►
From YouTube: DXgov Weekly Gathering [2022-11-23]
Description
00:03 Welcome
00:50 Mainnet Roundup
21:05 Gnosis Chain Roundup
23:00 DXD Token Working Group Proposal
43:13 DXdao Budgetary Process
B
The
brave
browser
this
time,
so
it's
always
always
we'll-
go
over
the
proposal
round
up
some
proposals
on
Main,
edit
and
gnosis
chain
here
and
then
just
some
discussion
topics
here,
one
just
the
proposal
to
upgrade
the
dxt
token
model.
There's
a
draft
proposal
that
has
been
up
in
the
forum
for
five
days
now,
six
days
now
and
then
just
circling
back
from
last
week's
discussion
on
the
budgetary
process
stuff
and
we'll
do
that
after
the
proposals
there.
But
let's
start
with
the
mainnet
proposal,
Roundup
and
I.
B
We've
talked
about
here
before,
but
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
in
the
last
couple
days
on
this.
There
was
also
a
post
in
the
Forum
I.
Don't
know
if
I
had
that
here
that
from
a
3A
C,
which
talked
about
comparing
those
so
yeah
this
proposal
so
now
the
reason
we're
getting
the
right
link
is
because,
whenever
you
have
a
proposal
that
switches
from
positive
to
negative
in
less
than
I
think
it's
three
to
two
days:
I'm,
not
sure
what
it
is
for
this
scheme.
B
You
enter
the
quiet,
ending
period
which
four,
which
basically
restarts
a
The
Proposal
countdown
clock,
so
that
it's
at
four
days.
So
the
point
of
this
is
you
couldn't
have
a
last
second
governance
attack.
So
you
could
have
a
proposal
passing
like
the
whole
time
right,
and
someone
comes
in
at
the
last
minute
to
change
it
the
other
way
and
then,
if
they
were
able
to
do
the
proposal
to
execute,
then
that
would
that
kind
of
I
don't.
B
In
a
way,
so
the
the
issue,
though,
was
that
the
front
end
was
not
registering
multiple
quiet,
ending
periods
for
the
proposal
to
go
in
through
so
the
way
that
this
happened
was
it
actually
was
people.
It
was
for
the
proposal
for
a
while
and
then
two
addresses
voted
against
it.
So
it
was
against
it
that
entered
the
quiet
ending
period,
but
then
people
voted
for
it
again
and
that
should
have
kick-started
a
new
quiet,
ending
period
on
the
Expo
on
the
front
end.
But
it
did
not.
B
It
did
kick
start
at
the
smart,
smart
contract
level
right.
So
that's
why
the
quiet
ending
period
is
still
going
online,
but
it
was
hard
to
we
couldn't
see
that
from
the
front
end,
so
the
fixed
that
Augusta
put
out
yesterday
was
to
be
able
to
like
show
that
bear,
and
so
that's
why
you
can
see
there's
actually
two
days
left
of
this
proposal,
assuming
that
it
would
be
even
if
no
one
else
voted
on
it.
Now.
If
someone
voted.
E
Yeah
I
mean
we
posted
a
forum
for
me,
Adam
and
Philly.
Looked
at
it
and
I
did
a
little
review
of
the
differences,
which
generally
seemed
to
be
fine.
Of
course,
this
is
like
from
the
governance
1.5
contract,
which
I
think
was
still
undergoing
audits,
but
overall
you
know
it
doesn't.
Look.
Fine
I
also
voted
on
The
Proposal
with
one
percent
actually
with
the
purpose
of
it.
E
You
know
safe
to
do
I,
guess
it's
more
for
a
question
for
the
Excel
to
decide
whether
to
deploy
this
new
one
already
or
whether
we
want
to
you
know
just
take
the
existing
one,
that's
already
being
used
and
just
add
the
validation
function
there
I
guess
the
main
benefit.
Really
there
is
it's
just
much
more
easier
for
everyone
to
actually
check
the
changes
made
and
stuff
you
know
but
yeah,
and
that's
also
why
I
just
thought
it
was
one
percent
not
with
my
whole
rep
but
yeah.
C
Yeah
same
back
yeah,
the
changes
introduced
was
based
on
the
development
process
that
we
that
we
do
what
we
work
with
this
Legacy
smart
contracts
and
everything
that
we
have
on
the
DXL
contracts
repository.
So
again,
there
is
a
detailed
summary
of
the
of
the
diff
report.
Analysts
diff
report
done
by
3ac,
so
yeah,
the
only
change
I
mean
the
only
change
on
the
goal
is
a
validate
params
they
validate
params
function.
I
think
is
the
name
of
the
function
that
checks
the
parameters.
C
I
mean
the
other
parameters,
so
the
the
both
Imperials
and
the
configuration
of
the
proportion
that
is
that
is
sent.
That's
it.
That's
the
only
change
introduce
on
the
logic
level.
