Gauntlet's mission is to help make blockchain protocols and smart contracts safer and more trustworthy for users.
Decentralized systems create new challenges for protocol developers, smart contract developers, and asset holders that are not seen in traditional development and investing. Gauntlet is building a blockchain simulation and testing platform that leverages battle tested techniques from other industries to emulate interactions in crypto networks. Simulation provides transparency and greatly reduces the cost of experimentation so that teams can rapidly design, launch, and scale new decentralized systems.
Crypto systems are truly multi-disciplinary as they are at the intersection of distributed systems, cryptography, economics, and game theory. In particular, there is a coupling of economic incentives and product success, which results in a large attack surface that must be analyzed thoroughly.
Tarun Chitra
Tarun is an alumni of D. E. Shaw Research (DESRES), Vatic Labs, an HFT firm, and Cornell. He fell into the blockchain world in 2011, when he was working on ASICs at DESRES and observed Bitcoin ASIC mining rigs substantially delay DESRES's ASIC production. He has spent the last seven years working on simulation-based R&D at the intersection of high-performance computing and AI and is applying this knowledge to the blockchain ecosystem.
Rei Chiang
Rei worked at Uber Advanced Technologies Group building marketplace simulations for self-driving vehicles and real-time driver incentives. Prior to that, he spent five years in the HFT industry as a portfolio manager and quant trader at GETCO and 3Red, specializing in market-making strategies for fixed income and commodity futures. Rei received his B.S. in theoretical math and computer science from MIT.
John Morrow
John has spent over a decade working on products in both traditional software and financial systems. He was an early employee at Gigster where he led fulfillment of client projects and managed the freelance marketplace. Prior to that, he worked at Microsoft as a PM on Windows APIs and HoloLens as well as at Goldman Sachs. He also studied at Cornell where he received a B.S. in Applied Physics and Computer Science.
Tony Salvatore
Tony is an experienced developer and quant trader who has been building secure software systems and accurate financial models for the better part of a decade. He was previously at Jibe Inc and Spot Trading, and has a B.A in Economics from Princeton.
Jeremy Batchelder
Jeremy studied Computer Science at Tufts before working on product development at Cambridge Blockchain and business operations at CoinList.
Guillermo Angeris
Guille is a researcher at Stanford, currently completing his PhD in electrical engineering under Stephen Boyd. Previously, he has worked at Facebook on fraud detection and at D. E. Shaw Research on topological and manifold methods in data analysis.
Hsien-Tang Kao
Senior Simulation Engineer
Hsien-Tang recently was a lead data scientist at Sojern after a stint at Delta Electronics. He holds an MS in robotics from Carnegie Mellon and studied math at National Cheng Kung University before that.
Jonathan Reem
Jonathan is a core contributor to rust-lang who has worked on the core team at Udacity, Hack Reactor, and Terminal.com.
Sasa Milic
Prior to Gauntlet, Sasa worked at Facebook. She also completed a BS/MS at University of Toronto in computer science and statistics. In her free time, she organizes the NYC Financial Derivatives Meetup.
Bita Abolfathi
Bita has multiple years of operational experience at early stage startups and organizations including Cresta, Lighthouse AI, and Felicis Ventures. She studied Managerial Economics at University of Santa Barbara.
Victor Xu
Recently, Victor worked as a quantitative trader at Flow Traders. Prior to Flow Traders, Victor spent time at Citadel and Jane Street Capital. He studied Computer Science and Mathematics at Princeton University.
Watson Fu
Simulation Engineer
Prior to Gauntlet, Watson worked as a trader at Flow Traders and the Chicago Trading Company. He studied Chemical Engineering at Northwestern University and was a nationally ranked chess player.
Gabe Pohl-Zaretsky
Most recently, Gabe worked as a software engineer at GTS. Prior to GTS, he was a trading assistant at Jane Street Capital. Gabe studied economics at George Washington University and is avid urban explorer.
Eric Ruleman
Prior to Gauntlet, Eric worked as a software engineer at Cruise on their infrastructure team. Eric studied Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT and is also a certified yoga instructor.
Prior to Gauntlet, Federico worked as a software engineer at multiple different startups in the healthcare and cryptocurrency industries. In his spare time, he runs the Lightning Network NYC Meetup.
Tim Roughgarden is a Professor in the Computer Science Department at Columbia University. He works on the boundary of computer science and economics, and on the design, analysis, applications, and limitations of algorithms. For his research, he has been awarded the ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award, the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the Kalai Prize in Computer Science and Game Theory, and the EATCS-SIGACT Gödel Prize.
