Two Degens crypto podcast – latest episode with Steven from PressStart Capital

Hi, I’ve been recording podcast episodes 1-2x a week with my cohost George (crypto OG, started WeTrust and CitaDAO), and in the latest episode we invited our friend Steven to discuss web3 gaming, state of the market, AI, and a grab bag of miscellany.

Podcast website is here.

Do have a listen:

Let me know what you think. Still a long way to go to improve our comfort level and my skills as a moderator (which is totally the opposite of my ADD-ness), but we’re enjoying it and we have a lot planned!

Podcast notes – Solana with founder Anatoly Yakovenko – Bankless: $20M valuation for Solana at seed round “was ludicrous”

Guest: Anatoly Yakovenko, Solana founder
Hosts: Ryan Sean Adams and David Hoffman

2017 – was following crypto, wanted to build a faster crypto miner
Family left Soviet Union, saw the devastation of a bad currency and economy

Ethereum demonstrated an application platform

Qualcomm, Perl engineer who helped build platform for all those original mobile games

Mining crypto while building deep learning hardware
Had a eureka moment – encode passage of time as a data structure
At that time, it existed as a “verifiable delay function”
Quit job, met Raj Gokal
Raised $3M in seed, network price at that time was $20M – “thought it was ludicrous” – included Multicoin
5 cofounders, colleagues from Qualcomm
Built single node – was doing 100K+ TPS – prove potential of network
Raised $14M Series A in the “last vapors” of the 2017-2018 market
Competitors during that time were raising $100M+ (eg, Hashgraph)

Censorship resistance is like a communication channel – it guarantees delivery

Wireless protocols create a schedule – from X time to Y time, A gets to talk, then B gets to talk, etc
Very ordered and structured, gets you 100% utilization

Tendermint – 100 validators – each has 1 vote, there’s a known block producer who proposes a block, 2/3 vote on a block

Hired a lot of coworkers from Qualcomm who he worked with for 10 years

Solana thesis – smart contracts are good for finance, and finance depends on info propagating as fast as possible around the world
Solana data can move as fast as a piece of news travels

Currently ETH validators have same bandwidth requirements
With sharding the requirements will be reduced

Trustlessness comes from full nodes that can validate

Bitcoin and Ethereum see themselves as money – what about Solana?
Store of Value is a social construct, a meme, and important not to be tied to a sovereign (a nation)
The function of a token is to prevent spam

In PoS, once all full nodes have finalized, you can’t go back – you can only fork – which is a socially messy process

Store of Value that is awesome can be built on Solana, that can surpass bitcoin

How to bootstrap an ecosystem without piggybacking off Ethereum – was a huge unknown when Solana started

2020 – had 9-10 months of cash left, market crashed, thought they might be done

It was Solana’s second hackathon (Break Point) where he really believed they had something
Quality of builders went up, attendees went up

Solana was worth ~$100M at network launch

Thinks VC branding is dumb – most of the “crypto VCs” in last cycle were simply Ethereum ICO investors

Alameda’s balance sheet leak was first time Anatoly learned about the troubles

Sam had supported Solana a lot – especially saying they’d build Serum on Solana drove a lot of defi and builder interest

Bear market is a purge

Bitcoin supporters said Ethereum was full of mercenaries in early days — same criticism that Ethereum supporters had of Solana

“Getting through this phase sucks for sure”

NFT community is very thriving — second to Ethereum – very proud of it

Exhausted by negative news — want to see wins, see people building cool shit

David: Solana is one of only blockchains after Ethereum that has a second client (Firedancer + Jump)
Anatoly: you’re trading liveness for safety; Ethereum’s goal is 4 clients (can maintain liveness if 1 client goes down)

Still focused on monolithic chain with no sharding

Innovation in next 12-18 mos will probably be more than everything that’s come before in crypto

“Pretty sure” Solana can do more TPS than all ETH L2s combined

SBF’s planned congressional testimony was wild: “I am, and for most of my adult life have been, sad”

Just sharing a few memorable excerpts below. Full testimony here.

b) In addition to being false, the claims do not make sense to me. Alameda Research’s own insolvency was triggered by a market crash, which in turn triggered FTX’s insolvency; it would have been absurd to create a market crash in order to take out 3AC, and then in turn bankrupt my own businesses.

7) Various claims that I created a hard-partying culture at FTX
a) Our ‘parties’ were mostly dinner and board games
b) I didn’t have my first drink until I was 21, and to my knowledge have never been drunk

b) I have a prescription for Emsam, and have for roughly a decade. I use it, daily, for its only on-label use as an antidepressant. It is not generally the case that people are expected to talk about their private medical conditions, but enough paparazzi have snapped photos of my belongings and theorized about it online that I guess I have no choice.

