Man, Jackson. That intro beats smooth. I like that. Welcome to Market Talks, everybody. Sorry, we're running a little bit late today. We had some a few technical difficulties, but they're all sorted. I think that you waiting will definitely be rewarded. It was worth the time. I'm Ray, head of markets at Point Telegraph. And in today's show, we're going to discuss the latest events that are shaping the markets. And we will also bring you insights from industry leaders and experienced traders. Today's guest is Jake, also known as Korean Jew Crypto on Twitter. What's good, KJ? What's happening, Ray? Thank you so much for having me on. It's been a... Yeah, you did good. You didn't fumble. Had some technical difficulties. Yeah, it was a little hectic. And people that watch my YouTube know that when it comes to setting up a stream and technology, that's not exactly my forte. I'm kind of a boomer, but we made it happen. Likewise. Yeah, I'm a boomer too. Even though we're on tech all day long, I just use it in kind of an instant gratification consumer sense. Don't actually read manuals or understand anything beyond like click, delete, pay. So it is what it is. Do you prefer to be called Jake? KJ? What do you prefer? I think KJ is pretty standard. That's what most people tend to call me. Gotcha. But it doesn't matter. All right. So for the audience, if nobody knows KJ, Jake is an independent market analyst and educator. He's got more than 113,000 followers on Twitter. Do you have a blue check or are you going to pay the $8 for it? No, I mean, well, $8 is a lot better than like 15K, which is what people were asking for. And I was like, you know what? I'm not paying that. So $8, I think that's doable. I didn't like how Elon came out with this group of peers that really seemed to be leaning in one direction. It didn't seem to be a diverse group, but Twitter's, I think it's in good hands. I'm excited to see how it looks. I do too. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like the platform is, like it's not ingenuitive. It definitely is not, like the user interface is not as dynamic as it could be. There's a lot of room for innovation. And I think that while he's a controversial person, right, and there's some things we can agree or disagree with, I think he's the dude to at least experiment with it and take it in a new direction. Because as is, it's boring, right? So make some changes. The worst that can happen is Twitter stays the same as it is now. And we all still use it anyway. So, you know, I'm good with it. It's the marketplace of ideas and interaction with people across the world that makes it great. Like the people are the product. You don't need, it doesn't need to be a sexy interface or anything like that. Obviously updates and improvements will go a long way. But really, it's more of like the freedom to speak your mind within reason, of course, not just, you know, saying anything you want. But it needs to be a little less restrictive. In my opinion, we need to do away with the bots, you know, the scamming and all that. And if you can do that, I mean, it's, it's, it'll be fine. If not, there will be something new. And in my hope, something decentralized that that emerges. But I think, I think Elon's going to write this ship when it comes to Twitter. Yeah, I agree. I agree. So KJ, you're also the CEO and founder of the Trading Dojo, a platform that provides quality coaching and education to help traders identify profitable trades on their own. So I like that. Teach a man to fish to eat forever. Yeah, I don't know what the inverse of that is. Keep feeding a bird food in its nest and I'll never leave and fly. Right. So that's right. Educate us today. We're going to talk about a range of topics. So let's kick off with your perspectives on, you know, post FOMC and we got a CPI report coming up. The Fed has increased rates by seven, you know, 0.75%. And yesterday's presentation of all that information. Did you hear any particular language from Chairman Powell that might lead you to believe that a change in market direction and sentiment could be on the cards and talk to me a little bit about your perspective as a trader on the whole CPI FOMC trade. So price tends to like correct leading into FOMC. And then if the delivery of interest rates are or the CPI print is within the consensus of expectation for, you know, market participants, then we get a little bit of a rally and then like inequities and also in crypto. And then before the day ends, we've retraced all those gains and we're back either at support or below support again. So you wait till the dust settles. So I've traded it. Yesterday I went out of my way. Well, at least I told my friends and the people that I'm trading with, like I'm just not going to mess with it because it just felt like a little too much like gambling as well as I'm preparing for a crypto fight in two weeks. I'm going to Dubai on Sunday. So like I didn't have the ability to sit there next to Squawkbox and be ready to act as soon as possible. So I'm like, you know what, I just want to see how this plays out, how the dust, what it looks like when the dust settles. But at the same time, in regards to like what Powell said and the way the news cycle has been, a few weeks ago, I was very adamant that something has changed and I was quite bearish. I was expecting a support break of Bitcoin and Ethereum and everything else. And I believe it was a Friday. We got the dip that swept everybody out of a tight range and it was immediately bought back. And at the same time, you saw Japan's federal bank kind of stepping in as well as the Fed, the Fed had bullied from the Fed, had some bullish things to say. And we reclaimed support and held on with nice volume as well as in stocks. And I said to my friends and the dojo, like something's different. Like that was supposed to break down, but there were buyers there, like a lot of them. And the market just feels very different. And in the upcoming days after, you're starting to see like across the board, the language coming out of all the big players in banking is starting to change a little bit. You saw Canada making some adjustments. I know China has some sort of thing where they're not supposed to sell a certain amount, but it's just like all of a sudden from that moment, as soon as that dip was gobbled, the whole news cycle and everything globally seems to have pivoted in a way. And not to say that we're just bullish now and going to be shooting out of here and making an all-time high kind of similar to like what we did in last October, November. That's not my expectation. However, I was definitely looking for a rally, which is now stalling at like giga resistance basically. So like foam seas coming, you're at major, major resistances. It's a time to be careful. But however, if we're able to push through these levels, like a really strong rally could be in the cards and you're starting to see a lot of signs of that as well. Like for instance, Doge, which I'm sure we'll be covering. We're talking about Elon. We got to talk about Doge. But there are plenty of signs to indicate that potentially the bottom is in. That's how I'm seeing it. I wouldn't rule out a retest of the lows, but I think the next three to four months is like, I'm like a permeable here. Let's put it that way. I'm buying every dip. That's how I see it. And to prepare for 2023 and 2024 and what comes then. But this is like maximum opportunity. So you did hear leading into FOMC like from the White House, apparently Biden was kind of saying Biden supports a pivot and Bullard said that. And then there were some other leaks about BlackRock and some other giant fund talking about, we are going to possibly start talking to our clients about the potential of the Fed shifting policy. But then Powell comes out yesterday and he's like, look, inflation target is 2% and it's sticking at that and we're not changing it. Rate hikes will most likely stay at 0.75 and there's a potential for them to get larger. I was thinking that we might get 0.5 in December. Because I think he said 1.25 for the rest of the year and October, there is no FOMC arbitrarily. It's kind of straight like the world is going down the tubes, but we scheduled a month off. So we're going to stick to that. I mean, that's kind of odd, but I think he said 1.25. So that would kind of price in 0.5 in December. And if he decides to go 0.75 in December, that's your catalyst to kind of retest the lows one last time. So we'll see how that plays out, or they could go 0.5. And there was some pivot language, but I feel like it was misinterpreted by the market prior to him speaking. And then during his comments during the presser, he clarified that by saying, we are looking at things in the moment and we recognize that there's a certain latency or lag between interest rate hikes and how they're impacting other metrics within the economy that show whether or not inflation is going down, whether or not consumer demand and payrolls are going down. And we are willing to have some flexibility within those timeframes, within those moments. But I didn't really hear anything like, we are thinking about a policy pivot away from raising rates or changing our 3% inflation target. You can't come out and say that now because they're not going to run away. The market crumbled as he said that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So it was a nasty rejection. It was. Yeah, yeah, it was pretty much led by him. So I want to ask you, outside of how you trade it, what do you tell people within the dojo? Do you advise people to trade FOMC, CPI and all that? Or are you telling people, don't trade it, just trade the larger trend? What's your approach? I know what your personal style is. We founded the dojo in 2017 during that parabolic run. It was just absolute mania. And frankly, I don't think that at that point in time I was necessarily equipped to provide that service. Let's be real. Not to say that people didn't make money, but I didn't really know what I was doing at that point in time. And then over the next five years or so, things just blossomed and grew. But it's not something that I'm actively marketing because I'm very happy with the membership that we have. There's about a hundred people there. But the thing is the people that are there have been there for years and years and years and are very successful traders in their own right. So it's one of those things where it's a group of, for the most part, people that know what they're doing and are able to identify setups and bring alpha to each other. And they've made money, you know, clearly if they're sticking around for four or five years, it's because there is valuable insight. But some of that valuable insight comes from the members. So in regards to FOMC yesterday, like I announced, I'm not messing with this at all. I'm not going to trade it. But there were other people in there playing around. But, you know, at the end of the day, like that type of price action, you have to know what you're doing. Like you can get wiped out super quick if you're trading with leverage on moves like that. And the market gets extremely irrational, emotional. And you're playing against people that have access to the information a split second faster than you, more capital, they may know in advance what's going to be said or what's happening. It's just so many different things that you're up against. And it's like a regular kind of newer trader.  