►
From YouTube: DXgov Weekly Gathering [2021-12-01]
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Let
me
share
my
screen
to
get
us
a
dx
vote
quite
an
active
week,
four
proposals,
starting
first
with
mainnet,
there's
four
proposals
here
that
are
all
related
to
swapper
farming.
These
were
just
submitted
last
night
and
as
with
the
first
four
epochs,
these
campaigns
are
being
combined,
they're,
four
different
campaigns
being
combined
into
one,
so
they
will
run
over
eight
weeks
total.
A
There
are
there's
four
proposals,
so
the
first
proposal
is
a
funding
proposal
to
send
the
swapper
to
the
swapper
farming
relayer
on
mainnet,
and
then
there
are
three
separate
campaigns
being
launched:
the
dxd
heath
pair,
the
swapper
heath
pair
and
then
the
dye
each
pair,
so
those
hopefully
will
pass
and
be
executed
over
the
next
week
and
just
as
a
note,
I
think
we
should
be
monitoring
them,
but
it
is
pretty
important
that
these
proposals
in
I
guess
12
and
a
half
hours,
get
moved
to
the
boosted
phase.
A
So
after
a
proposal
has
been
staked
above
the
minimum
threshold
for
24
hours,
they
can
then
move
to
the
boost
stage,
but
it
actually
needs
a
transaction
to
trigger
it.
So
it's
important
that
we're
monitored.
So
I
think
myself
and
john-
I
think
we'll
we'll
be
looking
at
that
and
I
think
nathan
has
set
an
alarm
for
the
middle
of
the
night
and
then
yeah.
Then
the
next
proposal
just
submitted
this
morning
is
the
staking
1000
each.
So
this
is
a
proposal.
A
That's
been
up
in
the
form
of
the
last
couple
weeks.
Dave's
talked
about
it,
a
bunch
and
so
yeah.
There's
a
kind
of
plan
here
for
to
begin
the
eat
staking
process
both
in
trying
out
three
different
groups
here,
and
this
proposal
actually
also
sends
the
e
itself
to
the
dev
multisig
to
complete
that.
So
this
was
yeah
just
submitted
a
couple
hours
ago
and
will
be
boosted
in
a
day.
A
And
then
another
fun
proposal
from
dave
here
this
is
to
transfer
al
from
mainnet
to
xdi.
Even
if
you
want
to
explain
what
the
owl
is
used
for.
B
So
whenever
an
order
matches
on
gpv
one,
you
actually
require
that
each
token
that
is
matched
so,
if
we're
matching
a
wef
dxd
order,
for
example,
you
need
to
have
liquidity
in
the
west
owl
pair
and
the
dxd
owl
pair
and
geronimo
has
been
kind
enough
to
supply
a
ton
of
owl
in
the
past.
To
facilitate
that.
B
However,
we
just
have
ten
thousand
hours
sitting
around
in
the
main
treasury,
so
we
just
thought
we'd
bridge
that
over
to
the
multi-chain
multi-sig
bridget
over
to
xi,
and
then
we
can
just
play
some
orders
on
the
order
book
and
that
way
we
shouldn't
have
any
issues
with
the
buyback.
B
Owl
is
like
I,
I,
the
fee
gnosis
takes
in
gpv
one,
so
in
gpv2
I
believe
they
actually
take
a
fee
of
the
actual
token
that's
being
traded,
but
in
gpv
one
they
always
took
hours.
So
you
always
needed
liquidity
in
the
two
tokens
to
facilitate
a
trade
which
is
really
annoying
in
a
way
but
yeah.
This
should
keep
us
up
and
running
for
a
while
at
least.
A
A
Cool
and
then
I
think
that
was
it
for
mainnet
yeah,
so
that
the
swapper
campaigns
and
then
the
sticky
eat
and
the
owl
transfer.
A
Then
switching
to
x
die,
which
I
think
we
had
trying
to
remember
the
total
number.
I
think
it
was
like
15
proposals,
a
lot
of
different
proposals
here
you
can
see
just
to
run
them
through
in
chronological
order.
We've
got
a
couple
different
buyback
proposals
here.
I
think
there
are
three
currently
live
right
now
and
just
a
reminder.
These
are
only
the
multi-call
proposals
because
the
west
has
been
sent
to
the
relayer
itself
and
then
yeah.
A
So
we
have
a
payment
for
retention
of
outside
counsel
mme
this
is
from
tammy
she'd
been
posted
about.
It
also
involved
with
the
q4
legal
budget,
and
then
there
is
a
proposal
to
withdraw
the
funds
from
the
quick
wallet
scheme
back
to
the
main
treasury.
We'll
explain
this
proposal
in
in
a
little
bit
here.
That's
a
discussion
item
there
and
then
there's
a
couple
different
contributor
proposals:
we've
got
melanie's
contributor
sky,
also,
my
own,
just
as
a
explanation.
A
I,
if
you
remember
on
last
week
call
I
had
submitted
this
proposal
through
the
quick
wallet
scheme,
but
there
were
some
issues
with
that
with
the
scheme
and
the
therefore
the
proposal.
