►
From YouTube: DXgov Weekly Meeting [2020-12-23] - Part 2 of 2
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
Anyone
who's
still
making
a
decision
on
that,
and
then
I
guess
there's
you
know
if
this
proposal
does
fail.
Thinking
about
what
does
that
mean
going
forward
so
open
up
the
florida
comments.
A
A
Oh
sorry,
yeah
I
mean,
I
guess
the
reason
we
haven't
been
doing.
That
is
because
we're
afraid
of
cell
pressure
on
dxd-
and
I
think,
as
someone
said
like,
if
you
give,
if
you
compensate
people
with
tokens
like
they're,
going
to
sell
those
to
pay
rent.
So
I
think
we
worried
about
people
like
needing
to
sell
dxd
to
get
to
get
rent
and
I
actually
don't
think
yeah
and
I
think
the
short-term
alignment
of
like
the
price
of
dxd
is.
B
I
would
like
to
ask
a
question
for
those
that
voted.
No.
If
we
had
a
another
proposal
that
just
asked
the
question,
should
we
change
the
bonding
curve,
or
should
we
edit
it
yes
or
no,
like
short
term,
would
you
vote
yes
for
that
and
then
come
up
with
a
solution
later.
B
Basically,
what
I
read
some
that
voted
no
is
saying
because
it
it
isn't
like
asking
a
question
that
way.
It's
almost
saying
exactly
what
should
happen
like
immediately.
B
Stop
that
bonding
curve
like
it's
saying
what
it
should
be
happening
instead
of
just
asking
an
open
question
in
my
head:
it's
a
it's
a
still
it's
a
signal
proposal.
I
know
it's
badly
written
written
and
I'm
not
gonna
get
stuck
on
that.
I
just
want
that
discussion
to
be
going,
and
I
wanna
know
what
people
actually
think
the
rep
holder
think
yeah
voting
no
on
this
might
seem
like
we
don't
want
to
change
the
bonding
curve.
We
want
to
keep
it
as
it.
A
A
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the
signal
proposals
that
have
passed,
that
I
voted
for
the
ratified
manifesto,
like
that,
I
think,
was
kind
of
clear
from
the
action
there.
The
approved
worker
compensation
guidelines
that
was
kind
of
clear
from
that
there,
the
working
group
2.0
that
was
kind
of
clear
what
the
action
was
there
and
I
just
think
like
signal
proposals
like
for
this
one.
C
Okay,
I
think
a
potential
issue.
There,
though,
is,
if
you
require
proposers
to
have
like
a
detailed
technical
understanding
of
what
they
are
describing.
Doesn't
that
limit
the
number
of
people
who
can
actually
make
proposals
to
like
or
allow
like
the
technical
people
to
be
able
to
control
the
proposals
just
based
on
that.
A
B
Can
I
shame
in
here
some
something
I
might
like
shoot
myself
in
the
foot
here
because
I
might
say
stuff
here
that
you
won't
like.
So
when
I
joined
the
style,
I
felt
this
elite
mentality
where
everyone
is
an
expert
and
everyone
is
like
really
good
at
what
they're
doing
and
that's
good.
I
love
that.
I
don't
want
to
be
the
smartest
person
in
a
room.
I
want
to
learn
so
that
elite
mentality
could
be
scary,
and
I
I
sense
it
sometimes.
B
When
I
write
something
write,
a
comment,
I
might
not
be
an
expert
in
something
and
I
say
hey
guys,
I
want
to
pause
the
curve.
I
said
that
and
I
got
kind
of
not
attacked,
but
basically
I
people
said
you
don't
know
enough
about
this.
You
shouldn't
say
yeah,
you
shouldn't
say
something
simple
as
oh
pause
the
curve,
because
you
don't
know
enough
about
it,
but
that
mentalities
is
actually
silencing
people.
B
I
think
and-
and
me
including
I
I
I'm
I'd
rather
not
go
into
debate,
but
I
feel
that
we
need
to
do
something
about
the
girl.
