Polkadot: A Bet Against Maximalism (w/Gavin Wood and Sebastian Moonjava)

ASH BENNINGTON: If you love our crypto content 
or are looking to learn even more about crypto,   be sure to checkout and subscribe to our new 
youtube channel after this video dedicated to   all things crypto. Find new videos every week. 
Be sure to check the link in the description. SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Hello, Real Vision 
people. This is Sebastian Moonjava. Today,   I have a very special guest, Gavin Wood. 
He is the founder of Parity, Polkadot,   Web3 Foundation and Ethereum. I am so glad 
to have you here, Gavin, how are you doing?  GAVIN WOOD: Hi, Sebastian. I'm doing well. Thanks.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Let's start off with a little   bit about your background, getting into crypto in
the first place, and then maybe a little bit   about your experience with Ethereum. GAVIN 
WOOD: Sure, you want me to kick it off?  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Yeah. Tell us a little 
bit about yourself, your background,   how you even got started in the space.
GAVIN WOOD: Alright.

Well, it's a long   story. I went to university. I did like a 
PhD in Computer Science, but I was always   super into things like Game Theory, a little 
bit of social science, political science. This   was always on the back burner, generally, 
pub conversations, but quite in-depth ones.   I noticed this thing called Bitcoin back in 2011, 
or something, but I only actually took a deep look   into it in 2013. At around the same time, I was 
actually doing a startup with an old friend,   a software for lawyers to help lawyers author 
their contracts, dumb contracts, paper contract.  Towards the end of 2013, I got talking to a few 
people in the Bitcoin community in London quite   regularly.

One of the people I met was Vitalik, 
who has just done this initial whitepaper for   this thing called Ethereum. I was looking for a 
little gig on the side, so I said, yeah, sure,   I'll code it up for you. Ethereum took off quite 
a lot in 2014, and 2015. I was the initial CTO for   Ethereum Foundation, and it was basically down 
to me to make sure the thing actually launched,   which it did properly in mid-2015.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: The workhorse.  GAVIN WOOD: The workhorse. Yeah, that's it, 
running around. I left the Ethereum Foundation   late 2015 to do Ethcore, as it was called back 
then, a private company operating within the   Ethereum ecosystem. That eventually became Parity 
when we branched out to things beyond Ethereum, we   did our own Bitcoin client, and then eventually, 
2016, I put forward this idea for Polkadot,   which is the project that I'm still working 
on that Parity is fairly wholly behind now.   It's this idea for basically a chain of chains, a 
blockchain of blockchains, protocol of protocols.   Basically going a bit one layer down in the stack 
and seeing if we can abstract and generalize over   what we built before with Ethereum and Bitcoin.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: The overarching goal of   Polkadot is to what? Is this for interoperability? 
What is the problem that it's solving?  GAVIN WOOD: There's a lot of angles on 
this question.

It's a very interesting one,   because we are dealing with such deep tech. If 
you like, I think the one that gets to the crux   of it for me is innovation. We are solving the 
problem of innovating fast. The problem is that   if you want to innovate, you want to build a
new blockchain, you want to build new business   logic, you have to do an awful lot of work 
to get a relatively small amount back.  What Polkadot does is it allows you to 
shortcut on an awful lot of that work,   it allows you to shortcut on an awful lot 
of stuff that you have to do to build your   own blockchain. It also allows you —
JASON ZIEMIANSKI: What we're showing   you here on our YouTube channel 
is just the tip of the iceberg.   No matter where you are in your financial journey, 
whether you're a beginner just looking to break   into the market or a financial professional 
looking to up your game, Real Vision has   something for everyone.

Every day, our team of 
expert journalists provides in-depth analysis,   written reports, access to live streams, 
and access to our community, The Exchange,   where you can interact with people just like 
you from all over the world. For just $1, you   can unlock all of this and more at realvision.com. 
Try our Essential tier. If you like what you see,   it's only $20 a month thereafter. So 
click on the link in the description,   go to realvision.com, and see what you 

We look forward to seeing you there. GAVIN WOOD: is it allows you to shortcut on 
an awful lot of that work, it allows you to   shortcut on an awful lot of stuff that you 
have to do to build your own blockchain.   It also allows you to shortcut on things like 
building your own community, it allows you to   shortcut on stuff like being able to utilize all 
of the various other bits that are going on in   other blockchains. It does this by connecting, 
allowing to connect to those other chains.   It also very crucially allows you to avoid having 
to build your own base, your own security base.  Blockchains, this is very important. 
They have to provide their own security.   Bitcoin famously has the mining algorithm. 
I don't know, it uses up the equivalent of,   I don't know, some small country's energy simply 
in securing itself. Of course, the newer chains   tend not to be proof of work, they tend to be 
proof of stake so they're not using much energy,   but they are using a lot of capital.

A lot of 
capital allocation has to go into this proof   of stake, so that the chain actually is secure, 
because it's this capital that's securing it.  The problem is that you've got many different 
proof of stake chains, each doing their own   different thing, then that capital has to be 
divided between these chains to secure each of   them rather than being pooled together and having 
the whole capital base securing all of the chains.   That's really one of the key problems that 
Polkadot solves, it allows the same capital   base to secure many different 
domain specific blockchains.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Can you 
tell me a little bit more about   how they get this groups together security? 
I hear this word parachains coming up often,   can you tell me a little bit about 
how that security is different?   How it's getting it's security from the main 
Substrate as opposed to how Ethereum works?  GAVIN WOOD: In essence, there's two 
different things going on here.

One of them,   you can look at it as like Polkadot 
is a bunch of different blockchains,   independent blockchains doing their own thing. 
Then every now and again, every six seconds as it   turns out, these blockchains are allowed to send 
messages to each other. There's a point during a   period, an interval in which they are allowed 
to communicate. Other than that, they're doing   their own work, a little bit like your traditional 
idea of an office worker, they spend an hour doing   their own thing, filling in forms, writing memos, 
all the rest of it. Then at the end of the hour,   they might have some communication, they might 
take a meeting or have a call or whatever.  It's like these blockchains, we call them 
parachains, they're going off doing their   own work for six seconds then coming back and 
conferring with each other, exchanging messages,   and catching up. Now, how do they get 
security? Do they share security? Well,   that essentially comes down to this one chain, the 
relay chain, we call it as the heart of Polkadot.   This chain has a bunch of validators.

validators, as I said before, they're bonded,   so they've got this capital backing. This 
capital can be lost if these guys misbehave,   so they're trusted in some sense of the word.
The kind of trust that they're not really just   acting in their own self-interest. Because if 
they misbehave, they lose potentially quite a lot   of money. Now, these guys are split. When Polkadot 
is going fully, properly, expanded, and it's   really going, probably in six months' time, 
there's going to be about 1000 of these guys.  The idea is that we split them into 
100 subgroups of 10.