So
this
is
a
resubmission
of
that
proposal
through
the
normal
contribution
reward
scheme
and,
as
I
said,
we'll
get
get
into
a
little
explanation
on
the
quick
wallet
scheme
in
a
little
bit
and
then
there
is
a
bunch
of
pending
boost
and
pre-boosted.
A
Here
I
think,
there's
an
interesting
proposal
that
was
was
interested
to
see,
which
is
to
set
the
swap
fee
on
x-gen
x-die
cool,
on
swapper
to
three
percent,
and
I
was
surprised
to
see
that
there
was
a
next-gen
x-die.
A
C
People
now
have
a
way
to
get
x-gen
on
on
x-die,
which
most
people
need
to
use
for
governance.
It's
not
it's
not
a
very
big
pull,
but
it's
always
a
problem.
And
now,
if
people
need
a
little
bit
of
gen,
you
can
get
some
gen,
but
instead
of
like
bridging
it
over
from
main
net
or
something
you
just
use
this
pool,
but
there's
a
small
fee
because
the
alternative
is
to
like
get
it
on
mainnet.
C
Do
a
transaction
on
the
dex
bridge
it
over
so
like
it's
probably
cheaper
to
pay
three
percent
fee
and
get
it
on
x
on
x,
die
directly,
and
if
that
becomes
a
bigger
pull
yeah,
maybe
we
can
make
that
pull
bigger.
Then
it
becomes
useful.
It's
not
super
useful
when
it's
this
big,
but
I
don't
know
three
percent
was
a
little
arbitrary.
It's
it
yeah.
C
I
mean
for
like
a
small
pool
with
a
token
that,
like
only
certain
people
use
and
it's
pain
to
get
from
mainnet
yeah,
something
like
two
or
three
percent-
probably
made
sense-
I
mean
if
people
can
vote
on
it,
but
there
was
no.
There
was
no
other
way
to
get
x,
gen
other
than
going
to
mainnet
and
getting
yourself
and
bridging
over,
which
is
more
expensive
than
this.
So
we'll
see,
if
yeah,
maybe
that
maybe
this
works.
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
a
and
it's
kind
of
to
show
you
when,
like
xdi,
when
things
are
cheap,
you
can
do
things
at
very,
very
small
scale
and
it'd
be
still
worthwhile.
I
mean
you
can
imagine
like
everyone,
even
keeping
their
gen
in
the
lp
itself
and
when
they
needed
it
to
stake
or
boost,
they
could
just
like,
withdraw
the
gen
themselves
and
do
it
because
it
would
be
pretty
cheap
to
do
those
transactions.
But
it's
totally.
C
Cool
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
thought
of
it
was
just
because
I
have
a
bunch
of
x
gen
on
on
on
xdi,
and
I
don't
really
have
to
use
it
all,
but
then
there's
nothing
else
to
do
with
it
and
so
like.
C
If
I
want
to
sell
it,
I
had
to
send
it
back
to
mainnet,
which
is
not
worth
the
cost,
because
jen's
not
worth
a
lot
right.
So
that's
rather
than
just
like
sitting
there
doing
nothing.
I
thought
it
made
sense
to
put
it
in
a
pool
and
make
it
useful
for
other
people
and
then,
if
that
pool
became
bigger,
then
it
becomes
like
a
place
where
people
can
buy
and
sell
it
as
well.
If
they
have
extra
or
they
have
not
enough
kind
of
thing.
A
Yeah
and
just
so
people
probably
know
this,
but
the
x-gen
does
not
go
through
the
normal
omni
bridge,
so
you'd
have
to
kind
of
do
that
separately.
Unlike
most
of
the
other
erc20
tokens
on
next
day.
Oh.
C
C
A
A
Yeah,
just
you
can't
do
that
right.
This
is
the
same
thing
for
even
the
swapper
farming
proposals
on
xda
and
mainnet
that
were,
we
actually
been
submitting
the
multi-call
ones
through
alchemy.
I
did
share
just
a
link
that
dave
shared
with
me,
which
is
a
way.
A
I'm
not
sure
how
to
describe
it.
It
allows
you
to
like
do
the
inputs
on
there
and
then
get
the
call
data
itself
and
then
paste
the
call
data
directly
in
dx
vote.
So
that's
how
you
could
do
it
there,
but
then
you
have
to
like
do
the
contract
inputs
through
this
this
separate
site-
and
I
think
the
contracts
also
have
to
be
verified.
A
A
D
Just
for
like
future
reference
on
this
I
mean
if
it
was
something
that
the
swapper
guild
wouldn't
implement,
it's
likely
something
we
would
make
like
our
proposal
type
for
in
the
export,
so
that
would
just
be
like
a
nice
ui
to
do
automatically.
D
A
Definitely
yeah
so
just
to
kind
of
close
up
the
xci
proposals.
There
is
an
updated
medusa
proposal
and
I
think
medusa
had
the
same
thing
as
me
in
terms
of
submitting
the
previous
one
through
the
wallet
scheme.
So
this
is
the
same
one
resubmitted
through
the
contribution
reward
and
then
yeah
there's
the
staking
signal
purpose,
taking
a
signal
proposal,
that's
also
on
mainnet
and
then
the
last
one
that
just
submitted,
I
think
last
night
is
integrate
pocket
network
into
deep
style
product
for
our
pc
usage.
