know that, and you know that, but
anyone who's not familiar with
ThorChain wouldn't know that, right?
Right.
Yeah, we could burn it, sure.
I mean, it doesn't really matter, because if we wanted that 74 million back next Yeah, we could burn it, sure. I mean, it doesn't really matter
because if we wanted that $74 million back next year,
we could always mint it back in, right?
It's not like a finality.
There's no finality to it if we wanted to.
Obviously, burning is a lot easier
to convince the community than minting.
For some reason, the community likes burning,
but it doesn't like minting.
But yes, you could totally do that, sure.
Cool. That's all I had.
I had to comment on that.
I don't think...
I totally get what you're saying about
that reduce the FDV,
which in theory should increase the room price.
If the FDV stays the same,
that should increase the room price.
But I don't think it would happen at all.
It would take probably a year or two for it to really be factored in by the market
i don't think we'd have any immediate benefit in the room price and um um i understand chat what
you're saying about you know if we yeah if we burn 60 million tokens we can
just mint them again right but then like it just it just looks bad because you know if we don't
respect our total supply and we're just kind of willy-nilly changing it all the time then the
message we send to the investment community is that they can't trust the numbers. And so they're going to, then they're going to apply some kind of discount to the number,
which means, you know, they're going to factor in,
put in a safety factor, right?
Oh, these guys keep changing between 200 million supply to 400 million supply
to 250 to 550, whatever.
We're just going to bake into our assumptions,
a million token supply just to have some buffer, right?
So investors like to
see stability they like to see consistency and if we're constantly changing the numbers all the time
it just it throws people off so in my opinion is is better to stay better to keep the number as is
and just let the burn can just slowly decrease it.
Keep the reserve as is, at least for, say, several years.
And if we do, because if we do find some use, something to do with it,
then, okay, you know, our numbers are still intact.
Like, yeah, we're going to increase the circulating supply,
but this is always, right, it's always part of the FDB, so we're not you know we're not changing the goal posts um and um and maybe there
is some use for that maybe maybe we do need to start doing block rewards again for some reason
you know whatever um i've always thought maybe the reserve could be used like an insurance as
an insurance fund if there's any kind of exploit or hack or something like that we could use it to to make users um or maybe we we really don't need it and after you know
several years we realized man we really nailed this we got like this is awesome and we can
honestly burn the reserve without needing to go back but i feel like if we start
i feel like it's it's it's really easy to burn the tokens but it'd be really hard
to remit them with a straight face
without losing investor confidence
because it's
this is one thing with crypto
I get this a lot from Normies you guys
when trying to sell Thorchain
what's the token
supply? What's the inflation?
because
Bitcoin has built this whole meme around 21 million, it can't be changed, it is fixed, right? And so people coming into crypto, they have this idea that it's a fixed token, right? They don't want inflation, right? They're trying to leave TradFi, the, you know, in the inflation from TradFi, they want a fixed asset.
the, you know, in the inflation from TradFi, they want a fixed asset. And so they just have it in
their minds that if I'm investing in crypto, I want a token that isn't inflating, that has a fixed
supply, right? Forget the whole store value and we're an exchange, different business. It doesn't
matter, right? In their mind, crypto is all the same. So there's definitely definitely some a lot of value from the investment community and having
like a very strict token supply and not being uh you know liberal with it so um yeah i i think we
should guard that and be very careful with you know if we're gonna burn burn the reserve we've
we've been to make damn sure we're never going to need it again and i don't i don't think we're going to burn the reserve, we better make damn sure we're never going to need it again. And I don't think we're there yet.
Yeah, I mean, it's better to have it than not.
And you never know what's going to happen in the future.
Like you said, they could be an exploit.
Maybe the treasury is running low on funds and needs more funds to keep the devs dev in.
Or maybe like this is another kind of crazy thing.
Like what if we wanted, what if Thornton wanted to acquire another protocol, right?
And needed a huge influx of capital to acquire that other protocol or whatever.
Like you never know what it is.
It's just better to have it on hand than not.
Okay.
And I mean, those are all valid.
I mean, first of all, again, I don't I wasn't suggesting that as an impact on price.
The way I think about it is since it's non circulating, it has no impact on price.
Like if it exists or if you burn it, I don't think there would be an impact on price personally, other than optics is like first of all.
at all. But yeah, the, and for that same reason, they, I don't consider it to have any value.