I
don't
know
the
exact
technical
solution
about
that
and
I
I
feel
because,
like
we
don't
want
to
silence
people
we
don't
want
like
they
don't
need
to
be
expert
to
have
an
opinion.
That's
my
that's
my
like
take
from
this,
and
and
we
should
be,
we
should
be
experts.
We
should
be
this
elite
whatever,
but
we
shouldn't
be.
D
Yeah,
I
would
maybe
add
to
that
like,
for
example,
right
now.
I
don't
have
a
much
knowledge
about
bonding
curve
and
I
just
didn't
participate
in
that
discussion,
like
I
believe,
even
by
voting
on
it
like,
I
should
have
some
knowledge
on
it
like
if
I
vote
uninformed,
I
feel
like
I'm
doing
a
disservice
to
you
know
that
proposal
for.
F
A
D
E
E
F
Not
voting,
I'm
not
voting.
The
wording
in
the
proposal
sounds
like
someone
making
fun
of
other
people
like
that's
what
I
read
and
it
doesn't
then
like.
How
do
you
like
get
rid
of
the
curve
hold
the
curve
like
or
just
make
fun
of
people
like?
That's,
not
that's,
not
the
type
of
proposal.
You
should
pass.
E
G
G
I
know
we
had
a
signal
poll
in
dow
talk
a
couple
months
ago,
but
since
this
has
been
kind
of
a
reinvigorated
discussion,
snapshot
could
be
a
really
useful
way
to
get
a
real
dxd
holder,
read
on
the
issue
and
now
there's
been
some
good
discussion
even
from
thibault
about
a
potential
technical
solution
and
while
I'm
no
expert
at
understanding
it
or
neither
one
of
us
are
that
could
be
maybe
a
good
place
to
move
forward
with
including
it
in
the
proposal.
So
we
at
least
have
a
clear
path.
C
F
Yes,
but
I
am
also
interested
in
the
actual
workings
of
the
iniquity
design
bonding
curve
and
how
it
works
and
all
the
different
settings
and
pieces
you
can
do
to
it
and
it's
confusing,
which
is
the
problem,
and
you
know
I
know
august-
is
working
on
a
document
because
there's
a
there's
posts
about
it
like
on
github
and
maybe
even
the
forum,
but
I
think
he's
trying
to
make
a
document
that
that
makes
it
more
clear
to
understand
how
it
works,
and
my
question
to
him
was
like,
if
you,
if
you
do,
raise
the
ability,
the
the
amount
so
that
no
one
can
buy
from
the
curve
do
the
other
parts
of
the
of
the
system
does
the
whole
system
as
it
was
designed
as
the
ball
designed
it?
F
F
And
if
the
answer
is
yes,
then
then,
then
maybe
you
can
still
accomplish
the
goal
of
of
distributing
revenue
through
a
financial
token
like
dxd,
using
the
curve
in
an
effective
way,
and
that
includes
like
you
can
set.
So
that
any
new
money
coming
into
the
curve,
actually
zero
goes
to
the
dow.
It
just
all
goes
to
into
the
pot.
So
there's
all
these
different
settings,
you
can
do
on
the
on
the
existing
curve,
which
we've
never
used
any
of
them,
because
we
only
started
making
a
little
bit
of
revenue
right
now.
F
So
we
don't
we're
not
even
giving
it
a
chance,
and
so
that's
what
I
wanted
to
understand
and
I
hope
that
his
document
helps
explain
whether
or
not
that's
the
case
right.
C
C
Back
right
to
work
on
some
kind
of
a
body
curve
solution
actually
started
all
the
way
back.
In,
like
summer
of
2019.,
there
was
a
small
grant
given
actually
by
gnosis,
to
dork
to
build
a
bonding
curve
solution.
It
wasn't
exac,
it
wasn't
explicitly
4dx
dial,
but
this
was
kind
of
the
start
of
this
idea
of
having
a
bonding
curve
right.
C
The
next
thing
that
happened
is
that
geronimo
actually
did
designs
for
the
bonding
curve,
and
when
we
met
up
in
berlin
in
2019
in
august,
we
were
talking
about
how
we
could
do
fundraising,
and
so
we
were
just
like
you
know.
Bonding
curve
seemed
like
a
an
appealing
way
to
do
it.
We
had
this
kind
of
start
of
both
the
design
and
the
technical
solution.
C
This
was
yeah
so
that
that's
kind
of
the
start
of
the
bonding
curve
effort
right
and
then
fast
forward
to
april
2020.
Earlier
this
year
or
march
or
april,
the
work
was
a
little
bit
slow
on
the
bonding
curve
because
it
wasn't
really
well.
There
was
no
funding
in
the
dow
to
actually
like
get
people
dedicated
to
it.
So
a
lot
of
people
that
the
few
people
that
were
working
on
it
were
kind
of
fitting
it.
In
between
other
consulting
engagements
like
including
myself,
I
was
working
with
balancer
on
their
front
end.
C
We
at
the
kind
of
like
final
hour
in
that
context
we're
trying
to
like
figure
out
what
to
do
about
an
audit
for
this
bonding
curve
that
dr
had
been
working
on
and
we
again
didn't
have
any
money.
So
we
couldn't
afford
to
not
it
and
that's
when.
Actually
it
was
actually
the
dr
developer,
who
suggested
using
fairmint
because
they
had
this
bonding
curve
solution.
We
talked
to
fairmen,
we
took
the
keyboard,
they
had
an
audit
that
they
shared
with
us,
and
that
was
really
the
main
motivation
for
switching
over
to
the
ferment
solution.
C
So
I
mean,
from
my
perspective
and
historically
speaking,
I
think,
there's
there
was
no
like
intent
around
like
using
the
pheromone
solution
because
of
it
was
the
ferment
solution
or,
like
fairmont
itself,
wasn't
designing
for
the
dx
now.
F
C
For
it
was
because
it
was
an
audited
bonding
curve
right
and
it
kind
of
so
a
subset
of
what
it
did
meant,
what
we
were
trying
to
do,
and
it
was
automated
right.
I
I
maintain,
I
think
the
bonding
curve
was
successful.
I
think
it
was
a
good
way
for
dx
now
to
start
the
fundraising
and
allowed
it
to
happen
over
the
whole
summer.
Right,
like
I
think
that
worked
out
quite
well,
I
mean,
I
think
the
question
is
like
what
you
know
has
it
served
its
purpose
or,
like
generally
like?
F
C
C
F
C
F
F
But
that's
why
I
kind
of
made
the
assumption
that
it
wanted
to
distribute
revenue
through
the
buying
and
selling
of
the
curve,
and
I
I
get
that
the
their
curve
has
like
some
extra
features.
I
think
avigacio's
bonding
curve
is
much
simpler,
so
there
could
be
like
a
switch
to
that
type
of
curve.
If
you
still
want
a
curve
where
you
can
buy
and
sell.
F
F
H
Yeah,
hey,
you
know:
we've
seen
that,
basically,
in
terms
of
rep
holders,
we're
pretty
much
50,
almost
50
50
split
on
this
topic.
So
for
me
I
would
pretty
much
want
to
see
a
proper
signal
vote
by
dxd
holders
and
go
from
there.
C
I
mean
I
plan
to
make
another
dow
talk
post,
to
give
basically
make
this
proposal
in
a
well-constructed
way,
and
I
think
that
should
dispel
any
concerns
about.
You
know
technical
risks
or
just
like
you
know,
understanding
of
how
it
works,
and
so
then
I
think,
if
I
do
this,
it
really
should
come
down
to
whether
people
want
to
pause
it
or
not.
So
I
mean
yeah
like
I
think
that
should
handle
that
I
mean
personally,
I.
