Drop into the chat, just who you are, where you come from, uh, Alex, Q, CPO X, I think I've seen you around a bunch, but haven't seen seen the calls and Matthew Keller. Matthew Keller, Matt Davis, your names look familiar, but if you guys could just come, I'd appreciate that.
Say hi,
and also say hi. Yes, you
Hey. This is Matthew Kelleher with level k delegation, just here to see what's up and participate. Nice
mind. Drop your your del your forum delegation link, just so we can and feel free to follow up if you want anything, if you need anything at the end. Wonderful. Thank you. Matt Davis and Alex Q, if you guys want to let us know where we're calling coming
from, hey, this is Peng from the arbitra. So I'm just here taking the notes and what is the thing we can pick up to present on that return from here.
Appreciate it. We'll give it another minute and then max and go ahead and get
started. Sounds good?
I'm going to drop in the forum post here.
Dao Mason is nice. Before Matt, before Max get started. How many of you were not on the call? We're not on the bi weekly discussion call on Tuesday. Just let me know if you were on it or not on it, so we have a sense of how much we want to go over again. Give me a thumbs up if you were on the call, and a thumbs down if you are not on the call. Cool. Looks like most people were so far. Max going to run through kind of similar give back on information. So you'll, you'll hear it again and then, and then we'll talk a little bit about next steps, and we'll open it up for quite open it up for questions and conversations. Max, want to go ahead and get
started. Yeah, let's do that. Thank you, first of all, guys for joining.
Sorry, Max, before you start, Christoph or sincus, I think you're one of the only ones that can actually record the call, because I'm not able to. Are you able to record the call?
I can't sing us.
All right? Well, we I have an odd recording. We can
post that usually the people invited to it explicitly can record it right in this case, Alex,
should you try on this particular
I'm not able to record it, but now we'll just, we'll just record it with the audit max if you want to go ahead either way.
Yeah, cool. All right, let's, yeah, show my slides again. I think we can make this more interactive, if you guys want, than last time, simply because it's, you know, it's a smaller crowd, and we have a little bit more time on this dedicated let me share my screen. Okay?
Perfect. Okay, right. So, Alex, mature, the host, are you sure you can't? Yep,
it says recording unavailable. You're not allowed to record this video call. So we can figure it out afterwards. Crystal, but yeah,
right. Okay, so I the premise is that I am a push put forward. We put forward this proposal coming from in the idea that we should make Arbitrum more exciting for builders. You know, we should make, we should be able to create a compelling value proposition for builders, for developers, for people, for innovators, for to encourage them to build their new experiments on Arbitrum. Okay? And so this is the, like, the core thesis of everything. And so when I, I work at Everclear, we are basically a form. We work within the interoperability sector. So I am, and, you know, I'm lucky to have been able to have an overview on two different ecosystems, right? And so we, we definitely see some ecosystems that are more hyped today than Arbitrum, where people are willing to build and do experiments and and, you know, and try something new, and that attracts new apps, of course, that are being built there new users, new liquidity. So the overall mission, overall goal, for me is, how do we make arbitrary more compelling for this type of builders? So for new for net new value to come into the ecosystem? So this is a deep dive onto the actual stack to launch a chain, which is a subcategory of all builders, right. Builders might be wanting to launch an app instead, or a specific chain using any of the stacks available. So these are the most common stocks that exist today. There is the Arbitrum stack, of course, the OP stack, the one in the ones from the ZK kind of the zero knowledge chains. I They say that, you know, on an individual level. So let's, let's analyze the single points of all the different all the different stuff from a single chain perspective. I would say that Arbitrum is generally in a position very well in terms of the technology that provides right? It is battery, battle tested. You know, it's been live for a while. They're working from proofs they have. They allow a lot of customization. They have this, your chain, your rules, kind of approaches, which is compelling for for a lot of projects. They want to build new things. Now with styles, style Lucy allows you to to build beyond solidity. So the chain, by itself is has some strong advantages compared to other to other stocks, but what it's lacking, and there is a kind of a gap that exists, you know, between the push that off chain lab is doing, the initiatives that the