►
Description
The Antelope Coalition updates the community on progress with RFP secure contracts, IBC governance, Developer onboarding, Instant finality, Wallet SDK approvers and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:10 RFP secure smart contract library
00:07:50 IBC governance
00:16:40 Developer onboarding and Developer workshops
00:20:15 Instant finality / IBC approvers
00:29:54 Create Scalability blue paper
00:30:30 Wallet SDK approvers
00:38:40 Antelope Prioritization
00:47:48 Adding new chains to the coalition
01:03:11 End
The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://www.eosnetework.com
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosnetwork.com
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
A
The
the
question
I
wanted
to
bring
to
the
group
is:
do
we
want
a
meeting
with
all
the
chains
represented
or
is
this
the
kind
of
meeting
where
we
want
somebody
to
just
negotiate
prices
like?
Are
we
asking
about
what
it
is
they're
going
to
do,
or
is
it
just
about
how
much
it
costs,
which
is
a
different
type
of
meeting
this.
A
B
I'll
be
honest,
I
I,
dug
into
that
two
weeks
ago
and
I
was
I
was
like
okay.
This
is
not
gonna,
be
quick
or
easy.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
complexity
here,
so
we
have
to
find
out
if
there
is
a
master
contractor
there
who
wants
to
who
wants
to.
You
know,
take
the
take
the
responsibility
of
sharing
it
with
everyone
below
them
like
it's,
not
necessarily
that
Arrangement
is
why
I
understand
it.
D
But
we
can
make
that
request
right.
We've
we've
done
so
in
the
enf.
Historically,
where
we
just
told
multiple
vendors
that
were
bidding
on
one
thing
you
know
separately,
you
guys
figure
out
on
your
end.
Take
one
entity
we're
only
dealing
with
one.
You
guys
can
figure
out
how
you
want
to
do
that.
We
don't
care,
but
we're
only
doing
anything.
I
don't
see
why
we
wouldn't
work
can't
do
that
with
these.
D
And
then
it's
it's
on
them,
how
they
want
to
split
it
up
afterwards,
it's
on
them
to
figure
out
the
the
finances
and
kind
of
the
accounting
and
such
it's
just.
We
deal
with
one
entity,
I'm
I'm,
completely
cool
with
with
taking
that
route
and
making
that
I.
Guess
that
that
demand.
Essentially,
we
just
don't
allow
anything
else.
D
I
did
look
into
it,
but
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
EOS
nation
is
part
of
them
and
because
I
was
too
close
to
the
automation,
I
think
it's
actually
better
to
avoid
the
the
potential
conflict
to
send
somebody
else
on
my
behalf
to
negotiate
I
would
definitely
negotiate
based
on
what
on
what
they
said.
Make
sure
that
we
refine
The
Proposal
that
we're
good
with
what
will
be
delivered,
but
I'd
definitely
go
back
and
negotiate
on
the
price
for
sure
and
I
think
it
would
be
best.
E
C
D
A
D
D
C
D
Yeah
was
there
still
any
questions,
though,
in
terms
of
what
is
being
pitched
because
I
thought
I'd
heard
that
maybe
from
Lucas
the
question
of
whether
or
not
what
is
being
proposed
is
even
what
we're
looking
for
or
is,
or
is
that
good
we're
good?
What
is
being
proposed
is
so
we
were
effectively
now
can
enter
the
negotiation
of
more
price
and
and
time
less
of
the
the
content,
or
is
that
still
on
the
table
of
the
content
portion,
foreign.
G
D
B
All
right,
let's
try
it
guys.
Let's
try
to
set
up
a
time.
You
know,
through
the
telegram
channel
kind
of
fortunate
bit
of
timing
is
from
tomorrow
I'm
traveling
I'm
doing
a
couple
of
trips:
it'll
be
take
up
a
week,
so
that
will
be
harder
for
me
to
to
schedule
through
that
next
upcoming
week,
we'll
see
what
we
can
do.
B
F
Had
we
had
two
meetings
so
far
and
I
I
updated
Steve
yesterday
or
two
days
ago,
bringing
him
up
to
speed
and
I'm
sure
Ted
has
been
doing
the
same.
The
essentially
there's
two
main
agenda
items
that
we're
gonna
need
to
tackle,
one
of
which
is
essentially
the
the
naming
convention
and
structure
of
the
contracts
that
we
will
be
setting
up
on
our
respective
chains.
So
that's
item
number
one.
