►
From YouTube: DXgov Weekly Gathering [2022-09-28]
Description
00:04 Welcome
00:40 Agenda
01:29 Mainnet proposals
03:00 Gnosis Chain proposals
05:42 Restructuring and Refocus | Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit
29:43 Transitioning from GPv1 to CowSwap for BuyBacks
39:14 Contributor Guidelines Updates - Contributor Proposal
47:32 The Future of SWPR Emissions
A
A
Not
this
one:
let's
go
to
this
first
yeah,
so
here's
the
agenda
for
today
proposal
Roundup
a
little
less
than
the
last
couple
weeks,
but
there
is
I,
guess
one
that
is
live
that
we
need
to
discuss
here.
So
we
can
go
over
those
and
then
the
two
discussion
items
wanted
to
hit
on
today
were
one
transitioning
from
gpp1
to
Cal,
swap
for
BuyBacks
Dave
had
a
post
on
that
and
then
yeah
the
restructuring
and
refocus
phase
one
low
hanging
fruit,
which
is
actually
a
proposal.
A
A
A
The
reason
that
Augusto
had
more
than
four
percent
was
that
he
had
gotten
looks
like
almost
like
10
000
or
9700
rep
from
just
redeeming
proposals
that
added
schemes
I
think
most
people
might
be
familiar,
that
when
you
use
the
contribution
reward
scheme
on
mainnet
or
noses
chain,
you
actually
automatically
get
a
small
rep
award
just
for
any
past
proposal
on
mainnet.
This
is
500
rep
and
then
on.
No
such
game
I
think
it's
100
rep,
but
I
guess
for
the
for
the
scheme,
larger
star
scheme,
the
amount
awarded
is
much
higher.
A
B
A
One
then,
is
a
day
left
to
be
able
to
vote
on
that
and
then
the
other
contributor
proposals
we
have
are
the
Leonardo
bertiotti
working
on
swapper.
This
is
a
retroactive
retrospective
proposal
for
the
second
half
of
the
proposal,
and
then
there
was
a
forward-looking
proposal
from
Milan
V
working
on
some
QA
stuff
there.
A
That
is
three
more
days
to
be
voted
on,
and
then
there
is
a
two
proposals,
so
a
Ford
I
guess
this
is
the
end
of
part
two
of
one
or
part
one
of
two
from
Wayne.
So
this
is
the
second
half
of
a
previous
proposal
and
then
the
subsequent
proposal
right
there
is
the
forward-looking
one
for
Wayne
there
and
then
the
big
proposal
that
is
live
right
now
is
the
oh
sorry
before
we
get
to
that.
A
One
then
there's
also
a
dixgov
governance,
1.5
contracts
audit.
So
this
is
the
first
payment
of
potentially
30
000
audit,
and
so
this
is
to
audit
what
if
J
scuff
team
is
calling
gov
1.5?
So
you
know
gov
1.0
is
what
we're
doing
now
code
2.0
is
this
new
you
know
is
going
to
incorporate
DxD
and
has
a
lot
of
other
features
to
it,
but
the
gov
1.5
basically
cleans
up
a
lot
of
the
existing
gov
Point
1.0
contracts,
so
those
I
think
were
like
written
in
2018
2019.
A
So
there's
a
lot
that
those
could
be
kind
of
cleaned
up
in
terms
of
how
solidity
development
has
moved
over
the
last
couple
years,
and
so
this
is
being
done
by
the
Omega
team
and
the
Omega
team
actually
features
a
lot
of
people
that
had
worked
on.
The
same
doubt
stack
contracts
too,
so
that's
that's
there
and
yeah.
This
is
the
the
first
payment
for
that.
A
A
A
C
Yeah
happy
to
chat
about
this,
so
basically
I
think
most
are
up
to
date
on
this
kind
of
initiative
up
until
this
signal
proposal,
of
course,
but
we
got
here
through
the
restructuring
discussions,
there's
a
variety
of
proposals.
This
one
was
posted
on
chain,
pass
I
believe
a
week
and
a
half
ago
now
on
chain.
So
there
was
a
big
discussion
here
in
the
Forum
I'll
put
in
the
chat,
if
you
haven't
caught
it
for
whatever
reason,
basically
running
through
some
stipulations
and
kind
of
combining
consensus
via
the
on-chain
Forum.
C
These
calls
and
sorry
polls
on
the
form
and
then
obviously
discussions
in
The
Forum
Discord,
all
of
our
regular
social
channels,
as
well
as
the
calls,
so
that
was
kind
of
like
a
one
week,
discussion
period
and
those
of
you
that
don't
know
this
is
the
you
know,
low-hanging
fruit.
So
it's
supposed
to
be
the
the
less
contentious
kind
of
points,
so
we
had
a
shorter
kind
of
governance
period.
