𝗝𝗮𝗲 𝗞𝘄𝗼𝗻 believes that because Gno is deterministic, intuitive and resource efficient, it is superior as a smart contract platform compared to Solidity and using a fork of Golang can attract new developers since there are more Go developers globally than Rust developers.

Currently, Gnoland is working with the community through testnets, focusing on building basic DeFi infrastructure such as DEXs and stablecoin implementations.

Gnoland aspires to create a smart contracts language, a framework, that will be simple yet complete, so that the consensus process between validators is optimized, while taking full advantage of multi-core processors being one itself.Thus Gnoland will be a

multithreaded smart contracts environment, where the concurrent, parallel processing of thousands of smart contracts would be possible, unlike with most other blockchains.

**Why @_gnoland is a game changer in crypto space !!!

-New contracts written in Gno -Interoperable concurrent smart contracts -New language called Gnolang -Multithreading is where multiple threads are run in parallel within a single process -Sustainable token model**

https://faucets.chain.link/rinkeby

https://faucet.paradigm.xyz/

https://xdai-app.herokuapp.com/faucet

https://faucet.egorfine.com/

https://faucet.platon.network/faucet/

https://testnet.binance.org/faucet-smart

https://faucet.polygon.technology/

https://faucet.pops.one/

https://faucet.avax-test.network/

首先，未满24000GP的🧙‍♀️至少要质押满2天才能解除质押

Mint功能暂时关闭了，因为早先时候项目方发现有人通过bug一下mint了四条龙 最近就能修好上线。

官方提供一个传送功能 一键将质押的🧙‍♀️送到训练场质押 但是除非是gen0的🧙‍♀️，不然还是会有10%的几率被🐲抓走。（质押宝箱可以降低被抓几率）

道具系统

神秘宝物（等级：传说）：几率小，但是应该不便宜

龙之鞭（等级：稀有）：质押🧙‍♀️获得，龙之鞭能在ACT2种变成驯龙师，是新增的一个角色

魔法符文（等级：稀有）：训练场质押🐲获得。之前有了四种符文，这是第五种。任务系统会用到。

万能药水（等级：普通）pvp中胜利的队伍会自动被治疗然后参加下一场比赛，受伤的队伍无法参加下一场比赛

食物（等级：普通）：相当于体力，体力耗尽了就没法参加pvp了。

凤凰城（等级：不寻常）：pvp输了的队伍需要回城补给，死亡的队伍不能被挑战

装备维修（等级：不寻常）：装备坏了是无法进行比赛的 需要修好了才能参加pvp

训练场是用来质押获得道具的地方

质押巫师每天可以获得1根皮鞭

龙可以偷质押/解压的巫师，10%的几率（宝箱仍然可以降低概率）质押🐲每天可以获得一块魔法符文

所有的质押都需要消耗GP

训练场游戏-Mint

质押的非0代巫师可以花费12000GP去mint一个随机的道具（有几率开到传说宝箱）0代巫师不需要花GP就可以mint

包括0代巫师，每次训练都有10%的几率销毁你的巫师

随着训练次数的增加 可能有机会获得3根皮鞭。这些道具都是erc1155格式的 所以gas费不会多

ACT2

巫师和龙将留在主网，项目方会想办法把游戏所需的物品跨到Layer2去

任务系统：需要花费符文和GP

PVP：具体信息等公告

——————————————————————————

以上是项目的翻译，下面分享些建议，DYOR

1、如果质押了非gen0巫师，建议先claim GP，再传送。（🧙‍♀️被偷了连GP也会被偷走吗？）

2、Gen0的巫师价格和非Gen0的巫师有差价，opensea卖的时候看好了。

3、巫师多的话 一键传送前记得买个宝箱质押来降低被偷几率

4、个人觉得GP在下一阶段的用量挺大，如果是要深入玩的建议留一些。

5、有人会在opensea打包售卖，譬如1个gen0搭1个gen1但是价格标的是两个gen0的，还有人一个真货一个假货和一起卖，需要当心。

6、建议优先用gen1去训练赌道具 gen0被销毁有点可惜 目前看项目方对gen0的优惠政策很多

Read more: Crypto CEOs Hit Capitol Hill: Here’s What to Expect

0 seconds of 4 hours, 42 minutes, 52 secondsVolume 90%

2:55 p.m. Final update: The hearing ended after four hours and 49 minutes, clocking in as one of the longer Congressional hearings on crypto. Nearly 40 lawmakers asked questions ranging from specifics about stablecoin backing or certain details to broader questions about use cases in the sector.

2:45 p.m. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.) said a “regulation by enforcement” regime is unfair to crypto companies that have to navigate between different regulators, and that he’s willing to work with both Republicans and Democrats in addressing these concerns.

In his view, a primary market regulator working with a private sector self-regulatory organization that can address issues like custody requirements, stablecoin standards and others might make the most sense for the market.

2:25 p.m. Brooks pointed to minimum balance requirements, monthly account maintenance fees and similar requirements as issues that result in underbanked individuals. Stablecoin issuers don’t have these requirements, he told Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.).