F
F
F
D
F
D
So
on
EOS
we
have
recover
plus
the
initiative
that
deals
with
this
in-house,
like
what
happens,
if
that
happens
in
EOS
I'm
sure
that
we,
that
the
group,
if
they
wanted
to,
could
repurpose,
what's
been
done
on
recover,
plus
as
a
general
framework
for
discussion
or
what
could
potentially
happen
in
the
Coalition
if
it
chose
to
go
that
route,
if
it
chose
to
go
for
a
recovery
method
or
a
block
method
or
whatever
we
choose
not
to
do
that,
then
the
obviously
answer
is
simple.
We
just
don't
do
anything.
It
happens.
D
B
So
in
our
two
meetings
we
basically
identified
these
two
issues
and
the
the
remaining
thing
we
need
to
talk
about
is
is
what
exactly
would
those
processes
be
so
yeah
we
should
looking
at
their
recover
plus
paper
would
be
a
good
place
to
to
you
know,
that's
certainly
worth
looking
at
that
the
issues
are
not
exactly
the
same,
but
they
may
be.
They
may
be.
F
They
will
provide,
they
will
provide
definitely
some
answers
or
some
I
guess
guidance
for
some
of
the
questions,
probably
not
all
of
it.
Because
again,
you
know
the
the
the
challenge
that
I
see
is,
let's
say,
for
example,
there's
a
hack
happening
on
one
of
the
chains,
and
there
is
a
like
intervention
that
is
performed
by
the
BPS,
for
example,
to
freeze
that
account,
but
some
of
the
funds
have
already
been
transferred
to
another
chain.
F
Now,
how
does
that
of
the
train
would
react
and
how
would
that
potentially
transpire
so
there?
These
are
questions
that,
like
need
to
be
discussed
and
I,
think
I
think.
Ultimately,
it's
kind
of
like
what
Douglas
was
saying.
We,
the
the
more
we
discuss
and
formalize
ahead
of
time,
the
better
it
will
be
if
such
a
thing
happen.
At
least
people
will
know
what
to
expect,
which
is
really
what
like.
B
Doable
right,
there
was
one
other
game.
There's
one
other
thing
that
we
topic
that
we
covered
that
we
haven't
mentioned
here,
which
is
that
what
happens
as
the
group
wants
to
add
more
new
token,
more
new
chains.
If,
for
example,
you
know
ABC
chain
wanted
to
come
in
and
and
some
wanted
it
and
some
didn't
want
it,
you
know,
how
would
how
would
that
be
done
and
that's
something
we
will
need
to
that's
a
separate
issue,
but
also
something
that
needs
that
with
falls
under
IBC
governance,
so.
A
I
would
suggest
that
both
for
that
and
other
things,
maybe
Guillaume
circulate
your
list
of
questions
that
you've
already
started
and
then,
as
we
you
know,
individual
People
review
submit
questions
to
that
list,
because
I
believe
the
questions
really
are
going
to
help
Define
the
end
solution.
You're
targeting
is
that
correct,
yeah.
A
F
I'm
already
somewhat
familiar
with
the
recover
plus
So,
like
I,
mean
of
course,
of
course,
if,
if
someone
volunteers
to
to
like
participate
in
the
discussion,
it
would
also
be
an
expert
on
recovery.
Plus,
you
can
talked
about
the
various
processes
that
already
in
place
I
think
it's
it's
valuable
to
have
them
part
of
that
discussion,
but
yeah
I,
think
I
think
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
A
A
B
B
Think
that
the
group
will
will
understand
what
we
what
we
ultimately
put
together,
but
it's
just
there's
just
a
lot
there's
just
a
lot
of
like
educations
and
things
like
that
to
to
discuss
and
and
talk
through
and
figure
out,
the
you
know
figure
out
the
best
approach
to
to
dealing
with.
So
it's
going
well,
it's
just
it's
just
you
know,
it's
always
hard
to
add.
You
know
hour-long
meetings
to
everyone's
already
busy
schedules.
C
I
was
looking
up
that
blue
paper
on
the
oh
yeah.
Okay,
they
have
not
come
back
with
their
next
level
of
proposal,
yet
there
we
did
have
an
update
meeting
and
we
kind
of
went
into
more
detail
but
they're
we're
waiting
on
them
now
to
come
back
with.
You
know
how
they
will
scale
it
to
external
parties.
C
You
know
they're
they're,
still
more
interested
in
the
content
and
the
mechanisms
and
I'm
trying
to
say
hey
get
the
program
started,
and
how
will
you
work
with
external
parties
and
what
would
you
charge
and
they're
less
interested
in
that,
and
so
we're
kind
of
you
know
we're
not
on
the
same
page.