C
I
believe
it
was
four
days
in
the
Forum
five
days
in
the
form
before
the
second
proposal
was
submitted,
so
that
signal
proposal
has
now
been
submitted.
It's
actually
boosted.
Now
you
can
vote
on
it,
which
I'll
put
in
the
chat
here.
Chris
is
actually
looking
at.
It
highly
recommend
voting
on
this
with
what
you
believe
for
or
against
High.
Voter
participation
here
would
be
great
to
have,
but
let
me
quickly
go
through
some
context
for
the
actual
conditions.
C
First
of
all,
kind
of
the
first
and
second,
are
the
acceptable
imposed
and
event
and
auditing
budget
targeting
150k
annually
I'm
just
going.
To
paraphrase
my
what
I
wrote:
In
The
Forum,
because
it's
actually
very
relevant
here
but
I
think
the
budget
targets
were
like
significantly
supported.
There
was
a
little
bit
of
lack
of
clarity
or
like
critiques,
namely
budget
implications
following
kind
of
current
implications,
I
think
Chris.
You
mentioned
this.
It's
like
this
event,
budget
isn't
going
to
Encompass
Bogota.
C
Is
it
going
to
Encompass
kind
of
the
next
year
right
after
it,
so
that
was
kind
of
cleared
up?
The
signal
doesn't
prevent,
spend
above
the
targets,
which
I
think
was
a
little
bit
of
not
well
orchestrated
before
it
kind
of
sets
a
running
goal.
Otherwise
you
know
if
we
want
to
spend
above
it
that's
great.
C
We
just
need
to
have
a
separate
discussion,
justification
period
proposal,
of
course,
which
we
already
do,
but
it
kind
of
gives
that
highlight
and
I
think
governance
will
have
a
much
tighter
grasp
on
what
those
are
when
or
if
we
need
to
do
those
events
and
then,
of
course,
soft
consensus
tightening
through
a
combination
of
contributor,
relevancy
sponsorship
limitations.
You
know
contributor,
like
how
close
they
are
to
the
actual
event,
of
course,
is
another
consideration.
C
I
think
that,
rather
than
a
full
reduction
to
one
of
them,
Ergo
we're
going
to
have
all
our
contributors,
but
we're
not
going
to
do
any
sponsorships
or
we're
going
to
have
only
a
couple
contributors
and
do
all
the
sponsorships
so
I
think
after
that
was
cleared
up.
Those
felt
pretty
good,
strong
consensus
in
discussions
and
the
votes.
C
C
Of
course
that's
what
half
of
this
is
going
to
be,
but
Skye
had
some
good
comments
on
like
kind
of
how
that
should
look
and
and
the
value
of
calls,
so
that
was
kind
of
adjusted
to
any
way
to
reduce
it
rather
than
some
kind
of
arbitrary,
oh
yeah,
30
minutes
a
week.
So
that
way
we
can
do
bi-weekly
close
at
the
current
length
and
maybe
have
more
focused
calls.
C
C
It
was
the
second
most
contention
contentious
Forum
vote,
which
of
course
is
a
good
way
to
collect
kind
of
broad
consensus
like
it
was
70
for
the
initial
concerns
were
that
the
action
appeared.
You
know
it
was
at
the
warding
frame.
It
wasn't
exactly
there
the
action's
now
temporary,
so
it's
imposed
directly
in
the
signal
post
that
this
is
a
measure
that's
imposed
until
phase
three.
At
that
point,
you
know
if
we
decide
that
it's
more
like
okay,
this
is
working.
C
We
can
kind
of
keep
that
and
keep
it
running.
Otherwise.
This
is
just
a
measure
temporarily
until
we've
taken
a
step
back
and
are
realizing
what
we're
doing
and
pushing
towards
that
which
I
think
is
the
most
important
kind
of
aspect
here.
Is
that
we're
we
don't
know
what
we're
doing
so,
let's
figure
what
we're
doing
and
then
we
can
allow
people
to
really
fill
those
slots
of
what
we
want
to
do.
C
C
We
care
a
lot
about
on-chain
actions
and
the
trial
period
right
now
is
a
little
bit
unclear
in
the
sense
that
a
lot
of
people
will
do
that
kind
of
two
weeks
and
then
submit
a
proposal
when
I
think
that
authorization
of
that
trial
period
should
probably
come
before
the
engagement
in
my
eyes
in
a
lot
of
situations.
Of
course
there's.
This
is
mostly
referring
to
those
that
want
to
move
to
like
a
month-to-month
kind
of
Engagement.
C
C
So
that
text
is
adjusted
to
kind
of
commitment
to
Skilling
that
represented
above
the
initial
four
percent
and
like
what
that
discussion
will
look
like
started.
Seeing
Vicky's
comment
here:
approval
before
trial,
the
implication
would
be.
