In the latest episode of the SeeTalk podcast, long-time researcher of the Bitcoin ecosystem, Xixi, hosted an online discussion with Shawn, the head of the SeeDAO incubator and a researcher at RGB++ Fans. They chatted about the background and origins of the RGB++ protocol, development controversies, future application potential, and more, hoping that more teams and creators could understand the RGB++ protocol and participate early in the RGB++ ecosystem.
Podcast link 👇: https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/66601edc63c334a2fb876cae
Here are the main points organized based on the podcast audio:
1. Why are you so passionate about RGB++?#
Shawn: I have been involved in the discussion of the RGB++ protocol from the very beginning, and I am very grateful to the authors of the RGB++ protocol for including my name in the technical white paper.
Last year, I mainly did two things: one was participating in the Bitcoin Layer 1 asset issuance protocol, and I was also one of the first to curate the introductory video course for the Atomicals protocol and the first developer lecture. The second thing I invested a lot of energy in was the AW autonomous world. I have a research group that I often discuss with, and they started focusing on AW relatively early. We regularly share and listen to their introductions to AW, which I found very interesting, so I began to follow this track, researching the article known as the "AW Bible," and discussing with various teams involved in the AW autonomous world, etc. Of course, at this stage, the presentation form of the AW autonomous world is still mainly full-chain games, so during that time, I played almost all full-chain games.
Then, in November last year, at the AW Assembly conference held in Istanbul, during and after the conference, many people began to waver regarding the mainstream solution at that time — implementing the AW autonomous world in the Ethereum ecosystem — mainly due to performance and cost considerations, and a small number of people believed that using Ethereum as the foundation for the AW autonomous world was not feasible. Due to the high popularity of the BRC-20 protocol based on indexers at that time, someone proposed whether it was possible to issue assets on the Bitcoin mainnet and then implement the AW autonomous world on a super indexer. This coincided with another Layer 1 protocol direction I was working on, so I became very fascinated with this exploratory direction.
In December last year, I went to Chiang Mai and discussed possibilities with various AW teams offline. Coincidentally, I met Cipher, the author of the RGB++ protocol, there. We had some discussions, but at that time, Cipher had not yet thought of creating the RGB++ protocol; our discussions mainly revolved around thoughts on the future development of the Bitcoin ecosystem.
By February of this year, we felt that using the super indexer solution for AW had issues because centralized indexers rely on social consensus, which had not reached the optimistic levels everyone thought it would last year. The RGB++ protocol, which Cipher was conceptualizing, provided us with a better option: issuing assets on the Bitcoin mainnet and then achieving bridge-less cross-chain with CKB through the RGB++ protocol, allowing the AW autonomous world to be realized through CKB and off-chain computation. So, many developers, including myself, began to assist Cipher in accelerating the development and ecological planning of the RGB++ protocol.
This is the process I participated in from last year until RGB++ took off.
Xixi: I understand, so at that time in Chiang Mai, everyone met offline, and this idea about Bitcoin Layer 2 was generated through discussions, right?
Shawn: Yes. In fact, during our discussions in Chiang Mai, we were not only talking about Layer 1; we also discussed Layer 2 because, in December last year, Bitcoin Layer 2 had not yet emerged, mainly focusing on Bitcoin Layer 1 asset issuance protocols. We explored both directions, including the shortcomings of Layer 1 asset issuance protocols and what better technical features should be available in the future, as well as how to scale Layer 2, etc. At that time, the discussions were actually mixed together.
So, friends who understand the RGB++ protocol might find it particularly novel that the RGB++ protocol is both a Layer 1 asset issuance protocol and a Layer 2 bridge-less cross-chain solution. I think this is related to our open-ended discussions that mixed Layer 1 and Layer 2 together last year.
2. What are the technical advantages and innovations of the UTXO model?#
Shawn: Indeed, many people view UTXO as a very old model, and for a long time, it was overshadowed by the EVM account model. However, many developers are now starting to flock to the UTXO technical route. So, the current Bitcoin ecosystem actually has two major competing technical routes: one is Bitcoin's native UTXO model, and the other is Ethereum's account model. There are indeed many teams directly porting Ethereum's EVM virtual machine over, allowing them to use the applications accumulated on Ethereum over the past few years. This is also why there has been talk of a "Battle of the Hundred Groups" for Bitcoin Layer 2 at the beginning of this year, where the vast majority of projects are simply porting over Ethereum's model.