But for me, I wasn't messing with it. And, you know, I suggested that people probably stay away and let's see how this shakes out. It was just too much like gambling for me. Right, right, right. I like to gamble. But, you know, I want to have that advantage when I'm doing it. Yeah, exactly. All right, so talk to me a little bit about Bitcoin's market structure on the daily or weekly timeframe and then kind of contrast that against what's going on with Dogecoin. Okay, so Bitcoin, one of the things that I was very kind of adamant about, should I do the screen share now? Yeah, go for it. Go for it. Yeah, let me do that. Yeah, I think when you say screen share, it must trigger the guys in some support to do something magical for us. What the? I think you do it in Zoom. Yeah, no stress if it's not working. I got it. I got it. I think we got it here. Can you guys see? I should have Bitcoin one day. Yeah, all good. Okay, so one of the things that was very dominant two weeks ago was this comparison of this wave here in 2018 before the capitulation from 6K to 3K. A lot of people were comparing that with this, right? And I understand why, because you have this fake out bounce, and then the sharp retrace, and then low volume, and I mean low volatility range that then nukes. But the part that they were omitting is they were just holding onto comparing this to this, but they weren't including this part of it. And when you look and zoom out, you could see that this was actually more similar because of the velocity of this dump and as well as the price difference. You went from the retest 47.5 to under 20K, and that's really kind of this move, and it's indicated with the volume as well. So for me, I was like, no, I'm not really buying that. And what we're seeing now is when I was talking about how the market changed, this was the candle that did it for me. Because if this was going to follow this kind of fractal idea, this would have dumped here, and it really didn't. So right now, you're making a bull flag at resistance. When you're looking at SPX, this is also coming into resistance here as well. The weekly looks kind of rough. Everything is basically at levels that if we are to continue, it's going to provide a very good move. But in a bear market, when it gets to that point where it's like, if it pumps now, it's going to go crazy, that's usually like your cue to kind of take some risk off and let it prove itself. Because if it goes up like another 10% here, that's going to imply like additional upside significantly. So I'd rather wait and let it do that and miss that extra 10% and then be able to structure a trade that's a little bit safer than playing at resistance. So as far as doge is concerned, it also kind of invalidates that whole concept of this being the 6k, going to 3k. If that were the case, you wouldn't have had this. And look at that volume. This is different. Well, that's just by a bit, but I'm sure the volume is significant across the board. Yeah, aggregate is high. What do you think is behind that? Is it just Binance, Musk, Quitter, Hopium? Binance has launched like some Bluebird index, which looks like there's going to be some sort of like ICOs can happen on Twitter possibly. And we know that CZ put in 500 million and funding for Musk to take over Twitter, so on and so forth. So in your opinion as the dogecoin move, because SHIB hasn't followed really, is the dogecoin move just a short term event? It was oversold, open interest is high now, people are piling into perpetuals, retail's going long on it, Musk might be filling up his bags or whatever. Do you think retail's going long on it? There's been some speculation about that. I feel like there's something bigger behind it, personally. And when you're comparing structure, this, you have, so if you want to compare for the people that were doing the 6k fractal, this is kind of your area, you get the dump, you have your bear market, and then it reclaims. We're not there yet. It rejected at a very key area, but this is actually, even though somewhat being rejected here, this is starting to look quite bullish actually in my opinion. And I wouldn't be surprised to see like a reflation trade where you come up here somewhere maybe $0.55 and then come back down and then mark up again. But I mean, at the end of the day, like Elon running Twitter, you have people speculating that there's going to be some sort of doge integration involved. And I think it's a reasonable speculation actually. And when you look at the cycle at how bottomed out this was, the people that were loading in this area were wise. I wasn't, but they saw it. I wasn't expecting the catalyst. I wasn't thinking in regards to Elon and Twitter, but you see like A16 I think is involved in this as well. This isn't like regular people that are buying on Robinhood pumping this. In my opinion, I feel like this is more of like an institutional push. And because like when you think about it this way, like people in my regular life, at least the people that were calling and texting me in 17 and 2021 and, you know, those people that always hit you up at the top looking to buy, like they're not buying doge right now, at least from what I can tell. Yeah, they're not calling. I'm not getting nobody calling me. Nobody wants to talk about crypto. There's limited interest in my circles of people who are not like crypto native. So yeah, perhaps it's a rotational play. Perhaps it's an institutionally led play and we'll see stronger fundamentals and continuation in the price action. But I kind of want to dial back because we know Bitcoin's still in a downtrend. It's trying to carve out a bottom on a macro level equities and crypto are still bearish, even perhaps the worst of the sell-off have left. So if you recall back like in 2016, 2017, also in 2019 or 2020, it was like Litecoin that started to outperform the whole market. Let's go ahead and say Litecoin, yes. Well, Litecoin pumps. Litecoin is actually kind of bullish. Yeah. And it's coming up on a halving. But then Dogecoin has done that in the past also, like these dinosaur tokens and altcoins tend to lift off before Bitcoin does. And then at some point, Bitcoin dominance flips and inflows are more saturated in Bitcoin. And then we get like a more confirmed rally that propels the whole market. So do you think this Dogecoin thing is it's an isolated event as you just discussed, you know, in the last few minutes, or is it signs of, okay, we're starting to get into this consolidation phase and this pre-having push and Dogecoin is leading. Previously, it was ETH, right? This time it's Doge. In the last bull market, it was Litecoin. Could this be a sign that we're starting to kind of round the entire corner market-wise? Yes. Quite simply, yes. Simple answer, yes. I like that. I think it's showing that there's greed again. There's a greed element that's there that in the past, I think that the Doge move would have got sold off somewhat immediately, not did the numbers that it did. You might have got a 20% move that was sold off within a day. Litecoin as well also shows greed in the market, risk taking behavior. And the risk, in my opinion, is not being taken by regular quote-unquote normies yet. This is more powerful players that are willing to do so. And one of the things that I pay a lot of attention to, and I actually did a YouTube video on it recently, is the Jewish Schmittus cycle, which I'm not sure if the viewers know or have heard of this thing, but this is something that went back and looked at historical data. It's in a nutshell a seven-year cycle that Jewish people follow. It's in the Torah where on the seventh year, it's kind of think of like days of the week. You have seven days in a week. On the Sunday, you take your rest. You don't do anything the Sabbath. Well, for Jewish people, it would be Saturday. But they also do that by years. And in the seventh year, that's called the Schmitta year, you're not supposed to plant crops. You're not supposed to harvest. You're not supposed to really do much of anything.  You've had 2001.com bubble crash. You had a crash in 2015 associated with that as well. You had 2022. The Schmitta year just ended in October. But you also, I mean, even Bloody Monday in the 80s, that was the Schmitta year as well. So it's something that I'm paying attention to. And I looked back and I charted and I saw how price behaves around these times. And typically the year after Schmitta is over, it's choppy.  That year is a year to buy the dip. For the most part. And then the next five to six years, at least traditional markets go up, you know, straight up pretty much with dips. But like in general, like if you're buying after the Schmitta year and the first year, if you're buying dips in that year, you're in good shape. And, you know, the charts are providing confluence to that idea. And I think I'm going to stick with it. Yeah, yeah. Hey, whatever your process is that works, that's good. I'm familiar with a similar story in the Bible where for crop rotation, you let the land lay fallow. I think in that seventh year, just, but you know, I don't have it like at that. It's at the tip of my tongue, but it's not something that I've memorized, but there's a similar kind of story or parable that's described in the Bible. So let's see how that plays out. I want to continue to touch base with you on that and see what happens. A turnaround would be nice. So aside from Bitcoin, East Doge, what are some other coins that you've got your eyes on? Soul, actually. So I really, I made a video like on soul at $28 and 30 cents. And like later in the day, it had crossed it hit like $32 in the same day, because this mainly I was looking at it structurally. And it was doing a move that I see and look for quite often it was a quite a bullish setup. I saw that Ethereum Bitcoin at that point was really bullish looking as well. So in my mind, I was like, yeah, I think soul could take off here, but mainly due to sentiment is why I was looking there. People were very upset with Sam and what he said in regards to DeFi, kind of like the Eric Vorhees interview. And Sam's being framed as SPF from FTX is being framed as like, it was kind of villain. And my whole, and that was that, you know what, that was the day BitBoy, you know, came after Sam and everybody was siding with BitBoy.  And I like to see what people are thinking, what's exciting, what's topical, what every what the herd is talking about. And it was very obvious that day was BitBoy and Sam. So I said, you know what, let me look at soul chart. I, at that point in time, I was one of the people that was looking to buy soul at $15 after capitulates. And I'm like, you know what, I'm not going to look at it until it goes down there. But then I decided to look at it. And I was like, wow, this is a very interesting setup. The sentiment is right. And we played it. And, you know, like looking at soul now, you're starting to see a lot of foot in regards to their solvency issues. A lot of their capital is tied up in FTT, which is supposedly a liquid, I mean, based off of how much of it they hold, if they wanted to exit, I don't think it was possible. But there's a lot of fear and, and, you know, discussion on that. But me personally, I don't think FTX is going anywhere. I don't think Sam is going anywhere. And I kind of like soul here still. Okay, so I want to follow up on that. Aside from technicals, aside from what the chart's showing you, what's the fundamental value prop for soul? Are you not concerned with the validator issues with the constant network outages? There's been like eight or nine in the last year. It feels like it's always off, right? Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, there are issues of duplicate DeFi protocols to the tune of like eight billion in TVL on soul, you know, like my concern with soul is, is it functional? Is it reliable? Is it hack proof? These are things that concern me beyond the chart. If I look at FTM, Phantom, Avalanche, Avax or Solana, in a way, they all kind of have a similar chart, right? I'm concerned with volumes on the weekly and daily timeframe. When we go look at on-chain data, I'm concerned with like DAP use and daily active users on those networks. And then with soul, I'm concerned about centralization. But then at the same time, the network always going down, and that's liquidating people and decentralized exchanges and whatnot. So what's the value prop you see? Why should we be bullish on this asset outside of just pure technicals? So those are very valid concerns. And it's, this is why they call it speculation. You know, we're speculating on Sam being able to figure out how to fix these issues. And being that he's not a dev, it's not like you're in the hands of Vitalik or Andre, who could fix it themselves. You have to trust in his ability to delegate and hire the right people to do for the job.  For me, I'm looking at more of being a profit maximalist as opposed to a tech maximalist soul itself.  So I couldn't really tell you how sound it is. All I do know is that it has been down plenty. There have been a lot of issues. But I'm the type of person where in crypto, especially, I like to bet on the, on the leadership and the person behind the project. And Sam, you know, say what you want about him, I do believe in his ability to make this thing successful. They do have the Solana phone coming out out of the three T ones that you mentioned, Avalanche, Phantom. Soul has the most thriving NFT ecosystem. But, you know, there's new stuff coming out there now with the stoppage of royalties. So I'm not so certain if that's going to continue to grow. But, you know, at the end of the day, Soul phones coming out, Sam's behind the project. And I do believe it will have a nice second run when the market resumes its bullishness, kind of similar to like, you look at like something like Cardano, like, I don't even know what they've done. But it doesn't mean that it can't go up 100x. You know, like, I'm just, I'm in it for the money at the end of the day. And I like the chances. That's it. I'm with you on that, you know, as a trader, I feel like we're always, as a multi-year trader, you're always like on this fence of, should I just trade the technicals? Because the technicals are reliable. These fractals, these market cycles, these trends, things are oversold or they're overbought. You know, there's a certain set of things that you can tools that you can use that are just pure technical analysis that ignore all other sort of network fundamentals. And they work most times. But then on the flip side, what we learned from DeFi is that, you know, looking at utility and fundamentals and network use and staking, liquid staking, those all have value too. So in technical analysis, we can say we're going to take profits at this level. You exit there, which is great. You got some profit. And then like Matic went on to $3, even though I exited like a 100x gain at whatever, 50 cents or something. And I bought it one set. And I'm still taking myself in the leg with that or link, banned, you know, there's so many, but it's then I did, I did the Phantom ICO and I had, I sold it in 2018, my full position. I think I put like 60 F into it in 2018. And the position that I sold for maybe $50,000 or something like that would have been worth 20 million. Like that was one of the ones that I was really kicking myself about. But this is this is crypto. And I want to say that because I like just because I like sold doesn't mean there's not going to be 100 coins that outperform it. Something will definitely outperform it. And if you're good at doing this fundamental research, you have a leg up on the competition as far as identifying these coins. And thankfully, I have friends that are really good at that too. So they help point me in the right direction as well. Exactly. Yeah. I think like as far as a blue chip and a big capsule is a pretty safe bet. Right, right. When you focus too much on fundamentals and do all the staking and all that, you know, those guys got wrecked anyway. So it's always like a 50-50 type thing. What are you going to do? Trade your fundamentals or chase after like network expansion and growth and all that? I think you do both. You got to do both. Make sure both. Yeah. Yeah. All right. I got some quick fire questions for you. What did you do for Halloween? My best friend had a party. I dressed, it was like a East Coast, West Coast, 90s rap type of party. And I was, you know, like one of these, I kind of looked like a beastie boy, I guess, with this costume. And my friend was LL Cool J. And my wife, my wife was one of the dead presidents bandits. So yeah, we had a good time. Nice. Yeah. I saw the picture. I thought you guys were the beat nuts or something. Yeah. Iron Man Hulk or Black Panther? Iron Man. Who are you rolling with? Iron Man. He is cool, man. Or at least the Robert Downey Jr. version is very cool to me. I always agree.  He's just, you know, he's doing it with his smarts. He's a regular guy. He's not regular, but he doesn't have super powers. Exactly. He's able to be a superhero. You know, I like that. Did you see Black Adam yet? I did. Black Adam was awesome. I really liked it. I didn't know what to expect, but that was a pretty badass movie. I enjoyed it a lot actually. It was one of the better. I'm starting to gravitate towards DC more than Marvel personally. Marvel's kind of like a little played out. Exactly. Wakanda forever looks good. Sorry. Wakanda forever looks good. Like I'm excited to see that one. I think when Marvel does the whole like Marvel DC, Marvel X-Men, whatever, like when they start doing this metaverse rollover, then Marvel content will get more exciting again, but I'm with you. I'm starting to gravitate more towards DC. It got too, it got too disnified.    If you haven't seen the Sandman on Netflix, I recommend it. It was killer. I couldn't get through the first episode. I don't know. You couldn't man. It gets good around. It wasn't my thing. It wasn't my thing. How'd you feel about it? Maybe I'll give it another shot. It's like Daredevil and Luke Gage and like Sandman were all kind of like in the same kind of emotion. Daredevil was pretty cool. I like Daredevil. But Black Adam was awesome. Yeah. I guess it's interesting. I'm trying to bug her off really on Friday and go watch it. Oh yeah. Yeah. It got really bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but the audience score was really high, which is kind of like the tell that this is movie is probably awesome. And, you know, the rock did a good job. It was really, really good. I like it. All right. Yeah. I'm going to go see it. It's what matters is fans' opinions, not Egbert and whatever the other guy's name is. So back to Crypto. I know the audience is like, we're not here for movie reviews. Ethereum, Solana or Adam, which are you most bullish on going into 2023? I think Adam's pretty bullish here, honestly. Like Adam, I'm hearing a lot of stuff. Adam might be the best performer out of the three. As far as like which one gives you the biggest gain, it might be Adam. It really might be. And it's strange because like Adam, well, it's Adam 2.0, right? Yeah. Yeah. The people that I trust that like know their stuff like over like the past five years, like these guys are always, you know, kind of like ahead of the curve. Like there's a good amount of them saying like Adam's like legit. So that's probably the way I would lean. And the funny thing is like, when you look at that chart and like how it's behaved, it's like, it was almost like a cursed coin for a long time. It's like people are really upset with Adam. There's a lot of salt on Adam. It's like, when you try to short it, it doesn't go down. When everybody is thinking it's going to break out, it dumps. And interesting enough, in like 2021, when Adam pumped, it was signaling the end of the cycle. So like Adam would pump and then the whole market crashed. Like as soon as Adam eject, that happens. So there's a good amount of salt on this thing. So I kind of, I kind of like it's potential. I don't think it's Adam's fault whenever I think Adam and Sushi have the same market maker. It's that guy's fault. That's his fault. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the market always turned. It's a late comer. I think you're right about that. They do have the same market maker, but whenever the market's finally starting to break out, Adam runs and then everything falls apart. Like I feel like it's never got a chance to run for a good duration like other coins during the bull market. So hopefully this is it's time to shine. It's got some deflationary tokenomics coming through. There should be a network effect of all Adam interrelated tokens and the ecosystem also rising. They're launching liquid staking. They have some stable. What do you think? Have you heard of Kanto? Kanto? No, I haven't. Oh, okay. So that's like another ecosystem. I believe it's on Adam. C-A-N-T-O. There's like some coins trading over there too. You have to bridge, but I'm hearing some stuff about that one too. Yeah, I'll check it out because there's a number of... I'm curious to know what you think about it. All right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll check it out. I like it. I think it's going on. It's super bullish. Yeah. I think once we get liquid staking enacted and then in week 20 the tokenomics become more deflationary, I think hopefully then we'll see some pressure on price. In your opinion, what will it take for DeFi to go on a bull run again? DeFi to go on a bull run again. I don't know. I don't know. Those bull flags just need to break out and then you'll know what's happening. It'll just start going. Like as far as like a technical reason, I couldn't tell you. I don't know. Yeah. Now, fair answer. Nobody knows right now. So as we wrap up, I want to check one other thing with you kind of related more to Bitcoin and Ethereum. What's your thoughts on ETH? If you look at Ethereum and its BTC pair on the weekly and the daily, it looks like there's a big inverse head and shoulders pattern. How do you feel about that? ETH versus BTC. So this wave has been going on since May of 2021. And previous to this one, you had like a three-year consolidation range that broke out to the upside. This one stopped people out in June and then reclaimed. And now we're kind of in the middle of this range. And typically with waves like this, you just want to play it as a range until it violates. And if people got stopped out on the bottom, like if you played it that way, you would have got screwed in June. But looking at what it's doing on the weekly three-day, at first Bitcoin actually still looks bullish to me. There is some potential for this guy to break out. And when you look at like Bitcoin dominance, I use an adjusted one that includes stable basket because I find that BTC.D is no longer a viable chart to even bother looking at because it doesn't account for when people are selling their crypto to go to Tether. And now in 2022, this is something that's very common on even like institutional levels, whereas in 2018 and 19, there was a ton of Tether food. There weren't as many stables that you can go to. And people were simply just cashing out of the market. You