Bankless - The Ethereum vs. Solana Debate | Justin Drake vs. Anatoly Yakovenko

Episode Date: June 3, 2024

✨ Mint the episode on Zora ✨ https://zora.co/collect/zora:0x0c294913a7596b427add7dcbd6d7bbfc7338d53f/9?referrer=0x077Fe9e96Aa9b20Bd36F1C6290f54F8717C5674E  ------ 🎬 DEBRIEF | Ryan & David unpacking the episode: https://www.bankless.com/debrief-the-justin-drake-vs-anatoly-yakovenko-interview  ------ Ethereum vs. Solana. That’s the debate we’re having today. On Ethereum’s side we have Ethereum Researcher Justin Drake, and on the Solana’s we have Solana’s Co-Founder Anatoly Yakovenko. They give us the good, the bad and the ugly of each other’s blockchain, settling their endgame towards the end of the episode.  This was one, if not the spiciest debate we had on the show. We tried our best to give both guests time with minimal intervention. At times went well, at others it caused deep semantic rabbit holes. But overall both guests were able to communicate their messages. ------ 📣 SPOTIFY PREMIUM RSS FEED | USE CODE: SPOTIFY24  https://bankless.cc/spotify-premium  ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🐙KRAKEN | MOST-TRUSTED CRYPTO EXCHANGE https://k.xyz/bankless-pod-q2    ⁠ 🔗CELO | CEL2 COMING SOON https://bankless.cc/Celo    🏠 CASA | SECURE YOUR GENERATIONAL WEALTH https://bankless.cc/Casa.  🛞MANTLE | MODULAR LAYER 2 NETWORK https://bankless.cc/Mantle  🌐 TRANSPORTER | CROSS CHAINS WITH CONFIDENCE https://transporter.io/  ⚡️ CARTESI | LINUX-POWERED ROLLUPS https://bankless.cc/CartesiGovernance  ------ TIMESTAMPS   0:00 Intro 7:16 The Good 22:30 The Bad 52:03 Global Shared State 1:06:07 Economic Security 1:30:08 The Ugly 1:47:23 The Endgame 1:55:22 Closing & Disclaimers ------ RESOURCES Anatoly Yakovenko https://twitter.com/aeyakovenko   Justin Drake https://twitter.com/drakefjustin   ------ Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here: https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠    

There is a reason why Ethereum data availability is worth more than Solana's data availability. Because of network effects? Yes, this notion of shared security, this notion of synchronous composability. Because of the economic security. Not just that, but also access to TVL, access to applications. There's only one ENS in the world, right? There's only one Ethereum and Internet name system. This is really weak.

This is why I think it's ugly and it's not fixable. is it's not a fundamentally hard thing. Welcome to bankless, where today we're exploring the frontier of Ethereum versus Solana in debate-style format. This is Ryan Sean Adams. I'm here with David Hoffman, and we're here to help you become more bankless. So on the debate track today, Ethereum versus Solana, we've got a conversation between Ethereum researcher Justin Drake and co-founder of Solana and Atoli Yakovanko. Now, both of these were previous bankless guests. I'm sure you know them from their respective communities. And the prompt for this episode was really simple.

Give us the good, the bad, and the ugly of each other's respective blockchain ecosystems. Take the conversation wherever you want. You can talk about architecture. You can talk about economic security. And indeed, the guests did. David and I tried to give both guests time to debate each other with minimal intervention. And I think at times this went well. At other times, it probably caused us to go down into simple.

semantic rabbit holes fairly deeply. But overall, I think both guests were able to communicate their main messages throughout this episode. Sometimes they were attacking, sometimes they were defending, occasionally they were throwing each other compliments. It's a very entertaining episode overall. If you pay attention to Anatoly and Drake on Twitter, you'll know of a couple of topics that are coming your way. Is economic security a meme? Is issuance a cost? Some big dividing lines finally get sussed out in long form on this episode. How did this episode come to be? It was actually kind of respond out of just a simple ping from a member of the bankless discord asking if it would be possible to get Justin and Anatolia on a podcast together to have a debate. And I was like, hmm, I also want

this. And since it didn't really hurt to ask, upon asking both Justin and Nancy Floyd said, yeah, sure. And so after a bit of scheduling, here we are. I think the one thing I'll say about this episode and generally like crypto at large, when people enter crypto, they generally find a tribe pretty quickly. Like you come into crypto, you learn about it. And then you learn about a layer one that you identify with more than others because it aligns with your vibe. The how and why people become members of the tribe is like personally, I think one of the more interesting things to explore in crypto. And you can really see it come out in this debate. You can really see some of the dividing lines between just who Justin is and what Ethereum is and who Anatolia is and what Salana is.

So that's kind of like a frame of mind that I encourage listeners to go into this episode with as they here, Justin and Anatoly parse out some of these things, finally in a long-form conversation. So let's go ahead and get to that long-form conversation. But first, a moment to talk about some of these fantastic sponsors that make this show possible. So whether you are convinced by Anatolian and you want to buy Salana or you're convinced by Drake, you want to buy Eith, you can all do it on the same place, which is Cracken, our preferred crypto exchange for 2024. If you do not, how do it come with Cracken? Consider clicking the links in the show notes to getting started with Cracken today. If you want a crypto trading experience backed by

world-class security and award-winning support teams, then head over to Cracken. the longest standing and most secure crypto platforms in the world. Cracken is on a journey to build a more accessible, inclusive, and fair financial system, making it simple and secure for everyone, everywhere to trade crypto. Cracken's intuitive trading tools are designed to grow with you, empowering you to make your first or your hundreds trade in just a few clicks. And there's an award-winning client support team available 24-7 to help you along the way, along with a whole range of educational guides, articles, and videos. With products and features like Cracken Pro and Cracken NFT Marketplace and a seamless app to bring it all together. It's really the perfect place to get your complete

crypto experience. So check out the simple, secure, and powerful way for everyone to trade crypto, whether you're a complete beginner or a season pro. Go to crackin.com slash bank lists to see what crypto can be. Not investment advice, crypto trading involves risk of loss. Are you worried about the security of your cross-chain transactions? Cross-chains with confidence using Transporter, the revolutionary token bridging app designed to give you peace of mind. Powered by ChainLink CCIP Transporter is your trusted gateway for securely moving assets like like ETH, Native USC, and Link, and so many more across some of your favorite blockchains. Over $2.8 billion has been hacked from token bridges to date.

Transporter puts a stop to this by ensuring your transfers are protected by the most robust security features available. ChainLink CCIP provides that level five security backed by multiple decentralized Oracle networks and an independent risk management network. Transporter also provides real-time tracking throughout your transaction with its newly engineered user experience, so you'll never have to second guess the safety or location of your assets ever again. And the best part, Transporter makes it simple. Whether you're a blockchain beginner or a season trader, Transporter's intuitive interface lets you execute cross-chain transactions with just a few clicks.

No additional fees, just a low cost for using CCIP, which can be paid in Link or your blockchain's native gas token. But don't just take my word for it. See for yourself why Transporter offers a stress-free bridging experience. Experience the future of token bridging at transporter.io and just send it. Taking self-custody of your crypto is one of the most important things you can do on your bankless journey. It's also one of the hardest things to get right with huge consequences if you don't. If you want help going bankless, talk to CASA.

Kasa helps you take custody of your crypto assets so you don't have to wonder whether you're doing it right. Kasa is a one-stop shop for doing self-custody the right way. With Kasa vaults, you can hold ether, Bitcoin, stable coins, all with one simple app and multiple keys for the ultimate peace of mind with a support team to help you every step of the way. But it doesn't stop at self-custody because even though crypto is forever, you are not. We all plan on making life-changing wealth in crypto, but with CASA's inheritance products, life-changing wealth can elevate to generational wealth. For your kids and your loved ones, who don't know anything about crypto. With CASA, you won't lose your private keys and you won't accidentally take them to the grave either.

Click the link in the description to get started securing your generational wealth. Bankless Nation, we are extremely excited to tee up this conversation with two esteemed guests. We have Anatoly Yakavenko. He's the creator of Salon. He's the co-founder of Salana Labs. He is Mr. Consensus at the speed of light. Anatoly, welcome to Bankless. Love that intro.

Thank you for having me. And in the other corner. I don't know if I should do a fighting meme for this. But Justin Drake, he is a researcher at the Ethereum Foundation. He is Mr. Ultrasound Money. Justin, welcome to Bankless. Thanks for having me as well. Guys, this is going to be a conversation between some of the design decisions.

and differences between Solana and Ethereum. I think this is a conversation that the entire crypto community will tune in for. And it's great to have you both. I think the way we're going to organize this is in a few sections. So the good, the bad, the ugly. First, we're going to talk about the good. Then we're going to talk about maybe the bad, the things that are correctable over time. And then we're going to talk about the ugly.

And of course, we can veer from one section to the other as you guys see fit. But let's start the conversation with something hopeful. something optimistic, the good side of things. I want to start the question with you, Justin. So let's talk about the good. What is good about Solana from your perspective? Oh, boy, long pause. So if I were to think of, sorry, I was just unmuting.

I had to unmute it. Sure. So if I were to have a metaphor in mind, I'm thinking of the good as a bucket with balls in it. And I actually think of the good bucket. as being the one with the most balls, so the largest one with the most volume. And Solana has lots of obvious good balls in its market. It has very high throughput, very low fees, very good UX, low latency. It has good traction, millions of users. It has good adoption, good financial

performance. Actually, that has been amazing, right? We've seen Solana raised to basically position number three. So if you go to Coin Gecko and sort by fully diluted valuation, Solana, is the number three layer one. And I'm tempted to change the quote by Michael Saylor and say that there is no fourth best. If you look at fully dilated valuations, there's like there's a ripple, there's B&B, there's ton, but they don't really compete in my opinion with Solana. So it really is those three players in the layer one space. And I think what Solana is doing for Ethereum is that is providing healthy competition.

It's a sort of accelerationism. And accelerationism partly because of good execution, but also because of contrarianism. Like the way that I think of Anatolia, as is this constantly contrarian person. Like his brain is wired in a very unusual way. And I say this in the best of ways possible. My wife loves this. This is her favorite feature about me. And I think you guys bring forward like interesting insights and you have good vision.

So, for example, I think that you want to build this idea of a global state machine. What does that mean? Global means that a single L1 can support the whole world. Like, in my mind, we're going to see L1s that can support 10 million transactions per second, which is enough for the whole world. It's 100 transactions per second per human per day. And then the other big idea that Solana brings to the table is this idea of synchronicity, that not only is there like high scalability, but also,

Also, different parts of the states can call each other synchronously, at least if you're willing to pay for it. I also think that Solana has very good pace and reactivity. There's been all sorts of issues in the past that we're going to talk about in the bad section. But broadly speaking, it just keeps on checking along and moving along. And in terms of the insights, I think there are real insights that, you know, Anatoly you bring to a table, for example, the fact that we live in this exponential world with Nielsen's law, right? the fundamental bottleneck for scaling blockchains is bandwidth, and we are in this very luxurious position where bandwidth keeps on scaling exponentially. So overall, this is a massive bucket of good for Solano. And I totally, your turn to talk about Ethereum.