A
This
is
one
we've
been
discussing
last
couple
weeks
from
submitted
from
sky,
and
this
is
a
good
example
of,
like
obviously
a
great
partnership
and
something
we
can
do
in
terms
of
trying
to
use
their
products,
but
also
how
we
can
like
solidify
that
through
a
signal
proposal
and
just
fyi.
The
reason
that
everything
isn't
loading
for
me
is
because
I
just
had
to
clear
my
cache
like
an
hour
ago
so
but
yeah
the
pocket
partnership
there
or
if
there's
any
questions
or
thoughts
on
that.
D
Just
a
quick
comment:
we've
kind
of
like
skipped
ahead
with
dx4
and
and
the
qa
environments.
It's
currently
the
default
rpc
and
will
also
be
in
the
next
release.
So
it
doesn't.
So
if
you
connect
your
wallet,
it'll
still
just
use
your
metamask
rpc
this
setup.
But
if
you
don't
connect
your
wallet
it'll
be
using
pocket
network
on
like
main
xdi
and
rinkby.
A
A
Awesome
and
then
no
proposal,
that's
it
for
x,
die
and
then
no
proposals
on
arbor
trump
and
then
yeah.
Moving
on
to
discussion
items
so
wanted
to
talk
about
the
quick
wallet
scheme
bug
debrief
so
ross.
If
you
wanted
to.
D
Take
over
yeah
absolutely
so
I
don't
know.
Do
you
reckon
I
should
share
the
document
right
up
the
edit.
I
think
yeah.
D
Okay
I'll
share
this
and
then
just
kind
of
talk
through
it.
So
it's
just
a
google
doc
right
now,
but
likely
we'll
make
a
deltoid
forum
post
about
it
just
to
make
it
a
bit
more
public.
So
last
I
think
it
was.
Last
friday
we
found
a
bug.
Chris
was
sort
of
the
one
paying
the
most.
D
To
for
puzzles
and
what
was
actually
happening,
and
so
I
guess
I'll,
just
kind
of
go
through
it.
The
high
level
is
that
there
was
an
issue
that
caused
us
to
not
be
able
to
edit
the
voting
parameters
in
the
wallet
scheme,
which
obviously
a
bit
of
an
issue.
So
the
the
new
wallet
schemes
is
like
the
new
architecture
we've
been
using
I've
kind
of
explained
it
previously
in
some
of
these
cuff
calls,
but
a
high
level
is
kind
of
like
our
new.
D
It's
our
new
architecture
that
we've
been
using
in
initially
we
rolled
out
an
arbitrary
it's.
What
all
of
the
schemes
in
arbitrary
using
and
the
most
recent
one
is
the
quick
wallet
scheme
nx
die.
So
that's
the
the
one
we've
been
running
the
new
contributor
proposals
through
so
it
gives
us
a
lot
more
flexibility,
there's
more
security
there
and
because
the
actual
funds
can
be
separated
from
the
avatar,
so
it
can
have
its
like
its
own
treasury,
essentially,
as
well
as
a
lot
of
security.
D
So
yeah
the
the
change
that
we
had
to
do
was
we
initially
set
the
timing
on
the
quick
wallet
scheme
to
two
days.
Boosted
proposal
and
we
decided
three
would
be
better
because
it
was
closer
to
what
the
contributor
rewards
scheme
from
the
legacy
dial
stack
stuff
was
using,
and
so
we
changed
that
and
it
went
through
fine.
D
But
then
chris
paid
a
bit
more
attention
to
it
and
it
turned
out
it
wasn't
actually
changing.
It
was
still
executing
after
two
hours
two
days
of
boosting
time,
and
so
we
looked
into
a
bit
more
and
augusto
found
found
the
issue.
So
essentially
we
weren't
able
to
it
wasn't
actually
updating
it's
updating
somewhere,
but
the
wallet
scheme
wasn't
actually
like
pulling
the
voting
parameters
from
there
so
on
the
technical
side
feel
free
to
tune
out.
D
If
you
don't
want
to
understand
this
part,
you
can
read
a
bit
more
about
it
here
or
take
a
look
at
the
pr
that's
linked
in
the
document.
Essentially,
we
we're
setting
the
voting
parameters
in
the
controller,
but
the
wallet
scheme
wasn't
properly
like
paying
attention
to
those.
D
It
was
just
referring
to
its
own
local
variable,
which
was
set
on
initialization
and
couldn't
be
updated
after
that,
and
so
now
we,
instead
of
storing
it
locally,
we
have
an
interface
to
the
controller
where
we
can
go
and
retrieve
that
voting
parameter,
and
so
that
can
actually
be
updated
via
the
schema
registrar.
D
So
yeah,
you
can
read
the
document
in
a
bit
more
detail
and
there'll
be
a
forum
post
on
it
going
forwards.
The
obviously
it
kind
of
highlights
just
an
issue,
because
it's
a
bug.
The
important
thing
is
that
no
no
fans
were
ever
like
at
risk
or
lost
with
there's
a
proposal
that
was
mentioned
earlier
to
move
the
remaining
funds
out
of
the
quick
wallet
scheme.
