**A** (0:00):
Foreign.
**B** (0:10):
Welcome back to the Chain Reaction podcast. I'm your host, Tom Shaughnessy, a co founder at Delphi Digital where we're five full time analysts focus on institutional crypto research. If you aren't a subscriber, you're missing out, so visit the site while you're listening, one quick housekeeping item. This podcast is strictly informational and educational and is not investment advice or solicitation to buy or sell any tokens or securities or to make any financial decisions. I may personally own tokens that are mentioned on the podcast and you can view the show notes for our full disclosures. Hey everyone. Welcome back to the podcast. Today I'm on Sunny Agarwal, a researcher at Tendermint, to discuss a very new under the radar type project he's working on called the Byzantine Battalion. Sunny, how's it going?
**A** (1:01):
It's going well. Thanks for having me on. Yeah, so the Byzantine Battalion is like, you know, not related to my work at Tendermint, just sort of a project that I've taken on on my own. But yeah, happy to be talking about it. Probably one of the first times I'm talking about it publicly. Sure.
**B** (1:15):
And just for people who don't know you, I'd be surprised if they don't at this point. But give us your quick 30 second intro to how you got started in crypto and maybe even Cosmos.
**A** (1:25):
Sure. So yeah, so I'm a researcher at Cosmos right now. I got involved with the space about four years ago and I was a student at Berkeley, freshman at Berkeley. I helped create a club called Blockchain at Berkeley there and started teaching a bunch of classes. And so I kind of learned by fire, by teaching. When I want to learn something, the first thing I do is sign up to teach it. So that way if you got to teach something tomorrow, you better learn it today. So yeah, I kind of started doing that. And then two years in, I was interning at Consensys one summer, got really deep, dove into Ethereum while I was there, was really into it, and then had a few ideas. I got really interested in proof of stake, found out about Tendermint and I just like, oh wow, this is such a practical way of doing proof of stake. And so I kind of reached out to that team. I kind of said like, hey, like is there any way I can get involved? And at this time I didn't even know about the Cosmos stuff at all. I was just reaching out to them with regards to like Tendermint as a proof of stake concept. And so I Started getting in touch with Jay and just talking to him, and I had some ideas, you know, I had some ideas back then about like, how to use randomness to. So now some of these ideas are much more commonplace now with like dfinity and PDFs and stuff. But, but I was just like proposing this idea of, oh, what if we can use randomness to select a proposer? And so we just started chatting and then come the end of the summer, I was just really into the work I was doing at Tendermint and I just dropped out of school the day before classes started to kind of work on Tendermint full time, and I've been doing that since.
**B** (3:06):
That's awesome. Yeah, I'd love to have you back on for Cosmos and hopefully we'll have some time to dig into that. But let's definitely discuss the Byzantine Battalion. I mean, how did, did you come up with this or did somebody else or did you join it? What's the genesis of the battalion?
**A** (3:20):
Yeah, so, I mean, I kind of came up with it just with conversations, I think maybe with Nate Rush. So Nate Rush was one of my co interns when I was working at Consensys and you know, we chat all the time still. We, we actually still run a podcast together called Conspiratus. And so I think what happened was the Byzantine battalion, we just like had this idea where like, I don't know, I think that a lot of these, we came to this realization that a lot of these things that are going on in the space are not being tested in sufficiently adversarial environments where they, these things are designed to be like, put up against like large scale actors, like nation state actors and stuff. But like, currently, I think due to, I don't know, just in the space, people just aren't being adversarial enough, which makes sense because like, you know, we're all in the space, we're all like kind of friends with each other. We see each other at all the conferences and everything. And so we don't want to do anything mean to each other. But at the same, a great example of this is in Cosmos you have a lot of validators who are, in theory, validators are supposed to be super competitive with each other. And it's in a validator's incentive to in fact be attacking other validators. But we actually don't see that happening in practice because all the validators, they know each other in a way and, and for that reason, you know, encouraging more ad. So basically we came to the conclusion that like, look, there needs to be a little bit more byzantine behavior, but like not. We don't want to be like black hat Byzantines. You know, it's almost like white hat, White hat hackers. We want to be like Byzantine, but for the purposes of good.
**B** (5:01):
No, that's awesome. And so I guess at the end of the day, like there's a lot of security firms out there that allotic code, I think trail of bits is probably one of the most well known ones. Are you basically doing that for free?