What is in the good bucket for Ethereum? I mean, tons of stuff. Like, I think what I envy out of Ethereum is the main net has a very large distributed network across a very large number of physical end nodes. and a very large number of actual internet links. So when you look at it as a whole and you think of what are these networks supposed to do, the mission that Ethereum has,

it's supposed to provide security guarantees that are stronger than an honest majority. If you end up with accepting honest majority guarantees, which is fine for a lot of use cases, it's a multi-sig at the end of the day. I think you just can't really scale it to support the world in a trustless way. You can't have banks and 401Ks and human finance trust some honest majority that could blow up at any moment. Nobody wants that. So you need better than that.

And I think Ethereum has been so hyper-focused on this that when they started working on sharding, they pivoted away from that because there's no way to do it, which is awesome. It's actually like the coolest thing to see somebody be like, you know what, this is not going to work because of the security properties. we care so much about, we're going to work on this other roadmap first, because that one doesn't compromise something really, really important. And the execution for people think Ethereum's moving slow, but if you look at the size of the network, its value, I would be terrified of any changes to Solana if it was at that value. It's just terrifying, right, for something to go wrong.

Outages at that point are much more catastrophic, I think. So Ethereum actually moves pretty fast for project at size. The four clients is awesome. I think this is, again, the biggest thing that you're supposed to provide is this better than honest majority security guarantees. And when you have four clients, you're not trusting a single piece of software. Even with the best of human intentions, it's still written by humans, right? Like the original BFT paper actually talks about it.

You need to have separate teams building stuff in isolation, so you can actually have this fault tolerance across the human bus factor. So there's a lot of envy there. And I think that's awesome. Like from my perspective, Ethereum is at a point where to cause a double spend attack, you need NATO to coordinate across the thousands of different ISPs and to have everyone execute like a thing all at once. And that's, I don't think you can do better than that in the real world.

So it's at a point which I think every other L1 should be envious of in trying to get there as fast as they can't, right, as fast as they reasonably can. All of that, I think, puts it in a class, I think, in my mind, actually above Bitcoin. So for what that's worth. We're starting this off on a very nice foot then. Both you've said nice things about the other's primary ecosystem. And I totally just curious, your reflections on what Justin said about Salana. Do you agree with his characterization? Like, what was going through your mind as Justin was saying these things? Sure. I mean, like, I think I find those to be positives of what Salon has accomplished. I think probably because of my experience working at Qualcomm for like a decade,

I saw how fast Nielsen's law moves and how fast Moore's law moves when it's targeting an industry that's in hypergrowth. And your brain as an engineer shifts, you're not writing for code for hardware today or yesterday even. You're writing for hardware that's going to be out in two to four years. So you're expecting just everything to get faster. So something that I've been like kind of hitting the table with to all the engineers that are working on Solanas, you got to build things to scale as if the hardware is twice as fast. Just assume it's going to be twice as fast, how you're writing the code, who you're designing the SIMDs, and kind of leverage that. And I think that focus has paid off, honestly. Like, that was a big bet that a small team,

like a very small team that had way less funding than all of our competitors took from 2018 to 2020 to launch and we launch faster because we're like, don't make this complicated, just throw a threadpool there. It takes work, right? It takes engineering, but it's much easier to think of problems like, okay, like even look at proof of history. It's not, I remember talking to Justin, like a week after we like became an official company about VDFs. And our solution was this very, very extremely dumb approach. Just verify the VDF with as many core. as you have available to you. And don't worry about this fancy math that I don't understand if it's secure or not. And that worked. So like stuff like this, I think is underappreciated.

And I'm glad that, you know, Justin has recognized that in some ways. So Justin Antalya has said some nice things about Ethereum, said it would take NATO to disrupt the network and cause it double spend. And like maybe they couldn't even do it. It said it's more, I forget the phraseology, Anatoly, but on a higher pedestal than Bitcoin, let's just say. So what was going through your head is Anatoly was extolling the virtues and the values of Ethereum there. Yeah, so one thing that Anatoly said, which I agree with, is that it's kind of bad design nowadays to try and rely on honest majority. And it is true that our previous starting design did rely on this majority. But this is something that we have moved away from just through

technological innovation. So now there's this idea of data availability sampling where you don't have an honest majority, you have an honest minority. And we have this new flavor of sharding, which is dank sharding. And not only have we removed the honest majority assumption, but we've also added synchrony. So it used to be that we had a 10024 or 64 asynchronous shards that would each have its own independent proposer. And instead now we have kind of this one big proposer that basically publishes a big block that everyone is capable of verifying is indeed available using very, very little bandwidth. And this technique is called data validity sampling.

And I think Anatoly had a podcast called No Sharding and eventually decided to change the name. And I think this is good because the fundamentals are really in favor of sharding, or at least dank sharding. In terms of other things that he said, one is that it's very, very difficult to double spend Ethereum. Now, while I agree with that statement, I think this is kind of the wrong lens.

and the reason is that there is a much easier attack than double spend, which is basically around censorship and liveliness. So Anatoly focuses a lot, in my opinion, on safety. And to a very large extent, I agree that safety is not an issue. One, because the validity of blocks can be checked by full node. So if you try and just create an invalid chain, it will just get rejected. And for specifically reorgs and double spends, there's this notion of slashing.

It's just so expensive to do the attack that it's basically impossible. But there is like these more subtle attacks around liveliness and sensual persistence, which I think are the ones that are most important, and I think are ones that Anatoly is under-indexing upon it. Maybe we can talk about this later. And then another thing that Anatoly said is Cindy, and maybe the listener might not know what that means. So I just wanted to highlight it is the equivalent of an EIP for Solana,

and it means Solana improvement document. Beautiful. As we kind of wrap up this good section, I want to give also what chance for each of you guys to maybe elevate something that is unsung about your own ecosystem. So Anatoly talked about what's good about Ethereum. Justin talked about what's good about Solana. All of a sudden, this is really feeling like therapy, but we'll ignore that. There's nothing wrong with therapy, David.

We did not have me for this to feel like a therapy session, but nonetheless, here we are. But Justin, maybe you can advocate for Ethereum. What's something unsung about Ethereum that you think is definitely in the good category that is worth elevating? Of course, we'll go to Anatolia afterwards. Right. So one of my mental models is that the layer one space is winner-take-most. And so we need to ask yourself, who is going to be that winner? Like, what are the shedding points? What are the structural advantages?

And in my opinion, Ethereum has won in the sense that it is the place with the most nansarch effects, with the most liquidity. It is the one that is the most mature, the most secure. And so, you know, that is maybe like the best compliment that you can give to Ethereum is that it's preordained in some sense. and Antonio mentioned to flip Bitcoin and become number one. And you know this meme where there's this guy who says, it's not just about winning, but everyone else needs to lose.

Well, it's a little bit like that just because of market dynamics. Like, I really do see a world where at the layer one level, the network effects are so strong that it makes it extremely difficult to be an alternative layer one. And I think this is one of the struggles that Solana will have going forward. And I totally feel free to reflect upon that. And then also just elevate something that you think that is unsung about Solana that deserves more praise. Yeah, I guess from my perspective, I kind of treat these systems as backend systems. And developers expect to kind of learn and switch every two to five years.

Like, it's just part of life. So it's really, really hard to have a moat. And you see that with languages and databases and stuff like that. Even the Oracle is still around, but makes most of its money through licensing. and people use Redis and SQLite and as hardware improves, SQLite becomes easier and easier to deploy for the kind of use cases that you would need

like Oracle MySQL before. So you kind of have a lot of tension and competition in the back end, even though being first mover is an awesome advantage. I think what's unsung about Solana? Probably that, I think why we're succeeding in a lot of ways is because the developers are not infrastructure focused for the most part. They're focused on apps. So if you look at trying to get users, you need to give them something to use.

Right. Like that's fundamentally, you need to provide value to a user. And if you look at Solana investment dollars are smaller than Ethereum's, but vast majority of them are going to products at or user targeting, you can actually, I don't know if this, this is true or not, I haven't done the numbers, but my guess is that actual product investment to Salon and Ethereum might even be compatible. So what's unsung is that how well the Salana devs are executing on actually user capture, building products and stuff like that, more so than, you know, people talk about Ethereum having network effects. I think most of those around in the infraside, which is just a piece that's not necessary if you have a high performance low-cost chain.

So there. I mean, while I would agree with the statement that Ethereum culture, to a very large extent, focuses on infrastructure historically, I think there is a shift now. So we have L2s like base arbitram optimism where you just come in as a dev and you just don't have to think about infrastructure.

It just scales magically. It just works. You don't have to worry about scaling, about fast confirmations and things like that. And, you know, the metric speaks for themselves, actually. But no trade-offs, right? So there are trade-offs, but they're being taken. And in some sense, what these teams are doing is that they're making even more trade-offs than Solana

and being willing to kind of play the even longer game. In some sense, Solana is like, fake it until you make it. So it comes in a way of like lots and lots of techniques to look at that. And then it's using that as a strategy for user acquisition. And then, you know, as there's a new fire that comes in, you kind of, have to fix your technical debt. And in some sense, what the L2 is all about is playing this game even harder. So, you know, you have chains like base and optimism that don't even have a fraud proof, right?

That's the game that they're willing to play. They're willing to fake it until they make it. They have a totally centralized sequencer. But the good news, the fundamentals is that if you're willing to project ahead, there are ways to decentralize all of these things. So a lot of my personal research in the last, you know, six to 12 months has been around, for example, decentralized pre-confirmations. How can we have the 100 millisecond user experience

that arbitrament base provide but in a decentralized fashion? And it turns out it's not that difficult. And not only that, in some sense, it destroys the user experience of Solana because Solana has 400 millisecond block times. About 5% of the blocks are skipped. And on the other hand, with a decentralized pre-confirmation mechanism that I suggest, you have 100 millisecondesconformation.

So we can have the best of both worlds. We can have, you know, the speed of light pre-confirmations and the decentralization. I think we have moved into the bad section. Squarely feels out of the good section here. Maybe to just set up the bad section. Again, the good, the bad, the ugly. We've moved into the bad. Let's do it.

Bad, like, characterized as, like, temporal, the current problem set, whereas the ugly are things that are just, like, completely untenable, unrecoverable, like, final in nature. But the bad is just like the current problem set of, respective ecosystems. And so we've now drifted into the bad. Justin opened up the good section. So Anatoly, maybe we can throw this one to you. The bad about Ethereum, we've kind of like touched on it a little bit. Justin just touched on it with talking about transaction finality just now. How would you characterize the current problem set, the bad side of Ethereum right now?

