I just finished listening to @laurashin's interview with @gavofyork, and as a fellow educator & one who understands Journalistic bias, I have to say, Gav SMASHED it!
I thought Laura's admission that there's a strain of maximalism/tribalism in Ethereum was really interesting.

Gav explained the key features of a metaprotocol: generality and scalability, as well as explaining the val. of abstraction, generality and flexibility at the level of protocols of protocols.

He clearly explained their purpose in the context of parachains too. (Layer0-1).

One very poignant point Gav made on parachains:

Parachains are not just a smart contract, but an entire #Blockchain. Implementing a SC is easy, but you can't implement a blockchain inside a smart contract.. This really illustrates the value of parachains in the #DOT eco.

Gav also clearly explained the clear differences between parachains and parathreads, discussing different use case examples for the two distinct designs/purposes. He also made the point that Polkadot is focused on symbiotic, composite solutions (hence the multichain vision)

Laure raised the issue of retirement of parachains and the subscription/renewal model. Gav really smashed any seed of doubt here, explained grace periods and the slowing down effects but not cancellation of non-renewers.

Laura then asked about @Polkadot's IPO, or Parachain lease agreements (PLOs), referencing ICOs (so infamously brought to the fore in Ethereum '17). Again, Gav made it clear they are fund sourcing mechanisms.. Of course, some building on Ethereum are launching ICO2.0 style too

Perhaps in a very odd and certainly impartial move, Laura said "There are people from the SEC who listen to my show".. I instantly wondered... ummm, would she have the same tone with someone like Vitalik, who she has pinned to where twitter feed? Not sure guys, not sure..

What was very interesting: Laura often uses an interesting question & subjective statement technique. For example, she stated 'Parity has a history of security lapses"- negative oriented question by design. Gav smashed it with a clear answer about security work on $DOT.

Some other key highlights in the discussion were Gav's points on Bridges, compatibility, optionality, meta-ecosystem design and he also addressed Laura's composability question head on and with ease, explain the different objectives & capacities of Ethereum & Polkadot.

Perhaps the most salient point Gav repeated was that from the outset, he never set out to build a single blockchain (hence the meta-protocol and parachain & substrate architecture). His focus is on cooperation, collaboration, bringing, free-trade among top platforms, coopetition

When the topic of Ethereum came up, Gav was quick to point out that Ethereum is currently at it's beacon chain stage, not yet with sharding, or state transitions.. inferring a long roadmap ahead for Eth. Gav did say he hopes Polkadot can interface more and more with Ethereum..

A further display of journalistic temerity came when Laura quickly retorted "no no, i did the math on it". This was based on here statement that Web2/Parity own 33% of DOTS combined. Gav had to explain that 'math' is inaccurate. The 1000 validator prog. for $KSM was mentioned.

Finally, Laura questioned Gav about $DOT possibly being a security (which is interesting considering the CFTC & SEC's stance on Eth. Gav: "DOTs are absolutely a utility, not a security". Enterprise chains discussed. Overall, Laura was professional (tones of bias). Gav smashed it!