►
Description
This week the EOSIO Coalition updates the community on securing smart contract libraries, rebranding documents, block explorer discussions and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:20 Secure smart contract library RFP
00:06:00 Future process for RFP creation
00:17:05 Rebranding GitHub migration
00:20:30 Project management resources
00:44:36 Block explorer discussion
01:00:00 Reprioritization of top 21 development items
01:18:36 Status of IBC Faster Finality document
01:25:58 Wallet SDK update
01:29:53 P2P RFP update
01:32:37 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://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
And
then
there
is
one
technical
question:
is
there
a
requirement
to
have
one
or
various
different
smart
contract
templates
that
are
required
for
for
the
chain?
So
is
there
some
flavor
of
smart
contracts?
We
have
to
verify
for
for
wax
eos
or
ux.
That
is
not
a
standard.
Smart
contract
template.
Is
there
any
specialties
that
we
need
to
consider
and
have
variances
of
those
smart
contract
templates.
A
C
A
Yeah,
okay
and-
and
I
just
see
eric-
also
commented
in
the
coalition
chad-
that
he
doesn't
think
that
there
is
any
technical
requirement
for
this,
so
that
makes
sense
so
so
it's
really
just
slide
formulation
amendments
that
would
be
required.
Is
there?
Are
there
any
further
comments
on
that
document
from
any
of
the
chains.
D
A
D
G
D
G
D
It's
also
possible
too.
The
person
that
would
vote
on
this
would
now
see
that
the
name
has
changed
and
throughout
the
bidding
process,
which
we
would
now
work
on
with
them,
make
it
very
clear
that
eos
doesn't
exist
anymore,
that
this
new
thing
exists
again
still
kind
of
irrelevant.
But,
yes,
the
the
name
change
within
the
arc.
Vegas
has
more
weight
now
that
the
process
hasn't
occurred.
Yet,
while
having
saying
that
the
weight
that
it
does
have
is
probably
very,
very
minimal.
D
A
Thank
you
douglas
for
tell
us
yes,
excellent!
Thank
you.
So
it's
a
yes
of
all
four
chains,
so
we
move
forward
talking
about
the
public
tender.
I've
been
discussing
this
with
jeff
in
our
weekly
call.
This
is
open
tender
as
far
as
I
understand
right,
so
we
know
some
parties
that
might
want
to
bid
on
this,
but
the
original
party
that
was
involved
as
far
as
I
understand
did
not
all
there
was
no.
D
C
D
D
F
D
E
D
Been
doing
that
every
other
rfp
has
been
open
as
well.
That's
true,
okay,
so
the
marketing
side
of
things
or
the
communication
side
of
things,
I
believe,
is
already
established
all
right.
It
would
be
great
if-
and
this
part,
I'm
not
sure
if
the
other
chains
have
been
promoting
it
as
well.
I
know
we
have
been
with
the
enf,
so
maybe
that's
something
that
we
can
improve
on
is
just
wider
reach.
A
Yeah
we
we
put-
I
I've,
been
discussing
it
with
jeff,
also
and
internally,
you
know
and
inside
our
group,
and
we
know
of
two
parties
in
the
telos
ecosystem.
That
would
actually
be
interested
to
bid
on
this.
So
so
this
one
is
for
the
other
ones.
We
kind
of
all
knew
that
the
the
the
parties
that
have
been
drafting
the
rfps
are
they
actually
the
best
to
also
develop
it.
A
D
Of
the
tricky
things
that's
going
to
come
about
is
that,
for
example,
this.
This
is
a
very
good
example
for
this
one.
The
rfp
was
drafted
because
it
because
this
is
kind
of
a
standalone
item
and
the
original
team
that
that
talked
about
this
in
the
blue
paper
did
did
not
want
to
participate
in
this
anymore.
D
There's
a
team
that
helped
draft
this
particular
rfp
in
the
future.
Once
what
will
we
do
when
we
need
somebody
to
actually
help
draft
the
rfp,
but
that
it's
probably
not
going
to
be
the
people
that
bid
on
this
or
that
multiple
people
will
bid?
We
need
to
somehow
have
expertise
in
house
to
be
able
to
draft
the
rfp
without
relying
on
people
potential
bidders.
E
We'll
probably
need
to
pay
to
develop
the
rfp
right
there,
we'll
probably
need
to
appropriate
some
amount
of
funds.
You
know
to
to
to
pay
somebody
to
really
go
through
and
create
a
complete,
thorough
rfp.
Otherwise
you
know-
and
it
has
to
be
somebody
knowledgeable
and
it
won't
all
and
it
can't
miss
it.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
we're
gonna
have
the
in-house
knowledge
to
do
every
single
thing
right.
There's
gonna,
be
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
experts
that
we
go
to
for
various
sub.
E
G
G
D
So
how
do
we
do
this
going
forward
when
we
might
have
an
idea,
but
that
we
don't
necessarily
have
the
in-house
expertise
whereby
we
reach
out
to
somebody
who
will
likely
bid,
but
then,
after
they
put
all
the
work
in
to
do
the
rfp,
that
they
might
not
even
win
it?
Because
others
who
didn't
even
know
of
this
that
we
didn't
even
know
existed
then
did
so?
E
Right
and,
and-
and
you
know
they
do
get
a
bit
of
a
leg
up-
that's
fine,
but
they're,
not
they're,
not
guaranteed
to
win
and
that's
fine.
The
the
bulk
of
the
the
bulk
of
the
payment
is
going
to
be
in
the
in
the
actual
in
the
actual
project,
we're
not
not
generating
the
rfp.
So
if
we
can
better
clarify
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
and
really
nail
down
all
the
deliverables
and
everything,
it
will
save
us
money
in
the
future.
E
E
D
And
the
caveat
in
all
of
this
is
this:
is
when
the
coalition
deems
something
a
priority,
so
the
decision
has
already
been
made
that
we
want
to
explore
an
item
and
create
an
rfp
right.
So
it's
not
it's
not
a
team
comes
to
us
and
says:
hey
I'll
draft,
an
rfp
that
you
guys
didn't
even
want
in
the
first
place
that
all
starts
with
the
coalition
determines
we've
got
a
priority.