I mean, like EVM is really like designed by academics. It's just a VM that like no one with VM experience would have ever built. So there has a lot of technical debt, like design debt. It's fixable, but it's like blood, sweat and tears to do that. And I think you're going to see very slow progress there. And because it's so central, it kind of permeates to everything. Like the expensive L1 and the split between L2s is kind of breaking a lot of the financial dynamics and splitting liquidity, which diminishes the value of Ethereum as an L1, you know, two years ago. So if you're now as an alternative L1, like Solana, you're not really competing with the Ethereum ecosystem.

A developer has to make a decision. Do I deploy on Ethel 1, Ethel 2, or where do I put my focus? I can't focus on all of these different environments at the same time. It is difficult, right? And that means that Solana now being one aggregate layer might be an easier and simpler choice for a lot of devs. So in a lot of ways, that's maybe fixable, but I don't know. That's a hard one.

and because of the split in terms of, like, you're going to have different confirmation semantics, different levels of fraud proofs, different levels of security, people will take those factors into account and they won't all decide to go in one place. So it's going to be very hard to have, like, one single dominant winner. But it's possible there'll be power law distribution there. Are you kind of characterizing that as just like developmental friction? Yeah. It's just like kind of devving through quicksand. Exactly. But the quicksand is, never ending. Like, it's just going to get worse. Like, this is like, I think, kind of this, like,

it's both a strength, but it's a weakness, right? You have a chronocopy of options and too many options create developer friction and create user friction at the top. I think maybe there's decisions that the old one can do on its own, but this is governance and that's above my pay grade. This is interesting in Italy because it feels like you're talking about the bad, but you're also bringing in some of the ugly too, right, in indicating that some of these things might be unresolvable. Would you say that's true or is that a step too far? I think they're hard to resolve.

Okay. They're hard to resolve. Okay. These are hard problems because they require a lot of coordination and potentially sacrificing. But the proof of work to proof of stakes, which sacrificed, right, the POW miners. So it's possible, right? To like, it's possible to fix these, but it's hard.

Justin, back to you. Right. So one of the things that Anatoly asks is, as a dev, should I launch on L1 or L2? Well, I'll answer that for you. You should launch on L2. There is no future for the L1 directly. The L1 is a set-s on a layer. Now, a fair question is which L2?

And the reason why it's a fair question today is because the L-2s are like silos. There's fragmentation on Ethereum. But my vision is that we can fix fragmentation, and there's a whole bankless episode on that, whereby the silos basically meled together. It's almost like what we're left with is the boundaries between a smart contract. You could argue, for example, that AVE and UNISWB being separate smart contracts

are in some sense siloed, but really you benefit from synchronous composability. So synchronous composability is the strongest form of melding and removal of the frontiers. Now, it is true that it's going to take significant amount of engineering to get to this magical land of synchronous composability. And there's two pillars that we're discussed in the episode.

One is shared sequencing. That is actually fairly trivial, technically. It's mostly a coordination thing where we all need as an ecosystem to choose a sequencer that we will use as the shared sequencer that can give us synchronous composability. And I have a specific thesis here, which is that the based sequencer, meaning the L1 sequencer, the Ethereum sequencer itself, is the primary candidate to be that shared sequencer. And then there's this other, like, highly technical thing, which is real-time proving.

And by that, I mean, real-time snock-proving. We need to be able to make a transaction and a few milliseconds later have a snock-proof proving that this transaction is valid. And so now the various L-2s don't need to trust each other. And so now you can send assets in and out of L-2s essentially immediately, and they act like contracts at layer one, where there's no longer this boundary. So yes, today, as a dev, you do have to make a bet, you know, for the short and medium term. But eventually, Ethereum will fix its fragmentation and will be one massive virtual machine. Now, one of the

things that you said is that the EVM, you know, is, for example, hard to parallelize. And, you know, there's just some cap in terms of TPS. That's just one of its problems. Like 32 byte register, storage values. There's like a whole bunch of like things that are like really fugly about it from a VM design perspective. Right. That's fair. But you know, like these 32 bit registers, what do they ultimately impact this performance? So like any single instance of the EVM will have some cap on how many transactions per second they can process. Let's say that this cap is, you know, X. Well, what we can do is just have multiple instances of the EVM, right? We can have a thousand instances. And now, with synchronous composability, if you're willing to pay for this,

then you basically have the ability to spread your state across multiple instances of these EVMs and still have them act like one super EVM. Now, another thing worth mentioning is that we don't have to use the EVM. Like, the beauty of roll-ups is choose your virtual machine. And if it turns out that SVM is like the best and greatest virtual machine for the rest of humanity, well, guess what? what we're going to see is we're going to see SVM roll-ups.

And there's actually teams building exactly that. One of the best teams on Solana has migrated away from Solana is now building an L2. They're building a roll-up on Ethereum, putting the SVM there, and essentially decided to really buy into this thesis that the L-1 is when it take most, and Solana's probably not going to make it as an L-1. And so really the next best thing that they can do

is launch as a roll-up on Ethereum and be a dominant execution chain on top of the Internet of value. I think you're a little bit misstating their intentions. They're going to run a product on Solana and one on Ethereum. I don't think they're going to migrate away. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you,

but you're kind of overselling that part of it. No, this is the end of my rent. You don't have to use the EVM. If it turns out SBM is the answer, Ethereum will use the SVM. So the core benefit of what Solana does is global synchronization. And when you move stuff into L2s and pre-confirmation,

you're effectively running a centralized exchange. Like, it's trustless and you can verify it, but you have a single spot, whether you're trading in New York or Singapore, where stuff happens. And that's fine, but that's not a single giant global state machine. Like the whole point of Solana is to synchronize data around the world.

The fact that it's high throughput, the fact that it's in parallel, and all this other stuff, these are secondary effects. And why data synchronization is really, really important is because if an event happens in Singapore, that Newswire has to go travel to the market where it's executing in New York. And by the time it gets there, what I want is the markets running in Solana to already reflect that price. So a trader that gets at Newswire in New York cannot arbitrage it between their centralized

L2, their NASDAQ exchange, doesn't really matter to me what that is. is with sub-millis-second pre-confirmations in that little region, it's going to be as good at price discovery as this giant state machine that is propagating information around the world as fast as possible. And the part where it's high throughput is kind of a side effect of us needing to get to that low latency and global distribution of data because that requires parallelism and a whole bunch of cores and fast links and all this other stuff. That's the core important part that Solana brings to the world. So when all these SVMs and everything else launch in these separate little environments, that's fine. It's just Solana's competing with centralized

exchanges. It's competing with Binance. It's competing with NASDAQ. And all those things are faster than those L2s. But what they can't do is the fact that if some event happens anywhere in the world, you can permissionously change the price of a market that is impacted by that news event in Singapore and be competitive with everyone. That's the really, really cool part. And when I think about like the world and the future, like 100 years from now, in sci-fi finance land, I see that as the winning piece. I don't see all this merit of different environments with local markets and local information kind of synchronizing in these local spots. I see one giant state machine with neutrinos going through the center of the earth because that's faster.

So you're highlighting three things. One is that we're talking about throughput. Two is that there's latency. And then three is this idea of synchronicity where everything comes together. And you're saying that throughput is not very important. It's a commodity and everyone has it. Great. I would say that's maybe one of Ethereum's biggest weaknesses.

And so if it's going to become a commodity soon, that's all the better for Ethereum. Now, the other thing that you brought up is synchronicity. And here I do think we can fix Ethereum's asyncrony using real-time proving and chat sequencing. So now let's focus on the middle one, which is what you say is the most important, which is the latency aspect. You can't fix the shared sequencing

by moving it all into one giant block producer because then that thing is the NASDAQ. All the information happens there, right? And if I'm jump or whatever, I just run my shit right next to it. One thing that we do agree upon is this idea of having very sophisticated block builders and having unsophisticated,

validators. This is part of your endgame vision. And really what we're saying here is that the sophisticated entity, which is only the leader for a very small amount of time for 12 seconds in the case of Ethereum, is getting rotated on a continuous basis. Now, are you saying that this number 12 seconds is just too long because there's just too much time to have a monopoly on the global state? Our goal is, you know, the latency around the world is around 120 milliseconds with speed of light through fiber. If we get to neutrinos, it'll be like 40 or whatever, but we're not there yet. I want multiple block producers on Solana rotating every 120 milliseconds. So there's one in Singapore, one in New York, one in every region in the world, as many as we need, and every 120

milliseconds they switch. That's the end state. What you're saying basically is that whoever is the sophisticated entity that has monopoly over the next 12 seconds. They act like some sort of centralized exchange, and this is not great. Well, there's a few things here. One is that I expect transactions to eventually become encrypted. So today we have plain text mempools, and soon we're going to have encrypted mempools. All these tradeoffs will delay when information it becomes globally available. Okay, so we are talking about latency.

I thought we're talking about the... There's multiple variables to optimize, and this is. is the challenge. Like, if you encrypt data and it's revealed later, you're delaying when that data is available to the rest of the global markets. If you have a fully homomorphic encryption, you can execute the transaction immediately, even though it is encrypted. But the result of that is important to the rest of the world. So me as a market maker, and if I'm putting price at risk, and this shit happens later, and I can't respond and cancel. You can respond. It means that I have to have wider spreads. Well, I can't.

because it's fully homomorphically encrypted. Well, I can come in with a transaction which says if the price is X under the encryption scheme, you know, do such and such action. So I can still arbitrage the market, even though they're encrypted. Then when me knowing when this stuff is actually executed or not is delayed and that increases spreads, there's a system where everything is executed as fast as possible and that information is available as fast as possible to the entire world. That system will have the low.

spreads and the best price discovery. That's the ideal. Okay, so you want the decryption to happen as fast as possible. Now, here's the thing. We can have the decryption happen in a matter of milliseconds. And the reason is that we can have decentralized pre-confirmations. We can be in a position where the entity that is receiving these encrypted transactions can commit to including those or including them in a specific order. And once the commitment has been made, If they were to change their mind, they would lose a very large bond that they put forward. So those are communication cycles.

There are hops there. It's one round of latency, which is the same as with Solana. If I want to interact with Solana, I need to do at minimum one round of latency. Sure. But the goal there is that you submit and you know that it's going to be accepted simply because the block producer has accepted it and has very low probability of failing at that point. So you as a trader, you can start building on the next block as if that data is already there and the market's already reflecting it. Okay, so you're saying there's two rounds of latency instead of one round of latency.