Then
we
have
all
the
changes
that
were
introduced
on
the
developer
operations
of
the
exact
contracts
and
I
added
on
the
on
the
topic,
the
the
instructions
which
I
guess
they
are
may
be
difficult
to
execute.
C
D
I
think
I,
don't
have
anything
to
add,
justify
that
if
I,
if
I,
would
have
done
this
I
would
just
take
the
old
deployed
contract,
modify
the
thing
and
then
the
difference
between
the
deployed
one
and
then
the
new
one
is
going
to
be
very
obvious
for
everyone
to
review,
but
obviously
like
the
new
one.
That
Augusto
has
deployed
basically
adds
futures
from
like
governance,
1.0,
1.5
and
then
I
think
he
also
upgraded
the
open,
Zeppelin
dependency.
D
So
you
can
see
that
is
pretty
obvious
where,
especially
in
the
ownable
contract,
which
basically
extends
the
context
contract,
and
then
you
have
a
significant
change
in
terms
of
like
using
underscore
message
center
function
instead
of
the
the
global
variable
within
the
facilities,
which
is
a
message
dot
sender,
so
I
would
just
recommend
that
we
we
do
this
whole
thing
again
with
the
old
contract
I
mean.
Obviously
it's
up
to
governance
to
decide
for
that.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
so,
like
Dave
Candy,
Fork
voted
for
this
proposal,
and
so
that
was
the
initial
kind
of
vote
for,
and
that
was
I,
think
I
voted
on
on
Friday
and
we
had
talked
about
on
these
calls
before
and
I
voted
at
that
time.
Thinking
it
was
exactly
what
Adam
described.
I
thought
that
this
was
simply
just
the
contribution
reward
scheme
that
had
those
parameters
slightly
changed.
B
Thinking
about
going
forward
on
that,
for
people
are
still
kind
of
out
there
with
voting
I
think
it
is
really
important
that
we
develop
a
more
robust
process
around
these.
So,
if
we're
introducing
a
new
scheme
that
that
should
be
like
very
clear
to
everyone
that
this
is
like
a
scheme
that
has
like
certain
changes
and
I
think
clearly
here
it
was
not
clear
to
everyone.
Even
though
we
went
through
that
kind
of
a
process,
there
I
think
the
shift
to
governance.
B
1.5
is
is
very
important
for
Geek
style
to
go
through
and
I.
Think
there's
like
a
plan
for
that.
It's
going
through
audit.
Now
we
have
that
and
that's
an
important
thing,
but
I
think
that's
separate
from
what
this
fix
was
trying
to
do
which
this
fix,
and
this
is
what
we
were
presenting.
The
reason
that
this
was
something
worth
doing
was
not
to
integrate
governance
1.5
contracts.
B
It
was
to
prevent
peop
proposals
from
submitting
like
multiple
periods
and
so
I
think
if
it
was
like
just
doing
that,
then
it
would
be
as
Adam
was
described.
I
think
that's
what
we
do
there
so
I
think.
There's
yeah
there's
two
days
left
on
The
Proposal
there
it
sounds
like
the
scheme
looks
to
be
good,
but
if
there's
yeah
one
percent
on
difference
between
the
two
there
we'll
see
how
the
the
vote
goes
but
I
think
going
forward.
B
We
should
have
a
much
more
robust
process
on
how
we
make
these
huge
changes.
I.
Think
having
a
dow
talk
post
on
this
is
kind
of
like
a
necessity,
and
we
could
have
the
discussion
that
we
were
having
some
of
those
in
key
base
and
elsewhere,
but
just
clearly
signaling
what
these
are.
So
there
isn't
any
any
confusion.
B
Is
you
can't
change
your
vote
right,
so
I've
voted
I
voted
with
what
I
thought
was
the
time.
I
can't
go
back
and
change,
even
though
it's
in
a
quiet
ending
period,
you
can't
change
your
vote,
so
Dave
voted
with
one
percent
and
he
can't
go
back
and
he
can't
vote
with
the
other
three
percent,
the
other
direction
or
something
like
and
I.
Think
like
the
downside
here
right
is.
If
this
does
go,
this
gets
rejected
right.
B
We
basically
just
have
to
resubmit
and
it
takes
yeah
another
20
days,
but
I
think
that
could
be
beneficial.
I
mean
you
could
look
from
the
security
perspective,
but
I
just
think
from
the
process
and
Communications
perspective
that
we
all
like
kind
of
clearly
know
what
it
is.
I
think
that
is
important
and
right.
We
are
monitoring
this
stuff,
this
stuff
on
every
proposal
we're
looking
at
them
kind
of
coming
in
on
mainnet.
So,
like
the
risk
there
is
manageable
in
the
short
term.
B
Okay,
any
other
I
guess
that
was
so
that's
just
the
first
proposal
on
Maine
now,
I
guess
when
I
say
first
proposal,
because
in
quite
any
period
there
are
a
couple
other
proposals
on
mainnet
here.
