Privacy in Cosmos Live: Validator Roundtable Panel Discussion

Transcript

now on the stage one of our hosts will uh next up we've got the first panel of the day so i'm going to ask a lovely panelist to come up this is going to be a validator roundtable panel discussion um and so we've got four validators on stage but actually i know there's other validities in the in the audience um and so um the the topic really here is about what validators are and what their role is to play in the cosmos ecosystem um i think two years ago there were major questions about whether it would even be economically sustainable to be a validator and what it would end up

looking like and some of those answers we've had over the last two years but we know there are major changes continuing to come for proof of stake in validation uh particularly here with earlier we had the talk from billy um about interchange security and what that might mean for the way that um zones and and and security um is done on in cosmos and we also have uh the evolution of liquid staking in many different ways and so those are some of the topics we might touch on but before we do i think we can introduce everyone on the panel um and so first of all just quickly to introduce myself i'm will i'm one of the founders of zero knowledge validator we run around 10 different

validators on different chains and particularly you're focusing on privacy and how that can grow the value of different blockchain networks and trying to advocate it for it at every level um one of the sort of really exciting things is that at the moment we're on the cusp of quite a few privacy focused um zones or chains launching and so we're really uh getting ready to support those at their launch um but elizabeth maybe you want to start with introducing yourself sure um so my name is elizabeth barnes i work with figment as a senior protocol analyst i've been doing it for about a year and a half and figment runs over 60 different validator or 60 validators

on 60 different networks but we've been participating uh in cosmos for a very long time um particularly with governance and also um with the infrastructure so yeah and uh i'm zave xavier megan from chorus1 i'm the head of research adventures at chorus so chorus we've been pretty sort of i guess contributing back to cosmos for many years now one of the first i guess playing in the you know very sort of early days of the incentivized test net back in 2018 i believe i've been at corus for a year now and yeah very involved with like new networks that are launching cosmos and analyzing these networks cool yeah my name is also will and i also run validators under the name of like binary holdings um we're a

bit newer to the space but uh we run things on a bunch of different chains and uh yeah producing blocks and stuff fantastic so um elizabeth maybe uh it'd be really useful i think everyone has a different view on what role of validator might play in on chain different chains but from your point of view uh in figment what do you see is kind of the most essential role that validators play other than providing security this is a really good question a lot of people are asking this these days actually um so other than providing that security providing our infrastructure um like the other role that we see validators playing is participation in the community

um being a being a good steward and owning the network is important um as we're seeing i think different types of validators come about so you've got you know staking as a service um you know what correspondent and figment and among others do but then you also have smaller validators um who aren't as focused so much about the the service part of it i'm thinking here of strange love inquisition these sorts of things um and then uh you know with this interchange security model and new types of governance um you have validators that aren't providing security but they're still providing that governance aspect of it and so as we get different types of validators i think the role that validators currently play in terms of providing security participating in

governance and then just being good representatives and having that having the calling of decentralization and this um this forward thinking look will now kind of separate into different roles into different ways that way uh will would there be anything you'd add there in terms of different roles you think are important or would you echo most of that yeah i definitely think like echoing a lot of that to me like validators are just like very like hyper-engaged community members um a lot of the what the roles of validators are is just kind of like finding ways to actually like contribute and give back to like the communities of like all these different projects and whatnot um to me it's like the actual process of like running a validator like the

infrastructure and whatnot um a lot of that i think is very like commoditized and like fungible um it shouldn't matter like on the the protocol level like who produces blocks uh like one block produced by one validator is the same it should be the same as like a block produced by another validator and so um a lot of the differentiating factors are just like how uh do people actually kind of contribute outside of that and kind of like what sort of value do they add in the kind of broader scope of things and so um in a lot of ways uh what a lot of validators have kind of um differentiated into and kind of like specialized in and a lot of like finding their niches in are things like um okay people are gonna make like block stores people are gonna make like um like host