On Twitter, CZ claimed that “we decided to pull out as an investor” in a thread chalk full of lies.
a) In fact, I reached out to CZ in 2021 to initiate discussions about buying them out of their stake in FTX.
b) I initiated these discussions because, among other things, it was becoming increasingly difficult for FTX to operate with CZ as a significant equity owner. CZ was not cooperative in sending his KYC information to regulators that we were applying for licenses with.

c) The last few months have been difficult enough for everyone that it feels unremarkable to me, in comparison, that I need to put on the official Congressional Record that I am, and for most of my adult life have been, sad.

Podcast notes – Nick Johnson, ENS lead dev – Bell Curve podcast

Guest: Nick Johnson, ENS lead dev
Kiwi; Lived in New Zealand, Ireland, the UK

Goal never was to launch DAO, goal was maximally achievable decentralization — at that time there was only “The DAO” and not a lot of examples or playbook

Launched purely as governance mechanism – what to do with funds raised from registration fees?

Started with generous ETH Foundation grant

ENS is public good, non profit, goal is to leave as much value behind for users as possible

Believes protocols should all be public goods – things like ETH, L2, infrastructure
“If you want people to innovate on your platform then your platform should be open”
Makes exception for apps eg, DeFi, DEXes

Grew up with internet in 90s – open governance at the time, thing that everyone can improve on, left big impression on him

In 90s AOL didn’t succeed because it was walled garden, too much friction, extracting value that wasn’t re-invested in ecosystem

Attitude in web3 that working in nonprofit / charity gets paid badly and need sacrifice — totally reasonable to pay market rate

ENS token
-best tool we had available, but have shortcomings – eg, tendency to plutocracy
-intentionally launched as governance token, not a profit-accruing token
-wrote ENS Constitution explicitly states that revenue will not return to token holders – instead used to re-invest in ecosystem

ENS didn’t launch as a DAO – felt DAO ecosystem, tooling, examples weren’t there
What changed – use of OpenZeppelin contracts; human control of ENS had been reduced

Can be frustrating to run DAO – differing visions

Lots of parallels to corporate governance, but built more like a co-op than a for-profit
Delegation is still necessary – you don’t want token holders voting on every single decision

What if VCs buy a lot of tokens?
“Probably our biggest risk”
Defenses are social (lots of tokens given to long-term contributors, core team) and financial (would need to spend too much relative to value of $ in treasury)
“Constitution as friction mechanism”

ENS Labs is centralized, get budget and is “hired” by DAO
Hope to see other development orgs funded to help ENS (besides ENS Labs)

Quadratic voting is elegant but only works if you can solve Sybil problem (prove it’s a real human, not bots)
Imagine a good ID system, can still offer $50 to stranger on street to use their ID

Voting escrow tokens (lock tokens to get more weight or just participate in voting) – provides way to show long-term commitment to organization

Tough to design token economic / voting systems that can’t be gamed

Cares about financial privacy
KYC doesn’t reduce money laundering but does reduce financial privacy
Tornado Cash is great example – the devs actually built in compliance mechanisms – but OFAC / Dutch prosecutors ignored that and still charged them with money laundering

Optimism is public benefit corp – very encouraging
More skeptical of StarkNet (raised a lot of VC)

Just share the code, even if its messy – so many benefits from open source

Need more DAO tooling for day to day governance, a unified platform
Helpful to have OpenZeppelin’s version of the governor contractor – based on Compound’s – ENS DAO was one of first to use it

Will see more professional DAO delegates

What excites him
see DAO move to long-term vision, setup an endowment to last 50-100 years
-integrating with DNS
-offchain names – names w/o reg fees
-happy to see Ethereum hasn’t fallen into trap that Bitcoin did which resists any change

DAO provided meaningful outlet for community to contribute eg, small grants program
“Giving them permission to be involved”

Often low participation is because people have selected themselves out of it – you don’t have to be prominent to make a contribution

A little allegory about deflation and inflation: Satoshi Cove and Fiat Reef

Pardon my silly meanderings, but if I can’t write stupid stuff on this blog then what really is it for

Here are two short stories, reasoning about deflation and inflation from simplistic first principles.

Satoshi Cove: a little allegory about deflation

There is a small unspoilt island called Satoshi Cove. For generations, the villagers who live there have led simple and happy lives. They survive by growing corn and raising chickens.

The island’s currency is a rare wild pearl, which glows a soft pink. The best swimmers on the island dive for these pearls during the stormy winter months.

Because the search is risky, and the pearls grow slowly, the supply of pearls only grows by a few percent each year. So the currency supply is quite stable. In addition to pearls, the villagers have invented simple forms of credit and barter.

One day, one of the islanders – a noted eccentric – learns how to turn chicken poop into a rich fertilizer by adding salt and other natural compounds. At first of the other farmers don’t believe him, but the ones who do are able to use the fertilizer to improve their corn crop. By using this new fertilizer, the average corn farmer’s harvest increases by 25%, and because chicken feed is also composed of corn byproducts, the average chicken farmer’s output also increases by 5%.

Thus this entrepreneur has invented something – a new fertilizer – which leads to meaningful growth in the island’s production of corn and chicken. This is productivity-driven growth.

