Transcript of the May 3rd Telegram AMA with Aventus CEO, Alan Vey
May 03, 2022
During our latest Telegram AMA, Aventus CEO, Alan Vey, answered a variety of questions from the community, with topics ranging from new AVT listings to Security and Ethereum 2.0 support.
In case you missed it, we’ve pulled together the below transcript from the AMA so you can see exactly what questions Alan answered and stay up-to-date with the latest Aventus information:
From Blake: #AMA
On page 9 of the Whitepaper it states;
“On L2, validators are not currently incentivised to prioritise certain transactions based on how much “gas” the extrinsic sender is willing to pay. Hence, we can expect that the transactions are executed in a first in / first out fashion.”
In simple terms, would it be correct to say that this design means there is at present MEV protection when using Aventus Network?
I.e. People will not be able to be front-run by bots looking at the mempool (a form of modern-day theft on Ethereum in my opinion), when trading on a DEX on Aventus Network?
Yes. The design being referenced here would prevent what has been described however with the revitalisation of governance on the network, the community would have quite a say in the design and operational logic of the network.
Given we have rolled out in a B2B fashion first making sure we can really be usable by businesses as they function today, a key element was ensuring not just low costs but predictable costs. This was the core reason for this design decision
From Pazuro: #AMA are we on track to reach 1 billion transactions by the end of 2022 (as estimated in a previous AMA)?
It is hard to predict the future especially in bearish markets. Given some of the very high profile client deals we will be announcing over this quarter it is certainly possible. We continue to push hard on this, however we also have a new form of transaction on the Aventus Network we have been focusing on since the announcement of the 1bn number which are NFTs. These, whilst lower in volume, are much higher in margin (i.e. AVT paid per transaction).
From Blake: 5) #AMA
Is it correct that Summaries is another form of Rollup so could be known as a Summaries Rollup, just like there are Optimistic Rollups and ZK-Rollups?
Summaries and rollups are fundamentally different, operating on different sets of assumptions and verification procedures. We have put out some information on this so far and now have a blog post coming out soon on the differences to make it really clear. I would say this is a category of its own
Furthermore as we move to deriving our security from Polkadot, this becomes less relevant and the elements of our bridge to and from Etheruem is where it is worth placing focus.
If Ethereum Gas fees massively increased would Aventus further increase how often summaries are calculated and posted to L1, in order to keep transaction fees for business constant, at the sacrifice of security in terms of how recent the latest Summary checkpoint are?
These sorts of decisions will not be made alone. In this case we would come to the community, given the launch of our governance application and ask for feedback. Ultimately with all the facts, most AVT holders have the right incentives to make the best decision for the network. That is one of the options, the other is passing on the cost with a notice period to clients, a third is investing in infrastructure to lower the cost of operating validators so the savings can come from there.
From Corey: #AMA
Would Aventus consider calling their roll-up technology something like “Summaries Rollup” or “S-Rollup” to help investors and clients understand outright that their technology is a “roll up” by simply reading the word that people already understand and that is highly sought after in the industry?
As discussed above, 1) it functions quite differently to a roll up so this would be inaccurate and 2) in moving from deriving security from Ethereum to deriving security from Polkadot, this technology becomes less relevant for our ecosystem.
From Blake: #AMA
How does Aventus Network’s POS security model using Summaries, differ from Polygon’s POS chain security model using checkpoints posted to the root chain, as described here?
The high level abstract flow is very similar in both, however we are a Substrate Based Chain and Polygon is not, so there are complexities that are simply not discernable on the surface when looking at this high level. The key points of difference are that Substrate Technology is a fully fledged blockchain in its own right, which we tweaked to derive security from Ethereum, rather than Polygons approach where it could not function independently to the same degree.
From Blake: 4) #AMA
In the Whitepaper pages 18-19, it explains that;
Aventus uses Summarises to declare the current state of the Ledger to L1, in the form of a Merkle Root Hash. This is to allow the possibility of resetting the AVN to a previous accepted state if required.
It also explains that due to high gas fees on L1, the rate in which summaries are calculated and published happens once every 24hrs.
The resulting root hash must be signed by ≥ 2/3 of the validators on the network before it can be accepted on Ethereum as valid.
Ronin networks, which is a sidechain which the popular NFT game Axie infinity runs on top of, was recently hacked with $600million in users funds lost.
The hackers were able to obtain 5 of the 9 total validator keys to perform the attack and as they are not a layer 2 like Aventus they have no way of rolling back to a previous state.
Aventus only has 10 Validator nodes at present. To perform the same attack it seems a hacker would only need to obtain 2/3rds of the Validator keys i.e in Aventus’s case, keys from 7 of the Validator nodes.
Does this low number of Nodes open up the Aventus network make the network open to the same attack?
