 Thank you all for coming to this wonderful community interoperability panel. How is everyone feeling this morning? Raise your hand if you're not feeling I'm glad to see you honest to you. This is good So I guess maybe to start off. How about you ever all of us kind of introduce ourselves and the communities that we represent Sure, my name is Joshua. I heart. I'm the vice president of marketing business development for z-cash or Actually for the electric point company, which is the inventor and supporter of the cash My name is Jake Juan and I am the co-founder of tenor mitts and the cosmos project. I don't represent the cosmos project that I supported and Terry Culver CEO of Ethereum classic class So first question is a challenge question Do we think that it's in the long run even possible to have an of multiple coin communities peacefully Interoperating or as the maximalists say are we destined to be stuck in a Hobbesian war of all coins against all until one coin Coin wins and we have one single global cryptocurrency So for me, I mean absolutely even I think different communities are gonna have different coins for different needs and that work in different contexts So I don't believe in the winner takes all kind of model But I do think that they can collaborate and work together I also agree I think that One of the things that we don't see yet But we'll probably see more in the future are things like local currency coins or local local municipal Dows and so on and every one of those they may not all have their own chain But they will be their own community that is distinct from other communities. So this I think that's just as one example That that shows that that shows me that there will be many chains. I Agree, I don't think a winner take all future is really viable You know, we all live our lives as parts of different communities already with different values I don't see that changing in the blockchain and crypto space So what so one thing that that is that I heard there is kind of talking about communities and values, right? And this is not a language that you normally hear people kind of use to talk to talk about the currencies, right? You don't normally hear people saying oh I use us dollars because I support us dollar values And I'm going to switch to euros because down with us imperialism or I'm going I'm going to switch to like Rimen beer or yen or whatever other currency like this is not something that Happens right now yet and I mean people don't even do this with stocks, right? Like you don't even hear that much of people saying, you know, I love I love Apple So I'm gonna buy Apple stock like it kind of happens, but like not too much. So Is the I guess why do we expect this will change? I Think it actually is tribal, right? So we have we have our own currencies that work in our own way in a different context It's just that the the tribalism historically maybe has been physical more maybe than the digital and so maybe that dynamic Is what's changed? I Think we haven't had maybe the the technology And we still don't have to elect for for large number of people to Use multiple points and for there to be competition among coins and for like people in the United States to To support one point versus the other certainly the regulations don't allow it yet but I think this will change as the industry matures and As as it's adopted by the community despite What the powers that being I want But I don't know when hopefully in the next three years Okay so I guess some kind of turning things a bit we can talk a bit about the technical collaboration, right? So our difference I have community is how Their own indifference out of blockchains that they're working on but we also end up sharing a lot of tech, right? so for example, if you're in the end there in classic share a large portion of the of the tech stack and Ethereum and ZCAT Zcash is based on Z gates and arcs and Ethereum heavily employed Z gates and arcs and Cosmos shares a Lot of cryptography So do you think we're kind of doing a good enough job of and of coordinating on How we have improved the tech the technologies that are shared between us and if not what are some things you think we can do better on I Think we could do a much better job. I think you know many Blockchains are facing the same fundamental questions And I think many of us are trying to reinvent the wheel. I think we can identify those questions and work them together One of the things I totally agree and to add to that I think one thing I learned along this journey is that if you can define a protocol of communication between Two components of a tech stack example But we're like if you consider tech stack for a blockchain there are so many components And if you can well define the protocol or the interface between these components then like you can have different Communities responsible for their flavor of implementation and so you can have competition For a module or component, but ultimately all working towards a whole because it's pluggable So I've experienced that once and we're trying to also push for that in in other regards like with with a consensus engine Tenement with the ABCI protocol for example, but it's also obviously an adhering with the API and so on already exists as well I think it's helpful to be intentional right rather than pass it so passively You know we can borrow technology and that kind of thing but but we can accelerate much more when we're intentional So, you know getting Blake to add it to assemble and work between NZ cash and An electric coin company I think is hugely important for that allowing interoperability in future so you can use the cash within within DeFi That's unlocking some you know some other things and potential With with work on white client potential integration with with cosmos for example But those those interactions and those conversations don't happen Passively they happen generally when people are in the same room together and