Hashing It Out
Hashing It Out

Episode 45 · 2 years ago

Hashing It Out #45 - Cosmos Network - Zaki Manian

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Champion of decentralization, Zaki Manian, rejoins us for updates on Cosmos since their Mainnet launch. We dive into the design principles of Cosmos, their consensus mechanisms, incentivisation model, and how to integrate your decentralized application into the Cosmos Network. We also learn more about who is currently using Cosmos and how, what Zaki and Cosmos will be speaking on at NYC Blockchain Week events, as well as how Cosmos differentiates itself from other technologies being produced. Riveting as always!

Show Links:

And Joy. Welcome to hashing itout, a podcast where we talked to the tech innovators behind blocked in infrastructureand decentralized networks. We dive into the weeds to get at why and howpeople build this technology the problems they face along the way. Come listen andlearn from the best in the business so you can join their ranks. Allright, guys, welcome back episode forty five of hashing it out. Asalways, on your host, Dr Cory Petty, with me, I trustyou. COHOST is always calling cuche say what's up? Everybody calling? What'sup? Everybody calling? And today's, I think I said, episode fortyfive, and we're having another repeat guest today, which is always awesome.Zech, you, medium from from Cosmos, has joined us discuss all things cosmosand what how he feels, I guess, what he feels about howthings are going on across the entire ecosystem. So, Zaki, why don't youwelcome back to the show. For those that haven't listened to the previousepisode, Give us, score audience a quick introductionist to kind of who youare what you work on. Yeah, I'm Zachie monion. My title rightnow is director of research at tenderment. I have been involved in the cosmosproject basically since its inception. I'd take my biggest contribution was shooting down aprevious version of the design and that and pointing Jay and Eaton and sort ofa good direction that ended up turning into cosmos. I was the first personwho funded the project and I had joined the team in February of two thousandand eighteen and I have been I was basically responsible sort of for making surelaunch happened. And so launch is over and now I'm in have my fingersin a bunch of different pies. Mostly we have to sort of been dealingwith post launch issues, you know, exchanges, asking technical support questions inincreasingly large number of users interacting with the system. Yeah, that our ecosystemseems to be growing rapidly. But yeah, I my whold, my basic goalis mostly that sort of start sort of driving the future direction of Cosmosas we get closer to having delivered what was in the original white paper.So before before we dive, it's a kind of what causemosas and and thingsof that nature. I'm actually kind of curious face on what you just said. Can you talk a little bit about what it's like after launching mainet,because right now I feel we have a tremendous amount of projects that are verytrigger shy. They're afraid to put something on main neet, afraid to launch. Everything's in Beta and can you can you speak to kind of the trialsand tribulations or things you thought for a big deal that actually weren't a bigdeal as going into mainnet, and kind of how you felt the community hasresponded to those things? Okay, so I'll just preface this with I gavean entire talk about this at a might bidpoint expo. Awesome. I'll linkthat. The show good that people really love and it was a little bitmy victory lap on our it was right before launch, but it was largelyof my victory lap on on how we've approached getting to launch. And yes, this was my this was my responsibility and you know, I think thisis this is this is the this is the challenge is you know, weare building. So you know, incentive design is probably the most powerful thingin the entire world. You know, we're ten years in and Setoshi's intentivedesign is, you know, control is essentially manipulating, you know, onepercent of the world's electricity output. So we are definitely creating powerful, difficultto control systems that operate in an adversarial environment. So, you know,I can totally understand why people don't launch. I will also say that I havelearned more about this system in the six weeks that it has been liveand in the previous three years that we thought about. And so our biggestlike, to me, the biggest reason why we wanted to launch, thebiggest reason why we thought launching kind of we feel like we every step ofthe way. We released everything as soon as we were sure that we werenot going to deeply regret it, or at least like reasonably confident, aslong as the man we were like seventy eighty percent confident that this isn't wewere not making a horrible mistake, we pulled the trigger and and I mymy approach to things as was always to push, push, really hard.We push really hard on public test nets. We pushed really hard on getting releasesout that encourage other people to build...