First,
let's
switch
it
up
a
little
bit
because
we
have
this
error
getting
proposal
title
for
my
PFS.
This,
though
you
can
see,
is
with
the
ens
public
resolver
scheme
and
there
is
actually
a
post
on.
Oh
no
because
it
didn't
link
to
it
here,
but
the
geek
stocks
updating
proposal.
A
So
this
is
everything
that
was
in
The,
Proposal,
plus
a
little
extra
context
and
not
really
a
massive
change,
just
kind
of
a
small
update
around
the
contributor
ux
side
of
things,
the
more
important
thing,
of
course,
being
that
dick
stocks
is
looking
to
a
transition
to
some
kind
of
multi-sick
or
the
guilds
when
we
get
it.
So
we
can
do
more.
A
Timely
updates
don't
require
a
a
whole
mainnet
proposal
process,
even
if
it's
a
shorter
proposal,
of
course,
to
set
a
ens
thinking
about
that
and
I'm
thinking
about
a
more
kind
of
open
process.
So
nothing
has
to
go
through
the
DX
Voice
team.
Anyone
can
make
those
changes.
Would
you
technically
can
today,
but
putting
processes
in
place
for
that
I
think
would
be
good,
so
yeah
looking
to
do
that
over
the
next
month,
or
so
here.
B
I
think
you
could
have
it
right
where
the
ens
could
still
be
is
right
is
in
ens.
Sorry
is
India
style.
What,
like
the
controller,
is
controlled
by
guilt
there
yeah!
That's
exactly
that's
right!
That's
like
a
really
cool
thing.
I
guess
we
have
to
think
about
how
to
I
know.
We
do
this
for
nimi
already,
but
I
think
that
was
set
up
outside
of
the
Excel,
but
I
assume,
there's
probably
like
some
function.
B
We
need
to
call
on
the
ens
to
assign
a
controller
outset
to
a
different
group,
but
yeah
anyway,
that's
a
cool
way
of
of
doing
it,
foreign
stocks,
and
then
we
have
one
more
proposal
or
sorry
yeah,
two
more
proposals
on
mainnet
both
of
these
are
kind
of
Treasury
related
ones,
Dave.
Maybe
what
is
this
mimic
Vault
test
proposal
here.
E
Sure
so
this
is
a
vault
that
mimic
deployed.
It's
evolved
that
essentially
just
wraps
if
and
sends
it
back
to
the
Dao,
and
so
this
is
mostly
just
due
to
limitation.
We
currently
have
on
mainnet,
where
we
can't
send
if
to
a
Smart
contract,
so
this
would
just
allow
us
to
you
know,
wrap
large
amounts
of
weft
and
just
hold
weft
in
the
treasury.
If
we
decide
to
do
so,
I
guess
this
was
initially
mostly
what
we're
doing
BuyBacks
with
eth
on
maynet
we
required
web
and
yeah.
E
This
is
just
like
a
completely
trustless
way
for
us
to
kind
of
like
wrap
Eve,
so
it's
kind
of
like
a
very
little
baby
step,
we're
taking
with
mimic
to
kind
of
try
out
some
of
the
vaults
and
I
think.
This
is
also
like
an
initial
step
and
kind
of
like
bringing
some
redundancy
to
multi-six.
So
before
we
always
had
to
send
the
eve
to
a
multi-sig,
then
have
authorized
signers.
E
You
know
rapid,
send
it
back
to
the
dial
and
with
this
we're
kind
of
like
completely
removing
that
kind
of
trust
part.
So
we
can
just
through
the
dial,
completely
easily
wrap
eth,
and
you
know
we're
also
working
with
mimic
on
more
complex
valves
for
like
depositing
LP
liquidity
positions,
Etc
and
yeah.
This
is
just
the
first
one.
E
That's
live
due
to
pass
in
one
and
a
half
days,
and
really
all
that
we're
expecting
is
we
send
five
Eve
and
we
get
slightly
below
five
weft
backs,
so
what
they
do
is
they
actually
have
a
bot
that
executes
this
on
your
behalf,
and
so
they
just
take
the
transaction
fee,
so
they
don't
actually
charge
a
fee
for
the
service,
but
they
just
deduct
the
gas
fee
they're
bought.
They
bought
paid
to
do
all
of
this,
and.
A
B
A
E
B
B
The
Vault
itself,
too,
yeah
and
I
think
this
is
I,
think
Dave
said
I,
remember
exactly
how
I
put
it,
but
I
think
this
is
when
we
get
into
the
autonomous
in
Dao
right-
and
maybe
this
some
people
say
automated
is
a
is
another
thing
you
know
when
Dexter
was
doing
things
over
and
over
that
are
the
same
things
and
it
relies
on
individuals
to
execute
that
right.
In
this
case,
it's
the
multi-sig
just
to
do
something
simple
like
is
there
a
way
to
make
that
automated
and
autonomous
meaning?