Wei Qin
Wei worked with Gauntlet to create our initial simulation platform. Before working with Gauntlet, Wei worked on simulation at Basis (the stablecoin project) and at Tower Research, a quantitative trading firm. He has a PhD in electrical engineering from Princeton University, and was a Professor of computer engineering at Boston University.
Yi Sun
Yi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mathematics at Columbia University. His research interests are in representation theory and integrable systems and their applications to probability and random matrices. Before Columbia, he received his Ph.D. in mathematics from MIT, advised by Pavel Etingof.
Nader al-Naji
Arthur Breitman
Josh Chen
Roger Chen
Lawrence Diao
Ed Lando
Lily Liu
Charles Songhurst
Abraham Stanway
Alok Vasudev
Miyuki Matsumoto
Fill out the form below or feel free to email us at info@gauntlet.network
Get updates on new research and new product releases
Careers About
Blog Terms/Privacy
Copyright © 2020 Gauntlet Networks Inc


Tag: Mockumentary
Between Two Ferns Review
I don't know how I had never heard of the Between Two Ferns show on YouTube before. If you don't know what it is, it's an interview show hosted by Zach Galifianakis, and he ask's some of Hollywood's biggest names some very insulting questions to hilarious effect. I discovered this all by watching the mockumentary about the making of the show "Between Two Ferns: The Movie" which is now on Netflix.
I can honestly say I do not remember laughing as hard as this watching anything since maybe the Pink Panther movies when I was a child. Something about it just hit me exactly in the right way and I was laughing for most of the brisk hour and 22-minute run time. Zach is so good in this role, his ability to say the most absurd things and keep a completely straight face leads to some amazingly funny moments. He's so good in the role, because he is playing himself. There is a lot of him in the role, but it's just all dialled up to 11.
The 3 crew members he works with are a solid supporting cast and have moments to show they can deliver some great laughs too. They are never front and centre long enough for us to feel any real connection and even in the scenes when it seems like we are starting to build to that we get another joke that stops it developing. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean the entire film rests on the audience being fans of Zach and his style.
The premise is that they must make ten episodes of the show on the road, and that leads to where the movie is at its best, the interviews. Zach's deadpan face and the generally great job by the actors and actresses who play it straight as well really made me laugh. It's juvenile at times but there is enough gold in these moments to warrant spending the time to watch the film.
The film's structure is like a lot of similar sketches stitched together. Sewing together the interviews is the challenge the film faces, and it has moments where it struggles. The humour can be hit and miss in these sections. Whilst the highs don't reach the same level as the interviews, the jokes that missed don't really grind the film to a halt either. There is always another moment just around the corner. The film doesn't let you dwell on an unfunny moment because you're into the next moment, and this scatter gun approach works for the most part.
It's only when I have stopped to really think about those moment in between the laughs that I've realised there are chunks of the movie where we are just waiting for the next laugh, it doesn't have a narrative thread that is keeping you hooked that other mockumentaries like "American Vandal" have.
That would be a bigger problem were this a series of hour-long episodes like that is, but the shorter run time allows it to just be what it needs to be. A vehicle for Zach Galifianakis to make you laugh for a bit and remember not to take everything so seriously. I personally enjoyed it a lot, and I think a lot of my friends would love it. It's not perfect but it does have some very good highs that make Between Two Ferns the Movie worth watching.
Good: If you like Zach's comedic style, this will crack you up. I laughed throughout and the interviews are gold.
Bad: Scatter gun approach may not hit enough for some to think it's worth the watch, but it really does depend on your sense of humour.
7/10 – Great fun and doesn't overstay its welcome.
Author chazjs93Posted on Oct 17, 2019 Categories Movie Review, Ramblings, The Daily BlogTags Between Two Ferns, Between Two Ferns The Movie, Celebrities, Cinema, Documentary, Film, Hollywood, Mockumentary, Movies, Zach GalifianakisLeave a comment on Between Two Ferns Review
What We Do In The Shadows (2014) Review
What We Do In The Shadows is a 2014 mockumentary directed and starring Thor Ragnarok director Taika Waititi. It was mentioned a lot during the press events for Thor Ragnarok and touted as a big reason he got given the Thor Ragnarok chair. I went back and watched to see if the film holds up.
Shadows is essentially Taika Waititi's sense of humour put onto film. The comedic style of Thor Ragnarok is clear to see, with the documentary style serving as a great framing device for the New Zealand native's excellent writing. Him and co-writer Jemaine Clement also star in the film, and whilst the acting is nothing special, their comedic sense gets them by and their timing is great throughout.