Each subgroup,   each of these 10 validators get randomly assigned 
to one of these chains, one of these parachains,   of which we expect that to be probably about 100.
They check, they make sure that the parachains   are actually operating correctly, that no one's 
trying to do anything bad or malicious on the   parachain. Basically, they make sure the system 
retains its integrity. This gets swapped out   every six seconds. What that means is that 
even if you compromise one of these groups,   it's very difficult to get a long run, it's 
basically impossible to get a long run of   blocks, of six second blocks, in order 
to really make any attack feasible.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: All have these, and 
like you said, there'll be many of these   over the next several months that are coming 
out. They are, again, all getting their   security from this central relay chain. Can 
you give me an example of what some of these   parachains might be doing? It can be anything, 
right? Can you go into a little bit of detail   about what is possible on these parachains?

The great thing about   parachains, the way that I designed Polkadot 
back at the beginning, was really to try and   make it as general as possible. We do that in, 
first lesson of computer science, we do that by   making it as abstract as possible. We're really 
trying to get rid of anything that's particularly   concrete or more specific to what the–
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: This is more so than Ethereum,   because usually the comparisons are like, 
we've got Bitcoin, then we've got Ethereum,   which made it a little bit more abstract. 
Is this even more abstract than Ethereum?  GAVIN WOOD: Substantially more.

Yeah. I was 
that back in the day when we're trying to pitch   Ethereum to the world. It's fair to say that 
Ethereum is more general purpose than Bitcoin.   Bitcoin has a relatively limited ability to be 
scripted. You can attach certain conditions,   some scripting conditions to the payments 
that you make in Bitcoin, but relatively few.   With Ethereum, that scripting, those conditions 
that you could make became substantially greater,   a lot more flexible. You could do things like 
loops in them, which computer scientists will   know can give rise to Turing completeness.
This allows you to do all sorts of crazy weird   and wonderful experiments on Ethereum, but there's 
a big issue with Ethereum. That's what's called   gas, and gas is this idea that you're metering 
how much computation that's being done. Every   single transaction is being metered. What the 
metering means is that every single instruction,   these instructions are very tiny little things, 
things like add these two numbers, or look this   thing up in memory, these instructions, each and 
every one of them being counted, being metered,   and this metering is very, very expensive.
What that ultimately means is that   running complex, sophisticated programs on 
Ethereum is extremely expensive.

It works,   don't get me wrong, but it's very expensive. You 
can see this already today with defi slowly being   throttled by the amount of costs associated with 
the gas price. Now what we do is we say, well,   actually, this level of abstraction is good in its 
general purpose but it's not the lowest level that   we can go to, and we go to an even lower level.
Within Polkadot, we don't have the notion of gas,   we don't have the notion of accounts or account 

We don't have any of these ideas that   are we don't– like Ethereum has ether and every 
computer program that you write and upload to   Ethereum has to be associated with an account 
that holds ether. Every time anyone uses that   computer program, they have to have some ether 
to pay Ethereum to run the program for them.   That isn't the case in Polkadot.
In Polkadot, it's very simple. The team   behind the program uploads that program. They do 
it as a blockchain. The program is actually a very   large program that contains all of the various 
business logic for an application or potentially   many different applications. They upload this into 
Polkadot, and then they pay for that blockchain,   that parachain to be there by virtue 
of this deposit of a leasing system.  Once it's paid, it's done.

At that point, 
the users of this computer program never even   have to know about Polkadot, they never have to 
know about the DOT token or anything to do with   that stuff. All they care about is basically 
what is the business logic of this chain.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Is this like– it's like lump 
sum payment for a lease for a certain period of   time, then they get as much accessibility to 
the computing as they need. That's great. Can   you maybe give a little compare and contrast of 
what the parachain and maybe the initial parachain   offerings that I'm hearing about. Is it like the 
way that they're bootstrapping their security?  Can you maybe give a comparison to the ICO things 
that happen on Ethereum, where in Ethereum,   they were the ICOs were trying to raise capital 
maybe to build out one of these projects, which is   significantly different than what your thing 
is, because some of these parachain offerings,   I believe, if I'm correct here, is that 
they're trying to bootstrap this like payment   that you're talking about for their lease for them 
to be able to run this constantly.

Can you maybe   go into a little bit about the differences here?
GAVIN WOOD: Yeah. We were trying to avoid   that specific term, because it tends to lead 
to misunderstandings with precisely what's   happening. In reality, what's going on with– I've 
mentioned leases. There's this idea that we have a   finite number of slots, probably around 100 once 
Polkadot is probably going. Parachains can occupy   one of these slots when they run. There's 
one of the interesting parachains called   Acala, these guys are essentially trying to make 
a decentralized finance chain, it's got Ethereum   Virtual Machine compatibility, so people can 
easily upload their Ethereum programs into it.  It can also do all sorts of other things.

got a stablecoin on it, all this kind of stuff.   Now, if these guys want to take a slot, then they 
have to put down a lease, someone somewhere has to   basically put down more DOT tokens than anybody 
else in the world who is willing to deposit   for the slot. Now, these DOT tokens don't go 
anywhere, they just get locked. They can't   be transferred out, or anything like that.
They don't go anywhere.

They stay within   the account of the leaser, the person 
who's putting the DOT tokens down,   and six months or whatever, however 
long it takes before the lease   expires, those tokens are eventually freed up. 
They don't go anywhere. They are all 100% stuck   within the Polkadot system. There's no chance 
of them being slashed or reduced in balance.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: As in opposition and in 
difference to the ICOs that we saw on 2017,   there is no swapping out. This is just to drive 
home your point more that these tokens are just   pretty much placed here, left alone. There's 
no, oh, hey, I'm giving you this, and you're   giving me that. It's just I'm providing security 
or saying, yeah, these people need the security.   I think it's a good project for Polkadot so 
I will push this here and lock it in there.  GAVIN WOOD: Yeah, it's just a way of determining 
the value of one project against another. The   value is just measured by many people are 
willing to lock up how many DOT tokens   behind this project, but that's only locked up 
as long as the project's actually got an active   parachain.