B
No
one
needs
to
be
involved
in
that,
and
so
we
can
do
this
here
with
the
wrapping
the
web
right.
We
can
program
this
smart
Vault
to
do
something
that
is
very
predictable
and
then
we
kind
of
make
it
more
autonomous
and
I.
Think.
Obviously
you
think
of
things
like
bridging
is
another
one
right.
We
could
think
about.
That's
something
done
by
a
lot
of
multi-cigs.
Is
there
a
way
that
we
can
make
that
more
autonomous
I
know?
Ross
has
thought.
A
B
Yeah
and
so
then,
there's
the
last
proposal
on
mainnet
is
a
cow
swap
order
for
die
dxt.
So
this
is
a
I
guess.
The
first
order
submitted
I
guess
on
mainnet
for
DxD
since
last
year,
so
we've
been
using
cow,
swap
only
on
gnosis
change,
so
this
would
be
like
the
first
one
using
it
on
on
mainnet
for
DxD.
We
have
tested
in
the
past
for
buying
other
other
things.
B
The
BuyBacks
have
have
occurred
in
eth.
That's
what
you're
using
the
currency
to
pay
for
DxD,
that's
mostly
because
most
of
the
teached
out
treasury
has
primarily
been
eat
for
the
last
year
or
so.
But
the
price
of
eth
has
declined
a
bit.
So
when
you
are,
if
you're
purchasing
DxD
and
you
have
the
option
to
use
if
or
dollars,
basically
using
dollars
as
a
way
of
either
not
selling
eth
or
buying
eth,
and
given
both
the
the
low
prices,
crypto
prices
right
now
and
how
things
have
declined.
B
But
I
also
just
think
like
the
makeup
of
the
treasury,
since
the
makeup
of
the
treasury
is
both
stable
funds
and
eth
that
it's
important
to
have
like
a
balance
in
terms
of
What's,
what's
actually
being
used
as
the
purchase
currency
there.
So
this
is
one
that
is
using
stable
coins.
It
will
take
a
long
time
to
get
through
because
it
has
to
go
through
the
multi-call
two
schemes,
so
it'll
be
another
15
days.
B
I
think
we're
gonna
probably
submit
a
couple
before
they
go
through
just
to
get
these
kind
of
started
because
they
do
take
a
while
to
go
through
and
just
yeah
hope
that
the
first
one
works,
there's
not
really
any
problems
with
it.
Now,
of
course,
like
the
downside
here,
the
risk
you
can
see
is
pretty
clearly
on
each
of
these
orders
that
there
is
like
a
minimum,
a
maximum
price
that
teach
style
would
be
willing
to
play.
I
think
for
this
one.
B
B
B
Then
we
have
a
super
highly
voted,
ens
renewal,
refund
proposal,
I
guess
I
always
like
these
proposals
only
because
it's
these
are
ones
that
are
very
easy
to
verify,
because
you
can
simply
see
these
transactions
and
then
see
the
you
know
what
account
is
using
them
and
that
those
are
good
transaction,
good
transactions
and
they're
done
by
d-labs,
and
this
is
submitted
by
dlab.
So
it's
it's
easy
to
verify
those
yeah.
B
Then
we
have
Wayne's
worker
proposal
here
at
the
end
of
his
second
half
of
this
one
and
then
the
first
half
of
the
other
that
is
now
available
for
voting.
There's
one
Cal
swap
weft
dxt
order
and
then
just
boosted
a
little
or
just
staked
on
a
little
a
while
ago
is
Van
Grimm's
proposal.
These
would
be
both
the
rep
and
the
compensation
is
being
split
up
in
these
as
well.
B
Okay,
so
that's
it
for
and
we
didn't
there's
no
active
proposals
on
on
Arboretum
day
yeah.
So
that's
it
for
the
proposal
Roundup
so
wanted
to
talk
about
two
different
items
today,
a
little
budgetary
process
check-in
before
we
get
to
that
I
wanted
to
kind
of
provide
an
update
on
DxD,
token
working
group
and
where
things
have
gone
with
that,
so
you
know,
we've
been
updated
on
this
call
the
last
couple
months
that
originally
the
first
meeting
was
September.
B
We
gave
an
update
to
a
lot
of
different
contributors
there.
So
again,
this
was
like
the
goal
was
to
find
some
long-term
solution
in
terms
of
like
DxD
value
and
working
with
like
dxt
holders
on
that.
So
this
is
I.
Guess
the
outcome
of
that
right.
Now,
The
Unofficial
outcome!
That's
up
for
discussion
right
now,
so
he's
posting
the
Forum
last
Thursday
and
prepared
I
guess
prepared
on
the
call
discussing
the
call
with
a
couple
changes.
B
Then
so
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
go
through
it
a
little
bit
here
and
then
I
had
to
kind
of
comment
at
the
bottom
and
see
if
there's
any
additional
comments
or
questions
or
discussions
about
this
so
yeah.