weren't sure if crypto was even going to survive that. But now, when there's dumps and people are risking off, there's way more people going into stables. So if you're not including that in the ratio, then your ratio would be flawed. But when I look at the one that is inclusive of stables, this is what I mean by we're at giga-resistance because even like BTC dominance is that it's about to be at support, but a support that if broken would lead to massive upside on alts. So I think like, yeah, you could still be a bit cautious. But like you're seeing, for instance, Phantom pumps 20%, 30% today from Andre's news. LTC is pumping. There's a chance that this Bitcoin dominance thing breaks down. And if you see this below like 50, I think F is going to go crazy and potentially breaks that wave versus Bitcoin. Also, you have F 2.0. If you keep up to date with Arthur's blogs, I mean, he's not shy about saying like how much the supply of F was being sold daily has been diminished since this change. So, you know, an actual flipping is possible. It is possible. I'm more bullish on F than I am on Bitcoin at these prices, to be honest. I am too. Based off fundamental analysis, I am also just in terms of like upside from a swing position, just trading that momentum. But of course, like Bitcoin's a big dog and everyone's going to roll with Bitcoin. And of course, it has the most structure and support built up around it. But I do realize that what moves Ethereum price is much easier to pinpoint and track than what moves Bitcoin price, right? So there's just more like fundamental reasons such as deflation. And if network like transactions and network use take up, which eventually they will eventually NFTs will come back, right? Eventually defy will come back. There's just a number of kind of like historicals with metrics that you can look at and measure in real time to kind of be like, okay, I can be bullish on ETH. Yeah, I think structurally, yeah, sorry. I think structurally you're seeing ETH come up on like it was rejected once around 1650. The 200 daily moving average, a simple moving average is still sitting right there. It's around like 1660. And looking at this structure, you have like kind of like this downtrend line from the peak of the relief, the first relief rally in August, and then the rejection in September. You're above this trend line. You're making another flag above the trend line. And if we're to break through this 200 moving average, which is around 1660, like I think you're going to see ETH in like the 2000s, maybe even 3000. Like it could happen like this year. So that's what I'm looking for. Like if the Bitcoin dominance thing breaks down, if ETH gets above 1660-ish, I think you're going to see it around like 2500 possibly. And like it'll happen. Yeah, I would like that. I would like that. I would like it too. That would be nice. Yeah, that would send shock waves throughout the market in terms of like market structure change. It would be massive FOMO. Like what people don't realize is you have like the news is beating you over the head with recession and the government is this. And like the reality is we can bottom as soon as the recession actually is confirmed and started and assets can start going up and regular people aren't even looking at it nor buying. And then they start to look at it like we're in a recession. Why is this going up? And you know, it just, it doesn't need to make sense. It just like I think we're, I think we're close. I think we're close. And I think starting like Q1, Q2 of 2023, we're going to start to put in some momentum. Like this could truly get bullish like next summer. That would be good. Okay, one more Bitcoin related question and I'll let you say whatever you want to say to the audience before we bounce. So this week traders started talking about the MACD histogram changing on Bitcoin's daily or weekly timeframe. And also some traders have pinpointed a bullish divergence on the weekly RSI and MACD also. Do you agree with that? Do you disagree? Do you have any thoughts on is that a sign of like momentum shifting and inflows coming back to Bitcoin and the bottom being confirmed? I wouldn't say the bottom is confirmed. As far as MACD and RSI, that's not really my bread and butter indicators that I use. One of my partners at the Dojo, Stillman, is a big guy on that. And he was, he was mentioning that a lot of bear dibs actually came in a couple days ago at resistance, which is logical. So we were very cautious in those areas. But as far as my take on what that means, is that a bottom confirmation? I'm not really the person to answer it. I don't, I don't know because I don't, I don't use that too much too often. What's your preferred indicator? Me? I like, I mean, I like market structure, I trade price action, the sentiment trader, I use MAS, like basic MAS. And I like to pay attention to volume, VP, VR. Like RSI doesn't really do too much for me.  Moving averages. I like to, I like to look at low timeframe setups at key levels on multiple. So like for instance, from like, when you trade like the one minute chart, like for hours and hours and hours and years, you start to see different patterns, right? And there are some patterns that, you know, become more reliable than others. And then when you see them playing out, you know that there is two different paths that price can take. So it's like, if it does this, then I know then it's likely that this will happen. Or if it does this, then this is going to happen. So when you start to do that, like over and over and over on the low timeframe, you start to see those same patterns kind of play out on the higher timeframe.  And as far as finding your entry, then you could zoom in to like lower timeframes to really kind of pinpoint that and get in there. So like for instance, with Soul, what I saw on Soul was basically what I was looking for was this rally. We were bullish in July going into this rally on basically everything and then got bearish when that started stalling. And we were expecting these lows to be tested again. And when that support holds, that's a structure that I play. And it's quite easy to structure your risk. And then I'm looking at what MAs make sense in relationship to how high this should be going. So you could see that, you know, you have this is the 99 day moving average, very simple. A lot of people use the 100 gives you a very similar level. It's clearly resistant. So there at that point in time, you would be looking to take risk off. You know, I try to keep things as simple as possible, to be honest. And then I use, at the same time, like sentiment cues, for instance, like the soul. All right, BitBoy is the number one person in crypto for, you know, telling Sam what's up. All right, let me look at Soul. Sometimes it's just that simple. Simplicity and consistency. That's it. That's it. I wouldn't I wouldn't come on Twitter and make a video saying, Hey, I think right now, like literally right now is the time to buy this unless I had like a very high level of conviction. And within two hours, the price moon 10%. So like it's right. The proof is in the pudding. It's not the first time I've done that. The last time I did coin Telegraph was in July, where I was telling people, Hey, we're going to get a nice bear market rally here. Like I think it makes sense. Stay involved in crypto, get some money in. But if you don't have money right now, don't worry, because this is going to come back down here anyway. You know, like I've told them exactly what was going to happen. We're going to go up, but we're coming back to these levels. It's going to take months. So my advice to you is get involved in crypto. If you have some risk to take, take it now, but save it. You know, like say, don't continue to take risk, but wait for these levels to be hit again. And that's because I trade the structures and I have a sense for what's going to happen. Now, F and Bitcoin is a 20 something and F was like 22. I think if that continued, then it went up to like 3000, 4000 and something different want to happen, but it didn't. So, you know, here we are. Now, like we need to hold the lows that were put in a couple of weeks ago.  And that could happen in like January, February, something like that. And then you buy that.  Right, right. So what happens, I'm not scared about crypto fight. You seem pretty hype about it. So what's the fight? Yeah, what are they? What's, what's that all about? All right. So the first, the first one happened last year in October. It was, I mean, in my opinion, I think it was like the coolest event that I've seen in the past since I've been in crypto, as far as like a crypto centric event where you had, you had loom dart fighting rookie in a box. And this is a boxing match and Luke Martin fought Barney, Barney the boy. There were a couple others. I can't remember the names of everybody in the event, but it was a really dope event in Dubai. And they're running it back this year. So I'm fighting this guy named Barney, who he's coming back. He won last year. And I'm fighting Barney. This is on the 12th. And it'll be live streamed for free. The links are out there, but I'm sure we'll, we'll get those out there again. But you know, some good fights, Ponzi traders fighting trading Lord, you have ice bags, fighting Eric BLE, crutches, just fighting a guy named Joey. There's a bunch of, you know, crypto personalities, a little CT are going to get into a boxy rig and fight for real. So yeah, for a purse of Bitcoin, right? Believe me, we're not making anything.  Let's put it that way.  It's more of like, like I just want the people to understand like it's, it's a real commitment that we have to put in to train and we're going to fly ourselves to Dubai and do all this stuff and doctors appointments and all this. Like it's been a real hassle. And then we're going to have to get in a ring and fight. And we're doing this for the culture. So, you know, I'd like to say I'm a fortune, but I'm not, I'm not, I'm not making anything.  I actually stopped lifting. I just been boxing, just boxing. So I lost, I lost about 20 pounds. I mean, I'm in pretty good shape right now. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. All right. May the best man win. So what do you want to tell the world before we, we hop off here? We want to tell the world. Hmm. So I want to tell the world, tune into the boxing. It's going to be fun. But I really do believe that once again, you're at a, you're at a place like be it NFTs, crypto, anything blockchain three, which is kind of cringey to say, but like don't become disengaged over the next six months. I think, I think the price action is going to be difficult to trade. Honestly, I think it's going to be difficult. It's going to be brutal. But in general, like people right now, like if I said hodl, it's like a bad word. Right. And that's usually the time that you want to do that. And I think the people that buy the dip and hodl over the next six months, like two, three years from now could be even sooner. Either you're going to be pretty happy that you did. It's like really how I see it. The more involved you become in the communities, the more you do your own research, the more people that you network with, that's what opens up the opportunities to be early on potentially extremely life changing investments within the crypto space, as well as just like free opportunities, opportunities to get a job in Web three. Like all these things are related to how much effort and time you spend and don't be shy, interact with people, join telegram groups, join discords, make friends. And you never know like how far you can go in the space. And I think right now is the perfect time to kind of stake your claim. It's not over. It's not going anywhere. And people try to make you think that it is. And that's typically the time where you need to be the most, invest the most time that you can. And I think it's important that you start doing that now if you haven't already. That is Sage advice. Well, KJ, man, I appreciate you coming on. Good luck with the fight. Thanks for sharing all your expertise with us today. And I look forward to connecting with you in the future. Thanks for having me. Right. It was a lot of fun. Appreciate it. All right. Shalom. Shalom. Take. Peace.


Hey, Patrick. Hey, good morning. So George is not joining in today, but let's give it a minute or two, see if anybody else is gonna join and then we can start. Okay. All right, well, let's get into it. So, I'm sharing my screen. Can you see it? Yep. Right, so welcome to March 16th, 2023 RSV6 community call. It's just two of us from Upset today. So I'm not sure the antitrust policy is notice is needed. There's no competition involved here between two of us, but nevertheless, just in case, I'll still follow the standard procedure. So this is the antitrust policy notice for Hyperledger. And I'll just keep it displayed for a short moment. All right, so let's get into the agenda. I kind of flipped it around today. And instead of leaving the kind of discussion points at the end, I just put it in the beginning. So the kind of like interesting announcements and interesting discussions can happen in the beginning when people join and then perhaps the overview of the working process and that kind of things and the specific task and implementation details might be more mundane to some attendees. So I just left it basically for the second half. So to start to kick this off, I would like to just announce first mentorship program which we applied for. It's a program by Hyperledger. It's been going on for a couple of years and we have submitted application for AriesVCX. There's two projects for AriesVCX, one being the basically Uni-FFI mobile wrapper. So that will be the Livvcx substitute. We are looking for Menti who will be willing and would like to work on this task. All details are included here. I know that there's at least one person already interested in working with us on these tasks. The other task we have submitted for review is implementation of Aries Mediature built on top of AriesVCX. They'll be useful for entire community and at the same time it'll be just interesting application of AriesVCX, maybe drive us to improve some APIs seeing how it's being consumed from actual application. So these are two tasks of us. Now it's pending for review by Hyperledger committee, technical committee, I believe which will decide which of these projects will get accepted for the program. So yeah, we'll see that should take, if I remember right, until the end of this month or so. Next up, I have a yesterday created bunch of good first issue type of tasks on GitHub. So they are tagged with this good first issue attack. And basically they are very simple. But the idea is that the people who would like to contribute it can be very helpful for these people to have something really laid out for them and really well described, maybe even though it's simple, we should make it really easy for newcomers to follow the instructions. So I think it's a good idea to make it really easy for newcomers to follow the instructions. I think what I've done here could be still perhaps expanded even further, but it's very simple issues. So this could help. And I would like to just encourage anyone to create more of these issues. Just, I think it's important to make sure they are really specific and concrete so that the new people don't have to understand the entire context of the project and all of the refactoring going on or they don't have to be necessarily experts on Rust. So I think this can be useful initiative for just getting more people, even complete outsiders into the project. We did something similar in October when it was October first and we had the one person or one or two people who actually send the PR, but at that time we didn't really have those good first issues, I believe, written out that specific and maybe it wasn't easy to begin with. So yeah, I just thought that we should come up with some sort of guidelines for these good first issues and the kind of guideline I was trying to follow here is first, just make a brief description what should be done, then like describe the task in a few points and then also include what will that person implementing this kind of learn so they know what to expect or what kind of areas of Rust they'll explore. So in this particular task, they will have to deal with the trades a bit and mocking and testing. And there's other tasks which maybe dominates different like areas or like requires different type of Rust skill. Well, if there's no further like comments then I'll move on the next point. So that's a more mundane and standard part of the meeting. So the overview of the work recently done. We had, I saw that we all start from the bottom of the list this time around. I saw in the morning that George has pushed new updates to his PR about making VDR tools basically optional and make it enable using feature flag to essentially opt out of VDR tools and instead of use and instead use the smaller library components as a dependency. So this is still in draft. I'm not sure what's missing here, but it's passing. So we'll need to update from George's too. If this is ready or if there's something yet to be adjusted. The next item which has been mostly done but is yet pending for review is work done by me. This was, this relates to changes of proof verifier API in particular the methods around like figuring out the status of the presentation, revocation and like every state. So we previously had three methods and it was, and one of them was bit convoluted and didn't really add any informational value. So the function, that function I'm referring to was called presentation status or maybe get presentation status in some setting. This was removed, essentially. And like, I guess it depends how you look on it. Like the implementation was like deleted. The way I proceeded is I deleted this function. Then I took the function get revocation status and essentially I renamed it into get presentation status. So you could argue that the presentation status function was not deleted, but it was just a largely changed. And it now reflects what originally was called get revocation status. So it's mixed up. But the end result basically I described at the bottom. The end result of this PR is that there's two functions. There's a get state which simply returns the sort of Aries state, the state of the state machine itself of the protocol and the second function get verification status, which can have three values. The presentation was either valid or it was invalid or it's unavailable because we perhaps didn't receive it or the presentation was not verified. So these are three results are possible. And yeah, originally there was one more function which essentially combined these two together and it didn't really make sense. So these were simplified, but it is technically like breaking change. I mean, the implementation of what was called presentation status function has changed as well as what has changed are some of the internals of this verifier state machine. For example, we previously stored a field called revocation status in the final state, the finished state, which was now renamed to verification status. And also the values which this field held was either revoked, non revoked or it was actually option, so it could be none. Now, instead of that, this new renamed field has different set of values which is either valid, invalid or unavailable. However, it's made in a fashion that this PR is still backwards compatible. So you are still able to deserialize the old state machines with these changes. However, when you perform serialization, the serialization will be now like new format. And so this reading the old serialization format basically would just before this PR that will be eventually dropped in release 0.54. So what is expected that you should do if you are using verifier-proof state machines is that with release 0.53, you should essentially realize all of your state machines again so they will be saved in the new format. And therefore in a 0.54, one with this backward compatibility, this serialization support drop, you will not run into issues. So you need to re-serialize your proof, verifier-proof state machines. It's quite a bit, but I try to describe it really well in this description as to all of the details which have been changed. Does it make sense? It does make sense, but I'm wondering a bit. Sorry, I was speaking too loudly. Okay. Yeah, so it does make sense, but I was wondering if, like this implies some refactoring and adjusting stuff and all that. What about just directly, because the plan is to ultimately get this implemented is the in that type state pattern. So why not just go directly towards that? Yeah, well, basically, this is kind of preparation for it. I just wanted to make it, firstly, I ran into this because of some internal implementation outside of various VCX. As we can run into, realize that the API doesn't quite make sense with the three functions we had before. And I saw that the way it was convoluted, it will actually make it difficult for whoever's gonna be migrating this. It's gonna actually make it difficult to understand how should it migrate it? Why is it three functions and didn't really make sense? So, and obviously this is like a smaller effort than if I would do the entire rework into state pattern. So I just kind of, yeah, iteratively wanted to update this to make sure that the stuff we have now makes sense. So it makes and it would be straightforward to actually apply the state pattern refactoring. So then it would be like, there could be less functional changes and it would be more of a structural pattern remake, I guess. All right. Hmm. Okay. And actually, yeah, there's a, I put a discussion point on this, like following up on these changes as I have... I've actually seen this in the beginning and it's one of the reasons why I asked because stuff like getting the state would no longer be an operation that's done necessarily. It might be on something that aggregates all the states of the state machine, but for the actual type state pattern, you no longer have a runtime check of the state because you know the state you're in based on the type that you have. So that's pretty much why I asked, like it looks like this poses some questions that would need to be resolved. And then even if we resolve those, then later on they're not really gonna matter anymore. Right. Well, the changes which has been done, like they don't really, this is a bit, like, you know, this is something bit else, just something, you know, like additional questions that are raised. While doing this and also based on this discussion we had before in George's PR. And yeah, like, yeah, you are right, the get state function I mentioned here will not exist anymore, but I guess I was, still there's like, I guess it kinda applies, maybe a bit less. Like, well, I guess it's more of a obviously we see X question in the end, I guess. So maybe it's not worth it to discussion, discuss this part. However, this part is still relevant. So, you know, right