Now
we
need
to
go
through
a
process.
E
Yeah
somebody
could
come
to
us
and
say:
hey,
have
you
thought
about
this
and
at
that
point
we
could
deliberate
and
maybe
they
would
be
the
people
we'd
go
to,
or
maybe
they
wouldn't
right,
but
but
the
process
has
to
be
that
we
as
a
group
decide
that
we
think
it's
worth
pursuing
and
it's
worth
allocating
some
funds
to
get
an
actual
our
rfp
create.
You
know
professional
rfp
created.
D
E
Right,
nobody
bouts
a
thousand,
you
know
so
so
we
can't
expect
everything
that
we
spend
time
and
energy
and
money
on
to
be
to
come
to
fruition.
It's
it's
the
you
know,
that's
just
natural,
so
there's
no
guarantee
it's
not
like
a
government
contract
where
one
of
the
bidders
is
guaranteed
to
get
it.
You
know.
A
Okay,
so
jeff
can
you,
I
think,
that's
something
we
can
work
on
in
in
our
next
call,
to
kind
of
draft
a
paragraph
for
this
and
and
bring
it
up
into
the
rfp
template
and
have
like
basically,
two
templates.
One
is
where
we
we
have
resources
to
draft
the
rfp
ourselves
and
one
where
we
request.
The
external
part
is
to
actually
write
to
rfp
for
us.
E
Correct
yeah
we're
going
to
pick
people
we're
going
to
invite
them.
We
may
invite
two
people
and-
and
you
know
informally
say
you
know
what
would
you
do
it
for
what?
But
generally
it's
going
to
be
we'll
be
lucky
if
we
have
one
really
good
resource
who
we
feel
has
a
complete
enough
domain
knowledge
about?
What's
what
we're
asking
to
be
able
to
create
the
rfp
for
us,
we
can't
we
can't
put
everything
out
to
to
bid
it's
just
it.
A
Makes
sense
so
we
we
will,
we
will
draft
something
there
and
come
back
to
the
coalition.
I
still
have
this
github
migration
scenario.
That
obviously
is
linked
to
all
the
branding
discussions
we
had
earlier.
I'm
not
sure
I
don't
recall
adam
jeff,
so
jeff
if
there
is
the
brand
name
mentioned
in
that
excel
spreadsheet.
A
G
G
You
know
coordination
in
getting
the
message
out
kind
of
in
a
lot
of
those
bullet
points
were
mentioned
earlier
in
this
call
and
just
the
the
objectives
to
reach
there.
So
by
this
meeting
next
week,
almost
all
of
those
activities
will
be
completed.
So
I
mean
that's
great
news.
Is
that
we've
got
a
lot
of
people
pounding
through
on
the
engineering
side
and
as
of
right
now
there
do
not
seem
to
be
any
blockers
on
this.
G
A
Yeah,
okay
and
then
this
is
also
obviously
we
could
take
this
as
a
blueprint
for
any
of
the
trains
having
to
migrate
parts
of
repositories
or
full
repositories
for
specific
projects
over
to
the
new
repositories.
And
so
you
have
this
as
a
checklist
and
don't
forget
specific
parts
so
that
that's
great
work
adam
has
been
carried
out
there.
So
so
I
think
we're
in
a
good
way
and
on
on
planning
this
and
and
having
it
a
template
for
the
future.
A
A
So
we've
been
discussing
this
in
in
our
call
this
week
and
it
would
be
great,
I
mean
you're,
you're,
yolm
and
lucas
you're
very,
very
hard
to
grasp,
sometimes,
but
but
doing
great
apart
from
that,
so
the
question
is,
do
you
have
or
do
you
want
to
assign
some
more
specific
project
management
resources
for
specific
tasks
that
that
would
possibly
be
easier
to
get
hold
of
of
you
than
yourself?
Would
that
make
sense
to
you,
or
is
that
something
that
you
wouldn't
consider
at
this
moment.
B
D
B
A
C
C
C
C
At
some
point,
I
I
assume
that
the
enf
is
gonna,
be
providing
some
some
like
code
reviews
or
like
thumbs
up
thumbs
down
on
what
we're
gonna
be
submitting,
and
then
everything
that
gets
submitted
by
anyone
will
have
to
go
to
the
same
process,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
also
have
other
resources
than
the
enf
providing
that
service.
So
so
from
our
chain.
We
can
can
certainly
contribute
and
what
might
be
some
other
people
in
the
wax
and
telos
ecosystem.
C
But
I
see
that
as
yeah
like
something
that
we're
gonna
need.
It
might
also
be
a
good
idea
yet
to
kind
of
add
this,
I
guess
to
the
mandate
of
whoever
is
drafting
the
rfps
like
not
only
they
would.
They
drive
the
rfps,
but
they
would
also
measure
whether
or
not
the
deliverables
are
essentially
like
answering
these
rfps
correctly.
So
anyway.
D
A
few
things
kristen,
if
you
want
to
reopen
that
item
darren
is
d-a-r-y-n,
there's,
no
second,
hey
and
what
you
were
mentioning
guillaume
in
terms
of
I
guess,
project
management.
Once
the
project
has
been
approved,
the
bids,
the
bids,
essentially
the
bidder's,
been
approved.
The
project
starts,
of
course.
Yes,
we
would
internally
to
the
enf.
We
have
those
resources
so
prior
to
me,
taking
my
vote
of
yes,
this
item
this
milestone
has
been
completed.
I
you
know
I
vote
for.
Yes,
let's
release
payment.
D
That
function,
somebody
else
provides
a
different
function
to
say
right,
really
we're
good
like
it
doesn't
need
to
be.
Everybody
does
everything,
but
yes,
right
now,
I
do
see
that
it's
if,
if
enf
says
yes,
essentially
like
it's,
yes,
because
nobody
else
is
following
along
at
that
level.
So
what
would
be
the
other
functions
that
would
be
required,
like
part
of
it
is
tech,
but
then
tech
is
also.
D
D
E
Shouldn't
be
stuck
doing
everything
we
everyone
should,
should
you
know
shoulder
some
of
the
burden
and
yeah.