You know, people say, oh, there's 74 million room there. And that's like, you know, like,
we could, let's call it $40 million right now. And that's not for it, it's $0, right? Like
there's, it, because it's not not circulating it doesn't have any value and if
we if it were to enter circulation all it's doing is taking value from ruin holders and diluting it
so it's right it's zero dollars sitting there and so for that reason any any expenditure of the
reserve is just stealing value from current ruin holders and so there's very few use cases where i think
that would be justified um and so for that reason it's like yeah like you know leave a small
emergency there but like yeah anyway that's just my thoughts yeah no that's all that's all correct
what you're saying yeah absolutely and i i've I was talking in theory about the price, right?
Theoretically, if you believe in the efficient market hypothesis,
in theory, the market would be applying some kind of discount to the reserve
and applying that to the Thorchain market cap.
So if we burned part of we removed it in theory if we
if we burned part of the reserve in theory the room price should go up um as that liability goes
away right so like like you just said it right like if we issue tokens from the reserve that's
stealing value that's inflating from the other existing token holders right so in theory the market is pricing that in i mean it's not pricing at 100
probability maybe it's pricing it in at a 30 probability so um you know we wouldn't see
the fdv might not go up you know dollar for dollar the room price might not go up dollar for dollar to
have the exact same fdv but maybe it goes up you know a portion right you follow me um yeah that
makes sense yeah but that's in theory right and i actually i in my opinion i think in practice we
wouldn't see the room price move at all right it would have zero effect on the room price
yeah very good conversation guys i love it. We do have another
speaker. Scott, you want to take your mic? What do you got for us, buddy? Hey, can you guys hear me?
Yes, sir. Go ahead. All right. Really quick. Quick opinion first, Boone, I hear what you're
saying and it makes sense, but as someone who's run a few businesses it's amazing how murphy's law will
come up with things you never thought of that you suddenly need emergency money for and just how
much that can require instantly out of nowhere so i get what you're saying and no one wants to see a
bunch of rune flood the market but keeping it there just in case yeah I think it's a good idea at least for now until we grow
back a little more and get a little more
established. Just a thought.
But I totally hear your
argument on that.
The funny thing is it doesn't really matter
whether...
When you're moving Rune from the
Reserve into Circling Supply or you're
minting Rune into Circling Supply, those
two things are basically the equivalents, which is what I think um boom was kind of saying so like if we were to if
we were to burn that room now and then mint it back later versus keeping it where it is and then
releasing it later like those two things are are mathematical identicals to each other to be honest
and and chad mathematically i absolutely agree with you. But a little to Kenton's point, you know,
the last thing we need is the press to get a hold of something.
ThorTain claims their token is deflationary,
but they just minted all these.
It's like, ooh, just for the time being,
maybe tread water and bring it up again when our volumes are up
and we're looking a little more.
Things are looking a little more rosy as far as our income
and some of these things we have cooking all come to market.
And I'm hoping and praying and believe
that it's going to push a lot more volume our way.
But yeah, those are just my thoughts.
I'm just a concerned community member.
I'm not a node operator or dev.
But no, Boone, that's a wonderful wonderful point so um i i have something i wanted to run by everyone i'm
i and i'll go it'll seem like i'm going a little off topic but i'll steer it right back to thor
chain um i'm a huge believer in using market data whenever possible to inform decisions.
I think it's some of the best data you can use when you're running a business.
And just for fun, I was concerned about the 5% income allocation to marketing.
And I was poking around and I found something called the Gartner's Annual CMO Spend Survey.
This is a survey of chief marketing officers across hundreds of companies in North America
and Europe. It's considered an important benchmark in the marketing space. And I was looking at the
percentage of company income on average that companies are spending in these different
areas and they didn't have one specifically for crypto and when i went online and looked at crypto
it's a little nebulous there's no good hard data on it um that at least that i could find
but if i looked for what might be a good analog and considering
we're doing things like limit orders and getting a rogera on top of us i said what if we looked at
finance and banking and on average this is as a 2024 they're spending seven percent of their
business you know the bank income on marketing and if you'd say oh well we're crypto
maybe we're is really more suitable to use tech as an analog tech is even higher it was like 11
and um if you say oh well let's forget all of those none of them are close enough fair enough
they did one aggregate of what businesses were spending on average across all
those countries for 2024. It was like 7.2%. So I looked at banking and I looked at that average
and I said, you know, we're burning 5% of income and that's nice optics for us that we are
deflationary and 5% is a nice round number. If we looked at this data and said,
let's use this to inform the appropriate percentage of income to spend on marketing and changed it to
seven and did a slight optics adjustment on the burn, instead of giving a hard number, if we said,
you know, the burn rate for Rune is 2% to 5% depending on protocol need.