**A** (5:13):
Yeah, so it's almost like so, you know, we're not security experts per se, so we're not. So that's why we're like a little bit different than white hat hackers. We're not attacking the code base, like finding bugs in that way. We're kind of attacking more like crypto economic systems or as well as just like one of the things that we actually really believe in is that I think forks are like the most important piece of governance tooling that blockchains have given us. And we think that just in general people are a little bit too scared to use them. And so for that reason I think we want to be able to encourage people to use forks. Another example is something like, let's say. So when we originally had this idea, it was back in late 2017, early 2018, when there was all this ICO mania going around. And one of the ideas was like, oh, a lot of these applications that are being deployed right now, they don't need their own token. Why do they have their own token? This makes no sense. And so one of the ideas we want to do as well is be able to start forking a bunch of token, forking a bunch of dapps on Ethereum and maybe redeploying them without using ETH as the native token rather than an unnecessary second token.
**B** (6:34):
That's awesome. So I mean, when you go out and you're thinking of. Or the team is thinking of forking away, let's say a project, let's take 0. X as an example because they did have Hydra, which I think forked it away. And I don't know if they got rid of the token or they just changed. I think they just changed the dynamics of how the exchange works. But how do you. I mean, it's one thing to fork away the token, it's another thing to attract a community to use it. How do you think you can go that next mile and attract a community to use like your forked version of it, to really test it in the wild.
**A** (7:05):
Yeah. So I think, I think for this kind of stuff it really comes down to the specifics of the project, like each case will be a little bit different. I've been in touch with the Hydro people a bit, and one of the things with Hydro is that it's actually being created by DDEX, which is one of the largest 0x relayers. And so once their system is kind of a little bit more live, I imagine that we can actually see that look, once the. You already have the largest 0x relayer already using Hydro, and I think that we can actually see more relayers will be switching over to it, hopefully soon. And you know, and actually, you know, here's another way I would put it as well. I think that even if the fork doesn't succeed, if it can impact the original project, I think that is a success. And so what you actually see is in 0x v2 they actually change the token dynamics of the Zero X tokens, where it's no longer being used to pay for fees, but rather it's expected to be held by market makers. And that's actually, I think, the same functionality actually has in Hydro protocol. So I'd be willing to say that I think the Hydro protocol may have even in fact moved the hand of the Zero X team in order to fix these token dynamics into something that's more amenable to the ecosystem.
**B** (8:31):
That makes sense. And, you know, you're a researcher, you're out here in the wild all day. It seems like a lot of the layer ones obviously get forked a lot. Like there's, you know, dozens of bitcoin forks, there's forks for other layer ones, but it doesn't seem like that many dapps or Layer two projects get forked that often or if at all. Are you seeing that and is that kind of one of the reasons that led you to do this?
**A** (8:53):
Yeah, so I think there's not a lot of layer two projects that are being forked, possibly because the incentives aren't quite there. You know, if you remove a token, I don't know really what you get out of it. And that's kind of one thing the battalion has to kind of figure out as well right now. It's kind of just like the assumption here is it's just going to off act a little bit off of altruism, where it's like, you know, a bunch of people who just enjoy doing stuff like this will. Will hopefully be the ones participating. And then in the layer ones, yeah, we see a lot of forks on the layer ones, but we haven't actually seen many that have been very successful yet. So you know, the most common ones are, you know, like you said, bitcoin has like a bunch of crazy forks. But the most important one is probably bitcoin cash. Ethereum has its own forks like Ethereum Classic or you know, technically Ethereum is a fork of Ethereum Classic. But you know, I mean, and then you know, you see this kind of stuff in zcash with and you see it in Tezos but you know, it just, I feel like there just hasn't been a compelling enough reason yet to, for any of these forks to be successful. And I think the problem, one of the problems is that the network effects of original chains are just a little bit too high. And so this is why kind of one of the projects I'm working on right now, kind of as a bootstrap for this battalion, is this project called Straight Edge, which is a fork of edgeware which is, I believe you've had them on the podcast you mentioned to me. And the idea is, you know, I think there was some very sketchy stuff that went on in the edgeware process and I thought that, you know, I got very upset about it when I learned about it and I assume that like, no, hopefully enough of, maybe the rest of the, maybe the edge community just isn't aware enough of these issues and if I make them aware, maybe they'd be willing to switch. And so I've termed this thing a zero day fork where there's no existing chain yet. Like we're going to fork the chain at, we're going to launch the Straight Edge chain at the same time as the edgeware chain. And so maybe the, I don't know if this has ever been done before in the blockchain space Base TZ Libre was sort of an attempt at that. But I don't know if they actually ever ended up doing anything at all. I believe they're just like a baker on Tezos at this point. But yeah, so a zero day fork, which is like a fork that launches at the same time as a new chain, can that have a different dynamic? And to me it's really just an experiment to see how do the dynamics change in this model as compared to when you do a fork of a chain that already been running for a long time and has a lot of network effects.