Unfortunately,
but
I
have
been
pressing
them
and
making
it
clear.
They
are
very
well
open
to
bringing
Coalition
members
in
because
my
first
request
to
them
was:
they
had
to
include
enf.
C
You
know
Junior
employees
that
were
hiring
and
then
immediately
when,
after
talking
with
gilm
I
added,
they
have
to
add
Coalition
members
as
well
and
they've
agreed
to
that
they're.
Just
not
coming
back
with.
How
will
they
scale
it
to
an
external
party
and
how
will
they
charge
for
it
and
like
who
will
pay
for
the
creation
of
the
content
like
even
how
that
works,
so
we're
I'm,
I'm
a
bit
frustrated
with
them
and
I
have
been
pushing
them
hard.
F
C
What's
frustrating
is,
if
you
look
at
them,
they
will
tell
you
they
started
as
a
training
company,
and
so
you
know
I
started
saying
to
them
gosh.
This
is
your
DNA.
Do
you
have
like
mlms's?
You
know
Learning
Management
systems
and
stuff
and
they're
like
wow
you're
like
you're
at
Ron
and
we're
at
crawl.
You
know
like
maybe
we
can
meet
at
walk
but
I'm
like
well.
What
do
you
mean?
You're?
You
started
out
as
kind
of
a
training
company.
This
should
be
returning
to
your
roots.
You've
got
all
the
knowledge.
C
You
got
all
the
right.
People
we'll
help
you
with
some
of
our
experts,
but
we
gotta
package
it,
and
then
we
have
to
be
able
to
deploy
it
in
a
scalable
way
so
that
you
know
to
these
third
parties
and
you
got
to
have
you
know
some
type
of
pricing
mechanism.
I
love,
they'd
be
altruistic,
but
chances
are
they're
going
to
want
to
recover
some
of
their
costs
and-
and
so
your
help
will
be
very
it'll,
be
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
F
F
F
If
we
don't
schedule
these
in
advance
and
if
we're
not
made
aware
of
so
so
essentially
like
yeah
like
if,
if
any
feature
is
activated
that
changes
the
way
that
the
hashes
are
computed
by
by
the
chain,
just
just
give
us
a
heads
up
so
that
we
can,
we
can
prepare
and
just
make
sure
we
don't.
We
don't
have
any
Interruption
service
with
regards
to
IBC
there's
not
much
additional
update.
Eric
is
still
hoping
to
be
able
to
complete
the
review
this
week.
F
I
couldn't
do
it
last
week,
so
hopefully
this
week,
but
it's
already
Thursday
so
we'll
see
I
will
see
but
yeah.
That's
definitely
on
his
radar
he's
definitely
aware,
and
hopefully
it
won't
take
much
longer.
We
did
reserve
the
the
the
the
auditing
firm,
so
they
are
also
like
aiming
for
end
of
month
to
be
able
to
do
the
the
audit
of
the
contracts
and
I
I
did
provide
an
update,
a
more
detailed
update
to
Adam.
F
So
if,
if
you
guys
are
interested
in
the
details,
you
can
always
have
Adam
share
his
the
report
that
I
provided
to
him
on
the
fast
finality
or
instant
finality
side
of
things.
Things
are
going
very
well.
We
got
the
core
logic
for
aggregate
signatures
completed
so
essentially
like
that.
That
includes
the
host
functions
that
includes
the
protocol
feature
activation.
That
includes
the
CDT
bindings.
F
F
That
will
be
possible
if
we
include
these
so
I
decided
to
accept
that
feature
request,
because,
since
we're
already
ahead
of
schedule,
I'm
totally
okay
with
with
adding
that
so
it
might,
it
might
kind
of
just
put
us
back
on
schedule
instead
of
being
ahead.
But
I.
Think
at
this
point,
I'm
I'm,
I'm.
Okay,
with
this
and
I
think
that
it's
definitely
worth
it
so
so
yeah.
So
things
are
progressing
very
well.
F
On
that
front,
as
I
explained
to
Adam,
we
will
reach
a
point
probably
towards
the
I'd
say
like
mid-november
to
late
November,
where,
if
we
don't
have,
you
know
like
I
guess
like
access
to
enf
engineering.
Progress
will
slow
down,
because
at
that
point
at
that
point
essentially
like
we
need
to
have
a
bunch
of
things
reviewed
and
a
bunch
of
things
essentially
like
verified,
and
we
need
to
have
constant
discussions
with
enf
engineering
to
make
sure
that
we
proceed
in
a
way.
F
That's
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
I
guess
like
road
map
and
current
I
guess
like
philosophical
decisions,
so
so
yeah.
So
we
will
need
some
point
to
have
to
work
more
closely
with
them
and
if
they
are
still
busy
with
with
evm
stuff
or
other
things,
it
will
definitely
start
impacting
our
planned
schedule.
But
again,
I
I
discussed
all
of
this
with
Adam.
So
in
theory,
you
guys
should
have
received
an
update
on
the
enf
side.
E
F
A
Yep
and
I
put
on
the
screen.
I
I
can
do
this
next
time
as
well,
but
here's
the
status
reports
that
you're
referring
to
there's
the
IBC
one
and
then
it's
the
finality.
So
you
know
obviously
in
both
of
these
were
really
close
to
the
beginning
and
I
like
how
you
and
Adam
work
to
show
that
they're
intertwined
with
the
resourcing
down
at
the
bottom.
So
all
right,
good,
okay,.
I
F
It's
any
feature
activation
changes.
How
essentially
like
hashes
are
calculated
or
Mercury
Merkel
routes
are
derived.
Sometimes
it's
not
it's
not
necessarily
like
obvious,
but
one
one
one
that
does
change.
This
is
the
action
return
value
feature,
so
that's
one
that
was
just
activated
yesterday,
I
believe
on
the
Telos
test
net.
So
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
if
that
was,
if
you
are
part
of
the
of
the
group
that.
F
Yeah
no
and
like
I
said
not
not
the
big
deal
because,
of
course,
we've
already
written
the
code
to
handle
it.
It's
just
that.
If,
if
we're
not
basically
like
told
ahead
of
time,
there
will
be,
there
will
be
Interruption
of
service
until
until
we
we
noticed
that
it
happened,
and
in
this
case,
since
we
have
already
a
solution
deployed
to
all
the
test,
Nets
essentially
for
about
like
15
hours,
Telos
was
like
proofs
were
not
working
because
of
that.
F
I
F
Will
be,
there
will
be
also
like
other
protocol
features
that
will
also
impact
the
how
ashes
are
calculated.
For
example,
whenever
we
we
release,
we
activate
these
aggregate
signatures
that
will
also
create
the
a
difference
in
the
hashing
function.
So
that's
another
example,
and
there
might
be
others
as
well
like
a
pretty
much
anytime
anytime,
something
changes
in
either
the
the
block
headers
or
the
action
traces
or
things
of
the
sort
like
it
will
trigger
a
change
in
the
hashing
function.
F
It's
just
that
it
needs
to
be
activated
and
yeah
like
if
we,
if,
if
we're
told
ahead
of
time
that
okay,
like
gonna,
activate
it
around
that
time,
then
we
will
be
also
like
monitoring
it
and
as
soon
as
the
future
is
activated,
we
will
also
activate
it
on
the
smart
contract
side
and
then
the
problem
solved.
There's,
No,
Interruption
service
whatsoever.
A
A
A
G
We've
been
spending
a
couple
weekly
meetings
internally
to
come
up
with
a
document
that
we
will
then
be
presenting
next
week
early
next
week.
The
deadline
we
just
like
we
projected
dates
not
based
on
the
day
of
the
week,
and
it
turns
out
this
one
happens
over
the
weekend.
So
I
don't
think
we'd
get
much
traction
anyways.
So
we
were
just
like
we're
gonna
bump
that
to
early
next
week,
but
we
have
progress
on
that
and
we're
just
trying
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
illustrate
what
this
is.
G
G
G
But
there
are
going
to
be
other
types
of
transaction
flows
and
things
that
the
sdks
are
going
to
need
to
be
able
to
do
that.
We
may
be
unaware
of
so,
hopefully
by
showing
you
a
few
of
the
various
chains,
and
then
we
can
disseminate
that
information
to
the
developers
on
various
chains
and
get
involvement.
So
that
way,
other
people
can
say.
Oh
I
do
this
odd
flow
when
I
am
doing
transactions
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that's
accommodated
for
in
the
architecture.
A
Things
to
unpack
there,
so,
first
of
all,
with
the
architecture
Milestone
coming
up,
I
believe
I,
understood
you
to
say
you
will
have
documentation
that
you
would
be
able
to
disseminate.
Is
that
correct?
Yep?
That's
correct!
So
I
know
we
have.
We
have
the
idea
of
Champions
and
that
those
are
the
people
you
know
to
officially
sign
off
on
the
Milestone,
but
the
nature
of
this
particular
Milestone
I
believe
you're,
suggesting
having
an
opportunity
for
almost
like
open
comment:
Beyond
just
the
Champions,
but
rather
a
larger
development
Community
could
provide
value.
G
And
I
guess,
to
kind
of
put
some
perspective
on
the
bigger
picture.
Is
we're
going
to
propose
this
kind
of
architecture
and
then
our
next
Milestones
are
not
impacted
by
the
architecture,
so
we
can
start
working
on
those
while
we
collect
feedback
through
like
the
open,
Period
like
you
were
talking
about,
and
then
we
can
make
adjustments
to
the
architecture
if
needed
during
that
time
before
we
fully
commit
to
like
building
the
foundation
with
that
architecture,.
A
Okay,
so
that's
perfect:
what
I
would
suggest
then,
is
so
offline
working
with
Adam.
You
could
come
up
with
that
open
comment
period
and
then,
of
course,
separately
from
that
we'll
we'll
deal
with
the
Milestones,
because
I
know,
there's
there's
two
concepts
in
there,
but
as
part
of
that
we'll
communicate
that
schedule
back
to
the
chains
and
we
need
to
make
sure
if
we're
going
to
allow
commentary
to
come
back.
We
give
the
communities
enough
time
to
disseminate.
A
Have
people
review
ask
questions,
and
so
maybe
we
put
a
plan
together
like
that
and
then
at
next
next
Thursday
we
could
present
that
back
to
say,
okay
by
this
time
the
architecture
is
ready.
We've
posted
the
documentation.
You
know
your
communities
have
X
number
of
days
to
comment
and
here's
how
they
comment.
So
not
just
read
it
and
you
know
we
need
to
provide
some
sort
of
guidance
of
where
those
comments
flow
does.
C
C
G
All
right,
yeah,
I,
guess
a
comment
on
the
architecture
as
well
we're
intending
for
this
to
kind
of
be
living,
because
even
within
this
open
comment
period,
there's
we're
not
going
to
catch
it
all.
So
this
will
be
an
iterative
process.
This
isn't
going
to
be
like
a
final
lockdown
at
the
end
of
this
period.
It's
just
this
beginning
period
is
the
best
time
to
provide
feedback,
but
it'll
still
be
fine
to
provide
feedback
like
let's
say
even
early
next
year,
we
should
be
able
to
shift
and
accommodate
other
use
cases
for
the
sdks.
D
Allocate
for
this
okay
and
internally
to
the
enf.
There's
two
people
that
I'd
like
to
have
there,
as
kind
of
like
my
support,
that'll
likely
be
involved
right
I
can
that
I
can
see
that
would
be
involved
in
this
specifically
because
it's
their
alley
so
I'm
mentioning
that
in
case
on
your
side,
guillama
on
your
side,
Jesse,
you
also
I,
do
have.
D
E
A
Love
it
when
a
plan
comes
together
all
right.
This
should
be
a
quick
one,
just
one
to
remind
the
enf
devarell
said
that
they
still
needed
a
couple
weeks
before
they
could
get
this
on
their
plate.
So
there's
no
additional
comments
from
that
point
of
view
anything
else
people
want
to
add
on
on
this
one.
The
worker.
A
All
right,
all
right
now,
we'll
get
to
some
cool
stuff,
reprioritization
of
top
development
items
for
the
Coalition.
So
here's
the
list
there's
a
couple
things
that
I
would
like
to
point
out.
You
guys
saw
in
the
chat
that
in
several
instances,
people
are
saying
well,
here's
a
couple
that
are
grouped
together
and
from
one
point
of
view,
the
separation
was
fairly
arbitrary.
A
Generally
speaking,
it
is
much
better
to
not
have
a
big
project
with
a
lot
of
features,
but
rather
have
separate
projects
with
separate
deliverables,
because
then
you
can
start
getting
the
value
and
benefits
from
the
first
project
in
a
shorter
period
of
time
and
then
the
next
one,
as
opposed
to
you,
know
something
that's
larger
and
intertwined,
and
also
smaller
projects.
Generally
speaking,
have
less
opportunity
for
error.
You
know
problems
that
kind
of
stuff
doesn't
mean.
There's
there
aren't
reasons
to
have
big
projects.
A
I
think
instant
finality
is
a
good
example
of
one
you
can't
partially,
you
know
get
there
with
any
meaningful
internal
Milestones,
but
in
some
cases,
if
we
can
break
this
up
and
like
and
the
ram
discussion,
for
example,
it
sounds
to
me
like
there's
several
things
that
could
be
done
separately
to
improve
Ram.
