►
Description
The EOSIO+ Coalition is back in action and this week they update the community on the new Brand name, Market research, RFP priorities and more!
Timestamps
00:00:00 Start
00:00:40 New Brand name update by Justin Gludici
00:08:30 Market Research by Jeff Werener
00:10:45 Scalability Bluepaper by Lukas Sliwaka
00:11:39 Faster Finality and Wallet SDK RFPs by Jeff, Yves
00:21:57 Status Bi-weekly Report and Approval by Brandon,Yves
00:29:35 RFP SDK priority questions by Aaron, Yves
00:41:50 Wrapping it up with Dfuse Firehose support question by Brandon, Yves
00:44:55 End
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://eosn.foundation
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosn.foundation
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
Hey
everybody
it's
june
16th
and
we
will
jump
right
into
the
the
mirror
board
all
right.
So,
let's
start
by
going
through
the
in
progress
items,
the
new
name,
secure
social
domains.
Reddits
are
before
anybody
says
anything.
Are
we
allowed
to
mention
the
name
out
loud
since
we're
recording
or
should
we
just
talk
in
general
terms,.
C
C
You
know
complete
with
a
line
to
the
name,
essentially
we'll
get
that
back
and
we'll
review
it,
and
you
know
there
might
be
some
iteration
there,
so
it
could
be
another
week.
It
could
be
another
two
weeks,
so
it
is
a
fluctuating
timeline.
So
it's
going
to
take
probably
between
two
and
four
weeks
from
the
start
of
this
week,
we'll
see
how
that
goes.
C
Obviously,
if,
for
some
reason
we
don't
like
the
name
and
everything
together,
then
you
know
that's
a
a
small
possibility,
but
hopefully
not
during
this
period
we're
going
to
put
together
a
a
single
page
website,
probably
closer
to
the
end
of
iterating,
with
the
brand
and
messaging
it'll
be
a
simple
page.
Unless
we
want
to
do
a
more
complex,
you
know,
add
all
the
features
of
you
know
the
future
of
eos
ao
on
that
page,
but
we
at
least
want
to
establish
like
this
is
the
new
name.
This
is
the
socials.
C
D
B
B
D
Same
here,
okay
yeah,
we
we
run
all
our
dns
under
aws
drop
53
and
I
don't
know
where
the
website
would
be
hosted.
But
you
know
just
move
the
registrar
to
there
and
and
set
up
dns
for
whatever
we
need,
and
then
I
think
for
now.
I
I
know
sample
the
rest
of
you,
but
I
don't
think
we
need
email
domains
set
up
yet.
But
if
we
do
I'm
kind
of
platform
agnostic
there,
I've
used
them
all
and
love
and
hate
them
all
kind
of
equally.
D
E
It
where
should
we
do
that?
Did
anybody
have
any
obvious
that
you're
using
an
email
if
you're
collecting
email
addresses
in
the
background
you
can
make
it
go
to
any
one
of
us
or
multiple
of
us
right?
The
only
time
you
need
the
email
is,
if
you're
going
to
reply
back
like
an
auto
response
to
them,
submitting
their
email
or
a
form
or
something
saying,
thank
you
or
you
want
to
list
it
on
the
website
saying
if
you
have
questions
email
info,
tbd.com,
so
yeah.
D
E
Well,
yeah,
but
you
could
also
make
it
where
you're
just
using
a
form
on
the
on
the
splash
page.
That's
set
up,
it
says.
If
you
have
questions,
you
know,
put
your
email
address
or
you
could
even
be
a
form.
They
fill
out
questions
in
this
form
and
they
hit
click
and
it
goes
into
an
alias
which
can
forward
to
like
the
four
chain
heads
or
something
or
their
delegates
or
whatever.
D
D
D
D
C
D
A
A
Maybe
even
sooner
and
just
we
got
the
full
first
set
of
responses
back
on
monday,
but
just
so
everybody
understands
a
little
bit
of
the
inside
process.
Is
we
then
had
to
process
all
that
data
to
get
rid
of
all
of
the
clearly
bad
data?
And
what
I
mean
is
they
put
in
like
you
know,
one
two
three
in
like
the
three
fields,
or
sometimes
it's
like
you
know,
just
keyboard
characters,
and
so
we
filtered
all
of
that
out.
A
A
A
I
mean,
I
think
many
of
you
have
been
out
over
the
past
week,
so
we
will
pick
that
process
up
when
he
returns
probably
early
next
week
and
that
same
thing
with
the
topic
after
that
testing
and
acceptance
strategy,
we'll
pick
that
back
up
as
well
now
moving
over
to
the
agenda
column,
so
the
scalability
blue
paper,
I
know
lucas,
you
were
kind
of
in
charge
of
that
is
there?
Do
you
have
an
eta
on
on
how
that's
coming.
F
A
G
A
All
right
next
agenda
item
the
the
two
in
flight
rfps
faster
finality,
we'll
start
there.
So
we
did
receive
one
proposal
and
what
I'd
like
to
ask
the
overall
group
is:
how
do
we
want
to
approach
this
next
step
because
guillaume
and
origen
it's
it's
from
them?
So
should
I
send
the
well,
I
can
distribute
the
rfp
to
this
channel.
A
Perhaps,
but
do
you
do
each
of
the
chains
want
to
review
it
independently,
and
maybe
we
set
up
a
separate
meeting
or
do
we
want
to
like
carve
out
part
of
this
meeting
and
then
maybe
ask
origen
not
to
be
here
at
that
part,
I
mean
there's
a
couple
ways
to
go.
I
just
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
open
transparency
to
the
greater
community
and
world.
That's
watching
this.
A
G
D
G
The
proposal
so
there's
there's
a
minor,
I
guess
well
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
hours
and
like
workload,
there's
a
minor
contribution
by
enf,
which
is
actually
quite
significant
in
terms
of
knowledge
and
experience
with
the
code
base,
but
in
terms
of
the
the
contribution
to
say
that
the
dollar
amount
it's
it's
minimal,
so
I
don't
think
I
don't.
I
think
enf
should
still
participate
in
that
discussion.
It
should
not
be
excluded.
It's
not!
It's
not
significant
enough.
G
B
Of
course,
the
ad
we
did
not
participate
in
the
actual
drafting
of
the
proposal
yeah,
I
wasn't,
I
wasn't
even
suggesting
that
they
shouldn't
be
here
and
then
I
was
thinking
the
extent
that
which
we
participated
was
reaching
out
and
saying
how
many
hours
can
we
earmark
and
what
is
the
rate
of
those
hours?
That's
pretty
much
the
extent
exactly.
That's
it
so
you'll
see
the
line
in
there,
but
otherwise
we
yeah.
We
did
not
unless
jeff
you
helped
out,
but
I
I
don't
participate.
D
D
More
trying
to
build
confidence,
you
know
just
I'm
already
trying
to
analyze
the
proposed
terms
of
you
know
how
much
you
know.
Experience
is
behind
the
technical
design
and
how
much
experience
will
be
behind
the
technical
implementation
just
to
build
confidence
in
the
decision
to
proceed
and
all
that.
So
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
that
that
you
know
some
of
those
engineers
helped
with
the
discussion
and
the
design
and
also
be
somewhat
involved
in
oh
yeah.
The
information.
B
Was
heavily
involved
in
the
rfp
drafting
right,
so
the
the
rfp
part
orig
was
heavily
involved
in
that
as
well
as
jeffer
were
the
ones
who
published
it,
but
the
bid.
No,
I
see.
Okay,
yes,
and
I
believe,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
maybe
stan
as
well
was
it
was
it
involved
in
the
in
the
rfp
part
or
was
captured
in
the
bid,
or
is
that
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
still
the
case,
but.
G
B
The
one
part
that
I
think
will
be-
and
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
this
relating
to
your
question-
jeff
of
whether
or
not
should
be
present-
is
when
we
discuss
the
financial
aspect
of
it.
So
the
technical
part,
I
think
they
should
be
present,
because
we
should
be
challenging
back
and
forth,
but
we've
in
a
way
already
done
that
with
the
with
the
rfp.
B
So
it's
now
it's
really
the
bid,
so
it'll
be
the
financial
aspect
of
questioning
and
whether
or
not
ux
is
present
for
that
discussion.
I
I
don't
know,
that's
always
the
the
hard
discussion
to
have
to
question.
Maybe
the
rates,
the
question
the
overall
cost,
the
question
I
think
the
timelines
and
stuff
that
could
be
present,
because
that
would
be
more
technical,
but
the
non-technical
aspects.
B
Do
we
want
to
have
a
sense
of
the
three
other
chains
first
and
see
what
we're
thinking
and
then
bring
them
in
or
do
we
want
to
have
them
there
from
the
onset?
I
don't
particularly
have
a
preference.
If
I
would
say,
the
only
caveat
would
be
if
guillaume
and
darren
accept
that
it
might
be
uncomfortable
discussions.
A
If
we
pretend
for
a
second
that
they
are
a
completely
external
vendor,
then
I
would
think
the
normal
process
would
be.
We
would
engage
that
vendor
to
go
through
and
understand
the
proposal
directly,
including
understanding
their
financial
breakdown,
but
then,
once
we
understood
the
rfp
or
felt
or
the
response
as
well
as
we
feel
we
need
to,
then
the
vendor
would
essentially
go
away
and
then
there
would
be
the
decision
making
time
do
we
want
to
accept
this
proposal
or
not
and
that's
mentally.
I
was
thinking.
B
B
D
A
But
instead
of
an
immediate
response
to
the
proposal,
they
came
back
and
executed
their
right
to
ask
some
clarifying
questions.
So
I
have
those
and
that's
the
I
would
say
in
a
normal
case.
We
would
kick
it
back
to
the
working
group,
but
honestly
aaron
and
his
team
has
been
pushing
much
of
the
working
group
activity,
so
that
would
be
a
little
circular.
A
B
A
All
right,
guillaume
lucas,
you
guys
also
fine
with
that
or
concerns
yeah
that
works
good.
That
works
as
well.
Okay,
again,
I
think
that's
the
easiest
way
to
avoid
bureaucracy,
so
good
all
right
and
we
might
even
have
time.
I
think
I
can
pull
those
questions
up
today,
because
they're
not
aaron,
I
don't
have
the
list
in
front
of
me
of
who's
on
the
call.
Are
you
on
the
call
right
now
yep
sure,
okay,
perfect,
so
I
can
just
pull
those
questions
up
in
a
second
when
we,
when
we
get
there.
A
So
we'll
come
back
to
that
status
of
the
other
programs
and
projects
going
on,
because
so
many
people
were
out
this
week.
Quite
frankly,
very
little
else
was
moved
forward.
So
we'll
we'll
just
get
everything
restarted
this
week
so
that
by
next
week
you
know
we
should
have
a
couple
more
rfps,
getting
close
to
presentation
and
voting.
A
J
Yeah
we're
just
kind
of
picking
up
where
we
left
off
after
a
two-week
gap
with
no
recorded
meetings
and
just
welcome
everyone
to
resume
media
discussion
in
that
telegram
channel
we
set
up
and
we'll
get
another
report
out
to
kind
of
fill
in
the
gap
here,
while
we're
still
ruminating
and
preparing
for
the
the
brand
release
and
just
keep
updating
everybody
about
everything
else.
That's
going
on
with
the
coalition
so
yeah.
K
So
one
thing
that
we
did
not
communicate,
which
I'm
not
sure
if
we
are
open
to
doing
so
is
we
did
not
make
it
public.
We
did
make
two
public
rfps
and
we
had
a
deadline
that
has
passed.
Obviously,
we
could
potentially
make
that
as
part
of
an
update
is
we
had
one
applicant
each
and
call
out
who
they
are.
I
don't
think
it'll
be
a
surprise
to
anyone,
but
it
would
be
confirmation.
J
A
A
B
B
From
my
point
of
view,
the
treasury
right
now
sits
at
two
million
dollars
for
the
coalition
and
likely
a
chunk
of
that
will
or
if
not,
the
chunk,
the
full
chunk
and
more
will
go
out
to
the
two
from
rfps
should
they
be
or
the
two
current
bids
should
they
be
approved,
I'm
not
necessarily
in
a
hurry
and
the
market
isn't
necessarily
in
a
hurry
to
dish
out
more
funds
at
this
stage.
I
believe
that
would
be
my
position,
so
we
do
have
a
few
up
there
right
now.
B
I
don't
know
what
the
financial
situation
of
the
other
chains
are.
We
did
make
the
commitment
for
eight
million
dollars
for
this
year
that
I
don't
recall
the
date
which
we
first
transferred
it
that
the
first
quarterly
payment.
I
would
imagine
that
the
second
quarterly
payment
will
be
coming
up
shortly.
B
B
No
surprise,
last
time,
ux
didn't
have
any
numbers
to
provide,
and
so
we
went
at
the
base.
Do
we
still
go
there?
We
also
need
to
talk
about
non-financial
contribution.
Human
resources.
Are
we
optimized?
That
way?
Are
we
doing
it?
A
little?
Could
we
could
be
cut
here
and
there
I
think,
having
those
discussions
will
become
very
real
over
the
coming
months,
as
the
market
is
likely
going
to
be
at
this
level
and
lower
for
the
foreseeable
future
and
how
that
impacts
our
global
finances
as
a
coalition
or
if
it
impacts.
J
K
Yeah
that
that
came
up
with
our
pr
team,
so
we
will
do
a
third-party
pr
push
once
we
have
the
logo
and
branding,
and
we
obviously
have
the
name
at
this
point
so
getting
like
we
did
with
the
first
one.