like public rpc nodes uh hopes like database snapshots uh make like dashboards like staking interfaces um do some of the like authorsy stuff of like auto compounding and whatnot and so uh i think it's like a lot of just kind of like being able to find a niche for things and um being able to kind of like contribute back to the communities for a lot of these things so i think both of you have mentioned governance uh zav in terms of uh chorus one's approach to representing um let's say like stakeholders and people who are sticking to different course one nodes how do you make sure that uh the opinions of delegators are being listened to as opposed to uh or you know or do you think that's an important sort of aspect

of it yeah i think i've got a sort of classic response here which is of course we use the telegram we have a community channel where if there's ever a controversial vote uh we'll sort of send that out to the community but i think what's interesting um is that you know many people think about the community which is of course very important but then the people who aren't voting in the community you know you take their vote in cosmos especially and so what happens is like internally at chorus one is that if there's a controversial vote we'll actually vote ourselves like inside the company what we think the vote should be so you have the people the delegators which of course matter a lot to you know what they want and you have to listen to them otherwise and one of the powerful things in cosmos is that if you don't listen to

your delegators they're going to let you know about it and they're going to send their state elsewhere so you have to be really responsive to the delegators and then if they're not responsive to themselves then you have to make sure there's internal consensus for what you're voting on so on the kind of more recent controversial like juno proposal for example um how did each of you and this kind of open question how did each of you handle that internally and externally in terms of how you voted and how you communicated personally like i just love the fact that like this proposal was paid probably just because um it really just gets the community like engaged in things like the actual thing itself um i think it's kind of kind of wacky but like just the fact that uh

this kind of proposal kind of like uh you see this kind of like in all the different kind of community channels of things on like reddit and telegram discord and whatnot like people just kind of losing their minds over it and so um to me like i would love to see people propose more things like this um just in the sense of like things that might be controversial um stuff like that just because uh i i think kind of like as a community kind of like working through some of the issues for that kind of like makes it stronger afterwards and so um yeah i definitely would love to see kind of more things like this um in terms of like the actual thing itself uh i i don't know i think it's a bit of a slippery slope to be able to kind of like uh take like tokens away

from people i think it probably should have been figured out in the airdrop stage of like what when like where things should go to um but yeah so we had we had a a whole bunch of different slack conversations um we try to keep things in like one thread so you can follow the conversation but what happened is this proposal came out and everybody saw it at different times and so we had all different sorts of conversations happening and we ended up having two really long threads about it where um the majority of the folks from our protocol team participated and

other members from marketing chimed in and we had we had a very robust conversation about judo 16 which is really awesome to see um for us and we had so not we had the discussion about what the proposal actually was doing and the long-term effects of it you know of immutability and these sorts of things and then we also had an internal discussion of how we were going to vote on it so it was really cool to have the justification of like both what it actually means for the protocol what it means for the future and kind of what we as a organization were going to do about it um eventually we we did submit our vote and we posted up online we said hey this is how we're

going to vote on this and here's why and so that was for our delegators and we also have a telegram channel where they chime in with with their opinions as well and then we also share that with our clients as well so they understand and we provide avenues for them if they disagreed with our vote they can always go in and change it yeah and i think figment did a really good job with how they communicated their response for that proposal for us it was again an internal conversation and i think the majority said no but just sort of thinking of this proposal so i'm quite good friends with d5 times who of course have the friends val that are in cosmos and they're very community

oriented so chorus one we voted no because we didn't believe that the you know we just thought it was again sort of what crypto's about and then d5 times guys they're very community oriented and they really listen to their delegators and they're a bit more maybe retail as well i mean you never know but um and they voted yes and then now they're sort of somewhat scared of the legal ramifications and so i think i was also speaking last week with jk from stake fish in a podcast and he mentioned that he he could see like much more controversials coming to cosmos like i think this will be the first of many uh so for better or worse like one of the beautiful things about cosmos is the governance and the democracy so yeah expect to see more

like this in the future very interesting so um i think the kind of next topic really related to how valleys is sort of linked currently with governance is uh interchange staking and interchange security and the ability uh to kind of share in different ways security uh first of all like between with existing validator sets almost exporting um their security to new chains that might want to launch but also sort of links to liquid staking and how that might also impact the way that chains can share or interact when with validators for example liquid staking from osmosis being used