This
is
what
I
want
to
do
for
my
trial.
This
is
the
rule.
I
want
to
fill,
of
course,
that
initial
kind
of
forum
post
that
we'd
expect
just
on
chain
and
pass.
C
A
A
C
Cool
and
then
the
final
Point
DXL
will
immediately
disengage
from
contractors.
This
is
very
contentious
as
I
kind
of
indicated
in
the
proposal.
I
expected
it
to
be
so
it
was
a
57,
yes,
43,
no
I,
I
kind
of
indicate
here.
You
might
think
that
I
wouldn't
include
this
in
the
low
hanging
fruit.
Due
to
its
the
signal
of
how
contentious
it
was
I,
think
and
I'm
gonna
paraphrase
myself
pretty
heavily
here.
C
I
think
it
was
initial
lack
of
clarity
surrounding
the
reasoning
behind
the
disengagement
who
exactly
it
was
that
was
getting
disengaged
and
that
it
appeared
to
have
an
element
of
permanence,
which
of
course,
was
incorrect.
The
finality
of
these
discussions
kind
of
resonated
as
a
soft
consensus
towards
committing
to
the
disengagement.
C
C
You
know
if
the
excel
in
under
a
month,
if
we
commit
to
phase
two,
this
could
even
be
sooner
depending
on
the
state
of
the
super
proposal,
how
our
discussions
go,
but
if
we
can
establish
our
priorities,
justify
them
and
say
what
we
want
to
be
doing
and
commit
towards
it.
I
imagine
Space
Inch
in
this
specific
example
would
be
a
fantastic.
You
know
team
to
integrate
into
that
process
right
away,
but
that
is
of
course,
provided
that
we
can.
C
You
know
decipher
what
that
is
exactly
and
how
we're
going
to
commit
to
it
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
say
here
in
a
second.
Is
that
we're
taking
a
step
back
and
evaluating
so
there's?
Obviously,
some
challenges
presence
budget
goals,
Revenue
Etc,
this
cut,
isn't
personal
Performance
Based
in
any
way
it
lets
us
kind
of
take
a
step
back
financially,
adjust
our
Focus
as
an
organization
and
when
we're
ready
to
capitalize
be
prepared
to
fire
on
all
cylinders.
C
We
have
a
notice
period
anyway,
no
so
not
immediately
yeah,
sorry
immediately
as
in
start
the
process-
maybe
that
wasn't
entirely
clear,
but
the
implication
of
the
signal
would
be
disengage
from
our
contractors
at
the
the
earliest
possible
I
guess
contractual
period
and
I'm.
Seeing
I
think
he's
saying
the
same
for
Casa
we
haven't
been
on
retainer
with
anchor
Casa
as
a
contractor.
C
But
it's
like
these
contractors
are
the
ones
working
directly
for
the
Dow
antra
Casa
has
a
small
commitment
directly
through
the
DX
voice,
multi-sig
on
and
off
so
I
think
it's
it's
kind
of
targeting
those
that
are
directly
under
the
DX
style
umbrella.
I.
Think
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
if
anyone
has
any
other
opinion
on
that,
but
I
think
that
was
the
finality
of
the
conversation.
C
Sorry,
okay,
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
mean
that
I
didn't
mean
I
was
done,
I
am
almost
done,
but
I
meant,
if
anyone
has
any
other
opinion
on
kind
of
that
contractor
who
that
would
Encompass.
If
the
interpretation
of
that
is
all
contractors
assuming
you
know
retainer
engagements
as
well,
we
can
kind
of
discuss
what
that
looks
like
and
how
to
evaluate
that
yeah
and
I.
C
Think-
and
this
is
the
final
thing
here
on
the
on
the
contractor
side
of
things
but
I
think
there
was
a
lack
of
substantive,
written
and
or
verbal
pushback.
Of
course,
this
is
opinion
against
the
disengagement
of
contractors.
In
this
phase
one,
there
was
of
course
now
Space
Inch.
If
you
haven't
seen
already,
they
do
have
a
forum
post.
They
were
kind
of
justifying
why
they
have
value,
why
it
wouldn't
make
sense
necessarily
to
disengage
with
them.
C
C
Why
they
think
disengagement
would
be
not
a
great
outcome
and
at
the
same
time
there
are
a
lot
of
discussions
here
on
the
Forum
in
the
Discord
and
I
think
the
government's
call
last
week
and
Community
call
even
that
ran
through
a
lot
of
good
reasons
as
to
why
it
would
make
sense
to
can
commit
to
those
disengagements.
So
lots
of
context
here
in
the
form
I'm
going
to
link
the
actual
post.
That
justifies
everything.
It's
a
comment
on
the
signal
proposal
in
the
form.
C
Take
a
look
there.
If
you
haven't
already,
it
would
be
fantastic
to
get
high
voter
turnout,
of
course,
on
something
such
as
this.
