MegaETH Mainnet is Live! — The Next Era of Ethereum Scaling

We scaled far further than any L1 can scale, in our opinion. We just did a stress test on mainnet. Everyone was able to do it where we did 55,000 transactions per second. That was a mixture of UNV free transfers as well as ERC transfers. While that was happening, we were allowing users to play low latency games like Crossy Fluff with zero UX tradeoffs. Now, this is only possible because you've chosen to build a layer 2.

Banklist nation. I'm here with Namik and Lei Yang of Mega E. Namik Lei, welcome to Banklist.

Thanks for having us. Happy to be back.

All right, so some pretty interesting times to be a layer 2 on Ethereum. This is we're crossing the day after Vitalic released his layer 2 tweet. A big moment to say the least. When you guys saw this tweet rocket around Twitter, it got so big that basically everyone on crypto Twitter was commenting on this what was your reaction to it? Namik, I'll start with you.

Yeah, thanks for the question, David. I think it was honestly a validation of our point of view for a while. We're called Mega E. We love Ethereum. I got into crypto because of E. So it has a special place in my heart. But the reason why Mega uses Ethereum is not because of fanboyism but because it allowed us to build the most performant possible blockchain, right?

So Ethereum gives a guarantee of sorts. The guarantee it's simple. It's the most decentralized turn and complete blockchain. And we take that guarantee and we say it's sufficient for us to build a hyperformant execution environment that we believe can solve for an entire new set of use cases. And that's basically the relationship between Mega E and Ethereum.

Vitalic kind of points towards that in his like what would I do if I was in L2 today. He says he would build a bunch of stuff which is not similar to Ethereum L1. He mentioned six things. We do 50% of them off the bat.

We scale buzzword but it is a word we scale far far further than what any L1 can scale in our opinion right so we just did a stress test on mainet so everyone was able to do it where we did 55,000 transactions per second that was a mixture of UNV free transfers as well as ERC transfers and while that was happening we were allowing users to play low latency games across the fluff with zero UX tradeoffs. Now, this is only possible because we've chosen to build a layer 2.

So, that's one of the things we do, which Vitalic had described. We've also built an ultra low latency environment, something that really can't be done with a traditional consensus based layer 1 system and we've decided to do a bunch of unique wacky things on the chain which we did because the applications wanted us to. That's an example is our native enshrined oracle of chain link.

So when I saw the article/weet, I was happy because a strong E is good for crypto. I think as if E if doesn't do well, our entire industry, i.e. smart contract blockchains, we're all screwed. And I was kind of happy because it almost meant we can drop some of the traditional alignment games. you have to use FDA and we can try to build the most performance systems we can and hopefully capture new sections of the market.

Lelay, what do you think?

Yeah, it's pretty much about differentiation because to us it's pretty uninteresting to try to build and replicate exact primitives provided by the layer 1 because then first of course you face the the like the the question why why do I use a layer 2 that provides essentially the same service as the layer 1.

But also it's just technically uninteresting in like uninteresting a technical sense in a like an academic sense that you are basically trying to replicate things in a much harder in a much harder way in the sense that actually I think to to the to the contrary of I think common belief it's actually very hard to build a secure layer 2 and if all you want from a layer 2 is kind of just adopt Ethereum security as is then I think you you are better off like building a layer 1. I would say I would go as far as that.

Yeah, I I do think in Vitalic Suite there's definitely some validation of maybe I I'll call it the barbell approach to Ethereum and to layer twos which is like on one side of the barbell with one heavy weight you have Ethereum and that's going to be slow from a transactions per second but it's going to be max decentralized that's good for lots of use cases including anchoring a layer 2 but also slow defy and that's getting faster by the way. So that's one side of the barbell.

The other side of the barbell, you have some extreme things that do things that aren't replicating what the Ethereum L1 does, but that kind of explore a frontier in an incred like in a totally different domain. And so Mega ETH seems well positioned on the barbell strategy and that it's just like accelerating a number of things. One in particular is just like insane scaling levels that the ETH layer 1 cannot do.

But I I want to maybe broaden this because so there's so much to discuss with this Vitalic tweet. I feel like like one is just that like this feels like a departure from maybe how Ethereum, how Vitalic, how the community, how even at one time bankless thought about the role of layer 2. It was not too long ago maybe 3 years ago there were people like Plenty talking about how layer 2 scale.