to potentially provide security on multiple other chains um using amm pool um tokens how uh do you expect this to impact first of all like your your business models um and also the way that you interact with new chains um over the next few years uh personally like i think a lot of uh what is interesting is just a lot of these new chains uh when launching and whatnot um the the valeria set kind of like when those kind of come out is um kind of like an experience sort of it's like the process actually just like launching and whatnot is just like this whole kind of thing especially it's interesting opportunities for new people to come in and kind of being able to participate

and whatnot and uh it's kind of something where it's like people that might be kind of like a fan of whatever specific project but maybe they're not kind of like as in tuned with the broader like cosmos ecosystem for example uh this can be like an opportunity for them to actually kind of like participate and so um i do think kind of like there is a place for for these things and kind of like uh i don't know like interchange staking and whatnot uh is is is great for a lot of things but it can kind of like take away that opportunity from some people for some things um and so to me like i i do really appreciate kind of this whole kind of like process of like a new chain launching um and kind of this whole process just like uh coordinating a

bunch of validators to kind of like do things and whatnot but but i also see kind of like the flip side of this of like um new projects launching uh people wanting to maybe not necessarily have to to cultivate their own like validator set for things um this can be a lot more easier to actually just launch and just because that launch process kind of sucks and is very hard to actually kind of do and coordinate a bunch of people and whatnot and so uh i think there's like pros and cons to it and it's definitely uh something it gives more options to people like launching to be able to uh choose kind of what what they actually kind of want to do there so yeah i think it's an interesting new kind of primitive for for people to use for for building yeah i think for us maybe more focusing

on the liquid staking so of course chorus one we've been researching this for many years now and we were a genesis validator of leader for ethereum we then built stake soul which is leader for solana we then were ideating a lot the last year about liquid staking in cosmos we now have fish and royal who are here and the kwikstilba team who are building out you know this liquid staking zone in cosmos so i think it's really exciting i think you know there's massive potential for cosmos a lot of what quicksilver is building uh sort of attacks many of the flaws of light itself just using the model of cosmos with you know the proxy by governance and everything else and all the other features like the ux i'm sure will be a lot smoother and that's like injury part

due to kepler for example so that's just one side of course which is liquid staking i think you'll see in the next year or two liquid staking in cosmos there's of course terra already exists which chorus one is uh involved in as well with uh you know b luna uh which is massive on anchor for those that use it but i think you know be uh q adam and quicksilver assets in the next year or two will really take off and that will surprise many people and then in the interchange sort of security side i think that's gonna really improve i guess like you don't have to bootstrap your own data set anymore it's what i can also sort of foresee in cosmos in the next year or two the last few years in cosmos has been like executing ibc chains bootstrapping for our data sets

it's taken a bit longer to go to market and cosmos but like some of the networks i'm seeing now cosmos also the core developers and cosmos what they're building i think the next eurotone cosmos is going to be much more about scaling and in a secure way and that's i think that's really exciting yeah um i'm really excited for interchange security because of this way that validators will no longer have to run the infrastructure if they just do the governance when we talk about what community is it's it's not just people like sitting behind a screen in a forum the community is much stronger and it has a much stronger coming together i think um so if that's the case and then we'll have this

entertain staking what this allows is individuals like genuine community members genuine token holders that may not have you know there may not be whales they make all these things um they'll have a much they can have a much larger say in governance and specifically with governance votes um we're not really sure what the long-term effects of having these infrastructure providers govern a protocol um kind of the way that it's been going traditionally when we think about who makes decisions on a protocol it's usually infrastructure providers validators miners these sorts of things because they either have the capital or the technological expertise um to make those decisions right either through

voting or through implementing a binary so once we have this interchange staking now the core decisions can be made by a delegate and and so that kind of flips the tables and it's a new it's a new model for token-based governance um so i'm really looking forward to seeing that i think that's a really interesting differentiation compared to now but i mean of course there are other ecosystems actually polkadot being kind of one of them where you do have a bit of a separation between validators and governance um and you know we may then see some of that come into the cosmos ecosystem and it's unclear at this point whether that's a better model i mean obviously