As soon as the project loses that 
parachain, like they find an alternative means   of releasing such a slot, then those tokens are 
freed up and they get– not returned because that   would imply that they left in the first place, but 
simply placed back under normal use of the owner.  Now, of course, Acala probably, and various 
other parachain teams that are out there,   don't have those DOT tokens themselves. 
What they want to be able to do is basically   say to the various DOT token holders of the 
world, hey, put your DOT token– sponsor us   with a deposit of your DOT tokens.

Don't give 
them to us, just put them behind our chain,   our project, as long as it's a parachain.
Maybe you do it for the good of your heart.   Maybe you do it because you think this is 
a really worthwhile project. Maybe you do   it because the project is going to offer you 
some benefit, it might give you some on- chain,   I don't know, receipt or record that can be used 
in the future for some gain of some sort. Now,   this we call a crowd loan, because it's basically 
you're taking to the crowd and you're saying,   look, please loan the system some 
of your tokens in order for us to   be able to put forward our chain and get 
one of these slots and run on Polkadot.  The key difference is that these tokens 
never leave the ownership of the crowd,   the crowd members.

They retain ownership, it's 
just that it gets placed behind the parachain.   Once it's placed behind that one parachain, 
it can't be used for other stuff like staking,   or other parachains or obviously can't 
be sent to any third party as well.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: That's great. I would love 
to hear a bit about Kusama. Full disclosure, I   own some Polkadot, I own some Kusama, but I think 
this really interesting stuff especially like   the Kusama society stuff is very interesting. 
I'd love for you to just give us an overview of   what in the world is Kusama? How does it relate 
to Polkadot and the ecosystem as a whole as well?  GAVIN WOOD: Sure. Kusama, we call it a canary 
network, a canary chain. You're familiar with test   networks, this is the idea of basically a network 
that has no value. Bitcoin has a test network,   there's a few others. That just sticks around in 
the background, usually software that's going to   eventually be rolled out to the Mainnet, that main 
network of a cryptocurrency or blockchain, will be   first rolled out to one of these testnets just 
to make sure it's doing roughly the right thing.  The problem with testnets are that they can't be 
used to test the things that require some degree   of a value signal.

For example, governance. 
Governance, stakeholder voting, this kind of   stakeholder participation, this kind of 
stuff is pointless to do on a testnet,   because who's going to be interested in voting 
on a network that has literally zero value? It   doesn't make any sense. No one's going 
to dedicate their time to doing that.  What we do for Polkadot, because we 
really wanted to test this stuff,   we're breaking new ground in terms of on-chain 
governance with Polkadot, and we really needed   to test it before we launched a multibillion 
dollar market cap network that's governed   by an algorithm.

We introduced first Kusama, 
a very low value network, but still a network   that in principle has scarcity and people have 
given value over time. Kusama is there to make   sure that our various algorithms be there for 
governance, for just new features, innovations,   experiments that we think might be good but 
might not be good, they might not work out.  These are all things that can be pushed onto 
Kusama to try it in the real world with real stake   albeit not as much stake perhaps as one of the 
top networks but still enough stake to make it   worthwhile for people to actually interact with 
the test out and first, to see actually how it   works with real people.

Now, in addition to that, 
of course, Kusama is a fast moving no promises,   expect chaos, break it attitude for a network, 
which is quite different to a lot of blockchains,   what blockchains really push for their stability, 
robustness, reliability as Polkadot indeed does.  Really, we wanted an alternative out there 
that's using the same kind of technology,   but with a completely different mindset. 
That's really what Kusama fulfills.   It's like if you've got an experiment, you want 
to try a social experiment, put it on Kusama.   Don't put it on Polkadot. Polkadot's there for 
the production industry capable applications.   Kusama is really there for interesting 
experimentation, particularly social experiments.  The society is one of these social experiments. 
The idea is to say, well, we've got the idea of   blockchain, where you've got these blocks, they're 
full of transactions, the next block references   the previous block, and you're building a ledger 
up from nothing out of these references or the one   thing referencing the previous thing. Can we do 
that? Can we make it more tangible? Because blocks   are not very tangible, you try and explain this 
to my mother, she won't really know what you're   talking about.

Blocks what? Wooden blocks?
The society is what's called also the human   blockchain. This is the idea that you can make a 
blockchain out of people, but rather than these   abstract blocks full of transactions, you've got 
literally human beings, and the human beings,   as a new one is added onto the human blockchain, 
they reference an old one. We've got this society,   I think there's 50 members now, all around the 
world, most of them don't know the others. Each of   them have tattooed crazily enough onto their body, 
a reference to another member of this society.  It's all public, you can see the tattoos, and 
every now and again, one is chosen at random,   and they have to actually prove that they still 
have the tattoo. They have to prove to the other   members of the society that they did indeed get 
the tattoo.

It's really just a social experiment,   but it's something that using to show that 
blockchains actually can be used to make a   fairly arbitrary difference into people's lives.
There's a few other bits that Kusama is doing.   It's quite heavily supportive of the 
art world. There are a few projects that   Kusama is funding within the art world to try 
and bring a bit more knowledge about blockchain,  a bit more awareness into circles that 
blockchain wouldn't otherwise get exposed to.   Overall, it's like Kusama's treasury, its on-chain 
governance so it hasn't fairly substantially   funded treasury now.

The on- chain governance 
can control this treasury and Kusama is fairly   active in using these funds to support various 
projects to bring about awareness and education.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: A couple of things that 
are coming to mind as you're talking is one,   can you talk to me maybe a little bit about, I'm 
not sure, maybe the cadence of– I was reading   about like Moonbeam is working on a Kusama 
version, or they're going to launch a project   on there. Then they're going to do it on Polkadot 
as well. Maybe, can you talk to me about like the   process that you would imagine that a team looking 
to build a parachain, would they go to Kusama   first, and then they would go on to Polkadot? 
Can you describe how you see this process?  GAVIN WOOD: Yeah. It's certainly one way of doing 

I wouldn't necessarily expect all teams to go   first to a test, we always have a testnet. That's 
what's running at the moment. We call the testnet   Rococo. It started just before Christmas I 
think. It's been accepting parachain teams   to be brought on over the last week or two.
The first step is really get your parachain   working just on your little local computer. 
The next step is to get it onto Rococo. We'd   expect most people, most teams like Moonbeam 
to be deploying onto the Rococo testnet.   Kusama, they may also choose to do. It depends 
whether it makes sense for the team to have two   valuable networks going, one is a parachain on 
Polkadot and the other is a parachain on Kusama.   Could be that some teams don't need that for their 
project as it makes sense to deploy on Polkadot.  Could be like a small project, maybe a social 
experiment, maybe they don't have that much   funding, or they can't get that much backing, 
and that they're perfectly happy with being on   Kusama.

