 Cool here you are guys Thank you guys for staying. I know that the weather is very nice outside and sunlight is limited So we have four projects up on stage you've heard them present There are some similarities between but not across necessarily all four although they exist in the same Family so I'm going to lead off with a few comparison questions, but divide them up here to the inter blockchain communication projects There's the obvious polka dot and cosmos. Could you speak together? One two two and one a little bit about the differences between the projects shared security versus independent security And will do you think over time these be collaborative or competitive? So on and so forth. So yeah Thank you for the question So like you mentioned that the most important difference between polka dot and cosmos is the shared security and the independent security side of things and then the second part is Upgradable chains the on-chain governance part of it basically the way we see it is that a shared security is needed as the way because One chain should not be competing with the other chain about security resources. They should not be basically Like doing the exact same thing with respect to stake or with respect to mining or something They should be collaborating on that scale and helping each other become more secure So if you are attacking a chain on polka dot a parachain, you are actually attacking the whole network and not just that particular chain and Secondly the other major difference is the upgradable Runtimes and the blockchain with respect to the on-chain governance is Nothing is permanent. There has to be an option to upgrade things. We are looking at right now There are so many use cases where we have to each and every day upgrade the smart contracts or upgrade the business logic or Runtimes and everything and then there is this huge Disruption of process happening because of that and we want to get rid of that whole problem by providing an on-chain upgrade solution so that's basically The way I see is the two major points of differences between cosmos and polka dot and why they are there Why these we are providing these kind of solutions with polka dot and I'll let Billy add to it Sure. Thank you So I understand why the comparisons made often in a way. We're solving similar problems But I think actually we're providing different solutions for different scenarios Polka dot wants to be a very large shared environment which has its benefits and also as a strawbacks We kind of take the approach that sovereignty is the most important aspect of any application specific blockchain and So we make that the the first available aspect of it when it comes to shared security. We also Try to avoid using this term We think it's kind of a misnomer what we like to call it is cross-chain collateralization which is entirely possible and Probably going to occur soon on cosmos and what that means basically is that? So there's chain a let's call it cosmos hub which has an atom used for staking chain B Could also use atom for staking as long as it's allowed to enact slashing conditions on that chain a's asset So if that were allowable then any of those validators which have atoms Securing chain a would be able to use those atoms to secure chain B as well This is basically an agreement that those validators need to come to with the second chain Which is again how we kind of see things happening. There's no reason you should be forced to secure a chain that you Don't agree with there's no reason that you should be forced to support something whose resources are draining on an otherwise productive ecosystem All of these things we believe should be sort of autonomous and taken care of by sovereign chains I'm also sure that you'll have responses to each other So we'll come back to a similar question a bit later on that will provide an opportunity there But to the graph and chain like this is sort of a similar question because Oracleization and data availability do have some similarities and overlap especially if you're providing the data in a decentralized way Could you speak a little bit to how the projects are distinct from one another and how you see them branching off a bit over time? Sure, I'm just one small correction is I don't think we saw the problem of data availability per se Usually I think of data availability is like a layer one concern Which basically means that like you're guaranteed that you'll be able to get the data that the data doesn't drop off that and and that's like an assumption that we make of all of our data sources and that essentially what We're solving is kind of quality of service. So it's I want to be able to access the data quickly and cheaply and securely and And so that's like a layer that goes on top if one Graph node doesn't send you a response. You can just hit another graph node. They're very kind of like interchangeable But then in comparison with chain link I kind of think of us is maybe like two sides of a coin or we're kind of opposite chain Like it's kind of a way of getting data on chain and we're kind of a way of getting data off chain So it's kind of cool They're both these kind of you could almost think of them as like layer two networks that kind of sit on top of You know these like blockchains and storage networks. Yeah, so Basically in order to achieve decentralization to achieve the type of ABT I think it's very important to have Something like basically you need in order to have decentralization to have as many actors as possible, right? So you need