This
is
just
kind
of
background
of
where
we
been
at
right.
So
DxD
has
been
around
for
two
and
a
half
years
now
in
the
the
bonding
curve
launched.
A
lot
has
happened.
Kind
of
in
that
time,
even
just
the
buyback
program
itself
has
been
around
for
18
more.
D
B
B
But
again,
that's
not
the
long-term
kind
of
way
in
the
long-term
relationship
here.
So
that's
what
the
dxt
token
working
group
was
here,
and
so
this
proposal
really
has
kind
of
three
elements
to
it
or
one.
It
introduces
four
tools
into
the
DHD
monetary
policy
framework.
Two
is
established
as
a
DC
monetary
policy
committee
and
then
three
funding,
product
development
and.
A
B
B
C
B
Being
able
to
answer
that
question
like
very,
very
easily
I
think
is
really
important,
so
I
think
what
we
were
planning
on
here
is
DxD
gets
its
value
from
DX
Styles
treasury,
which
grows
from
product
revenue
and
its
investments
into
decentralized
Technologies
right.
So
DxD
is
a
financial
asset
of
DX
Dao
right.
D
B
I
kind
of
like
to
think
about
it
and
you
know
think
something
feel
like
mutual
funds
are
kind
of
these
ideas.
Where
you
have
these
big
pool
of
assets,
you
know
stocks
bonds
can
be
real
estate
or
whatever,
and
then
you
have
people
buying
into
the
mutual
fund
for
the
value
of
those
different
assets
and
I
think
you
kind
of
maybe
maybe
see
some
of
the
relationship
similarly
yeah.
So
let's
get
into
a
little
bit
more
the
the
details
here
in
terms
of
yeah
what
this
means.
B
But
these
inverse
bonds
would
be
ones
that
would
redeem
or
pay
out
at
higher
percentages,
80
90,
and
so,
but
you
would
only
be
able
to
access
those
higher
percentage
of
the
nav
if
you
locked
up
your
dxt
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
right.
So
this
is
why
it's
kind
of
like
an
inverse
Bond,
because
it's
kind
of
the
opposite
of
typically
how
like
a
bond,
is
structured
or
issued.
But
I
think
this
is
a
good
way
of
of
kind
of
creating
an
open
market
for
DxD
liquidity.
B
B
B
What's
much
better
is,
if
you
can
create,
like
an
active
market
for
that
and
I
think
that's
what
the
goal
is
with
the
inverse
bonds
and
that's
why,
having
like
this
DTD
monetary
policy
committee,
that
is
needing
to
kind
of
figure
out
how
to
issue
those
I
think
is
really
important,
because
the
whole
goal
of
that
committee
is
to
create
a
like.
A
healthy
liquid
market
for
DxD,
which
is
also
like
financially
responsible
in
terms
of
details
like
long-term
Investments
yeah,
and
so
then
the
new
DxD
minted.
So
this
would
be.
B
This
would
be
basically
if
DX
dxt
is
trading
at
100
of
nav
right.
You
can
imagine
that
there's
investment,
the
detail
has
maybe
it's
nimi-
has
gone
up
a
whole
bunch,
but
that's
not
actually
represented
yet
in
in
the
in
in
deep
Styles
treasury,
because
it's
not
on
chain.
But
you
know
there's
that
claim
there.
B
People
could
be
buying
DHD
with
the
in
the
anticipation
for
a
future
value
in
that
so,
but
if
DxD
would
get
to
100
of
nav
instead
of
DxD
trading
above
NAB,
any
investor
could
go
and
deposit
eth
or
stable
coins
to
Mint
new
DxD
right.
This
is
kind
of
similar
to
how
the
bonding
curve
worked
a
little
bit
there.
B
So
then
you
would
have
the
the
value
of
teak
Style's
treasury
would
go
up
from
the
new
DHD
minting
and
I
think
that
is
a
way
of
of
capturing
some
of
that,
like
not
speculation.
But
if
there's
like
a
a
price
expectation
that
that
would
be
a
way
of
de-established
Treasury
capturing
some
of
that
that
value
and
then
the
protocol
owned
liquidity
for
dxds.
This
is
the
last
component
and
this
is
can
be
implemented
soon.
D
B
Product
development,
but
I
think
this
is
really
important
to
include
this
in
here,
because
this
does
re-write
the
social
contract
of
the
excel
in
a
certain
way
when
dstyle
was
launched
from
DxD
was
launched.
The
idea
is
that
you're
going
to
DxD
style
is
going
to
so
the
money.
The
funds
from
the
bonding
curve
are
going
to
be
used
to
fund
product
development,
which
will
then
flow
back
into
DxD
through
through
the
bonding
curve
there.
B
I
think
that
rep
holders
and
dxt
holders
would
continue
to
fund
product
development
and
continue
to
invest
that
money
like
wisely
but
I.