There was people like Justin Drake saying hey like if you're on the L1 gas fees are high get off the L1 and go to the L2 right and that was that was off quoted even on bank list we would talk about like the scaling strategy for Ethereum was primarily L2s and the idea was like you take everything that worked on the L1 and it's expensive and then you move it to an L2 and it should just work.

In fact Vitalic kind of acknowledges this. He says the original version vision is is no longer working. Ethereum itself needs to scale. In the original version basically we were offloading a lot of this to L2s and that's kind of no longer necessary because the L1 is scaling.

I think of this as a pivot, not a values pivot, but I'm going to use the P word, a pivot in terms of the road map itself, in terms of what was originally envisioned with a rollup ccentric road map and where we are now. To me, it's a very logical pivot. We were talking about this on bank list probably 18 months ago when we're just kind of feeling out whether this made sense or not.

But there was a lot of immune system attack on the idea of this this tweet. You can even see it. I think some in the Ethereum community are like, "Oh, we feel disillusioned by this. This feels like, you know, a departure from what Ethereum has been saying for many years. This feels like wasted time and wasted energy."

That's a lot of different thoughts, but that's because there's so much to unpack. I feel like with this post it's like you know 3 to 5 years of Ethereum history. Do do you guys have any thoughts on what I just said? Do you view this as a pivot? Is it logical to you or is it more of the same of where Ethereum was always going?

What do you think Nomic?

I think for me it's it's a sad realization of like Moolok won almost in some ways, right? We have to be honest, everyone has different incentives. I remember one of these points was there's been stage one rollups that told me they do not want to become stage two point blank and the reason is because it was the the regulatory environment they prefer to be more centralized and you know it's it's like it's a bit of a shame I would say right but I also acknowledge that we are to blame as well right there was another article that came out a few days before these tweet which was like me from the depth of the stage one rollup where the entire argument in that article was, hey, like so far everybody who basically disregarded the traditional value sets of like following Ethereum L2 convention, they were not very serious people, right?

They were not trying to build really really good product. While what our team did is like we were we kind of for we forsaked some of those value propositions trying to build good UX. And so I think we're to blame as well.

On my end, I think it's good that the L1 is scaling. I think it is a bit of an overreaction to say that Ethereum will no longer need L2s. The reason why Ethereum is cheap now is because all activity moved to L2s. But like, you know, we will very quickly get back to a world where like there's $200 transactions on EA1. So, we need to scale the layer one.

I don't think it's as easy as like boom, it's done. But I think Ethereum and the EF needs to take Ethereum's success into their own hands and understand that L2s are trying to build businesses or trying to build products that are valuable. And I think ultimately that's what we where we see PMF like institutions as layer twos, right? They like that tradeoff.

Lei, I'm interested in your takes on this too, right?

So, I think first it's a logical I would I would Yeah, it is a pivot. So yeah, it's a logical pivot and we kind of saw it coming from the galo of mega. So we are I mean we're not surprised at all and u to to like the the the narrative of about Ethereum wasting the the last four or five years quote unquote trace the the layer 2 road map. I I don't think that's valid because first one has to consider the I think the origin of the layer two of the layer 2 road map.

I think it's really just because I think back in 2018 the hot topic about scaling is sharding right remember that and then a natural evolution of sharding is layer 2 because you can basically regard each shard as a as a layer 2 today and I think the original idea is that Ethereum would run and operate all the shards and I think then the question comes hey why why does it has to be Ethereum why don't just delegate to a few teams so that we get some diversity some competition some some experimentation I think expert experimentation is one of the most interesting thing that came out of the layer to road map because with the road map I think Ethereum started to focus on really building the substrate that can support experimentation I I don't think many people in the in the community kind of realized how general purpose the Ethereum infrastructure has become in in terms of supporting consensus blockchains which are layer 2 the DA the D sharding the portal D sharding and um um yeah all the upgrades and the blobs I think they all I think they all are like critical in terms of supporting the layer 2 infrastructure so now that the infrastructure is done I think it's actually fine that the layer 2 is kind of back at scaling itself which I think is totally logical because you also need a good coordination layer to to to to synchronize all the layer tools to to serve as the hub.

But I I really don't think like the the pivot I I really don't think like the energy we spend on this substrate is is wasted or something because I think Mega is only possible because Ethereum was chasing this layer 2cententric road map for a few years. I'm I'm extremely grateful that it did so so that we can have this interesting experiment we're working with and as well as many other experiments I think that are going to come. So yeah, I don't think it's I I don't think it's a sunken coaster in in any sense. It's actually pretty good.