not operators who are providing this data to be incentivized and to have a reason to act honestly Basically to provide the data as I should provide it So not to lie or not to act maliciously. So in order to do this you have to have Mechanisms such as taking basically someone has Something at stake, right? So if you have a security deposit in tokens Basically saying all right if I start lying Well, the other nodes will show that I'm lying because they provide the right data. I'll provide the wrong one So I might get slashed, right? So you need to have kind of incentives for not operators to first act in a Not by Zentine way, I don't know how to say it and Also to keep their nodes running as much as possible So having the best uptime possible and that's also incentive So it's having the right game theory the right economic system in place to make sure that the network like this can function. Thank you very much Coming back to over here and we'll have a few that run across the board, but Talking inter blockchain connectivity communication Billy mentioned in his talk that the next big piece for cosmos was IBC Do you see standards evolving over time or will every IBC related project need to find their own way to Interconnect if you were at the Interchain conversations event the first question that Jay got on stage was When ether bridge so will will IBC possibly handle this over time across both projects or how will that shape up in your opinion? I mean, it's always difficult to judge any future scenario the way that I kind of imagine things happening with IBC I mean in a way, this also speaks to what what is IBC and what is supported with IBC and The first off I got to say that when I joined cosmos, I don't think I fully understood why cosmos exists And it took me a while to fully grasp exactly like what problem they were even solving and in a way I was really excited by somebody who's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet But there was a lot of sort of early comparisons to between what polka dot was doing and what cosmos was doing in this idea of communication between blockchains and and a go-to factoid would be something like Cosmos will support transfers of balances and polka dot will support arbitrary state updates And in a way, this is true But what I came to realize later was that this idea of data transfers as message types So the first message type that would be supported with IBC is a transfer of coin This includes coins like non-fungible tokens though. So in a way, these are two message types And when you're talking about autonomous chains that are application specific In a way, the only part that really matters between those two are stores of value And so when you have a chain that's designed to do exactly what it does But it needs to sometimes say do something to some other chain almost every situation can be sort of Boiled down to a transfer of value But what I became aware of a little bit later as well is that so much of IBC is based on the work from a GORIC who's been sort of the inventors of the smart contract they've been working in this sort of context for 20 years and A message type that is very much on the runway is a call data Message type so this would be sort of a smart contract execution message type Which basically opens up any other sort of arbitrary state update Transition that that could be imagined through a message type I Actually think it'll be sort of underutilized though because of sort of the beauty and elegance that comes through the abstraction of Actual transfer of values between into chains where were the things that matter sort of arbitrary state updates Actually are already designed to take place on a single chain that they were designed to take place on So that's related to your your topic But do you want to steer it more in one direction or another or should I just hand off the mic? The question was really speaking to IBC do you think a standard will emerge over time that helps? utilize some of the science between the projects to to interconnect to each other back to Other chains Any repeat is the initial question sort of repeating the initial question okay, so so the To the answer like initially when Billy mentioned that It's still we cannot comment a lot on what's coming in the future. It's it's I fully agree with that On the other side like polka dot is already having a protocol called ICMP interchain message passing which is different from IBC and it Basically like allows arbitrary message passing now I'll go to go back to the one of the things that I mentioned in my talk It's like the infrastructure for infrastructure. So what ICMP is allowing for a chance to actually define? Standards on what kind of messages to be passed. It's like we are not enforcing chains too You should be only doing a data call or you should be doing only doing a coin transfer or anything it's like we are providing a base protocol and an infrastructure and the chains or the developers out there who are building their platforms and Frameworks on top of it are fully free to decide which kind of messages to be barge what should be standardized should it be Should there be a standard for a coin transfer should there be a standard for Arbitrary message or something like that. It's fully up to them to design and implement and come up with it Having said that There are other teams also who are looking into interblock chain communication like I was talking to some of them in this week And there is definitely like a lot of Overlap between these protocols and there