**B** (11:47):
It's interesting and that's a cool example. So I had Eduware on. So for those who don't know, Eduard is trying to bring Smart contracts to Polkadot by launching on Polkadot as its own parachain and handling smart contracts and things like that. Sunny, what were the key things that led you to become unhappy with their system? And you know, kind of use this as one of your first and main examples for the battalion.
**A** (12:12):
Yeah, sure. So one thing just quickly to note is they don't, they're not launching on Polkadot, they're actually launching at because Polkadot isn't launched yet. So they're launching as a sovereign chain on using substrate and then maybe in the future they'll connect to Polkadot and that kind of depends on one, edger governance and two, if they can get enough dots to do so. Yeah. So what was the issue with the EdgeWare lock drop? So I guess I can give a brief rundown just to familiarize anyone who's not too familiar. So how the EdgeWare system released its tokens was through this process called a lock drop where what you'll do is you'll lock your ether into a special lock drop contract and you'll get edge tokens for locking it. And the theory here is that look, the, when you lock tokens you are, you have some opportunity costs. You're foregoing the ability to use those tokens to go earn interest on compound or to go trade them or whatnot. And so that will that opportunity cost that people are foregoing shows that they, they legitimately value these edge tokens and that will somehow give the edge tokens value. And you know, I think this is actually a very interesting experiment. And so given this, how what went and you get more tokens on the edge system for locking for longer. So the base locking time is three months, but if you lock for six months you get a bonus and if you lock for 12 months, you get an even, even larger bonus. Now what? And then, you know, I guess they were maybe worried that there weren't enough. Maybe the participation on this won't be high enough where it turns out there was actually quite a bit of participation on the, on the locking side. But they also added this thing called signaling which is, okay, let's say you don't actually want to lock your tokens. What you can just do instead is you can send a transaction from an account and you know, you can claim the, you'll get a 20% of the tokens. You're not going to get 100% as if you had locked for three months. So it's still always better to lock, but you're able, you know, if you don't want to do that, you can still at least like, it's still some positive action that you're doing. It's not like an airdrop where just, you know, I'm sure people have had a bunch of coins randomly airdropped into their accounts and they're like, what is this thing? It's like no one knows. So at least, you know, at least being able to doing a transaction specifically to signal, at least it's still some positive action that you're taking towards claiming those tokens. So this all sounds cool. Now, what went wrong? So they added this in the rules of the lock drop. There's this weird thing. There's this weird thing where that anyone who's ever deployed a smart contract is allowed to signal on behalf of that smart contract. And that just doesn't make any sense. I feel it's like a misunderstanding of the entire concept of smart contract. It's like just because someone deployed a smart contract doesn't make them the owner or. The entire premise of Ethereum is that once you. Once anyone can deploy a smart contract, but the smart contract is a. It's its own sovereign thing, right? It doesn't care who deployed it. And so this is very silly because here's an example. Whoever deployed the wrapped ether contract, the wet contract that's used in like Dai and 0x and everything, there's like millions and millions of Ether in there. Yet that one person can go signal on behalf of all of that wrapped Ethereum. That's just crazy, in my opinion. That doesn't make any sense. None of that ether is there. I don't know, maybe a little bit of it is. But the vast, vast, vast majority of that ether is not theirs, but they shouldn't have any special ownership over it. And so you might be wondering, okay, this is really weird. And I know the Commonwealth people, they're smart guys. They must have noticed that something was like this. They wouldn't have just done this for no reason, right? So what's the reason they did this? I think it's actually very clear. It's so that the Web3 foundation can signal on behalf of all of the Ether that's in their locked parity wallets. And they did this once before in I think the EIP999 carbon vote, where it was like, oh, how did the locked funds signal? They did the same thing where they made the rules of a carbon vote were that like, oh, the deployer of a contract can signal on behalf of a contract. So it just. It feels like this weird rule that was done to benefit like special interests, I'll call it.