That slight optics adjustment, 5% or 2% to 5% probably isn't going to look that different,
in my opinion, to your average crypto user.
But that would give us some more flexibility to, instead of just destroying that money, to put it into marketing and put it was kind of a no-brainer easy win.
We're starting marketing.
We could use this money.
Just hit it, go, and it was easy to get approved,
which obviously is wonderful.
But I'm very curious to hear what people would think about,
you know, in the community and the devs and everyone would think about
maybe adjusting that based on some market data like that.
That's just a thought.
I just wanted to kick it out there
um well scott apparently you weren't following me in august um so i was on a probably for about i
don't know three four weeks straight every day i was posting the marketing spend from the biggest
companies in the world in every industry.
And somewhere as low as 2% of revenue, somewhere as high as like 20% revenue.
And so you're 7% average. That makes sense.
That's about, that's kind of what I came up with as well.
And that was part of my pitch for, to the nodes, to ThorChain
networking community to, to get this going right. To treat ThorChain networking community to to get this going right to treat
ThorChain more like a business we need to allocate uh you know a certain percentage of revenue to
to marketing and um when I presented uh or mean when me and Squash presented the ADR to to the
nodes in the community the the first version was to remove the burn
or reallocate the 5% burn to 5% marketing.
And so the idea was to not repurpose existing money, right?
Not cut into everyone's revenue, but just repurpose it,
shift the 5% from the burn to marketing.
And there's actually a lot of backlash. That was probably the main... People were actually
on board. Everyone was interested. They agreed with the marketing, but they did not agree with
giving up the burn. And I can kind of personally take or leave it. I mean, I was, you know, I can kind of personally kind of take it or leave
it. I mean, I was one of the proponents of the burn initially, because I do believe that
has great marketing value. And the fact that the nodes and bond providers are being wants
to keep it kind of proves that. So even though this, this is actually a really good example
of like, humans are irrational, they make emotional decisions and then they justify them after the fact.
So we can walk through all the logical reasons
why the burn doesn't make sense.
But it doesn't matter.
People love it.
And so I'm not criticizing the people
who like it, want to keep it.
But there is just some kind of just ticks people gets people's reptilian brain going or whatever about the decreasing supply.
And they see value in that.
And so that in itself could be is a form of marketing.
And another way to look at the burn is that we're spending 5% of the revenue.
It can be better spent elsewhere, like what you're suggesting.
We could have a...
Sorry, Scott, I think you got some feedback.
You don't...
Yeah.
So you can argue that the money would be better spent on marketing today
because we're going to have a higher return on that investment today than just burning it.
Right. And this is this is a case with stock buybacks.
Every company has to ask themselves or answers that, you know, why we buy back our shares when we could be using that money for some other purpose.
that money for some other purpose. And, you know, in theory, if you're running a good business,
you should be able to use that money and reinvest it and keep growing your business
as opposed to buying your shares. And so, you know, kind of generally when you buy your shares
back, you're basically saying you have nothing else to do with the money. So you may as well do
something, you may as well buy back the shares as a way of like returning money back to investors because it's like, it's like an indirect dividend kind of. So I do believe that. I agree with you.
I think we could spend that 5%, you know, put it all into pay-per-click or something like that
and probably have a much better return than burning it. That being said, I think where we're at is a good spot
because at least like, let me, I'm all talk right now, right?
I got to deliver it to you guys, right?
You know, so let me actually,
let us actually deliver something to you guys.
Let's start seeing some results, right?
I'm being honest.
I have to be honest with this as well, right?
And so let me actually deliver. Let's see how it's going. Let's see how the money is being honest. I have to be honest with this as well. Right. And so let me actually deliver. Let's see how it's going.
Let's see how the money is being spent. Is it,
is this money actually being spent? Well, are we actually seeing a return on it?
Can, can we actually measure it somehow? And if so, then,
then we can maybe start making the argument where we should spend more money on
marketing. And then we can say well where
is that money going to come from and then we can maybe put on the table to reduce the burn or
something like that um but you know for now that that has value the community sees value they like
it and that's in theory whether you agree with it or not i mean it's marketing this was keeping
people invested like i had people message me saying, you know,
if we get rid of the burn, they're going to sell room. You know,
that's the burn is one of the, one of the things that kept them invested.