It could be that another team just jumped 
straight to Polkadot. They know that their stuff   works. They've tested it locally, they tested on 
the Rococo testnet. They don't need to bother.   For them, maybe the security of Kusama isn't 
sufficient or maybe just that the other parachains   on Kusama are not going to give them a sufficient 
value add for them to be connected into them.   Instead, they just jumped straight to Polkadot.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Related to this, one,   the governance of these protocols, and I pretty 
much already know the answer this question,   but I want to ask it anyways, who is in charge of 
Kusama, who is governing Kusama? Is it Polkadot?  GAVIN WOOD: No.

Actually, the funny thing here is 
that, if anything, it's the other way around. No,   there's about 19 people like that, it was 19 that 
are– it might be 17, one or the other governing,   in principle, the Council, the Kusama Council, 
and they don't have any actual real power,   but they have some degree of executive power. It's 
a little bit similar to the UK political system,   some people might be familiar with 
it. Basically, any legislation   has to be still put through the full chamber or 
the referendum, as it is in Kusama as we call it.  The Council, which is a little bit akin 
to the executive body like the government,   are the ones that most of the time put forward 
the things to be voted on. It's like they say,   yeah, we think this is a good idea. Please
vote for it. Then it goes into the referendum to   be voted through.

The interesting thing here 
is, though, that Polkadot, the DOT tokens,   we originally mentioned that we're going to 
be giving 10 million DOT tokens to Kusama,   one way or another. We hadn't decided back when 
we announced it like a year and a half ago.  The likelihood now is that we will literally be 
bestowing 10 million DOT tokens under the control   of the Kusama governance mechanism. 
It'll be fully decentralized. In reality,   Kusama or the Kusama governance mechanism 
will have a voice in how Polkadot is run.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Because I've talked 
to other people about this relationship   between Kusama and Polkadot, and because of 
this governance thing, that's why I asked,   is that Kusama can become its own thing. One 
of the main differentiators and maybe you can   talk about this as well, I wanted to touch 
on treasury stuff too. If you can touch on,   again, the main differentiators, you can 
call it whatever you want. You can say, oh,   this is a testnet, or it's a whatever you want to 
call it, but in reality, it's governed by itself.  It's beholden only to itself.

It's evolving 
over time. This relationship can really be   different later. Can you tell me some of the key 
differences? One of the ones I know off the top of   my head is like, for decision making, or let's say 
unlocking of staked DOT takes 28 days or a month,   and then unlocking of Kusama is seven days. 
There's a significant difference in some of these   things. Can you talk about why those decisions 
are made, or what are the implications of some   of these differences between Kusama and Polkadot?

Primarily, Kusama is this   live fast, die young kind of network. It's pushing 
the limits a little bit harder than Polkadot.   It's giving up some of the– potentially some of 
the robustness and reliability, but in exchange   for the very latest technology, for the ability 
to change, for the ability to adapt a lot faster.   Ultimately, these, to a large degree, are 
a tradeoff. Now, you can argue maybe they   can add some cleverness and have both very fast 
changeability and extremely high reliability, but   I would say in general, it's a tradeoff between 
the two.

Kusama is trading off the reliability.  Other things that are like this, probably like 
the auction, the parachain lease slots on Kusama   are going to be probably four times shorter. 
Instead of six months, there'll be only six   weeks. This means there's going to be probably a 
lot more parachain churn, and they'll come and go.  The governance in general for Kusama has shorter 
term limits. The council is reevaluated–   is it once a day still? I think it's 
still once a day, but in Polkadot,   it will eventually become once a month. In 
Kusama, it might eventually become once a week,   but there's generally this four to one ratio. 
If in Polkadot, it takes four months, in Kusama,   it only takes one month.

It takes four days.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Again, it's much faster.   Kusama is able to mobilize, add 
additional technology features,   make decisions about governance and maybe treasury 
at four times the speed that Polkadot can.   Let's talk a little bit about treasury, which 
I think is like a really interesting thing.   DOT Kusama, again, whenever I talk to 
people I say, the DOT Kusama ecosystem.   In this space, talk to me a little bit 
about how the treasury works or like,   because DOT does have a little bit of inflation 
depending on how much is staked, is that correct?  Can you talk about the decision making behind 
this? I assume that this is so that you can   develop faster, make more– because I know 
Decred had worked on like a treasury system   that's taken from some of the miners and stuff and 
that helps develop and build a robust ecosystem.   Can you talk to me a little bit about how the 
treasury works? How they're getting funds for   the treasury and how they deploy that capital?

The funds, actually,   they come from a few sources. The source– but one 
of the sources that you already mentioned, this is   essentially the suboptimality of the staking 
system. What we do is– I don't want too   deep down into the math, but essentially, we named 
an optimal amount of the total issuance of the DOT   token to be staked. At the moment, it's 75%. We 
say, we the governance of Polkadot declare that   we want 75% of the DOT tokens issued to be locked 
under the staking system. If it's any more, or if   it's any less, then we consider it suboptimal.
Now, as part of the algorithm by which we   determine how much rewards each of the validators 
should get, each of the stakeholders should get,   it turns out happily enough, that that 75%, to 
make 75% be the perfect number for everybody,   it turns out that only at 75% do we need the 
maximum amount of rewards of total costs of   the network.

Now, we say well, for that for the 
moment, it's 10%. We say 10% per year is the   inflation. We inflate the token base by 10%, and 
that 10%, we allocate to the staking to rewards.  Here's the thing, if there is anything other 
than 75% of tokens staked, then it means we're   not going to use the whole 10%, we'll use less of 
it, that's just the way that the math works out.   This means that what we do is we send the rest of 
it, we could just not use it, we could burn it,   we could never inflate the token based 
higher. Instead, we take the more progressive   approach, and we put it in the treasury, in 
the Polkadot treasury, or the Kusama treasury.   Once it's in the treasury, then it's open to being 
spent by the delegated Council, these 19 or 17   people in Kusama. I think it's 
still 11 people in Polkadot.  Now, these guys can basically, a majority 
vote from them can basically spend what's   in the treasury. This is all super 
in the open, it's all on-chain.   You can go to chat rooms and see what's going 

There's forums and all the rest of it.   Now, if for some reason, the council choose not 
to spend it, or there's nothing good to spend   it on or whatever, so basically, if there's 
an overrun, if there's a treasury overrun,   a budget overrun, we're running a 
surplus, and then we actually burn it.   We took it in the incinerator and the DOT tokens 
just go out of the system, the issuance drops.  There is this additional deflationary pressure, 
it's not just we inflate 10% per year regardless,   but we inflate up to 10%.