Think
it's
important
that
like
to
maintain
deep
Styles
like
core
mission,
is
that
this,
like
the
funds
raise,
are
meant
to
fund
decentralized
Technologies,
to
invest
in
those
and
to
be
able
to
like
earn
some
Financial,
probably
hopefully
earn
some
Financial
returns
from
those
eventually
and
so
having
this
product.
B
Funding
commitment
in
here
I
think
is
a
way
to
manage
that
and
I.
Don't
think
it
really.
Is
that
important
right
now,
because
I,
don't
it's
not
I!
Think
I
have
it
here
at
like
six
percent
of
geek
Styles
Treasury,
and
you
know
that
changes
a
lot
depending
on
the
price
of
eth
right
now,
and
so
it's
not
in
any
way
a
like
this
is
the.
This
is
what
deep
style
should
spend
every
year,
or
this
is
the
most.
B
It
could
spend
every
year
or
the
minimum
I
can
spend
in
a
year,
it's
kind
of
just
like
a
general
suggestion
on
where
things
are
at
when
we're
considering
the
budget
in
there
and
I.
Think
it's
a
way
of
managing
that
relationship
like
long
long
term.
Hopefully
in
the
future,
the
treasury
is
much
bigger
and
this
number
you
know
would
be
further
down
and
it's
almost
like
a
management
fee
that
you'd
be
paying
for
the
treasury
there
yeah.
B
So
I
talked
a
lot
just
maybe
before
asked
for
questions
so
there's
yeah.
The
proposal
commits
to
implement
so
we
had
kind
of
those
General
structure
up
here,
but
the
first
thing
it
proposed
an
Implement
here
is
a
DHT
floor
price
guarantee
of
70
of
Treasury
nav
I.
Think
if
you
look
at
DxD
right
now,
it's
trading
about
50
51
of
Treasury
nav,
provide
250k
and
then
basically
provide
some
dxt
in
terms
of
liquidity.
B
You
can
see
the
commitments
there
and
then
it
also
commits
to
issuing
some
inverse
bonds
into
the
future,
so
in
responsible
will
take
some
development
work.
There's
some
stuff
there's
already
some
existing
stuff
that
could
be
forced
from
home
and
also
I
think
from
LUSD
that
we
can
use,
but
that
will
take
some
time
and
not
to
take
away
from
anything
working
on
gov
2.0.
B
But
we
want
to
be
able
to
make
some
future
commitment
to
this
in
this
one
so
that
that
kind
of
is
a
strong
signal,
two
dxt
holders,
and
so
potentially
we
could
increase
these.
But
this
would
be
two
bonds,
one
that
pays
after
six
months
and
one
that
pays
after
one
year,
one
that
would
pay
out
85
and
one
that
would
pay
out
90
of
an
nav
and
I
think
yeah.
We
could
think
about
maybe
increasing
this
becoming
a
little
bit
more
creative
with
those.
B
That's
maybe
something
to
solved
for
debate,
and
then
this
last
one,
the
current
DC
token
contact
should
be
upgraded.
The
funds
turn
to
the
general
treasury
right.
So
the
dxt
token
right
now
is
the
bonding
curve
contract
and
that
bonding
curve
has
contract,
has
2500
Ethan
there,
that's
the
buyback
Reserve
and
it
also
has
like
140
000
usdc
that
was
incorrectly
sent
there
and
then
also
like
16
or
17
dxt
that
was
incorrectly
sent
it.
B
So
this
proposal
would
be
business
either
upgrade
that
take
the
buyback
Reserve,
which
is
you
know
that
way
they
would
support
the
price
of
DHD
through
the
bonding
curve.
Take
that
combine
it
with
the
general
Treasury
and
then
now
you
have
this
like
new
relationship
between
the
the
treasury
and
dxt.
B
B
You
know
I
be
curious
to
hear
if
there's
any
other
discussion,
because
you
know
I
think
this
is
obviously
like
a
very,
very
huge
change
to
DX
down
how
things
kind
of
would
would
move
going
going
forward.
So
if
there
are
any
other
kind
of
comments
on
this,
I
think
a
lot
of
contributors,
of
course
like
this
is
part
of
like
having
aligned
incentives.
I,
think
a
lot
of
contributors
are
aligned
with
like
wanting
to
have
like
a
DxD,
a
strong
txt,
because
so
much
of
the
compensation
is
kind
of
in
DC.
B
So
much
it
is
investing
in
a
couple
years.
So
there
is
some
alignment
there,
but
you
know
this
would
change
a
lot
of
things.
So
any
additional
comments
in
the
Forum
or
gear
definitely
appreciated
are
the
two
things
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
highlight
here
is
what
this
will
do
to
dxt
and
the
treasury,
and
then
the
second
is:
how
can
the
price
floor
be
defended
and
have
another
update
there
from
what
was
in
the
post.
B
Right
so
DxD
is
trading
at
50
right
now
and
the
proposal
passes
it
commits
to
purchasing
it
at
70
right.
