Wao

Conclusion what no one talks about:

Over the first 5 years, 15,000,000 BTC have accumulated in one hand. The rest are in the market for manipulation.

Жак-Ив Кусто родился в небольшом городке Сент-Андре-де-Кюбзак винодельческого региона Бордо, в семье адвоката Даниэля и Элизабет Кусто. Его отец Даниель Кусто (23 октября 1878 — 1969) был вторым ребёнком из 4 детей нотариуса из Сент-Андре-де-Кюбзак[5], при рождении записанным под двойным именем Пьер-Даниель. Зажиточный нотариус смог дать сыну хорошее воспитание и отличное образование. Даниель изучал право в Париже, став самым молодым доктором права во Франции. Работал в США частным секретарём богатого предпринимателя и франкофила Джеймса Хазена Хайда[en]. Женился на Элизабет Дюрантон (Duranthon; род. 21 нояб. 1878), дочери фармацевта из его родного городка. Новоиспечённая семья обосновалась в 17-м округе Парижа по адресу 12, проулок Дуази[fr]. 18 марта 1906 года у них родился первенец Пьер-Антуан. Четыре года спустя в доме деда в Сент-Андре-де-Кюбзак родился Жак-Ив[6].

Семья Даниэля много путешествовала. Жак-Ив стал интересоваться водой в раннем возрасте. В 7 лет ему поставили диагноз — хронический энтерит, поэтому семейный врач не рекомендовал большие нагрузки. Из-за болезни Кусто стал очень худым[7]. Во время Первой мировой войны Даниэль Кусто стал безработным, но после войны снова нашёл работу в компании американца Юджина Хиггинса[en]. Ему пришлось много разъезжать по делам, его сыновья учились в школе и большую часть года проводили в школе-интернате. Кусто рано научился плавать и на всю жизнь полюбил море.

В 1920 году Юджин Хиггинс вернулся в Нью-Йорк, семейство Кусто последовало за ним. Жак-Ив и Пьер-Антуан стали учиться в школе в США и научились бегло говорить по-английски. Там же, во время семейного отдыха в штате Вермонт, братья совершили свои первые погружения. В 1922 году Хиггинс и Семья Кусто вернулись во Францию. В США Жак-Ив заинтересовался механикой и дизайном. Во Франции он построил электромобиль. Это увлечение помогло ему в его работе в дальнейшем. На сэкономленные и заработанные деньги Кусто купил себе свою первую кинокамеру. Хотя Жак-Ив интересовался многими вещами, учёба ему не давалась. Спустя некоторое время родители решили отправить его в специальный интернат, который он окончил с отличием.

В 1930 году он поступил в военно-морскую академию. Группа, в которой он учился, первой ушла в кругосветное плавание на корабле «Жанна дʼАрк». Военную академию он окончил в чине прапорщика, по распределению был отправлен на военно-морскую базу в Шанхай, также побывал в СССР, где много фотографировал, но почти все материалы были изъяты. Кусто решил пойти в Академию морской авиации, его манило небо, но после автомобильной аварии на горной дороге от авиации пришлось отказаться. Кусто сломал несколько рёбер и пальцы на левой руке, повредил лёгкие, и у него парализовало правую руку. Курс реабилитации проходил восемь месяцев. Для восстановления в 1936 году поступил инструктором на крейсер «Сюффрен», приписанный к порту Тулон. Однажды он пошёл в магазин и увидел очки для подводного плавания. Нырнув с ними, он понял, что отныне жизнь его безраздельно принадлежит подводному царству.

В 1937 году женился на Симоне Мельхиор, которая родила ему двух сыновей, Жан-Мишеля (1938) и Филиппа (1940—1979, погиб в авиакатастрофе «Каталины»). Во время Второй мировой войны — участник французского движения сопротивления[8][9].

Ж.-И. Кусто в 1948 г.

С начала 1950-х годов Кусто вёл океанографические исследования с помощью судна «Калипсо» (списанный минный тральщик Британских Королевских ВМС). Признание пришло к Кусто с выходом книги «В мире безмолвия[10]» в 1953 году, написанной в соавторстве с Фредериком Дюма. Фильм, снятый по мотивам книги, в 1956 году получил премию «Оскар» и «Золотую пальмовую ветвь». В 1957 году Кусто был назначен директором Океанографического музея Монако. В 1973 году он основал некоммерческое «Общество Кусто» по охране морской среды.

Могила Жак-Ива Кусто

В 1991 году, через год после смерти супруги Симоны от рака, он женился на Франсине Триплет. К тому времени у них уже была дочь Диана (1979) и сын Пьер-Ив (1981), рождённые до женитьбы.

Жак Ив Кусто умер 25 июня 1997 года в возрасте 87 лет от инфаркта миокарда в результате осложнения респираторного заболевания. Был удостоен национальной церемонии прощания. Похоронен на фамильном участке на кладбище Сент-Андре-де-Кюбзак.

Морские исследования

1976 г.

Согласно его первой книге, «В мире безмолвия», Кусто начал погружаться в воду, используя маску, трубку и ласты, вместе с Фредериком Дюма и Филиппом Тайле в 1938 году. В 1943 году он испытал первый прототип акваланга, разработанный им совместно с Эмилем Ганьяном. Это впервые позволило проводить длительные подводные исследования, что в значительной степени способствовало улучшению современных знаний о подводном мире. Кусто стал создателем водонепроницаемых камер и осветительных приборов, а также изобрёл первую подводную телевизионную систему.

Биология

До того, как стало известно о способности морских свиней к эхолокации, Кусто предположил возможность её существования. В своей первой книге «В мире безмолвия» он сообщил, что его исследовательское судно «Élie Monier» движется к Гибралтарскому проливу, и заметил группу свиней, следующих за ними. Кусто изменил курс судна на несколько градусов от оптимального, и свиньи некоторое время следовали за кораблём, а затем поплыли к центру пролива. Было очевидно, что они знали, где лежит оптимальный курс, даже если люди не знали. Кусто сделал вывод о том, что китообразные имеют что-то вроде сонара, бывшего в то время относительно новым элементом на подводных лодках.

Наследие

Подводная лодка Жак-Ива Кусто в Монако у океанографического музея

Кусто любил называть себя «океанографическим техником». Он был, в действительности, выдающимся педагогом и любителем природы. Его работа для многих людей открыла «голубой континент».

Его работа также позволила создать новый тип научной коммуникации, критиковавшейся в то время некоторыми академиками. Так называемый «дивульгационизм», простой способ обмена научными концепциями, начал вскоре использоваться и в других дисциплинах и стал одним из наиболее важных характеристик современного телевещания.

В 1950 году он арендовал корабль «Калипсо» у Томаса Лоэла Гиннесса за символический один франк в год. Судно было оборудовано мобильной лабораторией для проведения исследований в открытом океане и подводных съёмок.

С 1957 года был директором Океанографического музея Монако.

В мае 1985 года команда Кусто обзавелась ещё одним судном. Это двухмачтовая яхта «Алсион» (Alcyone) с экспериментальным турбопарусом, использующим для получения тяги эффект Магнуса.

Кусто скончался 25 июня 1997 года. Общество Кусто и его французский партнёр «Команда Кусто», основанный Жак-Ивом Кусто, действуют и сегодня.

В последние свои годы, после второй женитьбы, Кусто стал участвовать в правовой битве со своим сыном Жан-Мишелем за использование имени Кусто. По распоряжению суда Жан-Мишелю Кусто было запрещено вносить путаницу между его профессиональным бизнесом и некоммерческими начинаниями его отца.

В Санкт-Петербурге именем Кусто была названа школа № 4 с углублённым изучением французского языка. В Новой Усмани имя исследователя носит улица.

Критика

Кусто неоднократно обвинялся в непрофессионализме и паранаучности своих работ. Также он подвергся критике за жестокие методы изучения подводного мира (например, убийство рыб при помощи динамита)[11]. Фильм «В мире безмолвия» был подвергнут критике за чрезмерную натуралистичность и жестокость[12][13]. Другой фильм Кусто, «Мир без солнца», был встречен критикой в целом положительно. Однако присутствовали и такие отклики, в которых режиссёру вменяли в вину использование поддельных кадров. В частности, рецензент «The New York Times» Босли Краузер подверг сомнению документальность некоторых эпизодов, например, выход людей из батискафа в атмосферный пузырь, образовавшийся в глубоководной пещере, поскольку обычно в таких пещерах газовая среда непригодна для дыхания[14].

Вольфганг Ауэр, плававший в команде Кусто 6 лет, утверждает, что многие убийства и жестокость над рыбами были целенаправленными и делались Кусто для качественных кадров в своих фильмах[15].

Тем не менее, большая часть исследователей и коллег отзывается о нём как о любителе природы.

Футура́ма» (англ. Futurama — игра слов от англ. future — «будущее» и англ. panorama — «панорама») — американский научно-фантастический сатирический мультсериал, созданный в студии 20th Century Fox Мэттом Грейнингом и Дэвидом Коэном, авторами мультсериала «Симпсоны».

В большинстве серий действие сериала происходит в Новом Нью-Йорке в XXXI веке. Использование будущего времени позволяло авторам шоу вносить в него идеи и события из популярной фантастики XX века.

Содержание

1 История

2 Сюжет

3 Персонажи

4 «Межпланетный экспресс»

5 Место действия

5.1 Лингвистика

5.2 Межгалактические связи

5.3 Время действия

6 Второе средневековье

7 Создание сериала

8 Серии

9 Сезоны

10 Комиксы

11 Пересечения с другими мультсериалами Грейнинга

12 Награды

13 Номинации

14 Примечания

15 Ссылки

История

В США сериал демонстрировался по Fox Network с 28 марта 1999 года по 10 августа 2003 года. В 2006—2009 годах продолжение сериала было выпущено в виде четырёх полнометражных фильмов, вышедших непосредственно на DVD. С января 2008 года сеть Comedy Central в США транслировала повторы старых эпизодов сериала и новые полнометражные фильмы, разбитые для показа на несколько эпизодов. С июня 2010 года продолжали выходить новые эпизоды: 24 июня 2010 года состоялась премьера 1-й серии 6-го сезона, в марте 2011 года был анонсирован 7-й сезон, состоящий из 26 серий, стартовавший 21 июня 2012 года. В 2013 году руководство телеканала Comedy Central решило не продлевать контракт с создателями «Футурамы», отказавшись от восьмого сезона мультсериала, который по плану должен был стартовать в 2014 году. Создатель «Футурамы» Мэтт Грейнинг и исполнительный продюсер Дэвид Экс Коэн надеялись найти новых инвесторов, однако была вероятность, что сериал, который закрывали уже во второй раз, всё же прекратит существование[1][2].

В России показ шёл по телеканалу REN-TV, первая серия «Футурамы» была показана 10 декабря 2001 года[3], а с 2007 года сериал транслировался на канале 2x2. В русской версии все мужские персонажи озвучивал Борис Быстров, а все женские — Ирина Савина (в некоторых сериях её заменяла Людмила Гнилова). В 6 сезоне к ним добавился Александр Коврижных[4]. В России первый полнометражный фильм на DVD был выпущен компанией «20 Век Фокс СНГ» 5 июня 2008 года. Выход второго полнометражного фильма состоялся 24 июля, премьера третьего фильма состоялась 3 ноября, премьера четвёртого — 23 февраля 2009 года. Также существует 30-минутный рекламный ролик «Потерянное приключение» (The Lost Adventure) к игре «Футурама», снятый в 2008 году. Эта серия из дополнительных материалов к DVD «Футурама: Зверь с миллиардом спин» является рекламным роликом к игре Futurama, вышедшей в августе 2003 года на платформах PlayStation 2 и Xbox. Премьера 6-го сезона в России прошла 23 марта 2011 года на канале 2×2[4]. С 24 августа на канале 2х2 начали показывать новые серии 6 сезона, начиная с 16 серии[5] (14 и 15 серии были ранее показаны в июле)[6]. С 8 по 29 октября 2013 года на канале 2х2 транслировали первую половину 7 сезона (были показаны все серии 2012 года). В новом сезоне снова присутствует двухголосная озвучка (Борис Быстров и Ирина Савина), аналогичная старой озвучке канала Ren-TV. С 21 апреля по 13 мая 2014 года на канале 2х2 транслировалась вторая половина 7 сезона.

Слухи о закрытии «Футурамы» бороздили интернет ещё с 16 марта: тогда анонимный источник из Rough Draft Studios прислал администратору сайта «Futurama Madhouse» электронное письмо, в котором заявил, что добра на продление сериала нет, как нет и официального закрытия, а также: «Спасибо, что были с нами». К письму была приложена прощальная групповая фотография (недоступная ссылка). 23 апреля 2013 обнародовано официальное заявление о том, что эпоха «Футурамы» на «Comedy Central» закончилась, а седьмой сезон — последний в истории сериала. Кроме того, объявлено, что эпизоды, которые выйдут этим летом, — лучшие из всех созданных. Кстати, из того же интервью стали известны все гостевые звёзды: Ларри Бёрд, Сара Силверман, Джордж Такей, Адам Уэст, Дэн Кастелланета и Бёрт Уорд. Коэн и компания были не удивлены, так как находились в состоянии готовности к этому моменту ещё с последней полнометражки и считают, что шоу продержалось дольше, чем ожидалось. Канал Comedy Central выпустил официальный пресс-релиз с той же новостью.

В начале июля 2017 года Дэвид Коэн, отвечая на вопросы в официальном блоге проекта на Reddit, сообщил о продолжении работы над франшизой. По обещаниям Коэна, подробности будут опубликованы до конца лета. Однако он призвал поклонников сериала не надеяться на что-то значительное и пояснил, что речь не идёт ни о новых эпизодах, ни о полнометражных сериях.

Цитата:

There are no new TV episodes or movies in the pipeline at the moment… HOWEVER, here and now I promise a different avenue of exciting Futurama news later this summer, no kidding. Keep your expectations modest and you will be pleased, possibly. I am not allowed to say more or I will be lightly phasered. — David X. Cohen[7]

Тогда же в блоге было объявлено о выходе игры Futurama: Worlds of Tomorrow для устройств под управлением iOS и Android[8].

14 сентября 2017 года вышла 42-минутная радиопостановка под названием «Radiorama», по сценарию Коэна и Грейнинга[9]. В работе приняли участие артисты, озвучивавшие персонажей в оригинальном проекте.

Сюжет

Сериал начинается с того, что разносчик пиццы из Нью-Йорка Филипп Дж. Фрай случайно был заморожен в криогенной камере ровно в 00 часов 00 минут 00 секунд 1 января 2000 года и разморожен 999 лет и 364 дня спустя — 31 декабря 2999 года. Фрай оказывается в далёком будущем в городе Новый Нью-Йорк.

Первым, с кем знакомится Фрай, становится девушка-циклоп Туранга Лила, работающая специалистом, определяющим вид профессиональной деятельности человека на всю его жизнь. Данная информация заносится в специальный чип, который вживляется под кожу. Однако оказывается, что лучшее применение для Фрая — это стать курьером, а он всегда ненавидел свою работу. Тогда Фрай сбегает и начинает исследовать улицы Нового Нью-Йорка, где знакомится с роботом Бендером. В конце концов, их обоих находит Лила, к тому времени уже отказавшаяся от работы инспектором под влиянием Фрая, и втроём они направляются к определённому по тесту ДНК живому потомку Филипа (его многократному правнучатому племяннику) Хьюберту Фарнсворту — 160-летнему гениальному учёному-склеротику, который берёт их на работу в свою небольшую компанию «Межпланетный экспресс» (англ. Planet Express), специализирующуюся на межгалактических грузоперевозках, на должность курьеров. «Межпланетный экспресс» — это маленький бизнес профессора, окупающий его гениальные, но иногда весьма сомнительные исследования и изобретения.

Сериал показывает приключения Фрая, Лилы, робота Бендера и многих других персонажей, связанные как с полётами в космос, так и с личностями героев.

Персонажи

Все основные персонажи за столом в «Межпланетном экспрессе» (серия The Farnsworth Parabox), слева направо, сверху вниз, по часовой стрелке: Профессор Хьюберт Фарнсворт, Гермес Конрад, Эми Вонг, Туранга Лила, Бендер «Сгибальщик» Родригес, Филип Дж. Фрай, Доктор Зойдберг.

Действие мультфильма «Футурама» сосредоточено вокруг семи персонажей, работающих в компании по доставке грузов «Межпланетный экспресс». А основные персонажи «Футурамы» соответствуют ряду основных персонажей Комедия дель арте.

Фрай (полное имя — Филип Джей Фрай; англ. Philip J. Fry; озвучивал Билли Уэст)

Лила (Тура́нга Ли́ла, англ. Turanga Leela; озвучивала Кэти Сагал)

Бендер (Бе́ндер Сгибальщик Родри́гес; англ. Bender Bending Rodriguez; озвучивал Джон Ди Маджо)

Профессор Хью́берт Фа́рнсворт; (англ. Hubert Farnsworth; озвучивал Билли Уэст)

Гермес Конрад (англ. Hermes Conrad; озвучивал Фил Ламарр)

Доктор Зойдберг (Джон Ди Зойдберг; англ. John D. Zoidberg; озвучивал Билли Уэст)

Эми Вонг (англ. Amy Wong; озвучивала Лорен Том)

Помимо семи основных персонажей в мультсериале появляется множество второстепенных персонажей.

«Межпланетный экспресс»

«Межпланетный экспресс» (англ. Planet Express) — компания по доставке грузов, которую её владелец, профессор Фарнсворт, использует в качестве источника средств для своих «исследований» и «изобретений». Девиз компании (упоминается в рекламном ролике): «Наша команда заменима, ваша посылка — нет!».

Время от времени профессор как бы случайно упоминает о предыдущей команде (или командах), которые погибли при выполнении своей работы. Например, в первой серии при принятии Фрая на работу упоминается предыдущая команда, которая якобы была съедена космической осой. В серии «The Sting» героев посылают на задание, при выполнении которого погибла предыдущая команда; они находят корабль, экипаж которого был убит гигантскими космическими пчёлами при попытке собрать космический мёд. При прослушивании записи чёрного ящика этого корабля слышно упоминание о гибели ещё более старой команды «Межпланетного экспресса».

Пилотом космического корабля «Межпланетного экспресса» является дипломированный капитан Лила; Бендер, при отсутствии вкуса, выполняет роль повара, Фрай — курьера. Эми и доктор Зойдберг присоединяются к команде по мере необходимости. Корабль оснащён автопилотом и бортовым компьютером с искусственным интеллектом. Практически каждая доставка, выполняемая командой по заданию профессора, является опасной для жизни или быстро становится таковой.

Место действия

Место действия сериала используется как удобный фон для юмора и для сатиры на современное общество, а также для пародирования жанра научной фантастики.