If it turns out that 
the staking is suboptimal, and the treasury can't   spend the funds, then those tokens essentially 
never get issued. What's it being used for?   There's a bunch of– Kusama has quite a lot of 
crazy stuff that it's using it for. Actually with   Kusama, rather than just being about the Kusama 
network, it's also trying to raise, as I say,   awareness in more general circles, so there's 
a few artistic endeavors going on within that   are being funded on their own, fairly small bits 
of funding, but still being funded from Kusama.  Polkadot does tend to be a bit more focused. 
Obviously, the Polkadot treasury has more notional   capital funding, owing to it being a widely 
more valued network. The stuff that goes on   is running infrastructure within the community, 
so one of the first things that the Polkadot   treasury was used for was running a very widely 
used explorer, a blockchain explorer, a website   where you can check the history of transactions.
Also, development, various projects have had their   technology been funded by the Polkadot treasury. 
Of course, this is all open source, so everyone   can benefit from it, and there's a few other bits.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: These people that are wanting   to get funding, let's say, your example of a block 
explorer, this person would put in a proposal   right to the treasury to say, hey, I 
think I can add value to this network,   can I get some of this inflation or this treasury 
funding? Then the group of people, the Council   would be making a vote to say, yeah, we think that 
that is worthwhile for us to use those treasury   funds to build out this infrastructure.
GAVIN WOOD: That's exactly right.

Now,   the interesting thing there's actually three 
ways that the treasury can be used. Three   methods. One of them is precisely that. Someone 
comes forward, they say, hey, I've got a proposal,   please give me some funds because I did this 
cool thing, or I want to do this cool thing.   It's great for Polkadot. It's great for 
Kusama. If the Council votes on it, fine.  There are two other ways. One of them is that is 
what we call the bounties. This is the opposite   way around. This is where the Council says, we 
want this thing doing, and we will pay this much.   We're delegating this curator to make sure that 
it's actually done, and they basically are in   charge of making sure that the funds are properly 
spent. We want this goal achieving, who out there   would like to achieve it? They put out a call to 
action or a request for proposals or something.  Then the other thing is what 
we call on-chain tipping.   This is where basically, someone has done 
something, usually a very small thing,   but still something that is a nice thing, it's 
like maybe they've written a little blog post or   done some nice pottery, or something, somehow 
made more people aware of the network or done   some useful educational technology for it. 
Basically, someone will report this is a   nice little good thing, and then the council, 
rather than having a specific spending proposal,   each of the members will say, yeah, I think 
this should be tipped one and a half Dots.  Then as each of the council members fill in 
what they think it's worth, if it's worth a   tip at all, what tip it's worth, there will 
eventually be a quorum of council members,   I think it's usually half of them, maybe half 
plus one.

At that point, there's a countdown,   and there's like 24 hours in case any other 
council members want to chime in and put what   they think. Then after that, it's just the median. 
The median tip is chosen, and it's given to   whoever reported that or split between 
whoever reported and whoever actually did it.  This this really just allows a much faster 
moving process rather than having to, well,   I'm thinking of doing this blog post, I 
would like to be paid such and such for it,   and all the rest of it. It's just much faster.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Also, related to governance   and treasury and stuff, there was this 
thing that I read about Polkadot, Kusama,   they're trying to be like forkless blockchains, 
is that correct? Can you explain what that means,   and what the benefits are to that?

This is something   that I personally worked on. It was my little 
baby that I did when I started. I worked   on it three years ago now. It was the first 
thing I worked on with regards to Polkadot.  Essentially, Polkadot does things differently to 
almost every other protocol out there, including   the very well- known ones. It's what's called 
a meta protocol, a blockchain meta protocol.  What this means is that the protocol, the 
thing that people associate with Polkadot,   so parachains and governance and balances and DOT 
tokens and all that stuff, that's not actually   part of the underlying protocol. That's the 
underlying thing that runs on the network.   That's actually a business logic that sits on top 
of the protocol and it's entirely programmatic.   What that means is it can be swapped out 
at any point in Polkadot's future for some   other business logic, alterations to it.
The actual protocol, the thing that is   defined as being Polkadot and is very difficult to 
change is actually very, very thin. It's all the   underlying consensus, which are called BABE and 
GRANDPA, that is a hybrid consensus but two bits.   A bit similar to Ethereum 2's consensus and a 
fairly substantial move forward from all the   existing consensus mechanisms.

A layer on top of 
that that just says how to execute business logic.   We explicitly chose the most general industry, 
widespread industry adopted language, if you like,   format called WebAssembly, it's backed by Google 
and Firefox, and Microsoft and all the big ones.  It's very well understood, it's got a lot of big 
tech backing. It's simple. It's well designed.   It's very highly performance, very efficient, 
lots of good implementations. It's got this   big community around it.

Basically, we just said, 
like, we don't need to invent our own thing. We're   not going to reinvent EVM, the Ethereum Virtual 
Machine, like we did back in the day. This is   going to be industry standard, WebAssembly sorted.
We basically just plugged WebAssembly into   the blockchain consensus and a database and 
stuff. That's what we call Substrate. Now,   this is what Polkadot runs on. All the stuff to do 
with Polkadot pretty much runs on top within this   WebAssembly thing. That means we can switch it 
out. What this means is that we can do upgrades to   it without having to do these horrible hard forks, 
where we're actually altering the underlying   protocol, and because these hard forks are really 
messy and if there's ever any disagreement over   whether they should be done or not, it's like, 
oh, no, I don't think this upgrade should happen.   I don't think it's– maybe it's political, 
you're going to get people disagreeing,   then you're going to end up with forks 
of the networks, you're going to end   up with another Ethereum Classic or whatever.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Can you walk the audience   through what is a hard fork in general, and 
why do we want to avoid it? Maybe you can   talk about Ethereum Classic, or just give an 
example, so our audience understands what is   a hard fork, why do we want to not do that?