now, you know, we have states, for example, in the credential issuer, we have state credential sent state and then we have finished state and we don't have failed state, yeah, right. And so the way it is, so first of all, the credential sent state and the finished state, the only thing which differs between them is that, or the way you transition from credential sent state to finished state is that you send the credential, then you are in a sent state and then you receive acknowledgement message from the party, then you go to finished state. And the question which takes to ask like, is it even worth it to have like this as two separate states? Would it make sense to just have one, I don't know, credential sent state or finished state and have a flag, you know, acknowledged in it or does it make sense to actually separate this as two things. And I'm not sure it's kind of open question. If you look at the RFC and how they designed it in the RFC, like, well, this doesn't really talk about states though, it talks more about the actions. But I guess it really just boils down to that. So when, once you send the credential, can you do any sort of action? Once you send credential, you can just wait on your acknowledgement. I mean, yeah, but I kind of see them as two separate states because it's about like, that's what the state machine is ultimately about, just tracking state of different things, even if something, like even if nothing internal has to happen and it depends on an external event, it basically keeps track of where you're at in the flow, so, because otherwise you can practically just emulate the state machine by just having a big structure with a lot of fields and just have some flags on them and just do a lot of this sort of stuff like that. But the overall idea is basically the separation of concerns. So I kind of see them as different states, even if they're not necessarily different, like structurally. Yeah, yeah, right. I guess that makes sense. But then I guess the second question I'm curious about is your opinion is then like finished state and failed state. And I'm not sure if our approach is actually entirely consistent across the board. Let me check that. Kruber states finished. I guess we are consistent. While they're looking for that, I just have one more thing to say, sorry. Maybe from a conceptual point of view, I guess the difference is that can occur between a credentialed send state and a credentialed finish state is that, for instance, when you sense the credential and you're waiting for it to be acknowledged, you're still having that pending action bound to happen. So maybe, I don't know, let's say you hold this state machine in a database. So knowing that something will, like you're expecting something to happen on this particular piece of data, then you might store it differently compared to a state machine that's in a finished state and nothing else is gonna happen later on. Like a finished credential or proof request or issuing a credential can basically, just be moved to some place else for auditing purposes or logging purposes or stuff like that. Like it can technically be archived. You're not gonna be using it anymore, I guess. So I guess that would be like the, just a difference in behavior which might make it more clear why a different state is more representative I think that makes sense, I mean, to distinguish them. Since it's still a kind of protocol level, which is expected, I guess it deserves at least like a separate state. Right. But then the second question is, How do treats fail? Success versus failed state. And like basically both success and fail state, they are kind of the final state, right?  And that's kind of like in RFCs, they typically have one final state to, I guess make the diagram simple, I mean, it makes sense, like it's end state, but then, you know, if we kind of separate the, like for example, the send state and finish state this way, like successful state, wouldn't it also make sense to separate out the finish state into like, you know, finish success and maybe finished failure? Because the way we do it right now is we, and it's on all of the state machines, I guess except for connection one is we have status and then status is a number of different variants. Yeah, my opinion on this is that we can basically design the state machine with that generic type. And when it has the failed state passed in as the generic, it can basically, we can implement error on it and stuff like that. Maybe not, I don't even know if that would be necessary really, but I guess ultimately we could model the state machine in a way such that when you have to perform some operation, you're either gonna get, you know, the next state or like the success state or whatever or the failed state, you know, in a result. And the failed state would basically be treated as the error generic parameter of the result. Right, so then you would suggest you agree to separate them out to have a finished. Yeah, definitely. It says I'm finished failure. Again, I think for the same reason it makes sense to be able to treat them separately from a type system point of view. Yeah, obviously just because they share the same, let's call it property that they cannot move further doesn't have to be like they'd read on a diagram. Yep. Yeah, I agree. So I guess going forward, once we start to do the state pattern refactoring, I guess that's like one of the changes we should do, we can do. All right, I think I had a few more notes here. Oh, okay. So next item is the intermediate states. I believe this is kind of what we already agreed on as like it's okay to, it's fine to do, it's right to do. So for example, again, just I was reviewing a bit the state machines we have, the issuance and the verification, the issuance and presentation. And one of the things I ran into credential build. So yeah, we have this transition send credential but however it's not just sending credential, it's first creating credential, then sending it. So yeah, I believe this should be split out into like separate transitions and therefore we should have some kind of intermediate state here for credential build and then the next state credential send and so forth. Yeah, I agree. I think like we discussed before, I think that the states in the RFCs are basically just conceptual like business driven or flow driven states, whereas we can basically take advantage of some intermediate states to represent stuff that happens in the middle like this example with like when you wanna send a credential, you're first gonna create it and then you're gonna send it. And like these two operations might fail for different reasons. So again, I guess it also makes it easier to manage what's happening and where errors occur compared to having everything in one place. It goes down to I guess a broader discussion but overall I think that this is fine to do. The only, I guess, I'm just gonna call it downside although I don't think it's a downside but thinking about what we discussed with George some while ago about having the like migrating state machines from one Aries implementation maybe from a different language to Aries VCX and maybe the other way around too. Well, I mean, I see that as a nice thing to be able to do but I think that also having that involves some leg work isn't necessarily that bad. And especially this kind of things can be resolved statically like we're outside of Aries VCX. Maybe we could have a different crepe or people could contribute even saying, yeah, hey, this is how you, or these are some scripts to migrate the, I don't know, Aries VCX state machine to Occupy or the other way around and so on for people that need it. But, because that's what this might mess up a bit, right? But in the end, I think it's also like having this kind of thing is also maybe not a priority we should focus on either. Like we aim for interoperability in terms of runtime but data structures are, I guess, up for grabs. Like you can declare them as you want and as it seems fit based on the language you're working in. We obviously cannot just translate the state machines from Python to Rust or the other way around simply because we might wanna be converting them between one and the other. So we wanna have them as similar as possible. It's a nice thing to have but I will not sacrifice our own environment to like having things work as smoothly and as well as possible in Aries VCX just to be able to transfer the state machines to some other side. And I think it again, it would still be something that's possible is just gonna involve a little bit more lab work. And- Yeah, 100% agree. So I don't even have any further comment than that. Right. And yeah, actually, so basically this implemented and yeah, the next issue of this implementation coming back to the notes here is what I refer to as transition linearization. So the fact that when you call these, for example, there's more cases like this, I think, when you call currently, when you call sent credential, first issue we already like discussed just before, the fact that credential is being built here.  Now it's on a George PR, type state pattern. Yeah, I drew this picture. So the idea is, and again, this could be done something, I'm not sure if it's worth it, but it could be theoretically done even before the state pattern. A rework might not be difficult to do actually. I don't think we should though, because that's one of the thing that the type state pattern brings along implicitly. The transitions become linear. Yeah, right, right, right. But at least whether it's gonna be done through the state pattern, we kind of agree, I guess, that it should kind of look like this, right, that you have like there will be always only one result for each transition and basically sending the problem report will be the responsibility of the state machine operator or the user. Yes. Right, cool. So that's good because we are like much aligned on all these three points and this could be kind of a guideline for all of us and also for, especially for maybe George now, once he started applying the state pattern on the additional protocol. Okay, so that brings us to the work in progress and the type step pattern. So George couldn't join us today, but he left a comment on Discord saying, I've mostly paused work on the holder state pattern and will continue after messages create is merged. I will also review messages create if slash one, it's ready. And that's consequently bringing us to the messages create and that's update for you. Yeah, so it's feature complete, finally, basically working now on implementing tests and more documentation, move some things around, made the macros use fully qualified paths and stuff like that. I am running into a small issue, which I don't really like. It's basically related to CERD's or CERD adjacent's raw value, which is basically just an untouched string slice from the input. And it's basically for avoiding this realization and we use that, we could use that in some places, like even in the attachments where you don't know exactly what you're gonna expect. So you kind of leave it to the user to deserialize based on whatever they expect to receive or conversely, I don't know, when you forward a message like implement a mediator, the inner JSON is of no importance to you really, it's just, yeah, it's basically there just so you can forward it, serialize it back after you wrap it or unwrap it and send it out. Now the problem with this is it's a bit related to how we have this new message implementation and the separation between the content and the