Для достижения этой цели авторы иногда сознательно допускают противоречия между сериями. Например, в одной серии говорится, что глобальное потепление Земли было в прошлом сведено на нет ядерной зимой, а в серии «Crimes of the Hot» основной проблемой становится продолжающееся глобальное потепление.

Ретрофутуристичный мир «Футурамы» — это не утопия, но и не антиутопия. Мир будущего здесь не рисуется идеальным, люди по-прежнему имеют дело со многими основными проблемами XX века. Будущее в сериале во многом похоже на настоящее: те же политические фигуры и знаменитости остаются в живых в виде голов в стеклянных банках; телевидение остаётся основным способом развлечения; Интернет по-прежнему заполнен порнографией и спамом, остаётся проблема глобального потепления, бюрократии, алкоголизма и т. д.

Расовые проблемы 3000 года сосредоточены вокруг взаимоотношений между людьми, инопланетянами, мутантами и роботами. Особое место на Земле занимает проблема огромной численности сверхразумных/сверхнедееспособных роботов, таких как бездомные роботы или малолетние роботы-сироты. Обычно они довольно ленивы и грубы и часто не желают помогать своим создателям-людям.

Несмотря на всё это, мир «Футурамы» демонстрирует ряд технологических улучшений, разработанных к 3000 году. Колесо, использовавшееся в транспорте, практически полностью вытеснила технология, позволяющая транспорту летать (парить). Помимо роботов, космических кораблей и летающих зданий, профессор Фарнсворт представляет множество новых изобретений, таких как «нюхоскоп», машина «что-если» и «парабокс», а также профессор создал машину времени, путешествующую только вперёд. Среди менее вдохновляющих инноваций XXXI века можно назвать будки самоубийств (в первой серии сериала упоминается, что они работают с 2028 года) — прямая отсылка к роману Р. Шекли — «Корпорация „Бессмертие“», Сойлент-колу, в которую добавляют человеческие тела (название взято из фантастического фильма «Зелёный сойлент»), а также энергетический напиток «Слёрм» (англ. Slurm), изготавливаемый из выделений огромного червя[10].

Буквы инопланетян с эквивалентами латинского алфавита

Лингвистика

Вселенная «Футурамы» также делает несколько смелых предсказаний по поводу будущего лингвистики. В серии «A Clone of My Own» (и «Space Pilot 3000») подразумевается, что французский уже является мёртвым языком и что официальным языком французов стал английский (во французском переводе «Футурамы» в качестве мёртвого языка упоминается немецкий, а в украинском — иврит).

В надписях на заднем плане часто используются два «инопланетных» алфавита. Первый представляет собой простую подстановку один-к-одному для латинского алфавита, второй — немного более сложный код, использующий логическое сложение. Такие надписи скрывают ещё один слой шуток для фанатов сериала, которые потратили время на декодирование сообщений. Например, в четвёртой серии второго сезона (Fry and the Slurm Factory) в рекламе Слёрма говорится о том, что можно выиграть круиз, найдя призовую крышечку в банке. Далее следует надпись на «инопланетном» алфавите: «The following species are ineligible: space wasps, space beavers, any other animal with the word „space“ in front of it, space chickens, and the elusive Yak-Face», что можно перевести как «Следующие существа лишены права на участие в акции: космические осы, космические бобры, другие существа со словом „космический“ в начале, космо-куры, а также неуловимый Yak-Face (досл. — иллюзорное — воображаемое существо с лицом яка)». Во втором сезоне в серии «Война — адское слово» на крыше медпункта на «инопланетном», в переводе на русский, написано «Мясо». В седьмой серии третьего сезона на стенах «Зала вечности» надпись на «инопланетном» — «yummy tummy», название песни (Yummy in my Tummy), которая также исполняется в мультсериале «Симпсоны». Также во втором сезоне в серии «The Lesser of two evils» («Меньшее из двух зол») в Past-o-Rama встречается табличка с надписью «Laser tentacle surgery», что переводится как «Лазерная хирургия щупалец».

Межгалактические связи

Демократический союз планет (англ. Democratic Order Of Planets, DOOP, созвучно английскому "dupe" - простофиля, дурак. Например, присказка Супер-Пупер, в английском оригинале звучит как Super-Duper, с намёком на ущербность предмета, т.е. авторы намекают на бесполезность ООН) был создан в 2945 году, после Второй галактической войны (прямая параллель по отношению к Объединённой федерации планет из сериала Star Trek или ООН после Второй мировой в 1945 г.). Эта организация включает в себя Землю и множество других миров. Обитатели планеты Омикрон Персей VIII часто вступают в конфликт с DOOP. Логотип является амбиграммой[11].

Несмотря на наличие DOOP, межпланетные связи очень слабы, постоянно происходят войны, вторжения (часто — плохо спланированные) и столкновения по любому поводу.

См. также: Doop в англоязычных комиксах

Время действия

Завязка начинается 31 декабря 1999 года, основное действие разворачивается на протяжении нескольких лет, начиная с 3000 года, далее следует разрыв в три года, за ним — события полнометражных фильмов, действие последнего сезона происходит уже в 3012—3013 годах.

Второе средневековье

В 2308 году инопланетяне разрушают Нью-Йорк. Люди начали жить как дикари, а тем временем в природе начали расти ёлки и остальные деревья, здания уходили под землю. Спустя 20 лет началось Второе средневековье. Люди строили деревянные или каменные замки. Ездили на страусах и пользовались мечами, а на севере передвигались на моржах, и пользовались пистолетами. В 2400 году вернулись инопланетяне и разрушили все замки. В 2423 году люди основали Нью-Нью-Йорк.

Создание сериала

«Футурама» получила своё имя от экспозиции фирмы General Motors на выставке New York World’s Fair 1939 года[12]. Экспозиция демонстрировала видение будущего — мира 1960-х, её основной темой были автомагистрали между штатами, связывающие все штаты США[13][14]. На той же выставке был представлен телевизор Фило Фарнсворта (англ. Philo Farnsworth), профессор Фарнсворт был назван в его честь.

Сериал озвучивали: Билли Вест (англ. Billy West), Кэти Сагал (англ. Katey Sagal), Джон Ди Маджо (англ. John DiMaggio), Морис Ламарш, Лоурэн Том (англ. Lauren Tom), Фил Ламарр и Тресс Макнилл. Фил Хартман (англ. Phil Hartman) был выбран в качестве озвучивающего актёра, но он погиб ещё до начала производства. Первоначально персонаж по имени Филип Джей Фрай должен был называться Кёртис, но его имя было изменено в дань памяти Хартману.

Космические корабли и задний план во многих сценах были сделаны с использованием трёхмерной компьютерной графики (сел-шейдинг, как в игре Borderlands). Сцены сначала рисовались вручную, а затем переносились в 3D. Это обеспечивало сохранение правильной геометрии окружения и персонажей при движении камеры (например, в начале каждой серии, когда камера облетает здание «Межпланетного экспресса»).

Серии

Основная статья: Список эпизодов мультсериала «Футурама»

По состоянию на июль 2011 года сериал насчитывает 105 серий по 20 минут каждая, причём один полнометражный мультфильм считается за 4 серии. Хотя «Футурама» выходила в течение семи сезонов, на самом деле было всего шесть производственных сезонов (и именно так организованы серии на DVD). Из-за множества перетасовок телепрограммы и показа внеочередных программ получилось так, что у Fox осталось достаточно непоказанных серий для ещё одного полного года. 6-й производственный сезон также был разбит на 2 части, вторая часть транслировалась в 2011 году.

72-я серия, «The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings», была показана в США 10 августа 2003 года. Этой серией заканчивается пятый телевизионный (и четвёртый производственный) сезон и мог закончиться сериал в целом. Серия создавалась уже с осознанием того, что это будет последняя серия для Fox, а планов по перекупке мультфильма другими телесетями тогда ещё не было. Поэтому в нём и разрешаются многие противоречия сюжета, однако не настолько, чтобы не допустить продолжения.

После завершения в августе 2003 года работ над сериалом было много разговоров о продолжении. Первым реальным упоминанием о переговорах канала Fox было опубликовано 4 января 2006 года в журнале «Variety», где сообщалось, что идут консультации о возможности возобновлении сериала, действие которого происходит в следующем тысячелетии[15], — примерно так, как это было с «Гриффинами» («Family Guy»), вернувшемуся к жизни после завершения. Уже 19 января 2006 года один из актёров сериала, Билли Уэст, опубликовал информацию о заключении сделки на создание четырёх полнометражных мультфильмов для выпуска на DVD. Позже права на сериал были проданы каналом Fox, и новым собственником стал Comedy Central. Тогда же стало известно, что всего планируется снять 4 полнометражных мультфильма. 12 декабря 2006 года информация была подтверждена Дэвидом Коэном в интервью журналу «ToyFare», где сообщалась первая информация о подробностях новых серий телесериала Футурама[16]. 28 июля 2007 года на выставке ComicCon были показаны первые кадры телесериала, а также рекламный трейлер.

В настоящее время выпущены четыре полнометражных мультфильма:

«Футурама: Большой куш Бендера» (англ. «Futurama: Bender’s Big Score») — 2007

«Футурама: Зверь с миллиардом спин» («Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs») — 2008

«Футурама: Игра Бендера» («Futurama: Bender’s Game») — 2008

«Футурама: В дикие зелёные дали» («Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder») — 2009

6-й производственный сезон, состоящий из 26 серий, начался 24 июня 2010 года в 22:00 на канале Comedy Central. Первый эпизод носит название Возрождение (Rebirth). Руководство FOX TV заявило следующее: «Когда несколько лет назад мы возродили Family Guy, все говорили, что это — уникальный случай, который больше никогда не повторится. Но Futurama — ещё один пример шоу, возрождения которого яро требовали фанаты. И мы счастливы, что Мэтт Грейнинг и Дэвид Коэн согласились, что в этой вселенной у них осталось ещё много нерассказанных историй». Мэтт добавил: «Как же здорово, что „Футурама“ вернулась. Осталось продержаться 25766 серий, и мы нагоним Фрая с Бендером в 3000 году!»[17]

Шестой сезон разбит на две части, причём серия The Futurama Holiday Spectacular была показана отдельно, в конце 2010 года, а остальные 13 — уже в 2011 году.

Сезоны

Сезон Эпизоды трансляция

начало конец

Сезон 1 13 28 марта 1999 14 ноября 1999

Сезон 2 19 21 ноября 1999 3 декабря 2000

Сезон 3 22 21 января 2001 8 декабря 2002

Сезон 4 18 10 февраля 2002 10 августа 2003

Сезон 5 16 23 марта 2008 23 августа 2009

Сезон 6 26 24 июня 2010 8 сентября 2011

Сезон 7 26 20 июня 2012 4 сентября 2013

Комиксы

С ноября 2000 года компания Bongo Comics раз в месяц издает комиксы «Футурама» — сначала для США, Великобритании, Австралии, Германии. Кроме того, было опубликовано три выпуска в Норвегии (на всех языках были одни и те же сюжеты). Хотя действие комиксов и разворачивалось во вселенной Футурамы, сюжеты комиксов не влияли на сценарий телесериала и существовали самостоятельно. Как и в сериале (за исключением выпуска #20), каждый комикс имеет подзаголовок в верхней части обложки (например: «Сделано в США, напечатано в Канаде»). Иногда подписи в разных странах различаются (в выпуске #20 у американской версии подпись отсутствует вообще, тогда как в австралийской версии написано: «Комикс XXI века!»). Во всех выпусках есть страница писем и фан-артов от читателей, а также анонсы будущих выпусков.

Пересечения с другими мультсериалами Грейнинга

«Симпсоны»

В звуковом комментарии к DVD Мэтт Грейнинг объясняет, что было намерение сделать «Симпсонов» телевизионным шоу в мире «Футурамы» и наоборот — «Футурама» должна была стать телешоу в мире «Симпсонов». Однако полноценным кроссовером двух сериалов стал 6-й эпизод 26-го сезона «Симпсонов» под названием Simpsorama, вышедший 9 ноября 2014 года.

«Разочарование»

Хотя «Футурама» не содержит отсылок на «Разочарование», так как этот мультсериал вышел уже после закрытия «Футурамы», в «Разочаровании» есть отсылки к ней.

В эпизоде «Падение Дримленда», когда Люци использует хрустальный шар, чтобы показать королю Зогу моменты из прошлого, можно заметить как на мгновение в комнате появляются Филип, Бендер и профессор Фарнсворт в машине времени. Этот момент является прямой отсылкой на эпизод «Опаздывающий Филип Дж. Фрай», в котором троица путешествует во времени, с помощью машины, перемещающейся только в будущее, и наблюдает за концом и возрождением вселенной, так как время оказывается цикличным. Этот момент означает, что события обоих мультсериалов разворачиваются в одной вселенной, и что персонажи «Футурамы» проходили через Дримленд, когда пытались вернуться в своё время.[18]

В эпизоде «Электрическая принцесса» Бин пытается найти в Стимленде бульвар Фарнсворта.

В эпизоде «Лестница в Ад» король Зог (которого озвучивает Джон Ди Маджо) произносит фразу «Bite my shiny metal axe», что является прямой отсылкой к герою Футурамы Бендеру (которого также озвучивает Джон Ди Маджо) и его знаменитой фразе «Bite my shiny metal ass». Также в эпизоде «В её личном письме» Зог произносит ещё одну крылатую фразу Бендера «Let’s go already!»

Награды

Ссылки на источники

В разделе не хватает ссылок на источники.

Информация должна быть проверяема, иначе она может быть удалена. Вы можете отредактировать статью, добавив ссылки на авторитетные источники. Эта отметка установлена 23 ноября 2020 года.

В январе 2009 сайт IGN поместил «Футураму» на восьмое место в списке «Сто лучших анимационных телевизионных сериалов».

В 2010 году San Diego Comic-Con International и Guinness World Records отметили «Футураму» как анимационный сериал, наиболее признанный критиками.

Премия «Энни»:

«За выдающиеся индивидуальные достижения в режиссуре анимационной телевизионной программы» 2000 — Брайан Шизли за серию «Why Must I Be a Crustacean in Love?».

«За выдающиеся индивидуальные достижения в озвучивании анимационной телевизионной программы (мужчины)» 2001 — Джон Ди Маджо за роль Бендера в серии «Bendless Love».

«За выдающиеся индивидуальные достижения в написании сценария анимационной телевизионной программы» 2001 — Рон Вайнер за серию «The Luck of the Fryrish».

«За выдающуюся режиссуру анимационной телевизионной программы» 2003 — Дело Мур за серию «Roswell That Ends Well».

«Лучшая домашняя развлекательная программа» 2008 — «Bender's Big Score».

«Лучшая домашняя развлекательная программа» 2009 — «The Beast with a Billion Backs».

«Лучшая домашняя развлекательная программа» 2010 — «Into the Wild Green Yonder».

Премия «Эмми»:

«За выдающиеся индивидуальные достижения в анимации» 2000 — Бари Кумар (колорист) за серию «A Bicyclops Built for Two».

«За выдающиеся индивидуальные достижения в анимации» 2001 — Родни Клауден (художник) за серию «Parasites Lost».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2002 — «Roswell That Ends Well».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2011 — «The Late Philip J. Fry».

«За выдающуюся озвучку» 2011 — Морис ЛаМарш в роли Лррр и Орсона Уэллеса в серии «Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences».

«За выдающуюся озвучку» 2012 — Морис ЛаМарш в роли Клешней, Донбота, Гипер-Цыпленка, Калькулона, Робота-гедониста и Морбо в серии «The Silence of the Clamps».

Премия «Environmental Media»:

«Комедия — Телевизионный сериал» 2000 — «The Problem with Popplers».

«Комедия — Телевизионный сериал» 2011 — «The Futurama Holiday Spectacular».

Премия Гильдии писателей США:

«Анимация» 2003 — Кен Килер за серию «Godfellas».

«Анимация» 2011 — Кен Килер за серию «The Prisoner of Benda». Для этого эпизода Кен Килер, математик и доктор философии, написал «Теорему Футурамы», также известную как «Теорема Килера».

Номинации

Премия «Энни»:

«Выдающееся достижение в создании анимационной телевизионной программы» 1999 — «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television

«Выдающееся индивидуальное достижение в написании сценария анимационной телевизионной программы» 1999 — Кен Килер за серию «The Series Has Landed»

«Выдающееся достижение в создании анимационной программы прайм-тайм класса» 2000 — «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television

«Выдающееся индивидуальное достижение в режиссуре анимационной телевизионной программы» 2000 — Сьюзен Диттер за серию «A Bicyclops Built for Two» .

«Выдающееся достижение в создании анимационной программы прайм-тайм класса» 2001 — «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television

«Выдающееся достижение в создании анимационной телевизионной программы» 2003 — «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television

«Выдающееся музыкальное оформление анимационной телевизионной программы» 2004 — Кен Килер за серию «The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings».

«Выдающийся сценарий анимационной телевизионной программы» 2004 — Патрик Веррон за серию «The Sting» .

«Выдающийся сценарий анимационной телевизионной программы» 2011 — Майкл Роу, «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television.

«Выдающийся сценарий анимационной телевизионной программы» 2013 — Эрик Хорстед за серию «The Bots and the Bees».

Премия «Эмми» :

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 1999 — «A Big Piece of Garbage».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2001 — «Amazon Women in the Mood».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2003 — «Jurassic Bark».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2004 — «The Sting».

«Выдающаяся анимационная программа» 2012 — «The Tip of the Zoidberg».

«Выдающиеся музыка и слова песни» 2004 — Песня «I Want My Hands Back» в серии «The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings».

«Лучшая анимационная программа» 2011 — «Футурама». The Curiosity Company в сотрудничестве с 20th Century Fox Television.

Премия Небьюла :

«Лучший сценарий» 2004 — Дэвид А. Гудмен за серию «Where No Fan Has Gone Before».

Премия Гильдии писателей США:

«Анимация» 2004 — Патрик Веррон за серию «The Sting».

«Анимация» 2011 — Патрик Веррон за серию «Lrrreconciable Ndndifferences».

CBDC – Цифровая валюта центрального банка

Банк Англии был одним из первых представителей развитых государств, инициирующим глобальную дискуссию вокруг Central Bank Digital Currency. В результате которой большинство стран начали разработку своих цифровых валют: e-krona (Швеция), jasper (Канада), e-гривна (Украина), inthanon (Таиланд), khokha (ЮАР) и другие.

Лишь несколько стран отрицают перспективу создания собственной ЦВЦБ, но влияние результатов исследований соседей может повлиять на их решение в будущем.

Разница между наличными деньгами, банковским депозитом, ЦВЦБ и криптовалютой

Наличные

Характеристики CBDC

Цифровая валюта центрального банка, как и бумажная банкнота, есть средство платежа, расчетная единица и накопитель стоимости. Безопасность её идентификации обеспечивается компьютерным шифрованием.