**B** (17:03):
Got it.
**A** (17:03):
Yeah.
**B** (17:03):
And they definitely got a lot of pushback from that. So I guess the question posed to you here is when you launch Straight Edge, did you remove this signaling or the lock drop method or did you, did you also change other features as well? Or is that the main change that you guys made?
**A** (17:21):
Yeah, so that's the main change that we made. And so by the way, I knew about this issue, I guess to make and to make the matters even more egregious, like to. I think the final nail in the coffin for me when I learned about this is when I decided to do the fork was at ZCON Drew. And Drew is the lead developer of EdgeWare. He was telling me about this. They added this new thing like two days before the start of the lock drop called a generalized lock, where they said, oh, you don't actually have to use our contract to lock. If you can write any, if there's any contract that's signaled from, but it acts like a lock, then that actually counts as a full lock. It doesn't discount as a signal. So now clearly the parity wallets, they can't actually, they're acting like locks because you can't actually move any money out of them. And so not only will they get the value of the signal from those contracts that are dead, but rather they're going to get the full lock value, not just the signal value. And so for me that was just like, okay, at that point it was very clear what was going on. And so that's kind of why I decided to do this. Forth. Yes, the chain hasn't launched yet. Both Edger and Straightedge are going to launch on September 15. The idea is, yeah, the main difference that's going to happen is that we are deploying a second Genesis file that has a different initial token distribution in which all signals on behalf of contracts are removed.
**B** (19:06):
No, that's awesome. You're basically disrupting the disruptors and helping to keep projects accountable to their communities and the public. I guess the question, the next question for you though is let's say you guys launch trade Edge and edgeware launches edgeware. Eduard clearly has an interest to build this out, attract developers. They have some funding from the lock drop, well, you know, quasi funding. But back on Straight Edge, I mean, you guys don't really have like a team set up or like an ethos surrounded other than the one off changes. So like do you expect a team to come around and kind of build Straight Edge out to compete with edgeware? Or is the point of all this just to see what happens and influence, hopefully, the original chain itself?
**A** (19:48):
I think my hope, the best case scenario would be for actually Commonwealth and Parity to come around and actually support this. And so, you know, they. So Commonwealth and Parity actually both have their same amount of tokens on Straight Edge as they do on edgeware.
**B** (20:08):
And.
**A** (20:08):
And in fact, I actually plan to make a governance proposal on Straightedge that, hey, let's give the Web3 foundation and other parody multisig victims the equivalent of a signal. I've never. I never had an issue, honestly, if, if they were just more upfront about the purpose of this, of like, oh, we just want to give the Web3 foundation some money back or something, you know, I think that would have been way more okay. But I think what people were upset about was that it was done in this sneaky way, as if they thought we wouldn't notice or something. And that's kind of what I just wanted to really call out. And even if, like. So, yeah, the best case scenario is that hopefully, if Straight Edge ends up being more valued by the community than Edgeware, hopefully, I don't see why Commonwealth and Parity wouldn't just take the opportunity to just work on Straight Edge as well. And any changes that are made to edgeware, it's pretty easy to port those changes into Straightedge. They're both running on the same code base using substrate. I don't imagine it will be that difficult to actually keep the systems in sync.
**B** (21:22):
Got it. That's interesting, Sonny. Just zooming out to the crypto space. It's the ethos of the space that since everything's open source, anyone could fork away and create their own code and make changes if something's wrong with the original project. But it seems like you guys are taking more of an activist approach. I'm just wondering if you think if the crypto space was much larger, do you think what you're doing now would happen more organically because there would just be more developers and more opinions in the room? Or do you think crypto is still too small to have these wide range of activist hackers kind of trying to disrupt projects that, you know, may not have the best community in mind?
