Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
THORSDay with Chad Barraford RAPID SWAPS ARE HERE PODCAST #186
Recorded: April 2, 2026 Duration: 3:10:29Space Recording
Full Transcription
There he is ready to party buddy. I love it. I hope everyone's having a great week
You guys know the deal. Let's get this intro out of the way for those who do not know
Thorchain is the world's leading Bitcoin decks
You can swap Bitcoin with 10 different blockchains across 40 different pools without using bridges or wrap tokens
Check it out at swap.thorchain.org swap
swap.thorchain.org. Swap.thorchain.org. Anyone in the world can use Thorchain. There is no account
open, no KYC required, and privacy is a human right. Thorchain has two tokens, Rune and Tcy.
The fees for swapping on Thorchain are paid in Rune, and that's where the yield comes from.
The fees are deducted from the swap, so you do not need to own rune to trade on thor chain that's pretty cool 10 of the
protocol's revenue goes to tcy token holders remember guys to stake the tcy tokens in order
to collect this yield there are no inflationary block rewards on thor chain therefore the yield
is real money paid by real users and rune is also deflationary as five percent of the revenue is
burned thor chain is a full layer one with the ability to create smart contracts on it similar to Ethereum.
This app layer is being developed by Regera. Definitely check that out.
If you need help with ThorChain in general, guys, join the ThorChain community Discord and Telegram groups.
Links for those are on ThorChain.org. And also remember, please follow ThorChain on Facebook and Instagram and ThorChain
Contact on TikTok. We need 1,000 followers to live stream on those platforms. Let's get it
done, you guys. And always remember, this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only
and does not constitute financial investment or legal advice that's the introduction
you guys how's everyone doing i guess i'll introduce myself my name's denny i go by patriot
sounds i also have runebon.com i love kenton uh because you have really changed the game when it
comes to the spelling of thor chain i don't guys know There is a specific way you have to spell Thorchain. It's very important.
It's Thor, T-H-O-R, all caps, and then the C on chains capitalized Thorchain, okay?
Let's do it in the chat.
Do it in the chat, Kenton. I want everyone to know that's how you spell Thorchain, okay?
And we got to indoctrinate the world. There it is look at feast your eyes upon that beautiful word also kenton's starting a new thing when you say the word in real life it's very important you get the emotional intonation so uh you want to shout the first part you go
and so when we go to las vegas we're going to be talking to people that's how we're going to say
hey i work with thort chain and that's how we're going to ship you guys you have to be very confident what's that
you're going to spit too spit in their face without i'll kick it to you kenton you got an update for
us man well actually there's a good segue i guess so like guys i'm sorry this website's taking me
it's taking so long.
What I feel like should only take an hour or two takes 10 or 20 hours.
And like, just an example.
So like I'm redoing the ecosystem page.
There's about 80 different websites, wallets, aggregators, explorers, whatever that, you know, touch store chain.
So I'm updating the descriptions. I been getting the their logos for them the the i'm using svg files because so they look nice on the
site svg scales whether the website is big or small you get the same quality image and they're light
um for the website to host that makes the site faster. So I've been hunting down these logos
because you can find PNG files everywhere,
but SVG files are a bit harder.
I have been using AI.
I've been able to figure out a way
to convert a PNG to an SVG,
and then I can actually edit
and tweak the SVG a bit to clean it up.
So that's actually been pretty cool.
But it still takes time, right?
Just because I'm using AI doesn't mean it's,
I still have to type stuff in, it gets things wrong, I got to fix.
But basically it's all done now.
And so one of the things when I'm going to these other sites
to look up, you know, using ThorChain,
they spell it wrong on their site,
all over the whole site. And so then I got to figure out their contact info, get in touch with
them. Hey guys, can you spell ThorChain right? And I got to take screenshots and circle it,
provide the link on the site. You know, I got to, I got to feed them like babies, right? I got to
make it as easy as possible for them. I think that just takes time.
And so,
and I do think it's important to be done.
This is part of a brand,
is that,
you know,
we need to get that,
if we're consistent in the spelling,
we fix it when we see the mistakes,
that'll percolate into the rest of the world.
And so, yeah, follow me on Twitter, but there's a new article.
I have Google Alerts set up for ThorChain, and there's an article that came out.
They spelled ThorChain right. So we're winning.
Small wins, you guys.
Small wins.
But all those little things, it just just takes time it just adds up and then
then i have to follow up so like a good like fine on some random website who cares about dispelling
a door chain but i'm sorry it does matter and i gotta follow up with them oh sorry can't end you
know it hasn't gone through a week later guys what's going on so i got to follow up with all these things it's not as
simple as just shoot out an email and it's done so um um anyway so i've been been busy doing all
these little small things to get the website done um and uh uh what i've, some pages that are less important, I'm like, we should just go live, who cares, we'll fix them later.
And I was talking to our SEO person about them, and they're like, well, you kind of want to go live with your best version,
because Google will see if someone comes to the page, and the more time they spend on it and the more they do,
that feeds into the algorithm that that page has value value and then it'll start ranking better SEO. If they
come to the page, they don't like it because it looks stupid or is wrong or whatever and
they leave, that page starts losing its value. So by us having a rough draft live could actually set us back a couple months seo wise for that page so it is
better to go live with kind of like our best version done so that that's that's part of the
hold up is some of the less important pages we want to make sure they're done um and then um
and then just the designers too they just i keep finding this is off-center.
That's misaligned.
There's a gap here or whatever, and I've got to get them to fix it all.
So I want to get everything done so that when it goes live, it's done.
And this is on the ThorChain.org site.
The swap interface, we're basically just kind of, we're doing the opposite.
We're just kind of going live with stuff and then we got it.
We'll fix it as we go.
Because we're not really like worried about, you know, SEO rankings on the swap interface just yet.
We're like worried about it working, right?
And when we go live with this stuff guys as always just be patient be be gentle
with your criticisms this is you know we're trusting the community to help us troubleshoot
play with it you know help us um i need to play with it you know live and so
some things might not look right or just don't work.
Let me know.
You know, we're fixing it.
I've got a laundry list of bugs that Unstoppable is kind of behind on right now.
And the reason is because they pushed through.
We got four new tabs for writing custom memos, TCUI and bonding.
And what was the other one?
I thought there was another one.
But those are technically live.
But just for a warning, and I told the guys to put a warning on those pages,
if you're going to use them, just play with them.
Do not use full funds or anything like that.
So take them with a grain of salt.
Yeah, at least try a small amount first
before you do anything more.
But they've tested them on their end.
But again, it's just, once we go to a live environment,
it's just, well, Chad can answer this better than me.
That's when you're actually, when you're live on the official version, it's always just slightly different than your test environment.
So, but hopefully it should be fine because it's just, it's just, basically these pages are just memos.
Either the memo works or it doesn't.
So, you know, knock on wood, I don't want to jinx anything.
But, so moving along there. So, you know, knock on wood, I don't want to jinx anything.
But so moving along there.
Yeah, maybe this will be a good segue in chatting with you, Chad, about rapid swaps.
So one of the issues on the front end is the quotes are pulling.
So now we have the default setting on STO is for rapid swaps.
So it's a streaming swap with zero number of sub-swaps and zero interval.
And before, if you had a zero interval on a streaming swap,
that would make it an instant order.
It would sell right away.
So you'd have the max slippage. And this is what is still in the ThorChain code and providing
quotes for. When you have a setting of 0, 0, ThorChain is sending out a quote of an instant cell order with max slippage. So these are the quotes that
are showing on STO. And so until Chad gets an update out to fix that, we have to change the
quote on the front end to pull from zero one. So zero sub swaps and one block interval so that we're pulling the quote from a traditional streaming swap.
But the actual behavior, the actual trade that will get executed is a rapid swap, is the time interval set at zero.
So I asked the unstoppable devs, it's their evening is there evening right now so i asked them guys can you get
on this make sure it's done asap um so i don't know if they'll be able to get it done tonight
if you guys already went home or they'll get it done first thing in the morning
um but we'll have the quotes fixed here soon did i explain that properly chad do you want
Did I explain that properly, Chad?
Do you want to correct me on anything or anything to add?
to correct me on anything or anything to add
No, we can't hear you.
You can be your brother.
Well, so interval equals zero until rapid swaps didn't really make any sense
because it's just setting like how many blocks do you want to do a sub swap?
So one is every block and two is every block, and two is every other block,
and three is every three blocks.
To do zero before rapid swaps would be like,
what does that even really mean?
You know what I mean?
Because one is the fastest you could possibly do,
so what is zero?
And so zero didn't make any sense before,
so we never actually really used zero in the interval.
Zero in the quantity, yes,
because that would give you the maximum number of sub-swaps allowed by the protocol.
So we just never used that feature until, you know, just the other week.
And so it works just fine with the exception of it gives some code that was written back in 2023.
When you set the interval to zero, it assumes you also mean zero or one maximum swaps as well,
which I don't know why I would make that assumption,
but it did.
It gives you the incorrect
timing of how, or rather
it gives you the incorrect slippage that you would experience.
for the time being,
UIs have to just get a quote
from using interval equals one for execution.
And then you can set interval equals zero to get the time execution.
So one for price and one is for time temporarily until we can fix the correct behavior and then get past it.
You know, get past it.
Yeah, small thing.
Yeah, small thing.
Not a big deal, though.
Not a big deal, though.
I've got to actually make sure the one quote, the quote for time as well.
Yeah.
The quote for price will be interval one.
And quote for time will be interval zero.
Yes.
Temporarily, yes.
Yeah.
Until it's fixed.
Then it'll work just fine yeah um but yeah
so rapid swaps was uh enabled last week um a couple people i know boom created a dashboard also
um ryan created also another uh dashboard as well uh just kind of tracking the rapid swaps passing
through the protocol we've seen some good adoption from it.
I would like to see more, you know, more is more is more in this case.
And so, yeah, I mean, if you want to bring it up on a screen share,
I don't know if I can screen share or not, but one of these dashboards.
Shout out to Boone, creating Boone tools.
Yeah, Boone tools. one of these dashboards shout out to boon creating boon tools yeah boon tools i think he
yeah it's basically a fork of of uh tools that uh that uh cow had that's what i was wondering
maybe you should uh well he's doing different dashboards but uh yeah yeah yeah it's not the
same it's not a fork of the code it It's a fork of the concept, I suppose.
But, yeah.
You know, it seems like it's going well overall.
And we're waiting for ARBs to do more ARBing.
I'm pretty sure SwapKit hasn't enabled this feature yet.
And they do obviously do a large percentage of volume.
So I assume that once
they flip it on it's going to be even more volume and you know it's going to be more utilized as a
feature obviously which I'm hoping will be this week or next week but obviously it's up to them
but so far so good we just got I give you I've been poking some arbs here and there like hey
guys should get on this I think it's an ARB, it's not even hard.
I think you just set your interval to equal zero on your trade, and it'll probably just work, you know, magically.
So it's not a lot of work, per se, but I'm hoping some ARBs can just flip it on.
So I actually have a couple of questions here, Chad, I got from people.
Let me just post it in the chat about rapid swaps.
And I'm going to show it on the screen here. Do rapid swaps cross orders? So for example,
if there's two streaming swaps going, Bitcoin to ETH is taking an hour, then somebody else comes along,
sells ETH to Bitcoin, it's going to take an hour. Will those settle within the one block and just go from one hour each to then six seconds and be done? Yes and no. So there's a
limit on how many sub-swaps happen per block so in the current moment what would actually
happen is you have one hour in this direction one in this direction and they would both execute in
30 minutes right because because we just had a max of just two subs per block if we set that number
to five then instead of being an hour it would be one fifth of an hour right if we set it to 10 it'd
be one tenth if set it to 100 to be hundredth. Eventually, you get to a point where it's one block, right?
Okay, okay.
So it's still happening as a streaming swap.
It's still being broken up into tiny swaps.
Correct.
It's just how many of those tiny swaps can be crossed.
Crossed together in a single, because in that scenario,
you have just two swaps going back and forth over the course of whatever time span.
So it's just going kind of fighting back and forth.
Not fighting, but just pushing the pool one direction and the other direction,
one direction and the other direction, repetitively back and forth,
and just effectively doing what an order book would do.
Order books usually settles this like as an instantaneous thing.
We don't do that.
We drop in little bits and do little bits of transferring.
And there's a few reasons for that.
But one is we have an AMM.
We have pools.
We don't have, you know, limit orders in the traditional sense of what that means.
But you can also get to a situation where you have two swaps.
One's going Bitcoin to ETH and one's going ETH to Doge.
And so they're crossing each other, but not on both pools.
They're only crossing in one of the two pools.
So there are complicated scenarios where it would help kind of in one situation,
but that wouldn't execute one hour in both directions.
That wouldn't help. hour in both directions.
That wouldn't help.
It would help partially, a little bit, but not entirely.
So, okay, I think I get it.
So if we did, going back to those two one-hour trades,
the reason they still need to be broken up into small sub swaps is because if they say there's one giant swap within one block, that one giant swap in one block would have a lot of slippage.
Both those trades would have a lot of slippage.
They would still cross, but the slippage would be huge.
And both people would end up with way less than what they want.
I think it would be the opposite.
It would be – well, not the opposite. One would have way more slippage.
And the other, whoever goes second, would have probably a much better pool price.
Do you know what I mean?
Because the pool price has been pushed – the price of Bitcoin has been pushed down within the pools.
And all of a sudden, if you're buying Bitcoin,
well, you got to have a nice little discount there.
So Hoover goes, if you both have two large trades,
and not streaming,
the second guy is probably going to win out over the first guy.
Got it. Okay, got it.
Yeah, so this is the key difference. This is why, with our limit orders and everything, it's not an order book. It's still clearing through the pools. And each trade still has its individual unique slippage with the pool. Whereas in order book, they do just cancel each other out. There is no slippage correct um got it got it so even though on rapid swaps when we have
multiple trades within a block it's not like they're all occurring at the same time they're
still being ordered inside the block correct okay got it so when we go through the the swap queue
at the at the in the block it's like all right what's all the swaps we want to execute we grab it all both market orders and limiters we grab them from our
little database and we sort them in a certain kind of sorting order and then we just execute one at
a time and just go through the whole the whole list you know and and some execute successfully and some don't execute successfully depending upon the trade limit maybe or maybe a pool was disabled at that particular moment and not trading or whatever.
Who knows?
And so that just goes through the whole list in that particular order.
And then the rapid swap is we go through that.
We just do it again.
We go start from the top, grab all the lists of all the different trades that could be executed,
and then try to execute as many of them as we can.
And right now, we just do that twice.
But tomorrow, we could do three times, right?
Or four times or five times or arbitrarily a thousand times. I mean, actually, I just spoke with Ryan over there.
I asked him to figure out, like, what is the distribution of swaps
and the number of subswaps of a swap, right?
Like how often are like swaps that are like five subswaps?
How many swaps are like 30 plus, right?
Like how many of our volume is broken into how many subswaps?
And that's kind of a complicated question in some ways
because we have different pools of
different sizes. So it matters how many sub-swaps you get matters on which pools you're swapping
through. So the Bitcoin pool is the deepest of the pools versus the Solana pool is probably one
of our most shallowest pools. And so both going $1,000 in each pool, you would get a very different
amount of sub-swaps, right?
Because the size are different relative to the...
Size is the same, but the pools of depths are shallower
or deeper, depending on which way we look at it.
And so we found that, like...
Or he found, rather, that, like,
the vast majority of our trades are, like, 10 swaps or less.
That's what it looks like.
It's hard...
Based on the chart he sent me, it's kind of hard to tell you an exact percentage.
But the vast, vast majority, it appears to me of maybe 70%, 75% of our trades have 10 swaps or less, sub-swaps or less.
And so theoretically, what that would mean is if we set our max rapid swaps number from 2, where it is now, to 10,
theoretically, all of those trades would be executed if the ARBs were ARBing and all the liquidity was perfect.
Then 80% to 70% of our trades would be single swap trades, single block trades, rather.
Cool. Right. Really cool.
Well, this actually leads into the next question I had put
on the screen.
Is there a limit for the number of swaps per block
for rapid swaps?
A theoretical limit.
Well, the number is just a number
we can put as arbitrarily high as we want to the thing to consider is how many how
many iterations does it take before you start really influencing the block times and our block
time starts slipping from six seconds to seven seconds to nine seconds to 30 seconds if you had
a 230 million dollar trades right and they're and they're going opposite directions, like,
you know, how long would it, how many swaps could you do before you start, the block time starts
slipping? That's really the limiting factor more than anything else. So I think the intention is
to increase this number from two to three to five to 10 to 30 to whatever it is and just kind of walk it up and then and just
keep our eyes on the on the the block times to make sure they're not slipping too much I presume
they would almost never do it because we would almost never see or very rarely see a situation
where we're doing so many swaps in a single block that we actually cause the time block time to slip. We don't see
$30 million trades happening every five minutes on ThorChain's network. Yet. Yet. But we can just
keep our eyes on that kind of stuff. And I think the other part too, which I've been wanting to do
is there's a very famous developer that if you're not a developer you probably never heard his name.
His name is Andrew Carpathie.
I think he's most well known because he helped build the AI software in Tesla self-driving cars.
I think he's one of the core people to that.
Anyways, he built a really interesting auto research tool.
auto research tool. And what that effectively does is it allows you to have a kind of self-reinforcing
or self-learning, self-improving AI process. And so what I've been wanting to do, I haven't
had the time to do quite yet, is build some really good benchmarking tools on the swap logic
to benchmark how fast each individual function, each individual function or each individual
component of the whole swap process, and then be able to benchmark each individual part and then
have this auto research tool to start like making code changes, like whatever code changes it feels
like making, doesn't matter what they are, and just start making sure that the unit tests pass
and that the benchmark is improved and just spend just spend like a weekend just running
continuously for days looking for you know ways of improving the swap logic to be much more
performant than what it is now so that we could you know increase the rapid swap number from
let's say 30 is the number now and 30 is as long as we're going to go because we don't want the
block time to slip too much uh making this code to be highly performant you know more
performant than it is now was one way to improve the you know the efficiency of that what about
so maybe you're tired of me asking you this all the time,
the two second block times?