they're able to kind of sit down and think And they're thinking about selfishly about their own project that they're working on But the magic can happen and the collisions can happen when when folks get a room So if we suppose that the imagine a future where our communities are Collaborating more what are some kind of positive results that you could and if imagine or hope to get out of that? Well, the cash being embedded in smart contracts, so you're able to In the places where you need that that kind of privacy That that's there to the extent that likes things like ZK snark to some of the research that our cryptographers are doing And being able to use that within a theory I'm independent of the cash. I think it's super cool So for me those are a couple but I'd love to see a more intentional organization That brings various Communities or representatives or people from various communities to start to have these conversations like I mentioned The ethereum is playing it for the crypto community for largest today Maybe we can reach. Well, how do we reach out to all the projects? What what is that association? So I'd love to see something like that I Think a theory is like kind of set the standard for that right of bringing all of kind of these disparate Developers and projects and things like that together. It's been phenomenal. So it's kind of it. It's kind of the bar that has been set I think the community How is it that? How is it that I guess now I'm asking one question. How is it that ethereum? Is able to do this whereas like other projects don't? How is ethereum able to do collaboration whereas other projects don't yeah Like how is it that ethereum is better able to collaborate with this bird like many projects? Hmm I mean part of it I think might be just the facts that ethereum has had a kind of anti-maximalist ethos kind of from the start like In the case of like Bitcoin, there's definitely more of this culture of like This is the legit coin or these are the legit coins And if you're not a legit coin, then you're a scam and the ethereum community has its own opinions about what's a legit coin and what's a scam But I feel like it's kind of broader and kind of brought brought brought enough to allow Collaboration among technically good projects to happen. So just Recognizing the legitimacy of different approaches is the first step to cooperating with different approaches. I Think the other thing would be cool is like if if beyond kind of Technology collaboration and we figured out how to do a better job of Working on things like product market fit or things out in the field Where we're engaging together with the community to reach populations and to try to solve specific use cases where we're not really doing that today We kind of doesn't feel like it maybe we're kind of coming together and we talk about this stuff and we engage technically But when it comes to the kind of actual execution on the ground There's a little bit less of that that kind of collaboration I think greater collaboration speaks to the way in which Blockchains have to grow. I mean, you know, we don't expect to get a corporate strategy plan That's costly and printed and everybody follows it This is an iterative creative process for which there may not be any one single right answer And so to do that you need an increasingly diverse community with increasingly diverse ideas and and debate Mm-hmm One question I have is Every time I fly I feel guilty because of the carbon footprint and in the crypto community requires a Lot of flying in order to me and like you mentioned being in the same place as what makes the magic happen But I feel like for us to scale to a larger community Like at some point we're gonna have to figure out how to make this work without flying And but I don't know how to do that Maybe The thing you would we would need is more kind of grassroots kind of a local level of our ability like what it should Ethereum Japan and Cosmos Japan be talking to each other more You know, it's like the unit for friends and we're already in Japan should maybe should we be chatting or at least those of us who are in Japan Yeah Same with Korea same with like Taiwan same with China same with anything So regarding the kind of Community aspects of In interoperability well actually so one other question we have is like we talked about There's technology and there's a kind of collaboration because of shared technology and There's also this idea that of different coin Coins in different blockchain communities stand for Different values and like ideologies I guess maybe to start off like what are some of the key things that I you would describe each of your community communities are standing for Well, I think Ethereum classic was originally defined as a statement about governance And it wasn't really technical at all it's since taken on a technical agenda And that'll become stronger over time I think at the moment and this is something that's evolving, right? I think at the moment it feels very closely tied to the idea of immutability even though that's not exclusive to a theorem classic and the idea of security so that you could foresee a chain that Focuses more on maybe transaction finality a larger fewer transactions than you know more spawn transactions So on Twitter yesterday, I think Bob somewhere will describe the ETC as being ETH technology and BTC values. I mean, do you agree with that characterization? Do you think it's more complicated than that? I mean, I understand the ETH technology part. I don't understand the values. He's referred to I would say it's different. I think the community itself is distinct characterized by that that Ability to move in a different direction around governance And and that's historical and now trying to position the community in a way that Enables it to collaborate. I think I would position us really as being in a place where we're looking to collaborate very strongly For Cosmos, maybe the key value