Basically, blockchains are   consensus systems. They exist as a way of allowing 
people, many different economic interests, often   around the world and the different jurisdictions 
that may not be especially easily compatible.   They allow all these economic actors to 
participate under the same economic rules. Now,   this is a fundamental innovation. It's why people 
are so excited about blockchain because it allows   for this consensus to happen independently of any 
of the legal systems that exist in the world, any   of the financial systems that exist in the world.
What happens if you need to agree something that   isn't a part, isn't within this consensus, 
isn't within the scope of forming a consensus?   Bitcoin allows you to form a consensus 
over who was paid Bitcoin in the  past and who to, but it doesn't 
allow you to form a consensus on how   Bitcoin should be upgraded.

That's not within the 
system of a Bitcoin system. The system of Bitcoin   only considers account balances, and whether a 
particular transaction has been spent on them.  Same with Ethereum. Ethereum is very good at 
forming consensus over certain little computer   programs, but it can't form a consensus over how 
Ethereum itself is going to adapt to changes in   the future. That's outside of the system that's 
outside of the scope of Ethereum's consensus.   The same is true basically, for every blockchain 
out there, apart from Polkadot. With Polkadot,   the entire system, the business logic of Polkadot 
itself is contained within the Polkadot consensus.  Now, if you don't have this, then you have to 
find another way of achieving consensus outside of   the system. You have to find a way of all of the 
participants of the system, all the stakeholders   forming a consensus. Now, this might be done by 
having a benevolent dictator who just says, this   is what we're doing. It might be done by having 
a vote, and everyone committing to the outcome   of that vote.

As we've seen in recent history, 
it's not always so easy to even agree upon the   outcome of the vote, let alone get everyone 
to agree to commit into it in the first place.  What we end up with is the problem that Bitcoin 
and Ethereum have gone through in the past,   where we see Bitcoin was forked off into 
Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision   and Bitcoin gold and Bitcoin diamond, and 
all the rest of the [?] Bitcoin, because   this consensus couldn't– there was no way 
of forming a consensus long term over how   the protocol should be changed, should be adapted 
and evolved. The same with Ethereum. There was a   political decision to be made in Ethereum back in 
2016, when there was this big hack, the DAO hack,   whether the funds of the DAO that were hacked in 
the DAO hack should have been, basically rescued   and returned to the original owners or not.
This basically caused the split in the community.   There were those that said, no, code is law, 
these funds must remained hacked.

The rest of the   community said, no, actually, we should just try 
and fix things. It was early on and made excuses.   These two different political viewpoints 
led to the two different blockchains that   we now have, Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.
Now, the big issue is that these hard forks,   there's always going to be contention. People 
will always make something political about them.   Because they're not governed by any automated 
consensus mechanism, it means that we're   beholden to soft forms of consensus, 
humans interacting, and that's without any   authority governing them or any economic system 
that they've all bought into.

That leads to these   problems. Polkadot explicitly avoids that by 
making the protocol part of the consensus.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Polkadot, Kusama, it's more 
of alive, it's an alive protocol that has its own   meta governance. Because it's governance, and 
so are there risks with this? Because I have   heard previously, I've been in this space since 
2013 and I've heard that hard forks can be good,   because it's two communities doing what they 
want, or how they want? Is there any concerns from   having a forkless protocol?
GAVIN WOOD: It's not an argument   without merit. There are good reasons to 
try lots of different things. However,   schisms in a community are, as we've seen in 
the past, they're toxic.

They ultimately lead to  negativity on every side, and that is 
generally against the happy innovation   that we see in a well-functioning 
community. I accept and actually believe in   running experiments, running multiple different 
potential ways forward at once, and then   competing them and somehow picking the best 
one and running with that, but then it needs   to be under some sort of order. It's no good just 
having explosive ways of trying multiple things,   because there's no path to getting back 
together again, and that's a big problem.  Whereas how we– actually, Polkadot is one of the 
very first things that came to mind with Polkadot,   because it's a heterogenous sharded multi-chain. 
Because it's got these different shards,   these different parachains, and they can each 
be their own thing, they can each do their own   individual thing.

It's a little bit like a 
critique of the United States that I read   in a few years ago in The Economist. It's 
basically this idea of a federated system   can run many different policy experiments in each 
of the different states, and the ones that work   can be elevated to federal status, and the 
ones that don't work can just be dropped.  It's the same in Polkadot. We can actually do 
the best things that are caused by hard forks,   which is to say, policy or protocol experiments, 
but we can do them at the level of parachains,   and we can run them all in parallel, one in 
each parachain, and the ones that tend to work,   we can elevate into Polkadot, the ones 
that don't work so well, we can just leave   these parachains or drop altogether.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: To make sure I'm   understanding this, you're saying that Polkadot 
acts a little bit like the federal government,   whereas each of the parachains are being like 
the states.

They're getting like their meta   governance, they have their own rules. Say 
this again, you said they're heterogenous–  GAVIN WOOD: Sharded multi-chain.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Basically, again,   this means as opposed to Ethereum, each of these 
projects building on top of Ethereum, that they   are required to use the same blockchain logic 
as each other because they're uniformed things.   Whereas when we talk about parachains, they're not 
as uniformed. They're just getting their security   from this standard thing.

They each have their own 
blockchain logic, their own rules, their own rule   sets, just like the states have their own rules 
and deciding if this is legal or that's legal.  That's one of the big differentiators between 
Polkadot and its heterogenous shards, meaning that   they have their own blockchain logic and anything 
happening on Ethereum, the projects happening   on– the coins built on Ethereum, they're 
still beholden to the same type of logic.   Can you tell me the benefits of utilizing 
different logic or having the capability to use   different logic? I'm just unsure 
about how much more expansive that   world becomes by having the heterogenous chains.
GAVIN WOOD: Sure. You can think of like a smart   contract network like Ethereum, and there's 
a few others, they build in roughly the same   architecture, a little bit like the 
civil law system of the modern world.   You can get lawyers and they can make 
you have a contract, and this contract   can do lots of different things.

I mean if you 
talk to a lawyer, you can generally get into   basically write whatever you want in the contract, 
there will be certain statutory requirements   that the overarching legal system places upon 
you, and it'll be different between legal systems.   For example, companies law in the UK, it 
makes it very difficult to give different   shareholder rights or restrict shareholder rights 
within a company. In the U, shareholder rights  are a lot more– certainly in some states– 
are a lot more flexible, you can basically   kill all rights or give all the rights 
to just a single shareholder or whatever.   That's not the case in a lot of other countries.
Now that you can think of Ethereum's generality   as being the generality that you 
get within a particular jurisdiction   over what kind of companies, what kind 
of civil law it has. It will exist within   that jurisdiction, and it won't be able to 
call upon civil law in other jurisdictions.   It will have the costs and the benefits of 
whatever the civil law is in that jurisdiction.  What Polkadot gives you is the ability to 
have basically whole other jurisdictions.   You're not required to exist just under one 
particular country's legal system, jurisprudence,   court system, lawyer framework.