are a lot of differences and it will be really interesting to see how we are able to you know Combine those overlaps and still convert some of those differences to reach Consensus on thought on that but still very early days. I would say Just quickly so I'm Excited to hear about this sort of process on polka dot which sounds to be mirroring a bit the process of IBC which is sort of Beginning with certain message types and working through what those message type support would look like on different chains I mean, we've also talked between the projects about the fact that polka dot would be able to support IBC if it chose to And be able to send messages from the polka dot ecosystem out into the wider interchain vice versa Your your sort of version of IBC is very much for communicating between different parachains, right? I'm curious what the design decisions are between IBC and your own version of it that are specific to polka dot that wouldn't be possible to sort of incorporate into Using IBC for all communication whether it was between parachains or to the wider interchain Sure, I'll be very quick actually on that because I I do not have that level of detailed expertise to compare IBC and ICMP, but what I can actually say is that you're right IBC will be just subset error layer on top of that if that needs to be supported in the future So it's still underlying protocol which can basically if we devise a standard Which has the standard of IBC messages then it they can still be passed among the parachains So that's how I'll just quickly close this So the topic tonight was interoperability and Coming back to this side of the Semi-circle How I'm curious do you react to this sort of answer you guys have spent the last few years with the projects? Working to sure bring data on and export data from the Ethereum chain Is this like starting over for both projects for each let's say interblock chain interblock chain communication protocol? Or would you benefit from a standard or is it simple plug-and-play? At the end of the day, I think it's it's very likely to be like a very heterogeneous Multi-block chain kind of world and we've kind of been prepared from from for that from the beginning We started with the theory and just because it has the most active ecosystem We really you know identify with the project, but I think Either way Software is going to run on a lot of different chains and so For us we want to like Organize all of the data from these different chains and we think that applications are going to utilize data from multiple chains And so actually like organizing that data It's it's not really like the classical interoperability problem All right, the problem that like cosmos and polka dot solve is much more round I want to update state across different chains And so for us there's an aspect of it where it's it's you know less tied to security in the in the sense that You know you can't make like a An incorrect state transition, you know using the graph But still linking the data across different chains So you know if you have like an interface and in your app you want to show you know all of the jobs that you can perform and You know those those jobs are pulling data from different protocols that are living on different chains You still want to wait a very efficiently get that data put it up on an interface and that's kind of the part of the problem that we solve Yeah, I mean a very similar like I think This panel and this stocks were great because we had two sides of the equation We had one side where it was interoperability between block chance and the other side between real-world data, right? So bringing this real-world data over to block chance now on our side like technically it's very different from the IBC, but and basically being able to communicate across blockchains, but Once we have put this data from the real words to block chain applications You also plan to be blockchain agnostic, right? Which means that we don't want to only have smart contracts living on Ethereum We want to have smart contracts living on Cosmos on Polkadot and all of them being able to communicate So I think having a standard there is a Very key. So we we all know about TCP IP and TCP IP was created by a consortium of enterprises businesses Researchers who kind of work together to create this standard and I think it's very important in the blockchain space to have Something similar like we can pull real-world data without having like with having Standards that are established, you know, and we need the same To kind of make this data flow across different blockchain networks. So that's very key to having Interconnected blockchain words where we can across we can communicate across zero year zero year words and block chance. Yeah Thank you very much. I have two more Quick questions, and then I believe Maurice will lead a few from the audience I'm going to move quickly to everybody's favorite subject token economics. So Or lack thereof so Quickly across the board and I'll hand off the mic so that you can sort of pass across Cosmos seems to utilize one system where heavily incentivize staking But it's not required Ecosystem wide if you move off of the hub or as Polkadot. I believe is the other side of the coin It's highly incentivize used to keep the Tire system interconnected in that way I'm curious to hear about how Going back and forth here chain links token Token economic model was I don't think it's something we're here about in this presentation and how the graph pulls off What you guys do without it? So