Arbitrum Dao has taken so far is a little this concept of the ecosystem, right? If I launch an orbit chain today, I actually feel quite isolated compared to the other orbit chains. There's no cohesion, neither in the narrative, neither in the messaging they were providing, neither in the perception, nor in the actual technology. This is, you know, a gap compared to the ZK kind of ecosystems, where they had this promise of having atomic and immediate composability with all the other chains, by the ugly layer, by the concept of the elastic chains on the case sync, where if you deploy a chain on one one on this CK roll ups, you can communicate immediately and access the liquidity immediately of another of another chain. Or compare it with a super chain, kind of narrative, where they managed to create a messaging where all the chains are part of the same vision, same kind of enthusiastic wave. And if you build a wave, if one chain wins, right, if basically, it's exploding, then the whole super chain is cheering up, because they all benefit from you in theory, right? Whether it's real or real or not, it doesn't matter. But this is the narrative that have been great at pushing towards. Instead, like arbitrary, is lacking two things. One, you know, we still every, every, every chain that is using the orbit stack is is using a stack, right? Is not building on the Super chain. So building on this ecosystem, and number two is still very disconnected from the rest of the of the chain, or the same orbit chains. Today, if you launch an orbit chains on layer two, you're just another isolated layer two in the ecosystem. There is no way to quickly connect with the other chains. This is getting, you know, automated like it's getting will get better with the innovations that Offchain Lab is pushing forward. One is called Chain mesh, which is not lab yet, and they've just started to like working on it, which I will allow one roll up to trust another roll up. So, for example, psi will be able to trust Arbitrum, or proof of play will be able to trust Arbitrum and enable fast movement of tokens from Arbitrum through to psi, because they trust basically the same sort of Arbitrum. And so they're able to achieve a not having to wait the seven days of the or neither the confirmation or on our, sorry, on Ethereum. So this, this chain mesh, will allow a one directional trust, one directional flow, fast flow, if you trust the origin chain, very well meaning that it will never be able from the other chain towards Arbitrum, because it would mean that Arbitrum would have to trust the other chains. So you would never, because we will never be able to know what configurations, what parameters people are set up on the other in that chain, it will be very hard to trust the specific long term chain. This kind of chain mesh concept is extremely similar to what the super chain is doing. Super chain is launching fast interoperability, meaning that within chains of the super chain so chains that have exactly the same configuration with each other, they will be they will be able to move tokens and data within two seconds with each other, which is a huge benefit. The trade off is that you have to, in the case of a super chain, you have to give up completely governance and the ability to customize your chain beyond certain parameters, because otherwise those chains cannot trust each other, right? If you, if you customize, if you do weird things, they cannot try. They're not able to trust what you're doing. So you have to give up your ability to upgrade and give up the ability to customize it. We also delete, so, you know, we will be getting to we have these gaps into the, you know, compared to the other stock. And this is also how the DAO looks like. You know, Dao has never done an ecosystem wide program. We always looked at Arbitrum one only. And I think I said we need to change our mindset and start thinking about, you know, from a narrative perspective, from a cultural perspective, how do we as an ecosystem attract more innovators want to build orbit chains and and then we can also tackle the interoperability part. So how do we actually bring those chains closer together? Now the second, I think the cultural part is the most important one, but interoperability part is the lowest hanging fruit. It's the easiest one to achieve, and that's why I know the proposal focuses on this, and I know this is what, is what we will be exploring these weeks. So there was a question maybe, or a comment. I don't know if somebody wants to, Oh, yeah. If somebody has a different opinions, if somebody you know, have a different perspective, feel free to chime in. Yeah.
I just, I just want to ask if everyone, like, just a quick thumbs up or thumbs down, if everyone agrees with this initial assessment of the ecosystem comparison, does everyone kind of agree with kind of how that is? And I'm looking at you, DK and l to be because you guys are kind of experts in this. Yeah, that's the sense we've got cool.