Steil also asked if Coinbase has received any further clarity from the SEC about why it cannot offer its now-shuttered Lend product. Haas says the exchange has not heard more.

2:15 p.m. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) asked about bitcoin’s energy usage, noting that the crypto industry “currently consumes enough energy to power a small nation.”

Bitcoin mining uses more energy than Argentina, or Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft combined, Tlaib said. In response, Dixon noted that there’s different types of consensus mechanisms which use less energy or might be more environmentally-friendly.

Tlaib also pointed to Marathon Digital’s powerplant in Montana and Greenidge Generation’s New York plant as examples of how once-shuttered coal plants are being repurposed for crypto uses.

“We all need to focus on minimizing the energy usage,” Dixon says.

2:06 p.m. Todd Phillips, the director of financial regulation at the Center for American Progress, said the Howey test “is clear” in how it’s utilized to define whether something is a security.

“The Howey test says that something is a security if it is ‘a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.’ Basically, if someone raises money to write a DeFi app or something similar by issuing governance tokens, it’s a security and subject to SEC regulation. The test is clear, has been used for nearly 80 years, and efforts to obfuscate that fact are made in bad faith,” he said.

2:05 p.m. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) criticized Sherman’s characterization that Big Tech and large banks control the digital asset sector before asking Brooks how Web 3 might operate.

2:03 p.m. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), after asking Haas to clarify whether Coinbase engages in proprietary trading, went into detail on the role stablecoins play in the digital asset ecosystem.

“If the cryptocurrency industry hypothetically lost its ability to use stablecoins as a bridge to trade in and out of dollars tomorrow, would that cause a significant shift? It seems it wouldn’t be able to work the way it works currently correct?” she asked.

Allaire says stablecoins are faster than the traditional banking system, giving it its edge: “I think it’s essential.”

1:42 p.m. Rep. David Kustoff (R-Ga.) asked about the securities framework, and specifically what the SEC has provided in terms of clarification. Haas says the SEC has “not yet provided a clear definition,” instead pointing to Howey and Reves as analysis frameworks for crypto startups to evaluate.

1:38 p.m. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) brings up last year’s unhosted wallet rule, which the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed near the end of the Trump administration. He specifically asks how the transactions that would be involved differ from MoneyGram or Western Union transactions.

Allaire points to the self-custody aspect, meaning the developer of the wallet would not themselves be involved in any transactions.

“What we argued ... what we really need are ways to provide proof of digital identities,” Allaire said.

1:30 p.m. Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) says he’s concerned about the “nanny state” implementing too many rules for crypto, and asks Brooks about the U.S. regime.

Brooks says the U.S. is unique in having a fragmented regulatory system for banks, and recommends that the U.S. use its existing regulators to apply current rules to crypto, rather than look to have a single regulator oversee the entire industry.