So
appreciating
the
process
so
far,
I
I
guess
I
gave
a
little
thank
you
earlier,
but
for
professional
productive
is
is
two
words.
I
would
definitely
use
for
this
alternative
restructuring
and
I'm
very
thankful
to
everyone
here.
That's
been
participating.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Looking
forward
to
seeing
this
conclude
in
the
Forum
or
sorry
in
our
governance,
space.
B
Keenan,
if
I
could
just
ask
a
question
so
and
this
I
think
this
logic
has
come
through
in
the
discussions.
It
wasn't
very
clear
from
the
start,
but
it's
a
valid
argument
is
that,
like
ins,
instead
of
having
these
things
ongoing
and
regular,
where,
where
there's
a
bunch
of
things
like
Audits
and
third-party
contract,
Dev
shops
and
design
shops,
Contra,
Costa
and
stuff
instead
of
having
them
ongoing
and
I,
haven't
read
space
inches
whole
post,
but
like
we're
stopping
them,
and
then
we
we
take
the
approach
that
we
have
to
justify.
B
The
additional
spend
so
like
DX
Dow
on
a
one-off
basis
can
still
decide
to
hire
Andre
Casa
DX
Dow
can
still
decide
to
hire
a
space
inch
if
it
identifies
you
know
a
two
months
worth
of
something
DX
Dao
still
well
is
is
already
is
considering.
Audits
is
actually
there's
proposals
for
audits,
which
is
spend
on
Audits,
and
so
we're
we're
basically
just
staying
instead
of
justifying.
Why
not
to
stop
these
things?
C
Yeah,
100
and
I
think
you
actually
implied
it,
but
framing
is
really
I
think
the
most
important
part
you
know
the
just
because
this
is
a
signal
goes
on
chain.
Doesn't
you
know,
have
any
on-chain
implications
in
the
sense
that
this
code
is
being
altered,
and
we
can,
you
know,
adjust
the
way
that
we
we
spend
our
budget.
So
this
is
really
just
kind
of
a
signaling.
C
C
You
know
this
product
has
less
attraction,
it's
going
to
be
a
revenue
generating
tool
for
the
Excel.
Let's
commit
to
an
audit
for
this.
This
is
why
that's
important.
This
is
how
how
much
that's
going
to
cost
right
and
I
think
that's
kind
of
the
framing
that
this
wants
to
set
up
as
being
more
conscious
of
the
budget,
and
if
we
are
more
conscious
of
the
budget
in
general,
that
will
allow
us
to
kind
of
Select
our
priorities
a
little
bit
better.
Like
okay,
maybe
we
don't
need
to
audit
this
product.
C
It's
not
going
to
make
money,
here's
the
financial
justification,
so
why
it
will
make
money.
You
know,
alternatively
Events.
Maybe
we
don't
need
to
do
this
event?
Maybe
this
one
doesn't
have
a
value
add.
Maybe
this
one
we
can
have
less
contributors
attending
or
only
more
relevant
contributors,
or
only
those
that
are
you
know
in
closer
proximity
and
we'll
have
a
lower
net
cost.
It
kind
of
lets
us.
You
know
reference
and
have
a
frame
in
mind
for
that
I
think
that's
the
most
important
part
in
my
eyes.
C
B
The
current
proposal
around
the
the
budget
of
governance,
1.5
or
whatever
I
think
Chris
you
shared
earlier
like
is
that
is
that
fitting
in
to
this
discussion,
around
audit
costs,
or
is
this
like?
Is
this
for
the
going
forward
after
that
one's
done
like?
How
is
that?
Does
that
need
to
be
discussed
for
that
one
as
well.
C
Yeah
and
I
think
I
think,
like
I
said,
the
important
thing
is
kind
of
framing
signaling
I.
Think
DX
style
can
interpret
whether
Bogota
or
this.
You
know,
governance,
1.5,
I
haven't
looked
at
the
proposal
here.
I,
don't
think
so.
I
just
want
to
bring
it
up,
but
I
think
it's
kind
of
like
up
for
DX
style
to
determine
whether
or
not
those
should
be
encompassed
by
the
sigma
proposal.
My
opinion
would
be
that
Bogota
doesn't
make
sense.
C
Those
were
kind
of
established
costs
before
this
process
started
and
for
the
auditing.
It
probably
makes
sense
to
include
that
in
that
budget
because,
as
I'm
understanding,
we
kind
of
put
together
a
trailing
six-month
budget
some
months
ago
that
this
included,
so
that
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
to
include.
But
of
course
the
important
thing
is
that
that
is,
you
know
a
process
that
DX
style
is
like.
Okay,
this
makes
sense
to
include
it.
Doesn't.