Yeah, I think it's fair. Can we have been doing a little bit? I don't know. I haven't looked at the proposal at all yet. So we'll get, if I have any opinions, I'll, I'll bring them
up then. Yeah, I don't really, I don't disagree with those comparison. I don't really agree with it either. But like I said that it requires more elaborate answer for me, so I will turn in on that flavor, like in support problem. So yeah,
the problem is being presented. I generally agree with
awesome. Okay, so two, basically, solutions to kill labs that I think we I believe we should focus on. One is that very broad culture should involve, you know, off chain labs, foundations like the different orbit chains that exist today, right? We should, we should find a way to position Arbitrum as the in ecosystem, not only as isolated chains. And then the technological part, which is okay, how do we create? How do we bring those chains together? And then the idea here, I'll jump into this in a second, is that rather than simply bringing fast and cheap interoperability, which is, well, where all the other stock currently sit, like they're pushing on. It's very you know, you can have this atomic composition. You can have fast liquidity moving across the different chains. We should actually do a step forward and anticipate the market, anticipate the ecosystem. Where is the market conversion to right now, into what is called a chain abstracted experience. It's an experience where a user look at one app. There's an example from particle network is one of the tools that enable this. It's we use an experience where a user using an application right and they don't have to think about the chain where the application is deployed onto. They don't have to think about where they hold their funds. It's all abstracted from their experience. So the all the bridging or the buying gas on the on the same destination chain, it's completely detached from the experience that they you as an app builder want to create. What you want is an upgrade. There is a very easy way to onboard people and independently from where they have funds and start using it up, right? This is the experience that you as a builder want to have. And so this is, in my opinion, the experience that we as a platform for builders should enable, as fast as possible and as universally as possible, because if we can position Arbitrum as the platform that enables the best experience for users, then people will start building on Arbitrum more. It goes back to the original original so this is called Chain abstraction, and it comes out as a series of tools that are already existing in the market where there's nothing new to invent that should be available to all the chains, all the orbit chains, including Arbitrum, to enable this. This experience for builders, this has two consequences that I think are very good. One is, as I said, it's the ideal experience for build for, for for users. And therefore the way that builders should be able to build, where you get you start getting as close as possible to web to life experience. And number two leverages, if we enable this, basically, okay. Now let me step back. In order to label this, we have to set up a series of you need to have an available series of tools that basically go deeper connect the ultimate experience where the user sits, which is here on top, with the orbit stack, which is at the very bottom right, the actual chain in the middle, there is a whole series of tools and the services, basically, they work with each other to make sure that we can enable that type of experience. Now, the way that one of the one of the architectures that exist today is around is using intense How do intents work? You basically have entities on the destination chains called solvers that are able to execute the transactions on behalf of the user almost instantaneously, while the user just sends his tokens and sends the instructions on the chain where they hold, initially, the funds. So they say a user as funds on Arbitrum, they see an application on psi. They see an application proof of play, or any of the orbit chains, on ape chain, they send, they send a transaction Arbitrum, and as they said, 100 USCC say, hey, I want to actually buy this MIM coin on exchange, and then the solver on the extension chain has its own liquidity. It will immediately execute, even immediately buy the meme coin to the user and give it to the user, and then it will get refunded with the with the tokens that the user initially sent on on arbitrary right, on the origin chain. This is how the intent system works, and this is what enables the chain of structure, of structure experience, because you can enable this type of interactions without knowing, without thinking about the complexities on the different chains. So because of this system, right? It means that you need to have liquidity, some form of liquidity, on the extension chain held by solvers to to execute this kind of intent, these intents. But then this, this solvers also needs to bring the liquidity back into some form of some kind of hub where they can basically wait and to execute those transactions around. So this is where Arbitrum, I think, can really excel. And this is something that's not happening on the other ecosystems. If we set up Arbitrum As the potential to be really at the center of these value flows that will exist across the different chains thanks to the chain match. So the ability to move tokens, trust us. Lee, thanks to this cluster system that Offchain, off chain lab is creating, and at the same time having these solvers holding this liquidity on Arbitrum, waiting for it to be executed on the different chains, where you know, if you hold, if you have liquidity on Arbitrum as a central hub, then you can have DeFi opportunities. Right? Imagine these guys waiting with the money to execute transactions. But instead of waiting and just holding they can deposit the money into a DeFi pool and then use it whenever, whenever they need it, so that they have they always have returns for the money, and you have this DeFi economy flourishing on arbitrary I'll stop for a second, and then I'll jump into the recap. Does it make sense so far? Any questions I can I can hear B pack and all these two things.
Yeah. One, one question for me is, how can we ever make the orbit ecosystem feel like a unified user experience if chains have different trust assumptions, so like, if I go launch an orbit chain tomorrow, that's, you know, upgrade ability is controlled by an eoA that I own. Like, how can we ever have that chain actually feel like a cohesive, abstracted experience for users, given that, you know, like, it just fundamentally has different like me holding eth on that chain, first on Arbitrum One has fundamentally different risk assumptions, like, it's almost like a different asset, yeah.