Она является частью денежной массы, так же, как и физическая валюта, и уровень ответственности за выпуск цифровой валюты ровно такой же.

ЦВ может храниться и передаваться всеми видами цифровых платежных систем и услуг. Но участие коммерческих организаций и ЭПС в поддержке транзакций, содержащих ЦВ значительно ограничивается. Они не обеспечивают хранение и подтверждение переводов в возникшей модели. В целом их посредническая роль может потерять ценность. Одно из предложений по внедрению CBDC предусматривает создание универсальных банковских счетов в центральных банках для всех граждан.

Как работает ЦВЦБ?

Существует 3 модели реализации, и страны-участники находятся в поисках золотой середины.

Доступ для финансовых учреждений (Model FI)

Пользоваться валютой могут только банки и небанковские кредитные организации (НКО). Это обеспечит им мгновенные, дешевые и безопасные платежи. При этом центральный банк сохраняет свою традиционную роль.

Доступ для всей экономики (Model EW)

Помимо банков и НКО, компании и предприятия тоже имеют доступ цифровой валюте. Тем не менее, некрупные агенты экономики не могут напрямую взаимодействовать с ЦБ для покупки, для этого создается биржа CBDC и инфраструктура пользовательских интерфейсов для транзакций, поддерживаемая третьими сторонами.

Доступ для финансовых институтов, плюс ограниченный доступ к банкам при поддержке CBDC (Model FI+)

В такой модели доступ к валюте ограничен для всех банков и НКО. Как минимум 1 НКО выступает в роли “narrow bank” (безопасного банка) предоставляя финансовый актив компаниям и предприятиям. Профиль риска избранного НКО не зависит от риска, связанного с финансовой деятельностью учреждения и его заемщиками. То есть прием и оплата депозитов данного НКО не будет связана с посредничеством для обеспечения работы CBDC.

Организация этой модели намеренно устроена так, чтобы получить возможность исследовать плюсы и минусы разных уровней доступа цифровой валюты центральных банков для компаний и предприятий.

CBDC криптовалюта?

Нет.

Валюта центрального банка не может соответствовать всем канонам криптовалют. Таким как: децентрализованность, изменение путем голосования, ответвление (форк), свободная купля/продажа.

Ознакомьтесь со списком криптовалют, доступных для легальной покупки в РФ через криптовалютный сервис «Кошелёк».

Преимущества CBDC

Ускорение и снижение стоимости транзакций

Повышение безопасности банков и электронных платежных систем

Стабилизация кредитных рисков

Упрощение трансграничных переводов

Повышение имиджа государства и его центрального банка

Снижение количества теневых операций

Полное исчезновение наличных средств

Недостатки CBDC

Исчезновение традиционной банковской системы

Потеря конкурентного смысла среди электронных платежных систем

Трудности освоения средств после оттока их из банков, вследствие потери ими контроля над операционной деятельностью компаний

Возложение всех обязанностей на центральный банк и государство

Приостановление привычной деятельности организаций вследствие повышения глубины проникновения стандартов AML/KYC в их деятельность

Вовлеченность стран в реализацию технологии

«110 стран находятся на какой-то из стадий развития CBDC» – сообщает управляющий директор МВФ Кристина Георгиева.

карта-интеграции-cbdc-январь-2022

Тем не менее, не все торопятся тестировать модель, и порой даже отказываются. Ознакомьтесь с причинами и подробным статусом каждой отдельной страны в вопросе ЦВЦБ на странице “Страны участники”.

Упрощенная экономическая система слаборазвитых стран позволяет им проверять технологию первыми. Реализация CBDC значительно повы

На самом деле этот план широко гуляет по сети. Если вы не нашли вот он. [Переслано из Политджойстик/Politjoystic (Марат Баширов)]

Считайте, что я нашел это в книге фантастики и решил поделиться с вами субботним чтением. Совпадения по времени случайны и не отражают мнение автора.

...

Фаза 1: симулируйте угрозу и вселяйте страх. (Декабрь 2019 г. - март 2020 г.)

- Разразилась пандемия в Китае.

> - Убить десятки тысяч пожилых людей.

> - Увеличение количества заболевших и смертей

> - С самого начала позиционируйте вакцинацию как единственное решение.

> - Сосредоточьте все внимание на Covid-19.

> Результат, (почти) всеобщая паника

Фаза 2: Посев плевел и деление. (Март 2020 г. - декабрь 2020 г.)

> - Применение множества ненужных, либертицидных и неконституционных принудительных мер.

> - Парализовать торговлю и экономику.

> - Наблюдайте за подчинением большинства и сопротивлением мятежного меньшинства.

> - Стигматизируйте повстанцев и создайте горизонтальное разделение.

> - Цензура диссидентских лидеров.

> - Наказать за непослушание.

> - Обобщить тесты ПЦР.

> - Создайте путаницу между заболевшими, инфицированными, больными, госпитализированными и мертвыми.

> - Отменить все эффективные методы лечения.

> - Надежда на спасительную вакцину.

> Результат, (почти) всеобщая паника.

>

Фаза 3: Принесите коварное и смертоносное решение. (Декабрь 2020 г. - июнь 2021 г.)

> - Предложите бесплатную вакцину для всех.

> - Обещаем защиту и возвращаемся к нормальной жизни.

> - Определите цель иммунизации стада.

> - Смоделировать частичное восстановление экономики.

> - Скрыть статистику побочных эффектов и смертей от инъекций.

> - Выдавать побочные эффекты инъекций за «естественные» эффекты вируса и болезни.

> - Восстановить представление о варианте как естественной мутации вируса.

> - Обосновать сохранение принудительных мер неприменением порога коллективного иммунитета.

> - Наказать медицинских работников за незаконное лечение и лечение. -

> Результат, сомнения и предательство среди vaxx, разочарование среди противников.

Этап 4: Установите Апартеид и QR-код. (Июнь 2021 г. - октябрь 2021 г.)

> - Добровольно планируйте дефицит.

> - Введите пропуск вакцинации (QR-код), чтобы вознаградить вакцинированных, наказать стойких.

> - Создайте апартеид привилегированных против других.

> - Заберите право работать или учиться у лиц, не связанных с vaxx.

> - Отказаться от базовых услуг для не-vaxx.

> - Ввести тесты оплаты ПЦР для лиц, не связанных с vaxx.

> Результат, Первый этап цифрового контроля, обнищание оппонентов.

Фаза 5: установить хаос и военное положение. (Ноябрь 2021 г. - март 2022 г.)

> - Воспользоваться нехваткой товаров и продуктов питания.

> - Вызвать паралич реальной экономики и закрытие заводов и магазинов.

> - Пусть взорвется безработица.

> - Примените третью дозу vaxx (бустеры).

> - Возьмитесь за убийство живых стариков.

> - Ввести обязательную вакцинацию для всех.

> - Разбавьте миф о вариантах, эффективности вакцины и иммунитете стада.

> - Демонизируйте anti-vaxx и возложите на них ответственность за мертвых.

> - Арестовать лидеров оппозиции.

> - Установить цифровую идентификацию для всех (QR-код): свидетельство о рождении, документ, удостоверяющий личность, паспорт, водительские права, карточка медицинского страхования ...

> - Ввести военное положение, чтобы победить оппозицию.

> Результат, Второй этап цифрового контроля. Заключение или устранение противников.

Фаза 6: отмените долги и дематериализуйте деньги. (Март 2022 г. - сентябрь 2022 г.)

> - Спровоцировать экономический, финансовый и фондовый обвал, банкротство банков.

> - Чтобы спасти банки от потерь на счетах своих клиентов.

> - Активировать «Большой сброс».

> - Дематериализовать деньги.

> - Отменить долги и ссуды.

> - Наложите цифровое портфолио. (Цифровой кошелек)

> - Захватить собственность и землю.

> - Запретить все мировые лекарства.

> - Подтвердите обязательство проводить вакцинацию раз в полгода или год.

> - Ввести нормирование питания и диету на основе Кодекса Алиментариус.

Golden is based in SoMA, San Francisco, USA, and was started in 2017 by Jude Gomila. The company's full legal name is Golden Recursion Inc. Golden raised a seed round in 2017 (announced in 2019) of $5 million from a16z, Founders Fund, Giga Fund, SV Angel, Aston Motes (1st employee of Dropbox), Christina Brodbeck, Joe Montana of Liquid 2 Ventures, Josh Buckley, Howie Liu (CEO of Airtable), Jack Smith (Founder of Vungle), Trip Adler (Founder of Scribd), James Tamplin (Founder of Firebase), Charlie Delingpole, Paul McKellar (Co Founder of Square), Sumon Sadhu, Wei Guo, Ryan Pawell, Balaji Srinivasan (Founder of Earn.com), Mike Einziger (Incubus) and others.

Golden uses machine intelligence to build a self-constructing knowledge base. Golden contains canonical information describing entities (sometimes referred to as topic pages) and allows users to create, contribute and compare knowledge with a set of AI-based tools. AI-assisted editing allows users to automatically extract summaries and infobox data from external web-based sources and AI-based suggestions enable users to make quick, modular updates to topics.

Golden uses clusters to group related topics. Clusters include Blockchain & cryptocurrency, Cell-based and plant-based meat, Synthetic biology, and others. Each cluster contains links to hundreds of topic pages.

In January 2022, Golden released plans to constructed a web3 protocol of itself on Golden.xyz.

Golden has pages on entities including companies, people, technologies, investors, venture funds and others.

Users can select topic pages and clusters pages to watch.

Users can see all open issues and can select the type of issue they want to see.

Users can contribute to Golden by accepting or rejecting Golden AI's suggestions to the knowledge base.

Golden offers the Golden Research Engine for organizations who want to make more detailed searches in Golden's knowledge base. Members can opt to receive email alerts of new results in saved queries, add results to lists, and other functions.

Users can create Lists of entities and select the columns from any field in the Golden Knowledge Base as well as private columns.

Golden has an API for enrichment that can post back attributes of an entity. It also has an API that gives entity results for a given query.

In the old financial world, liquidity is fragmented among many gatekeepers, protecting their business interests, profiting from the upside, while socializing the downside. The cost of liquidity is also high because legacy technology consists of siloed databases.

Blockchain is changing this unfortunate reality by providing an open and universally accessible technology layer for transaction settlement and asset exchange.

However, the dominant blockchain application platform – Ethereum – suffers from being a general platform for many varied use cases – the network is getting clogged and fees are high.

In order to achieve the optimal properties, HydraDX is built as a parachain – specialized blockchain in the Polkadot network. It is benefiting from shared security, speed and flexibility of the Substrate framework while remaining optimized for a single purpose: enabling fluid programmable value exchange.

Thanks to planned interoperability between Polkadot and Ethereum ecosystems, Hydra will tap into Ethereum’s liquidity, talent and community, merging the best of the both worlds.

1)https://hydradx.substack.com/p/hydradx-omnipool-part-1

Earlier, the HydraDX team published an article on their blog in which they introduced the new LHDX token. This caused a lot of confusion among the community and many people asked the team to provide more details on how this token will be used, will it decrease the value of the original HDX token or increase it? The team decided to hold an AMA session on Discord as soon as possible, we have made a detailed translation of this AMA session for you.

Jakub Gregus — I will try to describe as simply as possible our vision behind the LHDX token and why we had to make these changes, as well as the main problems and concerns associated with the previous design of the HDX token.

Imagine that some liquidity mining whales who often use their capital in various liquidity stimulation programs. Let's imagine that these guys want to have power over the entire HydraDX protocol, whether it's short term or long term, so they can get power in Sushiswap or other protocols through liquidity mining. In our case, it can be even worse, because the security of Proof-Of-Stake protocols is usually at a high level, because if someone wants to buy any POS tokens, it does not matter Polkadot or Kusama, Solana or any other POS blockchain. As more tokens are bought on the market, slippage and fees make any additional purchases more difficult because the price starts to rise a lot.

In fact, due to the design of the Omnipool, there will be no increase in price and some whales may invest a lot of capital in Omnipool, which will immediately increase the overall size of the Omnipool. They have 15,000 BTC and are putting it into the Omnipool. During this time, Omnipool will match the amount of liquidity they have deposited and the pool will be huge, which means that slippage will be practically zero, even on any large trade. Even if they start buying millions of HDX, the price will still not move, which is also bad for HDX holders who want to see some increase in the value of the HDX token over time. It's also bad from a security point of view of the entire protocol, because someone could perform an attack that would be much cheaper than an attack on any other Proof-Of-Stake system, because there would be no restrictions on the purchase of HDX tokens. The main problem is that they can gain control over the protocol. They don't even need to provide a lot of liquidity to the pool because Omnipool can be backed by a lot of different assets. If they are smart and patient, it will be impossible to identify these attempts and distinguish them from normal liquidity mining and they can easily carry out this attack. That's why we thought more deeply about it when we saw the current Curve wars, Magic Internet Money is being used to devastate Anchor's yield resources.

Protocol manipulation attacks can have a very low threshold to carry out, this scares us a lot as we take the overall security of the platform as seriously as possible, which also leads to delays in front-end development on Basilisk, since most of this code, approximately 80% will also be used in HydraDX. We are rethinking things even more seriously than before. We realized that “oh shit, this can be very dangerous” and after that we had long internal discussions about this. Before posting about the introduction of the second token, we expected that this could cause a lot of questions, but no one expected that this would cause a FUD of such force, supposedly we are stealing liquidity from the protocol and leaving for the islands. It was clearly ugly and not even close to the truth. That's the story, and I hope everyone understands why we're going to use this protocol design and why it's actually bullish, even for HDX. Thus, the HDX token will have a very strong position in the protocol. So we can move on to questions.

lolmschizz - Governance in Substrate is not the same as governance in any other Ethereum protocol. Almost everything can be changed, it does not matter who will implement it.

Jakub Gregus - For example, dYdX governance token or OpenSea governance token. They don't have much power over the protocols. The dYdX team has been pretty clear about the process of managing dYdX and voting with dYdX, and they were quick to point out that you won't be able to enable sharing of commissions earned by the dYdX protocol. On the other hand, on Substrate, you can choose to switch the network connection from Polkadot to Cosmos, whatever the token holders desire. Someone will prepare the necessary code for this, and the token holders vote for it, and it's not difficult at all if you really want to do it. On the other hand, the runtime update is a very powerful and useful tool and should be taken seriously because it can change absolutely everything.

lolmcshizz - A question a council member asked us. What is the use and the potential value of HDX if we move to a two-token model? What criteria will be used to increase the value of HDX?

What is the advantage of these two tokens? What exactly will be possible to do with HDX?

Jakub Gregus - Yes, exactly. It will be much more difficult to achieve the appreciation and value of HDX tokens if the protocol is backed by billions of assets, which is what we have been aiming for since day one, it will be almost impossible to push the price higher because slippage will be zero even if we trade millions of HDX simultaneously.

Colin - Whatever the pool token, it can be anything, in our case it is LHDX, whatever this central liquidity token is, its supply can be changed very drastically. Therefore, our main concern was that if the protocol succeeds and a lot of liquidity inflows, and HDX is the central liquidity token, each HDX token and its supply will increase greatly, which will dilute the supply of tokens from those participants who hold HDX. Thus, millions of HDX tokens are issued and dilute the total supply - this can be a big hurdle. At the same time, the second LHDX token allows us to take on the volatility of the supply, which gives us a stronger token economy. I would say that HDX and LHDX are tokens that are in a zero-sum game, and with the right design, it can be positive. We need to think about the right combination and features for these two tokens and what system will work well. Here are some applications of the HDX token in protocol governance: if the system works well, the ability to decide which token will be added to this protocol or where exactly the fees will be distributed. The value of such management should certainly increase.

Jakub Gregus - Exactly, the whole history of the market, I was against governance tokens, I really hate them. In my opinion, it's really unfair to the community to give some tokens that are meant to govern the protocol, but in reality, they don't have the power to change anything. We see such cases with OpenSea or dYdX tokens. For HydraDX, this is a completely different scenario, the community can really change everything and choose where to extract value and where not. This should also be decided by the community and researched in every possible way on how best to capitalize on all of HDX's infrastructure and liquidity.

Q - Was the decision to redesign the token entirely in light of recent developments in the liquidity war? Does this sound like what is happening now where people are really trying to take control of the governance tokens because they actually decide where the liquidity goes? Is this to make sure that no group of whales can get hold of a lot of control tokens and have fun protocol games?

Jakub Gregus - In fact, yes, for us it was one of the bells.

Question - Do all these arguments of the community members about the LHDX token have ground under them - “Oh no, the second token appeared out of nowhere and the team was silent all this time, they probably want to deceive us”? As for me, this is an obvious solution to keep the system secure in the long run.

Jakub Gregus - Yes, we thought about it from the very beginning, but Curve Wars and other control token hacks were the last wake-up call for us. We decided for ourselves, “We can’t let this take its course and hope that this story does not affect us.” Huge money will be at stake, and there will be people who will try to cheat the system.

Jakub Panik - Perhaps I could add something from myself. We thought about these problems from the very beginning and we had some solutions to solve them. For example, the introduction of fees or a slight change in the Omnipool model, but each decision introduces serious problems in the design of the protocol. For example, if we change the design of Omnipool, then computing transactions on the network becomes too complex. This will become less efficient for trading. The second solution would interfere with the oracles, because it would create a huge spread on HDX. So we thought about limiting the purchase of HDX from the pool, but that wasn't the ideal solution and we felt it was the only good solution. In the end, the two-token solution turned out to be the best, because there were restrictions on the HDX supply that the previous design did not have.

Jakub Gregus - We spent hundreds of hours creating it with Blockscience and eventually came up with this mechanic. They have a very deep understanding of governance tokens. Blockscience actually simulated an attack on Gitcoin.

Question - I have a question about adding new tokens. Do you have an idea about the conditions for adding new tokens? Are we going to focus on big tokens at the very beginning like DOT, ETH? Will we also give smaller tokens a chance and how often do you plan to add new tokens? Rech Is it about one token per week, ten tokens per week?

Jakub Gregus — Yes, I've been thinking about it a lot lately. We can focus on major tokens and blue chips that are included in some indexes like DPI, MakerDAO, Compound, Aave. All tokens that pass security checks. They have internal security audit teams that dive very deep into all the possible risks associated with these tokens. All of them are fairly secure, then all L1 tokens that could be transferred to the bridge, and most of the legitimate projects from them. I can imagine that some legitimate teams with new projects can be listed faster. For example, a team at the level of Acala or Interlay appears in the ecosystem and we will see that they do an excellent job in all directions. They have security audits and there is little reason for us to wait a year or more for them to be listed. Obviously, we will also have certain volume and liquidity requirements.