The film is unabashedly weird, and it may be a little too odd for some audience members. The weirdness is contrasted by the realistic lens that Shadows is shot with, the camera work and effects complimenting each other to keep you engaged with the film. Some of the camera work is really clever, and shows how a lack of budget can be worked with to create some really great moments that a larger budget would have solved with throwing money at a special effects team. I like seeing films do this stuff, and really appreciate the ingenuity required to make a low-budget film look this good.
The jokes have a pretty high success rate, although there were a few duds for me. Sometimes the jokes are a little forced, but that's really in the minority. For the most part I at least smiled to myself and a couple of times I laughed out loud. This is Waititi's humour at its raw, unfiltered. Ragnarok showed us his refined, sharpened wit and his writing has only improved over the last few years. What We Do In The Shadows has some really well written jokes and set ups that pay off in entertaining ways, and that ability to find something entertaining in nearly all situations is one of the reasons Marvel went after the filmmaker.
Mock documentary films rarely move the needle for me, as I find it hard to connect with the characters and the jokes sometimes feel a bit forced. However, as I learnt shows like The US Office and Parks and Recreation, when they're executed well, they're brilliant. What we do in the shadows is the first film I have watched that really got me invested since the uniquely flavoured Borat in 2006. This film isn't nearly as politically incorrect (nothing really is compared to Borat) but it does the same job of introducing outlandish characters and putting them in funny situations.
I haven't watch Sacha Baron Cohen's Kazakhstani parody for a long time, but I can't imagine it holds up terribly well today. What We Do In The Shadows does hold up from 5 years ago, and I think it has the right ingredients to stand the test of time. What is certain is that Taika Waititi is on the up, with clear improvements in his directorial skills as well as his writing from this to Thor Ragnarok. All that means I can't wait to see what comes next from the Kiwi, and I hope he can stay on this trajectory.
Good: Brilliant writing, outlandish and fun characters, Stu is a great guy, and the filmmaking skills used to get the most out of the budget are great.
Bad: The acting isn't the best, and there are a few flat jokes. May be a bit weird for some audiences.
8/10 – What Will Taika Do Next?
Author chazjs93Posted on Mar 13, 2019 Mar 12, 2019 Categories Movie Review, Movie Reviews, Review in timeTags Cinema, comedy, Film, Film Review, Films, Jemaine Clement, Mockumentary, Movie Review, Movies, New Zealand Films, Stu, Taika Waititi, Vampires, What We Do In The ShadowsLeave a comment on What We Do In The Shadows (2014) Review


Cricket: Spin comes into play for England for second test
Mark Gleeson
CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - England are thinking of bringing a specialist spinner back into the line-up after going with an all-pace attack in their last two outings, coach Chris Silverwood said as they arrived in Cape Town for their second test against South Africa starting on Friday.
FILE PHOTO: Cricket - England v Pakistan - Second Test - Emerald Headingley Stadium, Leeds, Britain - June 3, 2018 England's Dom Bess reacts Action Images via Reuters/Lee Smith/File Photo
That means a seamer such as record wicket-taker James Anderson or Stuart Broad may be dropped for a contest expected to be played on a much flatter deck than the first test in Pretoria, which South Africa won by 107 runs inside four days on Sunday.
It was a second successive test without a specialist spinner, as England went instead with seamers Anderson, Broad, Jofra Archer, Ben Stokes and Sam Curran, and part-time contributions from captain Joe Root and Joe Denly.
South Africa is traditionally a seamers' paradise, but the home side went into the first test with spinner Keshav Maharaj, who despite not bowling many overs took two vital wickets in England's second innings. That helped check any hopes the tourists had of reaching the imposing target set them for victory.
"We've got to look at playing a spinner at Newlands. We'll look through the records, what features where and who is going to have most impact on that game. We'll do our homework and go from there," coach Chris Silverwood told reporters.
Dom Bess, who played twice against Pakistan in 2018 and was recently at a spin bowling camp in Sri Lanka led by Rangana Herath, is likely to be the first choice despite only being called up for the tour as cover when a virus swept through the squad.
This is because Jack Leach continues to struggle with the bug that laid low as many of 15 squad members since England's arrival in the country on Dec. 14.
"It's been really a tough month or so for Jack Leach, having gone down in New Zealand as well," added Root. "It's really sad and really hard for him."
Leach, 28, also spent time in hospital in New Zealand last month with gastroenteritis and has had Crohn's disease since he was a teenager.