is interoperability We do other things too like like offering security in the consensus algorithm Happen in making the making sure that the hub is permissionless, but The core product of the Cosmos hub is about connecting to other blockchains And creating protocols for interoperability between blockchains So interop Yeah, and sovereignty so giving groups their own blockchains Communities their own sovereignty their own ability to dictate Decide what happens on that blockchain? Yeah, I mean for us ultimately it's freedom I mean we get Zcash is classified as a privacy point, but you can't have freedom without Without privacy or the option to privacy to be able to protect Which what's yours like I've been talking about like a friend of mine at Moe who is a Syrian refugee and Moe had a business had bank accounts in Syria family family homes and Was forced to leave because he was protesting and government locked down everything so he no longer had self sovereignty of his own his own money And the government could see all of that stuff right they can see all of it because they control it It's in their context and they have access to bank accounts and all that kind of thing So when he moved he had to move to Jordan He had to rebuild his life and that's when he got into cryptocurrency. He's like I need I Need to be able to protect my wealth I Need that freedom and I need to be able to do it private privately because I don't trust any of these kind of government entities to To have access and invisibility and then the other things like we talked even it's it's a personal security But it's also business security and it's even national security. So we've seen the impact of data being used by a foreign actor in Russia trying to influence another foreign actor in the US Based upon the manipulation of the population from data that they collected And so it's a national security imperative that that governments actually mandate some, you know privacy for for citizens And so that's what we're That's kind of some of the core core values that we have I guess I see an interesting disparity between the answers here Josh's answer is about and of Zcash's values with respect to and Concerns that people in the broader world would have whereas you are to answer is for more about Like this is our these are the values that our blockchain expresses With respects to other blockchains or with respect to the blockchain space So I guess like first of all do either of you disagree with freedom in privacy No No, I don't disagree with it But but I think each of these are nuanced So privacy for example like how do you I? Think the thing that we don't know yet and the thing that we should try to answer From an ethics point of view of designing you know answering the question What should we design for of course we want to enable privacy, but if we enable complete privacy of transactions and account balances How can that be abused in such a way that? That may not be easy to use today. I think there's one argument to say that for example terrorist funding Is more than much easier with us? USD cash, for example, that's what they use However If if if you make the USD cash Or you know really easy to transport Then it just becomes that much easier as well to to conduct private terrorist transactions That's just one example, but Jay says the internet right the internet made it easier for terrorism The internet made it easy for terrorism because they could pass pass information along peer-to-peer whatever without any kind of central control But there's no argument to kind of Expose or make all of that visible and the opposite is true like we have now mandated basically HTTPS everywhere We're fed up with all of these kind of honeypot databases where everybody's collecting individual social, you know data that can be hacked by China or whatever third-party So it's not like any of these tools could be used for for terrorism true Though maybe And I'm not I'm not disagreeing. I don't know what the answer is. I I don't know what the answer is I'm exploring it, but like at least with sites like I can choose not to associate with this site for example, but when you're talking about Privacy preserving money If I don't want to support You a currency that is being used by terrorists as an example I feel like I won't I wouldn't have a choice if we designed a system wrong So yeah, I think I guess my point is we just need to be cognizant of how we design the system so that we don't get locked into a system accidentally Terry do you disagree with privacy and freedom? Absolutely not. I Think you know, they're essential for the kind of economic independence that we're trying to kill So like in cases where there's kind of different emphasized values one thing that's sometimes worth kind of sorting out is Is it just a difference in priorities? So like for example, I might imagine that Ethereum people are currently not into privacy and we even have tornado. Cash now, but like when choosing between I know universal general Isability and privacy Ethereum is clearly going universal generalizability first whereas the gash is going privacy first But like there's not a big incompatible There there doesn't seem to be a big incompatibility because like if you can have both event eventually been great but other times you might have Values that are more incompatible with each other, right? So like for example in the case of Ethereum well, we like proof of stake and Ethereum classic people like proof of work and like Ethereum people seem to Like like sharding more and we feel like we're one scale of these importance whereas the DC people Feel that the security trade-offs are too much for that. So Do you think there's kind of many in so one of the properties of kind of trade-offs that are Just the differences in priorities is that if it's just a matter of differences in priorities then in the long run We might end up just kind of building the same thing like one person goes north