Also,
when
the
second,
your
your
notion
that
you
know
we
really
have
to,
we
really
have
to
be
able
to
have
committees
within
you
know
within
or
work
groups
or
whatever
that
don't
necessarily
have
to
have.
Everybody
have
somebody
from
each
chain
and
and
like
recognize
that
we're
we're
working
together
and
not
have
to
be
so.
You
know
it's
terribly
inefficient
to
do
it
that
way
and
yeah.
C
D
G
E
G
But
if
we
figure
that
those
things
out
at
the
beginning
or
near
the
beginning
of
a
project,
then
this
is
less
of
a
surprise
and
there's
less
scrambling.
At
the
end,
where
you
know
the
developers
think
something's
done
now,
they're
kind
of
waiting
for
somebody
to
tell
them
it's
done
and
that
kind
of
thing.
E
What
we
could
do
is
for,
as
as
each
of
these
technical
deliverables
come
or
or
whatever
kinds
of
deliverables
there
may
be,
there
could
be
marketing
deliverables
each
as
each
of
the
liberals
comes
in,
we
could
set.
I
know
this
sounds,
we
could
have
two.
We
could
assign
two
approvers
to
each
one
right
and
so
and
so
yeah
it
might
be.
Somebody
might
go
hey.
E
I
can
handle
most
of
this,
but
this
thing
is
way
outside
my
you
know,
and
we
find
we
find
two
people
for
each
and,
as
it's
just
part
of
it's
just
part
of
launching
the
project,
it's
like.
Not
only
do
we
have
the
liberals
deliverables,
but
we
know
whose
responsibility
it
is
to
vet,
those
and
and
and
sign
off
on
those
right.
Yeah
like
it's.
Without
that
you
know
it's
it's
it's
it's
kind
of
to
me.
It's
kind
of
like
hey.
When
you
have
a
rule,
it's
not
enough.
E
But
if
we
have
it
from
the
beginning,
you
know,
while
it
adds
a
lot
up
front,
it's
it's
going
to
be
it's
going
to
be
done
and
people
are
going
to
know
that
they
are
expect.
You
know
who's
expected
to
review
what
and
it's
not
going
to
be
a
surprise
and
and
the
and
the
the
you
know
the
contractor
who's
doing
it
knows
who
to
bug
for
for
that.
You
know
for
that
approval
right,
so
setting
up
the
approvers
for
each
for
each
major
deliverable
for
each
deliverable
seems
like
the
way
to
go
to
me.
A
Probably
all
of
us
would
love
to
would
have
loved
to
have
one
person
of
chain
knowing
all
the
bits
and
pieces
and
details
of
each
and
every
development,
because
they
generally
wouldn't
necessarily
trust
what
somebody
else
develops,
but
I
think
we're
getting
closer
to
a
point
where
we
could
say
that
for
one
development
like
ibc
as
an
example,
we
only
have
two
people
from
two
trains,
basically
approving
that,
because
they
know
best,
if
that's
exactly
what
we
want
and
and
move
forward
with
that.
I
think.
That's
something
to
discuss.
E
Yeah,
I
don't
think
I
I
I
don't
personally,
I
don't
think
we
need.
I
think,
we've
gotten
to
a
point
past,
where
we
need
to
actually
discuss
it.
I
don't
even
care
if
they're
from
the
same
chain
right.
So
if
two
people
from
eos
are
the
ones
who
have
the
the
you
know,
they
shouldn't
the
one
the
one
caveat
I'd
have.
Is
they
can't
be
from
the
they
can't
be
from
the
developers
right?
So
so,
if,
if
you
know,
if
guillaume
is,
is
del,
you
know
if,
if
you
can't.
I
E
Yeah
the
deli
exactly
it
has,
but
but
to
me
you
know
if,
if
two
people
from
eos
or
two
people
from
wax
or
whatever
you
know
anything,
I
don't
if,
if
I
have
faith
in
those
people,
I
don't
see
at
all
how
chain
politics
play
into
that.
That
would
be
like.
I
see
no
win
and,
and
basically
the
name
so
when
I,
when
I
did
work,
did
things
for
for
microsoft,
they
would
just
have
an
approver.
You
know
you
would
know
from
the
very
beginning
who
the
approver
was
they
just
called
it
an
approver.
E
It's
you
know
it's
it's
actually
it's
great
for
everybody
and
and
I
think
we
can
break
great
break
these
up.
Granul
granularly,
but
you
know
I
if,
if
aaron
tells
me
that
something
that
guillaume
did
works,
you
know,
or
vice
versa,
I'm
fine
with
that
right.
You
you,
as
the
approve.
If
there
are
big
problems
later
on,
you
know,
your
name
is
on
there
as
a
proverb
it's
like.
Why
did
both
of
you
guys
approve
this?
Well,
you
know
well.
E
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
I
said
what
I
wouldn't
want.
What
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
is
that
there
be
chains
that
just
never
participate
in
these
right.
I
want
to
see
everybody.
I
ideally
want
to
see
everybody
make
a
contract,
make
a
actual
contribution
in
in
in
responsibility,
but
I
think
you
know
I
don't
see
how
eos
can
screw
us.
You
know
or
wax
can
can
get
some
cool
advantage
by
falsely
approving
something.
You
know
that
you
know
their
name
is
going
to
be
on.
G
I
think
there's
a
way
where
we
don't
like.
We
don't
want
to
over
engineer
this,
but
I
think
to
the
simplest
way
is
when
we
have
that
list
of
milestones-
and
we
all
know
that's
the
beginning
of
this-
let's
just
add
columns
onto
it
for
the
number
of
approvers
and
who
the
or
who
the
approvers
are
and
the
reason.
G
At
the
beginning,
it's
because
we
might
find
some
milestones,
they're
small
enough,
that
everybody's,
like
you
know
what
one
person
can
look
at
that
and
be
fine
other
things
might
be
so
critical
that
every
chain
is
going
to
want
their
own
person
like
we
just
we
just
don't
know,
but
that
would
be
a
simple
way
to
cover
all
of
the
all
of
the
circumstances.
Then
we
just.
E
G
E
The
two,
the
two
person
approver
thing
for
everything,
because
if
it's
simple
then
it's
then
it's
simple
to
get
somebody
to
come
on
and
approve
it.