I'll Let's go this way this turning basically we are relying on a decentralized network, right? So any decentralized network in order to establish trust we need Can have game theory and token economics to make sure that the actors providing the data are incentivized to provide it In a reliable manner, right? So basically the way it works with a chain link once Once everything will be kind of figured out on this side. So in a few months we start implementing Staking which means that people will or there is no date on this one But basically people will let we need to have a security deposit of link tokens to ensure that Basically they have something at stake right kind of similar to staking on cosmos and Tezos when you're Committing to saying that this state is the right one if you're providing data to the chain link network you need to have something at stake when you're doing it and Basically these data these oracles will be paid by the user's contract So someone who is pulling data from Noracle will have to pay this oracle using the link token So basically the more reputation you have so kind of first one the more staking the more staking you have It means that you have more security deposit so more to lose So your reputation is kind of more important right because you're more reliable in this way if you have more more at stake and second one Kind of people who have been providing so not operators who have been providing this data for a long time We'll have a bigger reputation which means that there will be more Likely to be chosen by smart contracts owners who want to query data from them so That's I think our token economics is very similar to any decentralized network that's using staking for instance like There are no like we haven't found the right approach. I think no one has it's still a space that's being explored, right? It's a very new space So it's kind of similar and we'll try to experiment and see what works. Yeah I think we've probably talked about our token Less than like maybe any other protocol that I know about we haven't launched a token yet But there is a token as part of our protocol design And that's just because we made the decision early on that we wanted to solve like pressing problems for developers And we would start with that first and that we would kind of decentralize over time So what we looked at today in the demo was us running our hosted service Well, we're running a bunch of the nodes and it's basically centralized All the code is open source if you want to run your own nodes You can or you could just rely on our nodes To make your life easier for now, but the goal is the decentralized network And so it's kind of this trust we're taking on with the community to say, you know We're starting with this set of problems first. We want to make it really usable we want to make life really easy for developers and You know, we'll be decentralizing as a subsequent step Along those lines at graph day is this event that we held in January We oh, we like published our specs for our hybrid network, which is the next milestone For for us and in the hybrid network Anyone externally will be able to run a graph node in part of this network. We are going to release You know the token in that milestone and and so we we published the The specs for this intermediate milestone where the graph is still responsible for some elements of security in the network But the economics are decentralized so you can earn money by running a graph node And basically the token has two uses in the network. There's a work token model So it's very similar to like a live pier for example If you want to run a node you have to stake graph tokens and that provides the economic security So if you misbehave then you're slashed and and then in return as a node you can set fees per query in Another currency like ether die, so we're explicitly not like a medium of exchange token and so this creates like an open marketplace where anyone can run a node set their own prices and that should make a service that's Reliable and and cheap For people and then the second use of the token is for staking on subgraphs themselves And so there's a few pieces in kind of like the governance and how we how we manage Essentially this global graph of data where people want to organize data and come up with standards for data formats in a way That's decentralized and so there's a governance component to that And then also there's like a revenue share component where if you stake on a subgraph then you can earn Some portion of the query fees for your curation work So those are things that are part of our our hybrid network spec Which is going to be the next phase for a protocol which is on our github at graph protocol slash research Cool, so as I mentioned earlier, I am a fan of this idea of like Decentralizing as there's value there if you try to decentralize too early and there's not value on your network It's it's a huge security vulnerability. You can attack a network that has no value So I really appreciate that spec coming from y'all In a way, it also has similarities to the way we think about token economics at Cosmos Because Adam is meant to be a staking token. It's not meant to be a store of value It's not meant to be a fee token right now Adam is a Cosmos is a hub that only has one token on it So it is used as the fee token But we want to make Adams as illiquid as possible Because that will make it as hard as possible to attack the network because if it's easy to buy One-third of the the stake that's on the network