You can choose, 
you can make your own. You can say actually,   this blockchain is only going to have financial 
laws and the laws are going to be extremely   heavily regulated. You might have another 
blockchain that says, we have zero regulation.  Now, the Ethereum architecture, I should say, 
can't really do this because it's beholden to the   same underlying blockchain logic. It's a smart 
contract chain, it has particular definition   of what gas is, it has a particular definition of 
ether, it has a particular definition of how ether   and gas interact, it has a particular definition 
of how smart contracts, these different computer   programs interact. Though each of these things 
cannot be changed, they're baked into Ethereum,   and if you want to use Ethereum you have to buy 
in to this legal system, this crypto legal system.  With Polkadot, you can define your country however 
you want.

You can define your laws however you   want. You can define your economy however you 
want. You're not going to have to buy into any   of this preexisting stuff. That leads to a huge 
amount more experimentation that's possible.  For example, if you don't want your users to have 
to hold your tokens in order to interact, but   instead only provide a verified Facebook identity 
to be able to interact, let's say once or twice   a day, you can do that.

That's fine. You just 
write your blockchain logic so that instead of   verifying that when a transaction comes in, it's 
from a particular account that has some tokens,   that you're going to deduct in order to pay for 
the transaction to execute as Ethereum does,   you check to make sure that the account is 
referencing something that's on Facebook,   that the Facebook account is active, that it's 
been verified by Facebook or has a certain number   of friends or whatever it is you want, and that it 
hasn't made more than a few transactions already.  That's entirely possible, and it opens up like 
a whole new way of designing your applications   economics. To put it another way, you can 
implement Ethereum inside of Polkadot. You   can make a parachain. Indeed, there is a 
parachain, it's called Moonbeam. That is,   to all intents and purposes, the same as Ethereum. 
You can't make a smart contract in Ethereum   that does the same as Polkadot.

You wouldn't 
be able to pay the gas costs. It would just be   impossibly expensive. That's the key difference.
Polkadot exists lower in the stack. Ethereum,   we call it a layer-one blockchain because it's 
notionally the first, and you build layer two   applications on top of it. You can think of 
Polkadot as a layer zero blockchain because   it sits underneath the level of Ethereum. Things 
like Ethereum, like Moonbeam and Acala are built  on top of Polkadot. Polkadot sits as a foundation 
layer that's just there to give security and   interoperability between its constituent 
chains. Doesn't do anything more than that.  SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: I've heard you say this 
before, and this is basically what you're   talking about. You said like Polkadot is a bet 
against maximalism? That's what you're touching   on right now, because you're saying these 
different jurisdictions have different rules,   but we're uncertain about what the best rule sets 
are, what the best jurisdictions are. Because of   this, because we know we're not certain yet what's 
the best rule set is, Polkadot allows you to   experiment with all the rule sets.

I don't know 
if you want to expand on that a little bit more   about this idea of it's a bet against maximalism.
GAVIN WOOD: Yeah. There is definitely that thing   that we don't know what the best one is. I think 
even still, even if we didn't know what the best   one is, there isn't really a best one.

maybe a best one for a particular application.   There's maybe a best one for a 
particular industry or domain,   but I don't think there's a best one, period. 
This idea that has been sold that there's one   blockchain for every application has been pushed 
certainly by elements of the Ethereum community.  I don't think it exists. I think 
Ethereum is a great chain for prototyping   blockchain experiments on, but I definitely– 
if I were doing, for example, a supply chain   infrastructure, then why would I build it in smart 
contracts that have to be metered, that have this   really inefficient metering system? I know that 
what these contracts are. I know how long that   may take to execute. Why am I, every time a user 
is using them, re- measuring how long it takes?  Now, of course, if there are many different 
contracts, and you can't predict ahead of   time which one is going to be used, and anyone 
could introduce any contract at any time, like a   very general purpose, very prototype heavy system, 
then of course, metering is probably the only way   that that can happen, but for so many domain 
specific applications, it's just not needed.

It's   too heavy duty. It's much better to actually 
make surprise, surprise, a domain-specific   blockchain. The problem is with domain-specific 
blockchains, they're time consuming to build.  Because they exist only as a blockchain, 
they can't talk to other blockchains very   easily. They don't integrate well. You 
can't compose them with each other very,   very easily. That's where Polkadot comes in. 
It's like Substrate, which is our blockchain   development toolkit, and makes it super easy 
to build your own blockchain. We're seeing   some great news articles about people building 
their own blockchain in various industries.  The one that I read most recently was this Korean 
music publisher that's building a blockchain for   Korean pop bands non-fungible tokens. Brilliant, 
lovely. Yeah, we're seeing these domain specific   blockchains come out, because they're just so 
much more efficient and much more performant than   doing things in a general purpose environment. 
Then of course, Polkadot allows these domain   specific blockchains to be deployed into Polkadot 
and talk to each other and share the security   together, again very important, so you don't 
have to pay your own validators or otherwise   have a very centralized proof of authority.
This is where the really interesting performance   benefits come from.

It's not just about 
parallelizing all of it, which is already   great, because we've got for one, the Polkadot 
relay chain is a [?] of different blockchains,   each wearing away processing transactions all at 
the same time. Each of these chains, each of these   shards is domain specific. It's optimized to be 
highly performant for its specific use case. Now,   this is something that you don't get in a typical 
homogenous sharded system like Ethereum 2 where   each of the shards, although there might be 64 
of them, or whatever, but they're each doing the   same thing, each general purpose and that means 
that none of them are going to be very performant   for any of the tasks that they're doing.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: I see. Very interesting   stuff. I'd love to hear about your thoughts 
on what's happening in the space, in Polkadot,   Kusama, specifically over the next let's say 
a year or so.