Regarding the pros and cons of the UTXO model versus the account model, you can search online for many long articles analyzing this. My own observation is that this wave of the Bitcoin ecosystem's rise is often referred to as the "Bitcoin Renaissance." Almost all innovative technologies in the past eleven and a half years have been based on UTXO. Although there have been many products based on the EVM account model that have been implemented, you actually do not see any real native innovations; almost all native innovations are based on UTXO. Why is that? Because the Bitcoin mainnet is UTXO-based, so you can hardly achieve very solid, genuine innovation using the account model on Bitcoin.
Taking RGB++ as an example, the RGB++ protocol is based on two core technologies, one of which is called one-time sealing, proposed by Bitcoin core developer Peter Todd in 2016, which utilizes the characteristics of UTXO, something that the account model does not possess. The other core technology is called isomorphic binding, which was first proposed by Cipher. Isomorphic binding allows UTXOs on two different UTXO chains to be bound together, enabling assets to be directly transferred between the two chains without the need for a cross-chain bridge, something that has never existed on Ethereum. On Ethereum, there must always be a cross-chain bridge between Layer 1 and Layer 2; its model is Layer 1 staking, Layer 2 generation; Layer 2 destruction, Layer 1 retrieval. No matter how it innovates, it will always do it this way. Therefore, you will find that many teams that port the EVM account model to Bitcoin are still doing this, unable to break out of this framework. This is why we say that true innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem must belong to UTXO. This is my own observation.
Xixi: Recently, I also heard a saying that some of the construction models from Ethereum are like a philosophical steel stamp, and the Bitcoin ecosystem needs more native innovations that align with Bitcoin's characteristics. CKB itself is PoW + UTXO, which fits very well with Bitcoin Layer 1, and then through RGB++ for isomorphic binding, right?
Shawn: Yes. Theoretically, any two UTXO chains can be isomorphically bound through RGB++, but CKB may be more suitable for some reasons. Why? Because CKB itself is PoW + UTXO, and PoW gives CKB a stronger foundation, enhancing its security. It is completely isomorphic to the Bitcoin mainnet, which is also PoW + UTXO, so synchronizing binding between the two will be smoother, although other UTXO chains can also achieve isomorphic binding.
3. The origin of the name RGB++ and the controversy surrounding it#
Shawn: The principle of RGB++ does not come from RGB; rather, both RGB++ and RGB use the one-time sealing technology proposed by Peter Todd in 2016, which is their commonality, while their differences lie in the specific implementation. RGB adopts an off-chain solution, while RGB++ adopts an on-chain solution, which are completely different paths.
Returning to the name RGB++, there was indeed some controversy on Twitter earlier. In the earliest draft of the protocol discussion, Cipher referred to it as CKB RGB because he believed that this protocol and the RGB protocol both used the one-time sealing technology, even though this technology was not proposed by the RGB protocol, and it also used CKB as a Layer 2 to provide smart contract capabilities, so he thought that calling it CKB RGB was better.
At that time, many developers from the open-source community had already joined, and when discussing the protocol name, the vast majority of participants opposed the name CKB RGB. They believed that from the perspective of modularity and composability, its distinction from the RGB protocol was likely similar to the relationship between C and C++. Since C++ is more composable in terms of modularity, everyone felt it would be better to call it RGB++, and this proposal received support from the majority, including myself, so the name RGB++ was adopted. Therefore, the name RGB++ was accurately proposed by a group of developers from the open-source community.
The controversy surrounding the name RGB++ mainly arose because the RGB team expressed some relatively negative views on Twitter. What everyone saw was only the surface of the matter; behind it, there had actually been a long period of communication and discussion between the RGB++ open-source community and the RGB association. Due to various reasons, the RGB protocol has been repeatedly overturned and reworked. In 2019, Dr. Maxim Orlovsky established the LNP/BP Standard Association, dedicated to promoting the development of RGB from concept to practical application. Currently, many teams are participating in the RGB protocol, but it has yet to be realized.
In the early stages of conceptualizing the RGB++ protocol, we contacted the RGB association, hoping to join this association because, from a certain perspective, the RGB++ protocol and the RGB protocol could be compatible and expand its application scenarios, as RGB focuses on off-chain while RGB++ works on-chain, allowing for integration and mutual compatibility. The RGB association is controlled by a board, and the spokesperson of the board is Dr. Maxim. In March, we had actually persuaded nearly half of the board members to support us, and their developers were discussing the technical details of the RGB++ protocol in the internal forum, discussing the pros and cons of the RGB++ protocol compared to the RGB protocol, which I thought was very healthy. At that time, Dr. Maxim maintained a neutral stance and did not express his position, so we were still optimistic at the end of March.