Just
because
we
know
it's
has
a
bug,
we're
moving
the
funds
out
of
it
in
theory,
it
could
go
on
operating
fine.
D
We
just
couldn't
change
any
of
the
parameters,
so
the
going
forward.
So
there's
like
a
few
things
to
highlight.
The
first
is
obviously
that
we
need
some
more
solid
testing
and
like
qa
testing
and
as
well
as
potentially
some
more
audits.
D
This
is
only
been
audited
once
and
it
wasn't
really
like
the
scope
they
didn't
cover
this,
which
is
why
I
sort
of
slept
past
the
audit,
as
well
as
not
proper
testing
and
rink
payment
that
we
hadn't
ever
properly
tested
it
there
either,
and
so
just
a
bit
more.
I
think
we'll
be
talking
a
bit
more
about
it
in
the
future,
just
how
we
want
to
make
sure
this
can't
happen
again.
D
The
nice
thing
was
that
the
way
we've
been
rolling
it
out
is
kind
of
like
our
controlled
deployment,
so
we
tested
first
in
our
bedroom
and
then
going
up
to
xdi
and
even
in
xdia
we
didn't
deploy
what
we
would
call
a
master
wallet
scheme
which
has
access
to
the
treasury
because
we
deployed
it
just
on
its
own
with
its
own
treasury.
D
D
To
the
full
treasury,
you
know
so
the
the
second
point:
there
is
just
that
the
the
funds
have
been
cancelled
and
we've
withdrawn
the
remaining
funds
from
the
quick
wallet
scheme
and
the
new
version
has
been
merged
and
we'll
be
testing
that
on
rank
b
and
then
afterwards,
they're
slowly
on
registering
the
old
wallet
schemes
and
registering
new
ones
which
we'll
have
to
do
our
next
die.
Obviously
for
the
quick
wallet
scheme,
as
well
as
an
arbitrary
for
the
schemes.
D
The
next
thing
is:
there's
no
huge
rush
to
get
to
done,
because
we
only
need
this
fix
for
effort
changing
stuff
arbitrary.
I
think
we're
pretty
happy
with
the
current
floating
parameters,
and
so
we
do
want
to
change
it.
But
it's
not
like
an
urgent
breaking
change
that
we
need
to
do
right
now.
E
Yeah
and
I'll
just
add
a
couple
things,
just
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
I'd
echo
everything
ross
said
you
know
all
well
spoken
there
and,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
think
kind
of.
In
summary,
we're
probably
just
moving
a
little
too
fast
on
some
of
the
governance
stuff,
which
you
know
it
is
contained
to
xdi
and
arbitrom.
So
like
the
risks
are,
like
you
know,
more
limited
because
of
that,
but
obviously
the
idea,
the
goal
is
to
be
taking
on
a
lot
more
funds
and
a
lot
more
responsibility.
E
With
these
contracts
and,
like
ross
said,
we
have
to
kind
of
revisit
some
things
and
like
improve
our
processes
across
the
board.
There,
like
better
auditing,
better
testing,
think
about
the
overall
process
and
just
what
I'm
doing
on
on
the
auditing
front.
So
these
these
contracts
have
been
audited
by
phil
I'd.
I
guess
the
scope
wasn't
included.
I
need
to
go
back
and
look
at
that
myself,
but
we
are
now
you
know
phil
kind
of
went
mia,
so
we
aren't
working
with
him
anymore.
E
We
just
completed
an
audit
engagement
with
omega
team,
which
is
a
few
former
dowstak
people.
The
audit
looks
great
I
will
be.
This
is
just
the
intermediate
report,
so
we
need
to
address
those.
This
is
for
the
swapper
farming
contracts,
the
the
new
version
there.
So
we
need
to
address
the
findings
and
kind
of
get
the
final
report
from
them
and
that
it
will
be
published,
but
I'm
pressed
impressed
with
their
audit
and
I
think
we
can
engage
with
them
further
and
that
would
include
with
governance
contracts.
E
In
addition
to
that,
I
have
a
services
agreement
from
sigma.
Prime
now,
sigma
prime
is
one
of
the
for
those
are
familiar
with
the
auditing
space.
I
kind
of
view
like
the
big
reputable
auditors
are
open,
zeppelin
consensus,
diligence,
trail
of
bits
and
sigma
prime.
Those
would
probably
be
like
the
big
four
that
I
would
list.
E
Anyways,
there's
probably
others
that
you
might
contend
are
in
that
group,
but
these
are
the
ones
that
are
I've
been
around
since
early
days
have
established
a
great
reputation
and
yeah
are
just
great
auditing
firms
with
that
comes
a
significant
price
tag,
so
I'll
also
be
making
a
post
kind
of
out
loud,
outlining
overall
auditing
costs
and
what
I
think
expectations
should
be
around
that
and
people
can
kind
of
give
feedback
and
whatever
in
the
in
the
forum,
but
just
to
kind
of
give
a
heads
up
here:
sigma
prime
charges,
four
thousand
dollars
per
dev
per
auditor
per
day.