Have you checked out Showdown yet? Showdown is poker rebuilt from the ground up by some of the world's top players, and Hearthstone, Magic the Gathering, and poker. With Showdown's action cards, an additional layer of gameplay is added onto the game of poker. Action cards give dueling players more agency, strategy, and tricks for winning the pot. Built on Mega E's real-time blockchain, Showdown has completely abstracted away everything crypto. Privy hides the wallet. There's seamless payment and deposit flows and Mega E makes everything happen in real time and zero fees, making Showdown ready to onboard your friends without any friction. It's also free to play and built without any pay to- win mechanics. Players compete in the free market and with real money on the line. Showdown is played with Mega's USDM in the background, so when players deposit money into Showdown, is converted into USDM, connecting Showdown to the USDM flywheel that all Mega E apps contribute to. You can play Showdown for free, so you can practice and get good before you get comfortable with real USDM on the line. Experience poker like never before with Showdown. Check it out at alpha.showdown.game.

Few people in crypto put real skin in the game when they make public top or bottom calls. The D5 report is one of them. The week before the October 10th flash crash, Michael from the DeFi Report emailed his entire newsletter saying he's going aggressively risk off and sold the majority of his book from crypto into cash. This is when ETH was about $4,000 and Bitcoin was 110. Michael runs the DeFi Report, an industry-leading research platform built on data cycle awareness, risk management, transparency, and most importantly, skin in the game. We like Michael at Banklist. We like his analysis. And that's why you hear him on the Banklist podcast about once a month. And the DeFi Report is giving Banklist listeners one free month of access to the DeFi Report. So, if you're looking for some sharp datadriven analysis to make better informed decisions around your portfolio, you can learn why and how Michael called the top and what he's doing next. All in the DeFi Report Pro, check it out.

Link: [URL]

Well, I think I agree with that. I mean, layer 2 have been massively beneficial to Ethereum and the layer 2's alignment with Ethereum like both economic securitywide has been beneficial to them as well. So, it feels like a win. It's just very interesting.

I feel like sometimes maybe this is this is true of all different communities in in all areas where so social groups have a tendency to kind of oscillate like a pendulum swing in like you know too far in one direction then too far in the other and so what was happening was an uh there there was this thought within Ethereum that L2s are Ethereum exactly the same thing and that they will solve all of Ethereum's scaling problems and that was a naive perspective from early days of the rollup ccentric road map and we were too far on that extreme.

Now what I almost see some reaction to Vitalik's tweet is an oscillation too far in the other direction as the pendulum swings which is like people now saying the the L2 road map has failed. It's over for Ethereum. this is like, you know, 5 years of of wasted time and energy and the project's done and all of these things without understanding the value that L2s are bringing to the table and have brought Ethereum and all of the various ways that those have contributed to even scaling the L1 and projects like quite frankly lighter and mega eth on the horizon really differentiating what they can do.

I I guess one question I have for you though to distill this for the listener because on that other side of the pendulum swings people have said things like well why be an L2 at all like there's no such thing as like L2s okay like everything is just a chain and I don't think that's true either but in order to get into that I think we need to to understand the security guarantees and the property rights guarantees that users actually get when they're on Mega ETH.

And just help frame this out. So, I'm a user. Let's say I have assets from Ethereum. I move them to Mega ETH. So, they're sort of rooted in the security of Ethereum. Okay. Mhm. What do I have? What property rights do I have? Do I have Because you guys are are using IEN for for DA, of course, right? So, it's a different type of rollup from that perspective. And then I'm not sure what your kind of your stages are are going to look like once this is all operational, what the directory there is, but like say in the in a year from now, if I'm a user on Mega ETH, what do I get in terms of inheriting Ethereum's property rights? Do I get censorship resistance fully the way on like I would on Ethereum? Do I get the ability to to exit my assets? I feel like that's just hard for people to understand right now in this in this in this chaos and swirl. So, so help us with that.

Yeah, of course. So, if we're talking about a year from now, actually, you would get pretty much almost all the important features you would have you would want on Ethereum. with the caveat that you have to trust both Ethereum trust as in trusting that Ethereum will not reorg beyond some certain depth especially beyond the finality and also or sensor your transactions and plus you have to trust IGNA in the sense that whatever we as MEATH submit to IGN DA they make it available for anyone to read and they kind of stand by the claim right so again so we're listing the trust assumptions The difference between layer 1 and layer 2, especially our sort, is that you not only have to trust Ethereum, but also DA, which I think is a pretty valid trade-off because of the immense throughput scaling you have from DA and in terms of then with those trust assumptions, the guarantees you have first the layer 2 cannot censor you in the sense that if you are if your transactions are being maliciously be excluded from the layer 2. If you just go to the layer two to try to submit your connection, you can always go back to the layer one and um submit your connection there and the layer 2 sequence will be forced to include your transaction. So this is like the classical censorship resistance.