Basically, there's one round to send your encrypted transaction, get a pre-confirmation, and then the second round in order to actually know what the result is. But actually, that can be reduced to maybe one and a half rounds of latency because as soon as... The easiest way for Ethereum to have this is to just take so long. Lana blocks and dump them into Ethereum DA and say that Solana's an Ethereum L2. Right. And be done with it. One of the things that we're not ready to do is have these really short block times. And we'll talk about this in the ugly section.

And the reason is that that introduces ugly timing games. And that starts weakening the security of the chain. So one of the concepts, but again, we'll talk about it later, is slot to ping ratio. the slot duration, for example, in the case of Ethereum is 12 seconds, and ping time roughly, let's say, is 100 milliseconds just to make the math easy. So we have a slot to ping ratio of 120. You have a slot to ping ratio of four. And I believe as soon as you get kind of close to one, even four is kind of relatively close, you start getting these weird effects where even optimizing, you know, a few milliseconds gives you a crazy edge. And so then you end up in a

position where all the participants, the validators, the block builders, everyone is basically, you know, building radio towers and, you know, programming FPGAs. It is not fine for the validators to have to have access to radio towers. That is not fine. The verifiers don't. Like, the validators are the people verifying the data. They're going to be receiving it sprayed around the world. I don't think that matters there. We've already seen time in games in Solana, where the validators are willing to wait a little bit so they have a bit more information. They can get a similar edge just by optimizing their latency and using radial towers. That's fine.

It's not fine because what will end up happening is that only the validators with the best infrastructure will survive and everyone else will have a suboptimal yield. Let's say the yield is whatever X percent. Well, we're going to have those that get X percent and those that get half of X. What's the difference between the supermev optimized yield Ethereum versus plain vanilla yield? Is it 4.4 versus 4.44 or something like that? One of the things I've tried to do when thinking about Solana is actually trying to steal Manit. And it turns out that block building specifically, and I think this is something you might agree with, is something that can be decoupled from validation. Yeah, totally.

So we already have proposed a build of separation, but we can go even further. we have this notion called execution tickets, we have this notion called execution auctions. I don't think all the latency games with block building and MV will be relevant in the long term. So that's squarely kind of a temporary bad thing. But what is much more fundamental is timing game for attestors,

those that are making the votes. They are meant to be as unsophisticated as possible, and I think this is something you agree with. Now, if I am an attester, a voter, that has, let's say, 20 milliseconds or 50 milliseconds, millisecond edge over all my other fellow attesters, I'm going to be making more money. How? How? Because I'm going to be making more informed vote.

Like, whenever I vote, I'm going to be voting correctly on the head as opposed to voting on some sort of block that gets reorged and then me not getting... The way that Solana distributes data is we get effectively a sample that the rest of the network has to block. So there's very little to optimize there. It's a very small portion of the overall returns for the validator to skip. to never pick a bad fork. It's a 100th of a percentage. Because the way turbine works is that you receive a whole bunch of samples from the rest of the network, and you know that everyone in the network got the

block. So if you vote on it, you know that everyone else is going to vote on it. Like, you don't need to wait two to 50 milliseconds to see, do I see anyone else vote on it and vote on it too, especially in the environment where the validators don't execute any code, they just vote on, did they receive the data, are we picking this fork or not? Like, when you look at Solana, it's a long run of blocks that are all built on top of heaviest fork. So what percentage of blocks actually are forked? This is 5%. So like 5% of your votes are skewed.

It's an insignificant difference in return. But that's today, but that's not the fundamentals. And the reason is that put yourself in the shoes of a, block builder sophisticated, who has the right to build the next block. No, like, what they're going to do... The returns from votes are not tied to the value of the block. Well, they are, they are. It's subtle. Put yourself in the shoes of a block builder for the next lot.

What they want to do is they want to gossip and build their block at the very last moment. And the reason is that from their perspective, every millisecond counts. And what they're going to do is that they're going to gossip the block right at the point where whatever a number of votes they need, let's say it's two-thirds. Let's say they need two-thirds for their block to get accepted. They're going to gossiping just at the point where two-thirds plus one of the validators are going to see it. And then one-third of the validators, they're just not going to see it in time. And so they're going to vote on some parent or some other block. And they're going to get penalized. And these effects are just massively amplified when the slot-to-pink ratio is too

small. That's not what we see in the data. You actually see... That's because today the blockchain chain is immature. Revenue on... We don't even have PBS on Solana. Just come on, you're not a mature chain right now. Revenue on Solana is equal to Ethereum, L1. Yeah, but you don't have PBS. This is something that's coming soon, presumably.

Like, I'm going to have a call with the Gito guys on PBS specifically. Like, this is something that is basic infrastructure in 2024 that you don't have. The actors on Solana are not acting rationally. Like, they're just running the default software because they're not sophisticated. But over time, and this is something that we've learned. Because the amount of benefit that you get is insignificant. Because you only have 400 milliseconds to build your block. You will get overrun by the next guy.

And if you will miss your block, you miss it. You miss all the rewards there. You said it yourself. You only have 400 milliseconds. So let's say that you have a tiny edge. Let's say you have 40 millisecond edge. That's 10% more. Why would you wait to transmit your block at the last moment

and let the next guy an opportunity to overrun you? Why wouldn't you transmit your block as fast as possible? Because you're going to submit it right at the point where two thirds of the validators are going to see it on time. And one further of the validators are going to be excluded. Why is that more profitable than to do the default? Because you win a few more milliseconds versus the naive strategy. Millisseconds in terms of what? METH? Yeah. Yeah. And like if you have 400 milliseconds slot times, four milliseconds is 1%. And as a block builder, I'm competing relative to the other builders. And so my profit margin might only be 1%. And so by having a four minutes second edge, I could double my profit margin. I don't think so. I just don't see that as like a realistic result. Like look at Ethereum. Look at Ethereum right now. What is the difference between a totally no-mav client and a fully maximum Mv client in terms of APY? It's huge. It's like something like 2x difference. No, it's not. It's like 4.4 versus 4.5 APY. No. Justin, can you kind of help us handhold of some of the listeners who might have lost the threat a little bit?

You're doing some MEV calculations with regard to block times. And I think you're alluding to an acceleratingly centralizing network as a result of increased value capture. Can you kind of present some napkin math and where that actually points to your conclusion? Right. So as a rough heuristic, MEV grows linearly with time. So if you have, you know, 400 milliseconds, that's worth twice as much as having 200 milliseconds. And one way to think about it is that there's twice as many transactions that come in during this period of time, and so twice as many fees. It's not true, though, because a lot of transactions land before your slot. So you have accumulated more than a block's worth of transactions prior to your slot.

And then you may get 400 milliseconds more, but your period of when you're actually receiving data is any time. Just like I'm in a mempool, people just submit shit. ahead of time. So you have a bunch of data that you can work with. The extra 400 milliseconds account for a very small window of that. So when you're cutting that 4%, you're talking about getting the very last bit of people that are trying to snipe something. Maybe. Or just stare late in the one they clicked something. Look, I'm one of the operators of the ultrasound relay, which is the top relay on Ethereum. And I have very good visibility on timing games. You know, all the

the builders will collocate, all the relays will do crazy optimizations to shave a few milliseconds. Sure. This thing is real, even with 12-second block times. It's going to get insane when the block times are 400 milliseconds, because the marginal improvement is, you know, for every, let's say, millisecond that you get, from a relative standpoint, it's much bigger, you know, return on investment than with Ethereum you have 12 seconds.

I think when you have high throughput, the number of transactions you're dealing with is much higher, and any individual one, the ROI is much lower. So you're like talking about median fee in Solana is 0.2 cents. So that extra 400 milliseconds, even, over the amount of time that you're waiting and receiving transactions is accounting for a very small amount of actual fees. No, I mean, if your start time is 400 milliseconds and you have a 200 millisecond edge, which you wouldn't, that's too high, but let's say you have a 40 millisecond edge, then you get 10% more time to build your blocks. And you get 10% more transactions and therefore more fees.

But you don't because you get a bunch of transactions before your block starts. But these are the ones that the previous builder didn't want to pick. Like they're like garbage transactions. No, these are just people retransmitting and trying to land. And like they're not garbage transactions. They're high value transactions. Okay, but that retransmission is a Solana problem. Like this is not something that we have in the context of Ethereum.

In the context of Ethereum, we have low-valued. transactions that kind of just sit in the mempool for slots and slots and slots. They're all over. That don't get picked up. Like the median transaction fee in Solana is 0.2 cents. So 50% of... It doesn't matter what the medium transaction fees. Sure.

So the average transaction fee is two cents, let's say. That last 200 milliseconds is going to get you 500 times, what, two cents worth of extra data maybe at the best. But don't you just make it up on volume? I think that's Justin's point is like, sure, we're measuring things in milliseconds. but Justin's talking about it being relative. Those transactions are not higher ROI. Go compute this. Go look at the flooded transactions and see,

do you actually get higher value transactions in the last 40 milliseconds versus the first? And even then, does it even matter to delay sending the previous transactions versus just I have 400 milliseconds left in my block? I will take the highest paying transactions at the last moment and send those out. like there's no real like you have to show me that there's a massive financial advantage to not transmit

whatever you have early in the block because you only have 400 milliseconds and you got to generate those sticks and send them out and this is happening in salana in a current environment we only have one block producer but the design is for concurrent block producers so now you have multiple block producers around the world that are not aware of what each the other one has so they have to race to fill the block together. And if they delay and that one particular one gets dropped, that guy has pushing his boundary of terms of losing all his block rewards. I feel like some of these details maybe require some follow-up, like after the episode, if Justin wants to like prove something to Anatolian, Anatoly wants to refute it. The interesting point here is I think the goal of Salon

is to solve these problems with hardware. We reduce the block times to what the physical limit allows, let's say 120 milliseconds. We have multiple block producers that requires more bandwidth, so we need more cores and bigger pipes. And we create this very highly competitive environment from the hardware itself. So when you have these games,

it's very, very hard to get an edge over the default. And that's possible you may get an edge in any given time, but it's not going to be 20x or 10x. It's going to be basis points. So I want to zoom out at this point. So last time we kind of handed the mic to Anatoly, who mentioned the bad. If I were to summarize the bad, it's almost like the bad and the ugly. I think what you were saying, Anatoly, we got in the minutiae of like, you know, millisecond block times and M.EV and all of this. But I think what you're saying is the reason Ethereum is under optimized is because it's not doing transaction confirmation as close to the speed of light as possible, right? And like it's not propagating this global shared state at that level. And the longer the window you have. the longer that window is for front running and queue jumping, and the transactions go up,

and the spreads go up, and the fees go up, and the worst experience it is for users. Okay. So, Justin, what's your take on that? Without going to the minutia, I don't know if you want to steal a man and his holy's case for this, but, like, why does Ethereum not do this? Why is this not bad for Ethereum not to, you know, optimize for a global shared state at near the speed of light, as he's saying in the way he's saying it? Maybe give your reason for that, and then maybe you could get into some of the bad, you know, that you see on the Salana side of things. So one of the pieces of good news here is that at the end of the day, it's largely a parameter. Like, it's some sort of number that we can pick.