then it's easy to attack the network But if there's just not even one-third for sale at any given moment It's going to be impossible to accrue enough to make an attack like that So our primary goal is making the token illiquid One of the ways we do that is with staking rewards Which are very different from rewards on a proof of work mining where you think of getting paid for running your your node If you find the block reward, you know, that's your payday That's very much the opposite on on Cosmos We we mean it to be an inflationary token It basically means if you're not staking your token The value of it is dropping every second that someone gets a block reward because the the quantity of tokens out There is constantly increasing if you're not part of that increasing by delegating your stake to a validator or validating yourself That means the value your tokens are constantly dropping so that is supposed to encourage you to delegate them to stake them Lock them up do not let them be on the open market because if they're available that means the market and the network is unsecure The atom is supposed to give you rights as a validator to accept fees This is where we see the value of the network going through which is why we also very much depend on people wanting and using blockchains This is something that I like strongly believe in it's a time to finally test Like we have the tools and the ability to build scalable blockchains Now let's see if anybody wants to use them because if there's actual value out there those those Fees from that value will be what those validators actually want and what actually get paid from so Something like the one thing that I find very common in all of these token designs is proof of stake the world is moving to the staking side of things now and Now the thing is with polka dot we again have a proof of stake system But what we call it and it's how it is slightly different from generally proof of stake or delegated proof of stake It's like it's called nominator proof of stake basically or nominated proof of stake It's called N-POS and the way it works is that not everybody needs to run a node to get block rewards You can actually nominate a potential validator to act With your stake and they can stake into the network and run a node The second most important thing is when these validators join the network. They actually are Changed or shuffled every set period of time, which is called a session So they and at that particular time the block rewards are distributed. So that's one utility of the Dot token for polka dot that you stake your dot tokens to become a validator on the network And you can nominate your dot tokens for someone else to become a validator so that you can share rewards with them The second utility is getting parachain slots themselves. So you have to stake Dot tokens to get a parachain slot on the Relay chain and then you can actually be a part of that whole polka dot network Which allows you to participate into the message passing and the pool security and all the goodness of the relay chain There is no concept of gas or fee per se If you have a parachain slot, you are actually allowed to be part of the network processing the transactions along with the other validators and Message passing and in your chain yourself. You are completely free to How you want to have your token economics? It doesn't have to be if for example, there are use cases like NGOs and governments where you do not want your users to be paying for transactions They should be using your network as a as a free service then you are Good with that as well. You do not need local token economics in your parachain and in case you want a fee or subsystem or something like that For example, the smart contract parachain being built on polka dot called edgeware They will be having their fee concept inside their particular chain So it's very segregated and different on the polka dot network. It's the dot token doing all these several Things and being used for that and for a local parachain. It may not be something else. Yeah. Yeah. All right So the last one is a fun one You can keep it relatively short If you'd like there were two comments made up here one was that when they joined someone here joined their project they thought it was a problem a solution in search of a problem and the other one was mentioned by Okay, still fits the question and multiple people up here mentioned Not to speculate about the future. So let's do both I Hearing hearing these critiques. I'm involved in the Ethereum community. So I'm wholly unfamiliar but these Projects are coming of age right and while it may still be a few more a Insert weeks months soon trademark years Before polka dot v2 or phase 2 of serenity is online or IBC is live with lots of folks in the zones and Your projects have come to fruition Can you give a brief real-world example for either those here that may be slightly less technical or some that may watch this feed of How the project envisions its use in the future if Those things have come to mind for you and we'll go this way Sure So actually the vision of changing is really to replace detail agreements by smart contracts So for this we need a lot of data. We need a system of decentralized Oracle, which is secure, which is reliable I think a good example of how we see moves things moving forward is the integration We had recently with a Google which is going to use BigQuery Which is going to use chaining in order to pass BigQuery data on to the Ethereum blockchain. So that's I think