That wouldn't this be another reason to push that through,
to implement that?
Yeah, I just had a conversation with ALUX
from Maya about this earlier this week, actually.
And I've been hesitant about it because I just it just feels a little bit of a
scary change from my perspective like that it might break the network in one way that I would
not be able to predict and then we have some sort of weird behavior and like I just makes me a little
bit nervous you know which is why I have I've been a little bit hesitant to do so and it just it was
hard for me to think about the risk versus the reward, right?
And I think that what ALUX and I kind of agreed to,
kind of a handshake agreement,
is that my protocol will take the code change that we made to go to two seconds,
and my protocol will do it first
because they're a smaller chain with smaller volumes
and smaller risks than we do.
And they'll be kind of like the canary mind, canary chain in a sense, and do the upgrade
themselves.
And then if there are any issues, we can figure out that they are.
And then we can have a lot more confidence that the risk is much lower for our Thor chain
because it's already been validated on the Maya chain.
And then we can go to two-second times on uh on thor chain's uh infra
that's huge yeah it's like my protocol to me has always been thor chain's major stage net like
and that's why i'm so glad right like yeah and then that's why you could do that's why i'm kind
of like opposed to merging them is you know it's so useful having this network on the side that you
can post something there because if you're scared chad i'm scared you know what i mean
i mean i feel like maybe i'm just being overly you don't know i don't know no there's just i
don't think trust your gut trust your time touches a lot of things right and like all over the place
it's hard to go through all of them and find them all and you know it's hard to have the comfort to build the confidence required because
it's not something you can do on stage net and validate it or not like it's
there's a good chance that wouldn't find whatever the bug might be until you find it on mainnet
so i've always been hesitant about it but if my is going to was open to doing it first
and and testing out that code change that we put together months ago.
Then let them do it first.
Let them test it for us and validate and make sure the risk is very little.
And then we can go to second block times.
And that would be great, I think, just because it gives ARBs more opportunity
because it's just more price changes within those six seconds.
Yes, absolutely.
The benefit for them taking on that risk is they,
for that while they have the second block times,
they should beat us on quotes, on times anyway, right?
Maybe. So in the aggregators, they'll probably get some volume out of it,
and that'll be the benefit to them.
And then that'll light the fire under our butts, under your butt,
to implement it on ThorChain.
So, well, good.
That's really awesome on Alex and the Maya community's part to be willing to do that.
To be fair, it doesn't remove the risk.
Like, I don't know how many validators Maya has, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly less than we have.
Yes, it is.
So, you know, we have 100 validators and they have like 30 or whatever the number is over there.
I don't know what it is top of my head, but it's relatively smaller than us.
So there's, you know, we have more validators.
So testing with more validators is different than testing in, you know, in their environment.
Yeah.
Is that, so that's the major, is it the number of validators is going to, how do I ask this?
Why does it matter if there's 30 nodes versus 100?
Like it's either, either it works or it doesn't, isn't it?
Or is it the more, the more probability it won't work?
It's, so the nodes have to communicate.
They go through rounds of communication in order to agree on you know like usually you always have a block proposer which is
somewhat randomly selected semi-random selected in that block proposer puts it
in proposes a block with all the different transactions they choose to
include in that particular in that particular block and the other ones have
to receive that and and validate it and
it all has to be done within a two second time frame you know and it's that validator can't do
that in that time span like if you try to put too much in the block for example uh you won't be able
to fit it all so to speak but in that two second time frame so it's there are there are considerations of having a higher quantity of validators for sure.
I got a question.
So maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought two-second block times and DKLS and Monovolt were kind of part of the package deal,
or is it only two-second block times and like Monovolt, DKLS, that's something separate?
times and like monovolt dkls that's something separate uh that's something separate because
because of the dkls and mono vote monovolt idea is about threshold signing and this we're talking
about two seconds is about block signing and that's those two separate things uh in a match
speaking uh i don't know if we can go to mono vault or not i don't think anybody really knows we might be able to i don't we have to what we have to do is switch to tkls which will probably
happen this year i'm hoping we already got uh soda labs kind of poking at that and we'll take it
to start to take a take a gander um and it is much more efficient than gg, for sure. We'll be able to go from what we have now, 30, is it 30?
No, 20, 20 validators per volt, up to 20 validators per volt.
We can go to something higher, 25, 30, whatever.
And I think the idea is that once we got DKLS,
we'll go from 20 to like, let's just call it 25, for example.
And then we'll just keep our eyes on like the threshold signing times
and see how fast
or slow they are they should be increasing in time exponentially with the of every new validator you
add because of just how it's because of the mathematics of how it has to do the route the
i think it's three rounds of communication in that particular instance for tk 23. Three? I think it's three.
Maybe it's four.
But with every new signer you add,
it exponentially increases the time.
So we'll have to just kind of start creeping it up
and then keep your eyes on the time
and creep it back down if we need to or whatever.
But I'm also hoping that batch signing will change that in some ways,
meaning that you could sign up a bunch of transactions in a single signature
versus doing 20 signatures.
You can do it all in one signature theoretically and be able to like be a
lot slower in your TSS sign time or your threshold signing time,
but still be able to output, you know,
hundreds of transactions per minute or something like this.
I'm starting to go with Kenton's idea
that ossification is never going to happen.
Thorchain is always just going to seek to improve
and streamline and increase our capability.
So this is just the process.
So buckle up, folks.
Go ahead, Kenton.
Okay.
I mean, I get that because, like, so buckled up, folks. Go ahead, Kempton. Okay. I mean, I get that, because even this past week,
I was brainstorming with a couple other people,
and we had some new ideas for ThorChain to improve its...
There you go.
So there could be some other new kind of alpha
that we could be dropping, too,
about some potential new features we started to consider.
Only dinosaurs ossify, and they're fucking fucking dead so we're never ossifying you know what i mean i mean i i still don't want to just be adding features just to add features right like that
that's definitely not asking me a waste of time and energy uh and i do want to simplify the code
because it's already fairly complex as is but at the same time right like if
if there's something that comes up some feature or some whatever it is rapid swaps whatever
and it provides significant value to the protocol like rapid swaps does i think it's showing itself
to do so then it's like it's worth the time and energy to put to put that together and improve the
efficiency of the protocol you know to be more competitive in the market
and all these kind of things.
But I don't want to just keep on adding every random idea
we've ever thought of.
Like, sometimes, like, you know, people can propose an idea,
oh, I think this would be a really good idea, whatever this is.
And it's like, well, nobody's really asking for that.
If we were to deliver it, like, even, like, limit swaps
hasn't had as much adoption as I would have liked to have seen.
It doesn't mean you're not going to get it tomorrow
or as you guys kind of allow it or whatever,
but it hasn't been as adopted
as I thought it was going to be.
But like, you know,
I don't want to get in situations like that
where we just start adding features
because it sounds cool.
But then in reality,
does people want to use this feature or not, right?
Right, yeah, that makes sense. I got one more
and I think you were saying content but I got one more question
take it back to rapid swaps so
right now you know we're at the minimum value
of two which means there's two
sub swaps
in intra block right that's the most
minimum so in a perfect world that's
about 50% increase
yeah 50% you know, halving of the time it takes to execute a swap, I'm trying to say.
Are you in a position where you want to take it to three or four, or do you want to see more activity on rapid swaps?
What's your thinking along those lines, Chad?
That's a good question.
This is something I struggle a little bit with because functionally the feature is working
similarly.
We haven't seen any issues or bugs other than that one quoting issue we talked about earlier
in the conversation.
So it's working exactly as is planned and it's working when it works, it works well.
And the problem is I think that we don't have enough ARBs ARBing with the rapid swaps, just
ARBing the start of the block but not in the middle of the block so to speak.
So the only thing that really stops me from increasing it now to three or four or five is a concern around,
I don't want to tick off our aggregator friends like swap kit for example because the quoting mechanism assumes that this
rapid swap is going to be utilized to the feet to the how it's configured to be utilized which is
like in this current moment too so when i when you get a quote it's supposed to tell you like how
much time it's going to take which it's giving you you know half the half the time that would
have taken if interval was set to one with non-rapid swaps. And I don't want to get to a place where we set it to some number like five,
and we were quoting one-fifth the swap time,
but in reality, because arbbs aren't arbbing or whatever,
and rapid swaps isn't being used as much than, you know,
swapkit or whomever gets a little bit pissy
because our quotes aren't really matching
our performance, right?
That's the main reason.
That's probably the only reason to me
why I don't just flip it up higher right now
or get the notes right now.
Wouldn't the time still work out the same
or just the price execution be worse?
Because it's designed to that when there is no counterparty
to your your rapid swap it just it kind of becomes a non-rapid swap oh do you know what i mean
okay yeah it's like it's kind of like you know for that reason so for that for that reason like i
rather i rather become a slower swap than
then all of a sudden get like a worse execution yes that that would be even worse in my mind to
have a worse execution which is why it kind of prioritizes like well don't get a worse
worse execution just give it a worse time if there's not liquidity if it's not an arb thing
or something going in the reverse direction just you default back, fall back to a regular old streaming swap
once subswap per block, and then retry again next block.
And maybe there's an R in the next block, right?
Great, that's a great feature, Chad.
Yeah.
Great thinking about that.
It wasn't like that initially.
I actually changed that behavior
like a few months after rapid swaps
or a few months after the first completion was done. Because I didn't realize that I could do it that way.
And then I figured out a very simple answer, very elegantly, stupidly.
I should have thought of it earlier, to be honest with you.
But it was a very simple, clean way of doing it, of ensuring you don't get a worse execution.
Yeah. Nice.
Love it. Brilliant. Awesome. I wanted to go back to DKLS and just maybe the audience is a bit unsure.
Maybe I'm unsure.
But so we, Darkchain uses TSS, Threshold Scheme Signature.
And DKLS is like a, it's still TSS.
It's just like another version of TSS.
Yeah. The version of, I would say another version of MPC.
Of MPC, okay.
Yeah, multi-party communication,
whatever you're cryptography,
I forget what the C stands for.
Computation.
Isn't MPC and TSS technically,
they're different, right?
What's the difference between them?
Yeah, there's TSS generally refers to the feather,
feather gold, gold feather something,
I forget the scientists, the cryptographers names.
That usually refers to that implementation of GG18 or GG20.
TSS is generally referred to that.
This is the way that I think about it at least maybe i got this wrong um
threshold signatures is it is maybe i'm confusing myself now uh i'm trying to remember it's been
it's been a while since i've even thought about this. That's okay. Didn't mean to put you on the spot.
I thought I knew it, and I'm like, oh, wait, no.
Now I'm like, get my own wires crossed.
Well, it's...
Yeah.
Do you want to keep guessing, or we can...
You can keep going.
So, like, is...
But Vault-e-SIG, they are using T TSS and then they implemented DKLS signing in their wallet to play with it.
And wasn't that part of them doing it is like, OK, we'll make sure it works in Valtisig and then we can apply it to ThorChain.
And so is that am I right? Is that how it's kind of gone?
And well, everything's been OK there. now we can apply it to thor chain um not really because uh we have different requirements what they think is
you know i'm signing with you and and you're like the three of us are so you you the three of us
here have us have a uh voltage wallet and we're signing with each other or whatever and we're all
trusted it's a trusted scenario and we're signing with ourselves other or whatever and we're all trusted it's a trusted
scenario and we're signing with ourselves or with friends or whatever it is and so you don't need
to worry about um identifying who up if somebody if somebody maliciously kills the signing process
between the three of us it doesn't really matter in a voltage-stick scenario because we're all
friends anyway so it's not really where i'm just signing with myself because i have one on my phone and one on my ipad and one on my laptop or whatever the
thing is and so there's no really there's no concern to that for thor chain um which stopped
us in the past from doing dkls is that it doesn't have what we call identifiable aborts which means
that when somebody screws up the key sign or key gen process, some node becomes malicious and stops the process
from proceeding.
We want to know who it is.
Oh, that was Kenton who did that.
And now that we know that Kenton did that,
we can slash Kenton's bond or slash Kenton's rewards
or something like this to incentivize Kenton
to not screw up, not maliciously screw up our processes.
You don't need that for volti-sig but you and you don't technically you technically don't need it
for Thortian either it's just it's probably it's definitely better that you do right so you and so
we know who screwed it up and I think most people using DKLS today whether it be Coinbase or Silence
Labs or whatever whatever whatever, whatever,
none of them really have situations where they really care about identifiable aborts,
right? Because they all operate in a trusted system, right? Within a corporation like Coinbase,
for example, and they don't have to worry about malicious activity because everything's trustful.
For us, we're trustless, and we to assume that kenton might be malicious in his
in his behavior and and be as defensive as we can um but even in the worst case scenario where we
implement dk dkls and we don't have identifiable boards at that time um it's not a great attack
vector to do that because kenton's still a valid active validator. He's got his
rune locked up in the network. If he decided to be malicious and start screwing up key signs or
whatever, then you're not really helping yourself up much and you're not really doing that much
damage because we only need two thirds to do the key sign anyway. So if Kenton's being malicious every once in a while, Kenton might be in this key signing
process, and every once in a while he's not in the key signing process.
So eventually the signing would still happen.
It'd be more destructive on the key gen process because key gen process requires everybody
to be a part of that process, you know.
But then, you know, we run into a situation where you have a difficulty churning because
Kenton keeps on trying to screw it up for some reason which for him is just like what's the
point because he can't churn out like his capital as a root holder is locked up until he gets out of
the system so what's the plan here right like what's the purpose you won't you won't be able
to get your capital back if you can't churn out.
So it's a little bit like if we can get it, it'd be a lot better if we don't get it.
But if we don't have it, it wouldn't be the end of the world, if that makes sense.
And from what I understand, if we go DKLS, there's no going back, right?
It's not something that you can just rewind the clock.
You can't you'd like if I remember correctly like that's a you just simply I don't well you can correct me
if I'm wrong Chad I'll kick it to you uh you can go back um you can I mean you could revert if you
want to revert because you're making a code change to go to TKLS and then you can make a code change
but to go back to the to where it was before you have just have to do it, you know, between churns, so to speak, right?
Oh, got you.
I understand.
Got you.
Okay.
Like when we go from GG20 to DKLS one day,
that's going to be part of the churn.
We're going to do a churn,
but instead of generating GG20 key signatures
or keys, we'll be generating DKLS
in that particular churn.
And the whole network just switches in a single block, so to speak,
between the old system to the new system.
And we can always just churn again back to the old system
if you really thought there was a strong need to do so.
Gotcha. Okay, interesting.
Learn something new every day talking to you guys.
We do have a question from the audience.
What is going to help ThorChain get better quotes than our competition?
I guess I can kick that to you, Chad.
Yeah, so like I actually tweeted about this last week.
With RapidSwaps, it was kind of like the last key in the puzzle, so to speak,
of swaps it was kind of like the last key in the puzzle so to speak where now all of the major
components of what makes our our quotes our quotes is now about just a configuration and it's something
that nodes can configure and that includes uh how many fees we charge per swap per pool swap which
right now sets a 10. we could configure that to be one if we wanted to. We could configure that to be 100 if we wanted to.
Like it's an arbitrary number that we can just configure,
that nodes can just vote
and push in one direction or the other.
There's the swap time of how fast a swap takes,
which rapid swaps is kind of like going
to make that as fast as we want to,
because that number can be arbitrarily as large
as we want to.
It's limited by arbitrage bots
rather than the protocol itself.
There's also things like the delayed outbound.
That can be configured to be longer or shorter, right?
There's even things like the TSS signing time, how fast it is to sign something.
That can be configured to be longer or shorter just by increasing or decreasing the number of ASGARDS.
No validators in an ASGAR, right?
You can make that really quick or really slow.
And so, like, all of those things,
it's just a configuration at this point.
It's not even like a technical challenge
or an economic problem, blah, blah, blah.
We can do it and we can do it now
with the pools depths that we have today, right?
And all I think that's really stopping us right now
is just like a community sentiment of like,
how much do we want to have delayed outbound?
Is it zero? Is it really long? how much do we want to have delayed outbound? Is it zero?
Is it really long?
How much do we want to charge in fees?
Is it 10 bips?
Is it 100 bips?
Is it one bip, right?
Like it could be arbitrarily like, you know,
anything at this point, which by the way,
I think people will find this tangentially related,
but so we were looking at the, this is live in the show, I think like two weeks ago, actually.
We were looking at the trade volume of NIR, and we'd found that almost 80% of the trade volume
was just stablecoins, right? And their Bitcoin, ETH, and SOL, and blah, blah, blah, and DAI,
or whatever else, is just like 20% of their actual trading volume.
And I was really kind of surprised because I had never really looked that closely at it.
And like we have like 2 to 3x the Bitcoin volume or the Ethereum volume than Near does.
Even though they have overall a lot more volume than we have, 80% of that is just swaps.
80% of that is just swaps.
And if 80% of that is stables, rather,
then that would insinuate that 60% of their volumes
is just stable to stable volume.
Right?
That would insinuate that, right?
Right.
And so I spoke with Ryan to help me figure out
what percentage of our volume is stable.
You see, when you say, sorry, Chad, you say Ryan,
you mean rake?
Rake, sorry.
I keep on saying Ryan, but rake, sorry.
All right.
Yeah, thank you for correcting me.
So when I spoke to rake, I asked him,
what was our swap to swap, stable to stable volume
in our network on ThorChain?