validators are big stakeholders some of the biggest stakeholders and you know have a lot of involvement but separating it in some ways may or definitely was going to change the environment um so i think we've got one more question before we open it up to questions from the audience so have your questions ready um but uh specifically actually i think for chorus and figment um how do you see your kind of responsibility in not becoming too large obviously you're also running staking as a service so um how do you balance that uh with trying not to have to have two large stake as a validator and there therefore compromise decentralization of the network yeah i think of course this is an

important issue and one that we care about deeply you know i guess for a network to be decentralized it can't just be a few core validators in a cartel i think one of the things with liquid staking we're seeing right now actually especially with lido for example on ethereum if you've been keeping up with twitter there's some backlash with like the leader validators which is about 20 of them because you know the state details you know going above almost 50 now so it's really on us as the validators with higher mark you know voting power um to make sure that the the validators with less like we can maybe translate skills to them we can sort of guide like mentorships like you mentioned it before like i think a lot of the small validators that i talk to the infrastructure is sound like i'm sure the infrastructure is the same as

chorus one sometimes it can be a timing thing so chorus one has of course been around for a while so you would expect these newer people to come in and it would take them a longer time to get the delegations but then it's about like helping them to receive delegations through connections or through telling them what worked for us so it's like sharing what worked for us um to help them with their communities build their own brand like you know yeah binary and these newer guys friends of our data cryptocedo i mean they're all fantastic and we want to see them all thrive and support them in the best way possible so i think one of the nice things about cosmos is that it's like really cooperation not competition and so like you know you have figment and chorus and we've been around for a while and of course we're

on many networks like solana and ethereum as well but in terms of cosmos and also there's other networks it's not in our best interest to keep it centralized so i mean we can't say please delegate i mean you could say maybe like delegate away for us if we have too much voting power but normally we don't go about three percent on average and so if you think of 100 that's that's not very much so you know there's way below the threshold where it'd be a problem yeah i generally agree with that i think the the new kind of coordination that we're seeing between validators is really cool and having this shared knowledge between like we're not really competitors we're collaborators um and so seeing those relationships evolve is really beneficial for the protocol and

also just for the for the field of validators as we see more and more individuals who who pick up the skill because it's a way to make revenue it's a business model um the more competition the better because it's not competition it's just more people to collaborate with fantastic so okay it's time now for any questions um here so yeah starting over from billy and work here we go um thanks for the panel so far uh i have a question so i like to think of validators as sort of sharing the responsibility for operating the network but i'd be curious to hear url's thoughts on the responsibility of the validator for sharing the liability

of operating the network especially in the context of privacy where there's you know probably more potential to butt up against the law or be liable for operating networks that might have anti-money laundering violations uh similar in the idea of operating networks as a security like ethereum launched and the sec said it was not a decentralized network it was a security but it's now sufficiently decentralized and uh like how committed you all are to standing in the way of the law to protect the operation of a network like is that part of your core business model do you do research on that do you do like advice from lawyers like how much of that is in your mind space

maybe i'll start off on that that's actually something which is a topic uh the zero knowledge values actually did a open legal report on um earlier this year it's one of the key focuses because there are obviously a lot of people who are worried about that it's not a unique problem to validators either in ethereum roll-up operators may have some very similar concerns and the kind of potential implication of money laundering if you are the essentially kind of facilitator of transactions on especially a private network are pretty major um i think a lot of people are sort of betting or sort of hoping for this scenario where we can say these networks are

provably decentralized enough that it doesn't matter who's running like you know there are enough people running these nodes that you can't necessarily say that any single one of them is sort of operating it and running it that's still to be tested of course and i think there are certain jurisdictions where actually some clarity has been given as to the fact that by running a piece of software that's open source um as one of many you are not yourself providing this network but that is something which i think most validators should be worried about and i would be interested to hear if the other panelists have done any sort of research or taking any advice on that question i was going to say