1:27 p.m. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) asked about exchanges’ cybersecurity practices, as well as the PWG report on stablecoin issuers becoming banks. Bankman-Fried noted the use of practices such as 2-factor authentication and the exchange’s work with law enforcement.

Gottheimer said he’s working on a bill to implement some of the PWG’s recommendations, but wants input on the pros and cons of different models for implementation.

1:23 p.m. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) (who isn’t on the committee) sent a statement out commending the Financial Services Committee for holding today’s hearing and mentioning his bill addressing crypto regulation.

“My comprehensive digital asset legislation is an excellent starting point for those efforts. I look forward to continued conversations with Chair Waters and other members of the Committee on how Congress can incorporate digital assets into regulatory frameworks, a need that both industry and regulators emphasize more and more all the time,” he said.

1:12 p.m. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), after a few comments on data collection practices, asks if blockchain can enhance data protections.

Brooks, reiterating a point he made earlier, said blockchains provide transparency. In previous cybersecurity breaches, such as Target or Equifax, people didn’t learn the full scope of the breaches until weeks or months after they happened. In Brooks’ view, a blockchain can provide transparency if a similar situation happens.

1:04 p.m. “The powers in our society” have spent millions on crypto, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) says, pointing to major banks that are getting into crypto.

“If you wonder about where the power is, Zuckerberg had to come out here and sit there. Brian Armstrong sent his number two. And Tether didn’t bother to show up at all,” he says in warning regulators not to wait for legislation to begin regulating.

12:59 p.m. Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) leads Bankman-Fried down a line of questioning to establish what sort of protections the exchange provides for its users, before saying he was “confused” about how the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allowed a bitcoin futures ETF to launch, but not a spot ETF.

12:52 p.m. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) asks if any of the witnesses would have an objection to “controlled anonymity” within a digital currency, meaning a court could de-anonymize an account for illicit activity (none of the witnesses objected).

12:40 p.m. Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.) is asking about the broker provision in the bipartisan infrastructure law, which Dixon responds to by noting that some entities might not have the requisite information to comply should they be classified as brokers.

12:16 p.m. Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) jokes about how we can have an entire hearing on stablecoins and other issues, but asks whether Allaire supports the recommendations from the President’s Working Group report on stablecoins.

“I support a number of things, but not uniformly. I think there are a number of challenges in the report,” Allaire says. His first question is “what form” the federal charter for a stablecoin issuer would take.

Other details need clarification as well, he says.

12:08 p.m. Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) is asking about digital dollars: “We have a digital dollar ... it’s fiat.” He ran out of time before he could complete the question but he’s essentially asking what the argument for a blockchain-based digital dollar is as opposed to a digitized fiat dollar, such as what we already have now.

11:59 a.m. Brooks used the Motion Picture Association’s rating system for movies to explain the Crypto Rating Council, saying some digital assets had an “R rating” and some had a “PG rating.”

11:57 a.m. Nick Anthony, manager at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, says “It’s important to recognize that while Chairwoman Waters called attention to the environmental costs of cryptocurrencies, she also followed this note by acknowledging the benefits that the technology offers – a key element that many critics omit. It may be a subtle change, but this acknowledgment might be the start of a long-needed change in the conversation.”

11:57 a.m. Nick Anthony, manager at the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, says “It’s important to recognize that while Chairwoman Waters called attention to the environmental costs of cryptocurrencies, she also followed this note by acknowledging the benefits that the technology offers – a key element that many critics omit. It may be a subtle change, but this acknowledgment might be the start of a long-needed change in the conversation.”

11:54 a.m. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) asked about how platforms might control users, pointing to Novi specifically -- social media companies already control users on their platforms even if the internet itself is broader than that, he noted.

11:45 a.m. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) asks about global coordination of regulation in crypto, and what U.S. policymakers can do here.

11:37 a.m. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) asked how exchanges identify fraud and mitigate risk.