However, just a few days before the official release of the RGB++ protocol in early April, some dramatic changes occurred. Some project parties within the RGB association were questioning Dr. Maxim in the internal forum, saying that we had waited so long, yet the RGB protocol had never been realized, and our ecological projects were on the verge of bankruptcy. You have always said how difficult it is to develop the RGB protocol and asked everyone to be patient, but look, RGB++ was developed in just two months and is about to be released. The internal debates were very intense, and many ecological projects, regardless of their mindset or motives, used the fact that RGB++ was developed in two months and was about to be realized as a reason to question Dr. Maxim. There were certainly many emotional elements involved, and suddenly one night, Dr. Maxim tweeted some unfriendly remarks about RGB++. He also posted in the internal forum, clearly stating that the RGB association was driven by him and should not be pushed by a board vote, which caused quite a stir at that time.
After the conflict became public, we also tried to continue communicating with the RGB association and Dr. Maxim. Later, this matter evolved into a ideological dispute, so to this day, everyone is still doing their own thing and not cooperating. The RGB protocol's ideology aims to eliminate all blockchains, retaining only Bitcoin, so it is an off-chain solution. In contrast, the RGB++ protocol is a completely blockchain-based on-chain solution with a public ledger. From an ideological perspective, both sides have indeed chosen completely different paths, and the ideological dispute is somewhat irreconcilable, so later everyone went their separate ways, and no further controversies arose.
This aspect of the Bitcoin ecosystem is indeed better than that of the Ethereum ecosystem because, in the Ethereum ecosystem, Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation set the overall framework and direction, creating a roadmap from the top down that everyone must follow. In the Bitcoin ecosystem, there is no such thing as a roadmap; if you think something is good, you can build your ecosystem and see how many applications are running and how many users are using it in one, two, or three years. I think this state of independent development is quite good.
Xixi: Yes, this is also one of the reasons I find the Bitcoin ecosystem very interesting, as there are many disputes, collisions, and exchanges of ideas between different Bitcoin communities, which I believe is an important reason for maintaining the vitality of the Bitcoin ecosystem. In fact, similar disputes have been very common throughout Bitcoin's history, and it can even be said that it has always been this way.
Shawn: Yes, ideological disputes are particularly prevalent and intense in the Bitcoin ecosystem, and it is rare for a big shot to come out and say, "Stop arguing," and resolve the matter. The Ethereum ecosystem may be different; it really is the case that someone can mediate and calm things down. These are two different styles.
Xixi: Yes, so I think the Bitcoin ecosystem is very decentralized both technically and ideologically, with a lot of debate.
4. How do you view the recent significant correction in RGB++ asset prices?#
Shawn: The RGB++ protocol has only been around for two months since its release, and in these two months, five trading markets have already launched in the ecosystem, with Bitcoin AW autonomous world projects like World3, relatively mature IPs like Nervape, and an AMM DEX similar to Uniswap about to be released, along with algorithmic stablecoins and various DeFi applications, as well as applications in the creator economy and social applications. In other words, the RGB++ ecosystem is actually advancing very quickly; it just needs more time.
Additionally, I also strongly agree that a protocol and ecosystem need to have a wealth effect; only with a wealth effect will more teams participate in ecosystem construction. Therefore, the surge in April did indeed attract many teams, and in the coming months of June and July, various ecological projects will gradually go live, bringing more points of attention and new wealth effects. The price of assets and ecological prosperity are complementary. So, I personally have high hopes for the upcoming period; as various products and projects in the ecosystem land, they will bring more funds and market attention.
5. What do you think of the current RGB++ community culture?#
Shawn: As I mentioned earlier, asset prices and ecological prosperity are complementary. Ecological prosperity refers not only to the project teams in the ecosystem but also includes culture and community, such as the typical clown culture in the RGB++ ecosystem, the SEAL community, the Nervape community, and so on. Of course, there are certainly some speculators who come to hype assets, which is normal, and we do not shy away from this.
However, in the Bitcoin ecosystem, you will never hear discussions in any other protocol community about how to build a more solid foundation for the Bitcoin autonomous world, establish a sense of time and space, or establish physical laws; these discussions can only be heard in the RGB++ community. For example, when we were designing the Digital Object (DOBs) standard, we were actually considering more about how to help creators, how to empower the creator economy, and how to assist these individual designers in better engaging in secondary creation and sales. So, the RGB++ community and culture are different from other communities. Regardless of the asset, its price is always fluctuating; a community that revolves tightly around asset speculation will certainly be short-lived because there will never be an asset that does not correct and keeps rising; that is impossible. Therefore, I personally have great confidence in the RGB++ ecosystem and its culture and community's long-term development.