definitely it's an interesting thing just because right now i think we're still come just early in the global kind of like legal regulatory kind of uh kind of clarification a lot of these things but i'm excited for like things to kind of settle down a little bit more just because right now i think a lot of like there is a framework by which people can launch projects and people could actually run things in infrastructure in like a compliant way more or less and um right now it's like some things are clear some things are not and i think uh as we kind of move towards more more clear down things it's good but like at this current point in time uh people just kind of bear a little bit more risk in terms of um the liability that they have and whatnot and uh i think like a lot of um for a

lot of people it's like the the risks of this uh the rewards actually like participating in these things actually like helping projects launch and being a part of a lot of these things uh the rewards from that like outweigh the risk of uh potential kind of like legal legal viability and that's kind of like where i think a lot of people sit there but um i'm excited for things to maybe be a little more clear so chorus one we're a little bit more institutional so of course we do work with lawyers sometimes not all the time but if we were if the risk is significant enough for us to be like is this something that you know for us as a company it's worth us participating we would consult with them so if we think of cosmos networks like enoma and nim normally when we look at these networks

there's like in very small text like small risk there might be regulatory problem here but i would say like us as a company we tend to not think about like what the regulator might do we tend to just operate these privacy networks because we believe in the privacy networks and then if something happens we would like then look into it i would say though like research in this area we're of course partnered with zero knowledge validator as well and we really love the work that they do in privacy and so we're lucky to be around people that are doing you know great research in this plus in course one itself we have some like great cryptographers that sort of you know aren't working necessarily on cryptography right now but if anything was to happen in terms of like regulation or anything like that you know to be more redundant

i guess we would put these guys and girls onto like a project like this to make sure that we continue to operate nodes it's not at least i don't believe we have any intention if any regulation came to stop running nodes like we will work with lawyers we'll you know we'll console we'll also work with cryptographers to make sure that we're still supporting these private networks i don't know if i can speak directly for the figment in this instance um but i can say that it's some like regulation is one thing that we're been paying attention to and we're looking forward to like clarity and the law and working within that thanks for the panel

um a little bit feedback so i i believe all three of your validators uh white label and um it's a little bit of a kind of murky area i i kind of only know what associations and and you know which projects you're white labeling for through conversations what responsibility do you feel uh your validators have to indicate the degree to which uh your white labeling you know the percent of percentage of the network

that you have under your control um and how do you how do you see this evolving are there going to be you know standards set where you're at least kind of indicating which which validators you are white labeling for yeah so um this is something i was just talking about on wednesday um so with i i think this white labeling is another type of validator and you've got you know sticking as a service you know you've got public validators that way you've got um you know smaller ones and then you have these white labeling ones um

and i i this is just something i just started thinking about so um so i'm i'm imagining there has to be or there might be some sort of of potentially a kyc by by the protocol in the future um we kind of see this now with some of the top validators so our tara does this once you submit your identity you get a little blue check right next to your um right next to your name um and so some black explorers record that and do that um but the question is if you're supposed to remain self-sovereign how how do you why would you kyc validators

in this way um so i think there it's it's going to come down to self-regulation i think um because you want these things to remain open and permission list so if you kyc a validator you don't want to say that you you can't be a part of our set or anything um so yeah this is an ongoing conversation that we've been having and and i'm really interested in hearing other people's thoughts on it i think it's a fantastic question actually i think even for us and for many people it is definitely murky in terms of like how much you should disclose or not and yeah i think like i guess at chorus the way we think about it i think sometimes we think many years in the future we think that there will be significant

competition between validated white labels in mev and so i guess of course if there's one validator that takes much more mev than another i think that could be a problem in the future because you'll get much more yield as a white label um if you go to this validator or you get that maybe you get delegations in some way so i think in a sense for us and in general perhaps mev and like centralization around that is even more of a problem than white labels um so at the moment you know we we do disclose some of our white labels maybe not all of them but sometimes it's like yeah i think something with white labels is like the agreements so like maybe the stakers themselves don't know the sticking with some light label node because hard to tell and maybe there