first and then east the other person goes east and then First and then north when you still end up northeast Do you think there's a possibility we'll just end up building the same thing in ten years time? I there's a possibility, but we're so diverse as people and so opinionated. I'm not I'm not sure how You know from a governance perspective how that happens there may be some Like back stage we're talking about murders or whatever, but there may be some some of that kind of activity But in some ways it just makes sense, right? So some of the separation makes sense So Zcash was was forked off of Bitcoin Because Bitcoin core didn't want to add The the cryptography on top of Bitcoin. It was too novel They're worried about it, you know disrupting the network and so this other coin was born and this other coins he cashed then can explore You know different kinds of applications and properties that that you know they couldn't do on Bitcoin So that's I think it's a healthy dynamic and whether those two like ever come back together. I don't know but There's value in diversity if they do come back together. Do you think coin mergers are possible? Do you think they're a good idea? I think it's super interesting, but it for me it's like this two jet planes like trying to kind of come together in the middle and in sort of a whole bunch of stuff out and so I Think when that happen, I think it will happen I think it will be interesting as as kind of an experiment in the In the space. I'm not quite sure the mechanics of how it would work, but I feel like maybe it's more likely to happen if They're working on different directions such that and they complement each other then and if these projects had like governance or decision-making legitimate legitimate decision-making systems Such that It's clear that they agree to do a coin merger We're talking for clarity. We're talking about at layer one coins merging not like two other like two years of 20 token I think it's quite likely that we don't end up in the same place at all And I think that's because the you know the value is as expressed in technological choices will result in different usage And I think over time what could happen is that certain coins and certain stacks are seen as You know the best for certain you type use cases And you know you go to one chain one type of transaction you go to another chain for a different type of transaction Do you think Zcash and Monero have a different uses? I don't I don't think they have Different uses I think with both of them the intent is for the coin if I understand Monero Berkeley We use as a medium ultimately as a medium exchange To not have broad-based kind of some programmability, but not like touring complete programmability at layer one I mean that I think the court kind of what we're trying to accomplish is really similar And it's actually really interesting does like online or on Twitter if you've used these Twitter It looks very combative like these two projects are just at each other and that's not the reality You have certain actors that kind of play that up, but like at Zcon one the last Zcash conference We had in Monero. I don't remember the Monero conference was in in Denver, but we had like a co-panel Between the between the two projects and so there's a lot that's That's actually shared. Do you think the Zcash and Monero communities have different values? I think some values are different. Yes such as I think that The the so like How for example, some of the governance and how funding decisions are made and whether or not there's alignment of coin holders with developers You know they use the grants program right now Zcash is funded off chain And so the the question is is like how much is necessary to secure the network versus how much should be used to fund development Is that the right kind of model? So Zcash community largely believes that that's the right kind of model The incentives aligned between the coin holders and the developers where Monero doesn't share that same So like one thing I've noticed as a kind of possible general general trend is that Like developers are generally like seem to be more willing to be friendly with each other than head of community members are And one reason I feel this might be the case is that Developers often do have kind of aligned interests in that Developers see each other as both just building cool stuff and they want to see cool stuff built Whereas coin holders like if you're a Zcash coin holder you want Zcash to succeed and you ain't got no Monero and if you're a Monero coin holder then Like you want Monero to succeed and like some people might have both but lots of them, you know it got no Zcash and even in the Ethereum community, you know like some of the more maximalist push that we've seen this come Is coming from people who aren't The developers so are there risks that could happen if kind of developer communities are aligned but broader communities are not aligned Yeah, probably the developers will get outcast I don't see it now that's possible though. I mean at the end of the day the developers are the ones building the chain I guess the question is what's the tolerance or elasticity of debate within a particular community? Um, if the developers have a significant disagreement with the community well, they can afford If the community has a significant disagreement with the developers, they could buy a different coin Um, I'm not sure where that line is and I think it varies depending on the issue Maybe it'll get easier for a community that disagrees with the developers to to fork it and to Create structure With dows just like the elect people and then kind of if you have the right dows system If you're like this developer new developer network might be able to evolve and mature How do you define a community? Is it Does it sound like it was like coin holders developers, but is the community broader than coin holders and developers? Oh, sure. And and hopefully