How many milliseconds per slot? Is it 400? Is it, you know, 12,000? And if they got it wrong, then, you know, maybe this is something that we can change. The way that I see it is that it boils down to this slot-to-pink ratio. So, like, we're bottlenecked by speed of light here. it takes roughly 130 milliseconds for light to go all around the earth

and ping times, you know, roughly can be approximated as 100 milliseconds. And what happens is that there's boundary effects between the slots that are on the order of this ping time. This is where the so-called timing games can be played. So if you have 120, you know, ping times that are all, you know, one next to the other and then you concatenate the next one,

like where they touch each other, like where there's potential, for timing game is actually very, very small. But once your slot times become so, so small, then the edge cases start to accumulate. All of Salonah Engineering isn't solving that. And this is how turbine and provisistry and all this stuff works well together,

is that boundary is deterministic from any validator's perspective. So when you receive all the data from potentially n number of block producers, how you receive it gives you a very, very good statistical guarantee that everyone else saw the exact same partition as timeliness is fundamentally subjective. There's no way to have a global agreement on when we receive. Every different validators sees the packets at different points in time.

All of our engineering is to make the best case, the average case. This is what all of Solana's engineering is about. What will happen is that the block builders will gossip the block just at the right point so that two thirds of the validators see it on time. They vote. The block gets accepted. And then one third of the validators are left in the dust. they can't do that because of how the blocks have to propagate through turbine. There's a deterministic path that shuffles the data around the world with erasure codes. So when I receive it and recover that block, I know that with a very high guarantee that everyone else has done the same thing. So when I vote, based on that information, it's very, very sound. Yes, but what you're talking about

here with ratio codes is data availability. I'm talking about timeliness, which is a different thing, which is when on my clock, which millisecond did it arrive? And fundamentally, different routes on the internet take different amounts of time. There's jitter. There's all sorts of issues.

And we sample all the routes. So when 50% of my routes for every shred that has to take a different path around the network arrive, I know that statistically they have arrived for the vast majority of the network as well. So when I vote,

I know it arrived for everyone else. The end game is that the builders have a direct pipe to two-thirds of the closest validators. They don't. It's not on Solana. They can. It's just an implementation detail. There's nothing in consensus that prevents them to just have a direct pipe,

even like collocation. Justin, why does that matter? Why does any of this even matter? Why have we been talking about this for so long? There's a global world, right? Your direct pipe is as fast as everyone else's, because you still have to get your blocks to the validator and the other side of the world. It has to go

through the same fiber. The reason is matters is because it is a centralization vector. What happens is that elevates the barrier to entry. In order to even be able to play the game, you need to have outstanding networking infrastructure. You don't. And by outstanding,

I mean above and beyond what is available to the commoner. Every commoner can go look through their phone book and find a data center in their city that has... Data centers won't make it. And part of the reason is that you're going to need access to private links that only the HFT firms have. that is where we're heading.

No, you don't. If the Salana network is actually distributed around the world, sure, in the world where everyone stuffs older validators in like two data centers, that's bad. But if the validators are actually physically distributed around the world, those HFT links are not going to help you. There's going to be incentives for the validators to migrate. Why?

Why? Because they're going to be closer to the builders, therefore they're going to be able to make better votes and therefore have a higher return. Again, like I've said, you can't make better votes to get an edge when every block is built on top of the heaviest fork. And you have statistical sample that tells you, yeah, everyone else saw this block. This is the whole point of Salana's design is to eliminate the forking choice from that as much as possible.

So Anatole, is your prediction that making these design decisions for Solana will not result in centralization of the network in the way Justin's describing? And Justin is your prediction that these design decisions will centralize the network in the way that you're describing. it feels like we won't be able to resolve this in the scope of this conversation. We just have to kind of wait. Do we not? And like, do we have any concrete predictions that either of you would make some point in the future so that we could look back on maybe years from now and say, oh, you know, this is how it happened. You know, like one of us was more right than the other. Justin, do you have a concrete prediction here as to like what the outcome of this might become so we can table this topic and move on? Yes. So if Solana does go forward, you know, towards its endgame,

where it reduces slot times to the minimum, let's say 100 milliseconds, and this is my understanding of what Anatoly wants to achieve, then yes, I think we're going to see hypercentralization within any given slot. So in slot N, what we're going to see is like all your testers

just being in a data center or in a few data centers that are all proximate to each other. And Anatoly, if you are right, none of that happens, right? Kind of like the properties Solana has today remain in place. It doesn't centralize the way Justin's talking.

I think if the, parameters are set correctly that we have like, you know, 130 millisecond block times, you can have a validator anywhere in the world and vote and you will get about the same API as anyone else. All right. I think the difference is going to be basis points. Well, we'll have to see in the future. We'll have to replay this episode, this clip in particular, and see which prediction pans out. Selo is the mobile first and EVM compatible blockchain that's built for the real world and designed for fast, low cost payments worldwide. Driving real world use cases like Opera MiniPay, one of the fastest growing Web3 wallets with over 2 million users across Africa.

Selo is seeing a meteoric rise with over 375 million transactions and a million monthly active users. Not to mention Tether and Circle just deployed native USDT and USCC on SLO, supported by leading exchanges like finance. And now SELO is looking to come home to Ethereum as a layer two. With a game-changing proposal core contributors at C-Labs aims to leverage optimism's OP stack pioneering a transition as the biggest L-1 to become a layer two, with test net arriving as early as summer 2024.

With the cello layer 2, gas fees will stay low and users can even pay for gas using ERC 20 tokens, including native USC and USDT, sending crypto to phone numbers across wallets using social connect. But cello is a community governed protocol. Make your voice heard in the cello forum to shape the future of Ethereum. Follow at Sello on Twitter and explore the ecosystem built for the real world on cello.org slash quests. New projects are coming online to the Mantle layer 2 every single week. Why is this happening?

Maybe it's because Mantle has been on the frontier of layer 2 design architecture. since it first started building Mantle DA, powered by technology from EigenDA. Maybe it's because users are coming onto the mantle layer two to capture some of the highest yields available in Defy, and to automatically receive the points and tokens being accrued by the $3 billion mantle treasury in the Mantle reward station. Maybe it's because the Mantle team is one of the most helpful teams to build with,

giving you grants, liquidity support, and venture partners to help bootstrap your Mantle application. Maybe it's all of these reasons all put together. So if you're a dev and you want to build on one of the best foundations in crypto, or your user looking to claim some ownership on Mantle's defy apps, click the link in the show notes to getting started with Mantle. Launching a token, worried about the IRS. Talk to Toku for five minutes to learn how to save hundreds of thousands of dollars for you,

your team, and your investors. Now, if you do an initial consultation, Toku will cover the cost of your token valuation, which is what you need for your launch. So, don't wait, reach out to the team right now at team at Toku.com. That's team at t-o-k-u.com. we're still on kind of the bad section. I think that was definitely the ugly section.

Yeah, it's all combining, isn't it? Justin, do you want to give your take on either the bad, the ugly, or both for the Salinaside? That's outside of the scope of the conversation that we just had. So something new. Yeah, I mean, I didn't touch upon the bad facts, but in some sense, they're not really important. And as David said, they will just dwindle with the passage of time. So there's all sorts of bad facts like the outages, you know, being very proximate to the largest financial fraudster since made of, the misleading marketing. Even today, I went on Solana

Compass. I thought this marketing was kind of gone, but still there's this marketing that Solana can do 65,000 transactions per second, which is, first of all, that was a claim that was made four years ago, and it's still not achieved. You can go run the code yourself and test it at a very, very simple transfer. Okay, show me on production. There's also bad present facts. There's no client diversity, there's no formal spec, there's no PBS, there's just general immaturity. But again, I think these are not fundamental things because they're being worked on. There's another client being worked on. I'm sure there's some academic somewhere that's working on a formal spec. And I do know that Gito is working on PBS. So all of these things will get a result. But then there's

a final category of items in this bad bucket, which is the bad takes. And in my opinion, there's a couple of bad takes, Anatoly, that you have been spreading, which hopefully this podcast can help you spread less. One is this idea that issuance is not a cost to the network. Now, there's a very simple reason why it is a cost and it has to do with taxes. My assumption, Anatoly, is that you pay your taxes. Is that correct? Of course. Okay. So if you were to stake and you were to make, let's say, a million dollars of income staking, my understanding is that you're based in California, and I looked it up, the income taxes in California is roughly 50%. So you will have to pay half a million dollars of income taxes on your staking.

That is direct sell pressure. That is a cost to the network. Now, Solana is roughly speaking a $100 billion network. Cell pressure is not a cost. Wow. We have to go into this. Okay. Wow.

Like the value of an asset is not determined by how much is sold. if you're talking about how much Apple stock somebody sells is not a cost to Apple. Okay, so someone has to pay for these costs. So, for example, in Bitcoin, like someone has to pay for the electricity, someone has to pay for the e-waste and the hash rate. That is a cost. Yes. That is an actual cost to run the network.

That's a physical cost. Yes, it's a physical cost. Sure. Then, like, taxes, even though it's like not physical. So every share of Apple stock sold is a cost to Apple. No, like, let's say that there were no taxes. Let's say that we live in the world without taxes. So if I sell Apple stock and I pay taxes on it, that's a cost to Apple.

No, this is different. Are you differentiating, Anataly, between a cost to Apple and, like, sell pressure? Are these kind of different concepts in your mind? Cell pressure is a local event that's temporal, but the value of the company is based on Apple. It's based on their future cash flow. And in the U.S., the monetary market will expand to capture that value. somebody will go buy all that stock because the future cash flow of Apple is worth so much. So like selling Apple stock is not a cost to Apple.

That's like obvious to everyone. Apple does not issue stock to pay for its security. So Solana is a roughly $100 billion network, roughly $500 billion network, roughly 5% of issuance per year, which means that... It's not for security. Which means that two point five... Security of the network doesn't come from the issue. That's absurd. $2.5 billion per year of taxes

is being borne by the Solana token holders. If we were to live in the world where there were no taxes, then this cell pressure would not exist. That is definitely a burden to the network. This is like a complex thing to analyze because people that are offshore can earn their rewards offshore and only pay taxes on value they really,

appropriate to the US. Okay, but let's take your example. Sure. Anatoli, do you contribute to sell pressure of Solano? Probably. Okay. But like... Is that a burden to... Sure. And I pay my taxes. Okay, good. Yeah, of course.