Jakub Panik - We can also use Basilisk to assess whether assets have enough volume or are they safe enough for us. In the future, we are thinking about mechanisms that will allow us to include even less secure assets in Omnipool, but they will be limited by liquidity, so they will not pose a big risk to other assets.

Jakub Gregus - The key will be to combine multiple oracles. Chainlink has been field tested, but not everyone agrees. We can combine several other oracles and sources.

Question - The whole DeFi market has become quite crowded over the last year, various DEXs, various networks. What is your marketing strategy for generating sustainable liquidity on HydraDX? Omnipool seems like a pretty tidbit to hack, how do you rate Omnipool's liquidity drain risk and what are your risk mitigation measures?

Jakub Panik - The first thing to do is not to accept assets that are not safe, but we are also thinking of a few measures:

1 - Fees that are based on volume, if there is a huge pressure on one token, then we increase the fee to infinity so that traders cannot withdraw all liquidity in a short time

2 - We're thinking about an emergency stop button, this process will put it to a popular vote if something really bad happens, we should have that emergency measure in place to be able to stop trading if enough people decide to do so. I don't know if other projects have this feature.

Jakub Gregus - It's called "automatic fuse". I also have a vision for how to make decentralized storage more secure. I have an Entropy project in my field of vision, this project is one of the coolest Substrate, which will make trading much more secure, because all assets will be stored elsewhere, perhaps on Statemine or Statemint, DOTsama DeFi will use the rights to them and there will be some withdrawal period to have some buffer if any hack or any miscalculation or error in the code happens, not only in HydraDX or Basilisk, but also in bridges, XCM and other network components. And then, obviously, the most standard measures, such as security audits. We are trying to attract companies that specialize in this, but they have a lot of work in various ecosystems, mainly in Ethereum.

The first question was about the strategy that will help us succeed. In the short term, it will be liquidity mining initiatives that will be subsidized not only by us, but by us and other projects in the Dotsama ecosystem that will indeed offer their own incentives, so there will be incentives for a large influx of users into the ecosystem. There is also some talk of incentivizing the initial launch of ecosystem-wide liquidity through the Kusama and Polkadot treasuries. In fact, the Polkadot Treasury is the best candidate for this. The Polkadot ecosystem is far behind other ecosystems, so we need to put in as much effort as possible on every front, and large incentive programs are being successfully used by most of the alternative ecosystems. So, we have no other way to avoid this.

So, in the medium/long term, bonds that are a bit like Olympus bonds can be a great solution, but ours will be different, they will be similar to traditional bonds. In the case of Olympus, you have bonds with a maturity of 5 days, in fact we will be holding a kind of auction that will encourage bonds with the maximum possible maturity. There may be people who decide to lock their liquidity in HydraDX even for years. I would probably do the same, it will allow us to offer the highest APY we have in the secondary bond market. You can use these bonds as collateral on Angular or maybe other markets because bonds are much more effective at maintaining liquidity than liquidity initiatives. Most of them are very wasteful, this is another observation from the liquidity wars where you have invested billions of dollars in some pools, while these pools generate only a few thousand dollars of commission per day or their volume is much less, so the commissions are very small, so you don't need to incentivize pools to be so bloated.

But what you really need is to incentivize its use, so we will introduce incentives for trading volume, that makes a lot more sense, there is nothing unique or revolutionary about it, because all CEX, I don't mean only crypto CEX, but also stock exchanges or any exchanges in the world use this throughout the history of trading, incentivizing market makers or other parties by offering them discounts on commissions or negative discounts, they really make money on volumes, because if you have liquidity pools with billions of assets , which are just there and no one uses them for trade or exchange, this is not profitable and even wasteful.

And it's not just a look at AMM incentivization, but it's also incentivizing integrations to connect to HydraDX and Basilisk, you allow users to pay fees in the destination protocol they want to pay. For example, users of some wallet need to call a smart contract on Astar or ETH or somewhere else, but they do not want to pay a fee in more scarce assets. They want a predictable fee for this, so HydraDX and Basilisk can provide this service on the Back-end. Users will be able to pay fees in stablecoins whenever they want and using any wallet that will be integrated into our SDK. This is one of the first and most obvious use cases that we will have to finish and prepare on our end. We have seen that AMMs are perfect for these use cases, improving the experience in the cryptosphere, so this is a clear incentive for other application developers to connect with us. The second thing is moving our design forward and improving it over time, implementing some of the other features that we have in development. I've even compiled a short list of features that we'll be offering from the early days of HydraDX that have been implemented in other protocols by other teams. We can't wait to put everything together to maximize the efficiency of DeFi capital. We will release an updated roadmap with detailed bullet points that will

Jakub Gregus — We had communication problems for almost our entire history, because until now, we were a very small team of 6 people who managed the entire project, tested and integrated all the new products from Polkadot, Substrate and Parity. We've been doing all this insanely complex research, but fortunately, we've filled in all the missing positions in our organization that we've only recently realized, to our regret. We were too deeply immersed in research or development. For most of November and December, we were looking for people who could fill the holes in the organization, not only in the position of developers, but also in the field of communication, organization, operations and in general, those people who could provide a more professional approach to everything, because very soon We are already planning to launch the project.

All communication with the community should be more subtle and more careful about all changes. The latest blog failure just highlighted the importance of a deeper understanding of what it would look like for the community who are less dedicated or less involved in the project so they don't understand all the nuances. Every other major change will be announced gradually, at least we will randomly select a few people from the community, get feedback and move on to more open development. Almost all of our code is open source and we discuss everything publicly with the community, but in terms of the development process, we are not very ready for this. We tried to do this from the very beginning, but it was not very effective, because you need to have a lot more organization and much more carefully planned tasks, you need to analyze these tasks much better. There were not enough people on the team for this, which we eventually resolved, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but we are working on it. Starting with the publication of this year's strategy and an updated roadmap. This will be a great starting point and everything will be public and for the community first.

Now we have several people who are responsible for the development of the community. Basically, even aggregating all of our research and specs was really a challenge for new people, which we finally solved too, and the reason there were big gaps between us and you in the past is because we've been moving so far. too fast. We tried to be first on Rococo and tried to make the first cross-chain call and transfer. I do not want to make excuses, but for us there was too much of everything and we constantly lacked not only developers, but also positions in the community. We have hundreds of channels. I don't mean with the community, but with all other projects. Projects who want to integrate with us, who want to collaborate with us, who want to work with us or join research, join liquidity mining, etc. We had no intention of running away and hiding from everyone, but there was too much in one moment, finally things get better. We have several people who are responsible for specific things like back-end, front-end, community, security, research, project management, hiring, etc.

Jakub Panik - Let me talk about the current state of development. We had to take a step back because we needed to hire more people. Seeing how everything starts to crumble due to several people visiting the crowdlon interface, we realized that we need to create a strong infrastructure and cooperate with other projects in this direction. We've taken a step back, we've started working with Subsquid on data processing to give users the right data so they can use the apps and be fast and productive. It took a lot more effort than we thought, but we decided to do it because the long term thing that will help us in the future is by doing this we prevent all further problems. These kinds of problems would still happen at the very beginning, but to a much lesser extent, we knew that if 5 thousand people came to our application at one moment, then it would simply collapse and no one would use it. We decided to take a step back and rebuild everything from scratch, create the right infrastructure and this can be 90% usable for HydraDX. We don't just do this for Basilisk, it's a reusable fundamental work. And this will significantly reduce the launch of HydraDX.

I don't want to give dates or anything like that, we've made these mistakes before. It won't be as long as some people might think. Don't get us wrong, we've been involved in startups, but most startups don't have any communication with the community, you just talk to your investors and they always agree if you're doing well. For us, this is something new and in the future we will work better in this area.

Jakub Gregus - For HydraDX, Colin created the final Omnipool spec, which has been double-checked and validated by Blockscience. Developers start working on its implementation. We realized that the HydraDX implementation is much simpler than Basilisk, as Jakub already mentioned. Much of the imported middleware will already be re-engineered.

Colin - As far as Omnipool is concerned, we are at the stage where the basic structure is already in place. We are modeling various scenarios, such as how high fees should be and what makes HydraDX attractive in terms of liquidity. The basic structure is already defined and ready to be implemented.

Question - When you talk about adding assets to the Omnipool, I would like to clarify whether this will be done by the technical community or HydraDX management or, for example, through referendums based on decisions made by HDX holders?

Second question - You said that HDX holders will be charged for using the protocol. How will these fees be distributed to HDX token holders? Could you elaborate on what the distribution mechanics will look like, will it be a share of HDX or will the fees be distributed to holders in the form of dividends or something similar? Can you tell more about this?

Colin - We don't have a general idea of ​​what these fees will look like when the network launches. I gave a list of examples of what could be included in the protocol governance process, but the bottom line was that even if we start without a fee distribution, HDX tokens will be used to govern the protocol from the perspective of the substrate, you will have to change a lot when upgrading during execution. HDX token holders will indeed be able to change or raise the fee to distribute protocol fees to HDX token holders. They have the ability to manage the tokenomics and protocol, but it won't happen on the very first day.

Question - What will be the procedure or mechanics of fees? For example, the management decides that it wants to increase the fees for using the protocol and distribute them among HDX token holders. And after performing a runtime upgrade, what will the mechanics look like? In the form of providing liquidity or staking?

Colin - We have yet to work it out. We are looking at something like a Curve distribution.

Jakub Panik - Fees will be collected in some treasury or there may be a secondary treasury and when we have this treasury we can open access to it and people will be able to receive part of these funds.

Jakub Gregus - Fee allocation is a very complex process because you don't want to turn your token into a security and provoke the regulators. Regulators can be very sensitive to this, pure reallocation of commissions is a clear digital analogue of securities, so the regulators will fine us or close our activities. In cryptocurrencies, you can get away with ransom, which is a kind of indirect redistribution or burn model. There is also the Curve Escrow Model, which we see becoming the gold standard in the industry. Many protocols that use these mechanics are reviewed with their lawyers and everything looks fine.

You need to do some work and this work materializes through the right to vote. This is the essence of the Curve model, which for us is the best candidate for implementation. The entire community is already familiar with this model. At least for once we will not shock and mislead people.

Jakub Panik - Regarding the technical committee. We would like to create a technical council because of the regulators. We need to create a committee that can help us add new tokens or maybe we will find the necessary mechanism that can reduce all risks when adding new tokens to Omnipool. This must be resolved first.

Jakub Gregus—Some networks provide Compound services. They measure the liquidity properties of assets and then, based on the results and models, set collateral ratios, interest rates, and so on. I would also like to create an economic council, not just a technical council. The economic council will support issues related to the economy of tokens, what should be the volume ratio, what should be the size of commissions, what part of the commission should be taken, how to use liquidity. Maybe the HydraDX management can redirect some of the liquidity into DOT tokens and participate in crowdlons, and use the rewards from these crowdlons as liquidity for HydraDX and process it. We will support all these and other economic issues with the technical committee, which will be responsible for the technical safety of these assets. I hope that this committee will be made up of the best people in the industry and I will gladly vote for a very good salary for them.

Question - When we move to the mainnet, the fear of fines (slash) will become real in the mainnet. It's not that scary on the testnet, but once the mainnet goes live, it'll be real. I hear a lot of comments on Discord about some validators not getting nominators. Will it lead to fines? Will it be a problem? Will it make people afraid to nominate? Will this reduce the amount of tokens staked? Because we need more validators to strengthen the network. If the validator goes offline, will he be fined?

Jakub Panik - Regarding the last part of the question, you can go offline and update your node and validator. It is not forbidden, on the contrary, it is encouraged. As for the first part of the question, we probably won't have staking as it is now because the shared security of Polkadot and Kusama means we don't need to maintain it. We thought about staking and using it on the mainnet, but we don't need staking at the very beginning. We only need node holders (Collators - Collators), we do not need a certain number of people doing this, as it is happening now. This is a very big problem because we need to figure out what to do with the people who are doing the validation on the testnet right now, but we have a solution that is probably too early to tell, but we want to decentralize the infrastructure. Not only the internal infrastructure, but also the node infrastructure. We may have incentive schemes for node holders supporting our infrastructure, but it's still too early to tell. We'll refine these ideas as the mainnet launches.

Jakub Gregus - In this case, the penalties will not be as hard or even they will be impossible. Worst case, the node will be unavailable, in which case the user will automatically switch to another node. Listening to you, I understand that there is still a lot of confusion in the Polkadot and Substrate community regarding the role of validators and node holders (Collators), because parachain validators are Polkadot validators. As a parachain, you don't need to have your own validators, you need to have collators. It can be 1 node, 10 nodes, 100 nodes, it doesn't matter, but these collator nodes cannot make invalid network state transitions, so their security properties are not as important as the security of the validators. Collators and full nodes are more service providers than POS validators.

Substrate offers a super powerful feature called off-chain worker nodes (off-chain workers) and it can be used to do a lot of useful work that can be done in parallel or done offline, but they still need to have some share of the tokens at stake to ensure proper validation. This data can be added to the network. These nodes will have staking enabled and these nodes can match off-chain transactions, so it doesn't have to be done entirely on the blockchain, it could be like zero knowledge proof to save a lot of space, etc.

Jakub Panik - It could be data providers. The middleware nodes that provide the data, they can have some share of the HDX tokens staked and prove that my data is correct or if it is incorrect they will be penalized.

Question - My question is about your travels and how you feel about the ecosystem as a whole. What is your view on Substrate after working with it for 1 year. Has it become more or less powerful, in your opinion? And how do you see interaction with other teams? I know you mentioned kUSD as a starting point in Omnipool. What are Acala's incentives to encourage HydraDX when they have their own swap functionality? How do you see yourself in the ecosystem and at what level is your spirit and the spirit of your team?

Jakub Gregus - That's a great question. For example, in early 2020 when we started developing on Substrate with HydraDX, we had a lot more concerns about the ecosystem. There were not many parachains, at least not seen or planned. Now this is no longer a concern. On the other hand, I personally do not see a large flow of new parachains, to be honest, this is my opinion. On the other hand, interesting Substrate networks are very specialized and have very unexpected use cases. I'm much more optimistic about Substrate than I've ever been in conversations with many other developers over the past year. Especially talking to other developers from other ecosystems, when I see how it is implemented, how many ideas or parts of Substrate are implemented in other networks. Obviously the Cosmos SDK is more interoperable because it's much older and field proven, it didn't have any stressful changes in 2019 or 2020 so a lot of projects have moved there, it's a more stable development solution. But when you see that Polygon uses Substrate to access data in its network or Octopus Network on Near protocol uses Substrate to connect specific application networks to Near or Compound chooses Substrate.

Also I see that other Cosmos developers have a lot of respect for Substrate and some of them even choose Substrate for their latest projects or Ethereum developers who are developing an ETH 2.0 client are actually moving to Substrate and are very happy and very happy in particular , off-chain worker nodes, and other Substrate features, especially runtime updates.

A few weeks ago I was talking to the guy who organized and did the first hard fork for Cosmos. We agreed how difficult it is to implement this on any network or system, while any Substrate network, be it Polkadot or Kusama or whatever, hard forks just like that, even every 2-3 weeks, it is simply unthinkable by comparison. with other teams and other projects. I see this as one of the underrated features because there were some mantras that the blockchain should be as immutable as possible, but I don't think that's true. Even Bitcoin in 2018 or 2019 had very critical inflation bugs and you wouldn't expect the old underlying code and simpler blockchain to have such critical flaws that should be fixed as soon as possible and they were super critical. After all, you still need people to maintain the software, to maintain the network, to provide power and electricity.

Every network is still just a tool for people to coordinate and get things done, so you can't just disappear and say, "Yeah, it's the same software." No, it needs to be maintained and that's why I think runtime updates are a very elegant way to evolve and evolve into something better over time - it's the coolest and killer feature Substrate has to offer.

In terms of the ecosystem, meeting many founders makes me more calm and confident, especially the developers make me more calm, as I realized that many of them are super talented people who are moving to Substrate or Polkadot from other ecosystems such as Algorand , Cosmos and they are really wonderful people, not only in terms of knowledge and experience, but also as individuals. Obviously, there are people who are not so cool, who do not have honest intentions to build something great, rather to make quick money, but such people are everywhere. I'm much more confident and satisfied ecosystem than before. On the other hand, the ecosystem has many drawbacks because it is one of the most difficult ecosystems to develop, Avalanche and everything that uses the EVM works great. Of course, you can fork anything that lives on Ethereum and it will work great and just use Metamask.

Using all the infrastructure and tools already built helps any developer to be super fast and deploy projects in weeks or months, while Substrate, Polkadot doesn't have a lot of tried and tested code that you can fork and build something on top of. then improve it. Another thing I could mention is the instrumentation issue, since Substrate and Polkadot are changing too fast, which also caused a lot of delays on our end. Many of the tools and infrastructure were outdated and didn't work very well. It's been very hard in 2019, 2020 and 2021, but it's just a pain in the ass for any new ecosystem. Solana last year or 2020 was very similar, it was very difficult to develop and run something on it. There was no code for the fork, there was no toolkit. It had to be created from scratch. This is also a great opportunity for anyone who can see these problems and instead of complaining, just find solutions and ask for a grant from the treasury to implement these solutions.

The treasury at Polkadot and at Kusama has never been as full as it is now. I think this will finally push a lot of people to work in the ecosystem. So there is everything in the ecosystem as a whole, good things and bad things, this applies to every ecosystem. I've talked to many founders from other ecosystems and everyone complained about something. As always. The whole crypto industry is still at a very early stage, even Ethereum is still at a very early stage of development. There are so many things that are left out or not well done. I think we should see this as a great opportunity, not as a hindrance, and provide support to people who are building ecosystems.

We are at a stage where we need to build an ecosystem and we are moving very strongly in this. Now a stage that I didn't expect in 2019 or 2020, there was much more doubt, but now that we see parachains and XCM launched, all these things work and all the FUD from competitors no longer matters. This is no longer the case, the ecosystem is working and now we can finally move on to the Polkadot and Substrate phase, when most of the code has already been written and implemented, developers can only optimize and improve it.

I'm more optimistic than ever, but other projects should be more about working together as a family rather than trying to build everything on their own. Otherwise, there will be no ecosystem, if they so desire, they can go and build their own ecosystem. It would be great to see better collaboration between the teams, but so far it hasn't happened because everyone was too busy developing their own projects. Finally, more teams are getting to the stage where they are trying to integrate, for example Interlay is doing a lot of integrations, Moonriver and Moonbeam are launching XCM, Acala and Astar and a few other top teams are getting to the stage where they are doing integrations with other projects. We are approaching the stage of an ecosystem, not just a collection of individual networks.

