Epicenter - Learn about Crypto, Blockchain, Ethereum, Bitcoin and Distributed Technologies - Movement Labs: 'Facebook's MOVE Will Bring Billions of Users to Crypto' - Rushi Manche

Episode Date: April 6, 2024

Classical, monolithic blockchains are inherently limited in their throughput due to their single-thread execution architecture. Modern VMs attempt to solve this issue through parallelisation being implemented from the get-go. Movement Labs employs the Move-VM to build a ZK L2 rollups on Ethereum, thus also deriving its security. Through parallel execution threads, Movement achieves a theoretical TPS of 160,000 while also ensuring sub-cent transaction fees.Topics covered in this episode:Impressions from ETH DenverRushi’s backgroundMove vs. SolidityEVM compatibilityParallelisation vs. intent-based transactionsSecurity and parallel state transitionsTransitioning from EVM to newer VMsBerachain’s approach to EVM-compatibilityMovement Labs’ tech stackDecentralising the sequencerMovement’s M1 and M2 chainsCelestia DA and the Dencun upgradeRestakingBitcoin L2sIBC-compatibility and USDC on MovementEthereum x Cosmos convergencedApps on MoveEpisode links:Rushi Manche on TwitterMovement Labs on TwitterNebular Podcast 'Ethereum x Cosmos Convergence'Sponsors:Gnosis: Gnosis builds decentralized infrastructure for the Ethereum ecosystem, since 2015. This year marks the launch of Gnosis Pay— the world's first Decentralized Payment Network. Get started today at - gnosis.ioChorus One: Chorus One is one of the largest node operators worldwide, supporting more than 100,000 delegators, across 45 networks. The recently launched OPUS allows staking up to 8,000 ETH in a single transaction. Enjoy the highest yields and institutional grade security at - chorus.oneThis episode is hosted by Sebastien Couture & Friederike Ernst.

The biggest thesis back then and even now is that Web 3 isn't secure enough. Facebook wanted to build a stable coin to power Facebook itself. That was a DM-Liver project. They looked at the EVM, looked at SVM, and decided that it wasn't good enough. So the language itself, it's a lot easier to write code. There's actually some diagram that shows like to write account checks for a full module. It takes the SVM like two pages. It takes EVM like five pages.

It takes like the new VM like 10-9s. If we ever have more than a thousand users on chain, the EDM chain simply can't handle the load because you're waiting for one thread. What parallelization enables you use at multiple threads. So if you have 10 transactions, instead of waiting for E to B to C to D, you can do a transaction, transaction B, transaction C,

all at the same time because you have multiple threads within a VM. This episode is brought to you by NOSIS. NOSIS builds decentralized infrastructure for the Ethereum ecosystem. With a rich history dating back to 2015 and products like Safe, Cow Swap, or Nosis chain, NOSIS combines needs-driven development with deep technical expertise. This year marks the launch of NOSIS pay, the world's first decentralized payment network.

With the Gnosis card, you can spend self-custody crypto at any visa-accepting merchant around the world. If you're an individual looking to live more on-chain or a business looking to white-label the stack, visit nosispay.com. There are lots of ways you can join the NOSIS journey. Drop in the NOSIS Dow governance form, become a NOSIS validator with a single GNO token and low-cost hardware, or deploy your product on the EVM-compatible and highly decentralized NOSIS chain. Get started today at NOSIS.io. Kars1 is one of the biggest node operators globally and help you stake your tokens on 45 plus networks like Ethereum, Cosmos, Celestia and DYDX.

More than 100,000 delegates stake with KORS1, including institutions like BitGo and Ledger. Staking with Kors 1 not only gets you the highest years, but also the most robust security practices and infrastructure that are usually exclusive for institutions. You can stake directly to Quaros 1's public note from your wallet, set up a white table node, or use the recently launched product, Opus, to stake up to 8,000 eth in a single transaction. You can even offer high-year staking to your own customers using their API. Your assets always remain in your custody, so you can have complete peace of mind. Startsaking today at corus.1. Welcome to Epicenter of the show which talks about the technologies, projects,

people driving decentralization in the blockchain revolution. I'm Sebast Sankwichu, and I'm here with my co-host, Frédique Ernst. Today, we're talking to Rushi Mancha. He's the co-founder at Movement Labs. They're a network of move-based modular blockchains. Before we talk to Rushi, just want to disclose that Movement Labs is a portfolio company of Interop Ventures. But with that out of the way, hey, Rushi, thanks for joining us. How's the go, you guys? Pleasure to be on here. Yeah, so we were just talking before the show about, like, East Denver, and I think this is the first episode to come out after the conference, or maybe the second, but yeah, you, we were both there wearing the movement sweatshirt, which is very comfy. Yeah, what were your impressions about East Denver and, you know, compared to last year, like, how do you think the space has evolved?

I mean, the short answer is we're back. Last year, it was, like, kind of dreary because, like, post-FTX. I think it was like three months after FTCX and all the debacles and everyone was like pretty down bad. If you were there, you were like in it for like actual long, long term. There weren't that many side events. Weren't that many parties. Weren't that many like fun things, which is a blessing and a curse. I think last year we saw a lot more like builders coming to the market and actually presenting some new cool novel ideas.

And there was more signal than noise. And then at Denver, there's a lot of signal. But even more so noise, especially with a lot of rise. I thought rise as a crypto and AI narrative. But seeing a lot of those decks flowing around, honestly, have had a difficult try to filter out what's real and what's not real. But more importantly, I think it's great to see the public market. Obviously, the market's back.

Bitcoin's all-time high. Price action is doing well. Private markets are going crazy. So the excitement's back. I think that was really great to see. But I think it's important to know, like, you have to be kind of wary because I think we're heading way too fast in upwards direction, like even before having Bitcoin's all-time high, which creates a lot of macroeconomic questions for how long this bill can last,

as a super cycle, whatnot. So as a builder, it's very important to, like, a, focus on distribution, keep, like, capitalizing the market, but also remaining conscious that it's probably not going to be a long-term thing and maybe so economically suggesting it's a short-term thing. So that kind of adjust timelines. I think a lot of different infrastructure companies are paying touch to the markets in terms of timelines for product launches and whatnot. So that's one side of story.