So
that's
itself
like
a
a
nice
return
right
there,
so
you
can
imagine,
there's
some
DxD
holders
that
have
been
using
that
there
and
because
the
proposal
will
commit
to
a
price
floor.
That
means
it
would
basically
buy
an
infinite
amount.
So
you
can
get
liquidity
at
that
amount.
B
So
there's
a
lot
of
DxD
out
there
that
may
take
this
opportunity
to
sell
into
the
the
price,
for
so
I
think
I
do
think
this
will
be
pretty
popular
or
be
like
widely
used,
and
so
what
would
happen
in
that
scenario
you
can
see
here
what
I
wrote
up
here.
So
the
current
state
here
is,
we
have
there's
34
800
txt
circulating
the
treasury
is
at
30
million.
B
B
Buyback
right,
if
the
last
18
months
didn't
happen,
that
DxD
was
still
on
the
cert
on
the
on
the
open
market
and
then
that
also
meant
that
deep
extent
the
eat
that
dxdot
used
to
acquire
that
DxD
was
still
in
his
treasury
right.
If
that
was
the
case,
this
would
be
the
second
one
here
where
we
would
have
50
024
txt
in
circulation.
B
B
If
you
saw
something
like
say,
14,
000
DxD,
which
I
I
think
is
you
know,
maybe
what
we
could
expect
if
there
was
like
say
14
000
DHD
that
wanted
to
sell
at
70,
then
this
is
what
would
happen
here
right.
You
see,
the
treasury
value
would
would
go
down
a
lot
right.
You
could
see
probably
about
8
million
yeah
I.
Think
eight
million
dollars
would
be
used
to
acquire
that
fourteen
thousand
DxD,
but
as
a
DxD
holder
as
a
long-term
DxD
holder,
you're.
B
Okay,
with
this
trade-off,
because
you
just
increase
your
the
amount
of
one
dxt
share
of
the
treasury
is,
but
this
would
affect
lots
of
things
like
product.
You
know
just
talking
about
the
product
funding
there
to
use
a
percentage
on
that
and
that's
going
to
be
affected
by
this
like
depleting.
Your
Capital
base
does
limit
some
of
your
options
because
you
don't
you
just
don't
have
as
much
of
a
balance
sheet
to
work
with
to
be
as
creative,
but
this
is
yeah.
B
I
think
this
scenario
is
one
to
consider
when
we're
considering
this
kind
of
proposal
there
and
how
that
would
work
and
then
the
second
Point
here
is.
If
the
proposal
passes,
there
won't
need
to
be
even
more
BuyBacks,
so
we've
bought
six
hours
bought
back
15,
000
DxD,
but
that's
taken
18
months
I.
Imagine
if
this
price
floor
guarantee
is
passed
in
this
proposal.
B
B
The
issue
with
Mesa,
of
course,
is
that
we
do
need
to
have
someone
running
the
solvers
for
that
and
even
on
on
Mainland
I,
don't
think,
there's
anyone
running
solvers
for
GP
V1
right
now,
but
and
then
the
other
option
we're
thinking
about
or
kind
of,
implement
like
long
term
right,
because
this
would
basically
be
a
way
to
implement
this
in
the
near
term.
A
way
to
have
geek
style
acquire
more
DxD
in
line
with
this
proposal,
but
I
think
like
long-term.
B
But
this
is
you
know
the
the
model
that
each
style
agrees
on.
There
will
be
probably
need
to
be
a
different
method
for
a
more
efficient
method
for
doing
that.
We're
looking
at
like
yearn,
has
a
has
something
that
they
use,
that
maybe
could
be
implemented
by
DX
style
that
Dave
Adam
I.
Think
Federico
are
looking
at
two.
So
just
some
options.
B
B
A
C
B
B
D
B
B
D
B
There's
time
for
review
between
before
that
in
the
call
and
then
after
the
presentation
there
needs
to
be
one
week
before
the
proposal
is
submitted
on
chain.
I
think
there's
some
interesting
things.
That
kind
of
that
we're
running
into
and
some
of
the
issues.
I
think
one
of
the
big
ones
we
were
talking
about
last
week
is
like
reputation.
How
does
reputation
work
in
terms
of
distribution,
because
now
everyone
gets
reputation
when
they
go
and
they
submit
their
individual
contributor
proposal.
B
Will
individual
contributors
continue
to
do
contributor
proposals
so
the
proposal,
the
individual
contributor
proposal
would
get
approved
by
the
guild
itself
right
and
it
wouldn't
go
through
deep
stock
governance
right
because
that's
the
problem
now
is
we
don't
want
to
have
all
of
these
proposals
going
through
the
Excel
governance?
What
we
want
it's
reduced
on
governance,
to
approve
the
funds
to
be
spent
by
The
Guild
and
then
for
the
guild
to
actually
do
the
final
approval
on
Distributing
those
funds
to
the
individuals.