Jakub Panik - I had a conflicted relationship with Substrate. First love, then hate, then love again. Right from the start, Substrate allowed us to roll out the blockchain very quickly, which is unprecedented. We've tried using more developers, we've worked with more developers before, but this was the fastest solution we've tried. After that, we had to do something special and it was very difficult because there were a lot of updates and it slowed us down a lot. It was a growing pain, made worse by the need to launch Polkadot and Kusama. Parity and other developers needed to quickly solve problems and quickly launch the network, I understood this and a few times when we had problems, I dived deep into the Substrate code and thought: “Oh shit, there are millions of lines of code in it”, but this doesn't look like bloated code, it's really good and concise code with research and documentation underneath. I think I saw some blog where Gavin Wood wrote that Substrate has 2 million lines of code, which is a huge help if you have a framework that you can use and it's really powerful. You can build on its base, you can change things as you see fit. Deep diving takes a long time because things change, but right now we're talking to Robert Habermeier and the people who make Substrate. Basically, they are done with the basic functionality. It will not change much, so if you want to start creating something, then there is no better time. We know a lot about this, because we started earlier, but you won't There are no problems like ours. I want to inspire all the founders who were confused by the large number of changes that slowed everyone down, this is no longer a problem. Most things are done and ready, if you're thinking about creating something you should do it right now and I think it's really powerful. I don't know the best option for creating a custom blockchain right now. We are constantly looking for other solutions, but everything has its pros and cons, but it's a really good ecosystem with professional developers and support.

Q - You talked about the Web3 Foundation grants you received. How are things going with the Web3 Foundation. Do they provide support for eg Gavin Wood for HydraDX? Does this mean that the whole ecosystem is waiting for Omnipool and sees value in it? What do you think?

Jakub Gregus - I don't know how aware Gavin Wood is of us, probably yes. We don't talk much with the Web3 Foundation, more with Parity. The Web3 Foundation funds and organizes the research, but the research is ultimately implemented by Parity. Parity is a more important player in the ecosystem in a sense, and it would be better for projects to be closer to them. The grant program is useful for newbies who see some opportunities for tool development or if you want to develop something specific that might be useful to others and that will lower your development costs a bit, but you can't rely on grants only if it's something important, like an ETH bridge or a BTC bridge. We had a validator monitoring grant in 2019 but it didn't get renewed for some weird reason, it got us really pissed off at the start and then got us moving forward, we decided to build something that doesn't depend too much on grants. If you want to create something that is missing in the ecosystem, asking for a grant is one of the best ways you can do it, you can also get some guidance from them on how to implement it. Are you talking about the Subaction Grant?

Question - I would like to know if you cooperate with Parity? Do they expect a product from you and see its value for use in the ecosystem?

Jakub Gregus - This organization needs to be very careful what they report from the outside, they need to remain neutral, they don't want a lot of hype or reporting on specific projects so as not to give the impression to the community or retail people that this is the chosen and correct project, where should you invest your money. Sometimes some projects in the Polkadot ecosystem and other ecosystems use this hype or marketing - "Oh, we get a grant from the Web3 Foundation, they support us", which is very doubtful.

Question - I mean this is not a regular DEX or AMM, it has to be a breakthrough technology. Will the other party appreciate your ideas?

Jakub Gregus - I personally think they don't understand how revolutionary or innovative the project is because most of the people who work for the Web3 Foundation or Parity are not DeFi experts. They are experts in cryptography, Rust, back-end development, networking and other areas. So when they see an Omnipool or something like that, they can't tell how it's better than Sushiswap or another XYK model.

Jakub Panik - We work with these people at Parity and we love them not only as developers but as people in general. They are very good guys. I think they have some confidence in our project and what we are doing.

Jakub Gregus - When we ask them to review the code for us, they review it and then tell us that they didn't find any major bugs, only minor cosmetic issues. They tell other colleagues about it and spread a good word about us when they see other solutions for the infrastructure they are also trying to develop. They know how difficult it is with much more resources, and we did it with less. They can only help with what they are familiar with. They helped us when we launched on the Rococo testnet or when we made the first XCM.

Jakub Panik - This is not the best question for us, because me and Jakub, we hate bragging rights. It is better to ask Parity.

Jakub Gregus - Unfortunately, in my opinion, they don't think much about how it's better or how it's different from other projects, they just don't have time to think about it. There is a lot of pressure on everyone at Parity and the Web3 Foundation to have Polkadot and Kusama fully up and running and successful because everyone expects it to be the more successful or one of the most successful ecosystems because Gavin Wood created Ethereum. They have a lot of work.

Q - Do you want to implement fractional, algorithmic pricing for LHDX?

Jakub Gregus - This is an impressive and interesting question. For example, when we started working with Blockscience in December last year. One of their first questions was: “Do we want to make a stablecoin out of LHDX? It would be significant but simplified a lot of things.” We thought it was an impressive idea, but we don't want to make a stablecoin because it has too many nuances. While we were thinking about it, maybe not a stablecoin, but some asset like RAI Reflexer, which would be very impressive. In addition, the problem that can arise with USD stablecoins or other fiat currencies is starting to develop and inflation is a very serious problem. So I'm not sure if stablecoins would be attractive, maybe some Anchor assets associated with them. If you look at the FEI protocol, it's very similar to HydraDX, but they don't have their own DEX or Terra is very similar in some ways, but having a native token as collateral is very dangerous. In May, we saw Terra almost enter a death spiral. For this reason, they are thinking about introducing BTC as another asset to their pool. These ideas are relevant and very interesting. This would allow for the creation of a stablecoin that can be highly scalable. Also, it could have very organic demand as it would stabilize the pool, but right now it's very futuristic. It's possible, but it's not our priority. If anyone wants to work on it, we'll be happy to support and maybe even fund it, but it's not part of our agenda for the day. Let's start HydraDX and Basilisk first. We have a lot of ideas or features that need to be rolled out to the HydraDX and Basilisk network.

...

...

Jakub Gregus - I just want to take a look at last year and thank you all for your exceptional patience. We didn't communicate well and often left you in chaos. This was not done on purpose, no one was hiding, no one was spending your money. Thank you all and we look forward to your support as we finally launch our mainnet!

In the old financial world, liquidity is fragmented among many gatekeepers, protecting their business interests, profiting from the upside, while socializing the downside. The cost of liquidity is also high because legacy technology consists of siloed databases.

Blockchain is changing this unfortunate reality by providing an open and universally accessible technology layer for transaction settlement and asset exchange.

However, the dominant blockchain application platform – Ethereum – suffers from being a general platform for many varied use cases – the network is getting clogged and fees are high.

In order to achieve the optimal properties, HydraDX is built as a parachain – specialized blockchain in the Polkadot network. It is benefiting from shared security, speed and flexibility of the Substrate framework while remaining optimized for a single purpose: enabling fluid programmable value exchange.

Thanks to planned interoperability between Polkadot and Ethereum ecosystems, Hydra will tap into Ethereum’s liquidity, talent and community, merging the best of the both worlds.

1)https://hydradx.substack.com/p/hydradx-omnipool-part-1

Earlier, the HydraDX team published an article on their blog in which they introduced the new LHDX token. This caused a lot of confusion among the community and many people asked the team to provide more details on how this token will be used, will it decrease the value of the original HDX token or increase it? The team decided to hold an AMA session on Discord as soon as possible, we have made a detailed translation of this AMA session for you.

Jakub Gregus — I will try to describe as simply as possible our vision behind the LHDX token and why we had to make these changes, as well as the main problems and concerns associated with the previous design of the HDX token.

Imagine that some liquidity mining whales who often use their capital in various liquidity stimulation programs. Let's imagine that these guys want to have power over the entire HydraDX protocol, whether it's short term or long term, so they can get power in Sushiswap or other protocols through liquidity mining. In our case, it can be even worse, because the security of Proof-Of-Stake protocols is usually at a high level, because if someone wants to buy any POS tokens, it does not matter Polkadot or Kusama, Solana or any other POS blockchain. As more tokens are bought on the market, slippage and fees make any additional purchases more difficult because the price starts to rise a lot.

In fact, due to the design of the Omnipool, there will be no increase in price and some whales may invest a lot of capital in Omnipool, which will immediately increase the overall size of the Omnipool. They have 15,000 BTC and are putting it into the Omnipool. During this time, Omnipool will match the amount of liquidity they have deposited and the pool will be huge, which means that slippage will be practically zero, even on any large trade. Even if they start buying millions of HDX, the price will still not move, which is also bad for HDX holders who want to see some increase in the value of the HDX token over time. It's also bad from a security point of view of the entire protocol, because someone could perform an attack that would be much cheaper than an attack on any other Proof-Of-Stake system, because there would be no restrictions on the purchase of HDX tokens. The main problem is that they can gain control over the protocol. They don't even need to provide a lot of liquidity to the pool because Omnipool can be backed by a lot of different assets. If they are smart and patient, it will be impossible to identify these attempts and distinguish them from normal liquidity mining and they can easily carry out this attack. That's why we thought more deeply about it when we saw the current Curve wars, Magic Internet Money is being used to devastate Anchor's yield resources.

Protocol manipulation attacks can have a very low threshold to carry out, this scares us a lot as we take the overall security of the platform as seriously as possible, which also leads to delays in front-end development on Basilisk, since most of this code, approximately 80% will also be used in HydraDX. We are rethinking things even more seriously than before. We realized that “oh shit, this can be very dangerous” and after that we had long internal discussions about this. Before posting about the introduction of the second token, we expected that this could cause a lot of questions, but no one expected that this would cause a FUD of such force, supposedly we are stealing liquidity from the protocol and leaving for the islands. It was clearly ugly and not even close to the truth. That's the story, and I hope everyone understands why we're going to use this protocol design and why it's actually bullish, even for HDX. Thus, the HDX token will have a very strong position in the protocol. So we can move on to questions.

lolmschizz - Governance in Substrate is not the same as governance in any other Ethereum protocol. Almost everything can be changed, it does not matter who will implement it.

Jakub Gregus - For example, dYdX governance token or OpenSea governance token. They don't have much power over the protocols. The dYdX team has been pretty clear about the process of managing dYdX and voting with dYdX, and they were quick to point out that you won't be able to enable sharing of commissions earned by the dYdX protocol. On the other hand, on Substrate, you can choose to switch the network connection from Polkadot to Cosmos, whatever the token holders desire. Someone will prepare the necessary code for this, and the token holders vote for it, and it's not difficult at all if you really want to do it. On the other hand, the runtime update is a very powerful and useful tool and should be taken seriously because it can change absolutely everything.

lolmcshizz - A question a council member asked us. What is the use and the potential value of HDX if we move to a two-token model? What criteria will be used to increase the value of HDX?

What is the advantage of these two tokens? What exactly will be possible to do with HDX?

Jakub Gregus - Yes, exactly. It will be much more difficult to achieve the appreciation and value of HDX tokens if the protocol is backed by billions of assets, which is what we have been aiming for since day one, it will be almost impossible to push the price higher because slippage will be zero even if we trade millions of HDX simultaneously.

Colin - Whatever the pool token, it can be anything, in our case it is LHDX, whatever this central liquidity token is, its supply can be changed very drastically. Therefore, our main concern was that if the protocol succeeds and a lot of liquidity inflows, and HDX is the central liquidity token, each HDX token and its supply will increase greatly, which will dilute the supply of tokens from those participants who hold HDX. Thus, millions of HDX tokens are issued and dilute the total supply - this can be a big hurdle. At the same time, the second LHDX token allows us to take on the volatility of the supply, which gives us a stronger token economy. I would say that HDX and LHDX are tokens that are in a zero-sum game, and with the right design, it can be positive. We need to think about the right combination and features for these two tokens and what system will work well. Here are some applications of the HDX token in protocol governance: if the system works well, the ability to decide which token will be added to this protocol or where exactly the fees will be distributed. The value of such management should certainly increase.

Jakub Gregus - Exactly, the whole history of the market, I was against governance tokens, I really hate them. In my opinion, it's really unfair to the community to give some tokens that are meant to govern the protocol, but in reality, they don't have the power to change anything. We see such cases with OpenSea or dYdX tokens. For HydraDX, this is a completely different scenario, the community can really change everything and choose where to extract value and where not. This should also be decided by the community and researched in every possible way on how best to capitalize on all of HDX's infrastructure and liquidity.

Q - Was the decision to redesign the token entirely in light of recent developments in the liquidity war? Does this sound like what is happening now where people are really trying to take control of the governance tokens because they actually decide where the liquidity goes? Is this to make sure that no group of whales can get hold of a lot of control tokens and have fun protocol games?

Jakub Gregus - In fact, yes, for us it was one of the bells.

Question - Do all these arguments of the community members about the LHDX token have ground under them - “Oh no, the second token appeared out of nowhere and the team was silent all this time, they probably want to deceive us”? As for me, this is an obvious solution to keep the system secure in the long run.

Jakub Gregus - Yes, we thought about it from the very beginning, but Curve Wars and other control token hacks were the last wake-up call for us. We decided for ourselves, “We can’t let this take its course and hope that this story does not affect us.” Huge money will be at stake, and there will be people who will try to cheat the system.

Jakub Panik - Perhaps I could add something from myself. We thought about these problems from the very beginning and we had some solutions to solve them. For example, the introduction of fees or a slight change in the Omnipool model, but each decision introduces serious problems in the design of the protocol. For example, if we change the design of Omnipool, then computing transactions on the network becomes too complex. This will become less efficient for trading. The second solution would interfere with the oracles, because it would create a huge spread on HDX. So we thought about limiting the purchase of HDX from the pool, but that wasn't the ideal solution and we felt it was the only good solution. In the end, the two-token solution turned out to be the best, because there were restrictions on the HDX supply that the previous design did not have.

Jakub Gregus - We spent hundreds of hours creating it with Blockscience and eventually came up with this mechanic. They have a very deep understanding of governance tokens. Blockscience actually simulated an attack on Gitcoin.

Question - I have a question about adding new tokens. Do you have an idea about the conditions for adding new tokens? Are we going to focus on big tokens at the very beginning like DOT, ETH? Will we also give smaller tokens a chance and how often do you plan to add new tokens? Rech Is it about one token per week, ten tokens per week?

Jakub Gregus — Yes, I've been thinking about it a lot lately. We can focus on major tokens and blue chips that are included in some indexes like DPI, MakerDAO, Compound, Aave. All tokens that pass security checks. They have internal security audit teams that dive very deep into all the possible risks associated with these tokens. All of them are fairly secure, then all L1 tokens that could be transferred to the bridge, and most of the legitimate projects from them. I can imagine that some legitimate teams with new projects can be listed faster. For example, a team at the level of Acala or Interlay appears in the ecosystem and we will see that they do an excellent job in all directions. They have security audits and there is little reason for us to wait a year or more for them to be listed. Obviously, we will also have certain volume and liquidity requirements.

Jakub Panik - We can also use Basilisk to assess whether assets have enough volume or are they safe enough for us. In the future, we are thinking about mechanisms that will allow us to include even less secure assets in Omnipool, but they will be limited by liquidity, so they will not pose a big risk to other assets.

Jakub Gregus - The key will be to combine multiple oracles. Chainlink has been field tested, but not everyone agrees. We can combine several other oracles and sources.

Question - The whole DeFi market has become quite crowded over the last year, various DEXs, various networks. What is your marketing strategy for generating sustainable liquidity on HydraDX? Omnipool seems like a pretty tidbit to hack, how do you rate Omnipool's liquidity drain risk and what are your risk mitigation measures?

Jakub Panik - The first thing to do is not to accept assets that are not safe, but we are also thinking of a few measures:

1 - Fees that are based on volume, if there is a huge pressure on one token, then we increase the fee to infinity so that traders cannot withdraw all liquidity in a short time

2 - We're thinking about an emergency stop button, this process will put it to a popular vote if something really bad happens, we should have that emergency measure in place to be able to stop trading if enough people decide to do so. I don't know if other projects have this feature.

Jakub Gregus - It's called "automatic fuse". I also have a vision for how to make decentralized storage more secure. I have an Entropy project in my field of vision, this project is one of the coolest Substrate, which will make trading much more secure, because all assets will be stored elsewhere, perhaps on Statemine or Statemint, DOTsama DeFi will use the rights to them and there will be some withdrawal period to have some buffer if any hack or any miscalculation or error in the code happens, not only in HydraDX or Basilisk, but also in bridges, XCM and other network components. And then, obviously, the most standard measures, such as security audits. We are trying to attract companies that specialize in this, but they have a lot of work in various ecosystems, mainly in Ethereum.

The first question was about the strategy that will help us succeed. In the short term, it will be liquidity mining initiatives that will be subsidized not only by us, but by us and other projects in the Dotsama ecosystem that will indeed offer their own incentives, so there will be incentives for a large influx of users into the ecosystem. There is also some talk of incentivizing the initial launch of ecosystem-wide liquidity through the Kusama and Polkadot treasuries. In fact, the Polkadot Treasury is the best candidate for this. The Polkadot ecosystem is far behind other ecosystems, so we need to put in as much effort as possible on every front, and large incentive programs are being successfully used by most of the alternative ecosystems. So, we have no other way to avoid this.

So, in the medium/long term, bonds that are a bit like Olympus bonds can be a great solution, but ours will be different, they will be similar to traditional bonds. In the case of Olympus, you have bonds with a maturity of 5 days, in fact we will be holding a kind of auction that will encourage bonds with the maximum possible maturity. There may be people who decide to lock their liquidity in HydraDX even for years. I would probably do the same, it will allow us to offer the highest APY we have in the secondary bond market. You can use these bonds as collateral on Angular or maybe other markets because bonds are much more effective at maintaining liquidity than liquidity initiatives. Most of them are very wasteful, this is another observation from the liquidity wars where you have invested billions of dollars in some pools, while these pools generate only a few thousand dollars of commission per day or their volume is much less, so the commissions are very small, so you don't need to incentivize pools to be so bloated.

But what you really need is to incentivize its use, so we will introduce incentives for trading volume, that makes a lot more sense, there is nothing unique or revolutionary about it, because all CEX, I don't mean only crypto CEX, but also stock exchanges or any exchanges in the world use this throughout the history of trading, incentivizing market makers or other parties by offering them discounts on commissions or negative discounts, they really make money on volumes, because if you have liquidity pools with billions of assets , which are just there and no one uses them for trade or exchange, this is not profitable and even wasteful.