Coinbase’s Haas says the exchange assesses assets from technology and risk perspectives before listing them.

11:30 a.m. Matt Homer, executive in residence at Nyca Partners and former executive deputy superintendent at the New York Department of Financial Services, says “Testimony is making it clear that crypto is already regulated. Focus should be on gaps and creating level playing field.”

11:20 a.m. Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) asked about stablecoins, specifically asking if Allaire and Cascarilla would support a federal mandatory reporting requirement (both said yes).

11:10 a.m. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) is asking Haas about a cyberattack earlier this year that led to a hot wallet losing funds.

Haas says not a lot of funds were at risk, and Coinbase reimbursed any impacted customers. Maloney followed up by asking if this sort of protection is Coinbase-specific or something all platforms offer (it was Coinbase specific).

Maloney also asked about ransomware, as chair of the House Oversight Committee.

11:05 a.m. From Andreessen Horowitz policy lead Tomicah Tilleman: “This is the first time Members of Congress are using the platform of a full committee hearing to highlight that Web 3 is the future of the internet. It’s a historic inflection point in the national conversation around decentralized tech. You’re also seeing members acknowledge the potential of web3 platforms to solve a lot of problems they care about, including remittances and financial inclusion. The tone so far from all participants has been reasonable and constructive. So far, so good.”

11:02 a.m. McHenry follows up with a question about Web 3 to Brooks, who then outlines how he defines the differences between Web 1 (sites publishing content), Web 2 (people being able to publish content) and Web 3.

10:59 a.m. Waters kicks things off with a pointed comment to Cascarilla: “I’m a bit concerned about your company” because of the Novi pilot project she said. She asks how Facebook can be trusted not to expand beyond its pilot given Facebook’s history.

“Novi is Paxos’ customer,” Cascarilla says, adding it’s just like any other customer. He says Paxos conducted its due diligence into the Facebook (now Meta) subsidiary.

In response to a follow-up, Cascarilla says Novi itself would be best placed to answer questions about how it might expand this pilot.

10:50 a.m. Coinbase Inc CEO/Coinbase Global CFO Alesia Haas says her firm holds 12% of the world’s crypto on its platform.

10:47 a.m. Everyone’s talking about financial inclusion today.

10:45 a.m. Stellar CEO Denelle Dixon actually discussed some of the other use cases, pointing to the Stellar Development Foundation’s work with Moneygram for a remittance tool as an example.

10:43 a.m. Paxos CEO Charles Cascarilla also pointed to the role cryptocurrencies/stablecoins can play in banking underbanked individuals. It’s been a bit of a theme so far today. I have to imagine a few members might have questions about the ‘how’ here.

10:37 a.m. Brooks made the claim that the current regulatory regime is driving legitimate activity offshore: “Can anyone explain ... why Fidelity Investments, one of America’s best-known investment advisors, had to go to Canada to offer a bitcoin ETF?”

He pointed to other activities legal in locations like Germany to further emphasize this point.

10:35 a.m. Bitfury Group CEO Brian Brooks (/former Binance US CEO/former Acting Comptroller) briefly outlined Bitfury’s business (i.e. mining) before pivoting to what he sees as the key issues in the regulation conversation. He quoted from his written testimony directly here, asking about securities enforcement without allowing registration, treating stablecoin issuers as banks but not granting them bank charters, etc.

10:32 a.m. FTX CEO and founder Sam Bankman-Fried emphasized the role he sees cryptocurrencies playing in providing financial services to un/underbanked individuals, pointing to the stated goal of disintermediation in his remarks.

10:30 a.m. Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire summarized his written remarks in his opening testimony: He briefly summarized the history of stablecoins and the role they can play in financial services. He pointed to what Circle in particular has been doing, including a mention of USDC’s backing.

10:16 a.m. And yes, crypto twitter got a shoutout lol

10:15 a.m. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the ranking member, calls 2021 “the year of cryptocurrency,” adds that much of the sector is already regulated, even if the regulations that exist are “clunky.” He warns against overregulating the industry in his opening statement.