A
A
You
know
this
is
a
direction
of
any
democracy
right
at
the
end
of
the
day,
like
it's
hard
to
do
things,
because
there's
all
these
obstacles
to
moving
moving
things
forward,
so
I
think
even
when
there
is
cons,
you
know
maybe
like
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
will
work
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
will
kind
of
end
up
being
the
right
decision.
I
think
there
is
something,
especially
in
geek
Style's
early
formation,
where
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
everything
works.
A
C
A
Second
is
the
understanding
the
text
and
meaning
behind
things
is
is
very
important,
and
this
is
like
probably,
you
know,
a
little
boring
for
everyone
to
to
nitpick
over
over
words
here,
but
I
really
do
think.
They
do
say
that
you
know
it
is
trying
to
communicate
something
that
everyone
can
look
back
to
right.
A
So
we
can
all
a
better
understanding,
but,
in
addition
to
the
text,
I
also
think
the
conversation
about
it
also
kind
of
dictates
things
and
on
how
things
should
be
received
by
the
community,
and
it
is
kind
of
interesting
yeah.
This
is
a
signal
proposal
right
that
this
would
kind
of
establish
a
yeah.
These
actions
for
deeked
out
to
take,
but
there
is
like
I,
don't
know-
is
kind
of
a
wild
stallion
in
the
sense
where,
like
it,
geeked
out,
passes
a
proposal
next
week.
A
That
you
know
contradicts
this.
It's
it's
hard
for
this
proposal
to
like
enforce
a
future
proposal,
but
I
think
it
is
something
that
can
kind
of
send
a
signal
that
is
really
much
more
about
the
community
and
contributors
like
like
recognizing
acknowledging
something
maybe
that
teached
out
governance
has
passed
and
then
having
to
like
kind
of
use
that,
as
a
as
a
as
a
guide
going
forward,
so
yeah
I,
think
yeah.
Just
to
repeat
those
like
one
Dazz
can
in
democracies
can
run
into
stasis
very
quickly.
A
So
I
think
it
is
important
to
make
sure
we're
experimenting.
Even
if
things
don't
work
out,
we
can
learn
from
from
those
mistakes
there
and
then.
Secondly,
it
is
worth
nitpicking
over
some
of
the
the
text
here,
because
I
think
it
is
important
just
to
understand
what
the
message
itself
is
is
trying
to
convey
and
that's
like
a
broader
sense
of
communication.
C
I
guess
I
just
want
to
say
that
completely
agree
with
those
thoughts
Chris
nail
on
the
head
even
and
I.
Think
yeah,
like
the
communication
aspect.
Kind
of
this
discussion
period
is
supporting
the
signal
proposal
in
a
way
providing
context
allowing
everyone
to
reach
that
understanding
I
think
so
when
I
see
like
pushback
in
the
sense
like.
Oh,
this
isn't
clear,
that's
not
I
think
a
negative
of
the
proposal.
It's
more
of
a
we're
discussing
and
reaching
that
kind
of
understanding,
and
what
exactly
this
means.
A
One
could
argue
that
it's
not
actually
this
proposal
passing
that
is
important,
but
that
the
actual
important
thing
was
the
discussion
itself
and
how
kind
of
like
things
things
unroll
right.
It's
not
just.
Oh
this.
These
words
passed,
it's
like
geek
style,
went
through
this
process
and
like
there
was
a
lot
of
learning,
even
people
that
won't
vote
for
it,
and
people
disagree
with
it
like
that
process
itself
is
actually
what
the
point
is.
B
There's
also
an
expression
putting
the
card
before
the
horse
and
like
up
until
now,
it
seems
like
we
were
operating
in
a
model
similar
to
that,
like
we,
we
had
the
growth
and
expenditure
without
having
the
like
the
strategical
and
and
now
we're
shifting
things
around
and
putting
the
horse
in
front
of
the
cart.
Of
course,
this
is
an
interim
solution.
It's
it.
This
is
not
the
solution.
Actually,
it's
just
a
way
to
restructure
things
that
could
help
us
find
the
solution,
but
it's
necessary.
It's
like
a
milestone.
A
A
A
With
the
altitude
adjustment
in
in
Bogota
there,
but
Dave
posted
this
yesterday,
and
so
you
know
for
background.
Obviously
they
deaked
out
the
DHD
buyback
program
has
been
going
on
for
a
year
and
a
half
all
of
those
BuyBacks
have
gone
through
gnosis
protocol
V1
85
of
those
have
gone
through
knows
this
protocol
V1
on
noses
chain
and
then
the
rest
were
actually
on
mainnet
too,
and
all
of
those
the
process
for
those
that
we
kind
of
outlined.
A
That
is,
you
know
you
use,
there's
a
there's,
a
relayer
that
has
the
funds,
and
then
you
need
a
proposal
that
actually
programs
an
order
to
be
placed
on
GP
fee
one,
and
then
you
actually
need
someone
or
any
address
that
actually
needs
to
execute
that
order,
and
it
takes
actually
three
transactions.