...on us. We push really hardon the we push really hard on getting our getting our main net out,and we continue to push really hard on just, you know, getting thenets next set of features. We push really hard on on on governance,starting to do things, all of that stuff. We we've been pushing.We that's that's been our approach because ultimately you don't learn that much from testnets. You know, we tried, through game of stakes and everything,to make our test nets far more educational and informative than, I think otherless less aggressive test that processes have been. But I think we definitely have demonstrateda pretty different paths to getting to main net than I think other peoplehave followed, and we hope other people, other projects like following our footsteps.And you can kind of do that at this stay because it's not asheavily adopted as it would be an an ideal like in an ideal scenario whereit's actually been out and people are started using it and stuff like this.This actually helps you introduced in fixed feature fixed problems that arise faster, whichmeans you get to itterate faster. Its means you get to actually launched fasters. That kind of your philosophy on that, or do you feel like there's nodifference between whether or not it was already heavily dependent upon or not likewithout in have changed your decision process. More people depend on the stuff thanI would have ever imagined at the stage. Right now. Really, I meanbetween, you know, between the cosmos hub, binance chain, irischain. You know, there are several billion dollars of assets on our managementon our software right now. Holy Crap, I did not know that. Icould you just tell me a little more about what's what is being usedfor? I didn't know that finance was what is finance? Using Cosmos?So finances centralized exchange. Its decks is built off of the COSMOSS DK.So the biggest exchange almost probably the most popular exchange. So if yet isis basing their back end on on Cosmos and they are migrating the B andbe token to natively be on that chain. And are a number of other chainsof tokens that have migrated natively slightly before the cosmos hub launched. TheIris Hub, which is a sister project of ours in China, launched theirnetwork and then the as most hoblanched and then the cosmos governance turned on tokentransfers and we've seen pretty significant amount of volume on those tokens. So,yes, a lot of people, a lot of projects are depending on thesoftware. We have a pretty steady queue of new projects that are launching andthen two thousand and nineteen that are using various components of the stack. TENDERMNCOUSMOSYS DK, thinking about adopting our interlocking communication. All of that is happening. So, yeah, and Tara just launched as well. I don't wantto leave them out. Another, you know, very valuable set of assets. That so we have an we have an rapidly growing set of echo ofeconomies built on top of the Cosmos Stack. I would never have imagined in mywildest dreams how much has been built on top of us. That isthat is live. I mean kindance Alo. That's tremendous. Like I had noidea they were. It was being leverage in in in finance. Ithat's that's a pretty big one. But would you say someone is building ontop of you? You kind of go a little bit more into what thatmeans. Is it? Are they relying on the adom token? Is it? Is it just something that they plan to use? The IBC and theCosmos helped to interact with each other? Is it? Is it just becausethey're using their rest your stk like, how exactly does that work and whatdoes the dependence on Cosmos? Okay, so let's understand. Let's unpack acouple of different ideas here. So the first, and so I think afor the first question, was try to get to the value of the Addomtook it. It's like, why is the Adom token valuable? How doesAdam doknt accrue value, etc. I want to part that and say that, like wall, that is a thing I think a lot about. Itis not part of our KPI's right, it is definitely something that we andto participate switching more of our attention to in the future. Right now,our goal, primarily as an organization, was we think that the core valueof the cosmost architecture is politically independent sovereign chains economically interacting with each other.So what we have done is first to build the technological infrastructure for sovereignty andthen build the technological infrastructure for interconnectivity and then we get to the value capturepart. So the part that is reasonably...

...mature and extreme and production ready isthis capacity to build your own sovereign chain, and I think one of the virtuesof that architecture is seeing users like binance come on build a chain thatmeets their needs, that that works for their token holders, that works fortheir business goals, using our technology stack and should. That's the key piece. And in parallel, our team is working very hard on specifying and thenimplementing the inner boxchain communication piece, which will then allow all of these piecesto become linked. And and then we get to this question of how dodifferent sets of token holders accruve value in this sort of new, faster,more innovative blockchain economy that we're building? Okay, that is great. Ithink a good way to kind of segue into that is how are you differentiatingyourselves from some of the more popular similar type things coming online, like canyou? Can you explain yourself as to like why are you different from Fto One? Oh, and then how you different from Polka dot, howyou different from like maybe like something that's completely off the walls, like theripple, and then how you different from two as they then move into somewhatof a similar type architecture? Yeah, okay, that's a lot. Iknow, rock the questions. Okay, so, and I'd be happy tokind of go through them. Why don't I propose an order? YEA,how we're different from ripple, eat one point, now how we're different fromPolka dot, and then how we're different from each tube point. I thinkthat's going to be good in that order. Okay, so I'll start with ripple. The the the sort of core differentiator. I mean there's there's lotsof differences and software architecture and everything, but probably the biggest differentiation in betweensomething like ripple and something like Cosmos is we believe in Crypto economic security modelwhere there is value that is collateralizing the security of the network and the securityof the of the operations of this system. And what an Adam Front fundamentally isis designed to be as kind of like a really good form of collateral. It is the CAP, it is crypto capital that you lock up earnvarious cash flows on as a result of making decisions that contribute to the securityof the network and then and that if those decisions are are go awry,if your validate or get tact if your validate or misbehaves, that capital getsdestroyed. And Adams, in my mind, are the first asset with this setof design goals in mind as a sort of core value proposition. Andso this which is really different from what ripple is trying to do, wherethe security of the ripple network is sort of anchored by reputation and xarp isessentially is a medium of exchange on that network. So really different value propositionthere. So then we go to eat one, eat one DOTTO, andthe difference is sort of difference between eat one dotto and cosmos. So Ithink the way that we think about eat one dotto and you add to acertain extent you know the next three to put eat one DOTTO POLKA and eattwo point out as being variance on this idea of trying to build us,building a system in which, yes, you have programmability but ultimately there isone common block chain, there is one place that all of the stakeholders haveto coordinate around upgrading and evolving the system over the time. Is this largescale coordination effort. It is incredibly difficult and complicated to do. The purposeof Cosmos is is by allowing everyone in cosmos, or every sort of groupof of of every sort of affinity group, every community, to potentially have theirown blockchain in cosmos they're able to design their blockchain in a way that, like, meets their goals. You know, should there be on chainKYC? Should there not be on chain KYC? Should you have should therebe gas prices? Should they're not? Should there be another way of chargingfees? How do you do spam protection? What cryptography do you adopt? Allof these things are decisions that, largely in the eth one dotto context, require the entire etherium stakeholder community to kind of come to consensus on onchanges. And Cosmos is really about creating a world where there are many littlemicro communities, each one building various distributed, decentralized applications, building various economies,you know, doing things like what people do on if your am likestable coins, defy etc. But each one of those communities has sovereignty andself governance and doesn't have to engage in...