B
So
that,
like
you
know,
contributor
X
can
help
you
out
with
those
things,
but
that
those
are
just
happening
like
through
the
guilds
and
so
I.
Think
for
the
suggestion
that
we
have
been
moving
towards
is
that
the
guilds
themselves
would
have
three-month
contributor
proposals,
so
every
contributor
would
submit
their
contributor
proposal
to
I
mean.
Maybe
the
guild
has
a
different
form
or
something
that
they
would
kind
of
have
that,
but
it
would
be
under
three
month.
B
B
B
B
B
Yeah
and
so
for
just
some
grandma
that
one
like,
because
the
guild
itself
will
basically
in
this
initial
stage
any
contributor
that
is
going
to
be
trying
submitting
a
proposal
for
the
guild,
they
will
be
included
in
the
guild
budget,
that's
submitted,
and
maybe
it
won't
for
a
new
contributor.
Maybe
we
won't
be
at
the
specific
name.
The
contributor
will
just
be
like
six
thousand
dollars
for
level
five
software,
you
know
front
end
person
or
design
person
right
there
and.
B
Will
like
distribute
it
from
there,
so
yeah
yeah.
Any
questions
like
thoughts
on
this
I'm
gonna
start
with
the
contributor
X
governance
and
treasury
stuff
next
week.
So
hopefully
that
will
be
like
a
model
or
a
reference
point
that
other
people
can
use
to
construct
our
own
budgets
Bill
to
evaluate
other
ones
and
kind
of
use
it
as
like
a
guinea
pig
one
of
the
other
things
that
I
think
we.
B
B
If
there's
like
10
guilds
out
there
that
are
each
getting
funding
and
then
it's
like
well,
what
do
we
really
do
differently
than
individual
contributor
proposals?
All
going
through
governance
like
we
haven't
really
done
that
in
a
way,
so
I
think
one
of
the
ideas
flip
floating
around
was
in
terms
of
the
like,
looking
at
contributor,
X,
Treasury
and
governance,
and,
like
is
that
kind
of
just
like
an
operations
Guild.
So
maybe
that
should
just
be
combined
or
I.
B
Just
seeing
some
comments
in
the
chat,
what
do
you
see
4C
as
some
of
the
challenges
of
having
guilds
implemented,
I
think
the
key
thing
they
think
it
would
be
difficult
is
like
what
is
standard
across
guilds
and
what
is
the
guild
trying
to
do?
That's
doing
it
themselves.
Right
so
is
the.
Does
the
guild
need
to
basically
abide
by
Deep,
Style,
Guidelines
or
standards,
or
do
they
have
like
free
reign
for
that
and
I
think
we
want
to
give
free
reign.
B
A
B
B
B
We're
like
okay,
we
gotta
understand
that
there's
a
problem
with
the
reputation
or
understand,
there's
like
a
problem
with
with
with
like
having
standard
processes
across
guilds.
How
will
certain
things
we
kind
of
run
to
these
issues
as
we're
like
kind
of
coming
up
to
them?
I
think
another
one
we're
thinking
about
is
like
if
products
are
going
to
get
like
all.
The
products
of
course
need
help
in
terms
of
like
the
the
the
the
guild
itself
is
not
self-sufficient
in
the
sense
it
doesn't
have
like
a
contributor
X
theme.
B
It
doesn't
have
like
an
operation,
someone
helping
out
with
like
setting
things
up,
it
doesn't
have
marketing
Biz,
Dev
and
those
are
done
through,
like
other
squads
in
DX
dab,
but
going
forward
like
when
we're
thinking
about
funding.
Even
if
we
want
those
same
relationships
to
have
the
same,
like
contributor,
X,
providing
services
to
swapper,
contributor
members
or
DX
voice
providing
design
help
to
de-x
gov
for
project
Davi,
we
still
want
to
have
those
relationships.
C
B
D
B
B
Cool
all
right,
I'll
leave
it
open
for
one
last
round
of
feedback
and
comments
on
this
call.
Otherwise,
yeah
reach
out
and
chat
questions
suggestions
comments
as
a
FYI.
It's
the
beginning
of
the
call
tomorrow
is
Thanksgiving
in
the
US
and
then
Friday
is
Black
Friday,
that's
actually
a
global
holiday
that
you're
welcome
from
the
us
we've.
Given
you
I
think
I,
don't
know
if
everyone
in
the
world
celebrates
a
big
shopping
day,
but
that's
what
people
do
in
the
US
is
you
go?
B
B
Is
a
good
time
to
say
what
I'm
thankful
I'm
thankful
for
yeah
this
crazy
experiment
of
like
doing
this?
This
is
really
you
know
it
can
be
stressful
and
weird,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
just
kind
of
like
step
back
and
like
what
are
we?
What
are
we
trying
to
do?
What
are
we
trying
to
accomplish
here
and
like
no
one's
no
one's
doing
this,
so
it's
fun
I'm
grateful
for
that.