So sure, like some fraction... That does not change the future cash flow of any asset. Like when somebody sells their stock. So it has no relevance on that. It is the exact same thing as proof of work. In the context of proof of work, It's absolutely the opposite of proof of work. Proof of work actually have to go buy electricity and burn an external exogenous asset to run this thing.

You have to go buy an exogenous asset called US dollars in order to be able to pay your taxes. And in doing so, you're selling your Solana. That's not a cost of the network. And Atolle, you said something else here, which is like issuance does not provide economic security. Did I hear you correctly there? I'm wondering if you could say that again. First, it does not provide security. Security of the network is the physical boxes in life.

links. Like, if I'm running a system that cares about detecting double spans and invalid state transitions, I run a whole bunch of nodes, a whole bunch of clients, and make it really, really hard for an attacker to partition my clients such that they can double spent. So if they try to double spend, they have to reveal two headers to two different sides of the network, and they don't know which nodes are mine. Right. So it becomes the more nodes I run, and the longer I wait, the harder it is for the attacker to do the double spend. So it's irrelevant. This is why we don't see double spends on the Salana test net.

We have as much economic security in the Salon of Tasnet as the Ethereum Maina. It's as good at defending against double spends. The Chihuahua Tenderman chain has seen as many double spend attacks as Ethereum Maynet, because it's as good as defending it against double spends as Ethereum Maynath. So this ties into the second bad take that you've just spread and you're constantly spread, which is basically that you're saying that economic security is a meme. 100%. And you are right in the sense that economic security is not necessary to verify the correctness of blocks.

I run a full node. If a block's invalid, I just filter it out. And then there's two other things that economic security could potentially be helpful for. One is, as you said, double spends. Now, it turns out that doing a double spend, you need to have a very, very good reason for doing so. And there's a little bit of a tangent, but we can also just completely solve double spends with cryptography. There's this notion called one-shot signatures. And it turns out double spends is not fundamental to consensus. But now let's focus on where economic security is fundamental, which is to do with liveliness and censorship resistance.

Let's say that I can 51% attack a chain. Then what I can do is I can selectively filter out transactions. For example, I can filter out Oracle transactions. I could filter out liquidations. I could filter out fraud proofs. I could filter out buy orders or sell orders. I can manipulate markets. Now, let's say that I can make a billion dollars manipulating markets through the selective censorship. And the economic security is, let's say, $1 million. Well, now it's a no-brainer for me to invest the $1 million to go 51% attack and make a billion dollars of profit. And so economic security is not a meme. It is fundamental to resistance. When you talk about security, it implies safety. No. This is probably... There's two aspects of security, safety and liveliness. This is basics. Sure. But when we talk about security, you would want to play safety over liveliness. No, no, no. They both are important. So you would allow a network to run with an invalid state transition and under any circumstances.

No, no, they're both important. We've talked about this. The invalid state transitions are easy to fix. just because you can run a full node and you can just discard them immediately. This is something that has been known for 15 years since Bitcoin. Sure. If you run a full Bitcoin node and some sort of minor tries to create an invalid Bitcoin chain that prints 10 trillion BTC, it will just get rejected. Of course. And that could cause a liveliness failure if the vast majority of the network is trying to produce invalid blocks.

You have no confirmation, you can't tell, right? It's effectively a liveliness failure. So you pick safety over liveliness. Any case, like economic security to a lot of folks implies safety. No. So when we talk about censorship resistance and liveliness, it does have impact there, but it does not provide enough. So it's not a meme. Oh, I think my point is that other networks, like tendermint networks, like Chihuahua chain, like the Salonah TestNet, provide equivalent amount of security there,

even for aliveness and censorship resistance. Yes. No. Because I go on Chihuahua, I buy whatever required number of tokens. Let's say you spend $10 million to get enough tokens, Chihuahua tokens, to go 51% attack it. And you take Olomav for a day. Yes. And people recognize that you take Olimb and they fork and slash you.

Okay. So you do agree that now it basically depends on how much profit you make. Now, we have ambition in the theorem, which is to be the intent of value. We want to have trillions, tens of trillions of dollars that are settled and traded on Ethereum. If you can disrupt the internet of value, even for one hour, even for one minute, that is worth an insane amount of money. It's not.

And we cannot have tens of trillions of dollars secured by $1 billion of economic security. The rest of the world runs on T plus 2 to T plus 10 settlement. it handles trillions of dollars, it has outages all the time and liveness failures, it works. So you're trying to replace it with a better system, I get it, but you can't tell me that an hour outage or 10-hour outage is fundamentally going to stop the world and everyone's going to be a panic on fire. That's just bullshit. Yeah, economic security protects against a very specific attack, but that attack does not exist on any other chain because it requires more than

epsilon stake. You have to go by a huge chunk. It's detected. Once it's detected, the attacker is slashed. So that effect exists on every chain. The fact that it's detectable and the fact that it's easy to and trivial to slash, those are the things that secure the Salana TestNet and the tenderman Chihuahua chain. And this is why you don't see these attacks anywhere. So you can't tell me why this meme is bad. It's like you're using it as bad marketing. Ethereum has World War III level economic security is bullshit. Because one, I can't tell looking at the stake, and there's no way you can prove to me that all of that stake didn't come from the ICO. There's zero way you can guarantee that the cost basis for all the current stakers

is not what they pay, like the ICO price. There's no way you can prove that. It's impossible. I trust that it's not because I'm a rational person that believes in mostly functioning markets, and most people are honest and stuff like that. But if we're doing hard analysis and like, what can we actually prove? You cannot prove that. So the actual economic security, based on some number based on a current spot market price,

is meaningless. Real security is detectable. It's appearing in any network. And that's why we don't see them in even test nuts. No. So I think we've agreed that economic security is not a beam because it is relevant to this one specific. It is a beam.

Because it is relevant. to this attack called censorship and lifeness failure. It's a meme because every proof of stake network does as good of a job defending against that as Ethereum may not. Okay, so what you're saying basically is that if this attack were to happen, then the social layer can come in and do social slashing, which is correct. But there's a few points here.

One, social interventions are extremely expensive. We've gone through one in Ethereum's history. It's called Ephraim Classic. is called the Dell, it's not something that you want to go into. So it's what, $300 billion worth of economic security to defend against an attack that never happens in any proof of stick network. But it's not a meme. It's never happened because two things need to happen.

One is you need to have a sophisticated attacker who knows about this attack and is willing to plan it. And two, the incentives need to be there. Right now, almost all of the value secured on Ethereum is ether itself, and it's staking. So in some sense, there's nothing to attack. But project yourself 10 years in the future where there's, you know, tens of trillions, hundreds of trillions. I could potentially take over an Ethereum test nut, cause it to double spend, right, with my economic attack while shorting Ethereum and say, look, there's a bug in Ethereum. Everyone panics, Ethereum drops. Yeah, but this is actually And there's a massive economic incentive to attack an Ethereum test nut that has zero cost, right?

I assume in terms of economic security. Yes, so this particular attack wouldn't necessarily work because the social layer knows that it can fork it and it doesn't affect the rest of the market. But once you're willing to censor oracles, you're willing to censor for proofs and sensor liquidations and market buys and market sales, then you're in a position where you can harvest toxic MEV. and if the amount of toxic MV that you can harvest is greater than the cost of attack, then yes, it's going to happen. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Now, you said that the social layer can intervene. That is correct, but that is a very expensive process. How is it any more expensive than rebooting from an outage?

Well, in the case of Solana, these outages don't have real significance because there's no value on Solana. It has the same revenue as Ethereum. It's not about revenue. It's about like TVL and things that. Solana has 0.7% of all USDT. It is like minuscule. Why are outage is important for TVL that's sitting at rest and doing nothing? Why is revenues what's actually important?

No, no. It needs to be active. So there needs to be over collateralized loans. Which is determined by revenue, right? A proxy for all that activity is actual on-chain revenue. No, like a lot of the revenue for the validators, you know, come in this form of. of sandwiching, right? Like, this is one of the primary forms of revenue on Solana right now.

Sure. So, MIV plus priority fees on Salon are about equal to Ethereum L1. No. We're talking about, like, really, really toxic levels of MEP. Like, sandwiching is nothing compared to the type of MEV that you can harvest if you were to do a 31% attack. So if somebody does that, and that's bad, the network halts, slashes them and moves on. And that's a 24-hour thing.

Okay, let's say I can make $10 billion from this attack, and it only cost me $1 billion. that is a bad outcome. It's unlikely that that could be true because you would have to go buy up all of this. It seems unlikely that the revenues within 24 hours, the maximum MED revenues could be that high. $10 billion that are, basically the threshold here is if it takes 24 hours to go, fuck over this attacker, right? They're doing the bad thing. Everyone halts.

They get slashed in the fork and everyone continues. That's a 24-hour process, maybe. They have to make more money than 50% of the stake within that 24 hours. Okay, so there's a couple things here. One is that they can pick whatever 24 hours has the most impact. Like, they can pick whenever the Fed decides to change their rates or whatever. Sure. So there's the potential for revenue, right?

Secondly, it doesn't take 24 hours. Like, we're talking potentially an event that can take, you know, days to resolve. And thirdly, in your... endgame document, one of the things that you highlight Anatoly is this idea of sampling committees. You talk about committees of size 200, where let's say you have 20,000 validators, you pick a committee of size 200, and now only 1% of the validators are in control of the chain for a whole epoch, which is, let's say, two days. What are you going to do? You're going to slash one third of the 1%, which is like 0.3%. And now the attacker can do the attack again and again and again and again.

And so what you're suggesting in your game is ugly because the social slashing doesn't even work there. I would imagine the stake representation there is going to be higher than 1%. Simply because when you're sampling like power law distribution of nodes, your 200 nodes already make up more than 50% of Ethereum. What an attacker will do is that they'll spread their stake equally across validators. But then they're not going to be a majority in the subcommittee. if you have like 10% of the stake, you're going to have 10% of the subcommittee.

In any case, there is like a degradation of the amount that is slashed. You're not going to slash the whole attacker. The attacker can do the attack several times. Sure. And again, that's just like in Chihuahua chain. They buy 10 million worth of Chihuahua coins. They do the attack. They get detected.