It's
a
little
tricky
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
then
that
places
the
order
on
gpv1
and
then
anyone
can
come
in
and
fill
that
that
order
there.
A
That
process
that
I
describe
is
cumbersome
and
that
kind
of
is
before
you
even
introduce
Al,
which
is
a
liquidity
token
in
gnosis
protocol
that
oh
yeah
I,
don't
know
it
is
required
for
nurses
protocol
to
function,
and
you
basically
need
to
have
liquidity
for
Al
in
order
to
function
any
of
those.
So
this
has
not
been.
A
A
So
we've
already
done
a
test
proposal
for
this,
where
we
traded
die
to
weft
through
gbv2.
As
you
can
see
here,
this
was
a
1500
WX
die
to
buy
weft
I
think
it
was
at
like
1600
weft,
another
bad
trade
by
by
Dave
here,
but
yeah.
So
this
this
worked
I
think
was
two
weeks
ago
here
to
do
wxi
to
West,
and
then
this
would
be
basically
switching
it
to
switching
the
buyback
to
go
through
that
same
same
process
and
so
the
way
that
it
works.
Is
you
actually
someone?
A
Anyone
basically
creates
an
order
on
Cal
swap
from
the
Deke
style
avatar
on
gnosis
chain,
and
it
creates
that
that
order
and
it
you
know,
basically
submits
it
to
Cal
protocol.
But
in
order
for
that
that
order
to
be
live,
it
actually
needs
to
be
signed
by
the
DX
Dow
Avatar.
So
that's
what
this
proposal
itself
is:
it's
actually
oh
I,
guess.
First,
you
need
to
approve
the
the
wxi
and
then
you're
basically
calling
a
function
that
signs
this
order
on
behalf
of
DX
Dao.
A
There
are
some
big
differences
between
using
the
GP,
V1
relayer
and
doing
this.
The
biggest
difference
is
that
for
you,
when
we
use
the
relay,
we
were
able
to
use
basically
place
a
limit
order
by
looking
at
an
oracle
at
the
current
DxD
eighth
price,
but
with
GP,
V2
or
Cal.
Swap
these
trades
would
actually
just
be
happening
at
Market
buys,
and
so,
when
you're
happening
at
Market
buys.
A
A
That's
just
because
there's
really
not
that
much
liquidity
on
gnosis
chain
before
this.
So
if
you
look
here
we're
on
Cal
swap
here,
let
me
see
what
a
like
and
so
Dave
and
I
were
talking
about.
If
we
do
this
like
what
is
the
size
trade
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
do
here
where
it
makes
sense
and
and
kind
of
doesn't
release
too
much
slippage.
So
I
think
if
you
look
at
something
like
so
looking
at
five
Wes
for
DxD,
you
can
see.
A
A
The
pool
would
probably
go
to
like
0.34,
because
this
point
three
one
three
five
is
actually
an
average
price
that
you
would
get
and
not
what
the
pool
itself
would
be
left
at
after
so
yeah,
I
guess
to
kind
of
questions
to
everyone
were
or
one
like.
Does
this
make
sense?
Is
this
okay
to
move
forward
with
this
I
think
the
current
plan
would
be
to
try
to
test
this
out
as
soon
as
possible.
A
We
even
submit
a
a
a
order
this
afternoon
that
we
can
kind
of
see
if
that
works.
So
does
this
make
sense
and
then
to
any
comments
on
the
size
of
the
proposal
or
the
slippage
here,
because
obviously
it
does.
It
does
prevent
Deek
staff,
maybe
from
getting
as
much
DxD
because
there's
a
higher
slippage,
but
given
the
the
low
liquidity,
it's
really
hard
to
do
it
other
ways.
A
Yeah,
it's
a
gpb2
so
basically
like
when
you
use
gpv2
you're
like
cutting
out
the
middleman
and
I.
Don't
the
middleman
is
not
yeah.
It
sometimes
can
be
a
single
address
that
has
been
doing
a
lot
of
these,
but
that
that
address
is
basically
going
and
trying
to
fill
that
limit
order
on
gpv1
and
then,
in
order
to
do
that,
they
go
out.
A
They
have
to
go
Source
liquidity
from
swapper
and
elsewhere
to
actually
get
that
DxD,
whereas
here
geek
style
is
just
buying
directly
from
gpv2
or
directly
from
from
swapper,
and
so
here,
actually,
when
you're
looking
at
this,
it's
here,
I,
don't
know
if
they
show
us
the
did.
They
show
you
the
route
it's
taken.
No,
but.
A
A
A
Cool,
so
maybe
look
out
on
the
be
on
the
lookout
for
some
some
orders
over
the
next
couple
days.