I think some key defining narratives, so you had AI, crypto and AI, obviously, like intersection as a core narrative. Obviously, Nvidia is getting crazy right now, which trickles down as their private markets, and the, like, modularity, which is still retaining from last year. I think 2020, we sell out a DA-focused modularity,

so you had, like, Celestia I again avail. And then this year we put out, like, Modera Day as kind of the flagship event and really focused on the VM-level experimentation. So I moved via MSVIA, was in VM and a few different groups really come to market and explain why alternative CV important. Whether we're sticking out, obviously, it's a big narrative that Aeans been pushing on,

looking forward to the launch. Yeah, I felt like Heath Denver this year could have been just like modular week. It felt like every event had a modular twist to it or was either like about modular or had like people giving panels about the modular basis and modular stack and like a We all had an event, Celeste had an event, you guys had an event, and tons of other sort of like more Ethereum-aligned teams were doing events on Modular. Like how important you think modular is to the current cycle? And in terms of narratives, you know, like what amount of developer mind share? Do you think it's actually capturing versus what the markets are saying, like how markets are perceiving it?

A major is now used as a good market term. It's like modular alignment where you want to structure a company to be interoperable with other networks and ecosystems, which I think is a good thing. Like if you look at traditional tech or even traditional hardware, the companies that want where the companies are able to build parts and hardware that's interoperable with other ecosystems that wasn't tied into one vendor walking. I think that's where we're seeing in Web 3 or if you're building AI, if you're doing oracles, building infrastructure, you want to be able to tie into different ecosystem, different chain,

go across chain or multi-chain, and then you can't operate because you have a bigger client base, have bigger marketing exposure. So I think modager now is a marketing term where if you're an infrastructure, if you're an app, you want to be modger so you can align with different systems. Whereas if it's actually a monitor, that's yet to be determined, probably not, honestly. modular in this case probably refers to using LFTA, using experiment with different VM levels, but I've seen, like, modger be used for like RPCs, be used for, like, even like APIs.

So I think module is like a bigger landscape, which is credit to Celestia. They've turned their narrative into like a meta and allows, like, a bunch of different companies to align under like one unified umbrella. And we'll get into the entire modular stack in just a bit, Tushi. But it is your first time on. epicenter. So maybe tell us a little bit about yourself and your background and how you got into this and what what made you start movement labs. Yeah, so my background was engineering. Sartre

was 14. I was always interested in distributed systems, technology and whatnot. Start software engineering. I worked at United Health Group led on from databases and cloud migration for a team over there. Got into that pretty early on. Then somewhere across crypto was really interested in all programming. languages, especially Ross-based program languages. So Kazawazam Ross, was really exciting to me. From there, me and my co-founder group were both at Vanderbiltile University, which is a university in the south of the United States. He was a few years older than me, but I was building one of the first Dexter in Abdas, Hebel Satay, the first Yield Dagger in Aptas. So we were early move builders. This was August of 2022, so pre-FTX back when things were better in that cycle. And then

We wanted to bring, like, we love moving, which I think I stumbled across it because I read like a New York Times article or some like block article where I was like Facebook's doing this blockchain programming language and their new blockchain initiative. It got me excited because I was always interested in blockchains, but I was always concerned of security and it would ever scale to mainstream consumers. And Facebook is the biggest consumer app to the planet. And they took a bet on programming and started move language. So I built the first deck synapt us.

That ultimately led to movement because we wanted to bring the moon B into Ethereum. I'd get more to the Moveside, but it was kind of how I got here. Yeah, super cool. Yeah, let's get into the Movesite. So basically, Move is a language, as you said, created by Facebook to be more deaf-friendly, more secure

than Solidity and the likes of Solidity, like Viper. It's been used for Libra and DM obviously, but kind of Sui and Updoors are the main chains that kind of build on it today. Tell us what kind of sets move apart from, say, solidity. Yes, I think going back to the route, Facebook wanted to build a stable coin to power Facebook itself. That was a DM on Libra project.

They looked at the EVM, looked at SVM, and decided that it wasn't good enough. They needed their own infrastructure, needed a VM in language, could scale for billions of users, as well as provide security for on-chain. The biggest thesis back then, and even now, is that Web 3 isn't secure enough. If I ever want my mom or anyone in my family to use crypto, the biggest thing they're saying isn't going to get hacked, isn't going to be rugs, and they're like a lot of scams going on, and Mood was kind of built to combat that from the smart contract level. So it stops like 99% of attack vector we're seeing today at the EVM, as well as provides

solvency for some of the attacks we're seeing an SVM as well. So that's kind of the ruin origin cost. And then we kind of bring into like Y MO, the thesis is, A, was built by the biggest consumer app, bringing new Web2 developers. Over the next two to three years, you'll see SuvenapDus user big treasuries to attract consumer apps and consumer builders

to bring net new developers to a system. As a language itself, it was designed to be a blockchain-first language. The analogy I'd like to say is like, move is to Rust as React to the JavaScript. If you follow JavaScript's history in Web2, it came to market, no one really liked writing JavaScript, script and then React KVamark and made website generation much easier. Like you can design custom components, you're like object oriented.

Same thing with move. It's people don't really like wearing Rust, they like the framework to top of it. So the move and the Move VM is a framework. You can think of it on top of Rust where you can design modules that are very custom. You can have on-chain advanced for your track protection. So the language itself, it's a lot easier to write code. There's actually some diagram that shows like to write account checks for a full module, it takes the SVM like two pages, it takes the EVM like five pages, it takes like the move VM like 10

lines, as well as you have embedded on chain protection. So you have the move prover at the VM level, which stops risky, stops intro overflowes, it stops all the attack characteristics of seeing to the inked up. So it's the most important innovation security while also being paralyzed. So it touches in the paralyzed narrative. Block STM was actually built by AppDottis Labs as pioneered by Monad and a few other groups. So thinking of like the best, the fastest VM, and your favorite auditor combined into one VM at one time? The EVM and Solidity in particular, I mean, they are pretty low level

and they let you do a lot of things that other programming languages like Move don't let you do. So for instance, things like inline assembly or something, like Move would never let you do this, right? But the reason why it was devised this way was to give developers more freedom and kind of optimizing for things like gas cost, right? So with kind of this more prescriptive language that moves,

you are also somewhat tied down in terms of what you can actually do, especially in kind of a distributed system such as kind of a blockchain ecosystem, does this concern you that you can't kind of optimize for things as well as, you could in the more permissive languages? I think going back to the Web to example, like you don't have the flexibility with Reactor, V or Angular. It's simply the best framework to build and design websites. If you really want customizations, you can go at like C++ level,

you can generate your own kind of review on rails frameworks. That's more design specific mega use cases. I think there's two sets of argument here. A, move increases the velocity of production. So let's say, for example, I'm a 24-year-old kid. I want to launch my own DFA app in two weeks. Move is the best way to do that because you can get to market quickly. You can write it could quickly.