E
So
it's
it's
a
pretty
high
cost
and
we
have
the
ability
to
reserve
like
five
weeks
of
like
basically
40
auditor
days,
starting
in,
I
think
it's
april
or
may
so
I'll.
Be
sharing
more
about
that.
I
it's
it's
going
to
be
a
high
cost,
but
I
think
for
the
most
sensitive
contracts.
E
It's
going
to
be
worth
it,
in
my
opinion,
to
get
probably
two
audits,
including
like
one
from
consumer
prime
and
when
I
say
the
most
sensitive,
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
assess
that
is
like
how
much
funds
do
we
think
are
going
in
them.
So
stuff,
that's
going
to
be
handling
treasury
funds.
You
know
that's
going
to
be
in
the
tens
of
millions.
I
would
put
in
that
category.
E
You
know
the
staking
contracts
that
may
be
handling
tens
of
millions
or
more
and
other
contracts
that
could
be
handling
that
level
of
funds
that
might
be
like
carrot,
aqua.
Like
those
types
of
things,
I
think
we
could
maybe
even
establish
a
threshold
that
says
like
hey
above
this
certain
amount.
That's
where
we're
gonna
really
like
commit
our
high
budget
efforts
on
on
auditing.
So
yeah
look,
I'm
going
to
be
spending
more
time
on
this.
It's
kind
of
on
me.
E
We
should
have
been
doing
more,
I
think,
out
of
necessity
we're
kind
of
moving
fast
in
some
ways,
but
we
definitely
need
to
be
doing
more
and
I'll
be
working
with
ross
and
everybody
to
to
improve
our
processes
across
the
board
here,
and
just
one
last
thing
on
the
auditor
front
is
that
I
just
learned
about
this
project
called
spear
spare
bit
spear
bit.
S-P-E-A-R-B-I-T
and
apparently
they've
got
some
pretty
well-known
backers
and
they're
like
trying
to
be
like
an
auditing
dao.
E
I
guess,
but
it's
more
like
a
front
office
for
auditing
freelancers,
and
so
it
just
so
happens
that
the
first
audit
that
they
did
as
a
group
was
with
the
folks
at
brink,
who
we
have
a
relationship
with,
and
so
we
know
some
of
these
spare,
but
people
might
be
able
to
reserve
some
time
with
them
as
well
in
q1,
so
between
omega
teams,
spare
bid
and
saber
prime.
E
I
think
we
could
be
in
a
pretty
good
spot
on
the
auditing
bandwidth
if
we're
willing
to
spend
the
money,
like
starting
kind
of
you
know
in
the
next
few
months,
so
optimistic
about
that
going
to
be
spending
more
time
on
that
and
yeah.
D
D
Just
thought
I'd
mention
briefly
as
well.
It's
kind
of
going
back
to
like
the
issue
with
the
schemes
it's
kind
of
good
in
a
way
if
we
can
actually
fix
this
and
create
like
we
need
at
least
two
audits
and
then
like
just
additional
like
qa.
D
I
don't
know
the
best
word
for
maybe
like
workflows
or
anything
like
steps
that
we
need
to
before
even
going
to
production,
because
we're
going
to
go
through
the
exact
same
steps
for
governance
2.0
and
it's
like
even
more
risky
in
a
way
because
there'll
be
bigger
changes.
Of
course.
So
it's
kind
of
a
good
practice
run,
and
it's
good
that
we
sort
this
out
now
and
not
when
we're
doing
governance.
2.0.
E
Yeah,
I
hate
to
see
it's
always
scary,
to
see
vulnerabilities,
especially
when
you
feel
like
you
should
have
caught
them,
but
it
is
a
good
wake-up
call
and
like
the
thing
that
I
think
we
did
do
right
is
like
it
is
contained
right
like
that.
Not
too
much
was
at
risk,
but
yeah
need
to
improve
on
the
qa
flows
and
the
auditing
flows
and
just
generally
processes,
and
on
the
qa
too.
I
think
we're
going
to
try
to
focus
on
bringing
on
a
couple
couple.
E
People
spacecinch
actually
seems
they
have
a
qa
engineer
that
we
could
bring
on
quickly
and
I've
been
saying
this
in
recent
meetings.
But
qa
is
an
important
process
in
in
software
development.
I
think
for
us
it's
especially
important
because
of
the
way
our
deployment
flows,
work
and
our
kind
of
aversion
to
analytics
or
the
lack
of
kind
of
decentralized
analytics
at
this
day
and
age
right.
E
So
in
a
web
2
company,
you
would
typically,
you
would
have
a
qa
team,
but
you
would
also
have
the
ability
to
like
quote
hot
fix
something
right
like.
If
you
see
an
error,
you
would
be
able
to
deploy
the
fix
like
within
seconds
right,
whereas
we
have
to
follow
a
consensus-based
deployment
process
which
could
take
days
and
in
addition
to
that
in
web
2
companies,
you
would
typically
have
a
lot
of
analytics
server
monitoring
and
we
don't
really
have
stuff
like
that.
E
I
mean,
I
think
in
theory
we
web
3
will
get
there,
but
we
don't
really
have
that.
Now
we
don't
use
google
analytics.
We
don't
use
like
tools
that
would
monitor
like
things
going
wrong
right
like
we
can
see
errors
when
we're
using
it
that's
sort
of
how
we
operate.
It's
pretty
crude
and
kind
of
rudimentary.
I
do
imagine
in
the
future.
E
But
yeah,
I
think
everybody
here,
chris
dave
everybody's,
been
doing
a
great
job
using
the
product
and
like
keep
that
up
like
that.
This
is
also
like
an
important
aspect
of
security
right.
If
we
all
take
it
seriously
as
users
and
kind
of
keep
an
eye
out
for
when
things
go
wrong,
do
a
good
job
reporting
it.
I
keep
that
up.
That's
very
important.
A
Yeah,
because
that's
just
what
ross
said,
I
think
there's
like
different
layers
and
I
think,
like
one
of
the
things
we
probably
shouldn't
have
done
here
was
like.
Maybe
not
do
the
demo
to
everyone
and
be
like
this
is
almost
ready
to
use
versus
like
we
should
have
been
doing
that
test
ourselves
like
trying
to
contrib
trying
like
the
proposal
out
but
like
it's
another
layer
when
we
want,
like
other
people,
to
be
using
it.
A
But
just
I
was
thinking
of
this
because
there's
the
arbitrary
and
then
maybe
the
same
scheme
stuff
on
arbor
trump,
and
I
know
that
this
proposal
that
just
faced
in
their
ross
was,
I
think,
changing
some
parameters.
And
so
I'm
not
sure
if
that
went
through
or
didn't
go
through,
but
it
might
be
yeah.
We
can.
D
Take
a
look
at
that
if
it
was
changing
the
voting
parameters
as
chance,
it
will
not
have
gone
through
all
right.
Well,
I've
gone
through,
but
it
will
not.
It
wouldn't
like
apply.
E
Yeah,
my
understanding
from
a
goose
I'm
gonna,
look
at
it
myself
as
well,
is
that
we
did
test
this,
but
the
problem
with
how
we
tested
is
we
just
looked
at
the
front
end
and
the
front
end
is
somehow
not
showing
like
it's
somehow
showing
success
for
the
transaction
but
yeah.
So.
D
The
way
I
look
through
the
pr
and
like
saw
what
the
issue
was,
the
issue
isn't
necessarily
in
the
contracts
it's
between,
like
the
communication
between
the
contracts,
so
we're
updating
something
on
the
controller
and
the
scheme
never
like
looks
at
the
controller
and
then
the
front.
D
D
Yeah
and
since
the
reason
I
think
from
at
least
from
what
I
said,
I
wasn't
involved
in
the
audit,
but
the
audit
was
the
scope
of
it
was
essentially
just
looking
at
the
contract
kind
of
on
their
own
and
not
the
the
scope
of
oh.
The
wallet
scheme
has
to
work
with
the
controller
and
I
think
that's
why
it
got
missed
there
and
yeah.
So
I
guess
on
the
testing
side,
we
need
to
like
consider
more,
not
just
what
you
guys
looking
at
but
think
more
about
how
the
smart
contracts
are
working.
A
E
A
E
A
Okay
and
then
next
up
is
buyback.
Extension
proposal.
Number
four
dave.
I
don't
know
if
we
have.
This
is
oh,
no,
it's
in
the
form
now.
So
let
me
actually
just
share
my
screen
and
maybe
dave
you
can
walk
us
through.
What's
a
little
different
for
extension,
number
four.
B
So,
as
actually
shared,
I
believe
on
the
community
call
last
week
we
kind
of
updated
the
methodology
of
also
counting
how
much
we
bought
back.
So
now
we
actually
take
the
amount
of
ether
we
place
the
order
at
and
the
price
of
ether
on
that
day.
So
it
should
be
a
lot
more
accurate
and
that
gave
a
little
bump
as
well
in
the
buyback
amount.
B
So
we're
already
approaching
the
one
million
extension
and
there's
a
new
one
million
extension
proposal
live
on
the
forum,
the
one
difference
between
this
and
how
we've
previously
done
it
is
that
we
actually
thought
it
might
make
more
sense
to
just
take
the
current
to
set
the
amount
in
ether
so
do
1
million
at
the
time
I
posted
this
proposal,
so
it
came
out
to
roughly
215
ether
that
way
we
can
just
bridge
the
ether
from
mainnet
directly
into
the
gpv1
relayer,
and
it
makes
it
a
lot
easier
to
track
as
well,
because,
instead
of
having
to
calculate
you
know
how
much
have
we
bought
back
at
the
current
ether
price
of
usd
or
dxd
price,
whatever
we
can
simply
look
at
the
funds
in
the
gpv
one
relay
out
to
see
how
much
if
is
left
over
and
also
the
kind
of
buyback
is
somewhat
driven
by
the
amount
of,
if
in
the
dxd,
bonding
curve
itself
right.
B
So
it
makes
sense
to
account
for
this
and
it's
still
a
million
right.
Of
course,
ether
varies
a
bit,
but
a
million
at
the
time
of
posting.
The
proposal
and
the
orders
are
still
posted
based
on
usd
trading
volume
of
dxd,
so
nothing
really
changes
other
than
instead
of
denominating
1
million
us
dollars,
we
just
denominated
already
in
ether
and
that
just
kind
of
simplified
things
you
know.
B
I
know
we've
been
trying
to
streamline
the
buyback
process
in
the
past
to
make
it
more
efficient,
and
I
think
this
is
just
a
small
step
that
helps
you
know.
Accounting
helps
with
the
oversight
and
yeah.
That's
pretty
much,
the
only
other
the
difference
compared
to
the
previous
proposal.
So
it's
one
million
which
earlier
when
I
calculated
it,
was
roughly
215
ether.
B
So
I'll
leave
this
up
on
the
forum
for
a
couple
of
days
and
then
hopefully
get
the
new
proposal
up
as
well.
So
we
try
to
reduce
as
much
as
possible
the
well.
Ideally,
we
just
overlap
this
extension
with
the
current
one.
So
we
don't
have
to
stop
doing
proposal
and
just
keep
keep
the
buyback
up
and
running.
A
And
then
just
one
more
thing,
it's
kind
of
we've
done
this
last
time
is
so
this
would
be
the
signal
proposal
right,
so
the
signal
proposal
will
go
on
xdi
and
mainnet,
and
then
the
plan
is
to
use
this
signal
proposal
on
mainnet
to
also
send
the
funds.
A
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
in
general,
as
mainland
car
costs
kind
of
skyrocket
is
to
be
able
to
like
combine
proposals
and
then
in
this
proposal
we
would
do
as
we
did
last
time,
which
is,
we
would
actually
deposit
the
eth
directly
in
the
gpu
relayer,
instead
of
depositing
the
treasury
and
needing
those
separate
proposals.
But
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
combine
these
proposals
like
the
signal
proposal
into
one,
and
then
it's
like
approving
this,
also
proving
the
transaction
sending
the
heat
yeah.
A
Crickets
cool
yeah,
so
I
think
yeah
we'll
keep
this
up
for
a
couple
days
and
then
yeah
look
up
for
on
chain
proposal.
A
Awesome
and
then
last
on
the
agenda
is
contributor.
Ux
check-in
melanie.
I
believe
you
have
some
updates.
F
Yeah,
I
do
so
hey
everyone.
Hopefully
this
is
a
little
bit
more
exciting
than
the
buy
back.
Sorry
dave,
but
I
just
wanted
to
talk
quickly
about
the
compensation
overhaul.
Chris
kenan
dave
and
I
have
been
working
together
and
starting
to
re-evaluate
the
comp
overhaul
again
after
it
didn't
pass
earlier.
F
We
determined
it
was
best
to
allocate
more
stables
and
less
dxd
for
contributor
payouts,
and
in
order
to
do
so,
we
shifted
the
comp
table
to
around
50
to
70,
stables
and
30
to
50
dxd
for
contributor
payouts,
as
opposed
to
the
previous
overhaul,
which
weighed
more
heavily
on
the
dxd.
I
don't
have
exact
numbers
to
share
right
now,
but
just
giving
you
a
rough
ballpark
of
where
we
see
those
numbers
moving
forward
and
how
they'll
weigh
a
little
bit
heavier
on
the
on
the
stable
side.
F
In
addition
to
remain
competitive
in
the
market
and
also
account
for
inflation,
we've
adjusted
the
contributor
compensation
range
upwards
a
bit
so
now
the
top
salary
range
will
fall
around
218
000
annually
versus
the
previous,
well
current
compensation
that
is
around
168
k,
so
we'll
see
kind
of
like
a
shift
upwards,
like
I
said
in
the
contributor
compensation
range,
so
it's
also
important
to
note
that
dxd
will
be
locked
up
a
bit
longer
as
well
to
ensure
contributor
alignment
with
dx
style.
F
F
So
it's
going
to
be,
depending
on
your
level,
it's
going
to
be
either
50
50,
stables
to
dxd
or
it'll,
be
70,
stables,
30,
dxd,
so
we're
thinking.
F
E
H
We
we
could
think
of
what's
the
right
way
to
state
what
a
total
is,
so
that
the
optics
isn't
misleading.
You
know
when,
when
you
start
at
a
company
say
in
in
silicon
valley,
they
do
give
you
stock
options,
but
you
you
don't
say
that
is
your
salary.
You
know,
and
it's
not
like
you
at
the
end
of
the
year,
if
you
need
it
for
expenses,
you're
gonna
be
cashing
out
or
something.
H
So
I'm
wondering
if,
if
it's
locked,
for
you
know
two
or
three
years,
is
it
reasonable
to
you
know,
count
it
towards
compensation
that
is
like
advertised?
B
I
I
think,
that's
definitely
something
to
explore.
I
guess
one
major
difference
compared
to
a
traditional
company
is
that
you
only
get
a
payout
if
you
eventually
ipo
right,
like
you're,
not
able
to
offload
the
shares
if
there's
no
public
offering
or
some
buyback
from
the
company
right,
while
in
crypto.
Of
course,
tokens
are
liquid
right,
but
I
think
that's
yeah.