And you can maybe make like a perfectly logical,
rational case why that doesn't make sense, but to that person, it does.
And that's what matters. So, so, you know,
the burn can be viewed as a form of marketing
and as a marketing expense in and of itself so uh yeah yeah those are my thoughts
thank you kent and i apologize uh this august was pretty rocky for me so i wasn't tuning in
regularly but um yeah it of course you did your
diligence I just wanted to throw it out there again as we you know we could have
both we could still have a burn but just within a range and you know have a
little more market data appropriate allocation to marketing but if people
dig in their heels and don't even want to see the five percent adjusted then you know give the customers what they want but uh thank you for um talking that
through with me and thank you all for your time thank you scott for coming up you always have
really great questions and uh uh for you don't have a lot of followers or follow you are a dope
guy i met you in real life once in las vegas you're very smart man so always feel free to come up here you are
excellent community member um do we have anything else um chat i mean i don't have any more questions
do you want anything to say for the last thor's thor's day of 2025 chat do you have anything
you're burning to say or anything we've made missed or you want to cover again or anything like that?
No, not really. I think it's just like kind of a chill end of the year moment.
You know, things are kind of like ramping down as people kind of are kind of, you know, spending time with loved ones and family during this holiday season.
So I don't think anything burning on my side, but I do look forward to 2026 and like lots of things like on the roadmap, you know,
up on my side but i do look forward to 2026 and like lots of things like on the roadmap
you know uh 315 is coming out in in january mid-january and i think salama will be launching
in that time frame as well so there's lots of things to be looking forward to but uh 2026 was
was an interesting year to say the least yeah it was uh yeah no i know what you meant yeah 100 bro it's been a wild year but
uh man i feel good now that we're at the end of it i think i think we've done well considering
um last we'll do a call out to the audience guys if anyone has any questions um want to come up
and say anything uh this is the last thursday for 25, we're probably going to be two-week break after this,
so three weeks wait, I would say, something like that.
Maybe longer.
I don't know.
It just depends.
So, please, this is your time.
And, again, great.
This has been a great space.
Kenton, did you have anything you wanted to say by chance?
No, no, that's good.
Yeah, don't feel bad not following me there, Scott.
I'm glad you have a life.
You're not on Twitter all the time
I'm jealous of you
that's one of us
I'm still thinking
sorry guys I'm still staring at the
CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap
this max supply so do you think if I
if we change it to the total supply
that's that wouldn't be this max supply. So do you think if we change it to the total supply,
that wouldn't be... I'm just worried about maybe if it comes across wrong,
if it's not technically actually correct in the code
that we got to stick with what it says in the code,
or am I overthinking it?
Even the max supply within the code is actually not in the code.
I think it's a M not in the code it's
i think it's a mimir in the end my memory serves me correctly so technically you could just do a
node vote and it would bring it down to 425 or whatever whether we want to like thrash nodes
with this kind of voting that's a different question yeah because I know there's an API to the total supply so I
can just update coin get going coin market cap to that and um should be fine right I don't think
yeah yeah yeah I mean I agree boom I think boom would agree with you be I don't know should be
still on the stage or not but I think boomer probably agrees you with that mentality because
it's just that that room that's there is like,
technically it is there.
Room goes in and out of that module,
every block.
It's just very small numbers.
Yeah, and just to throw one other,
like another reason I thought it was a good idea
to burn the reserve is just like,
this conversation just happens over and over and over again.
And like people see that money and it's like,
oh, we should do this with that,
or we should do that with that.
And just, I don't know,
I think it just like burns a lot of like talk sometimes.
And I think a lot of people don't see that as having,
they think of it as $40 million sitting there
and they don't realize that's just $40 million of Runeholders value. It's not actually money there.
So you're actually thinking, so to support your case, Boone, it'd be like, it's just burning a hole in people's pockets.
Like they see that money and they want to spend it and the longer it's there.
Yeah, exactly. it's just there that's exactly yeah and then and then the other thing too is sort of counter me
um you know if we treat with door chain more like like a stock say like you know the issue shares
all the time if there's some creative acquisition or or whatever you know they'll issue new shares
right so you know maybe it isn't so bad that that the outstanding rune supply does go up or down.
Right. Maybe I'm exaggerating the effects.