You don't have to worry about account checks. You don't have to worry about keep debugging. So it's the easiest way to sprint on product development. If you do want low-level customizations, the movie system is actually working on a lot of in-line assembly and integrating assembly directly into the move language. Obviously, it's a nascent language. It was launched like a year ago.

so there's a lot of fixes and optimizations are happening. But over the next three to four years, I'd imagine that move and also adopts a similar low-level support. I think the app test team is working on this as well as we're looking into it as well. We actually look at it at the Bikol level, so you can actually directly write Yule, which is like an assembly language directly to our VM. That's part of our tech stack kind of differentiates it from Epperson Suite.

We've made it fully even compatible, so you can take the silly code, did the 145 app codes, and map packages of 54 move out codes and launch the VM. Between that process, we have an abstract syntax tree, which enables runtime and SDK to understand YOL by code,

but also if you are a very talented developer and you want a customization as a smart contract level and you want to use assembly, you can write Yule directly to the interpreter. No, that's super interesting. I had no idea that was happening. How do you feel about the mind share advantage

for the EVM? Obviously, the EVM has been around a lot longer, and there's tooling and people know it, and there's tutorials and so on. Do you think this can be overcome by kind of like the suit of treasuries that Facebook and Uptus and Sui and so on put into it? I think it's not a PVP. They both exist. If you want to use LIDO today, EVM is the best place to use it and will be the best place to use it for the next five years. but the thing the stance is

the EVM how I approach is legacy code it is code that works really well for past use cases when you get

1,000 years are on chain move is designed for billions of users on chain it was designed for Facebook to be on chain

which is why you have paralyzation but also have security benefits so it's actually complementary

such that you have the EVF legacy code and legacy software for early kind of

web implementation you can think about Bitcoin script still supports people still use it for

various use cases But if you ever want to do on-chain consumer, on-chain social, any actual use cases that requires high throughput applications as well as security, you need to use a framework like Move. How movement approaches is we recognize the shortcomings of Move itself in terms of a new language as well as the network effects of EVM. And we combine it. So we have an M-EVM where you have MOVE support as well as EVM support. So if you're looking to deploy LIDO on-N-Chain or like AVE-O-N-Chane or Un-Swap-on-Chane today, you can use the EVM runtime and interpreter. If you want to build the next biggest consumer app, you can use the Move SDK as well.

I think that's the best way to approach next gen VMs, which is a lot of group's messed up on. A lot of layer ones and next gen VMs were like, this is our programming language, just so a framework. It's the best thing if you don't use it, you can screw off. And then they lost a lot of developers. It was difficult to track liquidity. For us, we are acknowledging that EVM still has a liquidity. We want to fully support and actually being as a DMR as possible, while supporting moving long term and supporting proliferating its growth. You talked about parallelization a couple of times there.

Can you kind of go into what that means? So in traditional EVM or any other stack, you have sequential processing, which means if you have 10 transactions, it's transaction A to B to C to D. So within a given VM, you're waiting for a transaction to finish for one single thread. Typically in today's computer environment, sometimes it's not a big deal. If you're using Lido, like you'll have $5 gas fees or whatnot, which for some users for big whales, it's fine. If you have a million dollars on chain,

you pay five dollars gas fees, they don't really care. But what parallelization enables is used at multiple threads. So if you have 10 transactions, instead of waiting for A to B to C to D, you can do a transaction, transaction B, transaction B, transaction C, transact a D, all the same time because you have multiple threads within a VM.

It was first started with the Block SDM process, which is Apptrest Pioneer, which is a new form of parallel processing that enables high throughput, the paralyzed threads. Why is really important is for two reasons. A, you're on low gas fees. So if you look at NIR, if you look at SWEES,

say they have next to nothing gas fees, which is from paralyzation. While if you look at the EVM, you still have a thing which hits like $50 gas fees. Even layer twos today are pretty expensive and they require a layer of threes to scale. My thesis is that layer 3 doesn't make sense if you have a paralyzed layer 2

because you get multiple threads that can handle it managed date. The second thing is on, If you look at inscriptions is the best use case of paralysation. Every EVM chain went down, like, like, you see what you can't, like, see what's the chain didn't go down like avalanche. It was at like $50 gas fees, which means that if we ever have more than like a thousand users on chain, the EVM chain simply can't handle the load because you're waiting for one thread.

Think about logic here, right? If you have a high impact event, like inscriptions or a game going crazy on one thread, and you're going to swap in the same thread, it's going to cause the gas piece that you do. to swap to go up. Or if there's a world where you can have multiple threads and you have gas fees go crazy on one thread, but then affect you to swap, it doesn't affect D-Y-D-X, doesn't affect GMX or other threads. So you can actually have modulatory within threads itself instead of requiring constant infrastructure upgrades that make no sense at scale. So long-story short, parallelization enables concurrent transaction processing, which allows flow gas fees as well as

allows for a management of state during times of high network activity. There's a lot to unpack here. So I think some of these things in the Ethereum ecosystem are being tackled by intense-based transactions, right? What's your take on those? I think intense-based transactions pretty early on. I know Shogh is trying to do something for the module system. I know one-inch is also trying to push towards that.