Most of the island benefits from this entrepreneur’s invention:

The inventor becomes wealthy by selling the fertilizer he creates.

The islanders can produce and sell more corn and more chickens.

The prices of corn and chicken fall, which enables the average villager to buy more.

But not everyone benefits. A few islanders are hurt by this change.

In particular, lenders who have made loans to be repaid in real goods like corn and chicken are hurt. Corn and chicken are now more plentiful, and thus less valuable. If a lender is to receive 10 chickens in re-payment, those 10 chickens would now be worth less.

It’s important to note that not all lenders are hurt. Lenders who have made loans to be repaid in pearls, conversely, have benefitted, because those pearls can now buy more corn and chicken.

In a similar way, borrowers who have received loans to be repaid in pearls are also hurt. The prices of corn and chicken have fallen, but the borrower is still required to pay back a fixed number of pearls.

And just like the inverse of the lenders’ situation, not all borrowers are hurt — those who have borrowed loans to be repaid in corn and chickens have benefitted.

This is a small example of productivity-driven growth leading to deflation, in a very simple economy. We have removed many elements of a modern “real” economy – for example, the island doesn’t trade with neighbors, and there is only one form of currency (pearls) – but hopefully it’s illustrative.

You can very clearly see that deflation here, which is caused by a valuable new invention, improves the quality of living for most islanders.

The price of food falls, which allows people to afford more. The innovator becomes wealthy. It enables farmers to produce more. And most importantly, it inspires people to create and invent more.

Imagine if this pattern were repeated over generations. The prices of food would continue to fall. Perhaps they would find new types of crops to grow. Or new farm animals to raise. The island’s productivity and output would increase, and along with it, so would quality of life.

So why is deflation a bad thing?

Fiat Reef: A little allegory about inflation

Now let’s talk about a similar island called Fiat Reef. In just about every way, it is a copy of Satoshi Cove.

The only difference?

Instead of an inventive entrepreneur who creates a new fertilizer, a creative and brave diver realizes that he can artificially grow the rare pearls by adding tiny grains of sand into the oysters. By doing this, he can double his own pearl output during each winter harvest. For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume he is just one of ten divers. So each season, the amount of new pearls discovered grows by 10%.

This is a form of financial innovation that leads to an increase in the island’s currency supply. This is a very simple and pure example of money inflation.

Now who benefits from this inflationary change to the island’s economy?

First and foremost, the inventive diver benefits. He’s literally created money. He harvests it first, and he can spend it to buy more corn and chicken.

As the money supply on the island grows, others benefit too. His favorite seller of corn and chicken benefits, because their customer is now much richer. And as those sellers make more money, they may raise the wages of their employees.

But importantly – not everyone benefits. Those who benefit most are those who are first to receive the money; the ones closest to the diver.

Moreover, many people are hurt by this change. In the same way that deflation hurt certain borrowers and lenders, inflation also hurts certain borrowers and lenders.

As the new currency trickles into the economy, the prices of corn and chicken begin to rise. And while some islanders are earning more, most of them aren’t. Thus they are able to afford less food.

In addition, because the money supply is growing faster than its usual pace, the purchasing power of pearls decreases. You can buy less with the same number of pearls. So everyone who has saved pearls will begin to feel poorer.

Now, the inventive diver was only able to increase the island’s pearl supply by 10% each season. But where this inflation really becomes problematic is when the other divers learn to copy his technique. Soon, the supply of pearls is growing 20%, 40%, and even more during each harvest cycle.

For a time, the divers themselves feel rich as kings, and spread the wealth to their family and friends and favorite farms. But then prices begin to rise faster and faster. If there is double the money, but no change in the amount of corn or chickens, then necessarily the price of corn and chicken will increase.

Eventually, what everyone wants to do is become a diver, and hunt for pearls.

On Fiat Reef, everyone is now incentivized to make more money, instead of making new things. Everyone wants to be a diver, or to be close to the divers so they get first dibs. Few islanders want to invent new fertilizers, or produce more corn and chicken.

In short, far more people are hurt by this change, which is an inflation of the money supply. Prices rise for all goods on the island. A few people win big. But the outcome is more complicated, and the long-term effects are more damaging.

Reality is more complicated than this simple example, and there are winners and losers on both Satoshi Cove and Fiat Reef.

But ask yourself which island you’d rather live on. Would you rather live on Satoshi Cove, where the goal is to invent and make great things, an island where output is increasing and prices are falling?

Or would rather live on Fiat Reef, where the goal is to become a diver and make more money, where prices are constantly increasing so it’s a race to see who gets the most money and buys the most things first?

Yes this is massively over simplified and exaggerated. The islands are closed economies with no trade and only one currency (pearls). Both deflation and inflation can hurt people.

But why is there such a gulf in public perception between the two? Why are we led to believe that deflation is so dangerous, and could potentially lead to economic collapse? Conversely, why are we told that some amount of inflation is not only good, but even necessary for our very economy to function? How did things get this way?