Obviously, it changes from day to day,
but it's around 10%, around 10% versus theirs,
which seems like it's close to 60 very significant difference so as as a fun
little experiment i put a very small code change i just threw the ability to to set the fee for
stables and stables separately from the the feed for like all the trades and swaps so i kind of
want to just test you know putting our stable to stable fee to like one
BIP or two BIPs, because at most, at most, we would lose 10% of our volume. If we lost all of
the volume from going, from making our stuff cheaper, we would lose 10% of our system income,
right? Theoretically, approximately. Obviously, we're not going to get zero we're going to get some other some number but i'm very curious just to see as an experiment just to flip it on for like a few days or a week
whatever to see like if we put our stable to stable at like one bit or two bit something very
small how much volume do we suck out of you know near or other other competitors and how much does
that help our fees right do? Do we get more,
do we get a net positive on fees, even if we go down to like one or two bips specifically on
stables to stables? Maybe, because it's only 10% of our fees anyway, because we're not very
competitive relative to, you know, Nier and other people in terms of like their pricing.
um near and other people in terms of like their their pricing so if you could become if you could
become competitive there then uh what what happens and so uh i'll be very yes with a coke just said
near had 130 13 million volume in stable in total volume and 95 million in stables alone wow which
is a lot right 84 yeah it's 84 in this instance so
i'm just curious because i think if you just i don't know call me uh call me uh a little bit
crazy here just if we set the stables to stables it would be very little to lose 10 most just for
the just for the experiment and then we'll see how much up volume tick we get if any i i don't know
what's going to happen don't please don't you, I'm not guaranteeing anything to the community, of course.
But we'll try it out and see what happens.
And maybe we'll, like, we'll actually, in that instance, like, for example,
like, when we did our fee trials with Flimular Cow a few months ago,
if you remember that, we did the whole thing, right?
The whole thing, we went from 20 bips to 10 bips to 9 bips to 2 bips or whatever. And because we're not going to get that much volume out of NIR or Chainflip
for Bitcoin and Ethereum, because we're already dominating them in that particular, like those
particular pools, right? The particular assets. So there's not a lot to be taken from them when
you undercut yourself because they, so that you're not going to increase the volume that much,
but you are going to decrease the amount of fees you're collecting
because you're going from 20 bips down to 10 bips to 5 bips to 1 or whatever.
So there's not enough volume to make it worth your while, in a sense.
But with stables, it's a little bit different
because they have $100 million in stables.
Onir has $100 million in stables yesterday, or close to $100 million in stables. On Near has $100 million in stables yesterday or close to $100 million.
So that's a lot of volume.
And even at a two BIP scenario,
that would be a very significant increase in fees for us.
And I would, it's starting to grind me a bit.
People compare ourselves to Chainflip and Near.
Like we really got to zoom out here.
So like when you're asking about you know quotes on chain flip
and near um you know that's on the aggregator side okay fine maybe missing out on some trades there
but look at sto our own swap interface you know we we are winning volume there relative to NIR and Chainflip. And if you actually look at NIR's volume, it stopped.
It was going like this, really nice straight up, you know, trending up quite well.
And it stopped and started going down when STO went live.
And like last October, November.
And if you look at all of the volume all the front end volume on door chain
over the last you know four months half of it is our own front end sto this is in
arguably the worst bear market we've had in crypto bear market is we're four years into it basically
market we've had in crypto bear market is we're four years into it basically and our own front
and our own interface is already doing half of the front volume this is compared to trust wallet
ledger all these other integrations we've had that have existed for almost four years now
and within four months our own interface that is still arguably in beta is equaling their volume and before marketing it
we haven't really been marketing it or pushing it right and so like um um
yeah and like our real competition guys is coinbase and binance. Like if we had, if Chainflip and Near did not exist, or we were able to
literally capture 100% of their volume, it would actually make a marginal difference on Torchain,
on our revenue, on the room price. It wouldn't matter much. If we started, if we captured 100 of the volume from coinbase and binance that would matter a lot
that would make a difference so our our real competition and we need to get quotes from
and we need to beat on quotes on price and execution is coinbase and binance that's our
growth is the sexes is getting people off the sexes onto door chain that's our growth, is the sexes, is getting people off the sexes onto doorchain.
That's our real market.
You know, for us, like, don't get me, I'm not trying to say we shouldn't be competitive
and keep an eye on chain flipping.
We understand.
Right?
But we're basically dogs fighting for scraps under the table, all three of us, right?
Whereas it's like these tiny little crumbs under the table and on the table all three of us right whereas it's like these tiny little crumbs under
the table and on the table where all the centralized exchange volume is is a thousand times
bigger piece of meat that's the meat we need to be jumping out and going for right not fighting
over the scrap underneath the table so um um yeah just for the person asking that question,
anybody else thinking about it,
I just ask people to zoom out a bit.
What's ThorChain's real competition
and where are the volumes coming from?
You know, so, yeah, it's not, you know,
I don't think, you know,
oh, if they beat us on a quote,
it's the end of the world and ThorChain's going to fail
and it's not getting any volume.
No, it's not like that at all.
We have lots of ways to win and that we are winning.
So it's just a matter of reframing your perspective.
Yeah.
Well, I agree.
I'm wondering if you guys have anything you want to add to that.
I do have a couple topics people want me to get to,
but I totally agree with what you're saying, Kenton.
Yeah, no, that's good.
We can go to the next topic.
Okay, so this is a...
I'm really glad this happened, Chad.
I think it's great.
So there was Boone's ADR24, right, the POL ad,
but a transition's been made,
and I think this is just simply awesome
as it just gives more power to the nodes
and just makes it there.
ADR24 kind of is not relevant anymore, Chad, because we're basically adding a MAMIR that allows nodes to decide through consensus what a POAD should be.
So maybe I'll kick it to you from there, Chad, if you want to talk about that a little bit.
But it got me really excited.
Yeah.
So let me give a little bit more context.
We've always had the incentive pendulum was used to be able to balance revenue for nodes
versus LPs.
Historically, that's always been the case.
And in a bear market, it gets a little bit more challenging because of ruins prices a
lot less than how Bitcoin and Ethereum move as a higher market cap assets.
less than how Bitcoin and Ethereum move as a higher market cap assets.
So right now, the pendulum is swinging all the way to the left, meaning all the validators
get all the income and LPs get, it's not zero, but it's like 0.1% or something very, very
tiny.
I don't know the actual numbers, but it's very, very small.
And so that pendulum is no longer really kind of working anymore, in part because of the
app layer, in part because of supporting various other kind of DeFi tools and whatever, and
not just the direction we decided to go as a community.
So now we need to figure out a way to balance how we want to send yield to LPs versus nodes,
in effect. And this is like kind of a little bit,
not exactly that because we're not talking about like LPs anymore.
We're just talking about taking some amount of the yield of the income
and putting it back into the pools, right?
Through the POL, the protocol on liquidity.
So the idea is that myself or somebody else will put together the PR, probably not for 317, which is going to be cut probably in a few days, but probably as part of 3 – maybe 317.
Maybe they can squeak into 317, possibly, but maybe 318, if not 317.
And where nodes can just vote on what percentage of system income do you want to go to the PUL
to help build the pools and make the pools deeper and more liquid and this kind of thing.
And every node will say something, you know, whatever they want, 10, 20, 5, 2, 0, whatever it is.
And I think you'll naturally, wherever it gets the most votes is the winning thing, right?
And so I think that's naturally going to just trigger nodes
to just consolidate into a single number eventually
because having the opinion, if there's like,
say I wanted 10 and Kenton wanted, you know,
wanted 5 and you wanted 1, Denny, or you wanted 0, Denny.
We can, you know, if Kenton and Denny vote in the same way my vote it doesn't
even matter at this point because i can't it doesn't matter what i do a majority a simple
majority of voted in the same direction but if you think of it if there's more of us like six of us
or seven or larger scale it doesn't make sense for us to split our vote amongst three right so
you have to figure out out of the two that are possible,
which of the two do you want to go to?
It's a little bit similar to having a third candidate in politics.
You have the Republicans and you have the Democrats,
and then you have the independent, you're Ross Perot.
I know nobody here is probably old enough to remember Ross Perot,
but you're Ross Perot or whoever,
you're Bernie Sanders was going to be an independent kind of, you know, but he ran under the Democratic ticket.
But like having a third candidate in a presidential election means that you're going to split off, you know, some percentage to that third candidate.
And does that hurt the Republicans more or the Democrats more? It depends upon who the candidate is and you know all these things so it's conceptually a little bit similar
to that and so eventually nodes will vote they'll consolidate and down to like probably two or three
you know positions and then whatever has the most votes wins so okay at first i thought you're
going to say it would go like we would just average out all the node votes um to come up with the
number but are you are you saying well each node is going to signal what number they want
and then we'll just do an iterative process to kind of come up with okay we boiled it down to
these two values and everybody vote again we're going to. No, no, it's not even re-voting.
It's like, say we launch this feature in the code base,
and then five nodes vote in whatever directions,
and whoever got the most votes in that five is the new number.
And then sixth, seventh, and eighth node comes in,
and now it's no longer that.
It's now a higher number or now a lower number. And so just like look at the network and see
how many votes there have been, which of the numbers have had the highest
quantity, but it doesn't matter if that number is you know six or seven percent
or not, or less than that, it doesn't matter. It's just whoever gets the most.
So if you're a note and you just don't vote, then you're emitting your
vote basically. You're not participating in it. You're just like, I'm just going to go with the
crowd, whatever the crowd decides, right? Like I'm not going to vote myself. But then only 30 nodes
vote. And out of those 30 nodes, you know, 12 of them voted for, you know, 10%. and 10 of them voted for 0% and then the 12 basically win.
Why not keep this like a normal mirror to have 67% to pass the number?
Well, because usually when we vote something like this, it's to enable or disable a feature most commonly.
It can't be used for something like,
we'll be charging in fees or whatever.
And we could set fees in this way.
In fact, it already is.
If Node started to vote on what the fees they wanted to have, this would be the thing that I'm talking about right now.
Because the fees we charge for l1 swaps whatever
is an operational mamiro meaning that whatever a simple majority above a majority above five four
nodes i think it's i think it requires at least four boats to be valid but anything above that
number that number or larger like that's what it is and for right now the the nodes don't vote on
that number and they just kind of allow historically Nine Realms to just kind of pick whatever the number is, and the nodes just kind of go along with that.
But the nodes don't have to go along with that. They could vote against the current number, which is 10, and set it to 15, or set it to 5.
Like, it could happen right now, and there's nothing to stop any of the nodes.
That's why nodes always have the ability to override everything and anything. Like they have the last, the last say
on all things, you know, in the protocol. So by doing it this way, it just makes it so that
instead of me or somebody or somebody like me going to the community and saying, Hey,
let's all vote on, you know, the POL, uh, system income to the to the pol here are your three options zero five and 20
or whatever and then everybody adr votes on those three numbers instead of that doing that everybody
just votes whatever direction they want in terms of what they want for the pol to receive the system
income which zero is a valid number by the way right and everybody just votes and
that's what the number is right so let's say we get like 30 or 40 nodes voting and
there's let's just say 30 nodes and um it's basically an even tie there's
to say 30 nodes and um it's basically an even tie there's three nodes want to do one three nodes
want to do two three nodes want to do four so on but there's uh 70 nodes that haven't voted
so it'll just stay at zero because they haven't voted their their non-vote is effectively zero
don't change anything no no it wouldn't stay at zero that scenario it would it would be in that scenario i think it would be whoever reached the tie first would be the current
winner even though there's a three-way tie whoever got to that number first i believe i'm trying to
remember from a while ago so maybe this wrong they just arrived at the number faster but if
one of the other two got one more vote from the 70 that didn't vote
then obviously that becomes the new number whatever number that is either zero or 30 or 100
or whatever the hell the number is okay so not if if you're if you're abstaining from voting you're
actually not being counted if you want if you actually want a zero value you have to vote zero
yes if you want zero you should vote zero if you if you don't want to participate and
want to omit your your vote then go ahead and vote that or you can vote for zero and then later on
vote for negative one which is basically a delete command like go back to an omit stance
and abstain you're withdrawing your vote withdrawing okay okay okay interesting sorry i'm gonna bump in real quick um i've just
i'm learning that x comments are not fall forwarding to our public chat you guys so
you never do okay only youtube okay youtube so guys either come to riverside itself or have the
question on youtube i've been trying to find these questions i'm sorry about that but wasn't uh coke i thought coke's keeping an eye on these other
yeah come on come on producer what are you doing
yeah man in the chair get back in your chair
coitsu did want a clarification on something um i think well he says uh under what circumstances
would a user who asked for a rapid
swap not get one and I'm assuming that's just if there's no rb liquidity it goes to streaming
swap correct correct okay the more more technically it is not this is not too technical for the group
but the protocol now monitored is the last direction of each pool right did it go from
room to Bitcoin or Bitcoin to room right which direction did the last trade of each pool, right? Did it go from Rune to Bitcoin or Bitcoin to Rune, right?
Which direction did the last trade go?
And in a rapid swap scenario,
when you're in multiple iterations,
it just says, I'm trying to go from Bitcoin to Rune.
Was the last one from Rune to Bitcoin or Bitcoin to Rune?
If it's in the same direction,
then I'm not going to do anything, cancel my swap.
And if it is, then I'm going to go ahead
and go ahead and do the trade. And that way it ensures
that we don't see a swap happen in the same direction twice in a row. It's always going to
require some this trade and then that other way, then the other way, then the other way,
like back and forth, back and forth. And by doing so, you ensure that you'll never get,
you should never get a situation where you get worse execution because of rapid swaps in theory
that's that's my understanding of it at least so um you see so if nobody shows up to do the other
side then it just goes from it just cancels the rapid swap you know and say oh we're done we're
just done we're already done we don't need to go another iteration beyond this point gotcha and I
don't uh extra details by Khoitsu here.
And just real quick, guys, on the X comments thing.
I don't even see the comments myself.
Koch says they're so buggy, and actually that matches my experience as well.
So frigging X, you guys, what can you do?
But Khoitsu further asked, what came up was a user who did a Bitcoin cash to Ethereum rapid swap, small amount, but the rapid swap didn't apply.
Boone mentioned it might have something to do with swaps versus blocks.
So there we go.
Yeah, that's probably just because there wasn't nobody trading in the reverse direction,
which hopefully should be an arbitrage bot in almost all scenarios.
If the arbitrage bots are present and doing their thing to do, then they should never be.
In theory, our bot should always be there, but in reality, it's not always the case.
Perfect. Awesome. We got that cleared up. Um, so he mentioned Boone. So, uh, I just,
I'm going to mention, cause this is something that I've seen, um, him, uh, submitting some,
uh, he's been working on the XMR, uh, integration, which is really cool. And, um, you know,
these are Boone's words, not mine. He says, I might have a little of the tism.
So, but he's actually really excited and appreciative, Chad,
that he's in there doing it.
And it's been a blast watching him do that and with Huguen as well.
So I know this is super early and things like that,
and you haven't had a chance to revoke.
But I just, I think it's really cool how an ordinary community member has been empowered and you've helped facilitate that.
So I just want to flex my appreciation for that.
I just, I love when I see ordinary people get more involved and become bigger parts.
It just, it just makes me so happy to see.
And I'll do a shout out to another community member.
I won't, I won't say his name or handle. But I don't know.
But he's bugging me about getting XMR on ThorChain.
And he's like, okay, I'm going to talk to the XMR community.
I know some devs there and blah, blah, blah.
I get stuff going.
So I'm like, oh, great.
So I told him to get in touch with Boone and the PR that's going.
And so you're right, Denny.
You don't see people get self-actualized and um you know start getting involved it's great to see great to hear so hopefully this guy can
I don't know jump up some interest on the Monero side we'll find out yeah and you know like a big
question oh I didn't mean to interrupt you Chad a big question is like what is the roadmap of
ThorChain it's like well you know anybody can step up and add to this what this
is one big experiment in my mind that's how i feel about it and i love this protocol so much
i'm so attached to it it's become such a big part of my life but anyone can literally help guide us
you know what i mean and and push something forward um but enough of that i'll send it to you chad
yeah um we could definitely have a larger conversation about what the roadmap is,
and I got some new things in that roadmap in some ways.
Those are things I'm interested in looking at.
But I just want to mention that Boone took it upon himself to do this XMR chain client.
I didn't ask him to do it.
He's been poking me the last couple months about wanting to be more involved from a developer perspective
because he's just getting really into like the AI tools. To my knowledge, I don't think Boone is like
a classically trained sort of speak developer by any stretch, but he's still a very engaged,
you know, intelligent person who is wrapping his brain around these new, you know, new new
fangled tools we have. And, you know, he and like I didn't work on the XRP thing for a handful of reasons.
But one of the reasons is like I didn't wasn't aware that there was a frost implementation that we could have in theory used to secure those assets.
But Boone did. And it was built by I think Luke Parker's name over on the Sarai project like mid last year, like in August of last year in 2025.
Didn't even know that was there personally,
but it's a Ruston implementation, which is probably fine.
And so he's just doing that work,
and it's actually coming along quite well.
And I keep on throwing things at him,
like this is the next step you've got to do
to get your code change ready.
And so I'm kind of like guiding him along
as some sort of third base coach kind of like guiding him around guiding him along you know
as a some sort of a third base coach kind of thing i guess you could call it come on come on come on
but it's now his code his code change at this point is ready for humans myself and star squid
will be probably looking at that code change uh this week or next week and start giving some feedback and
telling them to do this or don't do this or whatever and i'm sure there's a bunch of if
he's if he doesn't mind being a little bit thrashed by myself and star squid because i'm sure there's
a bunch of things in there that's you know it's all it's ai generated code and obviously we have
to be very you know just because we have to be sure about even if it's ai generated code that
it works and it's secure and all these
things and it adheres to our you know our standards and quality standards we have to have
so myself and Starsquare will be doing that you know starting probably this week or next week
to help and keep on telling them you got to fix this fix that this is not right blah blah blah
you know and then once that's the case we get it merged into a develop branch, and then we launch it on ChainNet and start doing some testing, like real-world, physically, ChainNet, StageNet kind of environment, and see that it actually functions.
