Aave Civil War + Flow Hack + Coinbase Everything Exchange - The Chopping Block

I think there's something that strikes a nerve in like people who have been in crypto a while versus people who are newer and there's like some disconnect that that is also hidden in this. That is that is a good point. Not a dividend. It's a tale of two fun. Now your losses are on someone else's balance sheet. Generally speaking, airdrops are kind of pointless anyways. Unnamed trading firms who are very involved. Eat is the ultimate. DeFi protocols are the antidote to this problem. Hello everybody. Welcome to Chopping Block. Every couple weeks, the three of us get together and give the industry insider perspective on the crypto topics of the day. So, quick intros. First, we got Tom, the DeFi maven and master of memes.

Hello, everyone. Robert is enjoying his new year like a normal person, but the three of us psychos are here to record a podcast for you guys. Joining us, we have of course Trun, the geobrain grand puba of Gauntlet.

Yo, and I the head hype man at Dragonfly. We are early stage investors in crypto, but I want to caveat that nothing we say here is investment advice, legal advice, or even life advice. Please see chopping blocks at XYZ for more disclosures. So, I've been actually off the grid for quite a while. Uh haven't been as tuned in to what's happening in cryptoland.

Trun, you were just saying that same thing true for you. You've been touching grass.

Similar. I'm I'm in a rural place in the middle of nowhere in Australia.

Ah, okay. Very good. And Robert right now is even farther flung than any of us. He uh had no internet access. So he was uh enjoying the new year, bringing the new year in style. But um it's been another week of dramas for us to jump into with respect to what's happening in crypto. Although price action has been pretty muted. There hasn't been a lot happening on the um the macro front. There's always interesting things happening in Dowland. So, we wanted to cover a little bit what's going on in a in what's being dubbed the DAO civil war. So, uh Trun, I'm assuming that you're probably the closest to this given that Gauntlet is a service provider to the DAO, but let me service was.

Oh, that's right. That's right. Was a service provider. So, let me let me set a little bit of backdrop to what's going on within the civil war. So, uh of course, Aave is the largest onchain lending protocol today. Very very successful protocol. and they have a token called Aave. Now there's also a company called Aave Labs, I believe also known as Avara. This is a company that's founded by Stani Kulechov who's the founder of Aave's been on the show and the DAO and the company own different things so the Aave DAO controls the smart contracts the risk parameters it manages the treasury and it also faces the service providers who directly work with the DAO now the labs the company this company controls the front end So aave.com and the domain is owned by the company. The brand, all the brand assets, the IP is owned by them. They manage the GitHub, they manage the socials and all the kind of actual infrastructure to run the front end indexing, all that kind of stuff.

So up until now, it's been a pretty calm and friendly connection between the DAO and the company. But they recently diverged in their interests. So what happened was at the beginning of December, they added a new integration. And so the front end of Aave allows you to do swaps and previously they had an integration with Paraswap which is a dex aggregator and they swapped it to Cowswap and with Cowswap what uh somebody discovered about a week later is that when Cowswap uh generates fees those fees do not go to the Aave DAO, they go to Aave Labs and those fees uh it's a little bit unclear how much it is but it's something like you know on the order of $10 million a year that would go to Aave Labs.

Um, so this was discovered, got socialized, people got really upset. Mark Zeller, who was known as the kind of the the protectorate of the overall DAO ecosystem. Uh, Mark Zeller called this a stealth privatization. People got really really upset. Uh, and this kind of ties a little bit to what we were talking about last week with Axelar where, you know, Axelar got acquired and it was like, oh, there's all this drama about Devco versus the the foundation. This I think is a more clear zero- sum conflict between the devco and the foundation. And so some proposals were put forward on the DAO basically demanding that the DAO receive the assets like the all the IP from the devo. So uh one of them was called the poison pill proposal uh which demanded to seize all Aave related IP code and the brand and force Aave Labs to become a Dowowned subsidiary as well as claw back all revenue that was earned using the Aave brand.

Now Stani who owns Aave Labs he defended Aave Labs and said look we've been a great steward of the protocol. The protocol has ultimately succeeded and become this dominant player because of the work of Aave Labs. like we should find a way to move forward productively with both because ultimately Aave is going to win if we work for it together. If you guys try to destroy Aave Labs, Aave protocol is going to be in a worse position for it. If if we were doing poorly, there's more argument to like hey say hey Aave Labs get in line. But really like you know this obviously has been a productive relationship.