in time it becomes even much broader to really users Um, but I think at the moment at least in the debates we have there's a kind of almost bilateral debate Where you know, there are folks who aren't developers and you know, and then there are folks who are and there's that that interaction between the two So one other dynamic I've noticed is that I sometimes get the feeling that strangely enough Collaboration may be more possible when ideologies are more incompatible and so Like one example of this is that even if you look at kind of ethereum ethereum and ethereum classic in the long term then in the long term like Sharding gives much greater layer one throughput than not doing sharding and proof of stake Gives a different security model than proof of work And there's people that are kind of diehard proof of work people that are not going to do proof of stake and Sharding like legitimately makes security trade-offs compared to not doing sharding that some people don't want to accept and so one Kind of effects that comes out of this is that of both communities Might even feel safer because there's we know that there is kind of one base That's going to use one thing and it's not and it's not willing to switch to the other thing Because the trade-offs are just unacceptable. Like it's not even like better or worse. It's just like What one side thinks is better is is if you From the perspective of the other side is making things worse And so one side is going to stay over here the other side is going to stay over here and that actually Could make it people feel like collaboration Is possible because there like we know that there's no risk of one side fully eating the other side Would you would you agree with that? You think it's more complicated No, I would agree with it certainly in in the case of ethereum classic and ethereum You know as ethereum is moving to 2.0. We've taken the opportunity to You know reiterate our commitment to proof of work And then start to figure out how we can complement Each other in that space maybe maybe Maybe a corollary or takeaway is that If you if you take a community and you segment them into distinct Ideologies And you you define sub communities Maybe maybe it can accelerate the growth of this project You can do it the right way I don't sometimes it's so ideologically misaligned. I just can't happen right So if you have so if there was a nation-state that wanted to create a digital concurrency with the intent of completely Surveiling and manipulating their people Then that would be incongruent with our mission. We just wouldn't do it. We just couldn't work together independent of that Okay, so we know that cryptocurrencies are going to exist as a category and fiat currencies are going to exist as a category But will there be more than two coins? Okay, different fiat's disagree so there'll be multiple fiat's but Are there like can we come up with more examples of kind of pairs of cryptocurrencies where it's kind of just Obvious that one direction is different from the other direction. They'll both continue to continue to exist I can't think of any others at the moment You can't no I can't be so any others between like Ethereum and Bitcoin Well, I mean I guess in a macro level, but but how much uh, you know tangible cooperation is taking place There's cooperation taking I'd say there's cooperation taking place kind of implicitly even between Ethereum and Bitcoin like we're using in some case the same SACP 256k1 libraries So You get you get such a thing with staking tokens. Um, if you need distinct validator sets and especially for regional validator sets, but maybe you might have The validators with different Ideas of how to secure their systems and so on so for all each of these staking sets They would have their own staking token as well, but it's not clear to me what the Market cat ratio would be between staking tokens and cryptocurrency cash tokens I could I could see the amount of privacy and generality trade-off as being a kind of not 100 100 percent resolvable as well Privacy and privacy and generality Like you could imagine general-purpose privacy, but like there's there's trade-offs that you have to make there Like one example of this is that z-cash believes in kind of forcing everything to be private whereas like We're more of a hey world and hey world legal box like you do what you want Well, but so it's in cash. It's an optionality, right? So you should have the option to be able to disclose or not disclose Right and but that you know, there's all kinds of arguments as to why you need openness, whether it's Things like audibility or things that maybe could be solved with technology, but I don't know is there is there are there Maximus out there that believe that privacy shouldn't happen that should just be completely completely open system I am I was just like at present Visiting like Korea for a week and I got at least five media people asking me questions of the form like Don't you think privacy will enable criminals? So yeah, people definitely exist in the blockchain community Hmm It's I mean I'm sure you're aware of your own coin being de-listed from a couple of exchanges I am largely because of misunderstandings and some banking concerns, but No, don't worry. I put up a good fight for you guys there So Actually that brings up another another point which is there's like aside from kind of tech and applications A third frontier of kind of possible collaboration is kind of outreach to the broader public Which couldn't and it could include the regulators that could include kind of getting public legitimacy in general Do you think there's more that we could do on that side? Yeah, I 100% believe there's more that we can do on that side In some cases like I had referenced early the kind of the need to be out kind of in the community and some of the Stuff we're we're running some pilots where we're pulling in different projects together to collectively Educate like the