So what type of it depends on what type of user you are. You, I give you my opinion, what type of user you are talking to, right? Similarly to when you interact with the website, with a normal website, you don't think about, Okay, where is my no you sign up, for example, you don't think about Okay, where is the where is the data being actually stored? Is it in China? Is it in us? Is it in Europe? Right? Those are problems that are not part of your everyday experience. And so if you want to bring the same type of experience to a a web three, you need to like assume that the builders will make the right choice in terms of security and and trustlessness and those kind of things. But if you are a power user, right, and you want to know where your funds is actually going, you can like you don't, you're not, you're not, you're not, you're not compulsory for you to buy into this type of into this type of experience. So I think gradually, yeah, we start to see, we start to see builders that are that will make the right choices in terms of security for the chains, but then users will be abstracted for the right they will trust the app that they're using, and they will, they will trust the builders of that app to make the right decision. Dedicated,
yeah, I don't think that by default, any deployed orbit chain would be immediately included within chain, mass chain, mesh clusters, whatever like. If you fundamentally, you know, put in some changes to your orbit deployment in which that make it interoperable. It not interrupt, not interoperable, then I don't think that you would be included. That's my general understanding. But I again, like I said, I probably should read the proposal before stating anything. But what, in terms of the chain abstraction, stuff that I've looked at, and what I do like is the approaches that generally put more risk on the quote, unquote market maker in which that like, yeah, you put your money in an escrow on the source chain, and then they essentially front you on the destination chain, and then then they come back and collect on The on the source chain, the ones that are using a smart account module in which that you provide some sort of proof back to the module on your specific smart wallet, and then they kind of move the funds at that point in time. I'm a little bit more hesitant of just because of the way of, you know, there's, there's a lot more auditing that needs to happen. And also, one thing I've kind of felt from experience is that getting people to migrate to smart accounts was a lot harder than I anticipated at this point, right? And so with some of the changes coming down the pipe, I forget what the name of the the the ticket is, but of being able to do some, like native bundling within your eoA, you know, I think that's going to deviate from, like, the the future, potentially, of it's still, still the ultimate solution is going to be a smart account, but I could see it even slowing the adoption even more if you're able to get some of the benefits directly from your way. So those are just the kind of things that I'm thinking about. If we can get it down to the lowest layer level as possible, in terms of making it at like, the chain level, enforceable, that's great. Where it stands today. I like where the risk is off boarded to a third party and not the user. But obviously that's, yeah, it's a trade off.
Yeah, I would just add that I'm very supportive of this idea of a chain abstraction package as proposed. But I just want to hone in on what vision we're actually building towards. Because if we're building towards an idea of like a fully abstracted orbit experience for users, then there's probably other design decisions that we're making as an ecosystem that are not ideal or optimal for that future, for that vision,
for example, Matthew, but
like you would probably want to enforce the Upgradeability mechanism. You'd probably want to enforce who's sitting as the sequencer address, and you'd probably want to enforce where data availability was. I,
I'm not sure I agree with this. So if you know, I think we'll be always, it will always be up to the builders to choose to do their own research and choose the chains that they want to and then so we touched on a bunch of topics. You don't need smart accounts to operate on this. First of all, it's a normal wallet is able to interact with, is able to have this type of experience. You don't have to, like, force any chain to actually do anything, because, as I mentioned, the fast flow happens if the long tail chain trust Arbitrum, not the contrary, like Arbitrum, every chain can still be independent, very triggerable, free to do what they want, yep,
to do an equivalent. So is it? Would it be similar to, like, ag layer, but for Arbitrum?