No it does not. 7 out of these 10 validator nodes are run by 3rd party companies meaning that an attacker would have to successfully obtain the keys of validator nodes from these 7 independent and quite secure entities. This would be quite a difficult feat to achieve.
From Blake: 3) #AMA
On page 4 of the white paper it states that;
“Fandragon has most recently done a deal for its ticket wallet with industry titan, Live Nation.”
This statement to me (and possibly others)indicates Fandragon is presently in partnership with LiveNation.
Is this deal active or has it ceased?
If it has ceased, to make it clearer, could the statement be altered to along the lines of;
“Fandragon had previously done a deal for its ticket wallet with industry titan, Live Nation”
If the deal is still active that is Fantastic and nothing needs to be clarified further!
We will update this for clarity in future iterations, the deal was delivered on however given the current economics in ticketing for events, no one is spending on new tech.
We hope to pick up conversations once the industry has had significant recovery from COVID.
It is clear that the Ronin network is looking to further scale and increase their security but they have not found a production-ready layer 2 yet. The CEO of Ronin network Sky Mavis stated;
“We are also looking into various solutions to further strengthen and scale Ronin. zKSyncs, for example, is looking promising, but it could take time until it’s production-ready — particularly for NFTs and games.”
Aventus is production-ready as businesses are already building on top of it. Have Aventus approached Ronin Networks about helping them expand using Aventus Network?
We have not, but this is high on the list of priorities and we will be doing so in the coming weeks.
Is this something Aventus would consider as it has been pursuing gaming partnerships?
Ronin networks with Axie Infinity running on top of Aventus would be a massive achievement in my opinion.
Yes, it is perfectly aligned with our vision, although we would hope any partner sees the benefit in moving to a base chain deriving security from Polkadot, whilst remaining compatible with Ethereum.
From Mojo: Hi Alan,
You mentioned: “The cost to transfer ETH or any other token on the AvN is £0.05-0.01 depending on the volume from the sender.”
How much will the swap token fee be?
Currently, with the efficiency of the substrate (Rust) base architecture, we are finding there to be very little difference in overhead between different types of transactions. I cannot say for sure until this functionality has undergone extensive testing in different simulated environments, however, I expect it to be very similar.
Polygon is building a suite of ETH scaling solutions using a few different technologies, including sidechains and zk-rollups, & Boba has their own spin on this too.
Will you be offering a suite of scaling solutions too? (If so, can you give us some clues as to what areas these will cover) and, or, what are the main stand out/differentiating elements of your L2 tech compared to the leading competitors?
We do not see the point in deriving security in various different ways from Ethereum. What we have achieved is the objectives of our clients and continues to do so projecting forward. We will however be moving into the Polkadot community so that will be a very different way of providing scalability whilst remaining compatible with Ethereum.
Key stand out point is 1) we have rolled out B2B first with an enterprise strategy. THis means we have much more supporting infrastructure built around the AvN making the UX / DX seamless for integration, 2) we have a big focus on interoperability, hence the move to polkadot for cross parachain communication whilst bridging ethereum currently and other in the future.
Approximately, how much TVL do you anticipate to have locked on AvN over the coming 12 & 24 months via:
- VOW currencies specifically
- All other partners
Hard to answer since it requires me taking a view on what the market cap of the various tokens in our ecosystems will do and I cannot talk to price. All of VOW / vCurrency will transact on Aventus and the majority of their loyalty providers run custodial solutions which means I expect 90+% of the VOW ecosystem to remain on aventus. Also we now issue assets directly in the AvN (all of our NFTs are done on this basis) so the notin TVL does not apply to those. Also all PIP transactions are AvN based and we expect by building the key building blocks around swapping tokens etc that we will be able to keep most within the AvN.
How many additional VC partnerships, and, or, funding rounds would you like to have over the coming 12 months
Funding wise we do not need any partnerships for Aventus over the next 12 months. However partnering with VCs is much more about driving traffic for us and on that front we would like at least another couple, focused in the US probably.
From Judd: Is Aventus going to support Ethereum in this merge? Like, with scaling and fees?
If this means once Ethereum moves to its version 2 then absolutely we will continue to support it.
Not a question, just wanted to thank you! Everything makes complete sense. Sorry for the confusion about roll-ups, I heard Anna say this was what Aventus was using in a previous AMA but I think the way things are being done is even more bullish!
Yes we are actively working on Kraken and Binance. One of which has already agreed listing when we formally announce our parachain proposition.
In fact, our main concern is the market value of AVT,
Thanks Cory, no problem at all, appreciate your feedback.
I have to leave for another engagement now, but thanks all for your participation, see you soon.
A big thanks to everyone who participated in today’s Telegram AMA. Keep an eye out for details of the next AMA set to be announced in the next couple of weeks.
You can stay updated with Aventus and the press by following us on our social channels.