I
think
we'll
evaluate
like
as
they
get
executed,
how
that
will
kind
of
like
adjust
the
price,
and
you
know,
presumably
if
the
price
drops
up
on
Swap
or
on
gnosis
chain
like
that
means.
There's
a
huge,
arbitrary
Arbitrage
opportunity
on
maintenance
and
arbitrum
to
to
do
that.
And
if
the
price
is
from
something
who
knows
like
how
different
zxt
holders
May
kind
of
go
into
that.
A
And
then,
just
a
little
bit
of
a
preview
of
tomorrow,
we
have
the
DxD
token
working
group
call
number
three.
But
in
addition
to
talking
about
the
new
DxD
token
model,
we've
also
been
using.
These
calls
as
an
opportunity
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
in
depth
about
DTD
liquidity,
and
so
one
of
the
great
things
about
Cal
swap
that
we
can
use
is.
We
can
also
use
that
on
mainnet
and
on
mainnet
I
think.
A
A
So
we'll
go
over
some
options,
maybe
on
how
that
might
play
out,
because
we
have
just
about
sixty
thousand
dollars
left
in
buyback
extension
number
nine
that
is
still
used
to
purchase
DxD,
but
there's
already
500
000,
that's
been
authorized
to
purchase
and
so
figuring
out
a
plan
for
how
to
use
that
500
000
to
yeah
to
execute
the
buyback.
Probably
both
involving
limit
orders
on
on
mainnet
and
also
Market
buys
on
notice
chain.
A
D
For
sure,
so
this
is
the
second
post
or
the
second
draft
Post
in
a
series
of
dress
that
the
contributor
X
Squad
plans
on
releasing
regarding
contributor
guidelines
updates.
So
this
one
specifically
addresses
contributor
proposal
updates
that
we
want
to
make
so
the
first
couple,
title
format,
Recaps
and
Reflections
they're,
going
to
mainly
stay
the
same.
D
We
just
kind
of
want
to
tighten
it
up
and
clean
it
up
a
little
bit,
but
we
really
want
to
get
some
feedback
on
The
Proposal
period
proposal
Cadence
and
the
process
of
posting
in
the
Forum
and
on
chain.
So
I
put
some
polls
in
this
post
because
we
want
to
get
as
much
feedback
as
possible
to
see
how
people
feel
about
the
proposal
process
and
to
just
get
a
feel
of
what
people
think
would
be
easier.
D
What
they
think
would
be
better
for
the
proposal
process,
so
the
proposal
period,
where
basically
debating
between
month
to
month
and
workable
days
right
now,
we
don't
have
any
guidance
surrounding
when
a
contributor
proposal
should
start
and
finish.
Some
people
start
on
the
first
of
the
month.
Some
proposals
start
in
the
middle
of
the
month.
So
we
just
wanted
to
kind
of
clear
that
up
and
see
what
people
would
prefer
for
a
proposal
Cadence.
D
We
were
wondering
if
people
would
feel
comfortable
moving
to
a
three-month
proposal
Cadence.
This
is
something
that
Melanie
and
I
have
heard
being
chatted
about
a
lot
and
we
think
people
are
interested
in
it.
So
we
want
to
hear
what
people
think
and
then,
within
the
poll,
question
is
after
how
much
time
of
successful
contribution
with
the
extow?
Do
you
think
contributors
should
be
allowed
to
move
to
a
three-month
proposal,
Cadence
and,
of
course,
with
the
three-month
proposal
Cadence.
D
If
people
want
a
workable
days
instead
of
a
month
to
month
proposal
period,
then
that
would
be
60.
It
would
be
60
workable
days
within
a
three
month
period
and
then
the
last
one,
the
process
of
posting
in
the
Forum
and
on
chain.
We
have
a
couple
of
different
approaches
that
we
wrote
up
based
on
feedback
that
were
received
and
then
the
last
approach
is.
D
It's
basically
give
us
more
ideas
if
you
don't
like
approach,
A
or
B
like
if,
if
you
have
an
idea
that
something
in
the
middle,
a
combination
of
the
two
something
that's
completely
different-
that
we
haven't
even
thought
of,
yet
we
are
completely
open
to
any
ideas
that
anyone
has
so
yes,
please
I
will
leave
a
link
here
in
the
chat.
We
would
love
to
get
as
much
feedback
as
possible,
so
go
vote
on
those
polls
and
leave
us
some
comments
about
what
you
think.
A
D
A
Yeah,
just
from
an
accounting
perspective,
it's
a
disaster
not
to
run
things
on
a
monthly
basis,
like
that's
the
whole
reason
for
this.
It's
like
you
can
kind
of
have
as
many
workable
days
you
have
but
like
if
you
have
to
constantly
be
adjusting
the
like
length
of
a
proposal
like
that,
can
be
really
difficult
to
do.