So there was a snapshot vote that took place on December 25th on Christmas Day which was called out for being maybe timed in such a way that it was not going to encourage a lot of voting and there were some arguments about oh was this rushed and did this not follow the normal voting process in terms of you know uh proposals going through the snapshot discussions. So on the December 25th vote, the nays won. The nays being do not absorb the uh Aave Labs into the Aave DAO. You know, kind of keep the status quo as is. However, 41% of the vote voted to abstain. So voting to abstain is basically you show up in the vote, but you say I'm not voting.

And actually the the people who are on the opposite side, the DAO uh advocates ask people to vote abstain in support of saying this proposal has been rushed. We want to do another proposal later when everybody has a time to debate and actually decide what is a good moving forward proposal. So 41% voted for to abstain. 55% voted nay. Uh and a very small percent voted yes, which would be actually taking the the assets from from the Dow. So there's going to be another vote soon, but this has been widely seen as probably the biggest flash point within DAO governance about the conflict between a devco and a foundation. So I'll stop there. Trun, you're probably the closest to the Aave DAO and all the machinations that have gone on in that ecosystem. What's your take on this whole DA civil war?

I'm thankfully not close now. I think that's that's the beauty of the right. So by by way of background, I think Aave hate or Mark Zeller in particular hates Gauntlet and has gotten into very public fights with with you guys before.

Yeah. Over I would say I would say I do think this is sort of why a lot of the newer DeFi protocols have gone different directions. But I guess this was like kind of always an undercurrent for a while to be honest. like even back in 2022 2023 I think like the friction between Aave and BGD who sort of view themselves as the main steward of the stewards of the Dow and Avara were like sort of latent they weren't like you know I you know you gave this description just now where you're like everything was great and all of a sudden it was bad but like any longstanding fight in a complicated relationship where people are friends and enemies and back and forth It it it's it was brewing for a while I would say and I think there was kind of this feeling and you can see it in some of the comments.

So, like this is not me saying I'm not saying any opinions cuz I having been in enough Dowo fights I'm kind of I prefer being on the sidelines and the bleachers. But the you know you can see a lot of people say like hey sort of there was this appearance that like Aave Labs kind of stepped away from Aave the protocol for a while when especially when they kind of changed their name. They were running Lens Protocol. they were doing all this other stuff and then kind of came back later to do V4 whereas like V3 and the stewarding was kind of done by the DAO providers and so there's I think this this animist goes back a lot longer than just like hey we want the IP now I think the Cowswap thing is kind of weird to me because it's sort of I remember when the Paradox integr so like Before basically Aave had the swapping feature which was using Paradex which is the small dex aggregator that realistically has was like kind of probably would not exist at all if Aave wasn't routing order flow to them. They're they're really tiny. So eventually obviously the prices just got bad so they had to pick a new one.

And so I I don't really know how these front end wars end. I do think a an interesting parallel is of course the Uniswap one where they just had the unification vote and now the dowo and company are sort of the same. But for many years, Uniswap Labs, the company would constantly get the same type of criticism, right? Like, oh, Uniswap X, like the fees go to the company, not to the protocol, so the LPs are getting rugged. I think the the funny thing is like this entire set of like Uniswap and Aave sort of switching sides on this has made a lot of the um anons who love commenting and being kind of [ __ ] on the internet about this stuff very confused because like a lot of them are like I've hated Uniswap for so many years they've been robbing the LPs and like now they're like and and a lot a lot of them are like Aave is the best run dow in history and like I've just observed their Twitter presences become completely confused as to what side they support anymore. And so I I I think these things are kind of complicated.

I don't know what it means for a DAO to own IP offchain fully to be honest. Like I don't really understand how you would reconcile. The Dows usually own the IP like they usually own the trademark and like the like for the foundations usually that's what happens, right? Like the found no foundation. Yes. Foundation. Foundation. Yes. But but right but the foundation is subordant to the DAO. Isn't that usually how foundation charters are set up?

Yeah, but it's like what jurisdiction are you going to to to to make the IP claim in? Like do you want to make BVI? Do you not want to make foundation? Yeah, there's no foundation. There's no foundation. I see. Oh, I see. So it it's it remember they're they're kind of and I mean this in a good way, right? They're a cockroach, right? Like they they ICOed in 2017. So they kind of have a different story than all of these people who are foundation labs. It's like more structured because like at that and so like there's a lot of idiosyncrasies that come from that that are not so obvious. But I do think there's sort of this weird thing where like no one has really tested a lot of this stuff legally. like um I I don't know why I'm blanking on his real name, but his Twitter name Lex Node the lawyer.

Gabriel. Gabe Shakiro. Gabriel. Gabe. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I we had him on the show, so I feel bad. Brain fart, but I think he had some he has some interesting points about the idea of like I no one has really challenged a lot of this stuff and like it's not totally clear what happens. like you can make different suppositions, but it's not I don't know what it means for the IP to be used in an aggressive lawsuit by someone who has valuable IP cuz I kind of think a lot of the foundations don't have IP and a brand that's anywhere near as valuable as Aave. So like we haven't tested something as big in my opinion. I mean maybe the L1's kind of do the L1 found but honestly I think Aave just like has a better brand than them and probably more people know about them.

Ethereum IP is owned by the Ethereum Foundation, right? And isn't the Bitcoin, wasn't that true for Bitcoin at some point?

I don't know about Bitcoin, but I think um Maker, I remember also had like a trust that owned the IP that then like was the trustee basically had to obey like the votes of the Dow holders. So, it's like sort of another roundabout way to like have the Dow owned IP. But I actually have kind of a different take on this. I think this is actually different from the Uniswap drama. that the Unisoft drama I think was was very clearly a sort of bright line of like where is value going to acrue is it going to go into the labs entity or into the foundation and or into the dowo and I think it stung especially because there was this whole multi-year debate over you know when is there going to be a fee switch for uni you know when when do do uni holders get paid and then it was like oh actually in the interim labs the lab team is actually going to eat first and then maybe at some point uni holders get paid and it's clearly cannibalistic with LPS and token holders, right? Like charging an incremental fee on top of your existing swap. Clearly that hurts, you know, um the price and execution and unique competitive. So it's like clearly there's there's a fixed pie and you're trying to divvy it up and that that's you know painful.

This is is like a actually totally different use case and and workstream than like core Aave lending. Like I think if Aave Labs were skimming bips from yield that should be going to lenders or borrowers or to the DAO, I would totally empathize. But this is like like why does the DAO have a right to what this website is, you know, earning from swap fees. Like the DAO is not the protocol has nothing to do with swap fees. It's not a DEX. So the argument the argument is that like the aave.com brand should be owned by the DAO and it's by virtue of being the aave.com brand that they're getting this flow. If they instead were like uh Avara.com then I don't think anybody would complain that like okay they're making money on swap fees.

I mean that that feels a bit pained I guess like sure you could you could you know maybe make that argument but it's not like oh these are fees that are are not going to the Dow like the alternative is they just shut down the fees and then no one gets the fees and and or they shut down the feature and then no one get no one gets those fees. So I guess in my mind it's like a totally different workstream than you know the actual core protocol.

So I mean I hear you on the IP monetization but that doesn't even seem like what they're talking about. They're talking about the Cowswap fees like I I don't think Na'V So I think this is a very good thought experiment. It's a very good thought experiment because I think if it was avara.com nobody would complain, right? And I think it it's probably even true that if avar.com were the main way that people went to Aave I think people would be less inclined to complain. They'd have a much stronger case to stand on. Right? It's uniquely because it is aave.com and that is where everybody goes. And in most cases, what most people expect from a DAO is that these assets are owned by a foundation that is basically a not for-profit that's purely subordinate to the DAO and the token holders, right? And and Aave has this weird quirk. It was built a long time ago. This is prefoundation era. You know, the legal structuring that everyone kind of imagines is the way that this is supposed to work. It's just not the way that it works in Aave.

In Aave there is no legal entity, I guess, or maybe there's some small legal entity that's like kind of a backbone for the DAO, but for the most part, the Devco owns a huge amount of the assets that normally would be owned by a foundation, right? Uh and that that creates a subversion of expectations from what most people would expect to be the way that this works is that, you know, maybe the Devco is licensing this from the DAO, but no, that's not the case. The DAO has no claim over the IP. The DAO does not own the name Aave. Aave Labs owns the name Aave. Aave Labs has all the rights to all the cash flows from the copyright and so on and and if they choose to give some of that money to the Aave DAO, they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and in violation potentially of their fiduciary responsibility, right, to if they have their own shareholders. So I I can see why this is a weird setup.

Now I think that's a very good point that you made, Tun, which is that this is not the way the Dows look today. Almost any modern DAO is structured totally differently than this where the IP actually is owned by a foundation that is a not for-profit. And if there is an attempt to build a profitable like a for-profit company like I'm going to build a mobile wallet, I'm going to build a whatever some other thing like an all-in-one DeFi NEO bank that has a swap function as well as you know routes you to Aave and blah blah blah. I think everybody be like, "Yeah, cool. Great. Try to build a profitable business on top of this protocol, but the protocol itself owns the the the back end as well as the front door, right? The the weird thing about it is the fact that it owns aave.com and that they're monetizing people's access to aave.com and and that was the same constraint I had or the same issue that I had with Uniswap because so much of the of the volume into Uniswap was going into the front end. if they just created Uniswap X. I'm actually okay with Uniswap X not going to uni token. Um, and I'm also okay with Uniswap wallet not going to uni token. Like if they were making money off the Uniswap wallet, fine. You know, they built a mobile app. That's hard. There's there's it's not obvious to me why token holders should have a claim on the revenue that's made by a mobile app. But uniswap.com is unique because it is the front door and it is what everybody associates with the brand equity of uni token and blah you know Uniswap whatever to the extent that people expected that's what they were buying that's what they should get that seems like the right answer to me and so I think Avara should be free but look look it's weird because of the fact that everybody knowingly came into this situation right that's what makes this situation unique is that if you've been in a dao for a while obviously you know I don't spend a lot of looking at Aave politics.

If you've been Aave politics for a while, you know this. You know that Aave Labs owns the IP. They own the code. They have the copyright. They have the domain. Um, so you if you bought Aave you bought it knowing this, right? Hopefully, presumably. And so maybe the best argument here among all of this is not that like, hey, you know, Aave Labs should get punished or Aave Dow should get punished or whatever. The best argument here is that like we need better disclosures because at the end of the day, it's okay if you buy a token and the front end is owned by some other company, right? As long as you know that, you can price that in. If you don't know that and your your expectations are subverted, that's bad. But information is the solve to that problem. You know what I mean? Because for most Dows today, this is just not a problem.

Yeah. Was this not disclosed before or like I guess I where is was I think it I think it was disclosed. I think like people knew this if you were deep in Aave world but it's not standardized. where would you go to find this? You know, like you'd have to go digging to go learn all this if you're just like learning about Aave. I think having like you know, if you imagine like the Blockworks disclosures regime, right? The Blockworks disclosures very clearly, this is like one of those disclosures, which is who owns the IP, where is it owned, break down the like org chart and what's owned by each entity. That would that would very easily be like if if that gets standardized, everybody who goes to the Blockworks disclosure, they learn this. You know what I mean? And that feels to me like a solve.

Yeah. I I just I don't know. The IP thing feels like a little bit of a red herring. It's like I I think actually what it is they see people making money on chain through something DeFi-ish and they're like we should be entitled to that. Like I think if they were making money through like Amazon affiliate links on the website, I don't think they give a [ __ ] Or like alternatively, what if they just did like a redirect from aave.com to avar.com. You go to Aave you type in aave.com your browser, it goes to Avar. It's all Avar branded. I think it would still be throwing a fit. So I I like I I don't know. I I think this is people want this to be isomorphic to the Uniswap situation when I just don't think it is at all. They're not they're not selling a merge.

I I look I I agree they're different but I think the sentiments in Dows are not necessarily like trying to analyze the payment and like the payoff function here as much as they're analyzing like fairness, right? there's this feeling of fairness that seems to be what people care about which is very different from who's you know the money comes in how does it get split right like and I think that's where the stuff is always like messy and by the way there so when I was talking about how there's like a history of multiple things that have happened I think the DA and Aave Lab of like have had a lot of fights and again I have no opinion on which side I'm not trying I don't I I've had I I've already been enough of these. I don't I don't want to be at all involved. I'm just trying to say facts that are in the forum and you can go read other people's deliberations on this.

But there was a launched this RWA Aave Labs launch. See, this is where it's already hard. You forget to say which entity, right? Aave Lab of launched this RWA platform called Horizon. and Horizon was sort of like had a way of connecting to Aave and like had a bit of um kind of there was some version of shared liquidity there and the initial post for Horizon said hey we're going to launch another token for Horizon like a RWA like kind of like a plume style RWA L2 token although it's not L2 but a token in that way and we're going to give the Aave DA some fraction of it And that caused a huge uproar, right? Because Aave DAO is like, well, like the only reason you can even build this product is because of us and like it does and and that one I'm I'm a lot more sympathetic to the Avara view because it's like it's hard to get you you have to deal with regul regulated entities off chain. You have to do all this other stuff. It's not like purely the like there is a lot of excess value that's coming from the company.

So I I'm not sure the token part like the token part is is that that but that feels that feels like the right answer right which is like okay yes there's a huge amount of offchain component to build something like Horizon it's not something the Dow can just say well clearly we you made this no I made this you know give me the whole thing there's a negotiation and part of that negotiation is like people getting upset and governance posts and blah blah blah and it's like okay you know you can't avoid that as part of the negotiation but like yeah there's some splitting of value maybe the initial bid wasn't enough, but eventually they find some agreement of like, okay, you built it, you should get most of it, but we get some of it. That feels like the right answer. Like that's like how else should it work?

Yeah. I I I think my point though is like the DAO views a lot of these things antagonistically, and in some cases I I think like the DAO is probably correct. Some cases Labs is probably correct. I don't know what the where the end point will be. I mean, maybe it's not pleasant, but that sounds like the right answer, which is that people get mad, then they find an agreement, and then they they're all happy and like that the end. Do is there like an agreement here? That's what I So, sorry, I I I like Hib. No, there my understanding. So, again, I'm I might be speaking with very low context, but uh my understanding is that they are delaying because of this vote that did not pass. the large amount of abstain votes are signaling there's going to be another vote with a more concrete proposal that maybe squares a circle a little bit and is something that uh Avara Aave Labs might be willing to agree to.

I I found this whole thing a little bit odd because I didn't really understand for the DAO like demanding these assets. It's like give us the IP and all this other stuff in exchange for nothing.

Well, I think the alter is that the DAO said they're going to sue Aave Labs and so they're opening themselves up to a Yeah, I I mean, is that a valid lawsuit? How is the What is that? I don't know. America, actually, it's probably not America. Well, well, actually, do you remember Do you remember this happened in 2021? There was actually there's a there's an example of this. It's like all the Dows of the same era all have this like problem of like they were a little too early so like they didn't get to learn any lessons but like the Curve Dow tried to sue someone for copying Curve because Curve had a non-permissive license. Do you remember this? Then it turned out to be too complicated. That's like what I don't know what the status of that. Not not the law. This is even more absurd. This is even more absurd because it's been so many years that Aave Labs has owned the IP that they're now going to sue them like seven years later and claimed that actually that IP belongs to Aave DAO.

Yeah. No, no, no. I The only reason I'm bringing this up is a DAO trying to sue was actually logistically very complicated. If you read that blog post, you'll see I doubt it. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's crazy. Okay. Well, that I don't think that's where this is going to end up, but like it is it is What are your predictions? What are what are your predictions since it's like the end of the year? What's your prediction for this scenar this situation?

I mean, look, I I think like the leverage the Dow has is not obviously legal recourse. I think the Dow probably has no legal recourse because they don't own the IP. So, no possible way they could have a a real claim there. The answer is that like the the recourse is headaches and yelling and fighting and the doubt and like a token going down like it's sort of like rage quitting. People vote with their wallets. Yeah, they vote with their wallets. So I think like the fact that people are so animated by this means that they are holding the token hostage basically and you have to negotiate with us or we're just going to keep forcing this token to dump. Um by the way I do remember like actually the right answer. One thing I do remember observing before I went on my little Twitter vipasa I don't know what you want to call it is there I was comparing a lot of the Chinese language translated of course so tweets to the English tweets and I feel like people in Asia were more angry about this issue than people in the west which I was a little surprised they were they were like these long I was getting I was all these like kind of early Ethereum people who I never see tweet I haven't seen tweet in years suddenly were like tweeting people who I probably followed in 2017 or 2016 or 2015 or something like a long time ago and then they kind of tweeted DeFi summer didn't tweet maybe tweeted around FTX didn't tweet and then kind of and a lot of them were writing these long diet tribes about how like the Dow should really own the IP and stuff and I thought that was an interesting obviously it's an unscientific thing and it was like maybe five or six sort OG Chinese community people, but I think there's something that strikes a nerve in like people who have been in crypto a while versus people who are newer and there's like some disconnect that that is also hidden.

That is that is a good point. This is definitely like an OG's. No, no. I I think it's like a confusion society kind of thing. You know, this there's parental feely and you know the child should be supporting. Yeah. Maybe. Yeah. I I'm not sure. But the the the the they're also if the translations are good, they're also much more eloquent than I think the western writing is like very aggressive and short and like this is an LM is transl. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But they're they're they're they're actually quite quite a bit more eloquent. I I I enjoyed reading the Asian. I wish I had a more scientific version of this, but I would love to know this.

Well, yeah. But what's the other side, right? Like the other side is like no, no, no. Avara has property rights. We should protect the property rights of Avara. which is kind of Tom's point, which is very not Chinese. Like it's not it's like not that's not the point. Maybe maybe I'm maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I just I just had these people prosperity. Yeah, it's just interesting. These are people who don't tweet much but like have been around for a while, you know? That's sort of that's sort of why I thought it was interesting.

Well, I'm sure we will check back in with the um the next saga in this Aave DAO civil war. But you can't you can't do a chopping block episode without covering Dow drama. I feel like that's what we're here for. Evergreen. Um, yeah, that's right. So, speaking of 2021 type problems, for those of you who remember Flow Blockchain built by Dapper Labs, this was og og like gamefi blockchain back when that was still a thing that people were excited about. And flow was hacked for 3.9 million. It was some kind of exploit where uh they exploited the execution layer of flow allowing them to mint flow tokens. The attacker then took those flow tokens, took them off chain, bridge them, and then went to sell them, ran off, and you know, made a bunch of money, bridged them to bitcoin or something.

So um in response to this apparently FLO was planning to they they paused the blockchain as you do and uh they decided that they were going to roll back the blockchain to the point before the attack took place. Now this is a crazy thing to do because the attacker already got away. So like they already have the money, right? like there's a they they like you're not actually solving the problem if the hacker stole the money and sold it and and took it off chain. Uh second thing is apparently they did not talk to any of the bridges or exchanges about this roll back. And so for the bridges, the interesting thing is that so they were they were like, you know, talking in discord of that they were going to do this and it created this big kurfuffle on Twitter of people pointing out like, hey, you realize that if you do this, anybody who bridged money into flow in the time since this attack, their money will get stolen. They will get wiped out and and like basically they're transferring their money to the hacker implicitly uh for for bridging in money to like try to go in and arb these pools that are all mispriced and all this other stuff.

So thankfully they decided not to do this after the huge outcry that that took place on Twitter. They're doing something a little bit more reasonable of they're going to restart the chain in some kind of readonly mode and then like you know gradually remediate some of the individual uh bugs that that led to this attack. But it created all this excitement around this idea that like hey this is the craziest proposal for a remediation to a hack that I think we've seen in a long time. Um didn't happen. So, we're thankfully talking about kind of counterfactuals, but uh Terrun, you mentioned before the show that you were very intrigued by this story. What what was your reaction to the uh the flow kind of head fake roll back?

So, I I think an interesting aspect of all of this stuff is the fact that the promise that L2s have made, right, that I get forced inclusion like the sequencer censors me, I can go to mainet, resubmit my transaction, get reentered. There's always this kind of falsian bargain in this type of force inclusion thing in that I'm not really guaranteed that I get the same economic value for my transaction when I reforce it, right? It might get reordered. It might get added later. An oracle update might have come in before I'm liquidated. There's lots of things that can happen, but we sort of kind of in Ethereum people kind of were like forced inclusion is good enough, right? That's that's sort of the I'm sure there will be people who want to fight about that, but I I think that's like that's what roll-ups claim. On the other hand, in L1's, you're always like, "Hey, I have forkability. I can I can we can the validators can fork and it's fine." But you also have the same problem when you have a lot of interconnectedness between blockchains, right? you have bridges where the bridges on one chain expect x units of asset and on the other chain after the replay you might have less or more than x units of asset based on how uh the replay or fork goes and I think the interesting thing and an interesting thing that I observed from Alex at Dbridge which is a a intentbased bridge that exists is that in some sense bridges become custodians during forks because they they kind own this liability of like the mismatch between these chains and they in some ways become go from like kind of low risk to their validators like it's only the duration of the bridging that the validators hold most of the risk sometimes they hold some tail risk to like they're completely holding the risk almost like a custodian like they're now they have to like reconcile everything and so I think the interesting thing is like all of these security models we had in 2016 2017 which are like forkability and and forced inclusion and to some extent this is hib your post from like 2019 about like the USDC forking kind of rule all of this stuff goes out the window when you'