...this complex coordination with the rest ofthe etherium community. So that's that's a differentiation from from eat one doto whenyou get into Polka dot. What I would describe Polkdat is trying to dois achieve some of the software development experience of Cosmos, ie in more customizabilityof your software then what is possible in in the world of smart contracts andmore control for the developer, but without the emphasis on sovereignty. So POLKADOT is trying to create a world where there's a large pool of shared security, of validators that are that are sort of randomly assigned to work on differentblockchains, whereas Cosmos takes a very validator centric view. In bact, inmany ways the identity of every blockchain is really tied to who it's validator setis. So validators are the people who run the consensus protocol, secure thestate transition and secure the network. Cosmos takes is very validate or centric view. Where we were. You know, there are a hundred validator slots todayon the hub. If you look at the talk, twenty or thirty.They're really strongly branded, they have really strong identities. We view that thosevalidators as kind of like the people who have the most skin in the gameand the success of the blockchains. Polk it dot is trying to create aworld where, you know, there is this there's this broad set of validators. Token holders have a lot of control over who that validator set is.They are randomly assigned different work. They don't have their know you don't asmuch have like a single validator that is like has affinity with the given chain, though you have that a little bit. They have this roll called collators,which are designed to be sort of very chain specific, and so itends up in the with a system that's going to have a very different feel. Polka dot also has made very different technical choices from cosmos. They aretaking a much more sort of Big Bang, build a very complicated system in onebig go and release it to the world, whereas the cosmos approach hasreally been incrementally releasing functional pieces that can be adopted and deployed in production ofour system as we go. And then how do we differentiate from each topoint out each two point out, is largely a system in which, again, it is like Polka dot in the sense that you had this large poolof shared security. You don't have as much emphasis on the branding and identityof the validators. Instead, you have you have these, you have stakerswho are who again are largely participating in random assignments to shards. CHARDS areundifferentiated from each other for the most part. They you might have a little economicsort of assortments of you know, you know all. You know allof the makers, all of the die activity might end up on like thesethree shards, but largely the chards are similar to each other. You know, they have they they are both Polka dot and you two point out,are focusing on this sort of very abstracted base layer of the software where youknow basically what the what the chait, what individual chains are. At avery fundamental level. Is a web assembly environment, Plot Execution Environment, becauseconsensus algorithm and Cosmos has mostly been focused so far on on sort of nativedevelopment and go rather than going all in on website. I would say thoseare the big differentiators. But you know, you can especially think of eat pointout potentially as a way of building. So we called these things cosmos.We we call the places where smart contract execution or economic activity primarily takesplace zones, and we called the parts of the simpler parts of the systemthat sort of focused on the inner connection between these different pieces hubs. Youcan think of you, tube, point I was a kind of super nextgeneration hub boards out. So let's rewind a little bit to the the Polkaup thing. POKANUT has a lot of particular roles in that situation. Intheir design. You mentioned one CO leaders. They also have this idea of fisherman. I don't know if that's still in their spect it is, youknow you are. Instead of having these vast number of roles, you havethis validate, these validators. Instead of a Valida or set, you havea validated a particularist, I guess you can call it, validay said,particular validators who are stated in the actual success of the chain. From whatyou just said, that seems to simplify...

...the design a great deal. Butwhat what impact would it have on scalability? Let's say that the particular chain startsgetting extremely popular and then it's transaction fees are starting to rise and it'sit's impacting its ability to actually deliver on some of the things that it's intendedto do? Would the the design of the I guess hub and spoke isactually kind of seems reasonable comparison here. It would that. Is that correct? Would you be able to validate across multiple copies of the same chain ortransfer assets between different chains? So basically, can you kind of do a shartingscenario? I guess using the COSMO was modeled. Okay, so here'show I define sharding and I differentiate it from the cosmos model. So wehave in Cosmos we are focused on two things. One is interchain connectivity betweeninterchain interaction between or cross chain interaction between sovereign chains, and then I've beendoing a lot like this. Is specifically something I've been working on, whichis what I call cross chain validation. What people call shared security or sharting, is really a world in which what you're expecting. What you are expectingis a world in which the security of Shard three and the security of Shardtwelve are exactly the same. If any shard changes or if security fails onany chart, the only way to recover is to halt the entire system andsort of try to unpack what went wrong in the cosmos system. We reallyfocused on a design where, at any given point in time, where anticipating, we're anticipating with the that you know, there could be evil, malicious cosmoszones in the system. Security might fail in any part of the extendedcosmos world on the people and we are intentionally designing the system to constrain theharm to people who are directly holding who are holding asselts that originate from thatchain. So let's say, you know, you have some chain like, let'ssay Bitcoin ty zone. So it holds bitcoin on the bitcoin chain,it creates synthetic bitcoin on the cosmos on the on the Cosmos Network. Thosechains and those validators on that network suddenly decide, you know what, we'rejust going to run away with all these bitcoins. Who should that harm?We want that. The only harm the people who are who are who aredirectly holding the BITCOIN that originated from that zone. We don't want it toharm the whole network. Same, same way of thinking about it is,you know, let's say you have you have a decentralized exchange chain and thatthose validators decide that, you know, they would like to choose the pathof evil. And when they choose the path of evil, there like,you know, they decide to steal a bunch of users money. Do wewant them to also be able to inflate token balances all over the network oror double spend tokens? We don't want to do that. So the entiredesign of Cosmos is focused on this question of how to gracefully dealing with failurerather than trying to create a system like the charting systems, where they tryto achieve a state where failure is impossible. So I think. I think thenthat kind of clears up one of my misconceptions of of this, thatyou're your goals are Intech, you know, basically maintaining the integrity of the individualchainsitor actually bounced to Cosmos. Is that correct? And that was,that's been your goals to stay. One is it's not necessarily like you carehow the chain for instance. You're not a scalability solution necessarily. There mightbe some alternative methods for doing that, but that was not your primary goaland design. Is that correct? Yeah, well, so here's what I wassaying. Well, here's the way, the perspective I was coming at thiswith. So go back to two thousand and sixteen. Summer of twothousand and sixteen is when this design originated. You know, I was spending timetalking to Batalk and lads, am fear about, you know, nextgeneration iftherium designs. I was talking to Dominic Williams about his ideas for definityand you know that design and this challenge of saying okay, under adversarial conditionsat scale, failure must be impossible. Has always been to me to bean incredibly high bar, and that is the bar that charting requires you toset. And so I'd been introduced by my friend and cofounder, declusion Tonyon to, you know, the work of Mark Miller, who's now oneof the founders of a Gorik, about his work in the S on smartcontracts, and I looked at it that I'm like, you know what thisis? This is as a system for...

...a scalable tributed system where the wherefailure is tolerable or failures can happen and you know, end users and softwareagents will be at markets can reason about failure and the likelihood of failure,and this is a far more interesting says. This is the thing that, inmy mind, was really important to try and get right now because,yes, scalable architectures are coming. Yes, you know we're and the design spaceof block chains is large, or the number of different ways in whichwe can build this, these things are large and no, technology is rapidlyimproving. But ultimately what we want is we want to lower the baried entryfor people to come out with these new systems. We want these new systemsonce they exist, to be able to exchange value, so users aren't justlike, okay, well, I think the definity security model is the rightone, so I'm going to do everything and own every asset inside of diffinity, or I think a two point I is the right one and I wantto do everything inside eat. To point out, and I think it's relativelyobvious, that this is not what people want. People are going to wantto pick technology stacks, ecosystems, technologies that work for them and solve theirproblems, and we wanted to make sure that, like what we get rightduring this phase was two things. One is this creation of the economic incentivesaround proof of stake, and get that right and then enable all of thesechains to talk to each other, because we basically feel like the the futureis inevitably thousands, tens of thousands of proof of state blockchains that communicate toit with each other. This is great, this is this this transition beautifully intosomething that I wanted to ask, which is somewhat of it like theexact same story, but through the through us at the different Lens. Andso what Cosmos is doing is focusing on the self, sovereignty of a lotof the blockchains, allowing them to communicate by providing a like a basic aninter ledger protocol. The IBC and what other sharted chains are doing is basicallyallowing people to create blockchain like systems, whether that be etherium, where it'sbasically all the same sharting architecture, or or Polka dot, where people canbuild whatever they want but offload their security of their blockchain to the POLKA DOTnetwork. And so that that if you view that from the different Lens.But that means is that when people are doing this cross blockchain communication or acrosswhatever communication, across those networks on these sharded things, they no longer haveto worry about the security of the things that they are transferring across that network, whereas in Cosmos they do. Like so if someone it's like the bitancechain, communicating with completely different chain, has to really, really care aboutthe security model of that individual change they're acting with so at the cost ofself sovereignty, and this is this is this is a lesson that's that's rightthroughout the entire ecosystem. At the cost of self sovereignty, you gain quitea bit of responsibility and complexity and how you do things and making sure thatthe security models you're dealing with are are good the well, the other bigthing that I want the world to understand is that you that security and governanceare fundamentally connected. If you are a security system or if your security comesfrom a group of token holders, those token holders control your destiny. Whenyou want to make changes, you are ultimately appealing to those poken holders toto, you know, be on board with those changes, to to,you know, facilitate at grade. When those token holders come to decisions abouthow they want to change the system, they will inevitably drag you along withit. See, there is no world in which you have both sovereignty andpolitical independence and shared security. Those things are fundamentally at odd. I agreewith that. I certainly see a role for all kinds of shartening and showedsecurity. I am asking the question is what was the most what was themost you know what I asked the question of myself for the last three years. It was what was the most important thing to work on first, andI think that this version is that making sure the sovereign interconnectivity works is moreimportant than making sure starting words. But we can, once we have thatworking. You know also there's just plenty of people working on charting and noone else was working on sovereign in your connectivity. Now what one? Iguess fundamental thing about this is that once you have self sovereignty, you canbuild things that don't but you can't go the other way around. Exactly right, just like the same, same argument with the centralization. If you havea decentralized their infrastructure, you can build...