And we can observe transactions, and we can sign transactions, and we can do all the things we need to do.
But there's a lot of complexity in that we think of that whole side
car with the frost thing going and we got to plug that into the key gen process when you
we do a key gen for tss we have to do also a key gen for the new frost you know other system for
a frost right and then you also have to do memeless outbounds because the i think the the maximum
outbounds because the I think the maximum memo for XMR is like 16 bytes if I remember correctly
so you can't do outbound memos with that it's just way too small and so like there's a bunch
of things that need to happen to in order to get us to a place where we can support XMR but you
know there's more reason to be bullish now on Xmr being added to thor chain than any other time in history for sure at this point because of boone and the work that he's doing we should all be
appreciative to boone there's a good chance that the monero will be added to thor chain in the next
few months and wow that's that's like that's pretty awesome because i wasn't thinking it was going to
happen in the next few months i was thinking maybe the end of 2026 maybe 2027 but he's really kind of
sped up that timeline just because of the work he's been putting in wow i've been watching
i just want to say i just marked this spot on the space that uh coke can clip that and put it on
social media um that's huge yeah well he did i've been watching boone fire away and i'm chatting
him dm and stuff
and he's he's really he's really committed and uh you know i think he'll be fine with a thrashing
he's the guy who believes in ruthless meritocracy so you know he he wants to and i just guys be the
change you want to see be the change you'll want to see you know i was on a space before this live
stream just trying to you know improve that you know our our mind share a little
bit get new speakers try to get just anything you do i swear to god it means so much for the
protocol so um yeah everyone's everyone's really happy yay boone yeah good he's smart enough to
know i think that it's not personal attack if you know if you're on stuff yeah um but this is like i can't stress this enough guys like
i love what boone's doing and i really and i hope you see what i'm doing what boone's doing like
we're community members who stepped up and we're doing stuff we we see something needs to be done
or we want it done and we're getting involved and we're doing it and like i can't stress enough how important this is this is how we win this outdoor chain wins and like like ideas are worthless you guys making an idea reality
is the value and i can't tell you how many people have come to me with all these ideas
over the last few months about marketing and this and that and they're great ideas
but i'm one person i cannot
it's impossible for me to get all of those things done right i need help so if you have ideas about
door chain oh what are you guys doing you should be doing this should be doing that replace you
with i replace we with i and if you can't say that sentence out loud with the word I in it, then don't say it at all.
And if you can say it, great, we need your help.
Like, get in the arena.
You can do things.
Like Chad just mentioned, but I think I'm pretty sure Boone is not a dev or a classically trained one.
And he can single-handedly be the guy that brings Monero to ThorChain,
how do you go from not being trained as a developer
to adding the hardest chain ever on ThorChain?
Like, if he can do this and pull us off,
no one else in the community can say,
well, I can't do this.
I've never done it before.
I have no experience.
Like, baloney.
You can do it.
Just change your mindset
and get in the arena and start doing stuff
because like man i hope you man i hope you're right chad he pulls this off that'd be so so
cool for him at this moment it looks it looks positive to be honest with you wow i don't want
to i don't want to guarantee anything or tell the community that it's definitely happening blah blah
whatever but from everything i've seen and he says he got the simulation test to work and that's the most important thing you get the simulation test which which actually does spin
up a full chain locally with daemons and the whole thing to test a bitcoin transaction or a monero
transaction i told him make sure it does you know an inbound swap like from from monero to bitcoin
or whatever or from bitcoin to Monero in both directions
and make sure you can do an LP add
and other kind of basic functionality
on the simulation test.
And he said he got it worked.
And if he says he got it worked,
I believe that he needs to tell the truth.
And I'll be actually looking at the code
with a critical eye to tell him to fix or correct
whatever things in the coming weeks.
But if we can get this thing merged in the next few weeks,
it might be the next chain we add possibly to the network after Zcash.
I can only get so erect, boys.
Got to calm down, okay?
Do you have one of those raising desks or did your desk raise from something else?
I thought I heard a thub.
A thub or something like that in your mind.
You know, my blood pressure is dropping,
but it's high in certain places right now.
You see what I'm saying?
No, that's really cool.
That's very cool.
You weren't taking ibuprofen before.
You were taking Viagra, weren't you?
You know, that's how you see.
Everyone's like, where's my energy come from?
Well, there you go.
Aphrodisiacs, buddy.
That's where it is. And cocaine. And some bath salts occasionally. You know what I mean? I got a mellow out with bath salts. Too many oysters. you see everyone's like where's my energy come from oh there you go aphrodisiacs buddy that's
where it's and cocaine and some bath salts occasionally you know what i mean i gotta
make a pitch yeah i want to make a quick pitch right now because i think one of the most important
things guys when it comes to getting involved is we actually got to meet each other so you didn't
say this um kenton so'm going to pitch it right now.
We're having a meetup in Las Vegas, you guys.
April 27th.
Please, if you can come, I'm begging you to come.
I'm telling you, you really, like, your involvement in the protocol,
when you make that human connection, is so powerful.
Boone's going as well.
Chad's going.
And look at this person.
They're bringing seven people.
Seven.
That's awesome. Bringing his wife and person. They're bringing seven people. Seven. That's awesome.
Bringing his wife and kids or something?
Yeah, buddy.
Yeah.
That's Tio.
His uncle.
How many yeses do we have?
I can't read that.
We have 18.
Here, I'll zoom in for the boomers here.
Must not be counting all the guests that people are bringing.
Well, most people put one and i put one too
because i'm not sure i have someone i'm gonna try to bring i i think she can make it but i don't want
to like exaggerate look at this maybe i should hear that's 10 12 13 14 that's 15 people right
there so the yeses must not be counting the guests so i'm gonna have to go tally them all up separate
yeah you definitely have to do that for sure okay i'm gonna have to go tally them all up separate yeah you definitely
have to do that for sure okay i'm gonna be there too by people so if anybody wants to come hang
out with me and ask me any random question you want i'll be there oh scott's gonna be there too
check this out you guys so this is really really cool scott's a local he's gonna help me find a
venue no nice so uh which thank you scott we appreciate help. So we'll have to get on that. I'm guessing maybe, gosh, maybe even this week.
And we'll just add a buffer on to the number of people we got and just kind of come up with a number.
So RSVP quick, you guys, because I might have to cap it here.
And we'll have to turn you away at the door.
No cap. No cap. the door. No cap.
No cap. We'll try to make it.
No cap.
No cap.
No cap.
No cap.
We'll try and make it so that we can come in as many people as we want
realistically.
Everyone can come in Las Vegas.
Every single person can come.
Kenton will figure it out.
Is that right, Kenton?
That's right.
Yeah. Everybody comes in's right. Yeah.
Even though it's Danny Hooker.
Everybody comes in Las Vegas.
Yeah.
Let me.
We'll just stand in the middle of the street.
Fuck it.
We got to get.
That's who that.
What with Tony guy?
Is he going to bring seven hookers, I wonder?
Oh, that's what we got to do to get him where to go home.
He's like, look at the hookers there, guys.
Come on down.
You know what?
Forget crypto.
STDs are free.
Forget the crypto KOLs.
We should just start paying strippers to tell their guys.
See, this is the first principle thinking that i love which is
strippers and that's all you need strippers and blow and the everything's gonna flow you see
what i'm saying there you go this is rhyming here we'll get uh you know what you do is get those
guys in vegas down the sidewalk and they got the cards handing out all the cards we'll get some
thor chain card qr codes going oh yeah yeah get yeah. Get some bunch of randos showing up
who have no idea what Thor Chain is
or what the blockchain is.
I'm here for the hookers.
Oh, man.
Awesome.
Okay.
Well, so guys, please show up.
We're going to have fun.
I mean, we're having fun.
It's just three of us
and we're not even in person.
Imagine when we get together
and we have a few drinks.
This is going to get wild.
It's going to get wild.
I'm telling you guys, it's going to be so much fun.
To be clear, there's not going to be any hookers there,
at least not that myself or Danny or Kenton are going to be bringing.
To be very clear about that.
It's not my jam.
You guys do you.
You want to bring one as a date, that's on someone else.
I actually, the company I used to work for i started there
in november and then they had a christmas party a few weeks after i started and i i almost got
a hooker to bring with me as a date just to like kind of like with everybody and um uh i didn't
I didn't.
But I did show my boss's wife the color of my underwear,
which she still tells that story to this day.
That sounds like a story to tell.
Honestly, once I tell it, it'll lose its luster.
I'll just leave you guys in wonder.
Okay, all right.
It sounds better when you have to wonder.
You'll leave us in guys in wonder. Okay, all right. It sounds better when you have to wonder. You'll leave us in HR and wonder.
Yeah.
Also, I love that last company.
There is no HR.
It was the way a business should be run.
It sounds like there should be HR.
Yeah, guys, Vegas.
I don't know how to get this link out.
Maybe I'll ask the Twitter account to post it again um to RSVP yeah yeah we gotta do that it's gonna be fun
it's gonna be fun um well um I do you have oh go ahead Kenton you have something else I have
another question off the change of the tub I want to keep going no no go go with your question I've
asked enough so I've had another question somebody else asked me this chat and let me uh put it in the chat
and then i'll show it on the stream
okay could could thor chain work as an rfq request for quote, more like an OTC desk for whales or institutions
that want to buy in or move from asset to asset? Many big DEXs use several RFQ exchanges for big
trades. Yes, the simple answer is yes. And that is something that I actually have been thinking about on and off the last few months in the back of my little brain juices here.
I think it's a really good idea to do that.
It's to offer a OTC-like experience.
And that's probably, I assume, to be one of, if not the biggest, one of the biggest sources of revenue or volume for sexes,
like Krakens and Coinbases and Binances and anything like that.
Whether somebody who uses OTC on a sex,
whether they would want to do that in a DEX,
I don't know about that.
I mean, I could see it going either way in that sense.
But I think what's key to this
is that when you do an OTC, usually there's a minimum requirement of capital in each trade,
which I think for most OTC desks is like $100,000. So if you're going to trade less than $100,000,
OTC is not even available to you. But if you do, then you get a slightly better offer by price. And so you go to
the OTC desk and say, hey, I want to trade $100,000 worth of Rune for $100,000 worth of Bitcoin.
And they give you a quote saying, okay, we're willing to do it at this ratio between the two
assets, you know, whatever that number might be is. And then you confirm with them, usually
confirming in more than one way through like email as well as using a signal or something like
this and then you've set the price and you're going to execute at that price
and for some period of time and they can cancel at any time so we'll we cancel
the quote because markets have shifted or something like this and they kind of
guarantee that that price for as long as they can.
That is something I do want to do in general.
But the question becomes, like, who wears the risk and all this kind of stuff.
And so I haven't thought deeply about it yet,
but it is something I've been thinking about in the back of my mind.
Yeah, because isn't, and forgive me,
like, basically what he's asking, like, it's RFQ, is like, you asking, like this RFQ is like you're locking in a price.
Yes, you're locking in a price.
Yeah, and the only way to lock in, someone's got to be exposed when you lock that price in.
Right.
And generally, like, you know, whoever's locking it in will take on a short and to cut, you know, hedge themselves.
So, and that's got to be done
manually i don't understand how this could be done algorithmically um yeah that's up for debate i
think i i mean i haven't seen they're talking about there's some big dexes that that do rfqs
i i don't know of which ones those are off the top of my head, but if we do it...
Are they DEXs?
Yeah, like it might be...
Dex in the front, Dex in the back.
Uniswap's intense layer could be used in the sense of where it's not really...
It's done through a DEX, but it's not solved by a DEX.
It's solved by some individual human, which kind of like an intense works.
by some individual human, which kind of like an intense works.
If we do this, I would prefer to do it that the protocol is the solver in these scenarios
rather than some random person.
Whether that's possible or not and what the risks are of that, I think that remains to be seen.
Or it could be done by the the treasury or, you know,
something like a Nine Realms entity of some kind
that could be the solver
for this kind of stuff. Or it could be, we could even
have a partnership with
Kraken or something,
you know, or whatever. But
I don't know. It requires more thought
and research and that kind of thing.
Okay. It does sound like
Intense would actually kind of solve that
i would um that's what i was thinking too but i don't know intense kind of helps uh but isn't
really solved because uh well it kind of does it kind of doesn't kind of doesn't so like the way
that our intense is designed is is that the one that we're trying to get merged is that it does
it in a reverse auction way, right?
Where you state what the most use you want to receive in Bitcoin
and the least you want to receive in Bitcoin.
And the network will just kind of like walk down
for somebody just to provide the other side, whatever that is.
And that's kind of like an intent, you know what I mean?
But you're still not saying having an agreed upon, a specific agreement upon price before that's actually done.
Okay.
Gotcha.
I know what question it was, Kenton. I forgot to ask. That's my fault.
So we have a question from the audience here, Chad. I don't know if I fully understand, but I'm just going to put it on here.
Can we open whitelisting secondary pools with a dedicated pendulum,
let's call it Class B pendulum, where anyone can provide but get rewards,
no additional cost to node operators, but more volume for ThorChain?
I'm going to read that question again because there's multiple layers to that question.
Yeah, here, I'll put it up again for you.
So, secondary pools,
you can create as many pools you want on ThorChain
as long as it's a whitelisted asset.
Anybody can do that right now, I believe.
Then this person wants to put a secondary and pendulum
on those pools but i it's already interesting chat i i think what he meant was could we have
we have the bitcoin pool currently can we create which has synth leverage can we have another
bitcoin pool without synth leverage or anything like that has rewards does whatever is that what you meant oh
is that what you mean like a parallel pool to an existing pool is that what you meant so to max i
didn't know if you meant like new pools or versus like you're talking about a duplicate pool it's
good i'm to respond yeah um well i actually have some i'm sorry i have a resource uh prepared here
i believe um because I remember this.
This is something I banked from a while ago.
Let me bring it up here.
This was a different kind of LP or some sort of unit.
Gosh dang it, I'm bungling it here.
I've got it on Discord.
I'm bringing it up right now.
Am I right in here?
So crazy idea, Boone, if we introduce a third type of pool unit that would re-enable deposit the
synth pools to behave like deal but then cal this is last year i was thinking about exactly as well
might make sense to do next year so so we can get around the synth leverage problem essentially chad
if that makes sense um yeah yeah um let me think about that.
I have to explore the math a little bit about that,
because there could be some sharp edges.
But the theory there at a high level
is that we have pool units and we have synth units.
Right?
And the synth units control how much of the value
the synths have versus the LPs have. And then the LP units, or the synth units could control how much of the value of the synths have versus the lps have
and then the lp units or the pool units is about what each l which lp has right and if you want to
create an exclusion uh that anybody depositing rune or bitcoin to the Bitcoin pool right now, you'd have to create a secondary pool unit system,
which is difficult because the capital is still moving fluidly between the two.
Right?
Gotcha.
Because, like, how would you know?
Like, you know, right now there's, let's just call it $30 million in the Bitcoin pool,
whatever the actual, I don't know what the actual number is, but whatever it is, let's just call it $30 million.
And then somebody deploys a million into this new pool unit system, pool unit 2, right?
And then the pool's value goes to something higher or something lower.
something higher or something lower,
it might be hard to calculate how that can be mixed,
how the synth units could affect that.
Right.
It almost feels like the three-body problem,
if that makes sense to anybody.
It's a physics problem of you cannot calculate.
You can calculate mathematically
what an orbit is around two bodies, right?
But you can't do it around three bodies.
It's called a three-body problem, assuming all three bodies are similar size.
If they're different sizes, you can't calculate it.
But if it's similar sizes, it becomes basically impossible.
It's too much chaos.
It's impossible to figure out the answer to the question.
That may be the case with this whole idea of pool units too uh i'd have to spend time some time with the math and start like
playing around with it and exploring and experimenting and to wrap my head fully around it
gotcha i mean maybe we went down a tangent that he was because he says i'm i'm talking about other
assets without rewards there is no point for new providers but we don't want to attack nodes and bonds revenue hence other assets so i guess just more more pools i think duplicate pools
i think but yeah look so he's something he's like like new assets right so a new a new
token on ethereum or something like this and you can't do that in a way that doesn't take
from from providers uh from uh nodes rather because right
now nodes is getting all the yield so um i think i think the pol i think it's really complicated i
think if the novel solution is thor chain to go pol right we have and then that's the pool depth
you know lps and then the validators get the – I think that's what makes the most –
Yeah, if the validators choose what the system income – what percentage of system income is going to the PUL,
and the PUL is just continuously deploying more or less every block or whatever it is to whatever it is the most valuable place to put that liquidity,
wherever it's getting the highest volume relative to depth or highest fees
relative to depth. That would just be putting more capital in all the right places to make
us more efficient, which could be Solana and it could be Monero and it could be stable coins.
It could be Bitcoin, like whatever makes the most mathematical sense.
Bitcoin, like whatever makes the most mathematical sense.
So I was, you know, I've been pretty hot on my liquidity pendulum idea to move liquidity
from one pool to another.
But actually, Boone, he made a comment in the thread that, you know, if you withdraw
from a pool where there's, that's when you realize the permanent loss.
The permanent loss becomes permanent.
And I actually wasn't even thinking like that and so like because these pools are gonna the pol is gonna have impermanent loss for sure there's no yield right so maybe we
shouldn't be moving the pol from one pool to another that once it goes into a pool it's done
it's there and it's just a question of where are we topping up?
And that's the only thing that's changing is where it's topping up.
Once it goes in, it's done.
It's locked in that pool and just stays there.
Does that make sense?
I'm assuming it's probably easier from a code point of view.
Well, it's complicated because one is we don't allow people to withdraw or add to the Bitcoin pool.
That's the bigger problem, to be honest, with the idea of redistributing POL,
because you can't withdraw from the Bitcoin pool because we paused it
because of the whole cent thing and all these things.