What are you anticipating? You   touched on the launching of these parachains, 
is that supposed to be happening soon? Tell me   a little bit about the future of Polkadot, Kusama.
GAVIN WOOD: Yeah. I mentioned Rococo, the testnet   for parachains has been launched in the last 
month and they are slowly onboarding each of   the parachain teams. I think we have about 15 of 
them or so, 15 or 20, they've already got their   stuff together, their software, their parachain, 
and they're ready to put it onto the testnet, onto   Rococo. Once we're happy that that code is running 
reasonably smoothly, then we will roll it out onto   Kusama, alongside of course the Kusama auctions, 
these slot auctions and the crowd loaning system,   so that people across the Kusama stake holding 
ecosystem can back their favorite parachains and   maybe reap some of the rewards that the parachain 
teams are offering them for their backing.  That's probably coming in the next month 
or two.

Once we're happy that Kusama has–   everything's working as we expect in Kusama, 
and once the external audit is completed,   we have an external audit firm on retainer 
that's just basically churning through all   of this new code as we develop it. Once 
they're happy that this is safe and secure,   then we will be deploying it onto 
Polkadot. Our tentative goal for   that is by the end of this quarter, so 
fingers crossed that that comes through.  Once that is done, there will 
be an initial version of XEMP,   this cross chain message passing protocol. This is 
a way that these parachains can send messages to   each other, can communicate, as I mentioned, 
every six seconds, they can send messages.   That will be also within this first delivery, 
this first scope of delivery at the end of Q1   hopefully. Then over this first half of the 
year, we'll be optimizing this XEMP into a   more or less off-chain version of it, which 
basically dramatically increases the efficiency,   increases the number of messages that they 
can send to each other, decreases any of   the costs associated with it, and so on.
There are a few additional technologies.   One of them is called SPREE.

is a very exciting technology.   It stands for Secure Protected Runtime Execution 
Enclaves. What it basically means is that   you can have little programs that run inside these 
parachains. They all run separately, they all run   with the parachain in parallel to each other, so 
like you're managing 100 copies of this program   all running within the scope of the parachain, but 
it's the same program. It's like the best of both   worlds. You get heterogenous domain- specific, 
industry-specific blockchain sharding, but you   also get a little bit of the computer program in 
the shard that is the same across all the shards. It can do things like handle token balances, and 
you can send things like certain tokens or assets   between the shards with a guarantee that the 
code on the other side of the message is going   to execute correctly, execute as you imagine.

token, a very simple execution, reduce the balance   of one account, increase the balance of another 
account by the same amount, very simple transfer   operation, but we can imagine there might be a few 
more of these different little snippets of code   that have their own protected storage associated 
with them so they can maintain the balances.  This is very important so that parachains 
that don't trust each other's logic,   they might trust that their logic is 
executed correctly by Polkadot because   they will run into the same validator 
umbrella, but they don't necessarily trust   the logic itself is doing what they expect it to 

That when they said, hey, transfer this asset,   please, that it's actually going to reduce the 
balance of one account and increase of another.   What SPREE does is it gives them that guarantee. 
It allows the best of both worlds, your homogenate   sharding and your heterogenous sharding.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: We expect that in the near   future? When do you expect this SPREE to come?
GAVIN WOOD: That, I expect to land   Q3, I would say. Probably Q3 this year.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Do you imagine that   most of the fruits of your labor will be going by 
the end of this year? You're saying this the SPREE   thing you're talking about, all these parachains, 
do you expect to see defi basically existing   on Polkadot by the end of the year?
GAVIN WOOD: Yeah, I would hope so.   There's already plenty of defi chains. We've got 
some amazing teams, some really great talent out   there developing parachains. The great thing is 
that I think for me, it's out of my hands. Our job   here is to develop Polkadot and deliver parachains 
and make it as efficient and stable as possible.   It might be that when that's done that we will 
start playing around with developing a few   parachains of our own, and maybe developing 
some of the core technology on parachains,   but basically, our job is to deliver 
Polkadot as an application platform.  It's a wonderful ecosystem of, I said, about 
340 projects and counting that are developing   the layer-ones, these platforms.

Polkadot is a 
platform of platform, or platforms themselves   that are providing the infrastructure for 
doing things like decentralized finance   and supply chain and registry tracking, 
NFT's and all this crazy imagine stuff.   That is some of which is going to be really well 
changing. Yeah, it's great. I have a huge amount   of confidence in many of these teams.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Perfect. Well,   thank you so much. Do you have any final thoughts,   any last things you'd like to say to 
the audience about Polkadot or how you   see the future, the ecosystem in general?
GAVIN WOOD: I think we're in an interesting   time for the ecosystem, particularly 
with Polkadot. Obviously, most of my   time and efforts have been focused on Polkadot. 
It's rare that I actually got a chance to look up   and look around and see what the rest of the world 
is doing.

That's even more so in the last year  with the no conferences, and all 
the rest of it. I do think it's   really a great time to be in this ecosystem. We 
are entering Blockchain 3.0 slowly but surely.  It's important to look behind the claims to 
work out where the true actors in this golden   age are, and who were the maybe the ones that 
didn't quite make it into Blockchain 3.0 and   they're still at 2.5, because I think on the 
face of, it's not always so easy to distinguish.   It's really important to, if you're trying to 
make any judgment and evaluation, it's really   important to get a proper, developed a lead 
technical evaluation of where the protocols at,   and maybe also a proper game theoretic evaluation 
of what the protocol does, and not buy too much   into a lot of this hype surrounding it.
The only other thing I'd say is be aware of   the distinction, the difference between evolution 
and revolution.

I know, as having done Ethereum,   we brought a new architecture into the world 
with Ethereum, this idea of the Ethereum Virtual   Machine, the idea of smart contracts. Proud as 
I am about that, it is ultimately a technology   that's now six, seven years old. We're still 
seeing blockchains sticking to the architecture,   sticking to this very smart contract, gas 
consuming, dynamically metered architecture   that we introduced in Ethereum way back then.
That's all very well, and you will see   evolution on that. You will see people improving 
performance. You will see some changes to things   like transaction propagation, just trying to eke 
out that improved level of transaction throughput.   Ultimately, if it's using the same architecture, 
it's probably not going to be a revolutionary   difference in a revolutionary innovation. 
You've got to look beyond that architecture   to really find the gems in this golden age.
SEBASTIAN MOONJAVA: Great. Hey, thank you   so much. I really appreciate it. Great advice. 
Great knowledge. Thank you so much, Gavin Wood.  GAVIN WOOD: Thanks for having me on the show.

CORREA: Thank you for watching this interview.   This is just a taste of what we do at Real Vision. 
To learn more about the complex world of finance,   business, and the global economy, click 
on the membership link in the description.   Give us 7 days to change your life. This 
will be the best dollar you'd ever invest..

You May Also Like