decorators. And basically it's a bug in CERD about, or CERD JSON about that raw value, which cannot be flattened for some reason. And from what I've seen, I looked a bit closer into the implementation. It's kind of hacked into CERD JSON and it's basically hacked into working only with the deserializer that CERD JSON provides, which is fine, but when, like in most cases, but when you do some flattening or stuff like that, CERD basically delegates the input to a different serializer similarly to what we do with the message type and so on. So that's where the issue is because with, like the raw value of being made to work explicitly with, to have a special treatment in the, like the deserializer implemented for JSON alone, then other deserializers don't really know how to read it and just fail. Yeah, so I looked into it. I don't think it's gonna be a hard thing to fix. The issue has been open for like two years. So I might tour around with that just a bit to see if I can figure it out in an hour or so or get something working. Probably gonna work a bit more on it in the weekend, but anyway, in the meantime, I guess we can just use the standard value, the one that allocates, although I would like to avoid, like in the future, hopefully if I can manage to pull up a PR and fix this, then we could go back to the raw value. And in fact, having that raw value, having that ability to hold it in a structure that can be flattened would actually mean that I think we can even remove that, not unsafe, but the private stuff that we do for message deserialization, for every message deserialization, because we could just have the type in a structure and then just flatten the rest of the contents into raw values and then just deserialize that into the actual message after we treat the type. So there wouldn't be any more weird stuff going around with, we're just abusing the private parts of Saturday anymore. So it would have quite some benefits. So yeah, that would be pretty cool. Yeah, but apart from that, so in the meantime, I'm basically gonna resort to using just the value, like the allocating one, continue with implementing tests. Pretty much only tests and documentation are remaining now. There are still some renaming to be done. And there is like a short list on the PR. I'm trying to keep track of things that I do or things that are more meaningful to note or things that I run into and maybe don't wanna deal with at that very moment. So it's basically a list of things that need to be done or have been done. But yeah, that's pretty much it. And like as you guys review it, I actually encourage you to add things here if you see something that's worth adding. The sum of them, like for instance, that move the error module inside message type and so on and so forth, seemed like a good idea initially, but then it didn't because I guess it kind of makes sense, even if that's the only error that really occurs, it makes sense to have it at the top of the crate because if for some reason we would have additional errors, they would all sit there. And it's also used in the message macros. So no custom messages macros. So it's nice to have it somewhere at the top where it's easily accessible and wouldn't be moved around throughout the place. Cause again, if another error type comes along, then we might just move it back to the top level. So I think it's sitting well there. Yeah, so that's pretty much it. Not a big update, but things are moving and as you guys can, like anybody that wants and start reviewing this, like in terms of functionality, they're not, things are not really gonna change as much. So pretty much everything that was planned to be implemented is implemented. It's just a matter of like minor adjustments and mostly testing and documentation. Do you have any idea or a rough estimate to when do you think we can merge it? And once it's fully reviewed? It would be like a huge kind of a request in throughout the review. Yeah, I mean, once these things are done and once it's reviewed. So for instance, like this is a big thing and it's kind of repetitive in some way, but then not really. Like I noticed, for instance, that I missed aliasing the forward message from the routing protocol. So just the mediator stuff. Like there are these small things that can still be there. So that's why I would like it to be reviewed. I don't know exactly how long, I suspect about a couple of days, maybe two days or three days or so. I'm sure that next week we'll be able to merge it. Do you think it's possible to start integrating it, into some protocol in parallel? It's kind of a, at least we'll call it. I wouldn't want to do that until testing is done, really. Because like just how I discovered this issue and I was aware of their limitations for raw value. They just didn't occur to me before because the messages were all like in just one structure and there was no flattening. So things like this can come up and I only discovered that because I was testing the message deserialization. So I would rather at least have the testing part done, which I kind of picked up now when I'm focusing on that right now, compared to like maybe documentation that can be added later or even a rename, although I would like to have the renames done too so that we don't change things around 20 times. But documentation especially can be made sort of a bit at the later stage, I guess. Although it would be nice to have just everything in one go, I guess. Or maybe just thinking if I could somehow help out to parallelize this. And I was thinking, I was wondering, maybe it could be fairly simple to do this kind of a test, which would compare the serialized, I'm not sure, maybe it may be. Yeah, I don't know if it will be time consuming or not, but the idea was like to compare serialized messages between the two crates, the original messages and this new one to kind of check if it's producing the same stuff. It could be. It will be always deleted, so it would have any sort of long-term value, but I guess it would give us- Yes, for immediate, for the immediate, I guess of the immediate future, it would make sense. And I would suggest to do that like in the old messages crates, so that when we delete it, we would also remove those tests, but it's a good idea. Yeah, yeah, okay. Maybe I'll, if I'll have some extra- Yeah, you can write it out. Sure. It would be also nice. I'm actually gonna add it to the list. It's a really good idea. I'm gonna add it here. Okay. All right, we're coming to almost the last point of the upcoming work, so I don't think there's like any items, like anything surprising, anything new, but I guess I'll just put it here, like finish to kind of conclude, like what's going on and what's like the main, well, it's called the short-term goals. So I guess to finish the messages crates, finish, and then subsequently integrate, integrate messages, to create into areas VCX. And then we would go with the type state pattern, and we would do that obviously on main, the main pieces to be applied on the holder, the initial holder, started by George, credential, issuer, truth, verifier, up truth, I'll call it presentation, and presentation, truber. And, yeah, potentially, well, I guess I wouldn't like really depth into this one, but I would like to, I would like to actually, before we do the type state pattern, I would like to apply these kind of changes we discussed here, or at least some of them, on the proof, no, on the verifier and on the issuer, to kind of minimize the amount of changes doing the type state pattern transition. And I don't know if it could save us speaking from Upsos perspective, it will be nice for us to have a smooth transition, or we don't actually have to, where we can migrate stuff piece by piece without having to kind of totally different data structures and implementations for the old approach and new approach. So I would try to actually put the code without the type state pattern as it is today, try to apply some of these improvements, and then hopefully that will kind of minimize the breaking changes doing the type state pattern itself, make it kind of easier to think about. I don't know, I personally still think that it's some effort that will go to waste, but maybe I'm not familiar with the, I didn't look at all the state machines. So I'm not exactly, I'm not particularly familiar with what's happening under the hood, but I am quite sure that migrating to type state pattern will involve some amount of reworking the methods and all that, so. Oh, it's fine with the methods, I'm more concerned about, mainly concerned about the state, the serialization format itself. So if it will be, basically you can do the type state pattern as far as you don't significantly change. Yeah, but we can basically have that conversion in place currently for like exactly how you did right now to basically be able to deserialize the old format, convert it to the new one and just work with that from this point on. Yeah, that's something we definitely won't avoid, I wasn't even able to avoid it right now. So. Yeah, no, that's probably, yeah, that's probably unnecessary evil. That's right. Okay, and I think after, this is like, this is gonna keep us busy, I think for quite a while, maybe I would say a month at least, but I guess after that, although it's just to put more focus on is the VDR tools, basically replacing the VDR tools with the smaller libraries and that work has been done for the credential holder, I suppose. And a prover or no, maybe very far. I don't remember it with my head, but in some, when using every VCX, like from certain roles on using only certain state machines, from certain roles, then we can basically avoid using VDR tools today as Georgian submitted that PR with a feature flag, but we should kind of push this further to just be able to get rid of VDR tools across the board and use all of the protocols without VDR tools and then hopefully eventually delete it completely. That will liberate us from like lots of, well, from VDR tools, which do have accurate technical depth and it also has potential to, I guess simplify the code base a bit. Well, it's hidden behind the trades and I think those trades will stay. So maybe won't have significant impact on the code base itself as it's kind of shielded off even today, but it's still an important step in the evolution to get rid of this. Do you have, George, do you have any? There's no George here.  I don't know, the type stamp pattern, the messages trade, and then my- There is no resolver and the DID parser as well. Mm-hmm. Okay, I'll put this kind of like in same level that it's resolver. And that could be actually like pretty much paralyzed then I guess by multiple people. Yeah. It resolver, what's going on here? Yeah. Yeah, did- And DID parser, yeah. And that's kind of basically bringing us pretty much Well, that already covers many of these points here in the backlog, I think after, and I guess like after we have all of these, then I would suggest then we can actually start doing these like 2.0 protocols and maybe then start looking into did come 2.0 or so. Mm-hmm. And it'll be beautiful. Even in the meantime, we have a mentee which could help us doing the uni FFI and mediator client. That would be really, really nice. Well, we'll see how the program goes. Well, we covered everything. So, six minutes before 11. Do you have anything else to cover? Nope, that's it for me. All right. All in that case, stop sharing my screen. Thanks for joining in and thanks everyone for listening and we'll be here again next week. Cheers. Have a good one. All right.