So that's really the actual kind of blocker to this in some ways.
But you're right.
Imperment loss would be realized at that, if you have impermanent loss, it would be realized at that moment in time.
But it would also be, it would be, if you didn't have impermanent loss, it was actually going the other direction, right?
Then you could, actually, no, impermanent loss is always a loss, never mind.
Yeah, you'd always realize some kind of loss, but because you're, it depends on where you joined
and what ratio between the two assets did you add your liquidity.
And if you're in a situation where you're constantly adding liquidity every block or
something like this, then what is, where is your impermanent loss even sitting at?
You know, it's, it's becomes a little more complicated to calculate how much loss you've
had, I think,
if you've had multiple deposits.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you mentioned with the POL idea about the nodes adding or voting on what percentage of the revenue should go to POL.
What about where the POL actually goes? What pool it goes into?
Do you think the node should be deciding or that should be decided algorithmically?
That should be done algorithmically. Like in general, ThorChain has opted to have very little governance on the protocol, right? I know it doesn't feel like that sometimes with the ADR
votes and all that kind of stuff, but in reality, there are so many mathematical equations within the code base that determine the behavior in XYZ scenario.
You know, like we don't, you know, we don't control what the synth limit is, you know, in the past.
You know what I mean?
Like, it's just all calculated.
it. Governance is always a problem in any system, whether it be the American system or some DAO
system. Governance is always a problem just by default. I always try to remove governance as
much as possible from the protocol because it's easier and faster to behave in the correct thing
given these market conditions.
So my opinion, what should happen is the protocol should evaluate how much fees are being collected
or volume has been done per pool relative to its depth.
And then the one that has the, you would do like, you know, volume divided by depth or fees divided by depth.
And the, you know, lowest ratio between those two things is would be give you the
highest return to deploy yeah yeah well we have a guest speaker here and welcome this is always
possible you guys anyone can join the show yeah right and no one hardly ever does so thank you
max power i'm going to test your mic buddy and we can hear you can you hear me dude we can hear you buddy what do you got hey guys let's try i try i was trying to
add what i was driving the whole time i was like hey i can't stop there in the middle of nowhere
good to hear you guys by the way um so just to clarify scott's kind of hard to
mention what i was trying what i was thinking there just uh with that message, it's kind of hard to mention what I was thinking there, just with that message.
So it's an early idea I've already pushed before, but I had that discussion with Alex
about creating, that was, I guess, the first point, a parallel pool.
So the point is that we can't add liquidity to the current synth pool without affecting users.
So the point to create a parallel pool was
so that people can add to it without affecting.
And as time goes, eventually people will withdraw
over time from the old pools
and that will eventually go to zero
as new pools should pin to just whatever liquidity is
should pin to just whatever liquidity is at that time up, hopefully.
at that time, hopefully.
But that wasn't the point of my question that I just wrote.
So the secondary pools or class B I wrote was to add liquidity to other assets that we don't have currently
because a lot of our volume comes from Arbing, right?
We know that.
So the more asset we have on Torchain, the better it is for the protocol.
But we can't do that if we don't give any...
Nobody's going to put anything anywhere if there is no reward to have.
So the point of these other pools, since POL can't do all,
like it can't be any everywhere.
So if we have users being able to provide
and do some rewards on that,
something interesting, obviously,
liquidity will come.
And if there is good APY on some assets,
stables, whatever it is,
liquidity will come, but they need reward.
So without affecting current
or future node
operators revenue it would have to be something that wouldn't be added as a
cost for the infrastructure right so any token on current chain could be
eligible for that so do you want to create a new Bitcoin pool a new Bitcoin
room pool
leave the current one the way it is create an entire new pool that allows
anybody up to LP no that's already an asset that we have right now so we
wouldn't be able to do that without affecting node node revenue right so it
would be like let's say an asset we don't have right now another US USD
something there or any token any meme well probably not
me that's the thing too you don't want some that's why i was talking about whitelisting
because you don't want something that i can uh rug and you know you we know kind of problem
that brings to torching too with the liquidity yeah so it would have to be a whitelist already
exactly so it would have to be you know we saw that we can add more and more of
that but the problem is that right now nobody's gonna add anything because
there is no revenue to be aid so that's why they would need their own pendulum
where people can provide but right with an adequate panel yes your question
really is about wanting to get the incentive pendulum working again or
something similar to it so that some percentage of the system income is going to
LPs and some of it is going to nodes. I think that's a challenging thing in the current scenario
because even when we had this extended pendulum and it was working 100% and everything was great,
we weren't seeing a huge number of people adding new pools all the time right and it was mostly the treasury that
was you know was like driving force but behind you know adding new pools and and this kind of
stuff anyway um i think the the math of being an lp uh is kind of a difficult one because um it's
hard to calculate what the yield is going to be for something like this you do have in permit
loss that could be a lot and it could be a little
depending upon how sideways the market's moving.
And it just becomes like a hard thing to reason about.
And so I think the general mentality,
at least that I have,
and I think other people are having,
is that we're moving away from individual LPs,
some random person from the community,
LPing, you know, some whatever asset it is, and moving towards, you know, the PUL to be deploying these things.
For new pools or new assets, that would be probably started by the Treasury, as we've been doing for this whole time.
Like we're, you know, LP-ing into the Solana pool right now, for example, the Treasury is.
into the Solana pool right now, for example, the Treasury is.
And so just to get it started.
And then after that, the P-Well could start adding more liquidity
to that pool if it chose to.
Well, I was going to say, you know, I was an LP for a long time, right?
And yeah, I agree with Chad.
You know, it's just it's so hard to educate people about LP.
And I did it for years and it was very difficult to explain the behaviorism because again,
you know, in permanent loss and what are the assets going to do?
And for me, now that now we're where we're at, I just think it just makes everything
so simple and clean.
If we have a POL pol ad mechanism that's always
injecting liquidity in the pools deep in the tvl which is good right it's controllable and you don't
have to worry about a third party like an lp like myself or anyone else from pulling out like you
know that liquidity is always going to be there and it makes everything so easy to model i wonder
if a second pool is maybe just too much complexity to warrant the potential upside.
That's what my instinct says.
Because now, like, everything makes so much more sense to me.
Like, I can explain it really simple.
And educating people now is much easier.
Beforehand, educating people with LPs, it was a challenge, right?
But now, I really feel like the vision is kind of crystal clear, especially.
I mean, I'd be curious to see.
I think what would be really curious to see is
Chad implements the Mimir for POL ads,
whatever happens happens, we just see what happens, right?
Like if we have constant infusion of liquidity in these pools,
I think we might have been solving this problem itself,
but it's a different, interesting idea, Max, for sure.
Go ahead, Max. I was just gonna say to be fair
i had like liquidity in almost every pool since the beginning and they were all green before they
were all green there before turf i i managed to withdraw like a good chunk of it before everything
went to went to but i mean everything was mostly green before it went down so i mean it's not it's
not it wasn't a bad mechanism i
mean you have to be a little bit knowledgeable of what you do but i mean it's not infeasible trust
me i have got i had some good gains in some pools and yeah we just ran into problems with just the
cognitive overload that it required to understand the risk yeah i know i get you for it and i know
like jp kind of threw around this idea a while back about having the yield of because you're always making yield right you may
not be making profit because the permanent loss is going one direction or the other but like you're
always making yield because you are people are swapping and and the pool is increasing in value
from the swaps alone and so the idea was that um that you wouldn't keep the yield in the
pool you would the yield would be swapped to to usdc and sent to your your thor address so you'd
like a constant stream of like usdc kind of flowing into your your thor your thor address or
whatever and then you would be able to like just you know have to like keep the yield but the
principle stays where it is and that's going you know up or down or whatever depending upon price movements
well i mean lp is basically you're just racing you know yeah ilp versus apy it's that's all you
do when you're lp correct i i like this i like this move to pol.O.L. The more I think about it, the more I like it.
I think the community goes to you.
I absolutely agree with that too.
Because it also removes reflexivity in the room because, you know, if we're going into a bad market and we get organic LPs withdrawing, that reduces the size of the pools reduces our volume further and we get that you
know downward spiral type thing if it's pol and it's locked it doesn't matter what the market is
that that liquidity is not leaving the fine that the because of the token prices will change it
might affect the value of the pools but but no LPs are pulling out.
It's a little bit like a burn, sort of.
Not exactly-
Yeah, and then it's also like a burn.
I think it is.
Kind of like a burn, but not instead of burning,
you're just contributing to the protocol.
Yeah, so we get that benefit out of it.
And like Chad said, the whole point of the yield
is to attract capital to the pools.
And it's like, we spent, what, like two years?
I mean, node operators, bond providers, we're trying to push the pendulum to the pools, try to get more yield there, try to go to pools.
It just wasn't happening.
And then for people that are in the – we basically have two liquidity providers right now, the POL protocol,
and then legacy people that are sitting on zeros.
And if we keep adding to the pool, like, aren't we actually reducing,
making it harder for you to get back to even if we keep adding yield?
Because we keep reducing the synth leverage.
So, well, you're, well, we're not adding into we're probably not
adding into pools right where there's where there's synths first of all we're probably just
adding it into probably stable or not even stable necessarily but like newer pools
no man apy if we had apy is going again the um the apy is screwing up your leverage because you're being deposited.
Well, I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But anyway, just where I was going with this is, man, I would love to see 20% POL,
which I think is a reasonable number because that's –
those are getting what – let's just call it 80%,
no, 75% right now. If we had a real pendulum working, at least 20% would be going to the
pools anyway, right? It shouldn't be maxed out to the nodes. So if we get at least 20% going to the
pools, if we're at $20 million a year revenue, that's $4 million in new TVL.
Max, what you're saying about new pools, like, you know, I feel pretty strongly.
We should get at least 30 or 50 new pools, like different ERC-20s, whatever.
I'd love to see the Ripple dollar, RLUSD, XRPs, stablecoin, stuff like that.
Tether has, the Rujira guys really want to get the Tether gold token.
You know, we can get all these pools going for like, you know, if the Treasury wants to start it with a few grand and then the POL takes over and ramps them up with 50 or 100 grand.
That's all we need. These pools don't have to be super huge.
Like to start, 50 grand for these
pools is really good starting point combined with all the efficiencies chad has been doing and making
on making thort chain more efficient we're getting more volume out of less liquidity right so um
the need to get these like i wouldn't be surprised at one point, our Bitcoin pool is just, well, actually, I'd argue right now that Bitcoin pool is probably too big than what we need.
We're not using it to its full capacity because we're not doing like, you know, $30 million.
It can handle $30 million trades, but we're not doing that many of them.
If we have pools that are like 50, a few hundred grand that's probably good enough
for these pools they don't need to be much bigger than that and then um you know like to start
anyway right and as door chain grows they can grow too but um i i think with a nice slug going to
pol we could get some nice tvl going here and some new brand new pools going pretty easily
the thing I hear people say is like Chad said it well it is it's kind of a burn and I I firmly
believe that some people say well okay if you put P.O.L. into the pools that Rune can be arbed out
and I just like remind people yeah that's what we want because if Rune is being arbed out of the
pools that means Re went up more relative
to mark cap to the assets pair that means rune's price went up we want rune to be arbed out of the
pools because that's the sign of success right like that's what we want so i i think it's an
absolutely great idea and i'm so stoked to see it happen and yeah shout out to you chad rapid
swaps i think is going to be an absolute game changer for the reasons kenton said making thor chain more efficient with his liquidity like
back in 2021 2022 i would have never dreamed we would have been this efficient with liquidity i
mean we're doing pool swaps that are deeper are bigger than the depth of the pool themselves
is a freaking crazy thing and now it's like i mean come on that was a gist of all the mistakes and sins
from the past was to try and engineer liquidity right when and um when the engineering was just
making trades more efficient which indirectly increased you know our liquidity right so um
increased you know our liquidity right so it's going awesome it's going good
this is we can I ask a question regarding the POL allocation so we know
like I think I had the discussion with Danny earlier now it was like 60 or 65
percent of Turchane volume comes from Arbybing right so attributing that pol wouldn't be the wisest to go
where most of that volume is done right so since we like the deeper the pool is the harder it is
to move that price so it requires more arbing so having deeper pool of let's say bitcoin doesn't matter if this is where volume
comes from arbing i mean you want that as deep as possible it just makes it harder to move that
price so it requires more arming yeah deeper deeper pools is better than shallow pools in
all cases and scenarios it's never a case we're gonna be like oh we don't we don't want deep pools
this becomes more of a question of like how much how deep does a pool need to be in order to facilitate
relatively large trades? And how far can you get with a $100,000 pool in depth, like real usage?
Quite far, I think.
Yeah, it depends on the AR the arms more than anything at that point
true true really like because if we want to be competitive against you know other taxes out there
uh in time wise right if you have a very shallow pool it's you're going to have more sub swaps for
a large trade than you were in the bitcoin pool that's very deep and so that takes you know more
time and those smaller and those smaller pools and more shallow pools for a hundred thousand trade dollar trade to pass through it.
Right. And so it all depends on the arbors in the end of with rapid swaps of how fast that actually executes in the end.
Yeah, we are coming at two hours, Chad. Thank you so much.
Always for your time. And this has been such a fun episode. I'm having a great time.
I have a quick one i got
to do it you know are you changing the subject denny go ahead kenton i want to keep on this
po out sorry not to you know who did a horse but i wanted to add something our new bd guy randy
you mean he's on it talking to all these different uh protocols not just wallets for
integration but just talking to protocols about getting grants
for them to add liquidity to their pools or to start a pool with their token. And so that's
another source of liquidity for us, right? And some of them, the bigger guys, they might be
willing to do a few hundred grand, right? Bing, bang, boom, done. We get that pool going, right?
few hundred grand right bing bang boom done we get that pool going right and then we can add
pol on top of that so um there is other ways for us to source liquidity for the pools that
we're trying to do would would that uh now you had a question would that pol add it what's the
stipulation there they can withdraw off so much time or withdraw whenever they want or it's yeah
there they can withdraw so much time or withdraw whenever they want or it's yeah yeah it should be
liquid for them that they can yeah like with theory we should well it's not like we should
these new pools anyone can add there's just no yield right so they're gonna have to take on the
il so the then you might be wondering why would a protocol do that it's like well guys these
these guys give their tokens to sex tokens to centralized exchanges and market makers who just dump on them.
They're paying to get liquidity on these other platforms, and they just dump.
I was talking to a friend who works at an operations company that does operations for crypto foundations.
operations for crypto foundations and the market makers try and bribe these guys to send the new
token holders to to these market makers because they've built this whole business around just
dumping on people and um like it's a racket and so um it is so bad like it is so good for the market makers that like, I don't know if this is public, so maybe I shouldn't say it, but there's a market maker you guys probably heard of is buying one of these operators to get access to deal full, basically.
So these new crypto protocols will launch, will use them as a market maker for their token, but then they go and dump it on them.
We'll use them as a market maker for their token, but then they go and dump it on them.
So where I'm going with this, yeah, a third chain may not have any yield and a permanent loss,
but it's still a much lower loss than what they're going to get with their traditional market maker,
if you're following me.
So they can, and if the POL, the liquidity is getting big enough, POL is taking over,
and they want to pull out one day, they can.
Liquidity is great for attracting capital.
As soon as you say it's locked up for X amount of time or years or whatever, you get less.
If you tell them you can withdraw the next day, you get more.
And they never withdraw the next day.
They'll still hold for years.
It's just in their mind.
The ability to be liquid, to get out, gives them the comfort to do more,
but they'll still be sticky anyway.
So, yeah.
Makes sense.
Yeah, I just want to share, because when I think Grant,
I think of Grant as giving, you know what I mean?
But that, yeah.
Well, totally, and that's the way to frame it for Randy,
is that, like, this isn't giving us money.
This is still yours.
Yeah.
So you have custody.
You're putting it in the pool and you're furthering your ecosystem
and providing another liquidity source, right?
But they're in control.
So it should be an easier sell for us.
Yeah.
Perfect.
Sounds good.
So we are coming up at two hours.
Chad, I want to kick it to you real quick.
This year, we're approaching the middle of it. We're in April. How are we doing, man? How do
you feel good? I feel good. But I'm just curious, how do you, you know, are we expectation wise,
you feel like we're shipping pretty well? Like what's your pulse? Well, you know,
your pulse you know a little pulse check from you how are we doing man uh my perspective is that i
a little pulse check from you. How are we doing, man?
i think we're doing uh very well for 2026 i would say the reason why i say that is because we've
we've launched major features like limit swaps like rabbit swaps we've got um you know solana
already launched we got zcash coming soon they've got lots of more chains coming the roadmap looks good the roadmap looks healthy treasury is doing pretty well uh health wise um you know we have the team
we have more developers now than we've had in quite a while right um so i i think on and on
most metrics we are doing very very well especially during a time frame when most projects are either completely dead or very close to it, you know, in this kind of bearish times.
So I feel very bullish about the situation. I'm very happy I have the dev team that I have.
I'm very happy about the roadmap that we're working on, which we can go more details with the roadmap includes if you want to.
which we can go more details with the roadmap includes if you want to.
But I think we're in a very strong situation.
Some things need to be kind of cleansed or removed from the protocol
just to kind of get rid of some kind of sluggy, muggy things we had before.
I'm not going to go into specifics of what or who that is.
But we're kind of shedding the kind of dead weight, if you want
to call it that, and moving forward with a very nimble and focused and revived team.
And Randy is a good example of that.
Randy's coming in as a biz developer, breathing some new air into business development and
doing a good job in that sense.
I absolutely love that is randy coming to the 14 meetup kenton do you know yes he'll be there as
well very good i didn't see a randy name on there so maybe he needs to sign the all right he might
maybe he did maybe i'd missed it i don't know yeah i'll. I'll poke him if he's not already done it. But yeah, he'll be there.
He'll be there for sure.
Perfect.