yeah, I'm lucky because it was announced a few days ago and it's a perfect example We we aim to see a lot more businesses using chaining in order to solve problems that Can be solved with smart contracts. So DocuSign is another partnership we got their CEO is an advisor to chaining and We see a lot more enterprises using chaining in order to leverage the power of smart contracts Basically, it's in insurance, in finance and in trade finance. All of these fields will be very disrupted by smart contracts To be disrupted they need to transfer the data to the blockchain and they will use chaining to do this So if we're successful the graph will be like a global API For just like all the world structured information So if you want to build an application you go to the graph and you find all of the data that you need to build your app really quickly You deploy it and it just runs forever As far as kind of the space as a whole I really subscribe to the kind of sovereign individual sort of view of the world where you know Everyone can design their own jobs. You know, I could build my own custom application. That's just how I want to spend my day I clock in I find the type of Jobs that I want to do you know people are matched in this global open marketplace and And that's somewhat what the future of work looks like I recently asked Chris goes who's heading the research on IBC Would it be possible to run a single server validator that supported IBC? Because it made me think about sort of the original spec for HTTP That was supposed to support a standard for value transfer And they they just couldn't figure out how to solve the double-spin problem And sort of the the end game that I kind of see with the Internet of Blockchains or the inner chain is a Network an internet of computers where money is a primitive Instead of being a number in a database that is going to rely on a merchant service to redeem that value later on You just have a much more efficient computer system where money itself is as important as a Boolean or a string When you're programming and you can you can rely on this fact that money is is real in the software level and What's required for that is something like IBC, which is you know a standard for transferring value between different computation systems whether it's the most boring case say a single validator on a chain or a Public validator set on a public blockchain the idea that you could support that as a computer network is is where I think sort of the end game lies So for Polkadot It's kind of something similar, but it's in a slightly different way again if we are successful and we will be We are looking at basically a world which is more connected For example, let me give you an example for a real world There will be chains for doing very different things and doing them very efficiently very well if I want to book Book a flight and I want to book a hotel and I want to book in taxi And those are all being done on different chains There will be I don't have to like rely on their calling them separately or I don't have to Basically authenticate my identity for each of them. I don't have to make payments on each of them I will be basically able to do that Payments on one chain Who I am where is my digital passport on one chain and similarly booking a plane ticket and hotel on the other chain and so on So it's it's basically going to be a lot more connected less bloated and a lot more transparent when we succeed Hopefully, all right. Thanks everyone and I'll hand over to Maurice for a few from the audience ever many you feel you have time for There was one very eager center in the back here in the light shirt Sorry for being too eager I also think you led with the right questions you asked me earlier like what is the most important question I think sort of highlighting that difference between the different projects was very interesting But to this first topic like what does the standardization of IBC look like? And so so as a bit of like I worked very closely with tendermen back up to 2017 And we're launching like a first real-world use case in two thousand like in two weeks an application with like 25 million users But so I mean we're launching first to three thousand and ninety thousand and so but say But I mean we had to look at this problem Also, how do we communicate between side chains and Ethereum in it and so maybe it's more of a proposal like we you have EIP 712 and so what we communicate is hash data according to EIP 712 We store it in one contract We prove that it exists in the outbox on Ethereum mainnet and now we we pass whatever message So we have a message struct and then a specific type struct that sits in that message truck But we just use EIP 712 So maybe an idea instead of like trying to invent another standard there already exists on an Idea rather than a question. It's okay. Thank you so much Maurice to the next So this isn't this is also not really a question, but So there is a standard for IBC that's currently being worked on by multiple companies and actually At the last community call a researcher from Web3 foundation actually participated in the call So if you want to participate, then you're more than welcome to the there's a GitHub repo It's Cosmo slash ICS and then actually also the polka dot Wiki has a good explanation of it and then there's also right now for implementations Haskell That's being worked on Haskell JavaScript Rust and go cool. Thanks. Yeah, the meetup is also supposed to be kind of an exchange So that's perfect. Do we have some more