The general thesis with that, it's like very early stage, it's yet to be proven. Because there's a lot of interoperability problems. If you try to intense between like an EVM chain on one, like, layer two and another layer two, like across is probably the biggest one year. It's very difficult to do like bridging standards and there's a lot of secure assumptions in making. But I would say, yes, in the EVM world, intense is another way to tackle that. But still the fees are generally high and there's still like just because like,

just because the cross has intense built at the rigging doesn't mean it can handle a high load. if that was the case, like inscriptions would not have taken that chance. So basically, when you talk about parallelization, I mean, basically we used to have this idea that I very much hope is going to return at some point with kind of like smart shards where basically you have individual execution environments with local states that kind of can interact async with one another. when you have stacks that natively do parallelization, how do you handle the state?

How do you make sure that you kind of have one ledger? How do you deal with security? Well, the thing is that's one of the benefits of using Ethereum's layer too, is you inherit the network security and the baller set and the kind of decentralization that Ethereum has already built, and you put the movie on top of that, I bring parallelization to Ethereum, which is why I think it's very, like,

the vision, for the VMs actually to bring paralysis to the VM level, because you can inherit security, managed state bloat through the settlement and dealers, while you have VMs that can provide performance paralysis. You have, like, paralyzed EVMs coming now to Ethereum, and you have SVMs, move VMs. So it's definitely like a rise of these version machines, but they're all saying that Ethereum is still the best place to manage state and store data.

I'll hand off to Seb here, sorry, for the intense interrogation. here from the EVM camp. No, these are all great questions. I love it. I was just watching and really enjoying that whole exchange. I mean, you know, to kind of bounce back on what you were saying, Rishi, you know, in terms of, you know, the EVM being legacy code, I sometimes equate to EVM, and I know this analogy doesn't overlap exactly,

but look at the EVM and solidity a little bit as I do, you know, PHP. PhP has been around for over 20 years. it is still powering something like 60 to 70% of websites on the internet, you know, most of which are WordPress websites and Facebook. However, you know, ask a college kid today or like a young engineer, what language he's building with, like he's probably using, you know, like no jazz and React and all these sort of new Web2 frameworks and not PHP.

So I sort of look at the EVM and solidity in the same, from the same perspective, where I think the EVM will, will continue to power very important applications in Defi will continue to power these sort of legacy applications that are going to be, you know, very, very important to Ethereum and sort of crypto infrastructure moving forward. But, you know, as the space moves towards a more modular ecosystem stack, new VMs that are better suited for that, for that infrastructure will probably prevail in those. ecosystems. Is that a good way to look at it or is that analogy missing, missing some parts?

I think that makes perfect sense. Like, I think it touched on. Like the EVM has done a great job of bootchopping in the initial crypto user base and use cases for DFI. But there still is a lot of challenges. So that's why these all VMs are coming either for performance, security and a bunch of different tradeoffs to kind of scale existing Ethereum use cases. But like liquid with Web 2 is kind of different where you have, if you have a novel new tech stack, if you're a cool new website, and you can essentially vampire attack the existing user base and bring it over pretty quickly, probably within a two-week span. That's not really possible in crypto because you have financial incentives. So if you have like $5 billion locked up on one EK system, it's very difficult to

migrate and essentially take all the liquidity over to a new nascenteak system, which is why it's more of like a long-term horizon where you'll see liquidity slowly move to Xcelana, which is why Exelon has been kind of crushing it. It's been steadily growing TBL as well as apt as in Sui. So we're slowly seeing that liquidity and users can move over to the next 10 VMs, but it's still going to be a 10-year process probably before the EVM is at least completely challenged. So in the current state of execution environments is you acknowledge the EVM, acknowledge the liquidity benefits it has,

while it's try to create different use cases for these ALFVMs, make sure those use cases actually reach fruition, and then slowly work on acquiring the EVM liquidity once you prove. that. I think there are two many contenders are this with SDM and then Move VM. A, which have a huge ecosystem backing from pre-existing level ones, and B, have specific teams

are turning out on the all VM to the same system. So maybe just like playing devil's eye could hear, like what do you make of the fact that you know, Barrett chain is launching an EVM chain? You know, say also is, I think now dropping

Cosimwasum to to favor a paralyzed EVM in order to attract more developers. I think they've found it difficult to attract Hosum-Wasim developers. If this is all true and if like move and Salad of VM are better suited to this kind of new era of blockchain applications, why are these very large, especially barricane, right?

There's like large ecosystem play putting the EVM first. I'll talk to the same point of view where the paralyzed EVM I would contend is not the same is EVM. It's a completely redesigned rich machine. It's just even compatible. You can argue that our MEVM is a paralyzed EVM, even though it's a completely different virtual machine. So I think the paralyzed EVM is, I would consider also as a next gen VM because it's a complete redesigned virtual machine. This has EVM compatibility from the start. There are security issues with solidity, but SAI isn't really prioritizing that because their go-to-market market is being a trading first chain, being a high throughput chain, so they don't only care for optimizing for smart

country security. So the simple answer to say example, the Monat example is those are completely different EVMs or BMs. I would not say their current EVM. They're actually like the Monat EVM when to say EBM, which is completely different. So it still ties in the next chance thesis. And then as for Barrett's say that's like the main value prop there is a community. They've done a great job assembling maybe the most vibrant community encrypted today.

And a lot of their activity is based on this proof of liquidity consensus. where it actually doesn't make sense to use a next-in VM because they don't really care about speed. They don't really care about security as much. They're more focused on using governance and using the liquid-staking narrative. But I know, for example, like talking to the teams and different teams,

they're throughput of concern for them because even like Memple went down recently, it probably won't be able to do more than 50 TPS at scale. So we're actually going to be working with Berger and bringing the VM to their system, probably more experimental on down the roadmap. but for any game that wants to launch a bearer chain simply probably won't work.

It probably needs to get an exclusion for that. Yeah, so therefore, like, bearer chain will sort of act as a security layer for L2s and other app chains that want to leverage bear chain security. Yep. Cool. Let's talk about the stack.