Awesome.
You know, in the outro of these things, we still have the Go developer.
Are you still looking for developers, Chad?
I just want to check.
No, at this moment, not really.
It doesn't mean that I wouldn't.
If somebody came along that was a really good pickup, you can pick them up when you can pick them up kind of thing.
Do you know what I mean? But right now we have enough of a staff for now
to accomplish all the goals we want to be accomplishing.
And we have more people participating,
like Boone for example, you know,
and we have somebody working on the Tau stuff
and the BitTensor stuff.
So there's more developers externally as well
that are contributing
i guess in part because of ai's making it so much easier for people to to get more involved
from a technical perspective freaking cool freaking cool um kenton did you have anything
else i had one more question but i want to make sure i bring you in well i just kind of want to
bring it back to max i don't know i feel like maybe cut him off i don max is here yeah you wanted to to say any comments or questions you have max
um hi guys i know i'm always going to log off for the
that stream there uh just going at the speaker nice meeting nice chatting with you guys i'll
see you in vegas see the rest of the tour thanks for thanks. Later, Max. Thanks for coming up.
I feel bad.
I feel like when we're doing spaces, we had more people come up.
Well, guys, are we doing a bad job of not getting the link out there?
Hopefully.
I think it's just the there's more resistance because there's more friction.
Yeah. In spaces, you can just hit the button and you're up.
Yeah.
Here you go, oh, I have to go to the riverside.com.
I have to do this thing and click the link and it's a little bit more of a hassle.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
At least we do our best with answering questions in the public chat.
But, yeah, we always want to improve, guys.
We definitely don't want to have, we don't want to gatekeep at all.
That's not intention.
That was actually the opposite of what we wanted to accomplish.
But we just, man, having Chad just drop some bombs.
It's the best content ever.
We can make these short clips.
You know what I mean?
And it's fantastic.
Real quick, I know we're coming at two hours,
or actually past two hours.
I just want to talk about AI,
because you did mention it, Chad.
You know, the cloud
did get leaked.
Pretty much the whole thing was open source, as far as I know.
I haven't looked too deep into that. Does that affect
us in any way? Can you get more utility
out of it, or is it just a
happenstance, and it's not really consequential to
ThorChain?
Oh, to clods?
Yeah, yeah. The whole CLI was leaked or something. Yeah, yeah but the whole cli was leaked or something yeah yeah the whole
code base was leaked by accident yeah it wasn't even leaked it was it was it was like published
in the npm package which is which is not the first time this happened this is the second time that's
happened in cloud cloud code's history oh interesting i think we're we're we keep on
seeing these funny things happen like it's happened with AWS as well.
AWS has their own AI thing called Huron or something like this.
I forget the name of it.
And they're literally telling their developers,
you need to use this 80% of the time.
If you're not, then we're going to dock you in your performance report.
It's threatening to our developers.
Like you must use our AI thing.
And then multiple times they've seen these massive issues
where like AI just like,
I'm just going to delete the entire code base
and like start over from zero.
And that's like a real thing that really happened for AWS.
You know what I mean?
And so like Claude said the same thing where, you know, I'm just going to have, you know,
they say it was a human error.
Maybe that's true.
I don't know.
But I don't know.
The problem is that, like, it's a very fascinating thing of, like, AI codes are very fast, right?
It's moving 1,000 miles per hour.
Humans are moving at 30 miles per hour.
And so everything could be going super fast, but humans keep on getting in the way and slowing it down.
You always move at the speed of your lowest common denominator,
which in this case is 30 miles per hour in our hypothetical here.
And so there's such temptation as a team or as a CTO or whatever, as an AWA, whatever, to just remove humans from the process, just have AI do it all, and then you're moving at 1,000 miles per hour, which is very appetizing from a business perspective, right, to move that quickly and all these things.
But then you also have these like crazy situations
where code gets leaked, entire code bases are deleted
and recreated, which is crazy to think about
because it's not thinking intelligently,
it's thinking what is the next token, right?
It doesn't have an ability to actually measure
the complexity of blah, blah, blah,
because it's just not that.
So I don't know, it's an interesting thing, right? But for us, I think we're staying on the 30 miles per hour mentality.
Sounds good to me. Sounds good to me. Boys, do we have anything else we want to talk about before we wrap it up?
I have a couple of things.
Go for it. Love it.
This is going to, I think the community will have fun with this.
So there's two things that I am considering.
And I'm not going to go into too much depth right now because I need to do a lot more research myself.
But there's, I was having some conversations with some devs earlier and there's some interest.
Actually three things.
There's three things actually.
And then Ken is going to love the third one, actually.
The first one is concentrated liquidity.
Historically, I've always been against concentrated liquidity.
And the reason why is because by doing so, if you're a passive LP and you're not running software that is constantly updating your lower and your higher ticks of your concentrated liquidity position,
then you just get screwed and you can't make a yield.
And then you're only getting in permanent loss.
And so anytime we've seen cost of liquidity implemented,
whether it be Uniswap is a really good example
where like 80% of people are like underwater, right?
Because only 5% are actually making any money on it
because they're running these really advanced bots
that are constantly updating positions
and beating everybody else, which is why I was always against it.
But if we're heading towards a more POL mentality, if we're heading away from people doing this,
then theoretically, and I need to do more research, you can use the Oracle system that
the app layer implemented where all the validators are going to Binance and Kraken,
and I think it's like 18 different exchanges or something like this. I don't know what the exact number is.
But grabbing the Bitcoin price and the Ethereum price from a whole myriad of places and then pushing that on chain and getting consensus.
And then using that as the POL's ability to create lower, upper and lower ticks, right,
for a constant liquidity position.
Now you can get to a place, theoretically I believe, and again I need to do more research,
where we're even getting more utility out of whatever liquidity we have, because Kenton
was just saying we get 100,000 is enough, we're getting a lot of distance with a lot not much liquidity right in the matter speaking and now we can get even more
because we can get you know three six maybe 20 times you know the efficiency with concentrated
liquidity that the pol is pushing in using the oracle of the validators to give it the concentration
the appropriate upper upper and lower bounce concentration.
That's one thing I want to consider.
It's a great idea.
Start doing some research.
Because the POL has lots of liquidity.
And if it were to take that position and do that, it would theoretically make things a lot more efficient.
That's a great idea.
I love it.
Yeah.
That's number one. Okay. Would the wrench
or would it depend on ARBs then, how quickly the ARBs can ARB the pool? If they can't ARB the pool
well enough, then it blows up. As long as the ARBs are on it and they can ARB it, basically the
tighter the window we could have, the efficient the obs are um i am not sure
if arms matter in this context to be honest with you because it's because uh if the pool price is
over here and the lower and upper ticks are over here the pol is basically not providing liquidity
in the pool in this particular moment i think i think okay mathematically like it's it's like it's outside
if it's not but usually you almost you almost always have a lower and upper tick that it
includes whatever the the actual pool price is in the middle you know the question is how how far
is it one bip or two bips above and below the price do you want to serve
i think yeah I feel bad.
I'm outing myself and understanding customer equity.
I thought if the price falls out of your window,
you're wiped out. You lose your whole position.
I could be totally wrong.
You could be right.
I don't play with pool as much.
So I could be totally wrong.
I don't think that's how it works,
but I could be totally mistaken. Like I said, I's how it works, but I could be totally mistaken.
Like I said, I'm still researching this myself,
wrap my head around it.
This is early stages,
kind of just playing with some ideas
that might be really helpful.
So that's the first one,
it's constant liquidity.
The second one,
there's some conversations about enabling
or adding the ability to do flash loans on ThorChain.
And a flash loan, if you don't know what that is, is that like you get a loan, a bunch of capital,
like more than you put in, like you put in $10,000 and you get a $30,000 loan or something like this.
And as long as you settle it in the same block, meaning that you take the loan,
you do something with it, and then you repay the loan within the same block, everything
is fine. But if you can't do that in the same block, then it doesn't really work. And so
the idea is to do a flash loan for specifically ARBs to give them more capital to be able
to ARB the pools more effectively. Lots of needs to be worked out. It's a very multifaceted, very complicated thing
that requires some deep thought.
But it is an interesting idea that I wanted to spend more time
kind of like researching and diving into the depths more of it.
But theoretically, it might be possible to do flash loans for ARBs
to give them 2, 3x more capital to more effectively arb the pools.
It's an interesting idea because this is something
like the big centralized exchanges do.
They actually provide capital to their market makers,
right, to help them arb the prices.
So that's what ThorChchain would be doing in theory um how would you make it
so that only arb's could do it like if this torture is for me well and anybody anybody could
do it but it would be targeted for arb's like it'd be okay i don't know why you would do it on like
it makes sense flash loans make sense on Ethereum land
because you can get a flash loan,
do a trade,
do a thing on this smart contract
and then go to this smart contract
and do this other thing
and then come back to the original flash loan
and pay off your flash loan, right?
Like because you can daisy chain
a bunch of different smart contracts
and do very complicated things
and you just need a lot of capital
to execute on something, but it's a perfectly valid procedure or process whatever
steps that you're taking and then it kind of works on Thor chain land flash loans don't really make
that much sense because you can't just take a loan and then like go do something else with it
maybe with the app layer that's kind of changing but I never thought of i've always disliked flash loans because historically because
it's like now even capital doesn't require capital anymore it was just kind of like a brain like
numbing concept like i in order to attack like if you needed 200 million dollars to attack a smart
contract you know to do a thing flash loans make it so you don't need 200 million dollars you could
do it with 10 or whatever hell
the number might be and you could attack a tech a smart contract and price manipulate and blah blah
theoretically so um it's kind of a crazy notion that i it was but you know it's used it's been
used for years and you know there are obviously very legitimate uses cases for it and so where
does i just want to explore the idea of doing it for ThorChain.
And the only use case that I can think of that makes logical sense to me is Arving.
Right?
But maybe I'm mistaken with that.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Again, this is all just floating interesting ideas for fun conversation.
Don't worry, Chad.
Someone will be in Discord telling you that you've got to stop the update.
Next update, this can't go through.
Put the brakes on.
This can't happen.
Well, I mean, these things that I'm talking about aren't very risky, in my opinion.
At least we haven't done enough research to even know how risky they are or not, to be honest with you.
And again, I'm just going to, you know, i don't want to do risky things with the protocol like right we've already
kind of like learned our lessons as a community about you know we already want to sit on the risk
risk profile kind of uh you know bell curve if you want to call it that so you know all this is
going to require you know a lot of research and verification. And of course, everything comes through the community for voting and those things as well.
Of course.
But that was just number one, though.
You've got two more ideas for us, Jim?
That was number two.
That was number two.
So one was...
No, that was two.
I'm sorry.
Cost of liquidity is one.
Flash loans is number two.
Oh, flash loans.
Gotcha.
Is number two.
And then the third one, which I know Kenton was like, I talked a lot more about decentralizing UIs.
And I had a design for doing this a while back for Archeo
that never really got fully realized
for reasons we don't need to go into.
But it always kind of saddened me
that it never really got realized
because it's a really important concept
of building a framework, if you want to call it that, protocol, where it's a deployable
decentralized UI. That's what's so amazing about Ethereum when it first came out, is that
it was a generic platform where you could deploy something onto it, and it would give you a
decentralized smart contract to execute any arbitrary piece of, you know, code that you wanted to within Solidity.
And we should have the functional equivalent of a smart contract-like thing where you can deploy.
Instead of deploying a smart contract, you're deploying our user interface, right?
And so I had a design for this.
I had a plan for this years ago, and I was gunning for Arceo to do it,
but it hasn't happened quite yet.
And instead of waiting for it to get there,
there's this idea that we might be doing it on the ThorChain side.
And that would be not just, in my mind,
it would not just be for,
you know, swap.thorchain.org or even just thorchain.org, but be, you know, a generic,
a generalized platform that any UI, Uniswap, one inch, hyperliquid, right?
Hyperliquid, right? Whatever, doesn't really matter. And that we can build that
so that there's this fully decentralizes every aspect and component of
any particular stack for any DeFi application. I think that just, it's
obviously taking us away from the cross-chain swaps that is our bread and
butter in a sense.
But it would provide a lot more usage out of our validators and out of our network and even the room token, I suppose,
at a new demand center for it.
This doesn't take away at all.
I think this ties in beautifully, perfectly,
because we have to be permissionless, uncensorable.
And the fact that we could actually offer that to others, I mean, that's fantastic marketing.
You know, we, how does that, maybe that lends us new integrations.
That lends us notoriety.
You know, like you said, okay, Uniswap uses it.
Fine, they don't integrate DoorChain on their front end, front end but they're using door chains infrastructure to decentralize their front end
we're still getting publicity right um and that actually is it's this is huge because
you know it's like it's like the nose getting off aws you know we there's all these choke points
you know we there's all these choke points in the stack right where's all these points of
centralization and um right now with door chain and all of defi really it's the interface that's
a choke point and like if they you know want to come after you know big brother totalitarian
wants to do anything you know that's a choke point where they can go. So no,
I think, I think this is huge. I think this is incredible. Um, so just as important for our
cross chain swaps, you know, people have to be able to access them. If they can't access it,
then right. What's the point? So, um, what I'm curious is, is this like,
What I'm curious is, is this like, like I was talking to somebody else about this.
And they're saying you can, you can, we can decentralize the front end all we want, but
the, the actual URL, like who, like what, whose control is the DNS settings? Like where do we
actually have the URL registered, like registrar? Like for example, if we're using GoDaddy, like, that's like, you know,
the government is going to knock on GoDaddy's door and, hey, turn off this URL.
It's like the Pirate's Bay problem, right?
Yeah.
Like, Pirate's Bay was running these BitTorrent things where you could download,
you know, copyrighted content like, you know,
Shawshank Redemption or some movie or whatever
it is marvel film or whatever and uh they caught they would get their their piratesbay.com
banned or blocked or something and they they buy a new domain that's piratesday.org or some other
you know you know dot italian you know domain or whatever random thing it is yeah you know, domain or whatever the random thing it is. Yeah. You know, so.
So there's multiple components.
Like, so the first thing is this.
There's a core decentralized question that, in my opinion, nobody has solved yet.
And I don't even know how to solve it myself necessarily.
And that is like, if I told you to go find the Bitcoin network, right?
Is anybody on the Bitcoin network, any miner or whatever?
It's like, where do you go?
And right now, whether you're Bitcoin or Ethereum or insert chain name here,
there's some domain, right?
It is what is considered to be the initial seed.
And then once you get to that, you talk to one of the nodes,
then you can discover all of the nodes of that network,
and then it becomes highly decentralized after that point.
But to find the message, the route to first node,
is a really difficult problem that I don't think anybody has really solved at this point.
And to be honest, I am not sure there is a selection,
because it requires the Internet, and the Internet is designed from the ground up to be honest i am not sure there is a selection because it's it requires the internet
and the internet is designed is designed from the ground up to be centralized right
its entire architecture is designed that kind of way so i think um the best way that i've
thought of doing this is that um is to have a registrar, so to speak, of a specific,
no matter how you do it, even if you do it that way,
it's still going to be problematic
because even if you have a certain IP address,
well, the IP address can be actually shut down as well,
as well as a domain name, right?
Because the IP address is owned by AWS
or Verizon is providing you the IP address is owned by AWS or, you know, Verizon is providing you the IP
address or, you know, AT&T or whatever it is. So it's like that stuff is like very hard to get
around, to be honest with you. The more I think about it, the harder it gets. Like, I always,
I keep on thinking of like solutions that I realize, oh, then there's other, the other angle
around that, you know? Yeah, I was just ranting for a little bit there, but that's the hardest
part about it. In my mind, the cleanest solution to this problem that isn't 100%, but it's as close
as I can think of to get it, is to have a downloadable app, you know, that you download once,
and you can pull it from like GitHub or, you know, whatever, just download it. And then inside that app is an app store, right?
Minus the store part, but kind of like an app store.
And you can download, you know, ThorSwap
and swap.thorchain.org or whatever, STO.
You could just select these things
and download a tarball or a zip file,
to use it in more layman's terms,
that is all verified with hashes and
this kind of stuff and that stuff is actually is you don't download from an individual server
you download through a bit torrent because bit torrent is probably the most successfully
decentralized protocol we've ever seen in mankind might might have been bit torrent itself is like
so clean and so well done and designed from a decentralization
perspective. It is so good. More so than Bitcoin, I would even say, to be honest with you.
And so, but you need this funny thing of like, in order for something to be decentralized,
you need to pay for your usage. This is the thing i think people forget all the time yeah if you are using something
for free somebody else is paying the cost of of providing that whatever that thing is right which
is and then those people who are paying for that can stop paying for it and all of a sudden your
usage of that thing it goes away if you can't use something because somebody else stopped paying for it, I don't think that's
essentialization. I think that's a little bit far. And that's what's happening when you deploy a
smart contract, right? Is that the developer is paying money and gas to deploy the contract itself.
But each time you utilize that contract, you have to pay Ethereum to use the contract, right? You
don't just use the contract for
free that's not how this works if it did that that would be a real big then why are the miners
you know processing your transactions what's in it for them right like somebody somebody has to
get usage out of it in order for it makes sense somebody has to get a value out of it before it
makes sense and this is the one of the biggest problems about essentially a UI, is that even if you do it correctly,
the problem is that everybody
is used to a Web2 interface
where everything is free
and they don't want to use something
that costs money, right?
I can use Venmo for free.
I can send Denny 100 bucks on Venmo right now.
It doesn't cost me a dime.
But when I transfer some Bitcoin to Denny,
that costs me money.
It costs me fees, transaction fees.
So why would I use Bitcoin over Venmo?
Venmo is the free thing.
And it's like we have to get people over that hump,
in my opinion, the industry as a whole.
We need to get people to understand
that whatever something to be decentralized,
like the UI, you have to pay for it. And you pay for your usage of it. It, whatever something to be decentralized, like the UI,
you have to pay for it and you pay for your usage of it.