And it's not just a look at AMM incentivization, but it's also incentivizing integrations to connect to HydraDX and Basilisk, you allow users to pay fees in the destination protocol they want to pay. For example, users of some wallet need to call a smart contract on Astar or ETH or somewhere else, but they do not want to pay a fee in more scarce assets. They want a predictable fee for this, so HydraDX and Basilisk can provide this service on the Back-end. Users will be able to pay fees in stablecoins whenever they want and using any wallet that will be integrated into our SDK. This is one of the first and most obvious use cases that we will have to finish and prepare on our end. We have seen that AMMs are perfect for these use cases, improving the experience in the cryptosphere, so this is a clear incentive for other application developers to connect with us. The second thing is moving our design forward and improving it over time, implementing some of the other features that we have in development. I've even compiled a short list of features that we'll be offering from the early days of HydraDX that have been implemented in other protocols by other teams. We can't wait to put everything together to maximize the efficiency of DeFi capital. We will release an updated roadmap with detailed bullet points that will

Jakub Gregus — We had communication problems for almost our entire history, because until now, we were a very small team of 6 people who managed the entire project, tested and integrated all the new products from Polkadot, Substrate and Parity. We've been doing all this insanely complex research, but fortunately, we've filled in all the missing positions in our organization that we've only recently realized, to our regret. We were too deeply immersed in research or development. For most of November and December, we were looking for people who could fill the holes in the organization, not only in the position of developers, but also in the field of communication, organization, operations and in general, those people who could provide a more professional approach to everything, because very soon We are already planning to launch the project.

All communication with the community should be more subtle and more careful about all changes. The latest blog failure just highlighted the importance of a deeper understanding of what it would look like for the community who are less dedicated or less involved in the project so they don't understand all the nuances. Every other major change will be announced gradually, at least we will randomly select a few people from the community, get feedback and move on to more open development. Almost all of our code is open source and we discuss everything publicly with the community, but in terms of the development process, we are not very ready for this. We tried to do this from the very beginning, but it was not very effective, because you need to have a lot more organization and much more carefully planned tasks, you need to analyze these tasks much better. There were not enough people on the team for this, which we eventually resolved, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but we are working on it. Starting with the publication of this year's strategy and an updated roadmap. This will be a great starting point and everything will be public and for the community first.

Now we have several people who are responsible for the development of the community. Basically, even aggregating all of our research and specs was really a challenge for new people, which we finally solved too, and the reason there were big gaps between us and you in the past is because we've been moving so far. too fast. We tried to be first on Rococo and tried to make the first cross-chain call and transfer. I do not want to make excuses, but for us there was too much of everything and we constantly lacked not only developers, but also positions in the community. We have hundreds of channels. I don't mean with the community, but with all other projects. Projects who want to integrate with us, who want to collaborate with us, who want to work with us or join research, join liquidity mining, etc. We had no intention of running away and hiding from everyone, but there was too much in one moment, finally things get better. We have several people who are responsible for specific things like back-end, front-end, community, security, research, project management, hiring, etc.

Jakub Panik - Let me talk about the current state of development. We had to take a step back because we needed to hire more people. Seeing how everything starts to crumble due to several people visiting the crowdlon interface, we realized that we need to create a strong infrastructure and cooperate with other projects in this direction. We've taken a step back, we've started working with Subsquid on data processing to give users the right data so they can use the apps and be fast and productive. It took a lot more effort than we thought, but we decided to do it because the long term thing that will help us in the future is by doing this we prevent all further problems. These kinds of problems would still happen at the very beginning, but to a much lesser extent, we knew that if 5 thousand people came to our application at one moment, then it would simply collapse and no one would use it. We decided to take a step back and rebuild everything from scratch, create the right infrastructure and this can be 90% usable for HydraDX. We don't just do this for Basilisk, it's a reusable fundamental work. And this will significantly reduce the launch of HydraDX.

I don't want to give dates or anything like that, we've made these mistakes before. It won't be as long as some people might think. Don't get us wrong, we've been involved in startups, but most startups don't have any communication with the community, you just talk to your investors and they always agree if you're doing well. For us, this is something new and in the future we will work better in this area.

Jakub Gregus - For HydraDX, Colin created the final Omnipool spec, which has been double-checked and validated by Blockscience. Developers start working on its implementation. We realized that the HydraDX implementation is much simpler than Basilisk, as Jakub already mentioned. Much of the imported middleware will already be re-engineered.

Colin - As far as Omnipool is concerned, we are at the stage where the basic structure is already in place. We are modeling various scenarios, such as how high fees should be and what makes HydraDX attractive in terms of liquidity. The basic structure is already defined and ready to be implemented.

Question - When you talk about adding assets to the Omnipool, I would like to clarify whether this will be done by the technical community or HydraDX management or, for example, through referendums based on decisions made by HDX holders?

Second question - You said that HDX holders will be charged for using the protocol. How will these fees be distributed to HDX token holders? Could you elaborate on what the distribution mechanics will look like, will it be a share of HDX or will the fees be distributed to holders in the form of dividends or something similar? Can you tell more about this?

Colin - We don't have a general idea of ​​what these fees will look like when the network launches. I gave a list of examples of what could be included in the protocol governance process, but the bottom line was that even if we start without a fee distribution, HDX tokens will be used to govern the protocol from the perspective of the substrate, you will have to change a lot when upgrading during execution. HDX token holders will indeed be able to change or raise the fee to distribute protocol fees to HDX token holders. They have the ability to manage the tokenomics and protocol, but it won't happen on the very first day.

Question - What will be the procedure or mechanics of fees? For example, the management decides that it wants to increase the fees for using the protocol and distribute them among HDX token holders. And after performing a runtime upgrade, what will the mechanics look like? In the form of providing liquidity or staking?

Colin - We have yet to work it out. We are looking at something like a Curve distribution.

Jakub Panik - Fees will be collected in some treasury or there may be a secondary treasury and when we have this treasury we can open access to it and people will be able to receive part of these funds.

Jakub Gregus - Fee allocation is a very complex process because you don't want to turn your token into a security and provoke the regulators. Regulators can be very sensitive to this, pure reallocation of commissions is a clear digital analogue of securities, so the regulators will fine us or close our activities. In cryptocurrencies, you can get away with ransom, which is a kind of indirect redistribution or burn model. There is also the Curve Escrow Model, which we see becoming the gold standard in the industry. Many protocols that use these mechanics are reviewed with their lawyers and everything looks fine.

You need to do some work and this work materializes through the right to vote. This is the essence of the Curve model, which for us is the best candidate for implementation. The entire community is already familiar with this model. At least for once we will not shock and mislead people.

Jakub Panik - Regarding the technical committee. We would like to create a technical council because of the regulators. We need to create a committee that can help us add new tokens or maybe we will find the necessary mechanism that can reduce all risks when adding new tokens to Omnipool. This must be resolved first.

Jakub Gregus—Some networks provide Compound services. They measure the liquidity properties of assets and then, based on the results and models, set collateral ratios, interest rates, and so on. I would also like to create an economic council, not just a technical council. The economic council will support issues related to the economy of tokens, what should be the volume ratio, what should be the size of commissions, what part of the commission should be taken, how to use liquidity. Maybe the HydraDX management can redirect some of the liquidity into DOT tokens and participate in crowdlons, and use the rewards from these crowdlons as liquidity for HydraDX and process it. We will support all these and other economic issues with the technical committee, which will be responsible for the technical safety of these assets. I hope that this committee will be made up of the best people in the industry and I will gladly vote for a very good salary for them.

Question - When we move to the mainnet, the fear of fines (slash) will become real in the mainnet. It's not that scary on the testnet, but once the mainnet goes live, it'll be real. I hear a lot of comments on Discord about some validators not getting nominators. Will it lead to fines? Will it be a problem? Will it make people afraid to nominate? Will this reduce the amount of tokens staked? Because we need more validators to strengthen the network. If the validator goes offline, will he be fined?

Jakub Panik - Regarding the last part of the question, you can go offline and update your node and validator. It is not forbidden, on the contrary, it is encouraged. As for the first part of the question, we probably won't have staking as it is now because the shared security of Polkadot and Kusama means we don't need to maintain it. We thought about staking and using it on the mainnet, but we don't need staking at the very beginning. We only need node holders (Collators - Collators), we do not need a certain number of people doing this, as it is happening now. This is a very big problem because we need to figure out what to do with the people who are doing the validation on the testnet right now, but we have a solution that is probably too early to tell, but we want to decentralize the infrastructure. Not only the internal infrastructure, but also the node infrastructure. We may have incentive schemes for node holders supporting our infrastructure, but it's still too early to tell. We'll refine these ideas as the mainnet launches.

Jakub Gregus - In this case, the penalties will not be as hard or even they will be impossible. Worst case, the node will be unavailable, in which case the user will automatically switch to another node. Listening to you, I understand that there is still a lot of confusion in the Polkadot and Substrate community regarding the role of validators and node holders (Collators), because parachain validators are Polkadot validators. As a parachain, you don't need to have your own validators, you need to have collators. It can be 1 node, 10 nodes, 100 nodes, it doesn't matter, but these collator nodes cannot make invalid network state transitions, so their security properties are not as important as the security of the validators. Collators and full nodes are more service providers than POS validators.

Substrate offers a super powerful feature called off-chain worker nodes (off-chain workers) and it can be used to do a lot of useful work that can be done in parallel or done offline, but they still need to have some share of the tokens at stake to ensure proper validation. This data can be added to the network. These nodes will have staking enabled and these nodes can match off-chain transactions, so it doesn't have to be done entirely on the blockchain, it could be like zero knowledge proof to save a lot of space, etc.

Jakub Panik - It could be data providers. The middleware nodes that provide the data, they can have some share of the HDX tokens staked and prove that my data is correct or if it is incorrect they will be penalized.

Question - My question is about your travels and how you feel about the ecosystem as a whole. What is your view on Substrate after working with it for 1 year. Has it become more or less powerful, in your opinion? And how do you see interaction with other teams? I know you mentioned kUSD as a starting point in Omnipool. What are Acala's incentives to encourage HydraDX when they have their own swap functionality? How do you see yourself in the ecosystem and at what level is your spirit and the spirit of your team?

Jakub Gregus - That's a great question. For example, in early 2020 when we started developing on Substrate with HydraDX, we had a lot more concerns about the ecosystem. There were not many parachains, at least not seen or planned. Now this is no longer a concern. On the other hand, I personally do not see a large flow of new parachains, to be honest, this is my opinion. On the other hand, interesting Substrate networks are very specialized and have very unexpected use cases. I'm much more optimistic about Substrate than I've ever been in conversations with many other developers over the past year. Especially talking to other developers from other ecosystems, when I see how it is implemented, how many ideas or parts of Substrate are implemented in other networks. Obviously the Cosmos SDK is more interoperable because it's much older and field proven, it didn't have any stressful changes in 2019 or 2020 so a lot of projects have moved there, it's a more stable development solution. But when you see that Polygon uses Substrate to access data in its network or Octopus Network on Near protocol uses Substrate to connect specific application networks to Near or Compound chooses Substrate.

Also I see that other Cosmos developers have a lot of respect for Substrate and some of them even choose Substrate for their latest projects or Ethereum developers who are developing an ETH 2.0 client are actually moving to Substrate and are very happy and very happy in particular , off-chain worker nodes, and other Substrate features, especially runtime updates.

A few weeks ago I was talking to the guy who organized and did the first hard fork for Cosmos. We agreed how difficult it is to implement this on any network or system, while any Substrate network, be it Polkadot or Kusama or whatever, hard forks just like that, even every 2-3 weeks, it is simply unthinkable by comparison. with other teams and other projects. I see this as one of the underrated features because there were some mantras that the blockchain should be as immutable as possible, but I don't think that's true. Even Bitcoin in 2018 or 2019 had very critical inflation bugs and you wouldn't expect the old underlying code and simpler blockchain to have such critical flaws that should be fixed as soon as possible and they were super critical. After all, you still need people to maintain the software, to maintain the network, to provide power and electricity.

Every network is still just a tool for people to coordinate and get things done, so you can't just disappear and say, "Yeah, it's the same software." No, it needs to be maintained and that's why I think runtime updates are a very elegant way to evolve and evolve into something better over time - it's the coolest and killer feature Substrate has to offer.

In terms of the ecosystem, meeting many founders makes me more calm and confident, especially the developers make me more calm, as I realized that many of them are super talented people who are moving to Substrate or Polkadot from other ecosystems such as Algorand , Cosmos and they are really wonderful people, not only in terms of knowledge and experience, but also as individuals. Obviously, there are people who are not so cool, who do not have honest intentions to build something great, rather to make quick money, but such people are everywhere. I'm much more confident and satisfied ecosystem than before. On the other hand, the ecosystem has many drawbacks because it is one of the most difficult ecosystems to develop, Avalanche and everything that uses the EVM works great. Of course, you can fork anything that lives on Ethereum and it will work great and just use Metamask.

Using all the infrastructure and tools already built helps any developer to be super fast and deploy projects in weeks or months, while Substrate, Polkadot doesn't have a lot of tried and tested code that you can fork and build something on top of. then improve it. Another thing I could mention is the instrumentation issue, since Substrate and Polkadot are changing too fast, which also caused a lot of delays on our end. Many of the tools and infrastructure were outdated and didn't work very well. It's been very hard in 2019, 2020 and 2021, but it's just a pain in the ass for any new ecosystem. Solana last year or 2020 was very similar, it was very difficult to develop and run something on it. There was no code for the fork, there was no toolkit. It had to be created from scratch. This is also a great opportunity for anyone who can see these problems and instead of complaining, just find solutions and ask for a grant from the treasury to implement these solutions.

The treasury at Polkadot and at Kusama has never been as full as it is now. I think this will finally push a lot of people to work in the ecosystem. So there is everything in the ecosystem as a whole, good things and bad things, this applies to every ecosystem. I've talked to many founders from other ecosystems and everyone complained about something. As always. The whole crypto industry is still at a very early stage, even Ethereum is still at a very early stage of development. There are so many things that are left out or not well done. I think we should see this as a great opportunity, not as a hindrance, and provide support to people who are building ecosystems.

We are at a stage where we need to build an ecosystem and we are moving very strongly in this. Now a stage that I didn't expect in 2019 or 2020, there was much more doubt, but now that we see parachains and XCM launched, all these things work and all the FUD from competitors no longer matters. This is no longer the case, the ecosystem is working and now we can finally move on to the Polkadot and Substrate phase, when most of the code has already been written and implemented, developers can only optimize and improve it.

I'm more optimistic than ever, but other projects should be more about working together as a family rather than trying to build everything on their own. Otherwise, there will be no ecosystem, if they so desire, they can go and build their own ecosystem. It would be great to see better collaboration between the teams, but so far it hasn't happened because everyone was too busy developing their own projects. Finally, more teams are getting to the stage where they are trying to integrate, for example Interlay is doing a lot of integrations, Moonriver and Moonbeam are launching XCM, Acala and Astar and a few other top teams are getting to the stage where they are doing integrations with other projects. We are approaching the stage of an ecosystem, not just a collection of individual networks.

Jakub Panik - I had a conflicted relationship with Substrate. First love, then hate, then love again. Right from the start, Substrate allowed us to roll out the blockchain very quickly, which is unprecedented. We've tried using more developers, we've worked with more developers before, but this was the fastest solution we've tried. After that, we had to do something special and it was very difficult because there were a lot of updates and it slowed us down a lot. It was a growing pain, made worse by the need to launch Polkadot and Kusama. Parity and other developers needed to quickly solve problems and quickly launch the network, I understood this and a few times when we had problems, I dived deep into the Substrate code and thought: “Oh shit, there are millions of lines of code in it”, but this doesn't look like bloated code, it's really good and concise code with research and documentation underneath. I think I saw some blog where Gavin Wood wrote that Substrate has 2 million lines of code, which is a huge help if you have a framework that you can use and it's really powerful. You can build on its base, you can change things as you see fit. Deep diving takes a long time because things change, but right now we're talking to Robert Habermeier and the people who make Substrate. Basically, they are done with the basic functionality. It will not change much, so if you want to start creating something, then there is no better time. We know a lot about this, because we started earlier, but you won't There are no problems like ours. I want to inspire all the founders who were confused by the large number of changes that slowed everyone down, this is no longer a problem. Most things are done and ready, if you're thinking about creating something you should do it right now and I think it's really powerful. I don't know the best option for creating a custom blockchain right now. We are constantly looking for other solutions, but everything has its pros and cons, but it's a really good ecosystem with professional developers and support.

Q - You talked about the Web3 Foundation grants you received. How are things going with the Web3 Foundation. Do they provide support for eg Gavin Wood for HydraDX? Does this mean that the whole ecosystem is waiting for Omnipool and sees value in it? What do you think?

Jakub Gregus - I don't know how aware Gavin Wood is of us, probably yes. We don't talk much with the Web3 Foundation, more with Parity. The Web3 Foundation funds and organizes the research, but the research is ultimately implemented by Parity. Parity is a more important player in the ecosystem in a sense, and it would be better for projects to be closer to them. The grant program is useful for newbies who see some opportunities for tool development or if you want to develop something specific that might be useful to others and that will lower your development costs a bit, but you can't rely on grants only if it's something important, like an ETH bridge or a BTC bridge. We had a validator monitoring grant in 2019 but it didn't get renewed for some weird reason, it got us really pissed off at the start and then got us moving forward, we decided to build something that doesn't depend too much on grants. If you want to create something that is missing in the ecosystem, asking for a grant is one of the best ways you can do it, you can also get some guidance from them on how to implement it. Are you talking about the Subaction Grant?

Question - I would like to know if you cooperate with Parity? Do they expect a product from you and see its value for use in the ecosystem?

Jakub Gregus - This organization needs to be very careful what they report from the outside, they need to remain neutral, they don't want a lot of hype or reporting on specific projects so as not to give the impression to the community or retail people that this is the chosen and correct project, where should you invest your money. Sometimes some projects in the Polkadot ecosystem and other ecosystems use this hype or marketing - "Oh, we get a grant from the Web3 Foundation, they support us", which is very doubtful.

Question - I mean this is not a regular DEX or AMM, it has to be a breakthrough technology. Will the other party appreciate your ideas?

Jakub Gregus - I personally think they don't understand how revolutionary or innovative the project is because most of the people who work for the Web3 Foundation or Parity are not DeFi experts. They are experts in cryptography, Rust, back-end development, networking and other areas. So when they see an Omnipool or something like that, they can't tell how it's better than Sushiswap or another XYK model.

Jakub Panik - We work with these people at Parity and we love them not only as developers but as people in general. They are very good guys. I think they have some confidence in our project and what we are doing.

Jakub Gregus - When we ask them to review the code for us, they review it and then tell us that they didn't find any major bugs, only minor cosmetic issues. They tell other colleagues about it and spread a good word about us when they see other solutions for the infrastructure they are also trying to develop. They know how difficult it is with much more resources, and we did it with less. They can only help with what they are familiar with. They helped us when we launched on the Rococo testnet or when we made the first XCM.

Jakub Panik - This is not the best question for us, because me and Jakub, we hate bragging rights. It is better to ask Parity.

Jakub Gregus - Unfortunately, in my opinion, they don't think much about how it's better or how it's different from other projects, they just don't have time to think about it. There is a lot of pressure on everyone at Parity and the Web3 Foundation to have Polkadot and Kusama fully up and running and successful because everyone expects it to be the more successful or one of the most successful ecosystems because Gavin Wood created Ethereum. They have a lot of work.