6. How can creators participate in the RGB++ ecosystem, and what special gameplay is there?#
Shawn: This topic is a bit broad; I can only choose a few small points to introduce.
The biggest advantages of the RGB++ protocol are twofold: one is that it provides programmability for the Bitcoin mainnet, and the other is that it allows assets to leap (Leap) directly between the Bitcoin mainnet and CKB without the need for a cross-chain bridge, achieving complete decentralization. Therefore, you can develop applications on the Bitcoin mainnet or on Layer 2 (CKB); this is a significant advantage of the RGB++ protocol.
I have been paying attention to and participating in the AW autonomous world for a long time and have played many full-chain games. For example, in the game Pirate Nation, all its assets are on-chain. This game was initially released on the Arbitrum Nova chain and later migrated to another chain (Proof of Play Apex chain). In May, you would find that due to issues with the chain, the game was unusable for five days. At this time, as users, we naturally wonder if our game assets could potentially disappear overnight due to chain issues. As believers in blockchain, we leave our assets on-chain; where is the strongest consensus? When we ponder this question, most people would answer Bitcoin.
A few weeks ago, I participated in a Space with the Bitcoin autonomous world project World3, during which I asked the founder of World3 why they chose to come to the Bitcoin ecosystem to create an autonomous world. He said they wanted to become a long-term project in this industry. Because long-term development requires resistance to censorship, they chose Bitcoin because Ethereum not only transitioned from PoW to PoS but also issuing assets on Ethereum could potentially lead to being blacklisted by the U.S. government overnight. From the perspective of resisting censorship, he believes that issuing assets on the Bitcoin mainnet is the only choice, which is why the World3 project chose to enter the Bitcoin ecosystem.
The RGB++ protocol can issue fungible tokens and also issue DOBs, which can be simply understood as an enhanced version of NFTs. NFTs on Ethereum are not entirely on-chain; their images and data are mostly off-chain, initially possibly stored on a centralized server, later evolving to be stored on Arweave or IPFS. On the other hand, there is significant concern within the industry regarding whether Ethereum validators would participate in censoring assets and transactions due to government demands. In contrast, DOBs not only allow content to be 100% stored on-chain but also enable back-and-forth leaps (Leap) between Layer 1 Bitcoin and Layer 2 CKB.
For example, in the Nervape project, they issued the Neural Ape body ("Naked Ape") on the Bitcoin mainnet, while various accessories and items for the Neural Ape were issued on the CKB chain. If I own a Neural Ape on Bitcoin, the simplest gameplay is to use RGB++ to leap it to CKB without any cross-chain bridge. This gameplay cannot be seen in the Ethereum ecosystem because the Ethereum ecosystem relies on various bridges, while RGB++ can directly allow assets to leap to another chain through UTXO's isomorphic binding. CKB is a Turing-complete chain that supports smart contracts, allowing us to dress up the Neural Ape on CKB, such as putting on sunglasses or holding a cigar, however cool we want it to be. Then, I can let the dressed-up Neural Ape return to the Bitcoin mainnet, and the Neural Ape on the Bitcoin mainnet will also change to the appearance I dressed it up with on CKB, and the on-chain data will be completely new. This is the simplest application scenario.
If the Neural Ape combines with Bitcoin autonomous world projects like World3, it will actually generate even richer gameplay. Recently, these two projects have also collaborated to refine their products, hoping to provide users with more diverse gameplay and attract more users. So I think DOBs are very attractive to creators.
In addition, the value storage characteristics of CKB itself are also very appealing to creators. If you deploy a smart contract on the CKB chain that occupies 50,000 bytes, you need to lock 50,000 CKB to store this contract. If you issue an NFT or DOB, and its image data is 10,000 bytes in size, you need to lock 10,000 CKB to store this data. If you write a poem that is 500 bytes long, you need to consume 500 CKB to store it. Only truly valuable creations will encourage people to spend so many CKB tokens to store them.
If one day, the holders of the relevant assets are no longer the original authors, and if they feel that this NFT or DOB is unattractive or they no longer like it, they can destroy it and reclaim the locked 10,000 CKB. If they think the poem is poorly written and should not exist, they can destroy it and reclaim the locked 500 CKB. Gradually, the CKB chain will truly achieve value storage, with life and death, as anything without value will be destroyed, and everyone will reclaim their locked CKB. This is a very interesting point about CKB.