So, you know, admitted there are different parts of the stack here that, I mean, even for me sometimes, it can still be a little bit confusing. So, you know, there's M1, there's M2, and the idea here is for like M1 to act as, you know, this sort of like layer one that, that enables M2 chains and rollups to launch on top of it. Can you explain, like, broadly, what the stack looks like and where,

also maybe zooming out, like, where these different components sit within the modular stack, if we bring in, like, now Celestia and Eiger layer, maybe like union for intrapability. You know, if we're looking at a sort of infographic of this, like what would that look like? Yeah, so we can start the top down. So execution layer, you have the movement VM, which is the DM salvage machine, supports move smart contracts as well as supports EVM smart contracts.

So it's an EVM interpreter, that's a veterinary transistor transpiler that exists on top SDK. So any smart contracts, whether you're in Move or slowly can exist on the execution there. Settlement is Ethereum. we believe that's the best security standardization also enables the quiddity to easily flow to layer two through a trust minimized bridge. The kind of stack of framework we're using

is a zero knowledge roll-up. We're using versus zero right now for ZK fraud proofs, but also looking at our own ZK MoVM proving kit. So you have Moivium execution, Zan settlement, ZK fraud proofs as

kind of the roll-up framework. And then right now we're using SlashC-3-D-A, given us the one that's live today, as well as allows for cold data to be pushed directly DA and save a lot of gas fees. So it's kind of like this Frankenstein of like different layers, which is kind of the direction. I think a lot of different role-upsetting tours. And last bit on the sequencer portion, I think today's centralized sequencers cannot scale and do not scale.

I think most people agree if you look inscriptions, like it broke every sequence that exists. And the simple reason that Arbishop's Zika Sinkin and these teams aren't innovating is because they're making a lot of money on Sequencer fees. Because we're in next-tened roll-up, our fees are basically pennies, so we don't actually prioritize sequencer fee. We have a fully decentralized sequencer date one that enables Valors to stick the move token to participate in sequencing with a layer two. So it's a fully decentralized layer-to network where the transaction fees are distributed

to stakeholders, stakeholders take the token to participate in sequencing. So actually is like a bridge between like a layer one and layer two in that sense. how do you deal with the decentralized sequencing? Because if you kind of look at the L2 stack on Ethereum right now, no one's really figured this out yet, right? So basically, as tech are the people who are saying, look, we're not going to do this without, but they're also saying they'll probably launch earliest in a year or so.

Yeah, so I think a lot of groups like Orbitron base, that are they all announced, like optimism superchain is a sequencer. I think they've all announced that they want to do a decentralized sequencer, but like I touched on, there is no economic incentive for them to prioritize it because they're making a lot of money on the sequencer fees. So it's always like, okay, we'll eventually do that or we'll work with a third party, but the third party never really works out. So it's always been pushed back. For us, it's directly a priority, A, because we're a high throughput chain. So we need to have a decentralized sequencer to manage the load balancing the network. And then B, that's our token business model.

We need a decentralized sequencer for the ballers to have taken privileges, which actually accrues value and buy pressure for the token. So that means we're actually prioritizing as a core part of a tech stack. I think Metis is another one, or mode, one of those, has started and launched with a decentralized sequencer. I think we'll see a lot more than this come. I think Astro is also launching the new layer or two of the decentralized sequencers. So teams that prioritize decentralized sequencers will be able to sprint to market, while teams that don't prioritize it have no incentive to do so.

Can you walk us through how it works? So the only technical implementation that I'm aware of is the one that Sello is pushing, kind of who are moving from like an L1 to an L2 network. So how do you go about it? Yeah, so I think we have a very similar approach to Sello. Cello had a layer one. They're now approaching this like layer two on ZK of Lidium. All the valor from Seller were layer one, stake the Sello token to participate in sequencing

for the cellar layer two. So that kind of works how we have it, right? So we have M1, which is both on the synonymous consensus. For those that are familiar, it's from the avalancheek system. That's essentially a fast finality, extremely low, hardware requirements, and very decentralized consensus mechanism. That's our sequencer, Valor, Sikkim, and Move Token to participate in sequencing for the layer two. The benefits of using the domain there is leaderless.

When you want a Q transactions, you can have multiple for nodes. So if one node goes down, the network doesn't go down. you don't have a centralized point of failure. And then B, anyone can run a node for the network. So the issues like Solana apps and Swedes, the hardware requirements are very high. The minimum stakes are very high. So it's very centralized in that sense. With our semi-consensus, anyone can run a node.

It's very little sticky requirements so we can have much more decentralization at network level. Cool. I want to come back to the stack a little bit. So could you describe, like, what is the role of M1? So is M1 like the sort of shared sequencer that all, M2 chains are going to use. Yeah, and then how does M1 then connect into IBC and then all of the other like move chains that are part of the broader, you know,

move ecosystem. So you all have M2 as the main, like, fraction roll up. Think of like the optimism chain, the main chain. And then you have M1 as a sequencer, which is kind of analogous to optimism's super chain sequencer. And then they have other move rollups launching the network. And it all sequenced by the same sequences set, which is M1, which is like the OP stack rollups.

So a similar business model there, we're just focused on A, launching our sequence off the bat, and B on the next gen VM. So our stack will actually complementary to the LP stack, where you can use the OPE stack, use the move stack for the VM,

and connect to the sequencer. I think everyone was customizing a DA layer, customizing role frameworks, customizing improvement marketplaces, but then not touching the EVM at all. Our stance is we don't believe that should be the case. We want experimentation at the VM level.