I
I
think
that
I
would
encourage
us
to
act
like
one
organization,
except
on
the
very
large
things
right.
So
so
I
think
that
it's
once
we've
approved
something
once
we're
funding
it
once
we're
doing
all
these
things,
I
I
just
think
we
should
act
efficiently
and
it's
not
efficient
to
have
somebody
from
every
chain.
I
you
know
if
I.
G
If
I'm
sorry,
that's
not
what
I
was
suggesting
case-by-case
basis,
there
might
be
major
approvals
that
the
chain
leads
are
going
to
be
really
nervous,
approving
because
they're
that
critical
without
making
sure
they're
represented,
but
that
might
be
an
exception.
The
majority
of
the
time
honestly,
and
the
reason
why
I'm
saying
even
two
approvers
sometimes
is
overkill.
G
We
don't
have
like
hundreds
of
people
in
the
community
working
right
now,
so
anything
we
can
do
to
keep
this
as
lightweight
as
possible.
I
think
is
worth
considering
that
that's
all,
and
by
outlining
it
all
up
front,
nobody's
surprised
like
either
everybody
agrees
or
like
douglas.
If
you
look
at
that
and
eve
goes,
you
know
one
person
could
do
that
and
you're
thinking.
No,
I
think
two
people
need
to
well,
then
we
just
add
a
second
person
right
up
front.
It's
like
that
simple.
E
Yeah
same
I
mean
I
will
be.
I
will
be
hunting
out
things,
those
very
simple
opportunities
to
approve.
So
I
get
credit
for
a
proven
stuff
that
didn't
take
a
lot
of
work
for
me
or
matches
my
my
limited
skill
set
but
yeah.
I
I
think
there
might
be
very
rare
occasions
where
everybody
wants
to,
but
my
guess
is
if
somebody
feels
really
strongly
about
it
right,
they're,
gonna,
they're,
gonna,
just
make
sure
they're
just
gonna
sign
up
to
be
one
of
the
approvers
right.
E
People
will
have
different
like
the
things.
The
things
that
you
would
that
I
think
any
chain
would
want
to
to
be
approver
on
are
the
things
that
are
super
important
to
that
chain
right
like
if,
if
one
chain
doesn't
have
any
need
for
something,
I
don't
wouldn't
want
them
to
be
an
improver
because
they'll
you
know,
I
would
want
it
to
be
the
people
most
affected,
but
so
will,
but
so
will
they
so
that'll
be
the
self-interest
of
of
everybody.
E
I
mean
if
there's
something
going
on,
I'm
going
to
want
to
make
sure
I'm
going
to
hope
that
jesse
or
somebody
from
our
team
is
on
it,
really
double
checks
and
make
sure
it
works
perfect
for
telos.
You
know
it
worked,
it
works
and
it
works
for
us.
Then
we'll
approve
it.
So
I
I
think
two
two
approvers
is
fine.
I
think
if
there
are
extreme,
you
know
conditions,
that's
fine
too,
but
I
I
don't
think
we
need
to.
D
D
I'm
going
to
take
my
time
to
make
sure
that
I
you
know
before
we
sign
an
okay.
If
it's
for
merging
a
pr
or
releasing
a
large
amount
of
funds,
I'm
going
to
make
sure
that,
ultimately
it's
going
to
be
my
name
in
the
mc,
I
will
feel
comfortable
before
signing
that
and
whatever.
That
means
to
me
will
be
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Now,
who
I
get
my
information
from
most
likely
it's
going
to
be
the
people
that
are
determined
to
be
the
approvers.
For
that.
D
D
D
Some
instances
of
exception
it
might
also
be
one
where
it's
I
can't
think
of
anything,
but
maybe
we
all
agree
like
yeah.
This
is
just
a
simple
thing
like
it's
just
it's
been
done,
for
example,
I
don't
know.
Maybe
the
milestone
is
the
website
is
live.
I
I
don't
need
two
people
to
tell
me.
The
website
is
live,
for
example,.
E
Yeah,
that's
great,
and
I,
and
I
would
say
in
in
my
interest
in
streamlining
the
process,
does
not
mean
that
I
I
you
know
I
want
any.
I
expect
anybody
to
rush
through
their
their
actual
approval
right
every
year.
That's
part
of
your
name
being
on
it
right,
your
name
zone.
So
if
it's
so,
if
you
approve
it
and
it
up,
then
you
know
you're,
ultimately
responsible.
D
E
Okay,
great
yeah,
for
paying,
I
mean
well
more
granular,
because
it's
possible
that
some
approvals
may
all
may
trigger
payments.
But
you
know
it's
something
that
like.
If
you
look
at
what
you
know
the
contract
you
and
I
were
just
looking
at
the
or
then
there's
then
they
may
not
be
they
may
not.
They
may
be.
You
know,
based
on
on
time
milestones
instead
of
deliverable
milestones,
possibly
so
you
know
or
or
something
could
require,
you
know
there
may
be
several.
E
D
D
D
And
I
I
very
much
agree
with
you
as
well
that
the
that
my
concern
is
more
so
that
it's
not
always
the
same
people.
I
would
like
to
see
a
broader
range
of
people
getting
involved
that
way.
The
workload
is
is
shared
because
nobody
gets
compensated
for
that.
So
it'd
be
great
if,
if
everybody
somehow
steps
up
to
the
plate
and
I'll
keep
receiving
repeating
that
for
everything
that
we
do
in
the
coalition.
E
G
Think
that's
an
advantage
of
publishing
the
assignees
at
the
beginning,
because
everybody
in
the
coalition
will
see
who's
participating
up
front
and
there
might
be
an
imbalance
and
it
might
be
justified.
You
know,
because
of
where
you
know,
expertise
are
housed,
but
at
the
same
time
maybe
it's
oh.
We
should
look
for
an
opportunity
for
other
people
to
rebalance.
E
Yeah
and
if
you're
not
and
if
you're
not
you
know,
if
they're,
if
that
is
becoming
unbalanced,
you
know
in
in
that
one
thing,
then
it
could
then
perhaps
there's
some
other
unpleasant
task.
That
must
be
done.