The one thing that destroys the narcissist. It is actually very easy to hurt or offend a narcissist They get hurt and offended very easily They're like loose cannons They're unpredictable and uncontrolled people Who are likely to explode at any moment Which may then result in unintentional damage Which may often leave you walking on eggshells It may leave you to become extremely cautious about your words or actions You may be very careful not to offend or upset them Because any little thing could set them off They're very sensitive to criticism or feedback They can dish it out, but they can't take it Their false image is very important to them And in their minds you either validate their false image or you're a problem Because there's never anything wrong with them There has to be something wrong with how you see them There has to be something wrong with you So you cannot question or confront the narcissist You cannot hold them responsible for anything that they do Which allows them to evade accountability for their actions It gives them an incentive to repeat the same behavior again and again While blaming everyone else Because they're never going to look at themselves and entertain the idea that they are the problem They are very weak fragile people And they cannot stand to look at themselves as they actually are If you put a mirror in front of a narcissist That would cause a narcissistic injury But rather than looking at themselves They would blame you for showing them their own reflection For revealing their true characteristic nature Narcissists do not care about the truth or reality of the situation In their minds the truth can be whatever they want it to be Whatever benefits them And as long as they can get people to believe it It makes it more believable for them If people don't believe it Then they see it as though the problem is with everyone else They never look at themselves and everything they've done Which then caused people to view them differently They don't care about any of that All they care about is getting their way Often at the expense of the very people that they have tried to destroy The narcissist may have tried to destroy you This is something that narcissists will do Especially once they have milked as much as they can out of you Once they know that you're on to them Once you're fed up and you're no longer willing to cater to their every whim That is when they will try to take you down Naturally if you have sacrificed your life for the narcissist And received nothing but abuse in return You may want revenge You may want justice You may be wondering what destroys the narcissist The truth is that there are many things that hurt the narcissist But very few things will destroy them It all depends on who is doing it And what they are doing And the potential consequences that this action may have on how the narcissist sees themselves Or how the narcissist thinks other people sees them Because these are two main things that the narcissist is concerned about Their image and reputation is very important to them But above all, there's nothing more important to the narcissist than how they see themselves Which is usually based on how other people respond to them But even if people do respond to them negatively They're just going to see it as though there's something wrong with them Their narcissism is an adaptation to a hostile environment in childhood It is a coping and defence mechanism for how they feel about themselves And for how other people see them Which is why it can often seem so difficult to get through to them It's like there's always something blocking you from being able to connect to them Narcissists cannot be intimate with you They cannot emotionally connect to you And you cannot connect to them Because they cannot be vulnerable They cannot admit their faults or weaknesses They cannot reveal their flaws or imperfections So instead, they have to act like they're perfect As though there's nothing wrong with them As though everything is wrong with you But when it becomes blatantly obvious that they have a problem They will always find a way to blame it on you A narcissist is never going to hold themselves responsible for how they choose to behave It's like a child that doesn't want to get in trouble They will do anything to evade accountability Because deep down they're afraid of the consequences And they haven't learned how to process shame Their brains don't have the capacity To perform that type of function They're only focused on emotional survival And the only way that they know how to do that is by throwing you under the bus Because although they're constantly blocking you They're throwing things up everywhere they go At the same time, they're also trying to protect their false image Which is why they're so full of pride and arrogance Which is why they always have to be in control And this is actually the narcissist Achilles' heel It's their weakness It's their vulnerable point Because their pride and arrogance is dependent on you Their sense of control is dependent on you Which means that at any moment You can take their pride and arrogance away You can take their control away Without doing anything to them directly Just by you being yourself By no longer tolerating the abuse By choosing to live your own life The way that you choose to Because that is the one thing that destroys the narcissist They see it as abandonment And that is something that they cannot deal with Because it's something that all too familiar with It's an open wound for the narcissist Because it's something that they never dealt with But in childhood They felt abandoned by their parent or caregiver Which is why they now have abandonment issues And it may also have played a part in how they became a narcissist But this is one thing that destroys the narcissist They cannot deal with being alone Because they rely on other people for attention and validation They have to keep engaging with you Because they need you They need people Which is why if you try to leave the narcissist And do your own thing You will find that it's a sore spot for the narcissist It's something that makes them very angry and uncomfortable Because this is their Achilles heel This is their weakness This is their vulnerable point This is the one thing that destroys the narcissist Thank you for watching I hope this video resonate with you Please like Comment Share and subscribe If you would like to donate By paypal link is in the video description Coach the inquiries You can email me at coach.narksurvivor.co.uk Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon


Hello everybody, Lance Goyki here. Today, we're going to have a little discussion about what exercise are you choosing to build your upper back? Now, we talk about rows a lot when we talk about the upper back because those are the muscles that are being involved in these rowing movements. But what I'd like, the point that I'd like to make today, spoiler alert, we're gonna do it right now, is sometimes a lower body exercise is a better solution for this problem. And maybe not a better solution, but definitely a necessary step if you wanna maximize your growth. Let me explain a little bit. So when I do the rows, I do get maximal fatigue in that area, but if I do a deadlift, so this kinda works for squats as well, but I think deadlifts is a better example. If I do a deadlift, I am maximally loading my arms. If I didn't have muscles to kind of hold my shoulder blades from falling forward more, my arms would fall off my body. They would rip right off, right? So these upper back muscles are highly, highly, highly important for lower body exercises very specifically the deadlift. So one of the best things that I tell people, one of the best training tools that I tell people who wanna get a big upper body is you got a deadlift and you got a deadlift heavy because if I can support 400 pounds, I'm gonna be a lot broader, I'm gonna look a lot bigger than if I can support 200 pounds, right? It's as simple as that. You know, the same principle goes for arm training, right? If I didn't have biceps to hold my arms out, they'd probably just fall right off when I'm doing my deadlift.  You can do curls, you could do rows, chin-ups, all that stuff works. But the easiest piece, the lowest hanging fruit, maybe it's a better way to say it, is do your lower body exercises and train them real hard, okay? Cause then you can train that, you know, you can do a lower body day where you're training your back and then you can just smash your back in rows maybe the next day or the day after, right? So think about that. You know, look at your programming very objectively. If you feel like you're not really getting the upper back gains, ask yourself if you're getting the deadlift gains that you need. And outside of that, just, you know, push yourself.