If you're building a gaming rollup, which we've seen a lot of demand for you probably want to use the move VM or SVM, something like that. And yeah, the M1 signalister connects all the different techniques systems, allows for liquidity to be routed seamlessly. And then Envision is you have these hundreds of roll-ups all connected to Ethereum with this decentralized sequencer set. Fascinating. And, yeah, let's maybe just zoom in a little bit to where Celestia fits into all of this

and how it supports the roll-ups being built on top of Al-1. Yeah, so the faces last year was ETH settlement and E. DA is really expensive. If more like optimizes our arbitrage, the fees are pretty high there. So how can we free all DAA to really scale Ethereum roll-ups so that you can still be on Ethereum settlement, but post-caldata to a cheaper source? That's when Celestia, I gain in the veil, even near and out, kind of position themselves as leaders in the space. From there, kind of like what roleups like ourselves, Eclipse, Manta, etc.,

I've already been focusing on is, okay, we're bringing alt VMs and next gen VMs and different VM stacks to Ethereum. We need to use Celestia because if you have a paralyzed VM on top of Ethereum, we're not using Alt-D-A, still being really expensive. You'll inherit the security of Ethereum and obviously be a true L2, but the user experience can be pretty subpar, at least until full-dang shortings out, which is a few years out at this point. So that's kind of thesis to use Alt-D-A. That also ties into the kind of IBC narrative, which you touched on before. We're working with the union, not being fully are IBC compatible. They're building out sole light-time machines for us. So essentially

if you want to do cross-chain swaps on top of M2, you can do that with IBC itself, connect to osmosis, correct to Juno, connect to your favorite cosmos zones, or roll chains or whatever you want to call it. Yeah. So we're recording this on March the 12th, and the Deng Koon upgrade is going to be tomorrow.

So this will give us pro-to-dank sharding. I think it's pretty obvious that it's not going to be enough, but how much do you think it'll help the entire call data situation? Yeah, so it's going to be an exciting day tomorrow, so looking forward to that. But to be quite frank, I don't think it's going to be that noticeable. I've seen some recent measurements,

and I think I'd be a few cents difference. Folding sharding, as we know, is like three or four years out, which at that case that we can reassess the needs for all DA. But I think, like, slest it can cut fees down at 99% today while pro-dating sharding is like 0.1%, something like that. So I don't think it really is a factor. I think user experience I made an ethereum will be a little bit better. It's the right step in the right direction. But the fact of the truth of matter is like Ethereum Foundation

and like Ethereum itself can't move as rapidly as like Celestia, Igen, and third party infrastructure groups. So in the short term and midterm, honestly, all DA cells in market. And what's the role of like restitution? within the sort of movement story and how does eigen layer fit into all this? Yeah, so resting has always been an interesting area. I think it's definitely probably the hottest thing right now, one of the hottest things. People want to use a theme of security. There's groups bringing into Cosmos, those groups bringing into Bitcoin,

and it's just like kind of using more capital efficient markets. We're seeing a lot of layer two's work with, we're seeing providers at the British contract levels. So imagine you have like Arbishop, you deploy, deposit ETH to Barber Trump, it can enable re-stake it with Rio Renza, one of these players, and have extra yield. So I think

these are much like yield-bearing strategies that LERC who's adopting. I think the way we're approaching is like also similar to that, like having an LRT at the bridge contract, if you're a family office, like with fun, you a lot of ETH, you want deposit on the chain, you can stick it on an LST, and then restate it with LRT

at the bridge-contry level, have fully automated so you need to worry about it, have like extra yield that you wouldn't be able to get easily. And the benefit of us is that because it's fully formally verified is actually the most secure way to restake ETH. So we talked about of liquid funds. The concern they have is, okay, I want to earn yield, but security is very important to me. I'm not, I'm a family office. I don't like to take a lot of risk. I just like hold Eith and sell at certain times. So for them, the pitches, okay, this is the best place to deploy ETH, restake it, earn the yield that you want and have it fully fully verified. So there's not security concerns.

that you're actually worrying about. It actually creates a bigger narrative around insurance, which gets me excited because in the past, insurance has been really pretty much useless because of market-contract risk, there's actually a world where you can, because you have restic the need, you can use as collateral for investment.

So if you're using AVE or you swap on chain, you want to use restake as collateral, you can use IG Insurance, which is another part of protocol they're working on, as collateral for the investment. So that's another ABS. That's actually really exciting, especially for the move because the security gaps enable it to be much for risk adverse,

or rush for risk better, which enables interest rates to be lower, which enables retail capital coming more easily. Any thoughts on the rise of Bitcoin L2s? Because in the past months or so, those have been all the rates, right? Yeah, I think like personally I don't. We understand that. I'm not that deep in the Bitcoin space to like the Bitcoin programming space. I'm sure there's other people who can ever speak better to it.

For my understanding, it's like a way for people to take existing Bitcoin reserves, put it on-chain or put it into where now like custody multi-sigs or side chains and are on yield for that. So in the short term makes sense, it's a way to generate yield. And it's a way for layer twos or whatever you want to call it to boost drive TVL, a billion chain got like $2 billion, $3 billion in a week or something crazy. I think a lot of ecosystem they're now looking at that how can we acquire Bitcoin liquidity? In the past, RAPTC was always available, but family offices, liquid funds don't really want to wrap BTC because it's a whole process. Gas fees are really high. It's a lot of risk. So BTCL2 is enable Native Bitcoin to exist and be repurposed for yields.

So I think what a lot of group and groups are looking at is how can we integrate something like Babylon, integrate like the BTC accrued from there and earn a yield to our system? So something that we're looking into is, is there a world where we're committing native BTC via Babylon, or other infrastructure providers and have that used in Defi. But obviously, we're experimental and probably more down the roadmap. But I think, like, Bitcoin itself is here to stay. I think the ETC approved that it's going to be, like, currency of gold. It's not going to be very programmable. I don't imagine the next social or gaming app being built on these BTCL2s.

I don't think that's possible. My current knowledge, I think it's just a way to repurpose BTC, which is cool. So I think short-term play makes sense, long-term, I'm kind of unsure. but teams like us are looking to kind of leverage that for existing TVL security methods. Yeah, I personally think that Bitcoin is going to play a bigger and bigger role in the layer two narrative in the coming year. And a lot of that I think is fueled by the ETF bringing lots more liquidity into the space, but also a lot of the kind of technical developments that are happening there. So I, you know, there was this Bitcoin Renaissance event at Denver and I think like half of the teams that were that were that were the head booth there were building some kind of restake Bitcoin product or liquid stake Bitcoin product. And and I think that, you know, given Bitcoin's position as like the largest and more secure blockchain, it makes a ton of sense for that capital to be utilized. Well, one in Defi through liquid state assets.

whether that's technically possible you can do sort of trust minimized versions of Bitcoin on other chains is going to be very important like we don't want this just to be a multi-sig but then yeah the security aspect I think is also huge so like whoever figures that out and brings it to market I think will do very well

I want to move on now to yeah you guys announced a couple of months ago a partnership with yeah union and noble and I was really excited about this because we're also very bullish on those two teams. Yeah, how does this help bring USC to movement? And can you describe maybe like the role of union in bringing IBC to the movement ecosystem, but also Cosmos and Ethereum and sort of tying it all together so that we can have fungible

USC across all these platforms? Yeah, I think like IBC has always been like, regarded as the most secure, one of the best bridging standards at the market. And there's a bunch of transport layers on top of that, which like layer zero, wormhole, Hyperlane. Recently, Wormhole is an awesome worm chain, which is like Gateway now, which is their cause with adaption, layer zero and Hyperlane both have also IBC in adaptions. You have XLR as well.