10:14 a.m. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the committee chair, kicked off the hearing with “today’s hearing is part of this Committee’s ongoing [effort]” to understand crypto and the issues around it. Much of her opening statement resembled the hearing memo, outlining both what FSC has done this year on crypto as well as some of the key issues to be discussed.

10:02 a.m. While we wait for this hearing to get started, here’s a quick preview I wrote up for CoinDesk. The House Financial Services Committee also published a memo outlining the broad focus for today, which is worth a look as well.

10:00 a.m. The House Financial Services Committee is meeting to discuss crypto trading platforms and stablecoins today. CoinDesk’s Nikhilesh De will liveblog the hearing.

Consider the average "big block chain" - very high block frequency, very high block size, many thousands of transactions per second, but also highly centralized: because the blocks are so big, only a few dozen or few hundred nodes can afford to run a fully participating node that can create blocks or verify the existing chain. What would it take to make such a chain acceptably trustless and censorship resistant, at least by my standards?

Here is a plausible roadmap:

• Add a second tier of staking, with low resource requirements, to do distributed block validation. The transactions in a block are split into 100 buckets, with a Merkle or Verkle tree state root after each bucket. Each second-tier staker gets randomly assigned to one of the buckets. A block is only accepted when at least 2/3 of the validators assigned to each bucket sign off on it.

• Introduce either fraud proofs or ZK-SNARKs to let users directly (and cheaply) check block validity. ZK-SNARKs can cryptographically prove block validity directly; fraud proofs are a simpler scheme where if a block has an invalid bucket, anyone can broadcast a fraud proof of just that bucket. This provides another layer of security on top of the randomly-assigned validators.

• Introduce data availability sampling to let users check block availability. By using DAS checks, light clients can verify that a block was published by only downloading a few randomly selected pieces.

• Add secondary transaction channels to prevent censorship. One way to do this is to allow secondary stakers to submit lists of transactions which the next main block must include.

What do we get after all of this is done? We get a chain where block production is still centralized, but block validation is trustless and highly decentralized, and specialized anti-censorship magic prevents the block producers from censoring. It's somewhat aesthetically ugly, but it does provide the basic guarantees that we are looking for: even if every single one of the primary stakers (the block producers) is intent on attacking or censoring, the worst that they could do is all go offline entirely, at which point the chain stops accepting transactions until the community pools their resources and sets up one primary-staker node that is honest.

Now, consider one possible long-term future for rollups...

Imagine that one particular rollup - whether Arbitrum, Optimism, Zksync, StarkNet or something completely new - does a really good job of engineering their node implementation, to the point where it really can do 10,000 transactions per second if given powerful enough hardware. The techniques for doing this are in-principle well-known, and implementations were made by Dan Larimer and others many years ago: split up execution into one CPU thread running the unparallelizable but cheap business logic and a huge number of other threads running the expensive but highly parallelizable cryptography. Imagine also that Ethereum implements sharding with data availability sampling, and has the space to store that rollup's on-chain data between its 64 shards. As a result, everyone migrates to this rollup. What would that world look like?

Once again, we get a world where, block production is centralized, block validation is trustless and highly decentralized, and censorship is still prevented. Rollup block producers have to process a huge number of transactions, and so it is a difficult market to enter, but they have no way to push invalid blocks through. Block availability is secured by the underlying chain, and block validity is guaranteed by the rollup logic: if it's a ZK rollup, it's ensured by SNARKs, and an optimistic rollup is secure as long as there is one honest actor somewhere running a fraud prover node (they can be subsidized with Gitcoin grants). Furthermore, because users always have the option of submitting transactions through the on-chain secondary inclusion channel, rollup sequencers also cannot effectively censor.

Now, consider the other possible long-term future of rollups...