So, it's actually pretty funny because we're having this frontier stage of our mainet and we're doing a white listing on the RPC so that we only allow builders onto the chain so that regular users they don't they don't make mistakes and lose money, right? It's I think this responsible thing to do but we we have always know we always know that there's this censorship resistance bridge is is live today right now. There's censorship resistance. You can now submit a transaction to the layer one inbox of our chain and it'll be forced to be included on to the layer two. It's been live for the whole time of the frontier stage even if we're doing the u the the RPC whitisting. So I've I've always been a bit worried that users might just submit transactions onto the layer 2 through this magnet.

So censorship resistance second the assurance that you you can always exit the layer 2 whenever you want. And this in part is achieved by censorship resistance because to exit you have to submit a transaction on layer 2. And if the sequencer does not allow you to do so, you go through the the mechanism I just described. And then the layer 2 will be forced to allow you to exit by proposing a state proposal certifying that your exit or your withdrawal is valid. And this is achieved by allowing anyone observing the layer 2 to provide such certification. So even if Maggie decides to disappear tomorrow, anyone else can just come and submit those certifications and you can use this certification to claim your money from the layer one end of the layer 1 layer 2 bridge to me, right? You can just take your money and a few other and also a few other guarantees. For example, your transactions will not be mis calculated. it will be it will not be eronously executed because there is the fraud proof system and with that we're actually using a ZKbased optimistic fraud proof system in the sense that if the chain if the sequencer ever makes a mistake anyone can just permissionlessly support submit a proof a zk proof showing to a layer one contract that the sequencer is doing is doing something wrong and at that stage the sequencer is going to be slashed and you can stay assured that no one can claim your money that does not belong to them, right?

So these are the asurances. So censorship resistance, guaranteed correctness of execution and guaranteed ability for you to just escape whenever you want.

So that's a great set of of property rights basically. And the trade-off is if I'm willing to address Ethereum, which you like RDM, and then IGEN layer, and of course layer that's economically secure, then I get all of the the the benefit of scalability on something like Meg.

I got to ask the question, where does stage two fit in all of this? So part part of Vitalic's comment was like, okay, L1's they're only going to like a lot of them are only going to stay with, you know, stage one. And my understanding of stage one is basically like upgrading contracts and such. You know, it requires a security council. What is that? It's a group of parties that can collude and they can update these contracts and update the roll up at at any point in time. And so if they all did that, then they could actually yink your funds and that's why it's different. H how about in your setup like like for you you didn't mention stage two once I mean is stage two relevant for mega eth and if so how?

Very interesting question and thanks for the reminder. Yes, you also have to trust that the security council is not going to misuse your power because yeah within a year we I mean after a year we do see ourselves in stage one but actually it's not probably not good for for us to claim ourselves to to label like a mega as a stage one/stage two/stage road chain because I think the stages only pertain to rollups and rollups by definition they have to use ethereum DA and we use DAFF but sorry for being panic Um um but yes um um yes you do have to trust the security council which we're are picking very seriously and um um so where does stage two come into play? I think stage two basically says get rid of the security console code is to govern you like for life immutability right there is going to be at least one part of the chain governance logic that is immutably enshrined on the layer one here I mean like deploy a contract without a proxy right just deploy the contract and the contract as is will govern say how and when you can upgrade your logic and maybe you cannot maybe government govern that you cannot upgrade your logic at all.

So recall that it's a huge commitment because you are basically saying one piece of the design of the rollup of the layer 2 is going to be fixed forever for the lifetime of the universe for the lifetime of Ethereum which are equal and so this is a huge commitment and it's a big risk because what if you find out a bug like a thousand years from now right you have to correct them but if you are a stage two rollup then or or layer two then I think it's pretty hard for you to to do this correction I think that's Why?