It's
definitely
something
to
consider
overall
in
the
verbiage,
etc.
F
Yeah,
I
mean
there's
in
addition
to
that,
in
addition
to
the
payment
structure,
there
are
a
few
other
things
that
we
that
we
want
to
implement
like
we're,
also
interested
in
implementing
like
a
bi-annual
bonus
system
for
shipping
we'd
like
to
implement
a
bonus
system
that
looks
a
bit
similar
to
to
the
proposal.
F
We
saw
earlier
this
year
that
that
eugeronimo
and
john
passed
for
retrospective
shipping,
so
this
this
in
this
bonus
structure,
it
would
look
like
dxtel,
would
set
aside
money,
possibly
like
carrot
tokens
and
then
allocate
them
accordingly,
like
twice
a
year
to
those
who,
like
shipped
and
you
know,
made
valuable
contributions
to
dxdow.
F
So
we
were
looking
to
implement
a
bonus
system
like
that.
We're
also,
you
know,
looking
to
shift
a
few
other
things
like
the
cadence
of
the
proposals.
So
from
like
two
months
to
three
months.
You
know
also
want
to
get
consensus
around
maybe
introducing
product
tokens
into
compensation.
F
You
know,
for
example,
swapper
and
a
place
of
dxd,
so
I
mean
there's
a
few
other
items
on
there
that
were
we're
looking
to
overhaul,
but
I
mean,
I
think
the
biggest
one
like
you
said,
is
just
that
the
payment
structure
so
wouldn't
be
complete,
complete
overhaul.
I
guess
it'd
be
like
a
facelift,
I
suppose,
but
then
also
just
get
general
consensus
from
the
community.
If
that's
like
something
that
is
necessary,
so
I
guess
we
just
want
to
get
the
discussion
going
again.
G
Argument,
like
I
think,
like
the
whole
compensation
guidelines
document,
is
a
very
like
delicate
rule
set
right.
Maybe
it
would
be
better
for
like
finding
consensus
about
all
those
specific
areas
if
we
actually
like
make
proposals
per
like
important
area
change
right,
like
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
like,
we
saw
with
the
last
one.
It
failed,
because
there
was
like
one
part
more
specifically
on
the
payment
structure,
but
now,
like
a
lot
of
stuff,
will
introduce
changes.
G
Maybe
we
could
like
package
it
up
in
like
two
three
buckets
like
the
payment
structure
is
important.
We
should
try
to
get
consensus
on
about
that
and
then,
like
move
on,
to
increase
the
try
period
to
three
months
and
stuff
like
that.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
definitely
not
opposed
to
that,
because
I
think
that
there's
some
things
that
we
can
like
implement
immediately
and
then
some
other
things
that
you
know
maybe
don't
need
to
have
to
don't
need
to
happen
so
quickly.
So,
okay,
we
can
focus
mainly
on
the
on
the
payment
structure.
Initially
now.
G
Or
I'm
not
saying
like,
like
reduce
the
focus
it's
just
like
like
last
time.
I
think
the
goals
from
from
team
were
correct.
There
was
just
like
one
argument
about
too
much
dxd
and
then,
like
this
whole
thing
kind
of
failed
right.
Maybe
it
would
be
better
if
we
like
came
up
with
a
list
of
changes
and
then
like
try
to
find
consensus
per
specific
subject
and
then
change
the
compensation
guidelines.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
mean,
ideally,
if
you
know
we
were
living
in
a
perfect
world,
we
would
have
those
discussions
in
the
forum
as
well
right.
So
at
that
point
I
think
we'd
be
more
able
to
maybe
divide
it
up
et
cetera
right.
If,
if
there
is
a
need
to
do
that,
but
yeah,
I
think
definitely
once
it's
in
the
forum.
You
know,
I
hope
there'll
be
some
healthy
discussion
and
see
if
there
are
any
points
that
are
more
contentious
than
others,
but
yeah
makes
sense.
I
think.
E
I
think
important
related
numbers
I'd
want
to
be
looking
at
to
when
thinking
about
this
are
like
the
budget,
the
runway
and
kind
of
like
the
inflows
outflows
of
txd
or
circulating.
You
know
impact
on
circulating
supply,
so
I
mean
I
understand
that
takes
more
work.
I
don't
remember
the
last
time
we
took
a
good
good
look
at
budget.
B
And
runway
yeah
I
mean
we,
we
specifically
took
a
look
at
the
dxd
issuance
as
well.
B
B
So
if
you
purely
look
at
that
number,
it's
pretty
much
impossible
to
increase
pay
in
dxd,
while
also
removing
dxd
from
the
market
right,
but
it's
definitely
something
we're
looking
at,
and
you
know
something
will
also
present
more
thoroughly
in
the
in
the
forum
post
when
it
goes
up
and
everything
else.
You
mentioned
runway,
stables
and
some
I
mean
these
are
also
some
estimations
given
that
the
new
model
currently
has
eight
levels
right.
F
F
A
That's
it
awesome
and
I
think
maybe
we'll
discuss
more
of
this
on
the
contributor
x
call
later
or
kind
of
dive
deeper
in
but
elsewhere,
people
should
look
at
the
look
to
the
forum.