They get slashed. This is why it doesn't happen. Because the revenue that you can get... You're trivializing slashing. You cannot trivialize social intervention. So we are... full circle to Chihuahua chain again. I don't think either of you is convincing the other one of the point. So Antaulah, your position... There's never been this level of attack in any proof of stake

network. It happens in like proof of work networks because you can do an anonymous 51% attack. And this is like the big flaw in proof of work. One is you can roll back two weeks worth of Ethereum classic with an anonymous like chain of links and nobody knows who you are and you effectively robbed everyone that believed the previous thing. But in proof of stake, you have branded validators that compete for stake, and they're staked for an epoch, so there's a cool-down and warm-up period, so they're known. And it's very, very hard to get to even point to what you can do. And once you pull off the attack, everyone knows who did it immediately. Like, the information is out there, so you're completely left yourself open to being slashed immediately. Let's move to another

bad item that you might have or maybe we're in ugly territory. So we've talked about economic security. What else is on your list? This meme is benign in Ethereum because Ethereum does a really, really good job with engineering. And they actually do have a lot of validators and a lot of links and independent clients. All that stuff they do. It's a dangerous meme for everyone else because people will, like Luna, will roll up to some absurd number of stake and say, we have massive economic security where it's like not real in any way. And that gives people false confidence. I would actually like, what I would wish Ethereum would do is just like forget that meme. Just talk about the really excellent engineering. Like these attacks are impossible because the engineering is really,

really good. So Luna is incomparable. Like they're building a stable coin and the design was just flawed. They would not build. But their TVL, the amount of stake that they had stake to secure their proof of stake network was massive. And they could literally just go say we have massive economic security. That is incomparable. And it takes a lot of work to go and like parse those details and to tell a person that's not like plugged in. No, you can't compare that economic security to Ethereum's. But you can literally easily say, look, that's 100 nodes all run by the same people. This is a bagillion nodes geographically distributed with a bajillion links. This is secure. This is not. Okay, so once again, on that item of economic security, is there anything predictive, you could say?

I think listeners might be asking, why does all of this matter, right? So, like, Justin, why is that bad in your book that, you know, you think that economic security does matter and that it's bad for Anatoli to propagate it and say that it doesn't matter? And I think listeners might be wondering why. Like, why did we just have this conversation, this debate about economic security? And if you're right, is there something predictive that you can say about some kind of future attack that Solana or chains like it might face? if they're not considering economic security? Because we could test that in the future.

Somebody with actually weak security will have strong economic security and they will get wrecked. This is the bad outcome. That's your prediction, Anatolia. Okay. This is the bad outcome that I think, as an industry, we should strive to avoid.

Right? Because then you're giving people like a very, very easy meme to, like, brand themselves with versus really, really hard engineering, which is hard to do and, like, build and deploy. I see. And you're saying that at some level that's already happened with something like

Terra Luna using economic security as a meme. Justin, how would you put a bookend on why this matters? I think it's more of an intellectual point for Solana specifically, because ironically, Solana has very high amounts of economic security, because the vast majority of its soul is sticks. I don't trust it. Don't trust the economic security on Solana. Well, you do trust that the social layer can slash them if they were to misbehave. But you can't say that the chain is more secure, like, what is it, 20 times more secure now than a year ago. You cannot possibly say that. You can. No, you can't. You can't. Because there is money to be made from 51% attacks. And now the money to be made needs to be so much higher to compensate for the loss of slashing.

Now, in terms of a concrete prediction, my prediction would be that some smaller chain that has much lower amounts of economic security than Solana will get 51% attacked and will be harvested for toxic MV through, for example, the censoring of oracles. Okay. All right. Let's move on. Are we into the ugly territory yet from your side, Justin? Or are we still on the bad? What's ugly about Solana to finish up this conversation? Then maybe we talk about kind of the endgame of both ecosystems, and we call this a wrap. But what stones have we left unturned? Yeah, so happy to finish off on the ugly part. And it's kind of interesting because it has to do

with things that seem innocuous. And specifically, one of the things that I think is ugly is the fact that Solana is an L1. The mental model that I have is that it's decided to create an island in the Pacific as opposed to being connected to Wall Street. There's existing network effects. These are extremely strong network effects. And by being an L1, you don't get to tap into these existing network effects. And now if my thesis is correct that the L1 is when it takes most, then Solana is not going to make it.

Now, let's look at concrete numbers, and I think these are extremely telling. You have Solana, which is a four-year-old project. How much USDT has it accumulated? It's accumulated under 800 million, which is about 0.7% of all the USDT. Now, let's look for comparison on the L2s. A single L2 arbitram, which is only three years old, has three times the amount of USDT. Why is that? Because they are connected to the epicenter.

TVL is a relative. It's not irrelevant. It's useless. It's not useless. It is. How much revenue is arbitra making off of a bagelion in USDT? Like, who cares about it? I have no idea, but it is a sign that people are using USDT for loans and savings and payments and all sorts of all the reasons that USDT is used. No, it's not. It's actually like very, very misleading bullshit. Amount of TVL in a protocol is meaningless. Big data protocol had six billion TVL. What happens? Those that Ethereum, protocol that had like a big run last cycle doesn't exist anymore. What happened? I thought TVL is really important. If the average user put forward, you know, $100 of USDT wherever they're living,

and, you know, let's say there's a hundred million dollars of TVL in a specific chain, that means that, you know, on average, you know, roughly speaking, like a million users. That would be if you have actually a million users that are actively using that money and doing commerce with it. True. But that's not what TVL actually is. TVL is people fishing for rewards. Look at Tron, for example. Tron has a huge amount of USDT TVL. Why is that?

Because Tron is actually being used for payments. It's actually being used by real people. You can't say that TVL is irrelevant. It is one of the strongest signals that you can have that the chain is actually being used. Again, there's many, many counter examples of that. I'd have to look at actual Tron data, how much of the Tron TVL is somebody's money sitting in a protocol

earning like useless tokens, how much of it is actually spent on peer-to-peer payments? You got to separate those out. Like, TVL is not like a good signal at all. Sure. Justin, beyond TVL, can you finish your thought on the ugly? And then we want to get Anatoly to respond in your comments and then state his ugly before we get to then. So finish your thoughts on the ugly.

Right. The fact that Tron has a lot of TVL is, again, a point against TVL being a good signal. No, Tron is like providing tons of utility. for payments. This is a well-known fact that a ton of payments in Asia. Let's move beyond the TVL. What else do you got, Justin? Right. So basically what we have is that Solana is moving towards being isolationist.

It's being disconnected. Now, the L1 is only one aspect. There's more to it. One is that Solana has no support for like clients. It has no real-time mercurization of the states. There's literally zero-like clients. And what that means is that the only way to interact with the chain unless you're willing to be on a data center

if you have a phone, or even if you're another blockchain. Let's say you want to build a trustless bridge between Solana and if you can't. And so this is why the only kind of bridges that you have are trusted bridges like Wormhole because Solana has no like client support. And my prediction

is that it will never have like client support for a couple of reasons. One is that it's taken this shortcut of not having mercilization. And it turns out that mercilization is the bottleneck. And so if it were to reintroduce it, it would affect its writeability and its TPS, and that's not something that it wants to do. You don't need mercilization for like clients.

Like, why? All I need is data availability proofs. That's totally doable. And you need a path to the vote from my transaction that asserts the value of the state. Like, I just need to submit a transaction that says check the state is equal to this hash. Okay. So basically what Anatoly is suggesting is that every time you want to read the chain, you make a transaction.

That is crazy. That is absolutely insane. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Why? Not for a high throughput chain with median fees below 0.2 cents. Because you make

orders of magnitude more reads on the blockchain than you do rights. The transaction that you care about verifying can do that as its last instruction. You don't have to actually do this for every time you need to do a read. It's that if you're a payment provider that needs to receive like payment flow,

in your UI you force the user to do this, they sign the transaction, you then do the whole SPV proof and DA and you're done. It's an extra instruction for people that want to want that cost. That's it. That's bundled in a transaction. Good luck with that. My personal prediction is that no one will be paying for that. Everyone will go through

trusted intermediaries. They're going to be willing to just trust whoever, you know, Helios or helium or whatever it's called is telling them all the RPC providers. Sure. And they will not be making a transaction first. If it's a commercial differentiator for those guys to do it, they can bake it into their APIs. Justin, do you have any more ugly before we turn it back to Anatoly? No, that's most of it.

The isolationism combined with the timing games. Anatoly, just because we want to make sure you have an opportunity to, you know, like we asked you about the bad section. I think that bled into the ugly for Ethereum. But is there anything from your perspective that we haven't talked about that is ugly about Ethereum's design choices, value, architecture. Why is Ethereum fundamentally broken? Yeah.

I mean, one thing we haven't talked about just to spark things maybe is like running a note at home. And it seems to me that maybe a salon of design decisions do not think that that's very valuable at all. We could talk about that. But the floor is open. No, Nielsen's law takes care of that. Like, I already have one gigabit at home and, like, my test boxes work fine. I think the ugly parts on the Ethereum that are not fixable is this focus on ultrasound money and like decentralized money.

And this is what pigeons it into a specific direction, which means you're trying to build the lowest, smallest possible L1. And it's very, very hard to do that and do all the execution on all these L2s and have any value capture on the L1. Execution is what makes money. It's when you have priority fees, people competing for content, they want this particular dog coin versus another one. They're willing to pay extra fees to be there first. That's all in the execution layer. That's where all the money is made.

And that pays for a normal user that doesn't care about whether they land in this 4 in a millisecond block or the next one, and they just want to pay for a mobile phone. To that user, they don't give a shit. Like when they click that purchase button, They don't care if it takes extra four in a milliseconds. So their fees are fractions of a penny, right? Does this make sense? This is all because execution is able to capture high average fees and provide a low

median fee. That's really, really hard to do in the settlement part. And when you move all the value capture away from the L1, you're left with, like, what are you left with? It's just trying to compete with Bitcoin and being the most better money. but that is not like real. It's all, it's a meme. Like, decentralized money, like, I agree is important. When my parents fled the Soviet Union, had these technologies existed,

they would have preferred USDT on Trump versus Bitcoin or Ethereum. And there's no way you could convince him that, hey, you're going to take this massive move and flee this country, that if you take Ethereum, it's going to be within 90% of the value that you put in within a year because the variability in all this other shit makes it a much riskier bet. So, like, you need stable coins for normal people. Once you accept that, like, as the thing, this, like, decentralized money meme puts you into design decisions that are all kind of, like, ruin the cool part of the network,

which is, like, execution can pay for super, super, super fast, cheap stable coin payments. Justin, we want to get you to respond to that. And then we'll end with closing thoughts from each of you. So how do you respond to what Anatoly said about the ugly of Ethereum? So Anatoly is right that there is no money to be made, no value to be captured in the settlement of execution, which is just verifying a snark. But there is this other part of settlement, which is data. And it turns out that data scales linearly. Snarks are magic.

This is exponential scaling where you can take arbitrarily large computation and shrink it down to a single snark. You cannot do that with data. like every user needs to consume a certain number of bytes. Now, one of the things that Anatoly said is that, you know, we're trying to build the smallest chain possible so that we can extract the highest fees. That is completely wrong, right? We have a whole roadmap of scaling. And it's not about per transaction fees being high.