...a centralized solution on top of it, but you can never do the opposite. And this is something like that.You know, you can build these systems on top of a self sovereignsystem if you'd like to so, and it's in some sense it's a moregeneral you ultimately Polka Dot etherium to point out definity all these things as thekinds of self sovereign system that hopefully cost must will as these systems become mature. But that's the thing that I I'm still kind of trying to crow becauseit sounds very similar goals to like poke it up. So how do youconnect Polconat to like cosmos if they're kind of serving similar purposes? Is thateven the ideal scenario, or is it basically you're building too independent networks andmy misunderstanding what Polka dot is supposed to be like. Can you help meout with that? I would say that polkadot is frequently somewhat ambiguous in theway that they communicate about what their system is and we try to be verypercise about what we what we try to is the purpose of Cosmos, isme, is build proof of stake, is build mvp proof of stake andthen build MVP sovereign into interconnectivity. To me, if you look at whatthe effort you know where the effort of POLKA DOT is. The word effortof Polka dot is build on a near Universal Execution Engine based on Web Assembly, build consensus algorithm that Brit that has that allows many chains to be tobe finalized by a single global, large scale consensus, and build system ofverifying the state transitions, verifying execution in each one of these different chains sothat there is one that so that it is essentially one unified system of securitythat no one chain is likely to break or another. That, to me, is what Polka DOT is focused on. That that is their focus, becausethat's what their engineering time is being spent on and that's what they're doingon. Our focus is, our engineering time is primarily being spent on onon a framework for sovereignty and on communication and the communication between sovereign chains.So well, yes, spoken dots vision something you know, they're sort ofextended vision of the world seems to encompass something like sovereign chains in a communicatingwith that's certainly not something that I see there and them spending engineering time on, and I'm pretty familiar with what goes on in their end, their REPULSA. I'd be curious about, and your in your opinion, what's like theMinimum Bible Project for starting to SEC that would be ideal for building on topof Cosmos. Is it? Is it adapt is it a blockchain that thatsupports depths? Is it like can you? Can you talk about that? Mostlywhat we're seeing right now is kind of like adapt for chain model.That's seems to be what the market is ready for. An excited about that. Maybe something like what kind of the original idea of what plasma was supposedto offer is like this is this is your system that's able to communicate withour systems, but it's only on its own chain. Yeah, the differencebetween the primary difference between Cosmos and plasma is plasma chains are designed to havetheir security be derived from some root chain, typically etherium. Okay, let me, let me go back. Okay, so MDP for Cosmos, MVP forCosmos, is what we are seeing is the dominant model. Is PeopleSpinning up sovereign sort of DAP chains where each change is its own application.But these chains are designed to be secure under themselves, though you are seeinga tremendous amount of overlap between what who is a validator and on the huband on these changes on and from a reputational point of view, it allowsa lot of these other teams to sort of Piggy Bank on the sort ofglobal reputation of the Cosmos validator set, because a COSMO validator set that screwsup on Cosmos validator that screws up on Tara looks bad everywhere with, regardlessof you know how bad this the slashing conditions on terrib where these cosmos chainsthat are secured in this manner are able to like sort of do anything there. They can run whatever ypography they want, they can express whatever cryptoeconomics they canadd, they can have any possible state machine. What plasma was aboutis constraining the state machine so that the proofs that it were required to exitthe system back onto the root chain without the consent of the validators on theplasma chain were sufficiently small that it was...

...feasible to do these adits. Andthe net result of that is pretty much the only thing that people have shortof gotten to work on plasma so far is some sort of value transfer paintings, whereas you know, what we see in the market place is a lotof demand for increasingly sophisticate, deicated state machine logic that you can't provide plasmaguarantees. Okay, so let's let's just talk about how like validators kind ofwork, and I think this ties into my questions on your proof of stakemodel. Yeah, see, this is interesting to me. I was hopingmaybe you could also touch on this. So let's just start there. Youwork on tenderment. Tenement is hugely involved in the in the Cosmos Project.It is a that is bft correct. So what is the proof of stakemodel being used in in Cosmos and can you talk about how the trator relatedtenement project in Cosmos? The proof of state model that Cosmos has is youlock up funds with the particular validator. So you know, you say Irun a validator, the validators named inclusion. Personally I have, you know,over a million atoms locked up in inclusion. You know, the broadercommunity is also contributed another three million items that are locked up inclusion. Ifinclusion were default, all four million of those atoms would all be slashed byfive percent right now, and slashing is the tokens are destroyed in as aresult of locking up those tokens. There's an infrencetionary reward that is shared withthe with with everyone who has bonded tokens. That's distributed in protocol on every blockand there are also going to be as we enable IBC and continue toupgrade the network, there are going to be fee rewards that that also getdistributed on every block and we're certainly in the research area looking at ways inwhich, for instance, those fee pool these staking pools, can be adaptedto to other chains. So is this delegated proof of stakers? is actuallike like more in the Casper vein of like trying to be very generic andnondelegated? I guess is or I don't want to go through the differentiation betweenthose two right now. That's kind of complicated. But is this a DPA? Okay, so I want I'd like to explain why these things are theway they are. Okay, so tender mint is the first BFT, classicalbft consensus engine that sort of has reached the level of maturity where it canbe run by networks of strangers on the open Internet. That's that's sort ofit's primary claim to van. It's it's so far things there have been noother goals. So we haven't been optimizing for through but you know, hundredsof transactions per second is reasonable. Um, but we haven't been optimizing for throughput. And the second thing that we haven't optimized for is having asuper large validator set. During game of stakes we ran the network with sixsecond block times and over two hundred validators. Certainly don't know what the upper limitsare on, let's say, under ten second blocks, but it's notgoing to goal. And one of the reasons why it's not going to goalis there are really maybe thirty or forty credible validator baker operators in the worldright now. I worked my ass off in two thousand and eighteen to helpa lot of these people get off the ground. And I we're in thevery early days of that space and I really, you know, the teamreally feels that the level of experimentation of deploying new cryptography, short of underminingour goals of a simple, easy to understand consensus protocol, all of thesepieces, would be undermined by optimizing for larger validator sets, though, andit's sort of like a not thing because, you know, as you know,as I told Arthur back when he's designed Teos, he designed Tezos forEightyzero validator slots and he basically we has a hundred bakers and you know,and now looking back, he's like, and you know, tess intends tojust, you know, switch to using something that is very similar to tendermentin the future, because that's the reality...