I think also in Vitalik's post I think there was kind of a realization that actually reaching stage two is a little bit harder a little bit harder than what people expected a few years ago because you are you're really making a big bat that you there's a piece of code in your rollup logic that you are never going to touch at all. So so I think this is why it's pretty hard to reach stage two. I don't think it's responsible to claim that we will reach stage two within a year or maybe even within two years but I think first it's a really interesting goal to chase after. I'm personally very interested in in a form of application of software and I think it's a big cornerstone in us reaching stage two which means perfectly correct code and I think with AI it's quite interesting because I think the the the I think the the thing that AI does the best is the stuff that is hard to produce but easy to verify right for example proofs of software code like it's pretty hard for you to prove that a piece of software code is correct. But if you kind of draft out a draft off a draft up a proof it's actually very easy for you to verify. So I think with AI with form of application we are on track but still there's a long way to go.

That's the crux of this to me too is just like it's unclear whether I as a user actually want stage two on any of my rollups to be honest like because do like what's worse to me uh tr trusting that you know the teams in place won't screw me over and the and the security council won't screw me over or like trusting that there won't be any bugs in the contract like you know what would be really bad UX is if there was some bug that froze all of my assets in a chain and like what I am I celebrating stage age too at that point. Hell no. I hate this. Like I hate what happened. Right. So like I guess that's part of maybe the realization as part of this kind of pivot.

And this is by the way it's not coming out of nowhere. I mean this is just saying the quiet part out loud. Everyone has sort of already known what what Vitalik was talking about here. But it's basically saying hey stage two is just like it's on this horizon. Many rollups most rollups may never get there. It's unclear whether we actually want that to happen. If it does happen, it's on the 5 to 10 year type horizon when everything is formally verified. And so if you're just going to be a rollup and stay stage one, you may as well write like add all of these exceptional features to your layer 1 that like make it truly differentiated from Ethereum.

I think that's kind of the logic that that's happening here is basically the recognition that no rollup is going to get to stage two on any time scale and so you may as well stay stage one and then like uh make it up for incredible features that you're offering to the community. That's how I'm thinking about this.

Totally. Yeah. And I think when when people really claim when when people literally mean by like rollups being Ethereum equivalent, it has to be stage two because in Ethereum you don't have to trust a security console, right? And I think that's why I think people start to realize that actually if we treat the rollup the rollup scaling the rollup centric scaling road map as building a bunch of charts that are literally is Ethereum equivalent is actually very hard task and I think five years ago people underestimated the difficulty of this and I think people also kind of overestimated the difficulty of ZK proving so yeah or efficient ZK proving so as a max I think we made good bets and bad and bad bets.

Yeah. Yeah. I I think there are a few teams that are working on making stage two rollups and I think that's also exciting. So I don't want to like like you know unvalidate or all the hard work that they're doing. I think on our end there just like this like very like at least from my perspective like a very left curve brain is like you know we should work on like like Ethereum L1 needs to scale but it also can't scale in a way where it compromises its value proposition the market and forget negative forget L2s right like I think the reason why if E if wins is obviously a platform economics it's here it has a lot of liquidity has a lot of user ers I also think like there's value in being like the most decentralized turn to complete blockchain and for a long time we were saying okay well let's just oify the whole thing now and not touch anything because this is sufficient and we'll just do it all on L2s and that was not the right answer right what the right answer was is like okay we need to scale the L1 uh but I don't think we should scale the L1 in like in an appropriate manner in which we lose our decentralization property and I think that's where L2s can maintain a value proposition right like if there are experiences or user flows or apps that are only performant or possible because of like the properties that come alongside not having like a distributed validator set those should not go to like you know quote unquote like all L1s with like closed validator sets those should just go to their most logical conclusion which is like these like you know somewhat centralized sequencer architectures that they are more centralized in like the immediate senses of resistance term of the word like I'm by no means is anyone on our team going to say that me is like more decentralized in Salana like that's just fake news right maybe many years in the future they just become different tradeoffs that become things people are willing to make, right, which is like, hey, the the guys in charge can't really rug unless they give me a chance to leave, right? A couple days, security council, some sort of variation. But I I think like the the takeaway I have at least is, hey, EL1 needs to like scale in a responsible manner. And for that portion of the market if does not capture by scaling responsibly those should be captured by L2s in the barbell thesis right and that's the way that like I think Ethereum's design choices create the most value for the world right like both economic value but also hey we need to get users on on blockchains or or maybe not but I think that's my gut feeling.

Let's talk about that that barbell. As we were talking about like really what what are L2s really good for is delivering exceptional features. And there's something that was going on in the Mega Eat ecosystem last week that I think kind of underscores what the exceptional features that Mega E are bringing to the market. You guys did a stress test the stress test of Mega ETH. You guys published a bunch of data about about the stress test. Maybe you can kind of walk us through what that what was that stress test for? What were you hoping to learn? What did you learn? Anything cool that you saw or noticed? And overall, what did this test, this stress test of Mega East capabilities do for you guys?