questions? my question is more regarding like getting J data on chain and off chain and I'd like to understand because It seems to me that this is more or less a subset of just the off-chain compute environment And in both cases both in graph and in chain link you require having these decentralized networks And why do they always have to be separate? Why do you have to build the network every single time when you can just build a generalized application that requires for example in my case? I want inputs from five validators and That can be the five APIs that I'm requesting But also I can run it as many nodes as I want and I only have to run it on let's say the I exact network Why do I have to limit myself to a subset of API requests that I ever chain link or graph offers and not be able to write a generalized spec? Such as let's say a Kubernetes one Well, I think you're right that You know generalized compute is kind of a reusable kind of primitive But I also think that all of these different use cases have enough differences when you get down into it where Especially because we're so early in the evolution of these protocols They kind of need the ability to evolve separately because it's just really hard to coordinate large number of engineers together And so like even within a single team, you know, you kind of break things up into like modules or something right? You want to have something that's a small enough box that there's like one team or something that can like own that box And make changes independently and I think that the general concept of like protocols that are specialized at layer on top I think is a good one, you know modular I think is better than monolithic in general for these types of things Now as a node operator, maybe it turns out that you're an enterprising node operator And you say you know what I can actually ingest the same data From these like seven different, you know networks run nodes for these, you know Five different networks on top and I can do that really efficiently in that way I'll make even more money because actually, you know, the data ingestion part is very similar the data I have to store the computation Maybe it's like somewhat reusable and you can find a way to do that and I think people should Experiment and I think there's opportunities for those kinds of optimizations But as far as like the specs and the networks themselves I just think that like, you know, we're kind of building an operating system here It's like, you know, all of the different pieces are super complex and we just have to, you know Draw boxes around the various components so that we can kind of get it done Yeah, I fully agree with you. It's a very new space. It's very hard to define a generalized Application in this one. I think the modular approach is much safer and much better to basically for the future That's I fully agree with you. Yeah I have a question regarding the interoperability So currently when developing a web app, for example, and I want to use a single blockchain Then I already have this issue that I need a blockchain wallet I need some plug-in like MetaMask and now if I imagine that we have Pethora of different competing blockchains or need Yeah numerous wallets as well If I don't want to have the power at this central web app server, so have you thought of any kind of Yeah of Combined wallets that that allows you to Use those different blockchains from web as for example as well So I read an article recently from Richard Moore who if you don't know him is a great researcher mostly associated He's the major of ethers J s and a few different projects And he was writing sort of a speculative article about how do you future-proof your blockchain for the quantum computing? World and quantum computers are really good at doing very specific things, but not everything one of the things are really good is sort of breaking Encryption on private keys what they're really not good at doing is dealing with bit 32 mnemonic phrases So there's nothing that would prevent you from using the same mnemonic phrase on many different curve architectures And also it would sort of keep you future-proof from a quantum world I'm not sure which wallets are currently supporting Different curve outcomes from bit 32. I know that Cosmos supports the same curve as Ethereum the way that MetaMask handles it is slightly differently in order to sort of recover the Public key so there might be some tweaks there but somebody from MetaMask was here for the weekend at the Cosmos hackathon sort of supporting the the Grand goal, which I agree with you is is to be able to have you know a unified key management system across different worlds and and in a way this is I think the most important thing because Blockchains are cool and all but what's really cool I think we can all agree on is cryptography and what it's done is made a reason for people to care about strong encryption It's made a reason for people to have private keys to be aware of what they are to think about what that means to think about Multi signatures to think about all these really important schemes that are extremely powerful It's only until we have something that we need to secure Do we care about securing them and and I agree with you that I think this is sort of the most important component of No matter what blockchain you are it's where the the tires hit the road. It's where the humans touch the technology If there are no more questions, I would say Thank you and thank you all so much. Yeah, thank you so much for this great panel