So all the biggest bridging protocols all use IBC under the hood, but they use it probably in a non-native way. It's really difficult. I mean, you have plenty of you to use them. for one, you have to bridge the gateway and the bridge gateway to prospective chains. There's lack of native IBC connections. So there's a few groups that have emerged to kind of solve this problem. You have like Palmer Labs.

You have like Composable Finance. You have union labs now. They are now looking at different ways to bring IBC natively to systems. So part of our partnership with the union is they're working on building direct like-clined machines for a little or two. So if you're a DAP on top of movement, you can do transactions directly, does most, do it to other chains. It starts off through the union chain, I believe, but eventually it will be native IBC compatibility,

which is really exciting because now you can have any of UCC, you can add up, TIA, you can get any benefits of all the cosmos and assets that people want on chain without relying on a third party and secure bridge provider. But I think my general thesis is that IBC is the Cosmo standard. I know we touched on this of convergence, where Cosmos accomplishes the vision, the internet of blockchains, where every roll-up, every L-1, L2, L-3, whatever you want to call it,

we'll use IBC as a main bridging provider, bridging standard of the hood. It's just depending on, like, where are the rappers on top of it, and transulators on top of it, that facilitate that. So you have like Wormhole doing it from like their point of view, which is more third party and more trust-reliant, and you have like union and Palmer,

which are looking to kind of address to security assumptions and increase speeding times. Union specifically is looking at ZKIBC, they've got like Common BLS, which is a new standard messaging. So pretty exciting and bullish on that, which is how we're working with them. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned conversions

because there's a couple of topics that we touched on at the event that I'd like to bring up here. So, you know, one of the topics that we talked about was USDA denominated asset dominance in crypto. So obviously like USC and Tether are, you know, by a large margin leading in stable point issue. you know, over things like dye and other decentralized stable coins. Do you think this, like, you know, Correll from Union was on the panel also.

And so I encourage those who haven't seen that to go check it out. It's on the Nebula Summit YouTube channel. We'll link to it in the show notes. But, you know, he was saying that, you know, he felt that there was a risk to crypto to having these, well, one, like centralized, centrally issued stable coins. But also, I think another topic that, another sort of point that I haven't heard. brought up very often is, you know, this USDC denominated stable coins. So this kind of like US alignment, U.S. alignment, uh, risk. Do you, do you see that as a risk? And, uh, you know,

how, how can one mitigate that considering the fact that like these stable coins already have like such dominance over the space? So, yeah, we discussed like USC dominance. And my thing is like I have actually pro circle dominance in the short term because, we already have very few users on chain and like if you ever want like consumer safety right now we need like a third party like big provider like Circle Coinbase to really issue these assets

and provide confidence to retail users like going back to my example of like family using crypto if I told them to use like Die on Maker or like some of these other stable coin providers are probably freaked out and big what is this if I said it was like okay it's a stable coin issued by Circle like now probably going to be a public IPO company

very US regulated has a lot of rules and regulations, they feel a lot more comfortable. So there's like two kind of markets here, right? You have like retail, which is like people who don't really know crypto at all. They want to explore with it. You need Circle.

You need a Coinbase. You need centralized authorities for them to feel comfortable. And then you have the experience on-chain DGens. People have been trading for years. They recognize that in the world, that Circle kind of goes rogue or Coinbase goes rogue. They want the ability to safeguard their holdings. That's why Dye is really interesting.

That's why UCT is, like, is in a new world. interesting is that's like Athena, which is not a stable coin, but providing different investment kind of issuances. So I think there's different groups for those categories where you can provide solutions and stable coins and assets for more rep Threative people. But to bring in people's base, you do need centralized authorities. So I'm actually pro-circle, pro-coin-based issued assets. Yeah, I think that makes sense to me. I think in the short term it makes sense, you know, looming in the back of my mind is always this censorship risk, with USTC, I think that's really the main risk that I see, but as the space becomes more regulated,

that is going to be the case also most likely, like, I mean, all applications and DAFs will be subject to potentially, like, having decentralized transactions that don't fall in line with, like, compliance. Yeah, in terms of, yeah, like this, Cosmos and Ethereum convergence idea, which was the main topic of the panel in Denver. Yeah, what's the end game here for you? Like, in terms of Cosmos and Ethereum coming closer together

and benefiting from each other's sort of strong points, where do you see that heading towards? I think Ethereum is used for liquidity. It's used for settlement security. What Cosmos is used for communication. The Cosmos has a lot of different features. They're tournament at SDK, at IBC. They're called me a few teeth.

gone BFT, they're the whole zone thesis with like custom app chains. I think a lot of the times, the zones have a lot of struggle with osteoconomics and boost shopping values, that's pretty difficult. But the one thing that was always prominent and, like, beautiful, was if you had multiple zones, you could use the cause with SDK and you connected to, as well as you connect to the favorite chains, and it's permissionless interoperality, which is kind of like Hyperlane's motto, but I really see that kind of mantra spreading towards the theme of the module stack, where in this world where you have all these

for roll-ups and all aspects of the chains, you don't want to wait for a third-party bridge provider to always deploy it. If I'm building a new gaming chain, I want to launch three weeks. I sure have to wait for layer zero or any other kind of third-party bridge provider to deploy atop me.