It's not going to be a lot of money.
It's going to be like sub a dollar probably, right?
It's not going to break the bank.
But like people are just so used to software being free
and UIs being free because Web2 kind of like spoiled people
in this kind of way and then sold you
ads or whatever to to make up for that freeness that wasn't actually free do you know yeah makes
sense to me and like going back to my url thing like i mean you made a good point there's all
these bitcoin platforms that are on regular web addresses and like, you know, they haven't
shut any of those down and they could shut those down, you know.
So it might be one of those things where it's kind of like if they want to attack Bitcoin,
they can turn off the electrical grid.
It's like, well, then you affect all these other things.
You know, if they want to go after a door chain and go after the URL, they affect all
the other URLs on the internet because it's setting a precedent that, you precedent that if you go after one, you can go after all of them.
So maybe we're fine there.
So is your idea with decentralized front end, the downloadable program, that's your cleanest solution to it, to have the downloadable program.
So are you thinking to stop having a web app
or just have the downloadable program in addition to?
Well, I would love to find a way to do it within the browser
because if you don't have a browser, you can download an app.
It just creates a friction layer.
I'm glad you get that.
That's definitely there.
I'm not saying that's not there.
It would be cleaner and easier to do it within the browser for obvious reasons.
But that introduces a lot of problems of like, okay, what domain am I going to?
And how it decentralizes that domain.
And then when I go to that domain, who am I actually talking to?
Is it Kenton's server?
Well, then if it's just Kenton's server, then Kenton can go away and all of a sudden the whole thing is broken.
Okay, it's a list of servers.
Okay, maybe it's IPFS, right?
But IPFS requires somebody to pay the bill to store the files on IPFS.
Otherwise, it just gets deprioritized and goes away, right? I believe. But IPFS requires somebody to pay the bill to store the files on IPFS.
Otherwise, it just gets deprioritized and goes away, right, I believe.
So it's like it might be possible to maybe through some like COSM-WASM kind of stuff.
Not COSM-WASM, but just WASM stuff.
Maybe there's a way to do it in that area.
I want to do more research in this sense.
But the nice thing about being local is that once it's local, you own it.
It cannot be revoked or turned away.
Part of the problem when I go to swap.thorate.org
is that I'm using whatever software at that time
the web server is hosting.
So even if you add a new feature or take away a feature
that I really like, I'm kind of forced to upgrade to the latest version, which that doesn't sound very decentralized.
I mean, if you're forcing me to use software that I don't want to use, I want to use a previous version where you took away that feature that I really liked.
That has to be part of the equation as well.
Like I need to be able to, once I have something, that it is mine forever and nobody can take it away from me at all into the future.
I can choose to upgrade to the newest version of swap.thor.org or I can just stay on the current version of mine now.
It's up to me to decide that, not for Kenton to decide that for me.
have that for me you know so this it's it's complicated but if you want to be purist about
it if you want to be precise about it you want to be mac def uh decentralization maxi about it
then you i'd probably best to build a local app that you download but maybe that's like you know
our our also at the same time that that's our moat that we built as a protocol.
Because if we can start, we built this kind of open platform where Uniswap or whomever can deploy their UIs, their open source UIs.
And then everybody starts downloading our little app called, you know, whatever the app is going to be called,
decentralized UI app, whatever it's called.
It probably shouldn't even be called Thorchain something.
Just leave our Thorchain branding out of this.
You know, keep our Thorchain branding to a minimum.
And people just download that app.
And that just becomes the well-accepted thing in the industry.
And then it becomes a moat that if anybody wants to build a competing blah
blah then you have to like get people to download an entire another application you know maybe and
maybe this is the reason why you know um what's it called atlas whatever it is the open ai browser
has not really taken off that much because you to download an entire new browser which for a lot of people they have just so little interest in doing you know what i mean right so um that's
the way to be d5 maxi about it which essentially they should maxi about it but maybe there's a way
to keep it in the browser i do want to research that more deeply and think think more deeply on
it to do that but maybe we would offer both a app local app version which is for the maxi version, and then a slightly less maxi online version.
I love it. I love it. I think it's cool. I mean, Thor chain,
in my mind, always thought of this infrastructure.
And if we can provide another service, let's do it. It's awesome. It's great.
Kenton, were you saying something? Oh, go ahead.
Talk about ossification.
There's no way you're going to stop thinking and imagining.
I'm a pretty creative person.
I do enjoy innovating.
So I like technical challenges in solving them.
Well, back to your concentrated liquidity.
At first, you're against it.
Now you're like, well, now it might make sense.
Because as you keep changing and improving and doing things like ThorChain keeps growing and evolving.
And what might didn't didn't make sense a couple of years ago. Now it might make sense a couple of years from now. So, yeah.
Yeah. No, I just I 100 percent love the I'm a decentralized maxi to guys.
Well, maybe maybe I'm going to caveat, I guess.
I believe in free speech, except for some speech.
So my only hang-up with having to download a friend,
just like you said, Chad, is just friction.
We've got to make ThorChain as easy as possible for people to use.
And that's the trade-off.
The easier it is to use, then we have centralized points on it,
right? And the more decentralized we make it, the harder it's going to be for people to use.
And yeah, I'm of the opinion we got to keep it easy for a while so we can get as many users as we can but i can argue that like that if if we can be successful
in getting a handful of other projects to to cooperate or to combine with us in this
and we start to get a pretty common that everybody has this app downloaded whatever the app thing is
yeah then it becomes easy. Yeah, yeah.
Because you've already got the download for the Uniswap,
because you'd be like Uniswap,
but now just getting ThorChain's UI
is just as easy as it would be in the browser.
So this app, this is a web browser app
or is it an app you download on your computer?
It's an app you download on your computer, but in some ways it kind of works like a browser in some sense.
You have an interface that could become whatever application you want it to be.
So this is like, and forgive me, it's actually been a long time, so I downloaded a torrent.
So it's basically like these torrents.
You download the torrent, I forget what it's called, but you can see all the different torrents they offer, the whole list, and you go do whatever you want.
It'd be just like that.
Yeah.
You would see a list of applications, and you're like, that one looks cool.
Or it would even be like searchable.
You know, I'm looking for a swapping interface, whatever it is, right?
Yeah.
Here's some suggestions.
And then, but like, for me, the way I'm thinking about right now is that like i don't
want it to be like the internet where it's where it's permissionless i don't want it to be
permissionless and let me explain why that is it's because if you want to deploy an application
on this kind of like environment right or this platform right it has to go through a vetting
process to ensure that it is secure and that
it's not going to rug people and it has like security confirmations, right? And maybe,
or maybe we do allow anybody deploy an application, but it doesn't get the blue checkmark.
You know what I mean? And the blue checkmark is when, say I'm Uniswap, I want to upload my Uniswap UI. I wrap it up in a tarball, I give it to the ThorChain network, right, in a transaction,
I upload it to ThorChain network, and then I combine that with a bunch of rune.
Let's just call it like 50,000 rune, which is like a bug bounty on my UI that I'm uploading.
The community can then review those code changes
or whatever that code is and say,
hey, there's a serious bug here.
This could be a rug.
This is this.
This is that.
It allows the whole community to come together
and actually find anything and say,
and then they can submit a bug report, basically,
to the validators, and the validators would review it
and say, this is a good this is a good bug but I
think this person should get 2,000 room out of the 50,000 this they were put up
or 50,000 room right whatever it is to ensure that people don't upload
malicious things if you do you lose money right and to ensure that you're
you're not going to be phishing attack or scam attack in the
way we see all the time where you go to your email you get an email and you click the link and you
put in your mnemonic phrase and whatever and you get rugged and it's like one of the biggest problems
of the internet in general and with this design and system where it's not permissionless it requires
you to upload your your your ui it has to be open source for everybody to validate make sure it's not permissionless. It requires you to upload your UI.
It has to be open source for everybody to validate
and make sure it's legitimate
and not going to fuck you in the ass.
And we can give some level of assurances
that it's a safe code base
that you can actually use
with a good degree of certainty
that it works well.
So who... Oh,keepers in of this app?
Would it be the ThorChain nodes?
Or would it be like you and a few other people?
It would be the nodes in this case.
So the nodes have the ability to approve or disapprove any apps that are uploaded.
And they can disapprove because it's too similar to an app that already exists
like somebody's trying to clone the you know you swap ui make a couple changes and then up re-upload
it a second copy of it just going to create kind of pan like pandemonium and confusion in the in
the marketplace it could be because it's not secure like the way that i have this designed
in my head like you your code's not even allowed to make HTTP calls outside of localhost, outside of your local computer.
It's not even able to make calls remotely because that would allow you to pull down arbitrary code potentially and rug or attack or whatever.
Instead, when you want to make external calls, you have to call localhost, which only allows certain connections to the outside,
right? It has to be like whitelisted connections, meaning access to a Thor node or a Bitcoin node
or something like this, where you're trying to get like data about the pool depths or something
like this. And there's a, it's kind of like an internal router that when you hit this port or
whatever, or this pathway or whatever, it will to you know a thornode which is we know
is the thornode is like a legitimate thornode and not there to you know rug people or whatever like
or at least have a very strong degree of of confidence in it to ensure that this is safe
and secure and decentralized and all the things we wish the internet was when it was created and not done in that kind of way.
It's not safe. It's not secure.
It's totally ruggable.
It totally has lots of surfaces for attack and all these kind of things.
And to build it in a way that gives you all those guarantees you wish you had on the internet
and do that locally, I think would be pretty fantastic.
It's pretty freaking cool.
That's really, really cool.
I love it.
That's all ThorChain always does.
We just rewrite the rules.
We just start from the ground up
and just build something that just changes the world.
I mean, people often forget.
I mean, ThorChain was literally the first
when it came to the cross-chain swaps,
but we did it right.
We didn't skip out on the first principles
of the centralized aspect.
I mean, you can have people make market makers and solvers and all this stuff.
It doesn't even come close to what we've built here.
And because we followed the first principles, Chad,
like, you know, you start from the ground up in the very beginning
of your YouTube videos in 2019 when you're talking about it.
What you can build on top of that, you're much alluding to that.
So I think there is still so much more for thor chain to do right we're just getting
started even though sometimes it feels like we're old men in the space we've been through it a lot
i think honestly we're just getting started so such i'm so bullish um i said i couldn't get any
more erect but it's about to go through my neck right now so this is this is awesome you know
what i mean crazy what are you going to rerathalay to your tranny? Get your tucked up behind your toes.
I got it wrapped around my body four times right now.
Or it's going this way.
You know, it's down the throat.
Yeah.
It's ridiculous.
I don't know.
But those are the three things that I was just chatting with some people this week,
and we were kind of brainstorming, and those are the three things that came up that were uh i thought were pretty interesting but all of them
require a lot more research and obviously a lot of time and engineering and you know all this kind
of stuff but and we obviously have other things we're trying to ship on the roadmap and you know
more chains above all these other things so uh so there's no shortage of work to do is another way
to put it love it i love it too well is is that a good
i know we're going over two and a half hours i always remember i feel like in a two-hour mark
i'm like okay i want to make sure we you know respect chad's time but that was awesome i'm
so glad you stuck around told us about that that's badass chad yeah but is there anything
else you got for us good sir um oh oh there was a solana thing uh there was a double spend but
we've already pushed an update
for that right i should have mentioned that a long time ago i totally skipped my mind on that yeah
yeah yeah uh no no there was a there was a bug where there was a double spend because of there's
um an instant observation functionality in bifrost that wasn't functioning correctly for
solana so we got a bug patch coming up i think it's's already out, actually. Yeah. For 316.4 that patches that.
And we'll get resumed on the Solano thing after that point.
Oh, I just remembered.
Chad, didn't you put a post about ADR25?
I'm like, I'm behind.
Oh, yeah.
Another thing.
We should probably touch on that.
Oh, boy.
Get ready for four hours, boys. Let's go.
I mean, it's not a big ADR.
It's really just more housekeeping. So, like, all it really is is that right now,
Nine Realms is receiving the debt fund,
the 5% system income that's going to the debt fund.
It's going to a wallet that Nine Realms controls,
and they're not sticking around much longer.
I think they've got, I'm not sure how many days left it is days left it is 20 days 30 days something like this I'm not sure how
money to two weeks something like this and also we just we just want that room
that's currently going in that realm so it's just to stay within the protocol
and so it's just going to a wallet that myself and Marcel and Alux control and
that money would go in there and then we would use that money to pay
you know devs and whatever we need to get paid for this. I mean in some ways you can think of
this that this is going to be like the new treasury in a matter of speaking like we'll spend from here
first and then go to the treasury the treasury will then take up whatever is required after that
point but hopefully the the idea is on the long scale, on the long term,
is that this dev fund will make enough money that it can pay all the things
that it needs to pay for, you know, just to, you know, fund developers
and marketing and dashboards and, you know, whatever, data sourcing of this, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know, Telegram bots, whatever.
Whatever we need as a community.
Perfect.
Love it.
Awesome.
Was there something else, Chad?
I think I interrupted you maybe when I switched to Solana.
Oh, so there's a talk.
There's a talk, this is like a small thing, but I think it's kind of nice, of changing it so that when you're an active node in a bond provider, you can withdraw your yield.
This is like a small thing, but I think it's kind of nice,
Not the principal, which you put into it, but you can draw whatever yield you've produced.
As a way of like, you can take profits without having to like churn out and then take profits and then churn back in.
That seems like it makes sense like it's not really that big but it's not a security issue that much like i don't consider being withdraw a little bit of money is like a big risk to like
from a security perspective but it just allows people to have to be able to take profits when
they want to take profits rather than have to wait to churn out or forcing themselves to churn out. Well, how would you, so in my mind, when I envisioned this, I don't know if you remember,
I brought this up a few years ago, is that you could, the bond provider could set a percentage
of what yield they want to take. And every churn, like let's say I set my percentage at 100,
every churn, I would would get 100 of my yield
but go back to my address but i set it at 50 i would get half my yield and then but it'd have
to be every turn because then after the churn my yield goes to my principal and my principle is
fixed on the bond or are you are you thinking you keep track of the yield from when the BP first went into the node?
Yeah.
The way it would work in my mind, although this could change with other ideas or whatever,
is that every time we churn and your bond provider makes some quantity of rune,
it increments a number starting at zero and then it goes to a thousand rune
i'm making up a number here and then that's how much you can withdraw so you can do a bond
an unbond up to a thousand but then the next churn it'll might add another thousand so now
you can do two thousand but you can't unbond less than more than that just whatever and then you can
unbond a thousand of the two thousand right or whatever and so every time we churn that number just increases and every time you
unbond that number decreases okay nice okay I like that well but you would have
what I guess and then if we wanted it automated that'd be regera could come
in and do something they could do a smart contract yeah if you want to
automate it you can do a cron on your laptop.
You could do a Ruggiero thing if you want to do a Ruggiero thing.
Or even if you could do what you're saying, like, you know,
we'll just say like 50% or, you know, to automate it on the protocol level.
Well, my way, you're kind of fixed, right?
You're kind of stuck.
Like maybe you don't want to collect your yield for six months,
but then you want to take one lump sum.
You couldn't do that on my way.
But my way, I was thinking about it just kind of bigger picture.
Like, and this is how I sold it to my clients and investors,
is that long-term, like this is a passive income play, right?
And all bond providers are going to want to collect that yield
and they're going to want to be paid out regularly, right?
So I think for now, most BPs, everyone's happy to compound their position.
But, you know, if we give people a way to get some recurring revenue,
like just automatic, they don't have to go manually do it all the time.
They can just set it up.
I think that, yeah, Rooji's smart contract would work great. They can pull out the Rune,
maybe when it gets a certain value, when it gets a few grand, pull out my Rune,
convert it to stables, send it to my address, something like that.
Yeah, you could do that. Yeah, absolutely.
I like it. I know RuneBond.com would be very interested in doing that. If you get a functional icon,
so you want to support ASAP.
So I think it's a good idea
because that is a complaint that you hear often, right?
It is very much.
Can I ask you something?
This is a little thing.
Maybe we have Hugin helping you.
Can we delete
when an address is whitelisted to a node but has zero ruin on it?
You can't delete it until a node is churned out.
While the node is churned in, could you make it so that we can delete it?
If it has zero ruin, we can just delete the address from the node?
root and we can just delete the address from the node.
Because managing some nodes, it's extremely annoying
having to wait to churn out to delete an address to keep
things.
I know this is what we call it, P5.
There's nothing.
It's just pure convenience.
But I don't know if that's something easy now with Hugen
you can throw at it and maybe
yeah i could throw that at you could like just create a get lab issue assigned to hugan he'll
take care of it at some point okay okay cool shout out to hugan yeah i love you it's pretty sick man
he's doing his thing yeah dude incredible hugan like uh man i don't want to talk about hugan
because i'll keep you boys here a long time but but I'm just neurotically watching the Hugen feed all the time. I'm addicted, man. Like, into my veins.
Did you hear about the whole mythos thing? You ever heard about that?
No, what's that? when this wasn't here to discuss. So Claude apparently,
Anthropoc apparently,
had accidentally exposed some,
it's another thing like,
I was just joking before about AI making dumb mistakes and, you know, another example.
Claude accidentally exposed like 3,000 documents,
you know, on a public server
that they didn't mean to do so.
And one of those documents was a blog post
that was for a future blog post to be published later in some,
I think it was designed to be in Q3,
for a new Claude model called Mythos.
And it's not haiku or sonnet or opus.
It's a new model above opus.
It's an entire new model that is so good and so powerful that they haven't released it
because they're terrified that it would basically destroy the internet.
Because it's so good at finding security exploits and attacking online services that to release it now would be releasing a
nuclear bomb effectively against the internet that anybody can now to grab
and start breaking into you know various websites and holy shit so like it is and
an open AI also has one of these they call it spud in their system which is why open ai has canceled sora and they're
like ai generated porn and a bunch of other smaller products because this new model is so
absurdly expensive to run it requires so much inference that the rumor is we don't know for
sure but the rumor is that it's going to cost $2,000 per month to get access to the super advanced model.
Right?
So, it's real.
Like, this is a real model.
And Anthropic has come out and acknowledged that that blog post is a real blog post.
So it's not like just Twitter conspiracy or whatever.
It's actually legitimately real.
And so right now, the model is being tested by a bunch of security engineers around the world
to probably test it against very important software like OpenSSL, for example, Linux kernel, Nginx, HAProxy, like these infrastructures,
like open source infrastructure
that is critically used
in the entire internet that has to be very
secure. So they're like running it
against that infrastructure first
before they launch it publicly
for people like myself to gain access
to. And so
I've already had conversations with
the security team about like when this model comes out, whenever data comes out, there's a decent chance, depending upon it, we'll look at it when it comes out, but there's a decent chance that we're just going to pause trading and pause signing on the entire protocol just in an abundance of caution.
And then get access to the model, to the model verify our code is you know
good right there's no significant problems and then go ahead and resume training because the
like this is this sounds like it's it's like it's not just like an improvement but an entire step
change above everything we've ever seen before and that's good and that's getting released in the next
probably next few months, right?
Depending on how long they want to spend trying to validate or secure the rest of the internet or whatever.
This is pretty astounding from what the data we've seen so far, which is very little to be fair.
But pretty astounding.
And I'm very excited and very scared of what this what this thing can do and you know that's going to be
up we're going to probably assuming it's you know feasible we'll bring it in to hugan and this will
be hugan's new model that it operates on you know and it'll be started incredible sick that's
incredible interesting time yeah or we could we can use it against open source competitors of ours
we lost kenton well that happens sometimes. Well, that's really, really interesting.
Oh, my gosh.
So, yeah.
And, dude, if you've got to pause the network to that,
I think everyone's going to be more than fine with it.
If it sounds like an entire exponential increase capability,
that makes my heart beat.
That's really intense.
Just on Huguenot as a long.
Go ahead.
So the other thing to talk about,
and there's almost three hours now,
but there's so much to talk about.
It's okay.
I thought that's okay with you.
Oh, yeah.
Is that we've kind of decided internally
that we're going to get rid of the BugBonte program on ThorChain,
temporarily at least, at least for a year.
The problem is that we're getting tons more submissions now,
and a lot of it is AI slop,
and it's just consuming a lot of our manual time,
our human time, trying to validate these things one by one. And a lot of these things are just finding things that Hugen's already found, right? And so I think the mentality we're
having is that let's get our AI Hugen to be our bug bounty program effectively, which has been
doing a really good job since January, to be honest um and we'll focus our thorsec team on you know improving our invariance and getting dkls rolled
out and other things that that's that's adding benefit to the protocol you know rather than just
being bogged down with you know a bunch of ai slot being thrown at us through various individuals
not to say that all of us ai stops on that some of us are really good, but like, the majority of it is.
No, I think that's, I think that's totally normal.
I mean, that's a consequence of, because everyone's trying to siphon some value.
They just take in an AI model and they're thrown in at the code base and they're just hoping they strike gold, you know, and they want to claim that.
So, yeah, the AI slop, I mean, I can only imagine how time consuming that is for you guys.
I mean, we already have our own AI model, Hugin, and you are on it.
You are keeping up to date.
The latest version, you're always having to work.
So, yeah.
What about the tokens?
Go ahead.
Can I actually – I want to ask, Chad, I'm actually glad you brought it up.
So I was just curious.
I have a question about the bounty thing.
So, like, for example, like with the SEO and everything I'm doing, with articles getting published, they're already clamping down on AI-generated content, and they run it through filters and stuff.
The internet, everyone's already fighting back against AI.
AI. I'm curious with the bug bounty stuff, is there a way you could do that as well that when
somebody submits something you run it through something to see if it's like you're saying it's AI
obviously you can you can figure that out can we instead of removing the bug bounty all together
can we just say we're not accepting AI bug bounties these got to be human generated bounties he's got to be human-generated bounties and that way
we still keep the door open for like a real white hat to kind of help us I'm
just curious yeah I mean I'm not exactly sure how we would achieve that I know
you can detect AI like writing like if I write some a poem or write a blog
article there are some things you can do to test that.
I don't know how practical that is with code,
like submissions of bug issues.
I don't know how practical that is to detect
whether it is or is not AI.
We presume it's AI slot because the quantity is much higher.
We're just getting a sudden, since like December,
we've just got a huge influx.
And a lot of it is just finding the same shit that Huguen's finding.
And so we're just kind of, we're just getting to a place where it's just too time consuming.
Now we could do a thing where Huguen starts reviewing the bug submissions instead of humans
reviewing it.
Maybe that's the way to go.
At least then you can filter out, you know, some large percentages of them by validating,
oh, I got this email that's describing some exploit.
Hugin can go in and validate that and see if that's actually true or not.
Or what the ramifications, or prioritize it, a P0 or a P5, right, towards severity.
And then if it's above a P1 or above, then send it to our security team.
We could do it that way as well.
But I think it's not even worth the time to build that, to be honest with you,
and just let Huguen do what it's doing already and clean up our code.
And we'll do the same thing with Mythos or Spud when that comes out downstream.
But it just seems like the entire
security engineer uh industry is being come flopped on its head and it's going to be harder and harder
as a somebody who finds bugs for money to to do that even though they have this really powerful
tool the developers of the thing you're trying to, you know, exploit also have that same tool. And so all of a sudden, you know, everybody's code is going to be five times more secure than it was yesterday because of Spud and Mythos and whatever this new advanced tool is.
Making it five times more difficult as a human to find a legitimate issue, you know.
So back to that Mythos, it's got me wondering, like, okay, are we supposed
to trust these guys, you know, Mr. Altruists
that they're protecting the world
or do they want a three, four
month head start on using it themselves
to go
find stuff on the internet before they
share it with everyone else?
Well, yeah, there's good reason to be concerned
about that, right?
You can argue, like, if I was anthropic, I could make a capitalistic argument
that I don't want the most advanced model to be public.
I want...
Ever.
Yeah, I want my model, because I want to use my advanced model for me and improve my models
with my model, right?
This is called recursive self-improvement.
And if you have a really advanced model that allows you to do recursive self-improvement you don't release that you
just keep it internally so that you can build super fast internally right and this is why
clawed code has released like 50 features you know in like 40 days or something whatever the
hell the number is it's something crazy like this because they're probably using mythos internally
to be able to generate a lot of code in a very short period of time.
It's done fairly well for the most part,
excluding them leaking all their code, you know,
for the second time.
But like, but yeah, there's argument there, right?
But at the same time, it's like,
if you can build a really advanced model,
then OpenAI, your competitor,
can also build it at the same time, you know.
And so are they keeping it internally,
and you're keeping yours internally,
or are they going to release it?
And all of a sudden your model, that's not your top model,
but like your second to top model,
looks like shit because their model's way over here, right?
And so now I have to release my model
to give an equivalency so I don't die as an organization.
So there's a lot, there's like so much,
you know, strategizing, you know, gaming that like so much you know strategizing you know gaming that
you could you know game theory you could play on all this and the fact that anthropic and open ai
have super advanced uh models that they have not released publicly because they're both
terrified of how it can be used as a very significant weapon, you know, tells me, and these people are highly motivated
to release it. It's very profitable when and if they do. They really want to release these models
because it's going to be really good for their business, especially when, like, you have people
like OpenAI, who's committed to $1.15 trillion in spending over the next 10 years and only make
about $20 billion or $30 billion, whatever the hell that number is right now, right? Like,
it's a, that's, that's, that's's that's a little bit scary right from a business perspective so
they have every reason to do it and the fact that they're not doing it is that terrifies me right
they're actually being responsible right when it makes sense my financial sense to not be
responsible right and like in general, like with every technology,
whether it be AI or nuclear fission, nuclear fusion,
any technology can always be wielded for good or for bad, right?
And it's always equivalency between the two points.
However good something can be for society,
it can be equally opposite as bad for society, right?
You can use nuclear fission
to split the atom and power entire city, or you can use it to blow up an entire city and
destroy an entire city. Both are very, very, you know, intense of what they can do. So
if you have this model that is this good at destroying the internet in theory, it should have an equal and opposite positive value to it and its ability for me to produce more software or make it more plausible that I can actually build this decentralized UI thing that I was talking about earlier because now I have even smarter models and I can, you know, multi, you know, agent these, this motherfucker and build lots of shit at the same time,
you know,
with super advanced models.
Like it just empowers me even further to achieve more for the protocol.
I think this,
sorry,
Kenton.
I think this,
I gotta say it.
I think this is the slam dunk for the argument.
You need to have your token limit totally unlocked because
if you think there's a super advanced model the moment it comes out it can find exploits um in
defense of that is to get our subpar hugan just obviously it's subpar burning all the time to
find as much as it can right and hopefully it'll stumble and whereas this new advanced model might
find it like this
go ahead that should actually i think it's something else now back to you're talking about amazon you know threatening their devs you got to be using ai 80 of the time and i heard
i heard brian armstrong from coinbase say he fired one of his devs for not using ai the rest got the
message we should you know handshake deal we should make this part of the message. We should, you know, handshake deal. We should make
this part of the deal with AR25 that, you know, when we move the money, I mean, we have to do it,
obviously. But you guys taking over the debt fund, you got to sign up. There's two grand a month AI.
You have to do it. We got to get, we have to be using the top ai at all times right and if it's two grand a month it's two
grand a month we got to pay it we got to do it um because if we don't our competition is or the
people that want to hurt us are and um and i'd rather see chad using it than someone we don't
know right so hopefully i got to think the community would see that and appreciate that that you know
we gotta put money towards that um i mean two grand a month i mean come on for for for the
ultimate defense i mean it's that's not a lot right relative no i think how it's structured
in this particular moment is that every developer pays for their own ai like i pay for my ai star
squid pays for his idea which is just like 100 bucks a month or 200 bucks a month or whatever the subscription is.
And none of us really use the API one where you're paying for every token
because it's just exorbitantly expensive, right?
And to be fair, like, you know, Hugin is running 24-7 and he hasn't hit the cap in a while
because I changed some of its behavior.
When there's already so many things to do, there's not much point in finding more things to do.
It just lets us catch back up.
Again, AI is moving at 1,000 miles per hour.
Humans are moving at 30 miles per hour. The reason why Huguen's not doing more is because it's my fault
and the rest of the devs' fault
because we're just not as fast as Huguen
and we can't just stay up, you know,
unless we just stop reviewing code,
which I'm not really interested in doing that,
at least not in the current moment
and probably not anytime soon,
but maybe one day that's possible.
But right now, certainly not.
And so we have to review everything
and that just becomes the
the limiting factor as long as you're on max output that's fine right we we are we are operating as
fast as possible right and we're using and we're using ai as much as reasonably possible in this
particular moment running agents and doing like six tabs with six different agents, which some people do,
doesn't make sense for us because we have to have humans in the loop of every step in stage.
Nothing gets merged without at least two humans approving every code change that's made, right, at bare minimum two.
Whereas other projects who are starting new and have no user base and have very little risk, they can go ahead and vibe code without reviewing code all they want because the stakes are low.
It doesn't really matter, right?
But in ThorChain world, we've got hundreds of millions of dollars that we're securing.
We cannot just be like, you know, vibe coding our way through everything.
It doesn't mean we can't use AI, I use AI all the time.
It just means that like everything i do with ai i have to go back and read whatever it produces and verify that it makes sense and we
have at least two other people also do the same thing makes sense to me including and human humans
also reviewing everything too so you have you still have ai doing the reviews in addition to
the humans which is much better than just the humans.
I think that's like I just I've never agreed with the idea that AI is going to make a few billion people obsolete.
I think it's going to enable a few billion people.
And like, you know, the more I use it, it's just the more you use AI and you realize what you can do, the more ideas you get. And so the more you can imagine and think about and create, the more you're going to do with AI.
But it's still, like you said, you still have to review it.
So we still need a human to review it.
We can come up and create all these things, like you said, six different tabs going.
Well, now we need six different humans to review all those things to make sure they're right and so like I
Just yeah, I think this is gonna create jobs. It's gonna create and create jobs and wealth at the same time and
Like actually Elon talks about you
Universal high income whatever it actually, like that's making sense.
So like the limiting factor on this is going to be people's imagination.
Yeah.
And it's going to unlock so many interesting things.
Yeah, Elon talks about like if you make $100,000 now in the future,
it would be the equivalent of making $30,000 because everything
becomes a lot more cheap because there's much more competition because anybody can compete with you
easily and you don't need as many employees and everything. AI does things faster anyway and
cheaper anyways and overnight and the weekends and 24-7. And so all of a sudden, a lot of services
we use now, you know, become a lot cheaper to produce and therefore of a sudden a lot of services we use now you know become a lot cheaper to produce
and therefore the prices get a lot cheaper and the competition gets tighter right a lot more
competition so there's a so elon kind of says like you don't even need to be you know saving in a 401k
i strongly disagree with that statement you should be building your 401k you know you should
be very conservative when it comes to your long-term
financial health but um but he could be absolutely right in this context and that everything we use
right now just becomes so much cheaper well we if if we had an actual sound monetary system
we lived in a you know a free market wet dream the that's all you'd have to do is just save your money,
and it would go up in value based on the purchasing power going up.
The cost of everything else around you would go down.
So you wouldn't have, and this is what's so criminal about it,
is that because of inflation, you are forced to invest your savings,
put your savings at risk to try and earn a yield that is higher
than the inflation rate. And what happens is most people actually end up losing. They'd probably
be better off just holding their cash and losing to inflation. But if you actually do manage to
make money and beat the inflation rate on your investments, guess what? Capital gains tax. We
got to get you one more time. Oh, that's not enough?
Inheritance tax.
We're going to get you when you die.
It's extremely difficult to build and save capital
in this fiat monetary system we have.
So it's good we have crypto right now
because the only way we're going to truly benefit
all these cost savings is if we have sound money that won't inflate away on us.
We need to have that sound, that anchor that's fixed.
So, yeah.
Sorry, guys.
Ranting.
This is why I'm in crypto.
The central banking is just like, it gets me. And this is how thing i'm this is why i'm in crypto the central banking is just like
it gets me and this is how we we fight back and um um yeah that'd be cool we're all birds of the same feather my friend we all believe the same things that's why we're all here we're fighting
i mean it's runa of course an investment for me but there is a deeper meaning behind it
and it's the ultimate meeting right so i love it so much very good
um okay guys what do you think you got more chad i'm stay as long as you want
i will stay i will stay longer if maybe you got some daddy my time is fine don't worry about me You can leave. You already did.
We didn't invite you back.
Yeah.
No, I think that's probably, I mean, I don't know if we're boring the audience at this point.
No, no.
People love this stuff.
People love this stuff.
More the better.
I just, you know, this is, you know, we're individual people and we've got lives and stuff. But, no, if you want to ever do an eight hour space and we've just keep going, so be it, so be it,
live stream, go for it, you know, but, yeah, that was our, when we originally started these,
Denny, it was just like, we're just going to go as long as it goes, yeah, no, because we get to
that Q&A at the end and people would come up and ask lots of questions and, you know, the last,
like, 30 minutes or an hour was just random Q& from you know community members all right um so and we're still down for that by the way community
members if you got a question do you want to you're welcome to challenge me too like i like a
challenge i like i like um respectful debates you know absolutely absolutely we'll come to las vegas
guys we can chat in person i swear every time we get in when we get in in person and all like at
first it's just three dudes up here talking.
When you get 12, 20, 30, 40 people who know this stuff
and we're all just going at it,
I mean, I really feel like we get some really awesome things.
Are they all going to get as erect as you or just you?
No way, no way.
They're not as passionate as me when it comes to Thor chain.
No, I don't want to scare anybody, so.
The entry to get in wherever we meet will be wearing tight pants
yeah
you need a shield down there
you need to bring tight pants and a hooker
that's the entry fate
awesome
awesome
alright guys I think we'll wrap it up there
sound good? I'll go ahead and get this outro going.
What are you guys saying?
Yeah, yeah.
All right.
This has been such a fun conversation, you guys.
Always remember, guys, shine up.
We got that Bitcoin Lost Vegas, April 27th, 7 p.m.
Come hang out.
We're even more fun in real life, and I'm looking forward.
I haven't even met Kenton in real life yet.
I chat with him all the time.
I'm going to meet him in real life for the first time.
I'm very excited for that. So I hope to meet you guys as well. As a reminder, guys,
if you'd like to become a node operator, or if you know somebody who you think would like to
become a node operator, reach out to at Runtard on X. He can help you get set up and find bond
providers. Guys, super important that we increase our decentralization. For the latest on ThorChain
data and insights, follow at Ray Analytics on
X. He does also the written recaps
for this live stream as well.
He's going to have some work to do on this podcast.
This has been a long one, so
I hope he gets all the erection parts
too. It's a very important context to be able to
understand. Cut those and put it on our TikTok.
Yeah, very, very important. He was talking about your
erection. That's it.
And that's it. It's just like, it's just a cut, erection, erection.
I think I had like four or five erection segments here.
It'll go viral.
Trust me.
Yeah, absolutely.
That's what Thor, and people only know Thor chain for erection stuff.
That's all it is, buddy.
Everybody's coming here to hear from you.
Coming here indeed.
Nobody wants to hear me.
They want to hear you talking about erections.
I don't know about that, but we can roll with it.
And always remember, you guys,
the views expressed are solely those of the hosts and guests.
Any action taken based on this information is at your own risk.
Past performance is not indicative of future results,
and that also is true of erections.
That's going to wrap it up, you guys.
I hope you guys had a wonderful time with us.
We had a wonderful time with you. Take care, everyone. Bye-bye. Bye. Bye, guys.