C
C
Go
address
that
contention
right,
I'm
going
to
make
a
new
proposal,
assuming
that
this
does
fail.
If
it
goes
yes,
then
I
don't
see
a
need
to
do
that,
but
like
assuming
that
this
goes
to
no
I'm
going
to
create
a
detailed
proposal
on
how
this
pause
can
be
implemented
and
what
the
potential
impacts
of
that
can
be
right
and
then
I'm
going
to
re
repropose
it.
So
I
think
I'm
just
saying
like
I
don't
think
it's
a
great
look,
and
this
is
toward
a
gazette's
point.
C
I
don't
think
it's
really
good
optics
that
you
know
txt
holders
are
kind
of
like
evidently
just
like
don't
have
a
voice
here,
that's
something
that
we're
trying
to
work
on
right,
like
that's
a
known
problem,
and
that
this
has
been
a
hotly
contested
topic
in
the
past
right.
There's
100
plus
comments
on
this
now
talk
thread
and
now
a
proposal
finally
gets
made
and
boosted,
and
the
only
reason
it's
not
passing
is
on
technicalities
is
what
I'm
hearing.
I
don't
think
that's
great
optics
when
we're
trying
to
bring
dxd
holders
into
the
phone.
F
That's
not
that's
not
the
case
to
what
I
was
just
saying,
though,
is
dxdow,
chose
a
bonding
curve
to
allow
buys
and
sells
instead
of
just
minting
a
token
and
selling
it
to
raise
money.
Now,
if
we
pause
the
one
side
of
it,
that
is
that's
a
change.
The
dx
dow
no
longer
wants
a
bonding
curve,
which
is
how
bonding
curves
work
where
you
can
buy
and
sell.
C
Only
speak
as
somebody
who
was
involved
in
that
process
from
very
early
on
that,
like
the
intent
was.
The
main
goal
is
to
raise
money
right.
The
chosen
way
of
how
to
do.
It
was
a
bonding
curve
from
like
early
on
like
because
whether
to
say
that
that
dx
now
actually
wants
to
have
this
or
like
I
mean
that's,
I
don't
know
it
wasn't
a
very
active
community.
C
You
can
interpret
it,
however,
you
want
right.
That's
up
to
the
individual.
I
try
to
give
some
historical
context
of
how
we
got
here,
but
I
mean
I
don't
think,
there's
like
a
clear
mandate
or
consensus
from
like
rep
holders,
or
anybody
really
like
as
to
that
being
one
of
the
features
that
is
needed
or
what,
like,
I
think,
it's
kind
of
obvious.
We
need
the
ability
to
raise
money
right,
I
mean
we
need
to
wait
for.
F
People
people
are
calling
the
way
ideos
on
mesa
were
done,
they're
saying:
oh,
we
sold
it
using
a
bonding
curve
and
those
aren't
really
bonding
curves.
Those
are
shapes
of
curves
that
increase
in
price
right.
That's
not
a
that's,
not
a
bonding
curve
where
you
buy
and
sell
like
simon,
you
know
has
been
talking
about
for
many
years
now,
but
like
to
not
just
sell
at
a
a
higher
price
over
like
a
curve,
a
shape
of
a
curve,
that's
very
different
than
like
choosing
a
bonding
curve
where
you
can
have
buys
and
sells.
A
A
A
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
think
the
proposal
process
is
really
important
to
have
like
a
feedback
period
on
and
have
this
conversations
in
the
forums
that
I
think
if,
if
this
proposal
was
submitted,
for
instance,
in
the
forums
like,
I
think
there
would
be
good
feedback
and
then
and
then
maybe
we
would
craft
into
something
else
now,
of
course
disguise
point.
No
one
really
cares
about
things
if
they
show
up
in
the
forum,
so
we
have
to
kind
of
think
about
that.
A
G
Consensus
there
are
also
really
good
arguments
made
on
both
sides
that
have
now
developed,
because
this
proposal
was
put
on
alchemy.
So
now
it
seems
like
there's
more
of
a
fleshed-out
argument
basis,
and
you
know
it.
I
think
it
could
be
a
little
bit
of
self-bias
where
it's
like.
Maybe
something
seems
like
a
technicality
to
one
person
but
to
someone
else.
That
could
be
a
very
big
point
to
reason
for
not
voting
for
something
like
not
having
a
clear
solution
in
something
that
you
know
we're
pushing
on
chain
voting.
F
I
I
do
have
another
question
where,
if
there
is
a,
if
there
is
since
the
dow
owns
the
bonding
curve,
the
current
setup,
any
change
to
it
or
modification
will
will
require
another.
Another
proposal.
Correct.
C
F
Yeah,
what
I'm,
what
I'm
thinking,
what
I'm
picturing
is.
Even
if
this
passed
like
a
bunch
of
work
is
done.
A
technical
solution
is
like
built
or
like
what
how
it's
going
to
change
is
built,
and
then
that
proposal
gets
put
up
and
then
there's
going
to
be
a
whole
new
vote
and
that
proposal
could
pass
or
fail
right.
So
still,
there's
gonna
be
even
if
this
proposal
passes
or
fails
that
work,
and
that
next
proposal
still
has
to
happen.
C
C
I
mean
to
me
that's
sort
of
implied
right
if,
like
a
txt
holder,
a
community
member
comes
out
to
me
and
makes
a
proposal
that
says,
pause
the
bonding
curve
now
and
they
don't
really
know
how
that
would
work.
I
think
if
that
passes,
that
like
is
basically
signal
for
the
technical
people
to
evaluate
that
on
the
technical.
A
A
A
So
I
guess
it
probably
won't
I
mean
so.
We
have
just
go
in
the
timeline
here,
so
you
can't
change
your
vote,
so
the
votes
are
there
and
I
guess
with
the
it's
like
7.4.
So
there
are
some
additional.
You
know
there
are
some
rep
holders
that
could
come
in
there
and
changes,
but
that'll
be
in
a
day
and
three
hours.
So
I
guess
the
question
is:
do
we
want
to?
A
You
know,
wait
for
this
the
outcome
of
this
to
decide.
You
know
kind,
of
course,
of
action,
or
do
we
want
to
start
moving
on
that
now.
F
A
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
tr,
what
how
are
proposals
interpreted
in
that
kind
of
the
precedent
on
that,
I
think,
is
also
relevant.
F
Well,
whether
this
passes
or
fail,
even
if
this
fails
john's
going
to
spend
some
time
making
a
better
proposal
and
if
it
passes
john
and
other
people-
well,
not
just
john
but
other,
the
community
can
spend
time
making
a
better
proposal
or
looking
into
how
this
can
happen
so
either
way
like
like
this
passer
fail.
This
doesn't
actually
change
that
much
like.
We
should
still
look
into
this
right.
F
Well,
there's
another
the
impact
markets,
but
there's
another
problem
with
this
is
someone
who
had
created
this
proposal
chosen
chose
a
resolution
date
right
and
this
these
extension
times
on
these
markets
make
the
make
it
extend
and
if
someone
votes
again
it
can
get
extended,
it
can
keep
getting
extended
right,
it's
so
it's
making
that
market
invalid.
Unfortunately,
so
I
don't
think
you
can
look
at
the
numbers
of
it
anymore.
C
A
A
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
know,
has
a
good
point.
This,
I
think
about
signal
proposals
in
general,
like
I
think
signal
proposals
like
are
only
in
and
what
they
mean
are
only
established
through
precedent.
It's
only
like
when
we
have
these
cases
where
there's
something
voted
upon,
and
then
it's
like
executed
upon
that
we'll
understand
like
how
things
are
interpreted
and
how
things
are
done.
So
I
think
it's
always
important
to
remember
that
when
we're
making
these
decisions,
governance
decisions,
there's
also
a
precedent-based
set
that
will
affect
how
we
conduct
things
in
the
future.