No, not really. It's like the ugly here, and I'm not the biggest expert, but it's basically a settling on, potentially, yeah, potentially. So, yeah. I'm
just saying from, from the purpose of that, like, if you ultimately have your settled down to Arbitrum, then you can, kind of, you know, it the you always have to write down to Arbitrum, so that at that point you can make some assumptions, you know, if everyone's writing on the Arbitrum. That's kind of how ag layer does it. They just got to pick it up in between. Between it hits a layer and it hits eth layer one,
yeah, what is happening is that everybody is using like a layer needs to settle on the Ag layer, right? So it's from the chain towards the Ag layer. Here's the communication flow is different. It's opposite. Actually. It goes from Arbitrum to xi. This is a famous chain mesh. It goes from Arbitrum to Xi because xi trusts Arbitrum, but it doesn't go fast in the other way, okay? It's one direction, right? It's you. You like Zai, trust Arbitrum. Arbitrum doesn't trust Zai. So you cannot go back in the fast way. So you have Arbitrum Like actually spinning out all the flows, all the value, and then, unless you settle these fast withdrawals committees, which I don't know how much we adopted, because they added a lot of trust assumptions. Then you can now quickly go back into Arbitrum,
just just a reference, where I see the biggest pain points today not to deserve too much, is sure the going up a stack or upper layer is, you know what, like 15 minutes or whatever, but then coming back down is the long delay. And I feel that from a user perspective, they're more hesitant to go up the stack if they know it's going to be seven day delay coming back down the stack, but waiting in 15 minutes is, I don't think it's hurting adoption too much. It's more of the return trip, or the trip from from chain to chain, which looks like this kind of solves some of the chain to
chain, exactly. And that's why you want those kind of solvers sitting on Arbitrum and being able to give fast excess liquidity to people on the way back. And so, because they have liquidity on Arbitrum, they can use that DeFi opportunities that that exist today on Arbitrum. This is what, this is what like, this flows. These arrows are what the innovation from off chain lab is enabled, right? This is not coming from so parties. This is of pure off chain labs. Yeah.
Yes, Hey, Max since, since we only have about 15 minutes left in the call. Do you want to go through the rest of like, what's upcoming, and then we can open it up for conversation at the end? Please.
Right? So next steps, Alex, do you want to call? Yeah? I can
go through this. So just to be very clear about this, there's, there's a bunch of work that has to be done, a bunch of alignment that has to happen before we can go any specific which way, like Matt, your question about vision, about what we're building to, all those kind of integration questions and trade offs. That's something that, honestly, we as a Dao are probably not the best position. We have to interact with OCL enter, sorry, OCL Foundation, etc, to to align and figure out kind of how we're all working. So what is happening next? What the What's gonna happen next is we're looking to allocate a mini budget to a work stream, similar to how tally has their ARP staking and rewards work stream so that people can work to do the research, but also other people can work to create the alignment between OCL foundation and other large ecosystem players. And the road map is kind of like we'll have the forum discussion is open. We're going to snapshot next week, and you could imagine the implementation being something like full budget proposals to the DAO sometime in December, RFP open in December, evaluations of RFP, etc, and the chain abstraction stack ideally roll out through q2 as Max has pointed out, there is this is important, because the super chain interoperability is likely to roll out around q2 so we want to make sure that we have an Answer and a narrative to build towards around that time, Max, if you want to go to the next slide real quick,
oh, refresh it. Yeah, refresh it.
So we'll actually come back to this and actually sorry, Max, skip to the very next slide. So as we said, Sorry, slide 11. So, as we said, snapshot proposals the DAO that will be a smaller amount to then have to then come back with a recommendation for a larger amount of how to actually do this and do everything, because we want to have the alignment in the research done ahead of time. Secondly, taking something from the liquid, from the incentives working groups. We're going to have some community calls that will level up the DAO and allow different perspectives to be shared. So you can think about them as open research and ecosystem alignment between a group of us. We're already working to speak with OCL Foundation, other large players. Then lastly, we'll talk more about, kind of like an orbit chain mesh builder experience proposal, and how we can work on that culture part that Max talked about, how we can add some to that, in addition to this, in addition to this interoperability, technical aspect. Now for the community calls Matt, you want to go ahead.