Stocks do that all the time.
And I would you kind of touched on this earlier, but like I think there's a lot of confusion because rune is a crypto token and we're in the crypto space that people want.
You touched on this, that like people want Rune to be like Bitcoin.
But like, to me, that just doesn't make sense.
Like Thor Chain is a business and Rune, I have long argued is best thought of as like, you know, stock in that business, just like you're saying.
And you don't, I don't know, I don't think it like to try to apply like crypto, like Bitcoin type, you know, store of value or scarce asset kind of things to a business is just not, I don't know. And like you, we were kind of talking earlier on the space, how like, oh, changing the tokenomics,
that it's, that's not the point because the tokenomics are fine.
That I, you know, Thor chain will sink or swim based on the revenue it collects.
Like that's the only thing that really matters.
Like the token, the tokenomics is just rearranging
chairs on you know the ship it doesn't change what's actually going on and so yeah yeah no i agree a fair point you're right and like i think it is important people understand the difference
between bitcoin and torching um and as they begin to understand that especially investors
and sophisticated investors now they'll be smart
enough to understand the brewing token supply and tokenomics and whether whether it makes sense for
the token supply to increase or decrease they'll be able to absorb that yeah yeah you're right
um after shaw oh aftermath after shock aftermath uh what do you got for us?
Got your hand raised.
Yes, I do, GM.
I just want to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody
and a reminder to our devs and our node operators, you're invaluable.
Couldn't possibly thank you enough.
However, we can help fortify you.
I believe you have an army behind you.
So safeguard yourselves.
Let's go onwards to Valhalla.
I love it.
LFG.
LFG.
And thank you for saying that aftermath.
That's awesome.
And yeah, guys, time to reflect.
Enjoy your families.
I enjoy you, all of you. You you know i see a lot of matt in
the audience he was on a space with me just before this space um eric think think wisely
uh there's some people i've never seen on the stage but you're always here like jamar i'm sorry
if you're saying your name wrong but i see you all the time so happy you're here cedric
mocha the last degenerate that's such an awesome name and of course pfc with that banger
question which i am no longer embarrassed because kenton nor chat do the answer off the top of the
that was awesome thor max with the coke seasick viking d solid another node operator max power
um karawa sorry if i said that name i probably that um vaultstone advisory i don't know who you
are but welcome amir hi guys just shout out to everyone aurora everyone in the audience it's so
glad to have you guys here thank you all so very much for consistently showing up and reposting
the space and sharing this content and being an active contributor and of course all the speakers
are up here scott boone cal um you guys
are always doing a great job so thank you so much um i do not have any more questions you guys from
the community um so i'm wondering if now is the time to wrap the last 2025 thursday space what do
you guys think yeah i think so shout out to our wonderful hosts thank you guys for holding it
down every week yeah yeah do a great job well thanks guys um and thank you the tc intern as
well um for being the one to be the primary host appreciate you you're always working hard you guys
have been releasing some banger content by the way I'm so excited to see what we do with the interface as well.
And then the main ThorChain site,
getting all the articles and all the resources condensed on one location.
Kenton, you are doing...
You know what? I should share it to my co-host.
Thank you, Kenton, for just being always awesome.
Hard-working, solid guys.
I chat with Kenton in DMs a lot.
The guy is constantly grinding
constantly grinding he has no quit in him uh so thank you buddy very much and i hope uh once this
resolves i know we're going to talk saturday but man i just hope you have a great rest of your year
and i am so looking forward to doing this next year um i feeling good i don't know about you
but i'm feeling amazing right now.
Yeah, man.
And as hosts,
we're only as good as our guests and audience.
So, you know, thanks to you guys.
And yeah, looking forward to picking these up in the new year.
Love it, guys.
Chats, thank you.
Hey, thank you, buddy, so much.
I always appreciate you. Enjoy. Merry happy new year to you you too bud
all right guys um so uh you have something kenton before i close it down
just trying to say goodbye merry christmas everybody happy new year
saturday guys don't miss the rugira space merry christmas to you my friend
love you to death.
It's going to be awesome.
There may or may not be some alpha on the Ruggiero space.
If there is no alpha,
you must blame pragmatic monkey,
not me,
because that is the rumor that's been flying around.
I don't know anything about that,
but I hope there is.
So you guys have a rest of your week.
Will you see you Saturday?
Take care, everybody.
Bye-bye. Thank you.
Insights
Project L
P