D
A
C
I
think
it
might
have
been
me
actually
initially.
I
have
a
couple
of
proposals
on
chain
that
followed.
That
and
I
noticed.
They
of
course,
passed
and
I
think
that
it's
a
king's
been
wanting.
This
rare,
yeah
I
think
it's.
It
was
definitely
the
the
least
stress
period
for
me
was
focusing
on
those
40
workable
days,
and
the
main
reason
is
the
proposal.
Flexibility
if
I
focus
on
40
workable
days,
I
take
off
two
days.
The
only
difference
for
me
is
simply
adjusting
that
end
date
in
the
final
proposal.
C
A
You
know
for
the
individual,
it's
like
it
just
like
it's
really
hard
to
standardize
these
things
and
I'm
not
like
trying
to
like
yeah,
then
you
just
have
to
like
go
through
it
and
I.
Think
like
it's
fine,
if
people
want
to
do
20
workable
days
per
month
and
take
off
like
I,
don't
know
more
of
that
time
in
there,
but
like
running
things
on
a
monthly
Cadence
just
seems
like
that's
how
yeah
yeah.
C
And
I
think
really.
This
is
the
difference
between
good
for
the
individual
and
good
for
the
organization
like
if
you
really
boil
it
down.
Of
course
it's
not
that
black
and
white,
but
yeah
I,
think
I.
Think
it's
like
my
main
question
is
say:
I
am
sick
and
don't
work
on
like
a
Friday
of
the
month,
like
the
last
day
of
the
month
or
something
and
I
start
I
submit
that
proposal.
I
think
every
month
is
a
little
bit
different
size
wise.
C
So
if
you
take
a
day
off
in
a
month,
that's
31
days,
29
days,
are
we
being
like
exact
with
those
increases
I'm
assuming
the
individual
will
want
to
be
compensated
for
their
time.
So
what
would
that
look
like
right
and
I
I?
Don't
attempt
for
that
to
be
a
massive
difference?
I
mean
I
think
like
every.
C
Whole
time,
yeah
and
I
I
think
there's
the
questions
more
so
and
this
we
can
take
this
before,
but
the
question
was
still
like
how
exactly
we're
handling
like,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
saying
I
took
a
day
off.
You
know
that
is
what,
like
percentage
of
that
proposal
and
adjusting
to
a
monthly
Cadence
that
is
workable
days,
is
still
a
monthly
Cadence.
It
just
allows
us
to
have
better
accounting
of
what
happened
in
those
periods.
C
You
know
one
day
off
of
a
40-day
contributor
period
is
much
easier
to
account
for,
in
my
opinion,
than
one
day
off
a
percentage
kind
of
of
the
the
larger
period
forcing
not
forcing
but
having
that
forcing
function
of
monthly
is
great
for
accounting
and
easier
to
keep
track
of
for
us,
but
maybe
it
doesn't
always
make
sense
for
someone
that
wants
to
take
a
week
off
and
then
how
exactly
they.
You
know
the
ease
of
doing
that
process.
Anyways.
A
A
C
Yeah
feel
like
the
the
king
of
governance
today,
hopefully
I'm
not
boring
anyone
here,
but
yeah
the
future
of
swapper
emissions.
As
you
know,
the
swapper
token
squad
has
been
handling
emissions
over
the
last
year.
Those
emissions,
as
indicated
in
the
swapper
token
signal
proposal,
are
coming
to
an
end.
C
So
this
forum
post
here
to
keep
it
super
brief,
basically
just
kind
of
highlights
the
current
stipulations,
the
signal
proposal.
What
that
distribution
looks
like
and
points
to
the
fact
that
there
will
be
a
signal
proposal.
Sorry
snapshot,
vote,
easy
to
conflate
those
two
that
kind
of
runs
through.
You
know
what
the
community
wants
to
push
towards
as
next
steps.
For
the
token
you
know,
what
does
that
look
like?
What
kind
of
model
can
we
go
through?
Do
we
want
to
Halt
the
missions
entirely?
C
I
think
this
is
getting
a
signal
from
the
community
is
really
good
here.
The
swapper
token
Squad
is
a
pretty
good
idea
of
what
we
think
the
best
outcome
will
be
and
I
think
it's
kind
of
just
justifying
that
and
getting
everyone
on
board
with
that
concept
and
kind
of
laying
the
options
on
the
table
before
executing
on
it.
A
A
Cool
all
right:
well,
thanks
everyone
for
joining
sorry,
I
thought.
We're
gonna
have
a
shorter
time
here,
but
yeah
I
hope
we
got
through
some
stuff
there
and
yeah
I.
Think
by
next
week.
I
will
not
be
but
I'll
link.
A
lot
of
contributors
will
be
in
Colombia,
so
yeah
everyone
have
a
safe,
safe
travels
down
south
or
up
north.