Do you see as the ideal members of this working group,
the ideal members of the working group would be So, if so, so I think initially it's kind of, there's two parts to it, right? One is there's alignment and kind of driving and making sure all the organizations actually happening. For the research perspective, I think it would be someone like, potentially a block works, potentially entropy, someone who's actually in the day to day, even someone like the guys from the roll up, who talk a lot about chain abstraction, interview a bunch of people. We probably want to have different stakeholders and like ever clear across, etc. So that's part of gathering requirements. But in terms of actually doing that's where we actually want to have like an analyst team, and we want to have like a project management team. My
thoughts on it are, I look at the best like researchers on this, you know, and go and leverage, like Pantera is research head, you know, like Matt Stevenson, who's the best researcher on chain abstraction that you're looking at. And then there's a few of the DAO and stuff. Like Franklin over at Penn, you know, and so forth where, you know, there's opportunities to involve some of like the PhD, like blockchain clubs and so forth, and find a, find a good mix of that. But I think the organizing group, the Alignment group, is super important, because that's like representatives of OCL foundation. I think some builders like Camelot being at the crux of that orbital liquidity, you know, would be the best ones to define the technical roles that they need for that.
Matt, who do you think? I
think it's tough to know without running the RFP like, I think, exactly like we want to run the RFP and then get, you know, layer zero across all the different intense protocols to actually apply, see who's interested, kind of, like, put the money in front of their face. And then what we'd want, probably, after that, is like a group of engineers, maybe like one governance or project manager type person who have the ability to assess the risks involved with different bridging solutions?
Matt, I thought, I'll actually share it here, Matt, Matt actually posted to us a great example of a type of analysis that, like we would want done. I'll find it and I'll share it in the post, but it's something that uni swap did as analysis of all the risks and everything, and that's kind of work that we want done. And going back to your point, Matt, about who we would want in this working group, some of what we're doing here with the community calls is a way for us to market and get people interested in this, because once people find out about Arbitrum doing this, they'll be more likely to want to be a part of the working group and add the perspective this community call is we're looking at kind of three different ones right now. It'll run some time over the next few weeks. Next few weeks. One is like, one is, what is, what is the current state of Arbitrum, can we get OCL Foundation, entropy block works. Other people talk about what is happening with chain, min, uh, chain, mesh, orbit, etc. Second one would be chain abstraction, like, what is the current state of the world? What's happening out there? That's people like the roll up. The guys from roll up, do a great job. Blocks works. We could even have teams like across and ever clear and others talk about what they're doing. And then lastly would be the builder perspective, getting people Camelot, Zai, even Raz providers about what it's like to build an orbit, orbit and chain Mesh from other places. So to me, this is happening as like while, while everything's on snapshot, as we're setting up the working group. But this allows people to start to start to come in and find out about it, and even level up the DAO to get different perspectives. So that's the I think, if you, if you want to go back to the very last slide Max, or like, up one more. So just you guys know, snapshot is going to the DAO next week, likely Thursday, we're going to post the the budget amount specifically and and we'll start the community calls. And then if you guys have questions, you guys can reach out to us, but we're in the background. We're working on alignment with the ecosystem. So any any questions on next steps, before we dive into any other questions on how we're thinking about this holistically,
cool, Max, you want to Go back to getting people's feedback.
Max, you're muted.
Sorry, yeah. So I was saying, basically, as we were saying, there's a lot of work that we can, we can do to to make Arbitrum be perceived as an ecosystem, right? With all the different chains, there's a lot of work around culture. There's a lot of work on positioning. I think this is the, this is a relatively easy step, because it's about gathering the right solutions from the market, which are like Legos, put them together, making sure they're willing to work with the arbit, with the orbit stuck at request, and, you know, in a very efficient way, in a sustainable way as well, right? We will, I think we should be looking at ways to make this self sustainable without incentives. In the long term, maybe some incentives are required to boost up the ecosystem, but not, not beyond that, and then ultimately, like this, this will end up being one of the pieces that enhance the builder experience, and hence the user experience, and so that will make Arbitrum more exciting. If we do this, we'll be able to say, you know, we go to the market and hey, the orbit alliance is, is now a chain of structures. So it is now abstracting the complexities for for the different chains. So if you want to build you should do it with us, because, you know, that's the best experience that you can provide for for your users. And it comes out out of the box, basically. And then, you know, and then that cascades into network effects, more liquidity for our determine for the other chains. Chains can access your liquidity, because now we have this fast way to move, moving back and forth. More liquidity attracts more builders. They want to do more Ponzi on top of it. And so I think it cascades very, very nicely. And that is just the starting point, the way I see it. Any further questions, any doubts, any
comment. So so need to understand it correctly. You want to have a working group that would open something. Is it actually code? Like? What is like? Let's say that we found it. Let's say that you finished it. What? What's next like? What do you mean?