That
could
you
know
that
that
could
you
know
well,
these
guys
don't
do
very
many
approvals
but
sure
they're
sure
great
at
whatever
and
and
that's
how
they're
carrying
their
weight.
E
F
A
D
I
believe
we
can,
I
mean
I
think
part
of
the
discussion
is,
if
so
so
right
now,
let
me
backtrack
in
the
priorities
that
we've
set
at
as
the
coalition
early
on
that
the
22
items,
or
so
a
block
explorer,
does
not
fall
within
those
22
priorities.
I
would
be
comfortable
in
advocating
for
a
block
explorer
to
to
now
fall
in
one
of
those
priorities
and
then
looking
at
okay.
D
D
E
Yeah,
I
think
it's
fair
to
to
have.
You
know,
recognize
that
there
are
emergent
priorities
that
weren't
initially
seen,
but
due
to
changes
like
like
we
saw
with
this,
we
need
to.
We
need
to
respond
and
do
something,
and
so
I
wouldn't
just
say:
hey
what
wasn't
it
we
didn't.
It
wasn't
our
religion
priorities
list,
because
you
know
we
should
mostly
stick
to
that,
but
I
think
there
are
cases
where
we
should
be
willing
to
open
up
to
things
that
come
up,
that
you
know
more
changing
market
conditions
or
changing.
E
You
know,
availability
of
of
tools
that
we
relied
on.
You
know
that
we
didn't
vote
on
a
block
explorer
because
we
assumed
that
the
current
system-
you
know
current
systems-
were
going
to
be
okay
right.
So
I
I
think
this
I
think
it
falls
under
that
and
yeah.
The
question
is:
do
you
know
if
we
think
that's
important?
Well,
that's
the
first
question.
Then,
how
do
we
proceed?
Do
we
ask
for?
Do
we
ask
for
do
we
create
an
rfp?
E
Do
we
do
we
just
start
having
people
contribute
to
it?
Do
we
offer
funds
for
people
who
are
contributing
to
it
or
or
do
we
just
hope
you
know?
Do
we
just
want
everybody
to
be
doing?
You
know
the
part
that
they
need
for
their
chain
and-
and
you
know
ultimately
the
you
know
the
repo
just
kind
of
grows
with
no,
you
know
as
it
will,
but
not
with
any
particular
speed.
A
So
yeah
taking
taking
you
your
comment
eve
so
generally
you
would,
you
would
propose
to
vote.
Let
me
say
it
like
this
because,
obviously,
as
as
we
have
can
contribute
the
obe
we're
we,
we
have
an
interest
in
this,
so
you
as
eos
would
would
propose
to
add
a
block
explorer
to
the
priority
list.
Can
we
take
it
like
this?
Yes,.
D
I
would
support
that
and
I
would
support
the
coalition
if,
if
there's
onboarding
from
the
three
other
chains
commissioning
an
rfp
to
be
done
so
that
again,
all
all
based
on
whether
or
not
the
other
chains
also
agree.
So
whether
or
not
the
coalition
deems
this
to
be
a
priority,
deems
this
to
be
a
high
enough
priority
to
want
to
make
an
rfp,
I
I
would
support
that.
Yes,.
D
D
E
D
D
D
E
E
That
cosmos
uses
and-
and
it
becomes
an
advertisement
for
cosmos
and
become
an
advertisement
for
us-
how
easy
it
is
to
spin
up
something
with
our
core
technology
and
join
a
site
where
people
are
going
to
be
going
and
looking
at
chain
operations
and
other
tools
right.
So
it
becomes
part
of
the
critical
tooling.
E
C
D
E
Right
right-
and
I
would
say
that
this
is
this-
is
in
the
you
know,
this
is
it
you
know
this
is
in
the
to
me.
This
is
in
the
bucket
of
an
emergent
opportunity
or
need,
or
something
like
that.
Obviously,
if
there's
a
you
know,
if
there's
a
and
there
could
be
others
as
bad
as
like
some
kind
of
co,
you
know
security
patch.
That
obviously
becomes.
In
fact,
we
should
at
some
point
talk
about
what
our
processes
are
going
to
be
for
security
patches,
but
that
becomes
one.
D
I
I
If
you
guys
are
interested,
we
now
have
the
top
22
items
and
they're
tagged
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
more
data,
and
we
did
it
just
for
this
reason,
so
we
can
revisit
them
whether
it
be
once
a
quarter
once
a
month
whatever,
and
we
can
add
new
items
such
as
the
obe
into
it
and
and
allow
a
revote
etc.
So
we
have
them
running
as
a
you
know.
What
what
git
club
calls
a
beta
project
and
they
can
be
sorted,
multiple
ways
in
the
list.
I
If
I
can
find
it
before
the
call
ends
I'll
add
it
into
the
into
the
chat
so,
but
the
trouble
is,
I
think
the
repo
is
marked
private,
or
at
least
the
project
is
marked
private.
So
if
people
were
interested
I
would,
I
would
probably
need
to
bring
it
up
and
display
it.
So
we
we
have
already
kind
of
gone
to
having
that
in
github.
I
think
he
shouldn't
have
put
it
private.
I
think
he
just
did
it
because
he
wanted
to
wait
until
he
showed
it
to
everyone
and
people
agreed.
D
That's
not
my
proposal.
My
proposal
would
be
just
to
double
check,
so
my
proposal
would
be
to
have
the
exercise
of
determining
whether
or
not
that
becomes
a
priority
for
everybody.
Taking
a
vote
on
that
scoring
that
whatever
they
may
be
and
if
it
ranks
high
enough,
then
I
would
also
support
the
rfp.
It
is
possible
that
ux
says,
but
I
don't
I
don't
like.
Let's
have
the
exercise,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
I'm
gonna
vote
for
it.
D
E
F
E
If
they
right,
but
a
hard
fast
rule
is
that
it's
going
to
be
open
source
and
they
have
to
decide
if
they're
going
to
open
source
it
one
of
the
things
yeah
I'd
be
concerned
about.
Is
you
know
if,
if
telos?
If
you
know,
if
the
telos
team,
if
it
was
just
a
basic
rfp-
and
we
you
know,
then
then
anyone
is,
you
is
free
to
use
the
the
op
e
we've
already
built
right.
E
But
but
you
know,
if
we
did,
if
telus
did
it,
we
would
like
to
recapture
some
of
the
costs
that
went
into
that
other
people
would
be
like.
You
know,
future
money,
you
know
so
so
you
know
the
getting
under
bid
by
people.
You
know
who
don't?
Who
don't
have
any
investment
in
the
in
the
current
one?
Would
you
know
technically
be
fine,
but
you
know
I
wouldn't
feel
I
don't
think
I
feel
great
about
it.
E
You
know
what
I
mean,
so
maybe
we
put-
and
I
know
that
kirsten's
already
done-
a
fair
amount
of
work,
of
course,
starting
to
put
together
costs
and
whatnot.
So
I
know
we
have.
This
is
something
I'm
spitballing.
I'd
want
to
talk
to
the
team
about
it
first,
but
before
before
that,
I
wanted
to
just
see
if
you
guys
were
amenable
at
all
to
doing
it
under
the
the
old
rules,
where
we
wouldn't
necessarily
be
paid
for
it.
But
we'd
have
the
first,
the
first
bit.
E
Yeah,
no,
that's
fair
enough.
I
think
we
need
to
for
the
the
process
would
be
first
determine
if
this
is
even
something
we
want
to
pursue
next,
you
know
next
by
then
wax
could
hopefully
have
a
determination
of
whether
they
want
to
be
involved
or
not.
If
they
do,
we
could
you
know
we
could
we
could
work
on.
E
You
find
a
way
to
work
together
on
the
rfp
or,
if
not,
if,
if
obe
is
the
only
obvious
contender
at
the
moment,
then
then
you
know
and
wax
is
not
interested
in
in
open
sourcing
part
of
their
their
their
block
explorer.
At
that
time,
then
we
could,
then
we
could
consider
moving
forward
with
this.
If
not,
then
we
can
hire
somebody
to
to
do.
You
know
outsource
the
rfp
and
and
then
everyone
can
bid
on
it.
A
D
D
I
also
agree
with
what
jaune
said
of
also
then
revisiting
the:
how
do
we
reprioritize
and
or
prioritize
new
items
as
they
come
about
creating
that
framework?
I
think
that
that's
very
important
and
then
also
in
the
chat
aaron
mentioned
a
few
other
items
of
if
we
open
it
up
to,
for
example,
block
explorer
testnet.
Then
you
know
there
are.
The
list
goes
on
on
of
other
things
as
well.
D
E
We
didn't
include
a
lot
of
outside
toolings
on
some
of
these
things.
I
mean
sdks,
yes,
but
but
things
like
like
practical
implementations
like
a
test
net
or
a
block
explorer
or
a
wallet
or
whatever
those
were
not
on
our
those
were
not
immediately
on
our
high
priority
list,
even
though
perhaps
they
should
have.
Perhaps
they
should
have
been.
D
C
C
We
select
which
items
we're
gonna
tackle
during
that
quarter
and
then
next
quarter
we
can
revoke
on
priorities
like
we
remove,
what's
been
already
taken
care
of,
and
we
kind
of
recast
our
votes
and
again
like
select,
which
ones
we're
going
to
tackle
and
keep
moving
like
that.
I
think
that's
that's!
What.
F
E
One
thing
we
should
remember,
though,
is
we
are
signaling
to
our
broader
communities,
what
we're
going
to
work
on
and
we
don't
want
to
seem
capricious,
because
the
one
of
the
benefits
that
we
we
have
for
our
community
is,
they
know
which
direction
we're
going
so
so
they
can
build
their
own
tools
or
not
build
them
or
or
or
make
their
plans.
So
I
think
that
we
should
just
somehow
bear
that
in
mind
and
aim
not
to
make
radical
changes.
You
know,
but
but
that
doesn't
mean
we
can't.
D
Ahead,
yeah,
no,
I
agree,
I
think,
because
we
publish
these
then
there's
the
balance.
Like
you
mentioned.
I
don't
think
it
needs
a
complete
overhaul
and
if
there
was
for
whatever
reason,
then,
as
a
coalition
we'd
have
come
to
that
conclusion
and
so
we'd
be
able
to
explain
it
either
way
these
are
recorded
and
published.
So
people
would
see
why
that
was
the
case,
but
I
I
do
agree
that
there
needs
to
be
way
to
change
things,
while
also
not
completely
overhauling
everything
every
quarter
there
needs
to
be
some
level
of
general
direction.
D
E
Yeah
and
I'd
add
two
and
add
two
pieces
to
that.
One
is
because
we
are
supposed
to
be
taking
feedback
from
our
community.
I
would
say
we
have
open
comment
period
like
we,
we
announce
when
those
things
are
going
to
be,
and
we
have
a
a
period
for
people
to
submit
comments
or
preferences
or
requests
that
we're
not
bound
by,
but
that
we
we
should
be
aware
of
what
kind
of
ques
what
kind
of
things
are
coming
in
right.
We
have
to
give.
E
We
never
had
that
for
block
one
so,
and
I
want-
and
I
want
us
to
have
that
and
give
that
to
people,
and
then
the
second
thing
is
at
the
you
know
once
so
that
would
come
first,
then
we
would
decide
we
would
take
that
into
account,
as
well
as
all
the
other
things
we
take
into
account.
When
we
make
a
decision,
then
we
socialize
and
publicize
that
decision,
so
that
people
know,
especially
if
there's
any,
like
course,
corrections
that
we're
making,
I
think
with
all
those
together.
D
Well,
to
accumulate
items
for
one
yes
and
then
to
prioritize
them
and
then
another
open
session
to
gather
feedback
and
then
ultimately
kind
of
locking
that
in
let's
say
for
the
next
quarter
and
locking
that,
in
I
see
very
loosely
in
the
sense
that
that
would
form
the
you
know
somewhat
of
the
north
star
for
discussions
following
up
to
all
right
now,
we've
got
capacity.
We
want
to
write
a
new
rfp.
We've
got
space
in
the
treasury,
all
right.
What
comes
next.
E
Yeah
and
then
that
that's
actually
an
area
where
we
can
discover
priorities
where
we
can
discover
people
willing,
you
know
able-
or
you
know,
to
to
to
write
our
rfps
and
just
the
the
optics
of
that.
You
know
I'm
not
talking
optics
only,
but
the
optics
are
great
because
it
will
be
us
doing
what's
not
been
done
before
you
know
in
our
community.
E
So
let
me
let
me
within
all
of
this
I
want
to.
I
want
to
just
mention
one
point
specifically
to
obe,
and
that
is
that
back
when
we
thought
this
was
we
thought
this
was
a
hot
potato.
We
went
out
and
preemptively
went
to
a
number
of
developer
groups
and
said:
hey.
We
think
there's
a
good
chance
that
that
you
know
we're
going
to
be
throwing
a
lot
more
to
you
know.
E
Basically
we
said
hey.
We
know
we
told
you
guys
that
we
were
kind
of
winding
down
on
this,
but
new
things
happened
and
we
we
want
to
see.
If
we
can,
you
know
instead
have
the
possibility
of
throwing
more
developers
on
it.
We
got
that
we
got
that
standing
by,
but
you
know
at
some
point
you
have
to
you
know,
pull
the
trigger
or.
E
Or
release
the
hammer
right
so
yeah
exactly
so
or
cus,
you
have
to
or
cut
bait.
So
this
is,
I
think,
we
need.
We
owe
it
to
our
people
to
tell
them
whether
this
is
something
that
we
think
is
going
to
still
happen
in
a
short
amount
of
time,
which
it's
sounding
like
it's
not
or
you
know,
or
if
they
should
or
if
they
should
release
those
those
their
resources
and
then
thereby
we
kind
of
lose
the
ability
to
really
hit
the
ground
running
quite
as
much
so.
E
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
guys
that
notice,
because
what
we've
been
saying
hey
if
we,
if
we
start
obe
now
we're
set
up
so
that
we've
got
the
current
team
going,
but
we've
also
got
but
we've
also
got.
You
know
people
standing
by
to
build
all
the
power
up
and
all
the
other
pieces
that
that
we
decide
we
need
it.
F
H
E
H
And
that
just
might
be
what
causes
conflict
in
voting,
because
I
mean
take
wax.
For
example,
they
have
the
cloud
wallet,
they
don't
need
the
wallet
functionality.
So
if
the
block
explorer
pitch
is
to
include
wallet
functionality,
they
may
veto
that
it's
it's
about.
Defining
the
scope
of
all
of
these,
like
usability
tools
themselves
and
figuring
out
what
those
rf
keys
actually
look
like
and
what
the
contents
of
those
are
that'll
define
the
features
that
go
into
those
things.
So
that's
kind
of
the
only
reason
I
brought
it
up.
E
Right
as
yeah
as
I
think,
as
a
grant
on
a
case
on
a
per
feature
basis,
I
think
we
can't
think
even
imagine
going
forward
with
this,
not
adding
power
up
and
there's
certain
features
that
that
will
be
more
attractive
to
some
chains
than
others.
And
that's
you
know
just
the
way.
The
way
it
goes,
but
when
we
think
about
a
chain
when
we
think
about
this
as
a
function
that
allows
new
chains
to
spin
up
in
sort
of
any
flavor,
then
that
would
be
you
know.
E
A
So
we
we
can
look
at
that
and
jeff,
and
I
we
can
touch
base
on
and
organize
that
so
so
we
we
work
on
that
and
and
have
a
clear
picture
of
of
if
the
priority
priorities
have
changed
and
which
things
we
would
like
to
add
to
that.
So
we
will
start
that
process
so
so,
and
and
understandably,
block
explorer-
is
part
of
this
or
not
part
of
this,
depending
on
how
the
chains
vote
so
and
then
I
I
don't
think
it
it
is,
it
is.
F
A
D
What
we
need
to
define
the
terms
and
that's
what
aaron
is
saying
is
what
does
block
explorer
mean?
Yes,
and
so,
if
block
explorer
to
you
means
the
swiss
army
knife.
That
may
mean
differently
to
me.
That
may
mean
differently
to
lucas,
and
so
we
may
all
be
voting
yes
or
no
on
something
else
that
that's
not
what.
G
If
you
guys
recall,
there
were
a
couple
things
several
months
ago
that
we
didn't
have
blue
paper
definitions
really,
so
we
put
together
a
simple
one,
page
executive
summary,
because
I
think
we
realize
that
a
sentence
in
some
cases
is
good
enough.
But
in
some
cases
we
want
a
little
bit
of
scope
around
it.
That
could
be
something
that
we
do,
because
a
one-page
summary
should
not
take
us
much
time.
C
D
F
D
D
E
E
We
can
vote
on
whether
that's
our
definition
of
x,
y
or
z,
but
this
week
we
should
concentrate
on
on
what's
ahead
of
us
and
when
we
once
we
have
gotten
no
next
week,
we'll
be
able,
we
won't
have
to
you
know
we'll
be
able
to
talk
more
openly
about
some
of
these
things.
You
know
with
people
in
the
community
because
we
won't
be
hiding
the
new
branding.
G
D
Is
it?
Is
it
too
early
to
maybe
try
to
put
in
your
in
your
viral
board
kirsten
a
tentative
date
for
that
we
would
work
towards,
because
I
see
in
the
chat,
aaron
says
he'd,
also
like
a
document
template
for
this
one
pager
thing
that
we
put
a
a
date
that
we're
working
towards
to
do
this
next
prioritization
session,
whether
it
be
in,
I
don't
think
it.
It
can't
be
next
week,
but
maybe
three
weeks
and
in
four
weeks
type
of
thing
so
that
we
start
accumulating
these
one
pagers
for
those
who.
D
Yeah
yeah,
what
I'm
saying
is
so
that
we
we
work
towards
I'm
just
making
this
data
but
september
11th
of
hey.
Now,
we've
accumulated
all
of
these
extra
new
one-pagers
templates
that
people
have
filled
in
that
we'll
vote
on.
Do
we
want
to
put
a
deadline?
Is
it
too
early
to
put
a
tentative
date
towards
when
we
want
to
do
that?
Next
prioritization
exercise.
D
A
Yeah,
I
would
second
that
I
think
that's
three
three
weeks.
This
is
a
good
timing
for
people,
so
we
lose
one
lose
in
brackets.
One
thing
one
week
next
week
due
to
all
the
announcements
and
preparations
for
that,
and
then
we
we
have
two
weeks
to
draft
some
of
those
documents
to
bring
them
into
the
into
the
consideration.
I
I
would
second
that
awesome.
D
F
A
A
C
Exactly
like,
I
was
just
just
wanted
to
give
lucas
an
opportunity
to
review
the
agreement
and
suggest
any
changes.
He
said
that
it
looked
good
to
him
so
just
before
the
call
today,
so
we
sent
back
eaves
and
douglas
comments
to
our
legal
team
and
they
are
working
on
the
revision,
I'm
expecting
usually
like
they're,
pretty
quick
like
I
I'm
expecting
to
have
something
I
mean
hopefully
by
the
end
of
the
week
tomorrow,
but
certainly
probably
won't
be
later
than
monday
or
tuesday.
D
Awesome,
that's
great
yeah
and
so
the
the
challenges
that
we
that
we,
I
guess
the
reviews
or
the
feedback
that
we
gave
are
quite
quite
quite
minor.
So
I
would
think
that
once
that
comes
back,
it'll
be
relatively
quick
anyways
on
my
end,
to
approve
and
or
to
be
ready
to
even
sign
type
of
thing,
the
the
part
that
we
still
need
to
figure
out.
D
D
C
C
No,
it's
not
it's
not
like.
As
long
as
we
as
we
have
an
understanding
and
like
we
can.
We
can
essentially
like
just
have
that
that
stage
that
the
exact
details
and
push
that
in
front
of
us
a
little
bit
longer
because
we
don't
even
know
we
don't
even
have
a
timeline
or
we
haven't
discussed
even
the
creation
of
a
of
an
entity
to
to
represent
the
coalition.
C
At
some
point
it
be
maybe
a
good
idea,
and
I
know
that
also
if
we,
if
we
want
to
go
further
along
the
direction
of
the
super
token.
It
may
also
make
sense
to
to
discuss
that
at
the
same
time,
because
I
could
see
how
they
would
all
converge
together,
so
so
anyway,
so
I
think
I
think,
for
now
we
just
keep
it
open.
C
D
Sounds
good
two
things
on
that
one
is
perhaps
it
would
be
worthwhile,
then
to
be.
I
was
kind
of
the
lead
for
the
when
at
the
time
there
was
a
working
startup
group
well
before
this
coalition
was
formed.
But
when
the
other
chains,
the
other
chains
who
ultimately
didn't
join
the
coalition,
was
still
part
that
they
were
the
only
ones
in
that
subgroup.
So
basically
that's
dead.
But
if,
if
others
wanted
to
reignite
that
discussion,
we
should
probably
do
that
so
reignite.
D
That
sub
group
ultimately
be
a
new
sub
group,
because
proton,
I
believe,
was
in
there
they're
no
longer
there
and
they
were
the
only
ones.
So
if
if
people
want
to
join
that,
then
that'd
be
good
and
then
the
second
thing
on
that
is
the
discussion.
I
think
that
was.
I
didn't
really
hear
any
feedback
from
other
people,
but
this
idea
that
the
code
itself,
we
would
also
need
to
choose
what
life
which
license
it's
under.
D
My
personal
preference
is
something
along
the
lines
of,
and
I
don't
know
which
license
that
that
would
be,
but
something
that
enables
others
to
be
able
to
use,
but
that
it
requires
them
to
acknowledge
in
some
way
shape
or
form.
Having
said
that,
it's
more
symbolic
than
anything
because
likely
the
official
version,
if
they
wanted
to
be
whitelisted
and
be
part
of
you
know
the
official
bridge
that
we
somehow
maintain.
C
D
C
D
Because
you
guys
are
leading
this
the
I
mean
this
particular
project
and
right
now
the
ip's.
Currently
yours,
do
you
mind,
leading
the
leading
legal
discussions
and
I'd
like
to
be
part
of
those
of
what
the
entity
could
look
like
where
it'd
be
incorporated
and
such
can
you
create
that
channel
and
whoever
else
wants
to
be
a
part
of
that
can
can
then
join
what
pleasure.
D
C
D
A
D
I'll
make
it
very
quick,
so
douglas
aaron
and
I
met,
and
we
provided
recommendations
to
aaron
aaron
went
back
with
his
team
and
made
the
majority
of
those
changes.
Well
pretty
much
all
of
the
the
changes
and
then
sent
back
a
revised
version
to
myself
and
douglas
I
douglas.
Maybe
you
want
to
chime
in.
I
don't
know
what
feedback
you
gave
after
that.
D
I
would
prefer
not
a
time-based
milestone,
but
a
a
function
based
milestone,
which
originally
was
there
was
kind
of
removed,
but
anyways
a
little
bit
of
work
there,
and
once
that's
done,
I
I
I
would
be
good.
I
think
all
all
is
missing,
essentially,
is
not
so
much
the
the
the
content
or
so
it's
the
where
to
break
what
needs
to
where
to
break.
As
in
the
the
the
the
function
of
this
is
done.
E
E
Offline
mine
is
pretty
similar
to
yours
and
I
I
the
one
other
thing
I
want
to
express,
and
I
I
think
I
said
this
in
the
chat
is
that
instead
of
you
know
more
than
just
working
on
one
proposal,
what
we
tried
to
do
is
make
this
a
common
framework
for
future
proposals.
What
what
rates
you
know
would
what
rates
might
would
be
for
different
tiers
of
developers?
What
you
know
basically
start
to
standardize
this,
so
that
we
have
something
that
we
can
use.
E
H
A
D
G
D
And
I've
got
something
on
that
which
is
kind
of
just
a
nugget
of
interest.
I
was
at
east
toronto
futurist
conference
earlier
this
week
and
oci
was
there
and
I
met
phil
messner
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know,
phil
messner
he's,
if
not
the
first
one
of
the
first
people
that
worked
on
eosio,
so
he's
like
og
og
og,
and
he
was
saying
that
he
would
like
to
work
on
this.
He
works
for
oci
and
so
for
those
who
kind
of
like
phil
or
noah
phil.