**A** (22:05):
That's a good question. I'm actually not too sure. I mean, on one extent, as you get a larger group, I think it may devolve into more like sort of group think. And even if the crypto space gets larger and larger, it this kind of Turns into a little bit of a duocracy where the duocracies are great because, you know, it encourages a lot of like experimentation and just people trying new things. But what ends up happening is it only ends up being the most passionate people participating really. And so really the point of the battalion is just, you know, it's not even like a group, it's not even a dao. It's like, it's literally just so. One of my favorite books, it's called Swarm Wise by, by Rick Falkfinch, who is the founder of the Pirate Party. And so yeah, I would call this more of a swarm where it's just a group of people. We have, we currently have like a telegram channel where we just like talking about these ideas and like, hopefully if like, you know what if a few of the people in the channel, like really like in Swarm Wise, what he says is three people in a swarm think that something should be done. They have, they can just go do it. They don't need to get permission from anyone else. And so hopefully the goal of this is just to be a meeting place for people who are passionate about this kind of stuff to meet and hopefully team up to work on these kind of projects. Even if the space gets larger, I think that such a meeting, there's actually more need for such a meeting place like this because then it becomes harder to find similar like minded people.
**B** (23:46):
That's awesome. And thinking bigger. If we look at the top 10 projects on CoinMarketCap, do you envision the battalion if it grows and the reactions good and you guys continue to love doing this, do you think you could target larger projects like maybe try bribing miners on eos and see what happens? Or maybe fork away the XRP and the Ripple system and use a stablecoin or something along those lines? Or do you think it'll probably be more project specific built on these layer ones?
**A** (24:18):
For now, yeah. Forking isn't sort of the only thing that's worth doing. I think that there's other things that are kind of worth doing, especially when it comes to like a high, high, high importance layer one stuff. And you know, one of the ones that Nate and I were talking about that we're pretty interested in is creating a contract on Ethereum in order to bribe Bitcoin miners. So we have the BTC relay system on Ethereum which is a one way light client system, one one way peg from Bitcoin to Ethereum. And so what we can actually do is we pay bitcoin miners to do Something to maybe censor a transaction, censor the closing of a lightning channel or something and using a smarter blockchain like Ethereum. And so these are kind of, I think bribery contract and stuff are kind of important or like in the cosmos case, I want to create a tool, I think that we should open source the tooling for censoring other validators because these things are in theory part of our threat model when we're thinking about these systems. But sometimes I think it's too easy to just say like, oh yeah, but you know, no one actually has those things written right now, so I don't have to really worry about it. So I think it's important for these, these toolings for like a little bit like sneaky behavior like that to actually be open source and so that it's there and part of everyone's threat model. So I don't know, I don't think I'm going to see much success in trying to fork Bitcoin or fork Ethereum. You know, there are some people who are working on Fork or Ethereum right now, alternate or something. But I think, I think there is improvements to be made that the battalion can help do in these large scale projects as well.
**B** (26:09):
Yeah, no, I agree. And I mean you keep these projects accountable and ethically legit, which is also good. And I guess the other question for you thinking down the line, and I know this is really early, but I guess how do you prevent members of the battalion from becoming overly malicious like hey, let me mess with this project and maybe short the original project and go long when I'm building. It might not be a perfect example because you talked about forking away the tokens, but I'm just wondering if you perceive any issues there.
**A** (26:40):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know. I guess it's just about maintaining a good culture within the battalion. And like I said, it's really just a discussion group and if people. And I guess the best we could do is really just ban people who stop meeting that ethos in a way and we can't stop anyone from going off and doing stuff like this. But as a battalion, maybe we should make people aware that they're doing stuff like this and that way maybe other battalion members can choose not to work with them, for example.
**B** (27:12):
No, that makes sense. And I guess funding wise, I mean it makes really a lot of sense that you guys could be a public good in a sense for a lot in the crypto community, whether it be investors or users or stakeholders, because you're keeping everyone Accountable, especially through a very technical group. While a lot of crypto people might not be as technical, do you think that you guys could potentially obtain funding from a Dow or something? I know we're kind of thinking ahead here, but it seems like something like this could attract funding and be a public good.
**A** (27:45):
Yeah, I mean, maybe. I think that at some point, maybe if this thing becomes big enough and we actually have. Have done some stuff under a belt that like, show, I imagine that maybe we could get some funding from like, I don't know, Moloch Dao or something like that. Another cool thing would be if the battalion actually builds a project that is, that gets it some funding. And what I'm thinking of there is. Do you remember the FOMO 3D stuff that happened last year?
**B** (28:16):
Oh, yeah, yeah.