could be some more transparency on it for notice white label or not i think the community eventually will start talking more about that but i think people will be surprised to find that even those that do one run wide levels like figment or chorus like even then the market share isn't outrageous like without giving many things away if i look at cosmos versus ethereum i would say the stake and delegations in cosmos across all networks it's much more decentralized than something like ethereum for example yeah and also i think uh just this like white lighting process and whatnot um this kind of goes to what i was saying earlier kind of um the actual infrastructure part of validators is it should be like pretty commoditized and like pretty pretty fungible and to me that's kind of like what the like white

labeling part is mostly is kind of like being able to just um outsource the actual running of infrastructure to somebody else um it should still be kind of like up to the responsibility of the people that are actually like using the white label service to either like disclose it or not or um use that as a part of kind of like their communications for uh how they want to be represented in the community and how they want to maybe like attract delegators and whatnot so i guess that's kind of like two parts to this question one is on the general theme of as validators get more

delegates and get into the top ten how should they be responsible for ensuring the decentralized decentralization of the network and one example that comes to mind when i was thinking about this question is that there was a recent proposal on osmosis which was trying to redistribute um staking rewards across all validators to try and incentivize people um delegating with um lower ranked validators and actually if you look at the votes you can see that the delegators with a higher share are obviously saying no because it goes against them and actually the um the highest ranking validator to vote yes was binary

holdings um so here is like a clear example of where kind of validators have directly used their power to vote against something which would benefit lower ranking validators so how can this be reconciled in the networks that you operate on personally like i would love to see uh kind of like a framework for where like staking rewards are just kind of like rewards in general are kind of like done in proportion to the amount of uh like value add that like a validator kind of gives to things and right now at least kind of like i don't think the current way of like voting power in like delegations and whatnot are like definitively representative of like how much actual kind of like contributions like someone gives to a bunch of these

networks um there's a lot of things where it's kind of just like for even kind of like for maybe like smaller smaller networks and whatnot um a lot of the value that people give are just like being in chat rooms like answering questions um participating in discussions like making things uh kind of like giving things back to the community and whatnot and i'd love to see kind of like a framework where we can reward people kind of like based on uh some of those things and this is like a very subjective and like not very quantifiable thing but i would love to see kind of like a framework where we can actually kind of like uh support people based on uh like contributions and whatnot um i think like partly proposals kind of like this uh are are like in a good direction towards that

um right now at least i think kind of the the way that kind of things are represented in terms of like building power and whatnot is um partly just like branding and marketing and a lot of things like that and so i would love to see just like better ways to support like smaller values better ways to make things kind of like more sustainable and kind of redistribute a lot of kind of the uh the wealth that people are getting just to have like a more sustainable community like as a whole i think yeah i think uh if we think about the polka dot staking uh mechanism i guess like nominated private state they do try and do this a little bit where it's like they want everyone to have a similar sort of reward and different stake and i think if you make the system too complex

sometimes it gets very confusing for the validators themselves and i think that's one of the core negatives of polkadot is that it has this system actually and so you know when it comes to i guess trying to distribute some of the rewards to the lower validators so they might get more and they might move up the rank so it becomes more fair um and also the voting system i guess comes down to governance as well so one of the great things about cosmos is that you might have validators like you know chorus binary or figment saying no we don't want this because if we want free market for example however if the dell is how much the i think you should leave it to the market and the market is the community so the community really thinks that the small validators should be giving given more of a chance in chorus

one for example they can change their vote and say like you know screw you guys or they can redistribute their stake to the lower validators so i think like us validators like maybe it's in our best interest i'm sure to vote against this proposal because you know we have our business and our own operations and cash flows um but the community is up to decide anything in the market and i think you know that's one of the great things about cosmos so yeah who knows in the future what what i will hold so uh historically in the past figment has actually when we we've gotten a majority stake on a network we've actually redelegated some of those tokens similarly to like a foundation delegation program uh we did that with the graph about a year ago now um so one thing you said is that it's