...of the world right now. Thereality of the world is, you know, there aren't that many of these credicredible validate their operators right now, and so designing for thousands of thousandsof validators is perhaps a bit of a non goal. And so the wayin which cosmos is sort of designed is okay. So given the limited validatorset. What we want is every validator set to represent a staking pool thatis made up of many users. We want to have the economic relationships betweenthose staking pools to be operate in protocol, so you don't create like what we'veseen in Intenzo's for for instance, bakers have to do out of bandbusiness development in order to increase their their self bonds so that they can continueto grow how much they're delegated. We didn't want to do any of that. So this is why we design are staking system the way it is andyou know, so far seems to be working as intended. It's basically designedfor millions of adom holders to economically interact, to help, to make, helpdecide like what validators secure the system and to be first class economic participantsin the system. Even though and then have a relatively small number, onthe order of hundreds, of consensus operators. All of this could change in thefuture. You know, we could. You know as proof of state continuesto grow, the number of credible validate or operators might become, mightget into the tens or hundreds or that, you know, the hundreds or thousands, and you know it might be of interest from the cosmos hub toto increase the size of the validator set, and you know, I know whatthose technical trade offs of collect so you do you have a capped validatorsets? That we you're saying, or I M yeah, so at anygiven point in time the protocol has a cap in it. Right now thehub is a hundred change with the number of demand or is there any sortof like right now? The primary mechanism by which it changes is governance.Okay, okay, so the they would be voted in. Basically all weneed to well, you would vote to increase the cat yes, okay,okay. So my question is, how are what if somebody so again,I don't want to be too harsh because I know this is still like probablysome of these questions might not be even answered yet and we'll see how theyplay at reality. But like, how do you stop like cabals from likedeciding to attack the cosmos network by preventing them increasing the validator set, whichthen prevents the network from actually so growing in the way that it actually needsto it or to still tate the amount of players or just to blow orto block other people from coming into cosmos. So their particular thing can they've investeda heavy amount of money and can succeed. And this is kind ofleading to my questions about DPOS and like how that works. Now I'm notsure you haven't said specifically DPOS, but that was my understanding and I couldbe completely wrong. So DPOS, which is, you know, sort ofthe Bitch shares eos protocol, functions and fuels really different because there's no lockup of capital. Typically what you have is you have the capital in thesystem is voting for validators. That capital doesn't become bound to that validator inany way, shape or form. And the cosmos mechanism were we're bonding tothe validators and basically you get to switch validators basically twice every twenty one daysat most. It creates the sort of you know, it's this very weightydecision on atom holders about who exactly they choose to bond with. You've integratedKYC elements into the atom holders. Is that correct or nope? So whycan I just have a thousand like potential atom holders which can be used onthe network then? So you know now that now that transfers are enabled,you know the number Adam holders are. You know, there were a thousandatom holders roughly from the fundraiser, but you know, now the transfers havebeen enabled, the number of Adam holders is increasing the so I kind oflike to get to like your question about cabals. Yeah, that's those kindof leading into yeah, syndicates, cabals, all the stuff. So on onehand, okay, so you know, I run one of these validators andI think a lot about you know, I like live the economic incentives justlike day by pay. Okay, so what are my economic incentives?Right? Certainly my economic incentives are to grow my delegation, to generate.So what are things that like increase expected...

...value for me? So the firstthing that it's increases expected value for me is obviously, you know, increasingthe value of atoms in the cosmos token. You know, market cap is isobviously a big factor here. You know, the value of the ofAdom token, you know, helps define the economic centers and it's great toactually have a number there now of what we think that value of, whatthat value it is and the of what the market thinks the value is.And you know, I think anything that makes the system feel like Oh youknow this entry into the validator set, participation in the economics of the network, participation in governance is is constrained to some select few who happen to getinto the fundraiser or whatever. Obviously, I think undermines that value, andso I think it would not be in my interests to sort of close theclose the doors behind us. It was also really important to me that whenwe started out the network, we did it in a very decentralized in likethe most decentralized fashion that has ever been done, so that everybody, evenlooking back at the history of the network walls, see, okay, thiswas like an organic process of building the cosmos, the so we also haveseen. We saw during our game of stakes experiment there was a so duringthe game of stake system, we did a KYC process for participants. It'skind of like a weak anti cibil mechanism. And you know what I was doingthe Kyc I saw, Oh you know, I think it's kind ofodd that there are all these women from Southeast Asia stent signing up for gameof stakes. I don't think this is actually these are actually like authentically theplayers. But I'm like, I let them all in because, like itwas curious to see how the system would behave, you know, if therewas, you know, a large, a large cabal that was, youknow, controlling part of the voting power. And, you know, ultimately whatwe believe Cosmos is about is and like individual cosmic must change or foris, for automating the social consensus, not replacing the social consensus. Soin game of stakes we saw the network actually hard fork out the cabal thatwas created by, you know, bit fish Sybil attacking our registration process foryour for a game of stakes. So I basically think that there are youknow, and this is like kind of like my long term disagreement with ladsand fear. You know, in physics, you know, they model a cowis a frictionless sphere. That's not accurate. I don't think that's ourwrong ongoing joke for physics. F It's joke. Yes, and there's anongoing joke, I feel like a lot of sort of order models of oil, opostic competition in proof of steake model these systems as if there are noexternal factors and there there is no underlying social consensus. All there is isjust this blockchain. All there is is the economics ands of that blockchain.Your goal is just to acquire as many tokens as possible and that's what obilousneeds. Not The case. No, the value of not in in peopledon't want to like. The value, like your desire to acquire tokens,is proportional to desire other people to want those tokens and find them useful.You know, ultimately, you know, the cosmos hub exists in tension withother cosmos chains that will come into existence, that will have different token distributions,that will vie for security, for like utility with each other. Andif the cosmos hub is not able to maintain a credible amount of decentralization,security, social scalability, it will fail and it will be replaced by somethingelse, you know, with similar software but with a better group of people. And that's in the Pychael by which these things come into existence. Centralizedfail and are replaced. So they're trying to build an ideal assuming that peoplewant ideal, when you know in Oh people obviously use this if as isthe ideal system, but often times that mean we deal with human beings whohave emotions, who don't operate it logically. You don't care about the same thingsthey care about. So you could develop even an ideal system or competitionis pretty much game. theoried out to be perfect, but there are externalfactors that so we might even create their own thing and they want to takethis one out and that kind of stuff. So it else it. It makessense to me that you can't develop around a closed environment like I feellike they are trying to do. Not that it's a bad goal, infact it serves a very good purpose in that if you were to have,if your own chain of truth like that would be kind of the way togo about it. But that does not...