Q - Do you want to implement fractional, algorithmic pricing for LHDX?

Jakub Gregus - This is an impressive and interesting question. For example, when we started working with Blockscience in December last year. One of their first questions was: “Do we want to make a stablecoin out of LHDX? It would be significant but simplified a lot of things.” We thought it was an impressive idea, but we don't want to make a stablecoin because it has too many nuances. While we were thinking about it, maybe not a stablecoin, but some asset like RAI Reflexer, which would be very impressive. In addition, the problem that can arise with USD stablecoins or other fiat currencies is starting to develop and inflation is a very serious problem. So I'm not sure if stablecoins would be attractive, maybe some Anchor assets associated with them. If you look at the FEI protocol, it's very similar to HydraDX, but they don't have their own DEX or Terra is very similar in some ways, but having a native token as collateral is very dangerous. In May, we saw Terra almost enter a death spiral. For this reason, they are thinking about introducing BTC as another asset to their pool. These ideas are relevant and very interesting. This would allow for the creation of a stablecoin that can be highly scalable. Also, it could have very organic demand as it would stabilize the pool, but right now it's very futuristic. It's possible, but it's not our priority. If anyone wants to work on it, we'll be happy to support and maybe even fund it, but it's not part of our agenda for the day. Let's start HydraDX and Basilisk first. We have a lot of ideas or features that need to be rolled out to the HydraDX and Basilisk network.

...

Jakub Gregus - I just want to take a look at last year and thank you all for your exceptional patience. We didn't communicate well and often left you in chaos. This was not done on purpose, no one was hiding, no one was spending your money. Thank you all and we look forward to your support as we finally launch our mainnet!

In the old financial world, liquidity is fragmented among many gatekeepers, protecting their business interests, profiting from the upside, while socializing the downside. The cost of liquidity is also high because legacy technology consists of siloed databases.

Blockchain is changing this unfortunate reality by providing an open and universally accessible technology layer for transaction settlement and asset exchange.

However, the dominant blockchain application platform – Ethereum – suffers from being a general platform for many varied use cases – the network is getting clogged and fees are high.

In order to achieve the optimal properties, HydraDX is built as a parachain – specialized blockchain in the Polkadot network. It is benefiting from shared security, speed and flexibility of the Substrate framework while remaining optimized for a single purpose: enabling fluid programmable value exchange.

Thanks to planned interoperability between Polkadot and Ethereum ecosystems, Hydra will tap into Ethereum’s liquidity, talent and community, merging the best of the both worlds.

1)https://hydradx.substack.com/p/hydradx-omnipool-part-1

Earlier, the HydraDX team published an article on their blog in which they introduced the new LHDX token. This caused a lot of confusion among the community and many people asked the team to provide more details on how this token will be used, will it decrease the value of the original HDX token or increase it? The team decided to hold an AMA session on Discord as soon as possible, we have made a detailed translation of this AMA session for you.

Jakub Gregus — I will try to describe as simply as possible our vision behind the LHDX token and why we had to make these changes, as well as the main problems and concerns associated with the previous design of the HDX token.

Imagine that some liquidity mining whales who often use their capital in various liquidity stimulation programs. Let's imagine that these guys want to have power over the entire HydraDX protocol, whether it's short term or long term, so they can get power in Sushiswap or other protocols through liquidity mining. In our case, it can be even worse, because the security of Proof-Of-Stake protocols is usually at a high level, because if someone wants to buy any POS tokens, it does not matter Polkadot or Kusama, Solana or any other POS blockchain. As more tokens are bought on the market, slippage and fees make any additional purchases more difficult because the price starts to rise a lot.

In fact, due to the design of the Omnipool, there will be no increase in price and some whales may invest a lot of capital in Omnipool, which will immediately increase the overall size of the Omnipool. They have 15,000 BTC and are putting it into the Omnipool. During this time, Omnipool will match the amount of liquidity they have deposited and the pool will be huge, which means that slippage will be practically zero, even on any large trade. Even if they start buying millions of HDX, the price will still not move, which is also bad for HDX holders who want to see some increase in the value of the HDX token over time. It's also bad from a security point of view of the entire protocol, because someone could perform an attack that would be much cheaper than an attack on any other Proof-Of-Stake system, because there would be no restrictions on the purchase of HDX tokens. The main problem is that they can gain control over the protocol. They don't even need to provide a lot of liquidity to the pool because Omnipool can be backed by a lot of different assets. If they are smart and patient, it will be impossible to identify these attempts and distinguish them from normal liquidity mining and they can easily carry out this attack. That's why we thought more deeply about it when we saw the current Curve wars, Magic Internet Money is being used to devastate Anchor's yield resources.

Protocol manipulation attacks can have a very low threshold to carry out, this scares us a lot as we take the overall security of the platform as seriously as possible, which also leads to delays in front-end development on Basilisk, since most of this code, approximately 80% will also be used in HydraDX. We are rethinking things even more seriously than before. We realized that “oh shit, this can be very dangerous” and after that we had long internal discussions about this. Before posting about the introduction of the second token, we expected that this could cause a lot of questions, but no one expected that this would cause a FUD of such force, supposedly we are stealing liquidity from the protocol and leaving for the islands. It was clearly ugly and not even close to the truth. That's the story, and I hope everyone understands why we're going to use this protocol design and why it's actually bullish, even for HDX. Thus, the HDX token will have a very strong position in the protocol. So we can move on to questions.

lolmschizz - Governance in Substrate is not the same as governance in any other Ethereum protocol. Almost everything can be changed, it does not matter who will implement it.

Jakub Gregus - For example, dYdX governance token or OpenSea governance token. They don't have much power over the protocols. The dYdX team has been pretty clear about the process of managing dYdX and voting with dYdX, and they were quick to point out that you won't be able to enable sharing of commissions earned by the dYdX protocol. On the other hand, on Substrate, you can choose to switch the network connection from Polkadot to Cosmos, whatever the token holders desire. Someone will prepare the necessary code for this, and the token holders vote for it, and it's not difficult at all if you really want to do it. On the other hand, the runtime update is a very powerful and useful tool and should be taken seriously because it can change absolutely everything.

lolmcshizz - A question a council member asked us. What is the use and the potential value of HDX if we move to a two-token model? What criteria will be used to increase the value of HDX?

What is the advantage of these two tokens? What exactly will be possible to do with HDX?

Jakub Gregus - Yes, exactly. It will be much more difficult to achieve the appreciation and value of HDX tokens if the protocol is backed by billions of assets, which is what we have been aiming for since day one, it will be almost impossible to push the price higher because slippage will be zero even if we trade millions of HDX simultaneously.

Colin - Whatever the pool token, it can be anything, in our case it is LHDX, whatever this central liquidity token is, its supply can be changed very drastically. Therefore, our main concern was that if the protocol succeeds and a lot of liquidity inflows, and HDX is the central liquidity token, each HDX token and its supply will increase greatly, which will dilute the supply of tokens from those participants who hold HDX. Thus, millions of HDX tokens are issued and dilute the total supply - this can be a big hurdle. At the same time, the second LHDX token allows us to take on the volatility of the supply, which gives us a stronger token economy. I would say that HDX and LHDX are tokens that are in a zero-sum game, and with the right design, it can be positive. We need to think about the right combination and features for these two tokens and what system will work well. Here are some applications of the HDX token in protocol governance: if the system works well, the ability to decide which token will be added to this protocol or where exactly the fees will be distributed. The value of such management should certainly increase.

Jakub Gregus - Exactly, the whole history of the market, I was against governance tokens, I really hate them. In my opinion, it's really unfair to the community to give some tokens that are meant to govern the protocol, but in reality, they don't have the power to change anything. We see such cases with OpenSea or dYdX tokens. For HydraDX, this is a completely different scenario, the community can really change everything and choose where to extract value and where not. This should also be decided by the community and researched in every possible way on how best to capitalize on all of HDX's infrastructure and liquidity.

Q - Was the decision to redesign the token entirely in light of recent developments in the liquidity war? Does this sound like what is happening now where people are really trying to take control of the governance tokens because they actually decide where the liquidity goes? Is this to make sure that no group of whales can get hold of a lot of control tokens and have fun protocol games?

Jakub Gregus - In fact, yes, for us it was one of the bells.

Question - Do all these arguments of the community members about the LHDX token have ground under them - “Oh no, the second token appeared out of nowhere and the team was silent all this time, they probably want to deceive us”? As for me, this is an obvious solution to keep the system secure in the long run.

Jakub Gregus - Yes, we thought about it from the very beginning, but Curve Wars and other control token hacks were the last wake-up call for us. We decided for ourselves, “We can’t let this take its course and hope that this story does not affect us.” Huge money will be at stake, and there will be people who will try to cheat the system.

Jakub Panik - Perhaps I could add something from myself. We thought about these problems from the very beginning and we had some solutions to solve them. For example, the introduction of fees or a slight change in the Omnipool model, but each decision introduces serious problems in the design of the protocol. For example, if we change the design of Omnipool, then computing transactions on the network becomes too complex. This will become less efficient for trading. The second solution would interfere with the oracles, because it would create a huge spread on HDX. So we thought about limiting the purchase of HDX from the pool, but that wasn't the ideal solution and we felt it was the only good solution. In the end, the two-token solution turned out to be the best, because there were restrictions on the HDX supply that the previous design did not have.

Jakub Gregus - We spent hundreds of hours creating it with Blockscience and eventually came up with this mechanic. They have a very deep understanding of governance tokens. Blockscience actually simulated an attack on Gitcoin.

Question - I have a question about adding new tokens. Do you have an idea about the conditions for adding new tokens? Are we going to focus on big tokens at the very beginning like DOT, ETH? Will we also give smaller tokens a chance and how often do you plan to add new tokens? Rech Is it about one token per week, ten tokens per week?

Jakub Gregus — Yes, I've been thinking about it a lot lately. We can focus on major tokens and blue chips that are included in some indexes like DPI, MakerDAO, Compound, Aave. All tokens that pass security checks. They have internal security audit teams that dive very deep into all the possible risks associated with these tokens. All of them are fairly secure, then all L1 tokens that could be transferred to the bridge, and most of the legitimate projects from them. I can imagine that some legitimate teams with new projects can be listed faster. For example, a team at the level of Acala or Interlay appears in the ecosystem and we will see that they do an excellent job in all directions. They have security audits and there is little reason for us to wait a year or more for them to be listed. Obviously, we will also have certain volume and liquidity requirements.

Jakub Panik - We can also use Basilisk to assess whether assets have enough volume or are they safe enough for us. In the future, we are thinking about mechanisms that will allow us to include even less secure assets in Omnipool, but they will be limited by liquidity, so they will not pose a big risk to other assets.

Jakub Gregus - The key will be to combine multiple oracles. Chainlink has been field tested, but not everyone agrees. We can combine several other oracles and sources.

Question - The whole DeFi market has become quite crowded over the last year, various DEXs, various networks. What is your marketing strategy for generating sustainable liquidity on HydraDX? Omnipool seems like a pretty tidbit to hack, how do you rate Omnipool's liquidity drain risk and what are your risk mitigation measures?

Jakub Panik - The first thing to do is not to accept assets that are not safe, but we are also thinking of a few measures:

1 - Fees that are based on volume, if there is a huge pressure on one token, then we increase the fee to infinity so that traders cannot withdraw all liquidity in a short time

2 - We're thinking about an emergency stop button, this process will put it to a popular vote if something really bad happens, we should have that emergency measure in place to be able to stop trading if enough people decide to do so. I don't know if other projects have this feature.

Jakub Gregus - It's called "automatic fuse". I also have a vision for how to make decentralized storage more secure. I have an Entropy project in my field of vision, this project is one of the coolest Substrate, which will make trading much more secure, because all assets will be stored elsewhere, perhaps on Statemine or Statemint, DOTsama DeFi will use the rights to them and there will be some withdrawal period to have some buffer if any hack or any miscalculation or error in the code happens, not only in HydraDX or Basilisk, but also in bridges, XCM and other network components. And then, obviously, the most standard measures, such as security audits. We are trying to attract companies that specialize in this, but they have a lot of work in various ecosystems, mainly in Ethereum.

The first question was about the strategy that will help us succeed. In the short term, it will be liquidity mining initiatives that will be subsidized not only by us, but by us and other projects in the Dotsama ecosystem that will indeed offer their own incentives, so there will be incentives for a large influx of users into the ecosystem. There is also some talk of incentivizing the initial launch of ecosystem-wide liquidity through the Kusama and Polkadot treasuries. In fact, the Polkadot Treasury is the best candidate for this. The Polkadot ecosystem is far behind other ecosystems, so we need to put in as much effort as possible on every front, and large incentive programs are being successfully used by most of the alternative ecosystems. So, we have no other way to avoid this.

So, in the medium/long term, bonds that are a bit like Olympus bonds can be a great solution, but ours will be different, they will be similar to traditional bonds. In the case of Olympus, you have bonds with a maturity of 5 days, in fact we will be holding a kind of auction that will encourage bonds with the maximum possible maturity. There may be people who decide to lock their liquidity in HydraDX even for years. I would probably do the same, it will allow us to offer the highest APY we have in the secondary bond market. You can use these bonds as collateral on Angular or maybe other markets because bonds are much more effective at maintaining liquidity than liquidity initiatives. Most of them are very wasteful, this is another observation from the liquidity wars where you have invested billions of dollars in some pools, while these pools generate only a few thousand dollars of commission per day or their volume is much less, so the commissions are very small, so you don't need to incentivize pools to be so bloated.

But what you really need is to incentivize its use, so we will introduce incentives for trading volume, that makes a lot more sense, there is nothing unique or revolutionary about it, because all CEX, I don't mean only crypto CEX, but also stock exchanges or any exchanges in the world use this throughout the history of trading, incentivizing market makers or other parties by offering them discounts on commissions or negative discounts, they really make money on volumes, because if you have liquidity pools with billions of assets , which are just there and no one uses them for trade or exchange, this is not profitable and even wasteful.

And it's not just a look at AMM incentivization, but it's also incentivizing integrations to connect to HydraDX and Basilisk, you allow users to pay fees in the destination protocol they want to pay. For example, users of some wallet need to call a smart contract on Astar or ETH or somewhere else, but they do not want to pay a fee in more scarce assets. They want a predictable fee for this, so HydraDX and Basilisk can provide this service on the Back-end. Users will be able to pay fees in stablecoins whenever they want and using any wallet that will be integrated into our SDK. This is one of the first and most obvious use cases that we will have to finish and prepare on our end. We have seen that AMMs are perfect for these use cases, improving the experience in the cryptosphere, so this is a clear incentive for other application developers to connect with us. The second thing is moving our design forward and improving it over time, implementing some of the other features that we have in development. I've even compiled a short list of features that we'll be offering from the early days of HydraDX that have been implemented in other protocols by other teams. We can't wait to put everything together to maximize the efficiency of DeFi capital. We will release an updated roadmap with detailed bullet points that will

Jakub Gregus — We had communication problems for almost our entire history, because until now, we were a very small team of 6 people who managed the entire project, tested and integrated all the new products from Polkadot, Substrate and Parity. We've been doing all this insanely complex research, but fortunately, we've filled in all the missing positions in our organization that we've only recently realized, to our regret. We were too deeply immersed in research or development. For most of November and December, we were looking for people who could fill the holes in the organization, not only in the position of developers, but also in the field of communication, organization, operations and in general, those people who could provide a more professional approach to everything, because very soon We are already planning to launch the project.

All communication with the community should be more subtle and more careful about all changes. The latest blog failure just highlighted the importance of a deeper understanding of what it would look like for the community who are less dedicated or less involved in the project so they don't understand all the nuances. Every other major change will be announced gradually, at least we will randomly select a few people from the community, get feedback and move on to more open development. Almost all of our code is open source and we discuss everything publicly with the community, but in terms of the development process, we are not very ready for this. We tried to do this from the very beginning, but it was not very effective, because you need to have a lot more organization and much more carefully planned tasks, you need to analyze these tasks much better. There were not enough people on the team for this, which we eventually resolved, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but we are working on it. Starting with the publication of this year's strategy and an updated roadmap. This will be a great starting point and everything will be public and for the community first.

Now we have several people who are responsible for the development of the community. Basically, even aggregating all of our research and specs was really a challenge for new people, which we finally solved too, and the reason there were big gaps between us and you in the past is because we've been moving so far. too fast. We tried to be first on Rococo and tried to make the first cross-chain call and transfer. I do not want to make excuses, but for us there was too much of everything and we constantly lacked not only developers, but also positions in the community. We have hundreds of channels. I don't mean with the community, but with all other projects. Projects who want to integrate with us, who want to collaborate with us, who want to work with us or join research, join liquidity mining, etc. We had no intention of running away and hiding from everyone, but there was too much in one moment, finally things get better. We have several people who are responsible for specific things like back-end, front-end, community, security, research, project management, hiring, etc.

Jakub Panik - Let me talk about the current state of development. We had to take a step back because we needed to hire more people. Seeing how everything starts to crumble due to several people visiting the crowdlon interface, we realized that we need to create a strong infrastructure and cooperate with other projects in this direction. We've taken a step back, we've started working with Subsquid on data processing to give users the right data so they can use the apps and be fast and productive. It took a lot more effort than we thought, but we decided to do it because the long term thing that will help us in the future is by doing this we prevent all further problems. These kinds of problems would still happen at the very beginning, but to a much lesser extent, we knew that if 5 thousand people came to our application at one moment, then it would simply collapse and no one would use it. We decided to take a step back and rebuild everything from scratch, create the right infrastructure and this can be 90% usable for HydraDX. We don't just do this for Basilisk, it's a reusable fundamental work. And this will significantly reduce the launch of HydraDX.

I don't want to give dates or anything like that, we've made these mistakes before. It won't be as long as some people might think. Don't get us wrong, we've been involved in startups, but most startups don't have any communication with the community, you just talk to your investors and they always agree if you're doing well. For us, this is something new and in the future we will work better in this area.

Jakub Gregus - For HydraDX, Colin created the final Omnipool spec, which has been double-checked and validated by Blockscience. Developers start working on its implementation. We realized that the HydraDX implementation is much simpler than Basilisk, as Jakub already mentioned. Much of the imported middleware will already be re-engineered.

Colin - As far as Omnipool is concerned, we are at the stage where the basic structure is already in place. We are modeling various scenarios, such as how high fees should be and what makes HydraDX attractive in terms of liquidity. The basic structure is already defined and ready to be implemented.

Question - When you talk about adding assets to the Omnipool, I would like to clarify whether this will be done by the technical community or HydraDX management or, for example, through referendums based on decisions made by HDX holders?