I should be able to use IBC or some third-party produce standard to get connected to my favorite chains so I can sprint on my product. So I think that's where IBC has a unique market where enables for permissionless introp. I have a few different groups, billing wrappers on top of them.

it, but IBC is a standard that's going to be adopted for this mass welcoming of chains is coming, whereas Ethereum is still like the programmable computer where people are building top of it, using it for liquidity, using it as like a super computer, and then IBC is connecting on it. So I think the Cosmo Ethereum narrative and the CosmoThereum vision is coming to fruition today, where maybe Cosmos zones don't win, but IBC wins, which means that Cosmos wins, and maybe that Ethereum layer like Ethereum later to Ethereum DAs don't really make sense.

There's also a question about what is a roll-up? Is it if you're really on Slestia, does that mean that you're a roll-up? Or is it me L-2? I think that's a frivolous debate. I think as long as you can't even some capacity, doesn't really matter.

I think that if IBC wins, everybody wins. I think it's not so much about like, I think the end game is just, you know, and Ethan Buckman and Sam Hart We're talking about this on an episode of, I think it was like one of the Blockworks podcast recently, and they were talking about the end game. And like the end game is all chains using IBC and benefiting from this amazing interoperability technology. And then, you know, if I take it a step further, and this is sort of Corel's point of view, is that we have this swarm of

validators that is validating the state of all these chains. And as an application, you know, like there's just, you don't know who's validating your, your, your transaction, but it's, it's being added to this massive sort of swarm of state, this massive state that is secured by the swarm of validators. I kind of see that as the end game where Ethereum sort of sits at the bottom layer, provides liquidity, provides a major part of the security, but Cosmos, you know, through its construction, through the construction of the cosmos stack and being at the forefront of modular with the App Chain thesis brings the technology and the technical philosophy to build out applications in a way that makes sense.

I'm 100% with you both, that kind of IBC is kind of like the absolutely golden part of Cosmos. So I think this is something that kind of the Ethereum ecosystem is lacking. And bad kids. We see it. Yeah. And bad kids always win. There was a podcast probably already a year, a year and a half ago. Also with Ethan on bankless, interestingly, where kind of he.

argued his thesis that Ethereum is kind of like this empire where kind of everything ultimately settles back to Ethereum, whereas cosmos is like this network of city-states with kind of like pockets of value. So

now in this cosmos and Ethereum convergence picture, how would that kind of translate into this metaphor? In terms of like cities and states, like where yeah, in terms of like having like a giant empire where basically every everything's kind of like inverted pyramid shaped and everything ultimately settled back on main net where...

So like that's, I would say like the United States, it was like the United States would be Ethereum. You have a bunch of different states, which is like, yeah, like movement is one state, you kind of like another roll-up is another state. You have all these different states that are all the roll-ups. And the highways that connect all the different states are, is obviously where you need like connectivity between different states. Otherwise, if you're from California, you can't get in New Jersey. If you're from Oregon, you can't get to Florida. So that's like the main problem actually during crypto is like if you look at like earlier set of stage when America was first developed,

this is probably my inherent American coming out. But like when there was like really, it's really hard to like travel between different states and different regions back in old America. When they built roads out and transportation properly, it was really easy to get between states, which enable people to network easily and meet their family and friends. Same thing in today's crypto where you have a theory and one. which is like kind of the barren land.

It's like the 1700s, if you would say, where you have all the different states kind of forming, but still kind of figuring out whether markets are, like California was a gold state at one point. New York was the financial hub. People were still trying to figure out their hubs in that case. And then the main thing that's missing is kind of the roads between different chains

or in this case states, which is the IBC's position to be the best candidate. I was like, IBC would be the asphalt in this case or the concrete. and then like different groups, this is getting really in depth to it, but then like you have like Lune and Paul and we're in different groups that are actually building the specific roads,

if that makes sense. We talked about adoption kind of depths that widths of, you know, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people in the very beginning kind of when we talked about Facebook's motivation to create Move. So what does the future look like for MOVE and Ethereum and kind of when do you think we will see the first steps that actually have that sort of mainstream appear?

To plug myself, I would say our mainnet. But the real answer would be like, it depends on what your real apps are. I think there's no apps in crypto yet. We don't have any real apps yet. I'm talking about we don't have like an on-share social app. We don't have anyone that my parents are talking about. So we're still very early on that to,

like we can say like, oh, that excellent our defa apps. X amount of TVL, but who really cares? It's just another like copy pasta of another layer or two. We're trying to build infrastructure and apps that mainstream people can use, send payments to the speed of light across the world. So I would say like the movie system is poised to carry that thrown the best. A, because you have backing from two of the biggest consumer chains on the planet, and then B, like the language itself is designed for consumer development.

So I would say within like three years, we could see like a really prominent consumer or social app that gets a lot of traction. But in the short term, you'll see, like, much more proliferant secure device strategies compared to, like, traditional error twos and traditional material solutions. Great. Do you want to share a little bit about, yeah, sort of short-term and roadmap for movement, when can we expect mainnet, and how can people start building on movement or perhaps getting involved?

To get involved, like, go to disco, check out. like our builders community, moving labs X, XYZ is a website, follow me and Twitter at Rushi Mancha. And then we're rolling a lot of stuff end of this month and starting some announcements coming on fundraising as well as like test-inand Aspen coming out next month. So DevNet's fully live as well as the device test set up shortly. Awesome. Rushi, thanks so much for coming on Evis Center and expanding our minds on the on the Alt-V-M thesis and why movement is going to the mood. for sure, man. Thanks so much for having. I really appreciate the time.

Thank you for joining us on this week's episode. We release new episodes every week. You can find and subscribe to the show on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, SoundCloud, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you have a Google Home or Alexa device, you can tell it to listen to the latest episode of the Epicenter podcast. Go to epicenter.tv slash subscribe for a full list of places where you can watch and listen. And while you're there, be sure to sign up for the newsletter, so you get new episodes in your inbox as they're released. If you want to interact with us, the guest or other podcast listeners, you can follow us on Twitter. And please leave us a review on iTunes. It helps people find the show, and we're always happy to read them. So thanks so much, and we look forward to being back next week.