...mean it will be the only chainof truth and it does not mean and once it's out there, it's somethingthey've got to compete with. So I mean, I I this conversation.By the way, we are kind of running short on time, but there'sa couple things I really want to touch on. We do want to getinto what you're going to do with blockchain week, but I think, Ithink something that that's missing from this conversation is what it's like to develop oncosmos from a user perspectively. Not Everybody's got to know these details as deepas we know them. If somebody is just once has an application, anapplication you basically said, one application per chain is kind of the model yousee being adopted. What do they do? What is it like? What howdo they get on board, on boarded? How do they start participatingin your network? What are the do they need to be a validator,all these kind of things. So the typical process of onboarding, of buildinga cosmos application today is most people are building it, are building intending tolaunch a sovereign chain. They take a design that, you know, they'veeither built for a thereum or some other platform. I've seen applications be portedto the Cosmos S DK, which is our our system for building blockchains,in as little as a couple of weeks. It's incredibly gratifying, you know,and you know, you know we saw finance kind of go from from, you know, starting to work out with the s Dk to, youknow, having a launched main net on in in a in the matter ofjust, you know, like four months. And so you know this cause theCosmos K is just incredible accelerator for blockchain secure application development. And solike the model is it is, you know, is you go out,you build your build your application, you find a valid a set and youlaunch it. Now, so far we haven't seen. As you know,we've seen a whole spectrum of you know, the validator set is eight nodes,all run by us, to you know, Cosmos as, to thecosmostyle, which is a sort of open free for all, to something inbetween where you have some validators from the hub, some validators by the organization, the split of voting power. We're seeing all of these models in theCOSMOSS DK. I hope to see a lot more experimentation. I like Iexpect to see, you know, more token drops to atom holders. Isee expect to see lots of other there's lots of ways. Of there's thedesign space of creating cosmos chains is huge and I'm hope, and like settingup your economics and creating validator sets, is used and I'm expect to seeall possible variants. So where do they go to get started? Like,where are people go to find out more, because that divides is so huge.They got to go somewhere to start learning the the the the best placeto start is to start building your chain. On the COSMOSS Dka, we havea name service tutorial in the Cosmos Github. That is usually where peopleget started. That's it. How can people reach out to shoot, forexample, of building one name coin like application? Well, before how whatEl? What's up? What's your activity going to be like over at aconsensus and our people blockchain week? How are people going to be able towhat are people going to be seeing at your talk, for instance? Whata gives a preview on that? I have. So I'm I'm just involvedin a huge number of events. It's a big week. This is whyI call it Hell Week. Yeah, you know, I've, I thinkI've been to every consensus. It's would be the first time. This wouldbe the first one that I miss, but I'll be there during the week. Yeah, so I've been to every consensus. I've been every New Yorkwatchain week, and so I call it hell week. But I'm doing there'sa small scalability event on Monday. On Tuesday I'm speaking. I'm on apanel about community and then giving a talk for fifteen fifty minute talk. LikeJay's part is fifteen minutes and my part is fifteen minutes and I'm going tobe talking about like what we've learned, what I've what we've learned about sortof token economics, proof of state design, sort of in the in the sincewe designed the system and since we launched the system, I think I'vebeen thinking a lot about sort of yield on capital assets and how different kindsof proof of stake systems can are designed to provide both adequate yield for securityin sentences for people to hold that asset versus other assets. How token youknow, there's there's there's just a lot to be thought about in the spaceof token design and Cosmos is a great tool kit for playing with, forlike experimenting with this. So I'm going...

...to be talking a lot about that. I'm speaking on Wednesday on at a Salana event on validators. I'm speakand then speaking at token summit and then on Friday Gauntlet as organize another eventabout validators, so I'll be speaking at that. Well, glad we caughtyou while you're still fresh. So this will be releasing probably when, rightwhen it's starting to kickoff. So thank you for coming on. How canpeople reach out to you? How can they find out more about cosmos?What would you like them to look at and interact et z money in thattwit on twitter. That's usually a good place to connect with me. Comehang out in all of you know Cosmos dotnetwork. We have sort of acommunity page for the hub. There's lots of places. You can find meat my validator inclusion. Those are kinds of my things right now. Coolas always. You can reach us at hashing it out pod on twitter.If you want to reach courts, your eye its at Corpetty for Cory andat Colin Crouche. That's cool. I am last named, cussee, andthank you. Thank you for coming on, Zachy. Appreciate it. It's alwaysit's always a last have you on there. You've got you've got alot of information. That its appreciate it. My quand thanks for having you,guys.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (109)