We actually want per transaction fees to be low. It's about the product of the number of transactions times the median or the average transaction. So we want to have 10 million transactions per second, each of which are paying a tiny fraction of a penny. But in aggregate, that could be hundreds of millions of dollars per day. But to the L1, they're just paying for data. That is correct. To the L1, they're just paying for data, yes.

And data is a commodity. Like, there's no way the L1 can charge more than a small multiple off the cost of bandwidth. Okay, so let's say that we have a validator. And they're on like the best connection that is available to them, you know, from their home or whatever it is. 64 cents a terabyte. That's the cost of data. Not everywhere, but that's the cost that I can get, and it's going to be everywhere within a couple of years. You cannot put the whole internet on the one internet connection. That's just not going to work. Sure, but like today, I can get 64 cents per terabyte. Within 10 years, the world is going to be below that, and my price is going to be

even lower. Yeah, but there's this notion called induced demand. Like, this is the guy who said, you know, whatever, like 100 kilobytes of memories. going to be sufficient for the whole world. You need to project into the future. Today, we might only be doing 10 transactions a second, but in the future, we might have our personal AIs do millions of transactions per second on our behalf. And so we're never going to be able to fit everything on a single internet connection. The more resources we have, the more we want to consume. But like the data portion, it's opaque. It has no content-based pricing, no time-based pricing. It is just pure commodity throughput. Pure congestion. So as

the L1 cannot charge more than a constant factor off the physical cost of it, because if it charges 100x off the cost of the physical access, somebody is going to build... Network effects. This is like, again, this is weak. There is a reason why Ethereum data availability is worth more than Solana's data availability. Because of network effects? Because of network effects.

Yes, this notion of shared security, this notion of synchronous composability. Because of the economic security. Not just that, but also access to TVL, access to applications. There's only one ENS in the world, right? There's only one Ethereum and Internet name system. This is really weak. This is why I think it's ugly and it's not fixable, is it's not a fundamentally, like, hard thing.

I thought we agreed that synchronicity is important. If you're on a separate chain and then suddenly you become asynchronous relative to all the applications that are living in the other chain. Sure. And so you pay a premium for synchronicity and composability. If its main purpose is to charge for L2 data, this is how it's going to end up. It's going to be very, very hard to capture value, like real value capture.

All this stuff you're talking about is very hand-wavy, because you can't do cash flow analysis on it, like Apple. I build this phone for X, I sell it for Y. Right? Like maybe it has value, maybe not. I don't know. But it's wobbly to me. Like, if you're charging just for data, there's a fixed amount cap that you can charge for it, because if you charge 100x on the cost of data, it's just open to competitors.

Like, there's just no way you can run a business that runs 100x cost on a commodity service, like just providing data. So last year, whoever else will eat your lunch and they'll be like, this is the better place for L2's. It's just going to be downward spiral. So this is like the hard part. I don't know if it's fixable. Like, it's easy for me to like argue how an execution layer will survive and work. Justin, brief comment on that and then let's get to closing. So what's your brief comment on what Antaulay just said?

Fundamentally, we're going to be limited by bandwidth. Even though it grows exponentially, we always want to consume more. That is the nature of humanity. And we can't put all the Internet of value every single transaction through one home internet connection or even one data center internet connection. So fundamentally, there's going to be congestion. And why is there going to be congestion? Because everyone is going to be willing to use this prime resource, which gives us network effects, gives us access to liquidity, gives us access to security. So you're expecting that the Ethereum L1 will have blob congestion?

100%. Yes. Like right now, there's no blob congestion. So it's going to be underspected for its demand. No, we're going to have as much as we can, but even that's not going to be enough. I think you're overstating demand. My guess is that the top 100,000 transactions per second will cover 99.999% of value. Unestimating the demand is like saying there's only demand for five computers in the world. No, no, that's not true. There's going to be way more transactions than you expect. We're going to have bots and AI. Yeah, again, you're talking about science fiction future stuff instead of looking at a current data. Google does about 40 to 80,000 searches per second.

That is a single global application that is scale to every human and permeated their lives. That is 80,000 events per second. There's always new applications. Every time we've 10x bandwidth, we've unlocked new applications. We've gone from text to images, to videos. But not like transaction events. So there are many points of difference there at this. conversation and I have thoroughly enjoyed everything that's been said. I pray my competitors

build for a world with infinite demand. Overestimating demand is as bad as underestimating it. And it's why don't you get to your closing arguments, maybe talk about what you think the end game's going to be and how Solana fits there and where you think the points of debate are or dissimilarities here and just like close us out on the discussion so far. So you have the floor. I mean, I think Solana's accomplished something really awesome. We have high average fees and low median fees. That means users can get very low access to the chain, fractions of a penny. I think L2s are still not even within 10x. Dot. And the network makes sustainable revenues that can pay for all the hardware 10 times over. So like it's a miracle. Like as far as I'm concerned, like, holy shit, there's enough money to be made here that these boxes are going to run forever. And access for users and like use cases that I care about, which is just selling products. through stable coins, like selling stupid phones.

That works. That's like I've created something that is useful for people. And Salana's goal is to maximize this Moore's Law and Nielsen's Law as far as they can go and optimize the network because every time we do that, it's a benefit to the users. spreads get lower, latencies get better. All these things converge on just better outcomes for all the users. And hopefully it still remains, financially, like, stable. So that's division, and it's very, very simple. There's no

infinities there. It's just, like, the current release works well at 16 cores. Let's get it to work better at 32 cores. And, Antaliyah, how does Ethereum fit in that kind of end-state vision of what Solana is? Do these coexist? Does one become larger than the other? How do you think of that end game? I have no clue, like, if this, like, decentralized money thing, like, it might work. Like, Bitcoin is worth a billion dollars and it doesn't make any sense to me. So yeah, network effects, TVL, all these things could matter, but it's not hard. Like, it's not something that I can like bet my work on, like that I would want to bet my career on. Like I want to build stuff that I know is going to work.

So from my perspective, like the more L2s and networks and different environments start for digital assets, the better because the more of that stuff exists, the easier it is for a price discovery engine that runs as fast as the speed of light allows to actually find product market fit. There's just more stuff to do price discovery on. So please go build as many L2s as you can. Build as many ultrasound monies as you can. Like go, go forth. We're going to build a chain that runs as fast as physics allow, given, you know, the hardware gods and where they go. Justin, what are your closing arguments on this whole discussion?

far and what is Ethereum's end game? Where does Solana fit in the picture here? I mean, in hearing Anatoly give his closing argument, I think of Anatoly as a pure technologist. I am grateful for all the technology that it has provided. But from my perspective, like, blockchains are one of the most multidisciplinary kind of creatures that exist out there. And it's more than just about the technology. It's about the culture. It's about the memetic forces. It's about economic forces. It's about network effects. It's about forces that are way, larger than just pure technology. Anatoly's building open source software, you know, coming up with new virtual machines, new gossip, new networking technologies, all of these things have little

moat. They can be copied very easily and they are in the process of being copied on Ethereum L2s today. What is difficult to copy are network effects, memetic forces, brand reputation. This is what will stand the test of time. And the network effects are so, large that it makes it difficult to have an isolationist policy. We want to build everything from scratch. Not invented here, I don't want it. I want everything to be on my little Solana island, disconnected from reality. And that will mean that fundamentally you have headwinds, constant headwinds, and this is being reflected. One of the very interesting things is when you have an exotic island, you have exotic life forms that emerge. You know, you have weird things like

Gio Bowdens and dog with hats and all of these things. And you can have, you know, circle jerking within this little island where everyone's like happy, you know, worshipping these little images. But even Solana, which is like the primary place for meme coins, is still minuscule. Look at, look, Solana has tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of meme coins. If you take the sum of the market values of all the meme coins is about $10 billion. On Ethereum, you have one meme coin called Shibahino, which is $15 billion, a single meme coin. And this is where we see the distinction between quality and quantity. Anatolia and Solana is going in for quantity, quantity, quantity, and at the expense of all sorts of things that are more important

in the grand scheme of things. So just because I asked Anatoli the same question, I want to ask you the same question. So the end game for Ethereum, what does Solana look like? What does Ethereum look like? Is one larger than the other? How do you think this plays out, Justin? Again, in the end game, I think it's winner-take-most. I think the network effects are extremely strong. And so there's just like there's one internet, there's going to be one internet of value. There isn't, I mean, okay, maybe arguably there's like two internets. There's like the Chinese internet behind the firewall and other internets. But that is kind of a bit of an anomaly. Really, you can think of there being one big internet with massive network effects.

and what I think will happen is that we're going to see a flourishing of activity where the network effects reside and grow. And in order to have these healthy network effects, you need to have synchronous composition, you need to have shared security, and also you need to have shared economic bandwidth. The monetary premium is not just about economic security. It's also about economic bandwidth.

The end game, for example, is you have decentralized table coins. How do you build decentralized table coins? is by taking pristine collateral and issuing stable coins out of that. In order to have trillions of dollars of over-collateralized stable coins, we need trillions of dollars of pristine collateral.

And so you can't discount the importance of memetic value. And there's going to be strong network effects where these decentralized stable coins are issued. And what I think will happen is that, you know, Ethereum is the most likely candidate of winning it all.

Now, you might ask, if the layer one landscape is when it take all, like, how can you justify the Solana, you know, $100 billion valuation? The way that I rationalize it is that there's a 1% chance, let's say, that Solana can become the Internet of value. And that is enough, because there's a 1% chance that a 100-x is from $100 billion to $10 trillion. And so that is a worthy bet to be making. But in 99% of the time, if you were to roll the dice of humanity and you run these parallel simulations, you're going to have a dominant network, the Internet of Value, that is going to eat everything up.

And the lead that Ephraim has is so high that a little bit of technology that is easily copyable and that is being copied right now with the L2s is not going to be a sustainable mode. Well, there we go. I think we have to end it there. We've gone on for almost two hours. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us and having this conversation, this discussion. It's been at times exciting, at times heated, but always done with good faith, I think, from both sides. So I certainly appreciate it. Anything else you want to say before we conclude?

Anatoly, you look like you want to say something. No, this is great. I don't think anyone's mind has changed, which is funny. It's usually how it works with these conversations. So we'll keep arguing about this. That's usually how these go. Justin, was your mind changed at all? Not really.

I am looking forward to the feedback from the community. I mean, I want to see, for example, if people really buy the fact that, you know, paying your taxes and sell pressure is not a cost to the network. It just seems like absolute. But we'll see. Well, I think there will be some follow-ups in community. As always, you can let us know what you think of this episode. Let us know if you want a round two at some point in the future.

And maybe we convince these guests to come on and resolve the unresolved questions. But we'll end it there. I got to let you know, of course, none of this has been financial advice. We have no idea what the price of soul will do, no idea what the price of ETH will do in the near-term future. You could definitely lose what you put in. But we are headed west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone.

but we're glad you're with us on the bankless journey. Thanks a lot.