within validator's best interest like vote against these proposals that would read delegates stake like this and it is if you're coming from like that free market standpoint of get money um but it's if it's not within the best interest of the protocol then it's not within the best interest of validators and then and if we want to move towards a if we want to move from distributed models to decentralized models um personally i would really love to see validators continue to have a redelegation program where they redelegate their tokens to other smaller validators who either contribute significantly to the protocol somehow or

you know apply for these sorts of programs i would love to see that continued decentralized state happen one more question at the back um this is a good question for a course one because i'm really interested in liquid staking and the game theory behind how liquid staking derivatives can start to proliferate on the dapp ecosystems of all these like general purpose blockchains have you thought through what the long-term effects of stake derivatives might be on the

security of proof-of-stake networks especially if state derivative tokens start really efficiently tracking like the rewards and the value of the underlying base asset if their proliferation as like a token of exchange starts to to increase and potentially unseat like the base asset like what kind of weird attack vectors would you kind of see in a proof of stake network where staked eath staked like other tokens on cosmos start to get more popular yeah so i think like our vision has always and i think many people in crypto's vision has

always been to have the stake asset to be you know have more tbi or whatever being across all d5 apps as opposed to just the asset itself because if you think about the state asset that's of course being secured by validators in the back end plus earning yield so it's like good for both parties the the user and also the the value that is in the back end and so like i guess i sort of mentioned earlier but when you talk about lido for example i think there's like 20 to 25 validators there so going back to that point i guess they're like it's not a problem because these are great validators and the thing with figment and binary and chorus as well was like you know we have a reputation ourselves and that's one of the great things about private stake is that the

security of it itself so lido's different because there's a smart contract and you hope that they can merge properly but right now they're getting a significant amount of stake you know maybe 50 60 percent and so steak ethers of course in ave now and and d5 applications like that and i think it's everyone wants this to be like the base asset and so of course you know shouting out quicksilver again here one of the great things about liquid staking and cosmos that's going to come apart it will come out in the next few months which is really exciting is you can basically you get rewarded for choosing validators that are securing the network in a better way which is really unique to any liquor staking that's ever come out before and like they call it permissionless file data sets and quicksilver so like recommended research

um so the security in cosmos i have no doubt it'll it'll impact in any way i know there are some people in cosmos like sunny that think a bit differently about it um and also with super fluid staking of course there's another great thing in cosmos you can't really do it in other ecosystems which has its own sort of trade-offs i guess but i do think in general what what we hope at chorus at least um i believe is you know we hope that many new networks launching and also networks that already exist will try and move to this liquid staking asset because it's integrating into different sort of applications etc because that on the back end is staked you know you're not like you get liquidity of course with quicksilver for example but it's also staked so it just makes the whole user

experience much better and in our opinion of course at least it also secures the network in a way because like people aren't going to take it in and out withdraw it like redelegate it's just secure with of our data set that has been you know i guess chosen in a way by the delegators themselves and community of quicksilver so yeah i think it's going to be really interesting i can't personally forecast exactly what it'll look like but what i am sure of in cosmos is that like quicksilver is a really elegant solution to the security of liquid staking and it'll be in my opinion more enhanced than later is right now i just want to add to that that i think i mean what we've seen from ethereum and other examples of liquid staking now is that it's an inevitability the market is putting a push for it because it's more

efficient because it has all sorts of other benefits and so um in any chain now including the cosmos equal system i think we have to kind of accept the inevitability of it and therefore design ways to make it as secure as possible and combat any negative effects it might have for example making sure that governance rights and other things can still be attached to it and that you have a decentralized set but there's no i don't think there's any future anymore where you can imagine trying to like stop it happening because um it's going to happen through whatever mechanism because it's just so much there are so many benefits attached i think that's probably all we've got time for um it's now lunch which is going to be served downstairs and when we come back there'll be another some more talks here uh one of

the talks which was going to be on the side stage earlier is going to be here now which isn't in the original schedule and so we'll probably resume slightly earlier than we would have done after lunch at uh maybe time to be confirmed at 12 45 or 1 1 o'clock back here