So
just
throwing
that
out,
I,
don't
know
how
you
guys
want
to
take
that
if
you're
fine,
that
everybody
didn't
exactly
stay
at
five
but
kind
of
group
stuff
together,
I
I,
don't
have
a
horse
in
that
race
I'm.
A
H
Me,
let
me
make
a
comment
on
the
ram,
so
I
see
the
addressing
Antelope
Ram
architecture
as
big
as
IBC
or
faster
finality.
This
is
this
is
a.
This
is
a
big
undertaking.
Yeah
and
you
know
the
ad
hoc
7
and
at
Hot
8
are
really
means
to
solve
some
of
the
problems.
You
know
this
is
more
of
a
brainstorming
of
how
to
fix
it
and
they're
really
part
of
that.
So
cheaper
storage
really
addresses
you
know
right
now.
Everything
has
to
be
in
in
in
Ram.
H
So
this
is
more
of
like
well
how
you
know
how?
How
can
we
leverage,
cheaper
storage
like
this
right
so
so
so
and
reusing
old
accounts
also
is
a
means
to
kind
of
address
the
the
wrong
problem.
So
so
you
know,
maybe
even
we
could
even
probably
remove
ad
hoc,
7
and
8,
because
they
may
be
clouding
the
the
the
the
bigger
goal,
which
is
we
need
to
redesign
how
you
know
the
the
antelope
Ram
architecture
and
how
and
how
it
really
works
with
with
the
concept
of
having
accounts.
H
B
B
Because
there
are
other
approaches
that
that
you
know
it's
like
a
light
accounts
and
things
like
that
that
don't
use
Ram
to
the
same
extent-
and
you
know
perhaps
perhaps
if
we
should,
we
should
tease
out
what.
How
much
of
that
of
RAM
is,
is
about
account
creation,
Amendment
and
management.
And
how
much
is
it
about?
You
know
app
Gap
usage
and
whatnot.
F
F
So
most
people
actually
and
most
most
contracts
are
using
Scopes
extensively
and
that's
that's,
definitely
not
optimal,
and
we
cannot.
Currently,
we
cannot
iterate
over
Scopes,
either
within
the
context
of
a
smart
contract.
So
if
we
were
to
that
might
be
a
reasonably
lowing
fruit
to
work
on
to
to
potentially
alleviate
some
of
the
issues
and
in
my
my
warrant,
its
own
kind
of
I.
A
A
D
That
would
be
my
preference
I
think
we
should
set
up
a
call
prior
to
next
Thursday,
if
possible.
We
don't
need
everybody
there,
but
at
least
one
representative
for
chain
that
can
speak
to
these
items
prior
to
that
call
I
think
we
should
be
weighing.
So
we
should
out
be
allocating
our
our
points
or
whatever
to
each
so
that
we
get
into
the
call
with
an
understanding
of
where
people's
priorities
lie
in
terms
of
actual
weight.
D
That
works
for
me,
yeah,
almost
22.,
I
I.
Do
think
that
we
should
keep
the
pressure
on
this,
because
it's
quite
important
and
then
they'll
start
setting
as
well
from
a
financial
point
of
view
of
how
much
money
we
start
into
putting
aside
and
because
there's
a
lot
of
administrative
work
afterwards
to
do
right.
This
is
only
the
beginning,
even
the
RFP
side
of
things,
there's
a
lot
of
work.
After
this
sure.
A
D
We
were
getting
our
foundation
solid
as
a
group
of
four,
but
we're
getting
more
and
more
inquiries
as
Antelope
is
making
splashes
externally
now,
people
other
yeah
chains
or
I
guess
other
Antelope
chains
that
we
didn't
even
know
exist
that
have
user
bases
that
have
funding
that
have
their
own
GitHub
repos
that
actually
have
traction
are
reaching
out.
So
that's
some
of
them
and
others
that
previously
were
interested
but
decided
to
you
know
it
wasn't
right
for
them
at
that
time.
Some
of
them
are
still
knocking
on
the
door.
D
I
think
it
would
be
worthwhile
to
re-engage
in
those
discussions,
but
what
we
would
need
to
do,
in
my
opinion,
as
a
group
here,
is
figure
out.
What
does
that
even
look
like,
because
there's
a
few
components
to
do
is
one
I
think
is
the
vetting
of.
Do
we
even
want
to
allow
that
chain,
for
example,
or
that
project
or
whatever
it
may
be,
to
join
like
do
they
have
the
status
that
we
recognize
is
high
enough
to
to
put
on
that
level
and
say
so?
D
We
need
to
create
kind
of
a
framework
around
matters
or
something
around
that
document
that
we
also
need
to
figure
out
which
we
haven't
talked
in
a
while.
How
does
that
impact
finances?
Do
we
have,
for
example,
a
an
onboarding
cost
just
making
up
this
number,
but
let's
say
you
wanted
to
join
the
Coalition?
It's
a
million
dollars.
D
You
have
to
give
a
million
dollars
and
that's
your
buy-in
fee,
let's
say
and
I'm
just
making
this
up
and
then
how
does
it
impact
the
distribution
of
quarterly
contributions,
because
we
will
be
going
through
another
recording
contribution,
I
guess
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
or
early
next
year?
So
it
would
be
a
good
time
to
readjust
that.
D
How
does
it
also
impact
governance
right
now
we
currently
have
the
30
30
2020.
Does
it
impact
that
do
we
allow?
Do
we
allocate
a
certain
percentage
or
do
we
do
we?
We
equilibate
everything
so
I
think
those
three
areas
the.
How
do
we
even
say
yes
or
no
like?
Is
there
a
threshold
for
yes,
you
fit
the
bill
or
no
you
don't
two.
Is
there
a
buy-in
fee
and
three?
What
is
the
ongoing
distribution?
Slash,
governance
rights
as
well
for
them
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
a
subgroup
set
up.
D
F
So
whenever
someone
wants
to
come
in,
they
have
to
like
they
can.
They
can
join
as
an
observer
whenever
but
essentially
like
they
would
fall
into
the
existing
structure.
You
know
like
quarterly
or
like
every
six
months
that
that's
the
time
I
wish
they
would
come
in
and
we
can
also
align
contribution
and
payments
with
this
as
well,
so
I
think
I
think
if
we
kind
of
build
it
as
a
I
guess
like
a
holistic
framework,
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
the
governance
will
be
much
easier.
B
I
would
fully
agree
those
make
a
lot
of
sense.
A
couple
points
that
I
would
add,
I
think
that
so
we
have
to
determine
ultimately
at
the
decision
Point,
whether
what
the
what
the
what
the
threshold
is
so,
for
example,
one
way
to
go
would
be
anyone
who
meets
their
technical
requirements
can
join
and
we
can't
stop
them,
but
they
have
to
pay.
They
have
to
do
eat
meet
everything
or
we
could
use
our
standard.
Our
standard
form
of
of
threshold
voting
threshold
to
decide.
B
However,
in
many
coalitions
you
know,
I
often
often
liken
this
to
to
Nato
I
often
say
it's
NATO,
not
the
EU
right,
but
I
think
in
either
of
those
every
existing
member
has
to
has
to
approve
any
additions,
and
so
that
might
be
not
not
that
we
want
to
borrow
too
much,
but
those
you
know,
there's
there's
reasons
why
those
things
evolve.
So
I
think
we
need
to
think
about
that
and
I
would
I
would
I
would
suggest
that
we
don't
do
this
more
than
twice
a
year.
B
We
don't
have
that
period
more
than
twice
a
year
and
if
we
do
have
a
period
of
twice
a
year
that
there's
a
that
there
should
be
a
preliminary
period.
You
know
the
preliminary
six
you
know
you
could
come
in
and
the
part
of
the
process
is
you
come
in.
You
join
as
an
observer
for
six
months.
See
what
you're
getting
into
you
know
maybe
take
on
some
tasks,
show
us
what
what
kind
of
partner
you'd
be
and
then
at
the
end
of
that
period
Then
there.
B
Then
there
could
be
some
kind
of
vote
if,
whatever
whatever
metrics
were,
you
know
had
been
met,
you
know,
or
it
could
be
longer
some
year,
some
some
might
take
a
year
to
to
meet
whatever
as
a
provisional
member
to
meet
whatever
requirements
that
we
set
forward.
Hopefully
quantifiable
ones,
but
some
may
may
not
be
so.
I
would
suggest
that.
A
I
Me
I
was
I
was
going
to
suggest
here.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
by
the
end
of
this
year,
which
would
probably
be
like,
maybe
the
next
window
we
could
open
it
up
for
we'll
have
been
doing
this
for
a
year.
So
just
also
wanted
to
point
out
in
each
suggestion
of
of
an
upfront
entry
cost
which
we
didn't
have
when
the
four
of
us
established
the
Coalition
you
know,
maybe
there
should
I
would
I
would
agree.
There
should
be
an
entry
cost,
because
everything
we've
done
so
far.
I
We've
all
worked
hard
for
what
will
end
up
being,
probably
a
year
by
the
time
anybody
else
joins,
so
somebody
coming
in
late
and
just
gets
to
put
their
name
on
it
without
any
anything
in
in
the
you
know,
general
public
view
that
that
they
didn't
actually
do
the
year's
worth
of
accomplishments
that
they're
coming
in
late.
You
know
that
an
upfront
fee
could
kind
of
offset
all
the
work
we've
already
done.
I
So
I
would
agree
with
that,
and
the
other
thing
is
I,
think
I,
don't
know
exactly
which
ones
you're
talking
about
each,
but
you
know
I
I'm
on
the
email.
You
know
for
the
one
that
went
around
this
week.
You
know
and
they're
not
trading
publicly,
so
there
might
need
to
be
some
criteria
because
a
lot
of
our
financial
decisions
are
based
on
like
the
split
is
based
on
liquidity
and
trading
price.
You
know
I,
think
ux.
You
know
you
guys
are
in
that
same
situation.
I
I
C
C
Price
Jesse
I,
you
clearly
got
the
emails.
I
wanted
to
check
with
Guillaume
and
Lucas.
Did
you
see
the
email
threads
from
Amax
and
if
you
noticed
I
did
ask
them?
Were
they
on
a
debt
on
a
central
exchange?
So
we
could
kind
of
determine
liquidity
and
market
cap
and
stuff
it's
set
up
when
things
come
into
info
at
Antelope
Lucas,
you
should
be
getting
that
email
and
Guillaume.
You
should
and
Jesse.
C
C
If
you
just
search
for
ted.k,
Hall
eosnetwork.com
and
see,
if
there's
an
email
from
me,
it
says
something
about
I'll.
Give
you
the
exact
subject
line
we
are
so
interested
in.
The
Antelope
protocol
is
the
subject
line,
but
if
you
search
for
me,
I'm
replying
from
my
Ted
K
Hall
account
and
engaging
them
I
want
to
make
sure
those
emails
are
going
to
you
Lucas
and,
and
you
want
them,
do
you
want
to
see
anything
that
goes
into
info
at
Antelope?
Jesse
gets
them.
I
do
I.
C
C
I
I
C
One
of
the
things
I'd
like
to
propose
is
that
we
would
have
an
application
and
I'm
happy
to
write
a
draft
I.
Don't
know
why
I
want
to
make
more
work
for
myself,
but
what
the
hell
and
I'm
happy
to
write
a
Draft
application
that
a
chain
that
wanted
to
join
because,
like
we
don't,
we
hardly
know
anything
about
these
Amax
guys.
So
I
could
sit
down,
put
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
together
kind
of
ad
hoc.
C
B
B
We
don't
want
to
make
it
easy
in
Easy
out
it's
it
should
it's
things
like
thresholds
like
like
votes
and
time
put
in
ahead
of
time,
applications
proving
some
things
to
the
group
should
be
necessary
so
that
the
people
who
do
it
are,
you
know,
demonstrating
that
they
are
willing
to
put
some.
You
know
proof
of
work
into
it.
C
C
E
C
So
I
also
need
to
get
sorry
to
take
one
more
minute.
I
want
to
get
back
to
that
gentleman,
and
let
him
know
that
hey
we're
moving
to
like
a
quarterly
or
semi-annual
review
period.
We
likely
won't
be
looking
to
admit
new
members
until
the
end
of
the
year.
Some
type
of
response
like
this
will
be
working
out
an
application
process.
So
you
know
we'll
we'll
get
back
to
you
sometime
in
the
December.
Is
everyone?
I
I
It's
not
a
public
call,
but
please
please
do
you're
welcome
to
review
the
calls
that
we
have
weekly
and
if
you
have
any
questions
or
or
anything
if
we
give
them
an
outlet
for
that
back
or
thoughts
on
what
they
observed
in
these
calls.
I
think
next
weeks
will
be
a
very,
very
interesting
call
for
anybody
in
that
situation,
to
see
that
prioritization
discussion
and
things
like
that.
I
I
F
I
would
also
I
mean,
maybe
suggest
that
when
someone
shows
interest,
we
at
least
invite
them
on
one
of
these
calls
and
give
them
like
a
five
minute
or
something
to
present
their
chain
present
their
project
and
just
just
allow
us
to
be
essentially
introduced
and
doesn't
doesn't
change
anything
about
the
process
for
acceptance.
But
at
least
if
we,
if
we
have
a
chance
to
get
to
know
them,
may
influence
the
decision.