Second question - You said that HDX holders will be charged for using the protocol. How will these fees be distributed to HDX token holders? Could you elaborate on what the distribution mechanics will look like, will it be a share of HDX or will the fees be distributed to holders in the form of dividends or something similar? Can you tell more about this?

Colin - We don't have a general idea of ​​what these fees will look like when the network launches. I gave a list of examples of what could be included in the protocol governance process, but the bottom line was that even if we start without a fee distribution, HDX tokens will be used to govern the protocol from the perspective of the substrate, you will have to change a lot when upgrading during execution. HDX token holders will indeed be able to change or raise the fee to distribute protocol fees to HDX token holders. They have the ability to manage the tokenomics and protocol, but it won't happen on the very first day.

Question - What will be the procedure or mechanics of fees? For example, the management decides that it wants to increase the fees for using the protocol and distribute them among HDX token holders. And after performing a runtime upgrade, what will the mechanics look like? In the form of providing liquidity or staking?

Colin - We have yet to work it out. We are looking at something like a Curve distribution.

Jakub Panik - Fees will be collected in some treasury or there may be a secondary treasury and when we have this treasury we can open access to it and people will be able to receive part of these funds.

Jakub Gregus - Fee allocation is a very complex process because you don't want to turn your token into a security and provoke the regulators. Regulators can be very sensitive to this, pure reallocation of commissions is a clear digital analogue of securities, so the regulators will fine us or close our activities. In cryptocurrencies, you can get away with ransom, which is a kind of indirect redistribution or burn model. There is also the Curve Escrow Model, which we see becoming the gold standard in the industry. Many protocols that use these mechanics are reviewed with their lawyers and everything looks fine.

You need to do some work and this work materializes through the right to vote. This is the essence of the Curve model, which for us is the best candidate for implementation. The entire community is already familiar with this model. At least for once we will not shock and mislead people.

Jakub Panik - Regarding the technical committee. We would like to create a technical council because of the regulators. We need to create a committee that can help us add new tokens or maybe we will find the necessary mechanism that can reduce all risks when adding new tokens to Omnipool. This must be resolved first.

Jakub Gregus—Some networks provide Compound services. They measure the liquidity properties of assets and then, based on the results and models, set collateral ratios, interest rates, and so on. I would also like to create an economic council, not just a technical council. The economic council will support issues related to the economy of tokens, what should be the volume ratio, what should be the size of commissions, what part of the commission should be taken, how to use liquidity. Maybe the HydraDX management can redirect some of the liquidity into DOT tokens and participate in crowdlons, and use the rewards from these crowdlons as liquidity for HydraDX and process it. We will support all these and other economic issues with the technical committee, which will be responsible for the technical safety of these assets. I hope that this committee will be made up of the best people in the industry and I will gladly vote for a very good salary for them.

Question - When we move to the mainnet, the fear of fines (slash) will become real in the mainnet. It's not that scary on the testnet, but once the mainnet goes live, it'll be real. I hear a lot of comments on Discord about some validators not getting nominators. Will it lead to fines? Will it be a problem? Will it make people afraid to nominate? Will this reduce the amount of tokens staked? Because we need more validators to strengthen the network. If the validator goes offline, will he be fined?

Jakub Panik - Regarding the last part of the question, you can go offline and update your node and validator. It is not forbidden, on the contrary, it is encouraged. As for the first part of the question, we probably won't have staking as it is now because the shared security of Polkadot and Kusama means we don't need to maintain it. We thought about staking and using it on the mainnet, but we don't need staking at the very beginning. We only need node holders (Collators - Collators), we do not need a certain number of people doing this, as it is happening now. This is a very big problem because we need to figure out what to do with the people who are doing the validation on the testnet right now, but we have a solution that is probably too early to tell, but we want to decentralize the infrastructure. Not only the internal infrastructure, but also the node infrastructure. We may have incentive schemes for node holders supporting our infrastructure, but it's still too early to tell. We'll refine these ideas as the mainnet launches.

Jakub Gregus - In this case, the penalties will not be as hard or even they will be impossible. Worst case, the node will be unavailable, in which case the user will automatically switch to another node. Listening to you, I understand that there is still a lot of confusion in the Polkadot and Substrate community regarding the role of validators and node holders (Collators), because parachain validators are Polkadot validators. As a parachain, you don't need to have your own validators, you need to have collators. It can be 1 node, 10 nodes, 100 nodes, it doesn't matter, but these collator nodes cannot make invalid network state transitions, so their security properties are not as important as the security of the validators. Collators and full nodes are more service providers than POS validators.

Substrate offers a super powerful feature called off-chain worker nodes (off-chain workers) and it can be used to do a lot of useful work that can be done in parallel or done offline, but they still need to have some share of the tokens at stake to ensure proper validation. This data can be added to the network. These nodes will have staking enabled and these nodes can match off-chain transactions, so it doesn't have to be done entirely on the blockchain, it could be like zero knowledge proof to save a lot of space, etc.

Jakub Panik - It could be data providers. The middleware nodes that provide the data, they can have some share of the HDX tokens staked and prove that my data is correct or if it is incorrect they will be penalized.

Question - My question is about your travels and how you feel about the ecosystem as a whole. What is your view on Substrate after working with it for 1 year. Has it become more or less powerful, in your opinion? And how do you see interaction with other teams? I know you mentioned kUSD as a starting point in Omnipool. What are Acala's incentives to encourage HydraDX when they have their own swap functionality? How do you see yourself in the ecosystem and at what level is your spirit and the spirit of your team?

Jakub Gregus - That's a great question. For example, in early 2020 when we started developing on Substrate with HydraDX, we had a lot more concerns about the ecosystem. There were not many parachains, at least not seen or planned. Now this is no longer a concern. On the other hand, I personally do not see a large flow of new parachains, to be honest, this is my opinion. On the other hand, interesting Substrate networks are very specialized and have very unexpected use cases. I'm much more optimistic about Substrate than I've ever been in conversations with many other developers over the past year. Especially talking to other developers from other ecosystems, when I see how it is implemented, how many ideas or parts of Substrate are implemented in other networks. Obviously the Cosmos SDK is more interoperable because it's much older and field proven, it didn't have any stressful changes in 2019 or 2020 so a lot of projects have moved there, it's a more stable development solution. But when you see that Polygon uses Substrate to access data in its network or Octopus Network on Near protocol uses Substrate to connect specific application networks to Near or Compound chooses Substrate.

Also I see that other Cosmos developers have a lot of respect for Substrate and some of them even choose Substrate for their latest projects or Ethereum developers who are developing an ETH 2.0 client are actually moving to Substrate and are very happy and very happy in particular , off-chain worker nodes, and other Substrate features, especially runtime updates.

A few weeks ago I was talking to the guy who organized and did the first hard fork for Cosmos. We agreed how difficult it is to implement this on any network or system, while any Substrate network, be it Polkadot or Kusama or whatever, hard forks just like that, even every 2-3 weeks, it is simply unthinkable by comparison. with other teams and other projects. I see this as one of the underrated features because there were some mantras that the blockchain should be as immutable as possible, but I don't think that's true. Even Bitcoin in 2018 or 2019 had very critical inflation bugs and you wouldn't expect the old underlying code and simpler blockchain to have such critical flaws that should be fixed as soon as possible and they were super critical. After all, you still need people to maintain the software, to maintain the network, to provide power and electricity.

Every network is still just a tool for people to coordinate and get things done, so you can't just disappear and say, "Yeah, it's the same software." No, it needs to be maintained and that's why I think runtime updates are a very elegant way to evolve and evolve into something better over time - it's the coolest and killer feature Substrate has to offer.

In terms of the ecosystem, meeting many founders makes me more calm and confident, especially the developers make me more calm, as I realized that many of them are super talented people who are moving to Substrate or Polkadot from other ecosystems such as Algorand , Cosmos and they are really wonderful people, not only in terms of knowledge and experience, but also as individuals. Obviously, there are people who are not so cool, who do not have honest intentions to build something great, rather to make quick money, but such people are everywhere. I'm much more confident and satisfied ecosystem than before. On the other hand, the ecosystem has many drawbacks because it is one of the most difficult ecosystems to develop, Avalanche and everything that uses the EVM works great. Of course, you can fork anything that lives on Ethereum and it will work great and just use Metamask.

Using all the infrastructure and tools already built helps any developer to be super fast and deploy projects in weeks or months, while Substrate, Polkadot doesn't have a lot of tried and tested code that you can fork and build something on top of. then improve it. Another thing I could mention is the instrumentation issue, since Substrate and Polkadot are changing too fast, which also caused a lot of delays on our end. Many of the tools and infrastructure were outdated and didn't work very well. It's been very hard in 2019, 2020 and 2021, but it's just a pain in the ass for any new ecosystem. Solana last year or 2020 was very similar, it was very difficult to develop and run something on it. There was no code for the fork, there was no toolkit. It had to be created from scratch. This is also a great opportunity for anyone who can see these problems and instead of complaining, just find solutions and ask for a grant from the treasury to implement these solutions.

The treasury at Polkadot and at Kusama has never been as full as it is now. I think this will finally push a lot of people to work in the ecosystem. So there is everything in the ecosystem as a whole, good things and bad things, this applies to every ecosystem. I've talked to many founders from other ecosystems and everyone complained about something. As always. The whole crypto industry is still at a very early stage, even Ethereum is still at a very early stage of development. There are so many things that are left out or not well done. I think we should see this as a great opportunity, not as a hindrance, and provide support to people who are building ecosystems.

We are at a stage where we need to build an ecosystem and we are moving very strongly in this. Now a stage that I didn't expect in 2019 or 2020, there was much more doubt, but now that we see parachains and XCM launched, all these things work and all the FUD from competitors no longer matters. This is no longer the case, the ecosystem is working and now we can finally move on to the Polkadot and Substrate phase, when most of the code has already been written and implemented, developers can only optimize and improve it.

I'm more optimistic than ever, but other projects should be more about working together as a family rather than trying to build everything on their own. Otherwise, there will be no ecosystem, if they so desire, they can go and build their own ecosystem. It would be great to see better collaboration between the teams, but so far it hasn't happened because everyone was too busy developing their own projects. Finally, more teams are getting to the stage where they are trying to integrate, for example Interlay is doing a lot of integrations, Moonriver and Moonbeam are launching XCM, Acala and Astar and a few other top teams are getting to the stage where they are doing integrations with other projects. We are approaching the stage of an ecosystem, not just a collection of individual networks.

Jakub Panik - I had a conflicted relationship with Substrate. First love, then hate, then love again. Right from the start, Substrate allowed us to roll out the blockchain very quickly, which is unprecedented. We've tried using more developers, we've worked with more developers before, but this was the fastest solution we've tried. After that, we had to do something special and it was very difficult because there were a lot of updates and it slowed us down a lot. It was a growing pain, made worse by the need to launch Polkadot and Kusama. Parity and other developers needed to quickly solve problems and quickly launch the network, I understood this and a few times when we had problems, I dived deep into the Substrate code and thought: “Oh shit, there are millions of lines of code in it”, but this doesn't look like bloated code, it's really good and concise code with research and documentation underneath. I think I saw some blog where Gavin Wood wrote that Substrate has 2 million lines of code, which is a huge help if you have a framework that you can use and it's really powerful. You can build on its base, you can change things as you see fit. Deep diving takes a long time because things change, but right now we're talking to Robert Habermeier and the people who make Substrate. Basically, they are done with the basic functionality. It will not change much, so if you want to start creating something, then there is no better time. We know a lot about this, because we started earlier, but you won't There are no problems like ours. I want to inspire all the founders who were confused by the large number of changes that slowed everyone down, this is no longer a problem. Most things are done and ready, if you're thinking about creating something you should do it right now and I think it's really powerful. I don't know the best option for creating a custom blockchain right now. We are constantly looking for other solutions, but everything has its pros and cons, but it's a really good ecosystem with professional developers and support.

Q - You talked about the Web3 Foundation grants you received. How are things going with the Web3 Foundation. Do they provide support for eg Gavin Wood for HydraDX? Does this mean that the whole ecosystem is waiting for Omnipool and sees value in it? What do you think?

Jakub Gregus - I don't know how aware Gavin Wood is of us, probably yes. We don't talk much with the Web3 Foundation, more with Parity. The Web3 Foundation funds and organizes the research, but the research is ultimately implemented by Parity. Parity is a more important player in the ecosystem in a sense, and it would be better for projects to be closer to them. The grant program is useful for newbies who see some opportunities for tool development or if you want to develop something specific that might be useful to others and that will lower your development costs a bit, but you can't rely on grants only if it's something important, like an ETH bridge or a BTC bridge. We had a validator monitoring grant in 2019 but it didn't get renewed for some weird reason, it got us really pissed off at the start and then got us moving forward, we decided to build something that doesn't depend too much on grants. If you want to create something that is missing in the ecosystem, asking for a grant is one of the best ways you can do it, you can also get some guidance from them on how to implement it. Are you talking about the Subaction Grant?

Question - I would like to know if you cooperate with Parity? Do they expect a product from you and see its value for use in the ecosystem?

Jakub Gregus - This organization needs to be very careful what they report from the outside, they need to remain neutral, they don't want a lot of hype or reporting on specific projects so as not to give the impression to the community or retail people that this is the chosen and correct project, where should you invest your money. Sometimes some projects in the Polkadot ecosystem and other ecosystems use this hype or marketing - "Oh, we get a grant from the Web3 Foundation, they support us", which is very doubtful.

Question - I mean this is not a regular DEX or AMM, it has to be a breakthrough technology. Will the other party appreciate your ideas?

Jakub Gregus - I personally think they don't understand how revolutionary or innovative the project is because most of the people who work for the Web3 Foundation or Parity are not DeFi experts. They are experts in cryptography, Rust, back-end development, networking and other areas. So when they see an Omnipool or something like that, they can't tell how it's better than Sushiswap or another XYK model.

Jakub Panik - We work with these people at Parity and we love them not only as developers but as people in general. They are very good guys. I think they have some confidence in our project and what we are doing.

Jakub Gregus - When we ask them to review the code for us, they review it and then tell us that they didn't find any major bugs, only minor cosmetic issues. They tell other colleagues about it and spread a good word about us when they see other solutions for the infrastructure they are also trying to develop. They know how difficult it is with much more resources, and we did it with less. They can only help with what they are familiar with. They helped us when we launched on the Rococo testnet or when we made the first XCM.

Jakub Panik - This is not the best question for us, because me and Jakub, we hate bragging rights. It is better to ask Parity.

Jakub Gregus - Unfortunately, in my opinion, they don't think much about how it's better or how it's different from other projects, they just don't have time to think about it. There is a lot of pressure on everyone at Parity and the Web3 Foundation to have Polkadot and Kusama fully up and running and successful because everyone expects it to be the more successful or one of the most successful ecosystems because Gavin Wood created Ethereum. They have a lot of work.

Q - Do you want to implement fractional, algorithmic pricing for LHDX?

Jakub Gregus - This is an impressive and interesting question. For example, when we started working with Blockscience in December last year. One of their first questions was: “Do we want to make a stablecoin out of LHDX? It would be significant but simplified a lot of things.” We thought it was an impressive idea, but we don't want to make a stablecoin because it has too many nuances. While we were thinking about it, maybe not a stablecoin, but some asset like RAI Reflexer, which would be very impressive. In addition, the problem that can arise with USD stablecoins or other fiat currencies is starting to develop and inflation is a very serious problem. So I'm not sure if stablecoins would be attractive, maybe some Anchor assets associated with them. If you look at the FEI protocol, it's very similar to HydraDX, but they don't have their own DEX or Terra is very similar in some ways, but having a native token as collateral is very dangerous. In May, we saw Terra almost enter a death spiral. For this reason, they are thinking about introducing BTC as another asset to their pool. These ideas are relevant and very interesting. This would allow for the creation of a stablecoin that can be highly scalable. Also, it could have very organic demand as it would stabilize the pool, but right now it's very futuristic. It's possible, but it's not our priority. If anyone wants to work on it, we'll be happy to support and maybe even fund it, but it's not part of our agenda for the day. Let's start HydraDX and Basilisk first. We have a lot of ideas or features that need to be rolled out to the HydraDX and Basilisk network.

Jakub Gregus - I just want to take a look at last year and thank you all for your exceptional patience. We didn't communicate well and often left you in chaos. This was not done on purpose, no one was hiding, no one was spending your money. Thank you all and we look forward to your support as we finally launch our mainnet!

Не верьте никому! Путин хороший президент.

What is the Meme Generator?

It's a free online image maker that lets you add custom resizable text, images, and much more to templates. People often use the generator to customize established memes, such as those found in Imgflip's collection of Meme Templates. However, you can also upload your own templates or start from scratch with empty templates.

How to make a meme

Choose a template. You can use one of the popular templates, search through more than 1 million user-uploaded templates using the search input, or hit "Upload new template" to upload your own template from your device or from a url. For designing from scratch, try searching "empty" or "blank" templates.

Add customizations. Add text, images, stickers, drawings, and spacing using the buttons beside your meme canvas.

Create and share. Hit "Generate Meme" and then choose how to share and save your meme. You can share to social apps or through your phone, or share a link, or download to your device. You can also share with one of Imgflip's many meme communities.

How can I customize my meme?

You can move and resize the text boxes by dragging them around. If you're on a mobile device, you may have to first check "enable drag/drop" in the More Options section.

You can customize the font color and outline color next to where you type your text.

You can further customize the font in the More Options section, and also add additional text boxes. Imgflip supports all web fonts and Windows/Mac fonts including bold and italic, if they are installed on your device. Any other font on your device can also be used. Note that Android and other mobile operating systems may support fewer fonts unless you install them yourself.

You can insert popular or custom stickers and other images including scumbag hats, deal-with-it sunglasses, speech bubbles, and more. Opacity and resizing are supported.

You can rotate, flip, and crop any templates you upload.

You can draw, outline, or scribble on your meme using the panel just above the meme preview image.

You can create "meme chains" of multiple images stacked vertically by adding new images with the "below current image" setting.

You can remove our subtle imgflip.com watermark (as well as remove ads and supercharge your image creation abilities) using Imgflip Pro or Imgflip Pro Basic.

Can I use the generator for more than just memes?

Yes! The Meme Generator is a flexible tool for many purposes. By uploading custom images and using all the customizations, you can design many creative works including posters, banners, advertisements, and other custom graphics.

Can I make animated or video memes?

Yes! Animated meme templates will show up when you search in the Meme Generator above (try "party parrot"). If you don't find the meme you want, browse all the GIF Templates or upload and save your own animated template using the GIF Maker.

Do you have a wacky AI that can write memes for me?

Funny you ask. Why yes, we do. Here you go: imgflip.com/ai-meme (warning, may contain vulgarity)

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator