►
Description
The Antelope Coalition updates the community on Leap 3.1 system contracts, Scalability+ blue paper, FF / IBC status updates, Wallet SDK approvers and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:09 IBC / Faster Finality agreement
00:05:36 Leap 3.1 system contract implementations
00:31:51 Legal Entity
00:33:08 Transparency of status reports
00:43:22 Scalability+ blue paper update
00:45:59 Maintenance costs and resources
00:49:56 Developer onboarding and development workshops
00:56:30 Faster Finality / IBC status update
01:01:00 IBC marketing strategy
01:10:46 Antelope V2 website development
01:28:31 FF / IBC approvers and champions
01:32:00 Wallet SDK approvers and champions
01:37:15 Development onboarding
01:38:35 RFP secure smart contract library
01:44:34 Antelope documentation workgroup
01:45:43 Github migration status
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). 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
Okay,
welcome
to
the
antelope
coalition
weekly
meeting,
so
the
first
thing
we
would
love
to
cover
is
the
ibc
faster
finality
agreement.
I
think
jesse.
There
was
still
a
question
about
the
actual
payment
modalities
or
ways
that
this
is
going
to
be
happening
so
guillermo.
You
want
to
kind
of
outline
that
the
things
that
we've
started
to
discuss.
B
Absolutely
so,
essentially
we
we
got
everyone's
signature.
Everything
is
as
an
order,
so
we
started
doing
the
work,
there's
a
number
of
milestones
for
fashionability
and
ibc
that
spawn
over
a
period
of
about
like
two
years
for
the
first,
eight
hundred
or
nine
months.
These
milestones
are
covered
by
the
enf,
so
essentially,
vienna
is
paying
us
in
eos.
For
these
milestones,
then
there
are
a
few
milestones
where
there
is
a
proportional
contribution
from
yes
and
then
from
wax
and
fellows.
B
B
B
Whatever
remains
to
be
paid
from
the
enf
plus
the
delos
and
the
wax
total
amounts
we
can
move
them
to
the
ibc
to
the
amm
that
resides
on
ux
network
and
then
these
are
to
be
used
for
providing
liquidity
on
that
on
the
emf,
and
it's
to
be
noted
that
the
lp
tokens
that
are
associated
with
these
funds
will
be
held
under
escrow
until
the
milestones
are
potentially
like,
unlocked
and
reached.
So
this
is.
This
is
essentially
like
the
the
state
of
the
current
agreement
for
the
payment
of
the
milestones.
B
C
It
is
it's,
you
know,
the
great
thing
is
that
the
antelope
multisig
is
is
not
even
a
smart
contract
and
it
does
more
than
exactly
some
platform.
Smart
contract
multisigs.
The
did
I
miss
it,
or
did
you
say
what
you
wanted
done
with
the
like
the
pillows,
the
wax
in
in
the
meantime,
until
the
ibc's
ready?
Do
you
want
us
just
to
hold
on
to
it
or
do
you
want
us
to
set
up.
B
B
E
A
B
A
Yes,
we
do
have
that
we,
we
are
also
talking
to
jeff
and
adam
earlier
this
week.
We
would
also
like
to
to
basically
define
the
approval,
slash
champions
for
those
projects.
So,
while
we're
talking
about
that,
it
would
be
great
to
get
an
update,
so
I
would
actually
love
to
go
to
agenda
point,
one
which
was
also
kind
of
brought
up
by
by
jesse
and
and
also
by
by
eve
when
we
started
the
meeting,
which
is
the
leap
3-1
system,
contract
implementations,
so
jesse
you.
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
unless
everybody's
read
the
conversations
that
our
stan
and
myself
had
a
monday
or
tuesday.
Whatever
day
it
was.
Maybe
it
was
yesterday.
I
think
it
was
yesterday.
What
I
mean
do
I
do.
I
need
to
ex
you
know,
explain
everything
that
was
discussed
there
or
should
I
just
give
a
high
level.
A
C
Oh
absolutely
so,
early
in
the
coalition
conversations,
in
fact,
I
believe,
somewhere
on
the
top
20
list
was,
were
some
items
like
unsellable
ram
and
certain
improvements
to
the
system
contracts
which
made
me
have
the
assumption
that
we
were
going
to
have.
You
know
reference
system
contracts
in
the
in
the
antelope
scope
under
the
antelope
or
organization
on
github,
and
we
also
had
at
one
point
discussed
some
of
the
you
know
small.
C
You
know
pretty
generic
but
valuable
features
that
telos
wax
eos
ux
might
have
added
to
their
customized
system
contracts
that
might
make
sense
to
bring
that
into
into
the
the
reference
system
contracts.
For
instance,
on
telos
two
years
ago,
we
made
it
possible
to
just
kind
of
send
telos
to
through
rex,
so
we
can
distribute
like
staking
rewards
through
rex,
without
having
to
actually
rent
the
resources.
I
think
eos
just
talked
about
or
actually
did
or
maybe
block
one
was
gonna
do
it.
C
I
don't
remember,
but
there
was
talk
about
doing
the
same
thing
on
the
reference
system
contracts,
because
it's
a
useful
thing.
So
we
just
talked
about
you
know
there,
like
you,
have
on
the
screen.
Number
10
number
11.
there's
a
number
of
things
here
that
just
made
me
feel
like.
Of
course,
we
would
have
the
same
eosio.contracts
repository
underneath
the
antelope
scope.
C
It
would
continue
to
be
generally
a
reference
implementation
or
a
vanilla
implementation
of
system
contracts
that
we've
all
and
I
think
eos
has
generally
ran
those,
as
is
the
reference
contracts,
whereas
telos
has
made
changes,
wax
and
ux.
I
think
as
well
right,
so
we've
all
had
to
maintain
our
changes
to
the
reference
implementation
within
our
in
our
own.
You
know
forks
or
you
know
bones
of
those
reference
contracts,
so
I
just
assumed,
based
on
those
conversations
and
everything
here,
that
antelope
would
have
a
contracts,
repo
or
antelope.contracts.
C
I
don't
think
that
makes
sense.
We
want
to
take
the
name
out,
so
you
would
have
you
know
reference
contracts
or
whatever.
So
that's
where
I
I
started
the
conversation
in
our
core
group,
because
I
noticed
I
couldn't
find
them
when
mandel
was
released.
I've
tasked
one
of
our
engineers
to
cut
he's
already
done
it,
but
I
wanted
to
say:
hey,
let's
apply
all
of
our
changes
on
the
latest
reference
contracts
for
for
3.1
and
and
and
then
go.
You
know,
start
the
testing
and
begin
our
upgrade
process.
C
So
when
I
couldn't
find
those
he
couldn't
find
those
he
was
pointed
to
the
enf
organization
and
the
eos
system
contracts
repository,
that's
so
clearly
the
eos
one.
That's
where
I
brought
the
conversation
like
where
I
think
there
was
just
some.
You
know
whether
it's
confusion
or
just
something
missed,
or
what
the
intention
was
there.
But
that's
that's
where
the
conversation
was
so
I
think
that's.
What
we
need
to
talk
about
is
is
how
we
all
want
to
handle
that,
and
I.
E
I
think
there's
one
point
that
I'd
add,
which
is
it's
not
it's
more
than
just
an
assumption
that
you
made
it's
it's
in
line
with
everything
we've
discussed
because
one
of
our
core
one
of
our
core
values
here
is
to
make
this
a
repository
that
anyone
can
roll
out
an
antelope
based
chain
and
if
we
don't
include
a
basic,
you
know
the
basic
system
contracts
with
that.
Then
then,
that's
not
true
right,
then
somebody
and
further.
E
E
Secondly,
there's
a
second
thing
about
around
security
that
the
more
we
include
in
these
in
these
reference
contracts,
the
the
faster
we
can
respond
in
case
of
any
kind
of
security,
patch
situation,
because
there's
less
for,
for
you
know,
there's
more.
We
could
do
together
and
share
share
those
those
critical
resources
unless
that
exchange
then
has
to
also
do
on
top
of
it.