Yeah, I think the idea is that we have a we set up this working group, and then the objective is, working group is to produce a set of clear deliverables which are like, this is how we this is how we align on the vision for a chain of structured stock. This is the how we see the stack, and this is the type of potential budget request, like set up some parameters around it. And then, you know, the we start getting the RFPs. So we start having the market coming to us and saying, Okay, this is what this is the solution that I can provide. This is what I need. These are the benefits, and so on. And then, you know, we gather together, we select these projects and said, we said, Okay, now we start to roll them out. Experiment for a few months, see what results we get. See if we, if we, if we move the needle in the sense. And then we assess
and and Christoph the the working group, the output of that, the output of the working group would be to have alignment between the Arbitrum ecosystem and the interrupt players, and to put together a snapshot for the larger ask of whatever would be needed for this RFP,
while you're DeFi, could you
understand that?
No, sorry, say it again. Crystal, I didn't. I can't hear everyone,
but I'll reach out to you later.
Cool, and I will say we're working on more more explanation of how the working of how the working group will work, what the specific ask will be, and all that. First, we wanted to get out this concept and ensure that it had support. And what we have found is that we've had more agreement and support. People say this is a problem. Exactly how we do it. We have thoughts and questions, but that's what the working group is for. So we'll we'll post on the forum, post more specifics around how the working group will work and how that'll tie into the snapshot that will go live next Thursday, before we kind of wrap this all up. Does anybody else have either any questions and questions about how this would work, or to any other perspectives they want to share. Pete, go ahead,
yeah, I just have a question with the timeline. Like, what is the approximate timeline for like, as pushing it to proposal, start building, to being ready for protocols to to come on, to deploy,
um, this is kind of like I'm sharing my screen here, and you'll see, like the expected full proposal to the DAO would be by December. Um, but like this, this working group snapshot will go next week. And then the idea is that this some interop solution, what would be ready, rolled out through q2 with the narrative and all of that. But in Max, you want to answer crystals question about, can't we already start building this and do the research down the road,
yeah, it's the there's nothing to build in reality, right? What we want is to have the market converge into the orbit stack, be ing lubricated into the orbit stack, so we can come up with a package that is ready to be deployed on a new orbit chain. So if somebody wants to launch an orbit chain, it will be a chain, abstracted chain from day one. And so the solutions all exist already, but they have no incentives. They have no reason to or they have no format and no process to come up and say, hey, I want to, let's all deploy on the same on this chain on day one. And this is what instead we want. We want the all the wallets, the permission layers, all these, all these kind of guys we're ready to support the orbit chain on day one. And in order to do that, they need some intent based protein, some bridges, basically liquidity bridges. And in order to do that, they need to have some solvers that are ready to support that chain and solvers, they want liquidity and solvers, they want a way to rebalance and all these kind of things need to like somehow be concatenated in a more structured way. Instead of leaving it to the market, we will provide the bootstrapping incentives for new chains so that we can pack really packet it, make it a package and and make sure that we deliver for make sure it becomes a standard for folder which chains they want to be part of it.
Matt, go ahead,
to me, it feels a little complicated, and maybe like adding some, I don't know, inefficiency versus how I read the original proposal, like how I read the original proposal was, let's create a package to help with interop for new orbit chains and like that makes perfect sense to me. I like that. It's intent based, like personal opinion, I think intense make a lot of sense. But that said, I also think it'd be worth considering general message passing, which the proposal actually like, says in it, but like, now, when the vision is like, let's set up a working group to help us create, you know, chain abstraction as our end goal for orbit, it seems a little less likely to execute in a way that leads to, like, a positive result, but that's just my opinion on it, but I felt like I should probably get it out there. Matt,
that's that's totally fair. The the honest answer is, over the next week, we will have some more specific conversations with key stakeholders that will help us have better alignment on the direction of that. I think your your point on the chain abstraction package is spot on. And we'll, I'll talk to you offline about about it, but yeah, well, we will. We will be able to focus, have a better perspective on which way to take this. But at the end of the day, the key thing of the working group is we want to make sure that we're do that Dao contributors are doing the research and experts are doing the research, being able to provide the DAO and everyone with the insights into the trade offs that we could and should be making, or like at least acknowledging those trade offs. But we have to do more work on it. Max. Go ahead. No,
just to compliment that, the difference between, there's a lot of like nuances in the definition, but the core difference is that interoperability, by itself, is not the end goal. Like interoperability should be a mean towards the end. What should be the end. The end is making every chain feel connected, as if it was one unique, one unique chain or a smooth, a smooth experience, right? This is where the chain abstraction comes in. Underneath. Is not like we want to call it interoperability. That's fine, but it's like a means to a purpose, to me, because what we want is to enable builders to get to, get to, to unlock this experience. And that happens by cheap, secure, smooth interoperability, which happens by his intent system and all these kind of things, or liquidity bridges, or, you know, message passive bridges, which is, as you say, are part of the solutions.
So before we before we go, we're going to take some of these questions that that we've gotten so far, and we're going to add an FAQ section to the proposal. What just we might not answer them right now, but what other questions do you guys have that you want us to answer in the proposal? We've heard about the working group. We've heard about technical proposal. Other options for that. Is there anything else you guys want us to answer in the proposal? You can you can also drop them in the chat. If you don't want to say I'm out loud, if there are no questions, awesome, then I'll assume you all will vote for this immediately on Snapchat.
My only question that's still outstanding, I guess, is I've seen the chain abstraction I feel like, and this might have changed in the last three months, but chain abstraction I feel like is a term that is used for an outcome and the technical delivery of that outcome. It actually differs between bridge providers. So like across has one methodology versus the, you know, one that sockets building is another methodology. And so my only concern is if, by choosing one path, are we going to block out the others, which very, very well may be the case, and that might be the path that we choose. But I just want to know from like, if it's gonna be, you know, what type of wallets can can utilize it, if there's any you know, if it has to be smart, or it can be any way it can both find from a technical perspective, from like, UX perspective, and then also the other component being, is this technical implementation that we're looking to to put as a part of the deploy kit for an orbit chain? Does it force out, let's say connect can't participate, or certain that maybe not call it specific bridges, but call out a specific technical method, right? So like, this is the, this is the way you have to implement chain abstraction for you to be eligible? It's
great question. So I think we should not. I mean, my recommendation for the council would be to not choose only one solution. First of all, okay. Number two, the ultimate control lies in the in the builders, meaning that a builder is able to choose any solution that exists on the market. It doesn't have to come from our recommendations. It doesn't have to come from this package. It can be anything that works. And each solution within the stack can actually choose which which solutions to to concatenate with. Underneath number three, this is not a, I don't think it should be a, let's put some walls. And this is the only path is allowed. This should be a push of the market towards orbit, right? Like, let's, let's encourage people to deploy on orbit chains. Let's encourage this project to, you know, invest resources, resources into the orbit chains, because we believe in the same vision that they are painting. But, and, you know, and this is the start. This is the way to kick start the moment. If you know, if another solution comes in and say, Hey, I also want to participate, nothing is will ever stop them to go and pitch it to builders. Hey, adopt my my solution, rather than the ones that have been selected initially. It's a good point I need to make. We need to make it extremely clear that it doesn't, you know, it doesn't create any walled gardens. It's not preventing anything from the markets to actually flourish.
Awesome. So we'll we'll add in those FAQs. The last thing I will ask is going back to the community group calls, who else do you guys want to hear from? Who else do you guys? What other topics do you guys want to hear about? Because we can take time to make sure we're getting all those perspectives. For example, the current the chain abstraction world. DK, that's that we want to bring in other people, like across ever clear layer zero, etc. Maybe,
again, depends on the implementation, but maybe some of the smart wallet like SDK groups, so there's, there's different flavors of smart wallets, right? So, like, Coinbase has their own type of smart wallet. I mean, for the most part, they're, they're pretty standardized, but there are some limitations between, like, let's say, the Coinbase wallet, and the Gnosis, you know, implementation, I would probably want them to make potentially review to make sure that if we do go the smart account way, that they're at least aware, you know, if there's any technical limitations. So they need to make sure that they enable at this point, pretty much everyone has, like, the module add on support. So, like, it should be a non issue, but
awesome, so I think we appreciate that. DK, with that, I think we'll let everyone else go. Thank you so much. We'll follow up with this deck and with notes in the forum, and we'll get more specific on the on the on the working group so that you guys can see the snapshot before it goes live next Thursday. Anything? Anything else to say? Max,