initial pilot we ran was was in the south fronks to collectively educate Students and what we learned about the use of of cryptocurrency in the south fronks is per capita the least unbanked population in the u.s The reality is is like once we got engaged there all of us came away completely blown away by the Inside of the students that we were kind of engaging with and they flipped the script On us But that was a project that you know brought together Like kasa who like doesn't support zcash for example Jim and I flex a number of Misari a number of projects kind of came together on these kind of efforts And I would love to be able to see more of that kind of active Collaboration one thing that was interesting in terms of regulators and sometimes it's really it's really difficult Is okx like okx had said that they were going to do less zcash and then yesterday I got a message from them saying we've decided to put this on hold And we're putting this on hold why we do further further investigation. It had to do with fad of travel requirements But it was both zcash and dash But we didn't collaborate But we went in separately and had separate kinds of conversations, but I think it would have actually been Even though there's some ideological disagreement between zcash and dash I think that it would have been a beneficial for us to kind of collectively game plan on How we work together to to provide You know additional information new information to regulators that can make better decisions One aspect of community outreach that that Some of us are exploring is for example working with Um People who are a community of people who are interested in like ethical software or how to make sure that we design for ethical systems And I think broadly in general Maybe the questioner should be asking or I feel like the question that I should be asking is like We are what kind of monetary system should we be designing for the future? And I think that comes with so many questions and communities That have different opinions already about what to do there. So there's a need to Reach out to those communities and not necessarily like indoctrinate them with blockchain, but like understand All these nuances so that we can better design our future Yeah, I think there's a lot more outreach we can do and and really in two ways one to the general public I think there's still a lot of misconceptions In the general public about what blockchain is what it can do what people do with it And the second is you know really engaging certain participants in the ecosystem who don't typically You know participate say in a forum like this We spend a lot of time engaging with regulators with exchanges with custodians Uh Because they actually can have a significant impact on the ability of the technology to see what our adoption And there's a lot more education that I think needs to be done there about What the strengths and weaknesses of the technology are and what the roadmap is? Just wanted to bring up A tangent You know so we have different ideologies of communities representing different ideologies Um I feel like what we will not just us but the world needs to get better at is allowing These communities with opposing views to have discourse together Um, and I haven't really seen good software or interfaces to allow this to happen, but it's like Wouldn't it be great if you can have A long running discussion where the end result is like almost a conversation but between representatives of two communities such that Then anyone from both sides can read and understand all nuances I feel like that would maybe help us transcend a lot of people And at the end of the day though, like I'm sure there's there's a limit sign What we will end up agreeing on And that's good. Like that's why multiple platforms exist Hmm Yeah, so, you know, is there a I guess um If there is kind of One and if one simple thing that we can start doing more of just to Get the benefits of collab of kind of collaborating reduce the harms of of anti collaborating over the next Over the next few months at least like between our communities Is there any kind of one simple Example of something we can do that pop that pops out in your head So I'd like to see more kind of Working groups again. Like I think ethereum In this kind of community is is fantastic and welcoming and warm And there's a kind of all this opportunity for collisions, but I think if we're more intentional like for Like for us in the ethereum foundation, for example to be able to have regular Times where the core like photographers developers and engineers can come together Kind of work through ideas and plans and by inviting other folks like you know Matt was in here earlier from thesis Or other people in the community and kind of lay these kind of ideas out there and then also look and collectively work on funding mechanisms So allow for some of these other Kind of potential contributors That can provide some of the glue between Between these communities I think that would be great as well I guess one is enabling communities to have a voice In the likeness of what I just mentioned like having discourse So maybe there are other things that can happen by enabling voice for a community the other thing I ask myself often is um We need to physically meet in order for this kind of You know a dialogue to happen, but how do we scale it so that we don't necessarily have to travel If we can crack that I feel like we would have much more rapid iteration rate of discovery I agree with that and I would simply add Stop trying to debate complex topics on twitter To stop can we debate complex topics on reddit? I feel like it's better, but it's still centralized. What about memo dot cash? Memo's on cash. Yeah, it's like this thing where you just like dumb comments on the big win cash blockchain It's okay because they have 32 gigabytes or something Great collaboration Okay, well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you