"We're trying to manage that as best we can. We've got some very able back-up in Dom Bess and we've got Matt Parkinson as well as another option. We'll look at the surface and make our decision," the skipper added.
Reporting by Mark Gleeson; Editing by Hugh Lawson


What Do You Mean, "Humidex"? An Explainer | Vol. 3 / No. 38.4
July 21, 2016 RFB
Photo: Ryan Dickey, CC BY 2.0
Why how warm it "feels" changes when you cross the border.
So it's been hot, not just here, but everywhere. In fact, June was the hottest June on record. May was the hottest May on record. April? You guessed it: the hottest April on record. The last six months, according to NASA, have been the hottest six months we've ever recorded. And it's going to stay hot.
This week in Boston it's been pretty bad during the day, but not awful.
For those of you in Canada — and there's a reason I'm explaining this — those highs would read 31.7°C, 34.4°C, 32.8°C, 30°C, and back to 31.7°C for two days.
But I can tell you right now that Tuesday of next week is going to feel pretty oppressive by comparison with today, thanks to those little percentages on the right. Those are relative humidity numbers.
And the funnier bit is, it'll feel differently depending on whether you're a Canadian or an American. Well, sort of.
Air can hold a certain amount of water, and that amount varies by the temperature and pressure of the air. Assuming the pressure stays constant, the warmer the air is, the more water it can hold. But relative humidity, as you can see in the video below, isn't a great measure of how humid it actually feels, because the amount of water in the air rises and falls precipitously with temperature.
There are actually two numbers we're concerned with when we talk about how warm it feels: relative humidity and dewpoint. Dewpoint is the temperature at which relative humidity (the amount of water the air can hold) reaches 100% capacity. The higher the dewpoint, the more sticky and gross (and warm) you're going to feel.
Now, above, you can see that while today's 89°F has a humidity of 37%, Tuesday's 89°F has a humidity of 60%. Using this handy-dandy calculator we can determine that (roughly, all other things being equal), today's dewpoint is only 59°F, but Tuesday's is going to be 73°F.
When you see the little box on your forecast that says "feels like" and a number, that's what they're taking into account.
But here's the funny thing: in Canada and the US we use different formulas to determine what it feels like.
In the US, the formula is called the Heat Index while in Canada, it's called the Humidex. And as Susan Kieffer writes on her blog Geology in Motion, it's "amazing" that the numbers the two formulas spit out "are even close to each other because of the difference in form."
According to Wikipedia, this is the formula for the Humidex:
is the air temperature in °C
is the dewpoint in K
The humidity adjustment effectively amounts to one Fahrenheit degree for every millibar by which the partial pressure of water in the atmosphere exceeds 10 millibars (10 hPa).
And again, according to Wikipedia, this is the formula for the Heat Index:
= heat index (in degrees Fahrenheit)
= ambient dry-bulb temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit)
= relative humidity (percentage value between 0 and 100)
And the Cs are some possibly contentious constants.
In the end, what these reliances on constants create is a narrow range in which these equations are totally accurate. On top of that the Humidex "baseline" is 7°C (45°F) and the Heat Index is about 14°C (57°F), so at higher temperatures, the Humidex figure is going to say it feels a few degrees warmer.
All of which is to say that if you use the Canadian Humidex, it'll feel like a slightly warmer day than if you use the Heat Index — at least when the temperatures really get up there.
Of course, these numbers all rely on the idea that it's not windy and you're in the shade, which, if you're in the real world and out doing things, are probably unreliable figures. Plus, if you're prone to sweating it might feel cooler, if you're more overweight it might feel warmer — there's a lot of variable in how warm it feels to any one person at any one time.
So mostly this post is just in good fun: I like to point out the differences between my home country and my current place of abode, especially when it's a difference that isn't a completely horrifying social problem not very present north of the border.
So there's your little science lesson for the day. And remember, when it's hot out, drink plenty of water, wear sunscreen, and stay in the shade when possible. Because heat stroke and cancer are bad for you.
Thanks for reading! I only get paid in my own (and your) enthusiasm, so please like This Week In Tomorrow on Facebook, follow me on Twitter @TWITomorrow, and tell your friends about the site!
Richard Ford Burley is a human, writer, and doctoral candidate at Boston College, as well as an editor at Ledger, the first academic journal devoted to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. In his spare time he writes about science, skepticism, feminism, and futurism here at This Week In Tomorrow.
Answers to Random Questions, Canada permalink
Three Rockets At The Same Time | Vol. 3 / No. 38.3
Wait, Someone Will Take Harassment Seriously? Really? | Vol. 3 / No. 38.5