Yeah, you know, I'll I'll start with like a small analogy, right? The past couple weeks have been like quite intense for all stakeholders, right? Market blah blah blah. And I remember during the stress test, or a couple days before the stress test, someone asked me like, you know, how are things going? you guys have taken a while to launch blah blah blah and all very valid points and my takeaway was kind of like I'm actually feeling great because you know I can't code I'm not a developer and for the past two years I just had to get on calls with Lelay and the rest of the team and just like take trust me bros like this trains really fast and has like unbelievable compute and it can handle crazy levels of activity and I'm just like well I makes sense on paper but where is it and We saw it and that was really awesome.

Like genuinely there was a level of you know obviously this is not organic activity. We we made all of the transactions ourselves but I remember like you know using chains like ETH and Soul I would and then you know I would go trading and stuff and like when there was a lot of people playing the game the game broke and it just like you know I couldn't do swaps, I couldn't do anything. I remember back in 21, you know, I'd have to spend like 6% of my portfolio on on to exit a position during a market downturn. It's like, oh, Jesus Christ, like I have to spend like 500 bucks and like that's like, well, I hope I do well in the future because you it's just craziness.

But we we basically did like, you know, an insane amount of transactions per second and we did it while letting people play these games which were like low latency games on chain. So, we had Zeroxmons, who's the founder of Pseudos Swap, he built a fully onchain Pokemon game. Our team took the Crossy Road game, made it onchain, put it onto the mainet, and people were able to play these things while we were just doing an egregious amount of spam on the chain.

I like the egregious word. It's [laughter] true. It's true. Just inappropriate levels. Inappropriate amount of transactions. [laughter] the block explorers died. They died. They were like, "Please stop doing that." Um, but yeah, like it was cool. It was genuinely cool and it made it it made me feel like what Mega makes sense. And we're seeing why it makes sense. And we did this while also having fees like, you know, five, six times lower than chains like Mega that use EDA or like all L1 chains that were like just like way more expensive. So it it felt great from a like non-technical point of view. It felt like what we're doing makes sense. Uh and people could feel it. Uh but maybe Lei has some like actual data.

Well, actually before we get to Lei, uh can you give us some numbers for people who weren't watching this stress test and maybe you can convert this to, you know, amount of gas like giggas, you know, estimates or transactions per second is still valid to me.

Yeah. Yeah. You guys can go on stress.me.com, right? And we we have like the the retroactive information there. We had 11.4 billion transactions in 7 days. So that's more than 11.4 billion transactions in 7 days. Yeah. Yeah. Uh average TPS was 15.5K per second. Uh we hit a peak TPS trans uh TPS of 55K. The average mega gas was 1.6. So yeah, it was it was pretty cool.

Wait, wait. Average mega gas was 1.6,000. So, 1.6 1.6 gig gas. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. My bad. Okay. And and Okay. And then so how, you know, we've all seen numbers from like test nets before, right? Or like I'm running these things locally and I achieved, you know, billion transactions per second, whatever. How closely does this environment emulate what we will actually see post launch? cuz that's kind of the benchmark, right? You guys show these numbers in, you know, kind of, you know, pre that's one thing, but can you can you sustain these numbers?

I I would say yes because if we flip switched, it's exactly the thing we're going to run in mainet. It's like the same server, same IP address, same configuration, same admin keys. So, exactly the same. Everything is the same. Like I I I feel bad because we're kind of spamming the chain a bit too much. This was a mainet stress test, not a test net stress test. Totally. Yes, exactly. The main net, we spent, I believe, 200 ETH a day, which we recycled, right? We're getting the Eve, so don't worry, we didn't go bankrupt. Uh, but it was taking E from one pocket and putting it into another pocket. Bingo. Bingo. Uh, but yeah, so like when users used the chain, they had to use pay. Now, it was very low. It was very cheap. So, it was totally fine. And effectively it it was the same as maintenance, right? It is main 200 ETH per day, what's that going to? Is that all the cumulative average token transfers of 0.001 cent just adding up when you multiply that? It's like equates to 200 ETH per day. Yeah, approximately. Wow.

We're talking about the gas fees, right? So like it's 200 ETH per day of gas fees to make the 11 billion transactions happen