No single rollup succeeds at holding anywhere close to the majority of Ethereum activity. Instead, they all top out at a few hundred transactions per second. We get a multi-rollup future for Ethereum - the Cosmos multi–chain vision, but on top of a base layer providing data availability and shared security. Users frequently rely on cross-rollup bridging to jump between different rollups without paying the high fees on the main chain. What would that world look like?

It seems like we could have it all: decentralized validation, robust censorship resistance, and even distributed block production, because the rollups are all invididually small and so easy to start producing blocks in. But the decentralization of block production may not last, because of the possibility of cross-domain MEV. There are a number of benefits to being able to construct the next block on many domains at the same time: you can create blocks that use arbitrage opportunities that rely on making transactions in two rollups, or one rollup and the main chain, or even more complex combinations.

A cross-domain MEV opportunity discovered by Western Gate

Hence, in a multi-domain world, there are strong pressures toward the same people controlling block production on all domains. It may not happen, but there's a good chance that it will, and we have to be prepared for that possibility. What can we do about it? So far, the best that we know how to do is to use two techniques in combination:

• Rollups implement some mechanism for auctioning off block production at each slot, or the Ethereum base layer implements proposer/builder separation (PBS) (or both). This ensures that at least any centralization tendencies in block production don't lead to a completely elite-captured and concentrated staking pool market dominating block validation.

• Rollups implement censorship-resistant bypass channels, and the Ethereum base layer implements PBS anti-censorship techniques. This ensures that if the winners of the potentially highly centralized "pure" block production market try to censor transactions, there are ways to bypass the censorship.

So what's the result? Block production is centralized, block validation is trustless and highly decentralized, and censorship is still prevented.

Three paths toward the same destination.

So what does this mean?

While there are many paths toward building a scalable and secure long-term blockchain ecosystem, it's looking like they are all building toward very similar futures. There's a high chance that block production will end up centralized: either the network effects within rollups or the network effects of cross-domain MEV push us in that direction in their own different ways. But what we can do is use protocol-level techniques such as committee validation, data availability sampling and bypass channels to "regulate" this market, ensuring that the winners cannot abuse their power.

What does this mean for block producers? Block production is likely to become a specialized market, and the domain expertise is likely to carry over across different domains. 90% of what makes a good Optimism block producer also makes a good Arbitrum block producer, and a good Polygon block producer, and even a good Ethereum base layer block producer. If there are many domains, cross-domain arbitrage may also become an important source of revenue.

What does this mean for Ethereum? First of all, Ethereum is very well-positioned to adjust to this future world, despite the inherent uncertainty. The profound benefit of the Ethereum rollup-centric roadmap is that it means that Ethereum is open to all of the futures, and does not have to commit to an opinion about which one will necessarily win. Will users very strongly want to be on a single rollup? Ethereum, following its existing course, can be the base layer of that, automatically providing the anti-fraud and anti-censorship "armor" that high-capacity domains need to be secure. Is making a high-capacity domain too technically complicated, or do users just have a great need for variety? Ethereum can be the base layer of that too - and a very good one, as the common root of trust makes it far easier to move assets between rollups safely and cheaply.

But also, Ethereum researchers should think hard about what levels of decentralization in block production are actually achievable. It may not be worth it to add complicated plumbing to make highly decentralized block production easy if cross-domain MEV (or even cross-shard MEV from one rollup taking up multiple shards) make it unsustainable regardless.

What does this mean for big block chains? There is a path for them to turn into something trustless and censorship resistant, and we'll soon find out if their core developers and communities actually value censorship resistance and decentralization enough for them to do it!

It will likely take years for all of this to play out. Sharding and data availability sampling are complex technologies to implement. It will take years of refinement and audits for people to be fully comfortable storing their assets in a ZK-rollup running a full EVM. And cross-domain MEV research too is still in its infancy. But it does look increasingly clear how a realistic but bright future for scalable blockchains is likely to emerge.

from

https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2021/12/06/endgame.html