It
could
have
a
quote
from
each
one
representative
from
each
chain,
so
our
pr
team
advised
us
that
four
quotes
is
pretty
much
the
limit,
but
that's
good,
because
we
only
have
four
chains.
K
So
even
before
the
branding
is
affirmed
by
us,
we
could
get
the
messaging
crafted
for
a
pr
that
wouldn't
really
shoot
out
until
and
be
distributed
for
another
three
weeks
or
so,
but
we
can
get
a
head
start
on
it.
There's
no
reason
we
need
to
wait
whatever
opinion
you
have
or
whatever
you
want.
Your
quote
to
be
it's
not
going
to
change
in
three
weeks:
you're
not
going
to
be
describing
the
logo
design
in
your
quote,
most
likely
so
makes.
C
A
I
A
L
I
think
it's
mostly
a
matter
of
priority.
The
the
the
writing
we've
done
on
this
so
far
includes
a
lot
of
ideas
about
modules,
for
this
new
system
and
things
like
atomic
assets,
which
are
not
part
of
the
core
protocol,
but
are
very
widely
used.
That
is,
I
think,
the
subject
of
maybe
two
different
parts
of
those
three
items
that
are
listed
and
being
shown
on
the
screen,
there's
maybe
20
or
30,
of
these
options,
and
it's
a
matter
of
what
is
the
highest
priority
for
the
coalition
and
helping
us
figure
out.
L
What
that
priority
is
I
mean
we
could
pick
and
come
up
with
a
priority
based
on
our
beliefs,
of
what
the
chain
is
needed,
but
I
think
it'd
be
better
if
there
was
some
kind
of
exercise
that
helped
determine
those
priorities.
So
that
way,
it's
not
us
deciding,
and
you
guys
wondering
why
we
picked
to
do
this
thing
over
this
thing.
So.
D
L
I
would
have
to
look,
but
I
don't
think
any
of
them
are
dependent
on
any
others
all
of
the
core,
like
the
core
data
types,
the
core
extensions,
these
types
of
things
are
just
going
to
be
built
and
the
optional
stuff-
or
I
shouldn't
say
optional-
the
stuff
that
we'd
like
to
see
built
afterwards
is
all
based
upon
that.
I
don't
think
they're
based
upon
each
other,
but
I
could
double
check
that
okay,
so
we're
not
discussing
priorities
of
any
of
the
core.
L
L
L
If
you
haven't
read
through
this,
this
would
be
a
great
reference
material
if
you're
looking
to
get
up
to
date
on
this,
like
the
api
client
extensions
that
are
shown
kind
of
there
towards
the
bottom
half
we
have
atomic
assets,
I
guess
to
step
back
just
a
minute.
These
api
client
extensions
are
add-ons
to
the
api
client
that
exists
in
this
framework
for
specific,
quote,
unquote,
non-core
components
which
is
like
I
mentioned
earlier
atomic
assets.
We
could
work
on
a
diffuse
plug-in
vo
has
its
own
huge
set
of
apis,
which.
L
I
don't
have
to
get
into
it.
There's
fire
hose,
there's
the
v1
history.
If
we
prioritize
that
there's
hyperion
specific
stuff,
there's
the
resource
provider,
api
endpoints
for
co-signing,
there's
our
history
solution,
which
gives
some
like
granular
stuff
into
the
history
of
it
like
this.
This
list
of
10
are
things
that
are
not
critical
to
build
the
overall
sdk
but
can
be
built
and
put
on
top
of
it.
L
So
the
way
that
we
were
originally
anticipating
building
this
thing
out
is
taking
one
two,
maybe
three
of
the
highest
priority
items
and
building
those
as
we're
building
the
actual
core
software
itself.
So
that
way
we
are
kind
of
dog
fooding
it
in
the
sense
that
we're
using
the
sdks
to
build
these
extensions
and
then
the
extensions
would
be
really
useful
for
a
lot
of
the
projects
that
are
using
the
sdks.
D
So
that
way
you
don't
I
mean
you
can
if
you
had
to
build
the
whole
core
layer
without
an
implementation,
that's
going
to
plug
into
it
on
the
other
side,
you're,
exactly
right
and
just
doing
and
just
picking
one
you
might
overlook
something
that
is
common
between
a
few
of
them
or
something
that's
not
common
between
a
few
of
them
that
you
need
to
accommodate
in
that
in
that
core
layer.
So
yeah.
L
L
Is
your
git
account
you
get
table
rows,
those
those
core
functionalities,
and
then
these
all
go
above
and
beyond
that,
but
just
like
you
said
these
are
going
to
be
standalone
things
that
anybody
who
has
a
custom,
api
or
a
custom
need
will
be
able
to
reference
this
material
to
then
build
their
own
extensions
easily
for
their
own
applications
and
or
maybe
we
do
bounties
and
there's
people
that
do
pomelo
pitches
and
grant
proposals
to
build
additional
functionality.
On
top
of
this
that'll
just
add
to
the
ecosystem.
A
You
kind
of
piggybacking
on
what
jesse
was
saying.
What,
if
you
suggested
three
of
each
bucket
and
just
brought
this
back
to
the
coalition
and
said
hey?
If,
if
we
include
these
three
from
here
and
these
three
from
here
as
part
of
the
rfp
and
and
then
we
can
see
if
everybody
is
just
good
with
that,
and
I
throw
that
out
as
opposed
to
like
doing
a
big
prioritization
exercise,
because
it's
not
this
is
not
a
one
and
done
right.
So
we're
just
gonna
do
the
rfp.
A
D
Yeah
yeah,
absolutely
I
think
I
mean
from
my
perspective.
You
know
I
agree.
I
don't
want
to
go
through
a
big
exercise
like
we
went
through
for
the
prioritization
of
20,
but-
and
I
trust
you
aaron,
but
you
know
I
for
us
from
telos
I'm
looking
at
this
list.
I
don't
know
if
we
have,
I
mean
we
have
the
contracts,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
have
the
api
up
for
atomic
assets.
Fio
you
know
obviously,
is
very
unique
to
them.
D
I
think
we
have
defused
fire
hose,
but
not
the
whole
back
end.
So
I
would
just
say,
like
you
know,
I
think,
picking
one
that's
going
to
be
common
to
all
of
us
where
we
all
are
going
to
be
really
happy
with
the
first
thing
we
can
use,
even
knowing
that
the
others
would
eventually
come
would
probably
be
an
important
thing.
So
if
you
came
back
and
said
you
know,
I'm
going
to
do
fio,
you
know
roboversky
and
you
know,
atomic
acids
would
be
like.
D
We
can't
use
any
of
those
to
tell
us
right
so,
but
hyperion,
maybe
is
a
good
one
because,
like
I
think,
every
chain
is
using
hyperion,
pretty
heavily
and
then
atomic
assets
I
know,
is
really
heavily
used
on
other
networks
and
would
probably
be
a
fair
choice
for
the
group.
But
I
don't
know
just
just
throwing
that
out
there
if
you're
gonna
go,
make
make
the
call
on
which
ones
to
propose
just
keep
in
mind
the
four
networks
here
and
which
of
those
ten
are
being
used.
L
Yeah
yeah,
we
have
a
pretty
good
idea
on
it
and
that
list.
I
think
we
did
all
the
lists
in
alphabetical
order.
So
these
don't
show
any
preference,
but
we
could
probably
come
up
with
a
rough
priority
and
present
it.
There
are
going
to
be
things
that
we
would
probably
suggest
that
aren't
on
all
networks,
but
then
it's
really
going
to
be
kind
of
up
to
you
guys
to
hash
that
out,
because
maybe
one
network
needs
this.
L
L
A
So
I
think
the
action
here
then
aaron
is
you're
going
to
come
up
with
a
list
that
you
think
everybody's
going
to
be
happy
with,
but
then
you'll
just
submit
that
list
back
to
the
coalition
to
give
everybody
kind
of
the
to
say.
Yes,
this
looks
good
and
then
once
they
approve
that,
then
you'll
have
really
all
the
information
that
you
can
get
at
this
point
in
time
to
start
working
through
the
rfp.
L
A
A
J
A
C
I
mean
like
code
development
like
improving
it
like.
Is
it
something
that
will
fall
out
of
support?
If
I
guess
like
I
was
just
thinking
of
it
in
terms
of
prioritization
of
these
like?
Are
they
getting
support
from
a
team?
And
you
know
I
I
know
like
fire
hose
is
used
by
a
lot
of
teams,
so
it
probably
is
a
good
one,
but
we
need
to
think
about
it.
D
Does
that
partially
hinge
on
us
because
I
know
like
I
spoke
with
alex
and
he
really
wanted
us
to
independently
push
the
the
graph
to
support
eosio
chains
because
he
has
defuse
and
and
wants
it
to
be
part
of
that.
But
I
think
does
some
of
that
hinge
on
becoming
a
part
of
of
that,
and
I
know
we've
talked
about
pushing
through
this
coalition
to
get
subgraph
support
for
eosio.