E
So
those
are
those,
I
think,
are
two
very
important
position
considerations
and
I
think
that
in
everything
we've
talked
about
so
far,
even
what
we
talked
about
in
the
last
meeting
where,
where
you
know
eos
where
theo
said
well,
there's
gonna,
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
a
reference
implementation
and
there's
going
to
be
ours
and
we're
not
just
we're
not
just
going
to
make
it
the
vanilla
one.
You
know,
that's
that's
not
possible
to
do
unless
we
actually
have
a
standalone,
vanilla
one.
So
that's
thanks
for
coming
to
my
tech
talk.
F
F
If
you
prefer
that
we,
you
know
I'll
talk
to
arg
about
this.
If
you
prefer,
we
stick
the
eosio
and
our
contracts
in
and
just
as
it
sits,
you
know,
I
think
what
got
conflated
in
the
thread
is
our
egg
started
talking
about
wanting
to
modularize
it
and
split
it
all
out,
and
that's
not
the
point.
You
were
bringing
up,
jesse
you're,
saying:
hey
it's
missing:
where
is
it?
I
can't
build
and
our
ex
started
going
into
the
future,
which
I
think
it
was
was
not
actually
pertinent
to
the
point
of
you.
F
You
were
not
able
to
build
the
system,
so
I
think
it's
reasonable
that
we
put
the
base
con.
You
know
what
was
our
vanilla
based
contract
in
there
and
then
each
team
can
start
to
migrate
away
to
whatever
they
want
to
do
with
their
own
contracts.
Obviously,
you
guys
have
always
maintained
changes
on
top
of
what
we
call
the
base
contract.
I
think
we
also
threw
in
some
ricardian
stuff
as
well.
F
F
Probably
we
want
to
move
away
from
the
eosio
name,
so
whether
we
just
call
it
you
know,
reference
contracts
or
whatever
that
probably
take
a
small
amount
of
work.
It's
not
terribly
hard.
So
unless
eve
disagrees,
I
think
we
can
probably
do
that,
but
that's
nothing
to
do
with
what
ra,
which
kind
of
I
felt,
confounded
the
matter.
A
little
bit
started
talking
about
breaking
them
into
smaller
parts,
and
there
was
a
little
bit
of
discussion
around
smaller
cpp
files
and
stuff
like
that
which
is
irrelevant
to
the
base.
F
D
Yeah,
so
the
understanding,
so
what
what
we
are
now
fixing
and
where
we're
going
is,
is
what
was
my
understanding
from
the
beginning?
So
there's
no
misunderstanding:
there
there's
no
mal
intent
or
anything
like
that.
It
does
bring
about,
though,
a
larger
discussion
that
I
want
to
have
based
on
what
I
did
read
read
through
that
thread
and
based
on
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
said
here,
the
term
we
is
used
very
loosely.
We
are
working
on
this
port
and
such
let's
be
very
open
and
honest.
D
D
Nowhere,
though,
is
the
coalition
actually
paying
for
the
maintenance
and
or
contributing
to
the
maintenance
of
the
base
code.
So,
yes,
the
contract
should
all
be
referenced.
Everything
should
be
in
there.
I
would
like
the
other
coalition
members
to
recognize
that
no
other
coalition
members
currently
is
taking
care
of
the
reference
implementation
of
antelope
other
than
the
enf,
and
this
is
a
huge
cost
that
we're
taking
not
just
in
terms
of
financial
resource
but
in
terms
of
non-fungible
developers.
D
Another
thing
that
I
want
to
ensure
is
that,
right
now
we
are
bearing
all
of
those
costs.
We
do
need
to
figure
out
going
forward.
How
do
we
actually
either
split
up
those
costs
or
leave
the
base
implementation,
as
is,
and
then
start
assigning
different
priorities
and
then
figure
out
what
does
go
in
the
base
on
limitation
and
and
what
doesn't?
This
is
something
that
we
haven't
really
talked
about
so
far.
C
I
was
just
gonna
say
two
things,
one
well,
maybe
three
things
so
hold
on,
but
first
ted.
I
think
I
did
contribute
towards
kind
of
some
of
the
implementation
and
solution
stuff.
What
I
wouldn't
say
they
already
just
kind
of
went,
went
down
that
rabbit
hole
alone,
because
I
I
brought
up
some
of
the
modularization
and
making
things
configurable
and
I
I
did
bring.
C
If
we
don't
have
that
thing,
that
was
missing,
so
we
get
that
in
there
we
take,
as
is
you
know,
the
eosio
contracts
that
evolved
into
mandel
contracts
and-
and
we
just
need
to
have
some
reference
contracts
there,
I'm
fine
with
the
name
reference
and
leave
them
as
is
and
and
from
there.
Then
we
can
in
the
future.
C
As
we
pay
for
things
and-
and
you
know
know
him-
you
can
tell
me
if
I'm
raw
or
not-
but
maybe
some
of
the
maybe
maybe
not,
but
there's
probably
some
things
in
the
reference
contracts
that
need
to
be
updated
or
new
apis
that
are
available
that
come
out
of
whether
it's
ibc,
faster
finality
or
other
things.
Right
like
as
antelope,
delivers
new
features
in
leap
in
the
base
layer.
The
system
contracts
need
to
the
reference
contracts
need
to
show
how
to
do
that
and
start
consuming
the
new
apis
things
get
fixed
whatever
it
is.
C
You
know
the
the
reference
contract,
in
my
mind,
is
where
those
contributions
go
so
kind
of
to
your
point
eve
like
as
we
fund
things
they
may
need
to
include
some
changes
to
the
system
contracts
and
having
those
changes
done
in
the
reference
contracts.
Then,
of
course
allows
telos,
eos
wax
and
ux
to
go.
C
I
think,
is
something
that
we
definitely
should
plan
on
doing,
but
we
don't
need
to
prioritize
and
then
to
kind
of
what
you
brought
up
yeah.
I
absolutely
recognize
that
you
guys
have
managed
the
whole
github
you've
managed
all
the
everything
of
renaming
it.
The
ci
cd,
I'm
going
to
see
all
the
hard
work
that
oci
and
all
your
in-house
engineers
are
doing.
I
fully
expect
and
think
we
should
have
the
conversation
and
you
should
be
compensated
for
it.
You
know,
as
we
all
can
agree.
D
Well,
actually,
what
I
want
to
bring
up
is:
maybe
we
don't
even
want
to
be
compensated
like
at
some
point.
Those
devs
are
non-fungible,
just
like
your
devs,
and
everybody's
dead
are
non-fundable,
it's
more
than
just
the
financial
compensation
at
some
point.
Somebody
else
also
needs
to
contribute
technical
competency
competency
to
this.
Somehow
we
need
to
work.
D
C
Gonna
get
to
is,
like
you
know,
I
think,
well
a
you
know,
we've
now
agreed
and
I'm
glad
it
was
just
you
know:
we've
cleared
it
up,
we'll
have
a
reference
contracts
repository
under
antelope
and
b.
You
know
when
we
have
that
you
know
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
have
some
of
our
engineers
help
do
some
of
that.
C
It's
definitely
more
in
our
wheelhouse
than
let's
say
the
very
low
level
stuff
that
you
know
is
being
done
by
origin
with
faster
finality,
or
you
know
your
engineers
that
deal
with
some
of
the
real
minutia
of
you
know
node,
os
and
and
leap
stuff
right.
So
I
think
yeah
like
when
I
say
we
like
some
of
the
modularization
stuff.
C
I
in
my
mind
how
I
kind
of
see
it
is
like,
as
we
go
forward
if,
if
telus
wants
to
add
a
special
customization
or,
for
instance,
the
schedule
sorted
by
location
versus
by
alphabetical,
like
some
of
those
changes
are,
are
things
that
I
know
we'd
love
to
put
in
upstream
to
put
in
the
reference
contracts.
So
when
we
do
our
upgrades,
we
have
less
changes
to
apply
on
top
and
it's
more
configurable.
C
I
could
see
us
doing
that
those
types
of
things
you
know
and
and
then,
as
other
chains
say,
hey
I'd
like
to
do
this
feature.
It
would
make
sense
in
the
reference
contracts.
Hey
guys.
Can
I
make
you
know
I've
made
a
pull
request
to
the
reference
contracts
to
add
a
flag
to
to
change
this
behavior
because
we
want
it,
but
we
don't
want
to
have
it
be
like
a
customization
for
us,
so
we
can
kind
of
all
work
together
to
collectively
kind
of
curate
and
evolve.
C
Those
reference
contracts
definitely
would
see
us
being
able
to
contribute
more
with
that.
You
know
up
until
now.
You
guys
have
been
running
with
it
and
done
a
great
job
and
there's
you
know
been
not
that
the
door's
been
closed,
but
you've
been
just
running
with
it
like
don't
want
to
interrupt
the
the
engineers
that
have
been
doing
it
for
three
years
from
just
keeping
it
doing
what
they've
done
so
well
right,
but
yeah.
C
I
think
we
should
consider
how
we
can
let
you
have
your
engineers
back
and
you
know,
contribute
with
ours
from
the
coalition
networks,
or
maybe
we
need
to
find
a
third-party
team
in
an
rfp
process
that
does
a
little
bit
of
the
maintenance
there.
I
don't
know
we'll
have
to
figure
out
what
that
looks
like,
but
yeah.
I
think
that's.
A
E
Okay,
okay,
thank
you,
yeah
I'll,
try
and
be
be
brief.
Then
I
did
mention
this
last
week
on
our
call
that
I
that
you
have
a
excellent
point
that
the
enf
shouldn't
have
to
be
covering
all
these,
but
I
think
the
solution
is
that
is
that
everyone
else
has
to
has
to
start
lifting
some
of
the
weight
as
well,
both
in
terms
of
developer
resources
and
in
financial
resources.
It's
it's!
It's
not!
E
It's
not
fair
to
you,
but
it's
also
not
within
the
stated
vision
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
to
have
to
have
everything
be
under
under
enf
right,
we've
gotta.
We
have
to
remember
that
our
goal
here
is
not
only
the
four
of
our
chains,
but
all
the
other
existing
chains
and
all
the
future
chains
to
come.
E
Yeah,
that's
great.
I
actually
think
there's
very
little
misalignment
when
you
said
earlier
well,
there
was
no
harm,
you
know,
there's
no
harmful
intent.
I
never
thought
there
was
we
are.
You
know
this
is
something
that
came
up
in
in
offline
channels
and
now
we
are,
and
now
we
are
dealing
with
it
very
effectively.
I
I
think
I
think
this
is
this
is
good
we
need
to,
but
we
need
to
move
down
that
direction
and
it's
not
fair
for
you
guys
to
do
all
the
work
and
then
have
to
share
it.
E
But
it's
also
the
the
right
solution
isn't
to
keep
going
down
that
path.
We've
gotta,
we've
gotta
make
this
something
that
everybody
you
know
contributes
to,
as
jesse
said,
make
a
path
for
for
features
that
are
that
are
useful,
that
others
develop,
and
that
we
anticipate
to
be
useful
for
new
chains
to
to
be
able
to
adopt
easily.
So
that's
I'll
cut
short.
What
else
I
was
going
to
say
so
that
so
that
so
guillaume
can
can
yeah
thanks.
B
B
I
think
the
existing
processes
that
we're
putting
together
say
with
the
rfp
system,
for
example,
so
things
like
I
mean
in
this
case
like
let's
say
like
what
direct
was
suggesting
like
the
modularity
of
smart
contract
moving
forward.
I
definitely
see
value
in
that
this
potentially
could
be
an
rfp
then
that
we
would
open
up
for
bidding,
and
maybe
the
enf
is
the
one
who
bids
on
it
and
and
ends
up
doing
it
like
doesn't
doesn't
prevent
this
scenario.
A
G
Yes,
I
I
wanted
to
add
that
it
would
be
great
to
have
an
ability
for
for
public
contributions
to
the
repos,
maybe
in
a
similar
way,
like
the
apache
foundation,
is
being
run.
Where
you
know,
you've
got
a
more
formalized
process
with
rfps
for
larger
lifts,
but
then
you've
got
community
of
the
willing
who
is
actually
actively
working
on
projects
and
and
contributing
because
they
have
a
vested
interest.
G
So
that
would
allow
us
as
wax
to
also
contribute
some
of
the
changes
and
and
and
then
for
the
community
to
evaluate,
if
it
very
useful
for
everyone,
and
then
I
do
agree
that
and
for
some
reason
I
thought
that
the
scope
of
the
coalition
was
also
to
pay
for
maintenance
of
of
the
the
core
code.
So
if,
if
if,
if
that
is.
G
D
Agreed,
yeah
and-
and
we
didn't
I'm
not
asking
for
any
past
contributions
at
all
at
all
at
all.
What
I'm
saying
is
that
it
can't
be
sustainable
where
we
just
we
are
assumed
to
be
the
ones
to
take
care
of
it,
because
we
would
also
like
to
work
on
our
you
know
when
we
talked
about
the
the
contracts
and
having
our
flavored
contracts.
D
D
But
yes,
I
I
do
see
a
future
where
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
right
now
is
the
nf
we're
holding
both
paths
we're
effectively
like
the
antelope
foundation,
as
well
from
our
code
point
of
view
right
now
kind
of
by
default.
But
at
some
point
it
would
be
great
to
move
away
from
that,
so
that
we,
we
are
more
similar.
D
Let's
say
than
all
the
other
chains
where
we
work
on
our
add-on
version,
but
that
antelope
itself
has
kind
of
the
function
that
we're
doing
right
now
by
default,
but
the
cost
is
and-
and
I
recognize
that
the
cost
is
quite
prohibitive
right
now.
So
even
if
I
believe
the
coalition
would
want
to
contribute
to
that
treasury,
it
would
likely
not
be
able
to
do
so
at
this
stage
to
the
to
the
ratios
that
we've
even
already
predetermined,
for
example,
because
the
cost
is
quite
high.
A
Yeah,
so
everybody
does
recognize
this.
I
think
that
that's
that's
very
clear
from
from
all
the
statements
that
we
had
on
the
call
so,
but
everybody
also
agrees,
we
need
to
find
a
solution
going
forward
for
this,
but
I
I've
opened
up
like
a
different,
a
different
task
for
for
this
topic
to
discuss
about
this
so
to
kind
of
close
this
one
here,
so
we
we
agreed
that
some
somebody
needs
to
take
responsibility
and
drive
this
forward
and
collect
those
contracts,
as
ted
proposed
to
take
the
vanilla
contracts.
F
Yeah
I'll
work
with
our
egg
and
we
will
get
the
little.
I
think
we've
agreed
it's
going
to
be
called
reference.contracts
put
into
the
antelope
repo
and
get
it
where
a
build.
Just
a
straight
antelope
should
work
and
then
obviously
each
team
has
to
use
their.
You
know
fork
that
repo
and
put
their
code
in,
because
you
want
your
own
system
contracts
etc
in
there,
but
I'll
I'll
get
that
to
where
what
will
then
be
in
mandel
will
be
a
fork
off
of
antelope.
F
A
A
A
D
There's
never
a
good
time.
It's
just
going
to
be
work.
We
ultimately
need
to
make
a
decision
on
what
type
of
entity
we
want
where
it's
going
to
be
incorporated
and
that's
the
that's
the
hard
part
absorbing
the
cost
won't
be
so
much
setting
up
the
structure
won't
be
so
much
it's
really
just
making
the
decision
and
right
now,
there's
no
pressing
need
to
do
so
because
of
the
way
that
we
signed
ipc
faster
finality.
A
I
Yeah,
primarily
it
it
seems
like
there's
one
potential
solution
to
a
lot
of
these
divided
things.
We're
looking
for
owners
of
specifically
the
reference
contracts
right
now,
and
it
leads
nicely
into
the
legal
entity
topic
because
the
legal
entity
could
it's
going
to
house
the
repos.
It's
going
to
kind
of
make
the
decisions,
it's
it's,
taking
that
the
burden
of
these
common
elements
off
of
individual
chains
and
taking
what's
common
and
having
them
owned
and
overseen
by
all
of
these
chains.
I
I
D
Yes,
and
no
like
the
legal
entity
in
itself,
is
just
a
shell
yeah,
but
you
can
have
the
people
without
the
entity
and
if
you
have
the
entity,
you
still
don't
resolve
the
people.
True
right,
and
so
this
is
where
I
think
legal
entities
a
little
bit
less
of
a
priority.
We
need
to
find
people
who
will
be
owners
of
this,
whether
it
be
individual
teams
or
whether
it
be
now
teams
that
report
to
that
new
entity
or
that
form
that
entity.
D
But
what
we're
missing
is
people
that
I
either
aren't
already
in
our
respective
chains.
That
kind
of
just
magically
come
about,
or
a
combination
of
a
bunch
of
our
people
that
now
kind
of
take
that
on
as
a
as
a
function,
the
owners,
basically
is,
can
happen
without
the
entity
yep,
but
you're
right
that
everything
you've
mentioned
there
and
probably
others
would
be
the
the
the
common
code
that
should
be
shared
throughout
and
and
you're
right.
That
documentation
falls
alongside
that
as
well.
It's
like
everything
that
would
be
common
to
everybody.
A
Okay,
so
having
that
we
we
did
discuss,
I
would
like
to
move
to
the
next
topic,
which
is
kind
of
transparency
on
status
reports
that
kind
of
locks
into
the
other
topics
we've
been
in
in
the,
although
we
recall
actually
doesn't
have
a
name.
It's
like
project
management
alignment,
call
that
jeff,
I
adam,
have
on
a
weekly
basis.
We
discussed
about
like
status
reports
and
the
transparency
we
want
to
apply
to
those
jeff.
J
Maybe
we
put
it
at
the
scalability
time
slot,
since
those
meetings
have
dropped
and
we
would
make
it
optional
for
most
people,
but
I
think
you
know
I
would
be
there.
Adam
would
be
there.
I
think
kirsten.
You
said
you
would
want
to
be
there
as
well.
So
that's,
first
of
all,
I
think
that
throw
that
out
to
guillaume
are
you?
Okay
with
that.
B
Yeah
we
actually
confirmed-
I
confirmed
with
eric
and
matt
that
this
time
slot
is
good
for
these
kind
of
meetings.
So
we
actually,
we
actually
had
one
this
previous
tuesday,
this
past
tuesday,
where
we
begin
the
review
process
I'll
I'll
touch
on
that
a
bit
later,
but
yes
in
general,
I
think
it
makes
perfect
sense.
There's
there's
yeah
like
at
this
point
at
this
point:
we're
really
talking
more
about
code,
reviews
and
internal
audits.
So
it's
it's
more.
B
It's
more!
It's
not
really
a
progress
report.
It's
like
more!
The
the
enf,
that's
kind
of
looking
into
into
our
code
and
asking
questions,
though
we're
going
over
the
whole
thing,
but
moving
forward
when
that,
when
that
particular
work
is
done,
I
think
that's
a
perfect,
perfect
use
of
that
time.
Slot.
J
Because
I
don't
see
that
any
on
my
calendar
anymore
and
then
I
can
worry
about
a
lot
of
the
tactical
stuff
afterwards,
you
know
other
things.
We
need
to
talk
about
risk
management
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
one
of
the
things
that
we
discussed
as
a
coalition
at
this
point
like
three
months
ago
is
there
was
like
a
status
reporting
template
and
I
we
were
all
happy
with
it.
It's
a
generic
four
box.
J
It
has
typical
things,
milestones,
issues,
risk
accomplishments,
upcoming
tasks
that
you
know
nothing
everybody
hasn't
seen
before,
which
would
be
an
output
of
those
weekly
meetings
that
led
into
our
discussion
of.
Do
we
want
to
post
those
in
a
place
like
github
that
the
whole
world
can
see
or
do
we
feel
the
internal
statuses
of
the
meetings
as
something
that
should
only
be
available
to
the
coalition,
and
so
that's
what
the
first
ticket
here
means.
A
Yeah
and
since
all
the
code
base
is
public,
we
were
just
wondering
if
it
does
make
sense
to
kind
of
keep
the
status
reports
secretive,
while
the
code
is
actually
visible
to
the
outside
world.
So
whoever
wanted
to
know
anything
would
be
able
to
look
into
the
code
base
anyway.
So
we
wonder
if,
if
there
is
any
requirement
from
anybody
that
says,
we
don't
want
to
publicize
those
status
reports
inside
the
repost.
E
A
Will
be
public
all
agree.
Next
item
is
because
we
didn't
have
much
update
about
this
because
lucas
you
always
had
to
leave
when
I
wanted
to
touch
that
issue.
So
so
I
would
love
you
to
before.
You
have
to
jump
off
in
seven
minutes
lucky
one.
Could
you
give
us
an
update
on
where
we
stand
with
the
scalability
plus
blue
papers
that
you've
been
working
on.
G
D
A
As
a
side
note,
I
I
I
saw
those
tweets
and
I
I
just
don't
understand
why
dan
couldn't
hold
off
and
and
kind
of
going
at
those
antelope
tweets.
It
was
just
ridiculous,
but
anyway,
as
a
side
note
thank
you
for
the
update
lookers,
so
everybody's
gonna
be
eagerly
waiting
for
this
to
review
and
work
on
that.
A
D
So
for
those
I
don't
know.
If,
on
the
call,
you
can
see
the
chat
but
anyways
I
just
published.
Basically
the
numbers
that
are
already
public
in
the
q2
report
and
and
those
costs
are
really
vanilla
to
only
antelope,
essentially
because
we
don't
have
any
eos
version
or
anything,
and
so
we
have
very
precise
accounting
on
that
and
yeah.
D
It's
just
short
of
4.6
million
dollars
for
the
last
quarter,
so
that
that
runs
at
you
know
between
16
to
20
million
dollars
per
year,
which
is
for
those
who
remember
for
those
who
were
there.
Eight
months
ago,
when
we
started
performing,
elsi
plus
aligns
with
what
we
thought
the
cost
was
based
on
what
we
had
known
from
block
one
and
stuff.
So
it's
about
20
million
dollar
per
year.
D
A
H
A
Good
luck
with
that
so
yeah!
Maybe
we
we
shouldn't
talk
about
this
today,
but
I
I
think
it
is
a
topic
that
we
should
bring
up
at
a
reasonable
time.
Maybe
when
we
have
the
more
strategic
discussions
about
prioritization,
which
also
have
an
impact
on
budget
as
we
talk
about
the
reprioritization
of
the
top
21
items.
So
probably
that's
a
good
point
in
time
to
discuss
that
early
early
september.
So
it's
not
so
far
away.
E
E
You
know
as
a
as
a
you
know
three
stars
at
the
top
right,
so
so
we've
you
know,
we
kind
of
put
dessert
before
before
the
main
meal
and
and
and
eos
enf
is,
is
paying
for
all
our
meals
and
and
we're
splitting
the
cost
of
the
of
the
dessert
and
that
can't
last
forever.
So
I
think
that
we
just
need
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that.
E
E
But
but
we
we
need
to,
we
need
to
always
keep
that
at
the
center
of
our
focus
and
not
just.
We
have
you've
given
us
the
luxury
of
of
not
thinking
about
that
by
doing
it,
but
that's
not
the
right
way
to
go
long
term
and
that's
how
it
had
to
happen
historically,
but
so
the
development
could
could
continue.
But
we
you
know
we
have
to
we
have
to
you
know
we
have
to
pay.
E
B
Anyone
who
has
a
wants
to
to
participate,
but
who
would
like
to
become
a
core
developer
of
of
envelope,
and
I
think
I
think
it
also
matches
the
the
hiring
schedule
at
the
enf
they
they
have.
Some
people
coming
in
that
will
have
to
undergo
some
some
training.
So
this
is
something
maybe
we
if
everyone
agrees
I'd
like
to
create
an
item
for
that
and
start
start
addressing
that
and
working
on
making
it
the
reality.
C
B
No,
I
think
it
would
be.
I
mean
the
details
of
how
that
would
work
still
have
to
be
determined,
of
course,
but
what
I
had
in
mind
was
obviously
it
was
actually
to
to
have
a
kind
of
a
maybe
it's
a
weekly
one
or
two
hour
seminar
by
the
core
developers
of
the
enf,
where
they
kind
of
go
over.
You
know,
like
the
the
code
structure,
you
know,
processes
and
conventions
that
you
want
to
to
adhere
to
other
things
that
they
could
also
touch.
B
You
know
like
various
ripples
that
need
to
be
to
be
worked
on,
that
are
part
of
the
core
or
antelope
software,
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
that's
the
general
idea.
Of
course
all
the
details
are
to
be
determined,
but
this
is
something
that
we've
discussed
because,
as
we
start
working
on
faster
finality,
this
would
be
very
useful
to
us,
giving
us
some
orientation
and
onboarding
typical
base,
and
I
think
I
think
it
has
value
for
a
lot
of
other
people
as
well.
B
That
might
be
called
upon
to
perform
similar
roles
moving
forward,
so
so
yeah.
In
a
sense
I
would
I
would.
I
would
probably
try
to
open
it
to
everyone
make
it,
maybe
in
cohorts
so
like
people
would
have
to
register.
Potentially,
you
know
like
have
a
one
group
at
a
time
like
if
the
total
workshop
takes
like
whatever
three
months
or
something.
Maybe
we
do
one
cohort
at
the
time
and
you
just
just
bring
a
handful.
B
C
I
think
I
was
thinking
it.
You
know,
as
we
were
talking
about
these
other
items
and
moved
forward
from
the
first
one.
You
know
the
the
enf
has
has
shouldered
the
work
to
migrate,
twice
right
from
eosio
to
mandel
and
then
mandel
to
get
and
move
all
of
the
code
and
the
repositories
and
there's
a
lot
of
organizational
like
administrative
overhead,
but
there's
also
technical.
C
So
you
know
I
I
feel,
like
you
know
the
overhead
and
the
costs
and
the
time
of
people
should
go
down
significantly
once
we
just
get
it
all
in
the
new
organization.
The
new
repo
with
you
know
some
of
the
testing
and
stuff
you
know
up
and
running
and
then,
as
contributions
come
in
that
you
know,
there's
not
you
don't
have
to
do
another
migration
for
each
new
feature.
So
hopefully
that
amount
of
you
know
nft,
developer
resources
goes
down
significantly
and
I
think
what
you're
talking
about
here
dovetails
very
well
into.
C
You
know:
I'd
love
to
send
some
of
our.
You
know
telos
engineers,
to
that
obviously
record
it
so
that
it
can
be
captured
for
others
and
yeah
later.
But
you
know
I'd
love
to
send.
You
know
a
couple
of
our
folks
that
are
already
familiar
with
it,
but
just
to
get
that
almost
like
a
handoff
from
the
enf
and
let's
face
it.
The
resources
that
enf
has
are
the
ones
who
have
done
it
at
block
one
for
years,
get
that
handoff
from
them
document
the
handoff,
not
that
they're
going
to
disappear.
C
But
let's,
let's
try
to
enable
a
new
set
of
folks
or
just
grow
the
set
of
folks
that
can
help
with
that.
But
it's
almost
like
a
handoff.
You
know
it's
like
now.
These
things
are
in
the
the
hands
of
more
people,
it's
documented
and
they
understand
it
as
well,
and
then
we
can
look
at
how
you
know.
Maybe
we
don't
have
to
put
a
bunch
of
financial
resources
into
ongoing
maintenance.
C
If
you
know
each
chain
has
had
some
members
of
their
teams,
you
know
gone
through
that
training
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
and
we
established
a
little
bit
of
a
process.
You
know,
like
lucas,
said
to
treat
it
a
little
bit
more
like
the
apache
approach,
and
you
know,
but
that
that
education
and
that
handoff
is,
is
critical,
so
yeah.
That
sounds
like
a
great
idea
and
maybe
can
get
us
to
a
really
good
place.
C
A
So
unfortunately,
lucas
had
to
drop
off
because
we
actually
wanted
to
go
into
the
faster,
financially
ibc
status,
plus
a
discussion
about
the
approvers
that
we
wanted
to
assign
to
that
project.
So,
maybe
guillaume,
you
want
to
give
us
an
update
on
where
you
stand
right
now
before
we
discuss
about
who
the
champions
are.
That
will
actually
be
defined
as
approvals
for
for
the
coalition.
B
B
Slash
champion
that
question
the
the
the
reality
kind
of
also
like
to
the
point
we're
making
before
in
terms
of
core
developers
and
people
that
are
familiar
with
the
code
base,
that
the
reality
is
for
ibc
and
faster
finale.
It's
really
the
enf
and
probably
even
eric,
mostly,
that
is
the
the
person
who
cannot
validate
and
approve
these.
B
These
milestones,
I
don't
think
there
might
be
a
few
other
developers
of
the
enf
that
might
be
able
to
help,
but
I
doubt
that
there's
many
other
people
that
have
the
skill
set
within
our
organization,
so
that
kind
of
by
default.
It
just
just
happens
to
be
hopefully
we'll
rectify
that
with
with
these
developers
workshop.
But
that's
that's
basically
the
state
as
it
stands.
So
we
we
had
a
first
review
meeting
on
tuesday
with
eric
matt
aaron
was
present
as
well
and
we
went
over.
B
I
guess
like
pretty
pretty
deep
dive
into
some
of
the
code
base,
but
it's
going
to
be
a
process
like
there's
a
essentially
three
smart
contracts.
There's
the
like
the
ibc
api
proof
server,
then
there's
also
like
testing
automation
and
framework,
and
then
there's
also
our
reference
ui
that
we're
publishing
as
part
of
the
solution,
so
that
makes
six
pretty
big
pieces
that
all
need
to
be
looked
at
and
reviewed.
So
I
expect
this
process
to
take
a
few
weeks.
We
will
hopefully
and
yeah.
B
We
gotta
get
the
first
discussion
on
tuesday
a
few.
A
few
minor
items
were
brought
up
so
we're
working
on
addressing
these
and
improving
making
these
small
improvements
once
we're
ready.
Once
we've
got
the
the
thumbs
up
by
eric
we,
we
are
already
pretty
much
on
a
moment's
notice
to
deploy
this
on
jungle
and
thailand
for
for
open
beta.
If
you
want
so
that's
pretty
much
how
it
stands
right
now
where
we
are
yeah,
I
think
that
covers
it.
D
On
that
front,
when
we
are
whenever
we
are
ready
to
deploy
or
leading
up
to
the
deployment,
I
would
really
like
for
us
to
consider
the
marketing
aspect
of
this
and
how
we
can
so.
The
the
marketing
of
antelope
was
really
good
or
we're
growing,
but
it
is
really
good.
Let's
continue
down
that
trend
of
everything
that
we're
doing
as
a
group.
We
really
push
that
marketing
alongside
it
so
that
the
eyes
are
on
the
progress
that
that
antelope
is
doing.
B
A
A
If,
if
we
wanted
to
what
I'd
love
to
see,
though
aaron,
I
see
a
lot
of
your
tweets
eve,
I
see
a
lot
of
your
tweets,
there's,
also
a
buzzing
nft
community
on
telus
nowadays.
So
love
you
love
to
mention
that
if
you,
if
you
will
no
but
generally
speaking
about
this,
I
think
it's
it's
one
of
the
a
key
leverage
from
my
personal
opinion
for
our
chains
to
to
really
play
this
in
a
big
way.
So
I
I
totally
agree
to
that
point.
D
One
thing
that
the
same
thing
that
the
discussion
we
had
with
the
code
base
and
documentation
that
highlighted
when
we
released
antelope
the
the
rebrand
is
that
the
media
side
of
things
as
well.
We
really
need
like
this
is
the
easy
part
that
people
can
do
just
like
simple,
retweets
and
simple,
also
communicating
to
media.
So
it
was
brought
up
that
the
media
didn't
pick
up
on
a
certain
ad
that
the
certain
details
of
who
was
part
of
the
coalition
and
how
that
works.
D
L
D
Not,
let's
listen
to
the
press
release
more
so
the
everything
that
supports
that,
like
the
vlogs
from
the
individual
chains
or
the
the
twitter,
the
official
twitter
accounts
from
the
official
chains.
We
went
back
and
looked
at
the
official
twitter
accounts.
We
get
very
little
support
when
it
comes
to
that.
It's
as
simple
as
like
a
retweet
like
something
very,
very
small.
It
literally
takes
two
seconds.
D
D
Hundred
thousand
people,
so
you've
got
a
large
beast.
Wax
has
a
large
reach
as
well,
but
when
we
go
look
at
the
official
accounts
tell
us
so,
but
wax
more
so
there's
very
little
discussion
of
antelope
like
there's
very
little
promotion
of
of
antelope.
So
of
course,
if
I
was
at
the
external
media
I
I
may
be
tempted
to
think
that
wax
isn't
really
the
the
same
as
let's
say
eos
in
that
case,.
E
One
thing
you
might
so:
I'm
surprised
that
there
weren't
there
wasn't
more
retweeting
from
the
telos
marketing
team,
because
I
think
we
tried
to
set
that
up.
So
there
was,
but
one
of
the
things
you
should
get
on.
Tele
you
get
on
telos
is
because
it's
you
know
of
the
nature
of
it.
You
get
a
lot
from
different
groups
like
I
put
out
a
video
like
right
away,
yeah
to
try
to
explain
what
we
were
doing.
A
good
block
did
a
lot.
E
I
know
that
other
organizations
did
too
so
I
I
don't
know
why
it
didn't
show
up
on
the
telos
core
on
the
telos
main
marketing.
I
don't
run
that,
but
but
that's
definitely
a
note
that
we'll
take,
but
I
I
saw
a
lot
of
promotion
from
talos.
Of
course
that's
what
I'm
going
to
see
for
the
algorithm,
but
I
I
don't
think
that
that's
entirely
reflective
of
of
of
the
the
support
this
got
from
from
the
telus
community.
E
For
me,
I
thought
we
didn't
want
to.
I
thought
there
was
like.
I
thought
there
was
a
s
embargo
issue
that
we
didn't
want
to
risk
clouding
funny
because
of
what
actually
ended
up
happening,
but
I
thought
I
thought
that
we
were
agreed
that
there
was
going
to
be
one
single
statement
and
on
this,
for
you
know,
and
that
was
a
conscious
decision
moving
forward,
which
is
all
that's
really
important.
I
think
you
know
guys
on
telo
side.
We
should
we
should.
E
We
should
really
ramp
up
our
efforts
to
not
only
support
this
but
create
our
own
content.
More
of
our
own
content
around
that
and-
and
I
think
that
you
know
we-
should
it's
not
again
like
development-
it's
not
fair
to
expect
enf
to
do
everything.
We
have
all
the
resources
we
need.
It
does
bring
up
the
question
of
how
much
we
want
to
how
much
is
the
equity.
E
E
You
know
their
own
face
forward
first,
because
that's
just
naturally
what
any
marketing
department's
gonna
do,
and
I
guess
we
have
to
figure
out
how
you
know
if
we
have
any
sort
of
standards
where
like
for
myself
personally,
I'm
like
I
I
may
mention
you
know
my
video
is
an
example.
I
tried
to
make
90
plus
percent
of
that
about
everybody.
E
I
you
know
I
made
maybe
10
about
how
it
directly
reflects
with
with
telos,
or
you
know,
my
experience,
which
is
telos
focused,
but
I
would
like
us
to
have
some
kind
of
idea
what
what
is
going
to
be
acceptable,
so
that
so
that
you
know
I
don't
do
I
don't
do
something
that
other
people
go
well.
Why
are
you
not?
You
know
supporting?
Why
is
it
all?
Why
does
it
have
to
be
all
about
you?
E
You
know
I
thought
we
were
in
this
together
and
at
the
same
time,
you
know
gives
us
a
reason
to
you
know
to
to
you
know
to
validate.
You
know
why
why
each
chain
would
put
me
putting
something
out
right.
Where
is
that
happy
medium?
Did
I
hit
it
with
my
video?
Could
I
have
gone
further?
We
need
to.
We
need
to
have
kind
of
some
kind
of
baseline
so
that
we
all
understand.
A
A
Other
chains
so,
but
I
would
love
to
kind
of
close
this
topic,
I
think
it's
clear
eve
has
made
the
position
very
clear
and
we
we
we
generally
agree
that
there
could
have
been
more
outreach,
but
some
change
has
always
have
other
opportunities
than
other
trains
have.
So
I
think
we
we
should
close
this
for
now
and
move
to
the
next
topic.
M
Yeah,
just
before
you
close
just
to
add,
we
do
have
a
task
force
team
that
we
started
for
the
launch.
I
think
there's
been
good
discussion.
There
maybe
use
that
forum
to
continue
on
to
the
launch
plan
for
ibc
and
what's
the
go
forth
plan
and
and
have
representation
from
from
the
teams
and
the
chains
there
to
try
to
help
come
back
with
a
view
of
what
that
could
be
for
the
next
30
60
90
days.
Let's
say
yeah.
A
Patty,
I
love
that
idea.
It's
like
having
a
work
group
where
you
actually
meet
with
the
with
the
social
responsibilities
and
social
media
responsibilities
or
marketing
responsible
people
off
the
chains
and
kind
of
coordinate
these
things
in
a
real
meeting,
as
opposed
to
having
all
those
telegram
chats
where
a
lot
of
information
is
getting
lost
or
misunderstood.
K
K
It
lacks
certain
functionality
that
we
would
expect
like,
like
wordpress,
would
give
us
for
like
blogging,
and
things
like
that.
We're
talking
about
ibc
now,
and
that
would
be
a
good
piece
of
content,
for
example,
that
an
antelope
blog
would
present
is
on
ibc,
or
I
guess,
if
not,
that
blog
then
ux.
I
know
they
published
an
ibc
article,
a
while
back
so
something
to
one
communicate
to
all
of
our
different
communities.
K
What
this
ibc
means
and
two
to
serve
as
kind
of
a
base
level
of
knowledge
for
each
individual
chain
to
even
be
able
to
write
about
ibc
themselves
because
it'll.
Hopefully
this
first
piece
would
help
with
that.
But
going
back
to
the
website,
we
will
need
to
revisit
that.
What
we
have
currently
is
is
fine
for
now,
but
we
do
need
to
probably
continue
that.
K
Go
to
market
group
and
figure
out
what
the
next
steps
are
and
then
deciding
who's
going
to
write
the
copy
who's
going
to
write
the
blogs
and
things
like
that,
and
it
kind
of
goes
back
to
like
the
press,
releases
and
stuff.
We
the
more.
We
could
spread
this
out
the
better
and
I
think
we
could
improve
in
that
area,
but
just
wanted
to
point
out
the
the
website
aspect,
so
it
doesn't
get
lost
because
I
think
pat
you
said
we
forgot
to
talk
about
it
on
last
week's
call.
A
Is
there
anything
anybody,
basically,
volunteering
for
this
task?
I
mean
the
branding,
brandon
branding
sounds
suck
pretty
familiar.
Doesn't
it
so,
but
anyway,
justin
has
been
leading
a
lot
of
the
the
initiatives
there
so
justin.
Would
you
be
willing
to
take
this
task
and
and
drive
this
forward
too.
L
Yeah,
I
think
it's
just
a
case
of
us
setting
up
our
next
go-to-market
call
and
then
debriefing
and
and
working
out
the
next
steps
I
think
yeah.
The
last
call
we
had
was
was
it
a
week
ago
or
two
weeks
ago,
but
we're
due
for
scheduling
a
meeting
say
next
week,
I
guess
or
tomorrow.
If
you
guys
have
time.
D
D
K
I
agree
that
was
the
main
reason
we
went.
The
direction
we
did
on
launch
day
was
because
the
wordpress
implementation
there
were
just
like
design
errors
that
nathan
james
pointed
out
that
were
just
not
not
a
good
look.
So
whenever
we
launched,
we
had
a
crisp
site,
but
that
was
only
due
to
a
lot
of
efforts
last
minute
by
one
person,
so
we
can't
improve
there,
but
the
other
piece
is
there's
even
more
to
it.
So
there's
like
an
email
signup
list
like
who
owns
that
so
who
owns
the
email
list?
K
First
of
all
and
then
who's
in
charge
of
writing
the
copy
for
anything
done
out
of
there.
We
just
we
don't
have
to
do
anything
with
it
for
the
moment,
but
it
is
things
to
consider
moving
forward
if
a
project
or
if
a
company
reaches
out
saying
they
want
to
do
to
deploy
on
an
antelope
chain,
which
one
should
I
deploy
to.
What
happens
with
that
email
who
answers
that
email.
E
It
goes
directly
to
telos
so
anyway,
now
we
talked
about
those
things
before
about,
I
think
about
sharing
auto
forwarding
things
to
each
chain,
but
but
yeah
we
need
to.
We
need
to
to
set
this
up.
We
need
to
address
all
those
things
and
I
think
we
need
to
put
some
kind
of
some
kind
of
time
line
goal
on
this,
so
that
it
just
doesn't
stay.
You
know,
as
the
single
single
page
is
fine
for
a
period
of
time,
but
but
it
you
know,
gets
old
fast.
E
It's
got
to
be,
we've
got
to
show
that
kind
of
development,
and
I
fully
agree
that,
with
with
eve
that
we
should
probably
just
get
a
dedicated
website
development
team
to
to
do
it
now,
a
lot
of
problems
are
removed.
Now
that
we
don't
have
to
remain
secretive
about
the
branding,
so
you
know,
I
don't
think
it's
worth
any
of
our
time.
We
should
just.
We
should
just
contract
a
good,
you
know,
developer
and
and
give
them
a
spec
for
what
we
want.
A
I
Yeah,
I
mean
you
guys
are
very
much
talking
about
a
marketing
website
right
now,
and
this
directly
leads
into
the
discussion
about
documentation.
We've
had
it's
not
only
about
marketing
this
technology,
but
it's
about
connecting
people
who
want
to
use
this
technology
to
the
technologies
themselves.
So
in
that
sub
telegram
group
we
spun
up
there
was
which
I
I
guess
to
put
a
point
on
that
we're
supposed
to
have
a
meeting.
I
I
think
it's
not
next
week
but
the
week
after
to
talk
a
little
bit
of
documentation,
but
this
website
also
has
to
lead
people
to
the
appropriate
resources
for
educational
purposes,
whether
that's
this
new
sdk
website,
that
is
in
the
proposal
or
whether
it's
the
reference
contract
documentation.
We
talked
about
earlier
or
the
documentation
we
talked
about
last
week
when
it
comes
to
the
reference
like
leap,
the
software
itself.
I
K
Yeah
there's
like
there's
the
design
the
development
copywriting
is
going
to
be
pretty
intense
because
just
you
have
to
be
very
knowledgeable
with
the
topic,
so
there's
just
a
lot
that
needs
to
be
done.
I
think
we
could
all
agree
with
that
and
we
don't
have
to
figure
it
out
today,
but
we
just
need
to
have
these
discussions
and
I
think,
having
a
the
go-to-market
group,
I
think,
needs
to
just
meet
individually,
because
this
is
a
topic
that
really
can't
be
covered
on
this
call,
I
don't
think.
M
E
E
If
I
do
that,
if
I
talk
about
you
know,
if
I
give
a
five
minute
explainer
on
on
on
ibc-
and
you
know
on
a
three
minute
one
on
I
don't
know:
whatever
are
those
going
to
be
seen
as
are
they
going
to
be
seen
by
the
coalition
as
something
that
is
good
and
we
should
brand
by
the
for
the
coalition
and
support
it
and
everything,
or
is
that
going
to
be
seen
as
something
that's?
That's
you
know
seeking
to
seeking
to
claim
glory
for
myself
or
telos
on
something
that
the
coalition
is
doing.
E
M
In
my
opinion,
I
think
the
video
is
good.
I
think
it's
going
to
ever
ever
flow
right,
there's
going
to
be
high
points
where
we
know
where
we're
need,
the
content
and
in
different
areas.
People
will
bring
different
levels
of
expertise
and
we'll
lean
on
that,
and
then
there's
also
going
to
be
points
where
you
know
milestones
where
we
we're
doing
launches.
So
I
think
it
will
vary
on
when
how
and
how
much
you
know-
and
I
think
we're
at
you
know
at
the
start
so.
M
Well,
I
think
we're
at
the
starting
point
where
we
could
start
looking
at
what
those
guidelines
are
based
on
what
the
need
is
and
right
now
there
is
a
strong
need
for
for
content
and
the
right
content
for
those
user
journeys
that
we
want
to
address.
So
I
think
you
know
going
back
to
the
the
gtm
team
and
saying
you
know
what
is
a
priority.
M
E
The
other
piece
of
that,
of
course,
is
if,
if
somebody
makes
something
you
know
that
is
for
the
coalition
or
you
know
partly
for
the
coalition,
it
goes
to
eve's
question
about
about
support
like
when.
There's
no
point
in
there's
less
point
in
me
making
something
and
it's
not
going
to
be
shared
widely
throughout
the
throughout
the
coalition
right,
and
I
think
if
we
are
trying
to
get
a
lot
of
content
out
there,
the
reality
is
it's
going
to
be
a
few
individuals
like
eve
and
me
and
and
and
another
another
other
people.
E
E
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
just
have
people
go,
oh
wow,
that
guy
is
just
like
trying
to
make
himself
the
king
of
antelope
or
something
something
you
know
I
want
to
be.
I
want
to
fit
in
and
that
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
content.
But
a
lot
of
it
also
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
you
know
two
or
three
people
are
gonna
actually
have
probably
put
out
the
most
content,
and
I
don't
want
that
to
be
viewed
negatively
by
the
coalition.
D
H
D
Yeah,
of
course,
I'm
sure
brandon
would
like,
for
example,
other
people
recording
these
calls
making
the
notes
making
vlogs
at
some
point
so
that
he
could
take
a
week
off
or
whatever
it
may
be,
for
any
function.
All
that
to
say
like.
If
I
I
would
not
see
anything,
I
would
gladly
support
you
douglas
doing
videos
and
then,
as
long
as
the
content
is
good
and
like
there's,
no,
you
know
there's
no,
there's
no
issues.
M
You
know
that
innovation,
that
is,
you
know
that
it's
the
value
it's
bringing
to
the
chains
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
for
the
chains
in
their
messaging
and
their
go
to
market
and
it's
a
bit
more
natural
because
it
becomes
a
differentiator
for
those
chains,
so
that
part
of
the
messaging
and
content-
and
you
know-
needs
to
kind
of
be
developed.
So
it
strengthens.
M
You
know
all
our
stories,
and
so
I
think
that's
an
area
of
opportunity
that
I
saw
for
for
launch.
But
douglas.
I
hear
you
in
terms
of
you
know
what
are
those
guidelines
and
if
we
have
you
know
someone
that
is,
has
the
experience
and
has
the
stage
and
can
produce
the
content
for
sure.
I
think
this
is
the
opportunity,
as
we
start
to
to
try
to
leverage
that
as
much
as
possible.
E
Okay,
thank
you
I'll
yeah,
as
you
guys
get
that
together
just
kind
of
keep
keep
me
in
the
loop
and-
and
you
know
I'll
try,
I
think,
as
much
as
possible
the
more
things
we
can
get
those
sort
of
crossover
episodes
where
we
get
even
me
and
lucas
and
and
guillaume,
or
something
like
that.
Talking
about
these
things,
the
more
excited
people
will
be
so.
K
Well,
you
just
brought
up
an
invite
that
you
haven't
been
formally
given
yet,
but
we
have
an
opportunity
with
our
chinese
community
to
do
a
twitter
spaces
to
they
want
to
replicate
what
you
and
eve
already
did
on
the
antelope
account,
and
you
were
chosen
as
a
co-guest
with
eve
if
you're
open
to
it,
but
it
will
be
at,
I
believe,
5am
your
local
time.
Oh.
D
E
D
D
K
But
it'll
be
a
really
good
opportunity,
I
believe
you're,
both
excellent
public
speakers
and
we
will
be
doing
like
a
kol
push
to
get
people
from
outside
of
the
antelope
eco
system.
In
on
this.
So
you
know
the
chinese
enf
twitter
it'll
very
much
be
ideally
like,
not
just
an
eos
audience.
It'll
be
web
3
that
are
kind
of
coming
in
because
of
the
kwl
program.
H
E
D
D
A
Sure
good
yeah
invite
me
if
you
really
want
me
on
there
so,
but
talking
about
the
let
me
because
we
we
had
this
media
and
marketing
comments,
which
are
very
important
that
we
kind
of
sneaked
in.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
like
the
approver
and
champions
instead.
Well,
we
talked
about
the
status
report,
f,
phosphorylatibc,
but
is
this
that
the
are
these
the
people
that
are
the
official
call
it
official,
approvers
and
champions
for
all
chains
or
is
there
like
do
we
do?
A
E
Agreed
well,
I
think
I
think
that
everyone
benefits
if
jesse
is,
is
involved
in
in
this.
He
brings
a
wealth
of
experience.
It's
not
just
protecting
cullose's
investment,
it's
it's!
He
he!
You
know
he
has
a
great
perspective
on
these
things,
so
I
I
think
it's
only
a
gain
and
I'm
sure
there's
people
you
know,
like
guillaume
or
whoever
at
ux
and
wax
who
who
are
similarly
beneficial
to
everybody
if
they
can
have
a
buy-in.
A
C
K
A
C
A
B
A
I
D
E
E
D
And
for
the
contract?
No,
so
the
contract
would
be
a
contract
from
the
so
similar
to
when
we
do
the
rfps,
where
we
say
like
enf
on
behalf
of
antelope
or
at
the
time
against
the
coalition,
because
it
needs
to
be
a
legal
entity
and
essentially
vnf
is
the
only
one
with
one
right
now.
The
treasury
is
on
eos,
whatever,
so
the
the
basic
everything's
already
approved.
We
just
need
to
put
the
pen
to
paper
so
that
there's
a
contract
between
two
entities
essentially.
A
J
J
I
M
I
I
We
we
have
in
a
lot
of
ways.
I
mean
this
has
been
something
we've
been
thinking
about
since
last
november
now
and
we
started
writing
code
for
new
sdks
like
three
years
ago,
but
to
formalize
all
of
this
in
a
new
package,
and
you
know
make
this
an
official
project
and
not
just
our
thing.
That's
what
I'm
talking
about
starting
in
the
future.
So
I
already
had
to
push
our
designers
off
of
using
different
antelope
names
or
theming
it
off
of
it,
because
elite
may
use
those
as
code
name
releases.
A
A
Okay,
looking
at
the
time
process
committee
votes,
I
would
de-prioritize
those
this
item.
We
talked
about
this
guillaume,
you
you,
you
said
you
you're
going
to
work
on
that
concept
right,
so
we
we
could
have
like
our
development
outreach
nathan
to
to
also
help
you
working
on
that.
If,
if
you,
if
you
need
some
some
hands
to
to
do
this,.
B
A
I
will
talk
to.
I
will
talk
to
nathan
on
our
side
and
and
ask
him
I
I
think
he'll
be
happy
to
help,
but
I
I
obviously
have
to
ask
him
if
he's
got
the
resource
to
do
so,
but
we
we
find
somebody
else
if
he
hasn't
got
the
resource
from
our
side
right,
because
I
also
think
that's
a
very
important
thing.
A
J
Yeah,
so
we
have
four
companies
that
are
bidding
on
this,
which
again,
I
think
is
pretty
exciting.
It
shows
that
there
is
a
growing
community
interest
in
what
we're
doing
putting
sdks
out
in
terms
of
the
schedule
this
week
they
have
been,
or
this
week's
their
time
to
submit
questions
back
to
us.
So
far,
I've
got
one
formally
one
question
formally
back,
but
again,
I
think
a
lot
of
these
organizations.
J
We
know
them
all.
This
is
the
first
time
they're
going
through
this
as
well.
So
on
monday
we
will
I'll
make
sure
the
answers
are
collated
and
all
four
of
them
will
get
a
copy
of
it.
So
it'll
be
here's
the
question
that
was
asked,
here's
the
answer,
and
then
they
will
have
two
weeks
till
the
september
16
to
turn
in
their
proposals
and
then
at
that
point
we
will
need
to
go
through
a
selection
exercise
prior
to
that
point
and
actually
kirsten.
This
is
an
action
item.
J
I
think
for
you-
and
I
is,
we
need
to
make
sure
we've
got
that
process
well
defined,
so
perhaps
next
week
we
can
present
that
because
we
don't
want
something,
that's
complicated,
but
we
want
something
that
shows
as
much
impartiality
as
possible
because,
as
I
said,
we
know
all
four
of
these
companies.
Three
of
them
are
not
going
to
get
this
they're
not
going
to
be
thrilled,
they're
not
going
to
get
it.
D
A
Yes,
it's
the
name
is
actually
correct.
It's.
Why
not
like
why
node?
So
that's
it's
the
names
correct.
I've
been
talking
to
them
and
they're
a
development
team
based
in
south
africa
working
a
lot
for
us
and
also
been
working
on
the
evm
side,
but
they
said
that
if
they
wanted
to
opt
in
for
this,
they
needed
a
resource.
They
have
not
much
access
to
at
the
moment.
So
they
wanted
to
verify
this.
E
Along
with
that,
like
those,
we
think
that
compared
to
who
else
is
up
there,
it's
it's
just
because
they're
a
new
group
and
a
number
of
other
things
that
it's
they're
very
likely
to
be
one
of
the
three.
That's
not
you
know
more
likely
than
others,
probably
to
be
one
of
the
three
that's
not
chosen,
so
so
we're
trying
to
manage
their
expectations
with
the
caliber
of
everybody
else,
who's
who's
bidding,
I
guess
I'd,
say.
J
There
is
an
advantage
to
them
going
through
the
process
so
that
they
can
understand
it
and
know
that
you
know
we
hope
to
put
more
and
more
rfps
out
there
and
that
the
next
time
they
would
feel
a
little
bit
more
confident
even
about
the
process.
You
know
they
don't
have
to,
of
course,
but
there
is
some
advantage
in
doing
that.
E
Yes
right,
I
don't
want
to
character.
I
don't
want
it
to
be
interpreted
that
I
said
they're
not
qualified.
I
just
think
that
they
are
less
known,
certainly
less
known
and
and
less
you
know,
there's
some
really
good
competition
there.
So
I
think
they
are,
inter
when
we
express
that
to
them
they
they
are
internally,
judging
whether
it's
worth
it
to
do
that,
I
will.
We
will
convey
that
to
them
that
there's
that
advantage,
they're,
certainly
they're-
certainly
quite
good,
they're
working
on
it.
A
Yeah,
apart
from
that,
the
other
parties
are
well
known
so
and
working
actively
with
the
enfs
today,
so
this
this
would
be
the
only
non-eos
vendor
that
that
is
has
been
applying
so
okay.
So
that's
for
now!
For
that
any
update
on
the
p2p
rfp
I
mean
we
have.
We
know.
Oci
is
working
on
the
on
the
bid,
sending
documents
back
and
forth.
So
is
there
any
status
update
on
this
jeff.
J
Yeah,
so
we
met
with
oci
today
for
other
purposes,
but
in
that
meeting
they
did
confirm.
They
understand
tomorrow
is
the
deadline
and
they
were
on
track
for
getting
us
their
proposal
by
tomorrow.
So
I
have
not
seen
it
yet,
but
as
soon
as
we
do,
of
course,
we
will
make
sure
that
that
gets
into
everybody's
hands.
So
we
can
start
the
review
and
discussion
around
it.
A
A
A
A
G
A
C
D
D
H
C
F
A
Then
it's
fine,
it
was
an
old
ticket,
and
so
I
don't
recall
exactly
what
it
was.
It
was
at
launch
day
when,
when
there
seemed
to
be
some
things,
not
finally
configured
on
github,
but
if
there's
no
issue
anymore,
then
then
we
don't
need
to
spend
time
on
it.
Okay,
visual
discuss
or
visual
identity
discussion
next
steps.
I
put
this
to
september
1st
because
that's
next
meeting-
and
we
do
have
this
meeting-
that's
going
to
happen
in
regard
of
the
branding,
so
I
assume
that's
gonna
be
happening
in
that
call
too.