**A** (28:17):
I think that was like. You know, a lot of people thought it was like, oh, this like, weird thing. But I thought it was like. I honestly, I'll say the word is. I thought it was beautiful. I thought it was like, whoa. Like here's like. It is a perfect pyramid scheme where like, you know, the pyramid scheme, the logic, like game. Theoretically it will, it should never end. The underlying system is like a blockchain. It's like an uncensorable perfect pyramid scheme ended up breaking down because of, you know, bots were able to game how like Ethereum's feet, like how Ethereum like transactions worked and stuff. And. But, you know, hopefully maybe we can improve blocking enough so that doesn't have. So it never has to stop. But I thought that showing these. I'll call FOMO3D, like an art project where it showed the capabilities of like, weird game theory. Like, like, like almost. What's the word? I can't remember the word off the top of my head. But like Charlie Noyes loves to use this word. I forgot, I forgot what it was. But like game theory that like, you know, is very parasitic almost, but absurd. I mean, I can't remember the word. But yeah, just like. And so I think that, you know, deploying something like that again would be interesting. I've been reading about this thing. I don't know if you've heard of, like the chain letters, like back in the 90s where you had these like things where you sent. Have you heard of the circle of gold chain letter?
**B** (29:51):
No, I haven't.
**A** (29:52):
So it's this like, fun little game where what you would do is someone created a list and what they would. It has a bunch of names on it. And what you would do is you'd buy the list from someone for $50. And then when you buy it, you'd cross you. You take the person at the top of the list, and you'd have to. You'd mail them $50. So now you're down $100. Right. But what you'll do is you now make two photocopies of that list and add your name at the bottom of both of them, and then you sell each of them for $50 each. And so now you'll be up. So you'll be broken even once you sell your two copies. But now, in a few months, when your name gets to the top of those lists that have now propagating out, you're gonna, like, money is gonna be rolling into you and people, because people are gonna be sending you $50. And the system was actually completely based off of trust, but because, like, you know, you have to just trust that people actually mail the $50 to the people at the top of the list or they wouldn't modify or alter the list or something. But this. This chain letter actually, like, became so viral back in, like, the 1990s, like, like, people all over the country were, like, participating in this list. I've got what the exact. I forgot the exact numbers, but I think there was, like. I think it was estimated that at some point over, like, I can't remember if there's a thousand or ten thousand people had already, like, participated in the. In this. In the game. And so it's like this cool pyramid scheme, but it had a lot of trust based in it. What if we could redeploy this on a blockchain? I think that would be, like, a fun little perverse game theory thing to deploy, and maybe that could earn some money for the battalion. I don't know.
**B** (31:49):
That's super interesting. I haven't heard about that. And to be honest, if I had to fork it, I would probably make it. So the money each person sends me goes down each iteration, but the number of copies goes up. Just so that at one point, we could have, you know, a million people sending us, you know, a dollar instead of pricing out people that may not have five or ten grand on the upside.
**A** (32:10):
Exactly, Exactly. Yeah. And so I think that would be really fun where, like, just, like, creating art projects like this, like, making it easy enough, like, maybe the cost. Making the cost low enough so we can get high enough participation in these art projects.
**B** (32:23):
That's awesome and sunny. I love this short and sweet episode. And it's a new idea, and it's so interesting. And is there anywhere people could follow along with the battalion, or is the best way just to follow you on Twitter?
**A** (32:37):
Follow me on Twitter, I guess, and then I'll post a link to the battalion. Or, you know, I can give you a link to. Maybe I can give a link to the battalion right now. I'm not sure how I actually do that, though.
**B** (32:50):
Well, I guess I could always. You could send me something after. I could link it in the show notes for anyone interested that could just scroll down on their phone and click it.
**A** (32:57):
Okay, yeah, that would be perfect. I'll give you a group link in the show notes. Basically, like I said, right now it's mostly just a telegram group. And I created the telegram group almost a year ago, but I just got personally so busy with Cosmos launch and stuff that I never had time to actually do anything with it until now that I have a little bit more time to be experimenting on different things.
**B** (33:19):
No, it's awesome. You're keeping people accountable. You're disrupting the disruptors, and it's a new idea early on, so that's why it's also super interesting and sunny. Thanks so much for hopping on for this short and sweet but very awesome episode. Cool.
**A** (33:33):
Awesome. Thanks for having me.
**B** (33:34):
Hey, everyone, thanks for listening to the episode. If you can go to itunes and hit subscribe to the Chain Reaction podcast, it'll go a long way in helping us reach new listeners and help support the show. Thanks again.