The RGB++ protocol actually integrates various features of CKB, and in my view, it is very friendly to creators and very suitable for building the technical architecture of the Bitcoin autonomous world. Other protocols may only be able to issue tokens and do nothing else, but RGB++ offers a wide variety of gameplay, and various applications are emerging in the ecosystem, allowing you to utilize the assets you hold, which I think is the most imaginative aspect of RGB++.
7. The position of the RGB++ protocol in the Bitcoin ecosystem#
Shawn: On one hand, RGB++ is an asset issuance protocol for Bitcoin Layer 1, and on the other hand, because CKB provides stronger programmability, RGB++ can offer more possibilities for various projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Last year, issuing assets on Bitcoin Layer 1 emphasized fair launch and community participation, which can actually lead to a loss of motivation for many teams to participate and create a certain ceiling. This is why this year, there has been a phenomenon of stagnation in Bitcoin Layer 1, as it needs more new methods to emerge and more capabilities to provide various possibilities for teams. This is why I hope the RGB++ protocol can grow to become a de facto standard for project parties issuing assets on Bitcoin Layer 1.
Another feature of RGB++ is that it allows for cross-chain transactions between Layer 1 and Layer 2 without the need for cross-chain bridges. This feature can bring more possibilities for projects like AW and games, as these projects also want to issue assets on the Bitcoin mainnet. For their application scenarios, RGB++ is very likely to become a de facto standard.
8. Perspectives of Eastern and Western communities and VCs on the Bitcoin ecosystem#
Shawn: Since the second half of last year, Bitcoin Layer 2 has been more driven by Asian capital and Asian teams. In April of this year, I listened to some podcast programs, and although many Western VCs still express skepticism about the Bitcoin Layer 2 track, in practice, these VCs are betting and continuously investing in new projects. My personal understanding is that there has indeed been a divergence between Eastern and Western capital over the past year and a half, but as the Bitcoin ecosystem develops, the pool of assets in this track is becoming fuller, and the financing amounts are increasing. I expect that by the end of this year or next year, we will no longer see the divergence between Eastern and Western capital, as this divergence will ultimately be submerged by the pool, leading to integration, and people will no longer emphasize what Asian capital is doing or what Western capital is doing; it is very likely that everyone will be doing the same thing. This is my view on Bitcoin Layer 2.
Regarding Bitcoin Layer 1 protocols, almost all protocols were not proposed by Chinese people before, while the fact that Cipher can propose the RGB++ protocol and develop it to this extent far exceeds my previous expectations. There are many professionals in the West who can quickly grasp the technical characteristics and future imaginative space of the RGB++ protocol, which is also why Bitcoin Magazine, as an institution in the theoretical domain of Bitcoin, ultimately invested in Cipher's team. In the process of promoting the RGB++ protocol, it has actually exceeded my previous expectations at various levels, and some concerns I had earlier did not materialize, which is quite remarkable.
Xixi: Did Bitcoin Magazine invest in UTXO?
Shawn: They invested in the UTXO Stack project, which is the scalability solution for the RGB++ protocol. For the entire ecosystem, there are several layers; the bottom layer is the RGB++ protocol, and above this layer is the scalability solution. If only the current solution is used (i.e., only using the CKB blockchain), performance and costs are okay, but if the number of users increases by an order of magnitude, a scalability solution like UTXO Stack will be needed. UTXO Stack is expected to be released in the third quarter of this year, and this project has also garnered a lot of interest from top capital, which to some extent indicates that these capitals are optimistic about the RGB++ protocol; otherwise, why would they invest in the scalability solution for this protocol? If they were not optimistic, there would be no need for scalability, right?
Xixi: Yes, this in itself is a form of affirmation.
9. Hope for more creators and those interested in RGB++ technology to participate in construction#
Shawn: I have been involved in the RGB++ protocol and its ecosystem construction for some time, and based on my personal experiences and reflections, I genuinely hope that more creators and teams can understand the RGB++ protocol and participate in this ecosystem.
Since its launch, RGB++ has only been around for two months, but its ecosystem construction has developed very rapidly. The projects I mentioned earlier, such as Nervape and World3, have showcased some characteristics of RGB++, but how to further explore richer gameplay actually requires more teams to get involved, so everyone is very welcome to join the RGB++ ecosystem.
📖 Recommended Reading: