►
Description
This week the Antelope Coalition discusses the progress made with IBC governance, Re-prioritization of top development items, smart contract tooling evolution, Instant finality and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:04 IBC governance
00:04:22 Adding new chains to the Coalition
00:05:58 Re-prioritization of top development items
00:13:14 Smart contract tooling evolution
00:35:08 Developer onboarding and development workshops
00:46:26 Instant Finality / IBC
00:48:25 Wallet SDK
00:49:50 End
The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://www.eosnetwork.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 #ENF #Web3
B
We
had
a
meeting
this
week
and
we
were
able
to
get
through
pretty
much.
Every
I
think
everything
on
our
on
our
list.
We
figured
out
how
we
would
handle
naming
conventions.
We
figured
out
broad
Strokes
of
of
how
we
would
you
know
of
how
we
would
approach
any
kind
of
problems,
and
we
we
made
ourselves
a
a
reminder
to
to
discuss
sort
of
the
emergency
binder.
You
know
procedures
down
the
road
it
doesn't
have
that
doesn't
have
to
happen
now,
but
we
do.
B
C
There
was
a
that's
everything
you
said:
yeah
and
I
also
shared
a
a
Google,
Docs
and
telegram
channel.
That
is
basically
just
outlining
some
small
changes
to
contracts
to
allow
for
freezing
in
case
of
emergencies,
hacks
bugs
whatever
so
I
have
to
implement
this
pretty
much
now,
because
it's
going
to
the
Auditors
like
they're
starting
tomorrow,
they've
been
essentially
waiting
on
us
to
to
finalize
that.
C
B
B
It'll
be
straightforward
for
the
BPS
to
M
to
do
an
M
Sig
for
that
in
the
future,
should
it
ever
be
needed,
but
we
also
discussed
more
in-depth
Solutions
like
trying
to
do
any
kind
of
circuit
breakers
or
anything
like
that
that
were
mentioned
previously,
and
we
came
to
the
the
unanimous
agreement
that
those
were
things
best.
Those
were
out
of
scope
for
the
for
what
we
were
had
had.
A
C
Naming
counts
and
we
essentially
agreed
that
the
chains
would
use
esio
IDC
as
a
a
contract
map
that
would
essentially
have
a
list
of
all
the
other
accounts
that
would
be
covered,
and
the
naming
convention
for
these
other
accounts
is
left
at
the
discretion
of
the
chain.
So
essentially
that
that
covers
everything
that
was
spending
so
we're
all
set.
A
B
Our
yes,
we
did
not
have
a
chance
to
go
over
that
our
take
was
to
prioritize
anything
that
you
know
like,
for
example,
IPC
governance
where
it
really
it
really
needs
to
happen.
I
don't
think
there.
We
we,
we
feel
much
less
priority
about
the
about
the
the
the
adding
new
chains.
Just
because
there's
nothing,
there's
no
audits
or
anything
like
that,
dependent
on
it.
So
I
would
say
it's
fine.
You
know
it's
fine.
If
that's,
if
that
is
the
most
pressing
thing
for
next
Monday,
that's
fine!
A
A
We've
re-prioritized
the
top
development
of
items
we're
now
going
to
discuss
the
rfps
as
separate
items
I
think
going
forward,
but
the
quick
update
today
is
first
of
all,
approvable
state
domains.
We've
not
had
time
to
really
develop
the
requirements
on
that
the
P2P
resend.
As
you
guys
know
that
went
out
on
Monday.
We
have
had
two
responses:
the
two
that
we
expected:
oci
and
Fudan
through
offline
Studios
with
the
ram
limitation.
A
A
D
Is
that
well
just
that
we
had
asked
Dani
and
and
the
others
Pizza
Finance
Francis
and
the
D5
box,
guys
to
come
back
with
two
one
pagers,
a
one
pager
on
the
protocol
stuff
in
a
one-pager
on
the
smart
contract
and
they
had
agreed.
They
would
do
that.
That
will
then
be
used.
Unfortunately,
Bart
will
be
gone
for
two
more
weeks,
but
that
will
be
used
by
Douglas
to
kind
of
look
at
where
he
might
want
to
recommend.
D
We
ask
for
some
reductions
in
scope
or
in
in
cost
and
I
think
you
know
we.
We
also
decided
we
would
delay
making
a
decision
if
we
were
going
to
try
to
split
it
in
half
until
we
saw
that
data
and
say
here
come
back
with.
You
know
an
estimate
and
then
have
a
separate
RFP
for
the
you
know
like
agree
to
some
amount,
that
we
would
pay
them
to
write
their
design
and
then
come
back
with
a
later
RFP
for
the
implementation
part.
D
B
Almost
exactly
I
would
say:
it's
I
believe
that
I
that
Bart
and
I
will
both
be
reviewing
that
and
Bart
brought
in
a
great
another.
Great
Point,
as
that
we
didn't
so
I
had
brought
in
I.
Had
I
had
wondered
what
the
what
the
you
know,
precedent,
smart
contracts
we
were
using
as
models
were,
going
to
be
and
and
those
weren't
defined
that
was
not
required
as
as
part
of
the
RFP
for
them
to
be
defined,
but
in
looking
into
them
it.
B
So
I
felt,
like
I,
had
a
responsibility
to
be
to
be
very
thoughtful
about
that
for
the
for
the
Coalition,
and
my
feeling
was
that,
due
probably
due
to
the
nature
of
of
this
without
a
single
you
know,
Master
contractor,
but
so
many
contractors
working
on
so
many
things
that
there
was
in
certain
areas
there
was
contingencies
upon
contingencies
and
and,
in
my
view,
there's
maybe
you
know
10
to
20
percent
over
over
cost
on
the
at
the
highest
level.
Developer
ranges
this
would
be.
B
Everything
else
you
know
to
me
seemed
pretty
straightforward
and
reasonable,
so
we
are
going
to
get
that
information
back
and
because,
because
the
request
just
to
to
help
us
know
what
was
what
contracts
they're
going
to
be
using
was
not
included,
but
is
it
good
for
us
to
know
going
in
there
if
it's?
If
it
turns
into
a
significant
amount
of
work,
we
agreed
that
it
seemed
appropriate
to
forward
some
some
costs.
You
know
some
funds
to
to
cover
those
costs.
D
So
supposedly
those
will
come
to
us
I
believe
Monday
it
they
might
be
ready
tomorrow.
The
only
issue
just
so
we're
all
aware
if
we
are
going
to
make
sure
that
Bart
is
included.
Bart
will
not
be
back
in
the
country
and
will
likely
not
be
reviewing
things
while
out
of
the
country
until
November
28th.
So
this
effectively
pauses
this
initiative
until
and
and
the
28th,
you
know,
he's
obviously
going
to
be
buried
and
digging
his
way
out
and
I
I
can't
prior
prioritize
his
work
for
him.
D
So
I
don't
know
when
he
would
be
ready
to
do
that
which
could
delay
it
even
into
obviously
into
mid.
You
know
a
week
or
two
into
December,
possibly
I'm,
not
saying
it
will,
but
November
28th
is
pretty
late
in
November,
obviously
so
Douglas.
It
would
be
your
call
if
you
felt
you
had
enough
data
to
go
forward
or
if
you
wanted
to
wait,
knowing
it
will
delay
this
initiative
and
likely
until
December
sometime
so.
B
I
will
thank
you
and
no
press
pressure.
I
will
I
will
review
that
one
I'll
make
that
determination
when
I
see
it
and
perhaps
in
you
know
a
brief
DM
or
two
with
with
Bart
I
feel
like.
We
have
it's
unfortunate
that
he's
not
going
to
be
here,
but
we
have
him
he's
such
a
powerful
resource
for
us
that
it
would
be
it
would.
A
A
D
D
So
what
what
I
I've
had
some
conversations
with
Eve,
and
so
this
would
be
something
that
if
the
Coalition
voted
down
I'd
scratch
my
head,
but
I've
scratched
my
head
before
what
is
was
kind
of
called
the
smart
contract,
tooling
Evolution
RFP
I
think
was,
was
what
was
voted
on
by
the
Coalition
we've
kind
of
looked
at
it
as
the
antler
CDT
upgrades
and
so
Bucky
is
available.
We
we
have
some
time
with
him
to
do
this.
D
So
what
we'd
like
to
do
is
say:
we'll
pull
this
we'll
pay
for
a
hundred
percent
of
it,
we're
not
asking
for
the
coalition
to
help,
because
we
don't
want
to
put
it
out
for
a
CD
for
a
RFP
because
it'll
slow
it
down
so
we'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
have
Bucky
start
working
on
it.
It's
what
it's!
What
his
PhD
is
in
by
the
way.
D
So
we
would.
We
would
agree
to
take
this
off
the
Coalition
bill
pay
for
it
ourselves.
That
way,
he
would
start
working
at
immediately
and
hopefully
it
would
be
available
in
what
we're
calling
the
Antelope
leap.
March
31st
build
I
call
it
the
March
April
release,
so
there's
a
March
April
release
coming
out
for
Antelope
leap,
and
this
would
hopefully
make
it
into
that
and
the
reason
we
want
to
pay
for
it
and
just
go
forward
is
because
the
RFP
will
make
it
where
it
won't
come
out
in
that.
D
So,
if
you
guys,
you
know
we,
obviously
you
can
vote
on
that,
but
you'd
be
voting
on.
If
you
voted,
no,
it
would
be
to
delay
it,
and
then
you
know,
write
up
stuff,
send
out
an
RFP
and
likely
Bucky
would
win
the
RFP
and
the
only
difference
would
be
you
know
we
would.
You
would
pay
30
of
it.
So
Eve
felt
that
this
was
more
or
less
like
you
guys
would
just
rubber
stamp
it
and
say.
Of
course
this
makes
sense.
D
You
get
something
better
sooner,
but
obviously
we
need
to
let
you
think
through
through.
That
is,
if
you
want
to
do
that,
we
we'd
like
to
actually
get
going
and
make
it
one
of
Bucky's
deliverables
immediately,
because
we
we've
recently
pulled
Bucky
off
another
project,
and
so
now
he
has
available
in
the
NES
staff
that
he
could
actually
drive.
This.
G
D
So
I
I
posted
a
an
antler
in
this
group
I
could
go
find
it
again.
If
you
guys
want
be
the
last
time
we
kind
of
talked
like
when,
when
we
ranked
this,
you
know
con
smart
contract
development.
Evolution
item
I
had
posted
in
the
group,
a
thing
called
antler:
it's
what
Bucky
gave
the
name
because
get
you
know
antler
of
an
antelope,
it's
the
name
he
gave
to
the
debugger.
D
You
know
the
the
online
debugger
Evolution
that
he
wants
to
lead,
that's
sort
of
what
we
thought
the
group
was
voting
on.
So
this
is
the
beginning
of
that.
It
won't
be
the
full
implementation
of
it,
but
it'll
be
the
first
release
of
it.
If
you
guys
want
I'll,
go
once
I
stop
talking
I'll
go
searching
around
through
our
EOS
Network
Foundation
Public
repos
find
his
actual.
D
You
know
write
up
on
what
antler
is,
and
it
is
the
debugger
version
that
lays
in
its
extensions
to
the
CDT.
So
that
would
be
something
we
would
get
out
earlier
and
obviously
we
would
keep
evolving
it
as
we
go,
but
we're
saying
we're
willing
to
pay
for
it
just
to
keep
Bucky
busy
on
something
he's
really
interested
in.
If
you
want
I
will
post
it
in
the
chat,
I
just
have
to
go,
find
it.
It's.
G
D
B
D
Yeah
we
it'll
it'll
be
tricky
to
get
Bucky.
We
will.
We
clearly
won't
use
it
when
we
go
out
with
many
marketing
materials
and
stuff.
It's
it's
the
way
that
we
can
get
Bucky
to
understand.
That's
the
thing
that
you
propose
Bucky,
that's
the
thing
you
can
work
on
and
we
will
will
slowly
break
the
news
to
him
that
he
needs
to
call
it
something
else
or
but
marketing
won't
go
with
a
name
that
wouldn't
make
sense.
B
B
A
D
Eve
has
voted,
yes,
I
mean
I'm
practicing
his
vote.
He
voted
yes,
he
would
like
to
do
this
and
pay
for
it
and
spare
you
guys
the
30
cost
and
get
something
sooner
rather
than
later
and
I
get
I
will
post
in
the
group.
So
you
can
read
what
Bucky
wrote
up
when
I
when
I
stopped
talking
so
there's
one
vote
in
or
do
you
guys
want
to
vote,
or
do
you
want
to
think
more
or
or
read
more
can.
E
B
Actually,
no
actually
I
do
not
want
that
I
want
ever
I
want.
I
I
truly
do
want
us
all
to
pay
to
share
the
costs.
Although
I
understand
this
this,
but
even
though
it
seemed
may
seem
counter-intuitive
and
I
am
not
the
official
voter
for
Telos
I
actually
do
think
that
we
should.
We
shouldn't
just
opt
for
everything
to
fall
on
EOS.
We
should
we
should.
We
should
share.
You
know.
Any
costs
that
are
that
are
useful
needed
costs
should
be
of
the
Coalition,
but
I
will
you
know
that's
my
point
of.
D
View
there
just
won't
be
a
fixed
bid
on
this
one,
because
without
doing
work
for
the
RFP,
like
writing
the
RFP
and
then
bidding
it
so
this
one
I
mean
it
might
come
in
a
little
high,
but
that'll
be
okay
because
you
guys
aren't
paying
for
it
because
we're
you
know.
The
only
way
we
could
do
is
be
track
time
and
material
against
it
and
then
try
to
back
charge
you
and
we
felt
that
that's
not
fair
right.
You
don't
even
know
what
you're
signing
up
for.
D
B
What
about
it
so
a
way
to
do
that
would
be
that
split.
The
difference
would
be
we.
You
know,
I,
don't
think
this
needs
a
massive
RFP.
We
could.
We
could
approve
a
budget.
You
know
approve
a
reasonable
amount
for
for
a
fixed
bid
and
then,
if
it
goes
over
then
then
EOS
could
absorb
those
costs.
What
would
you
think
about
that.
D
B
Well,
I'm
not
trying
to
make
well,
then
we
can
apply
those
to
other
things
that
we
can
figure
out,
figure
that
out
I
am
not
trying
to
make
things
more
complex
than
they
need
to
be,
but
I
do
think
that
I
do
think
that
we,
you
know
this
thing
has
been
alive
for
a
while
now
and
and
I
I.
Think
that
there's
you
know,
I
I
think
we're.
You
know
the
marriage
is
consummated,
and
so
you
know
so
we
need
to
you
know
it's
better
overall.
B
D
Of
the
things
you
should
realize
is:
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
protocol
work
happening
right
now
that
we're
not
back
charging
any
of
the
other
groups
right
so
like
most
of
the
leap,
3.2
work
and
3.1
work
was
all
done
on
the
enf
cost.
There
was
no
cost
shared
directly
into
the
Coalition
right.
So
what
we're
saying
is
hey.
We
we're
already
honestly
shouldering
most
of
the
costs,
because
it's
only
the
rfps
that
right
now
you
you
pay
the
percentage
of
so
we're
just
saying.
D
Look
we'll
pick
some
other
thing
to
share
the
costs
with
and
we'll
make
this
one
of
the
things
we're
not
sharing
the
cost
with,
like
you
know,
we're
doing
all
these
other
features
and
things.
When
you
look
at
the
3.1
release,
loot,
you
can
look
at
the
3.2
release,
notes
and
see,
like
you,
guys,
didn't
pay
for
any
of
the
stuff.
That's
in
the
3.2.
B
And
at
the
time
I
expressed
the
same
I
expressed
the
same
sentiment
so
I'm
consistent
on
that
I.
Think
I
think
that
I
think
that,
ultimately
we
should
you
know
we
should
be.
We
should
be
paying
for
those
things
I
and
that's
my
opinion,
so
I
won't
I
won't
keep
going
over
that,
but
I
think
actually
those
things
should
be
should
be
migrated
into
you
know.
Maybe
the
pet
what's
done
is
done,
but
I
think
we
should
figure
out
how
to
migrate
those
into
something
where
we
are
paying.
B
D
You
guys
want
to
take
a
vote
on
this,
because
the
thing
we
don't
want
to
do
is
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
go
to
time
and
material
billing,
and
then
we
have
to
have
Bucky
and
the
few
people
on
his
team
that
will
work
on
this
tracking
their
hours
when
they're
doing
this
versus
when
they're
closing
a
pull
request
right
now.
They'll
just
do
this
and
get
it
done
and
if
so,
if
we
tried
to
be
fair
and
I
under
and
I,
really
thank
you
Douglas
for
what
you're
proposing.
D
If
we
tried
to
be
fair
and
say
okay,
we
will
now
track
all
of
the
hours
that
Bucky's
team
does
They
Don't
Really
track
their
hours
right
now
say
unless
maybe
our
egg
did,
for
the
you
know,
IBC
or
for
the
incident
finality
project
in
general.
Bucky's
team
doesn't
do
that
and
when
you
win
a
fixed
big
contract,
you
don't
necessarily
track
your
hours
because
you're
just
agreeing
you're
going
to
get
done
whether
you
ran
over
or
whether
you
made
a
profit
on
it.
D
So
really
the
only
thing
we
can
improve
today
without
going
back
to
Eve
would
be.
Would
you
guys
be
okay
if
we
just
took
this
one,
and
maybe
we
agreed
to
push
the
next
thing
down
in
the
priority
list
into
the
RFP
process
and
have
the
Coalition
share
that
we're
just
saying
it's
it's
just
easier
for
us
and
it
allows
us
to
make
faster
speed.
If
you
let
us
just
take
this
one
now
so
that
we
can
start
progress
versus
you
know,
rfping
it,
which
would
mean
it
won't,
come
in
the
next
release.
F
F
So
it's
a
model
that
that
we
could
consider
right
where,
where
you
know,
changes
that
are
coming
out
very
quickly
and
and
if
chains
want
to
stay
up
to
date
very
quickly,
then
then
they
can
do
that.
But
you
need
to
you
need
to
be
part
of
the
team
that
contributes
right
versus
if
you,
if
you
don't
want
to
contribute,
you
want
to
get
your
stuff
for
free,
great,
but
you're
gonna
get
your
updates
six
months
or
or
maybe
longer
right.
You
need
to
you.
You
need
to
wait
for
these
key
features.
F
C
I
guess
like
because
burden
that
each
chain
pays,
and
it
would
probably
make
sense
to
try
to
as
much
as
possible
to
kind
of
try
to
include
the
the
enf
development
activities
that
have
to
do
with
with
Antelope
and
to
essentially
like
just
try
to
funnel
that
into
the
the
Coalition
as
well.
So
there's
there's
a
bit
of
work
that
needs
to
be
done
there.
C
We
would
probably
have
to
readjust
the
numbers
and
also
like
to
to
leave
some
room
for
additional
change
that
may
want
to
join,
because
that's
also
like
something.
That's
that's
on
the
on
the
back
burner.
I
guess,
but
it
will.
It
will
happen
like
there's
already
a
few
that
that
reached
out
that
that
expressed
interest.
C
So
if
we
do
a
bit
of
work
on
that
framework
and
if
we,
if
we
come
up
with
like
a
slightly
more
put
together
game
plan,
I
think
we
can
resolve
all
these
issues
in
one
Fell
Swoop
and
have
essentially
like,
like
the
the
enf,
basically
like
their
contribution,
be
recognized
and
factored
in
into
the
whole.
The
whole
framework,
basically.
D
That
that's
great
thank
you
again
and
I
do
recommend
that
all
of
you
go
and
read
the
release.
Notes
of
the
releases
and
you'll
see
the
incredible
amount
of
work
that
that
gets
pumped
into
the
core
protocol
for
each
of
these
releases.
The
3.2
release
notes
are
are
pretty
exciting
as
well,
and
you
know
that
that's
another
topic,
maybe
maybe
Jeff
you
can
add
that
topic
to
the
board.
That's
not
something
Eve
is
is
pushing
for
of
this.
D
D
That's
getting
done,
but
you
know,
obviously,
if
we,
if
we,
if
you
were
paying
literally
a
share
of
all
the
engineering
work,
there
should
probably
be
more
of
that
which
might
slow
things
down
a
little
bit.
But
it's
a
good
conversation
to
have,
and
so
maybe
Jeff
can
put
some
type
of
discussion
like
that
on
for
a
future.
A
future
call
when
Eve
can
actually
make
it
yep.
A
So
this
conversation
went
in
two
directions
simultaneously
and
One.
Direction
was
the
long-term
model
which
I've
now
added
to
our
backlog
per
several
of
your
requests
and
then
the
second
one
was
the
immediate
vote
on
this
I
think.
If
we
could
go
back
to
Jesse
and
Lucas,
do
you
guys
feel
comfortable
voting.
A
G
Yeah,
although
yes
and
throwing
the
extra
two
cents
that
sits,
you
know,
resonate
with
gnome
said
that
you
know
we
need
to
address
in
the
longer
term,
so
I'm
glad
we
have
that
in
the
backlog.
I'll
point
out.
We
have
discussed
that
before
a
few
times
what
you
know
what
I've
said
is
like
the
plan
that
exists
to
do
some
cross
training
where
we
can
enable
you
know
more
developers
to
not
not
just
understand
the
technology
and
get
that
explanation,
so
they
can
contribute,
but
also
there's
a
process
element
to
that.
G
Where
you
know
we
have,
you
know
we
have
Engineers
that
could
contribute
to
not
the
level
of
things
like
you
talk
about
Bucky
doing
with
CDT,
but
but
everything
counts
and
and
if
you
free
up,
you
know
the
easier
stuff
from
enf
Engineers,
they
can
work
on
the
harder
stuff.
You
know
we
have
people
that
could
do.
You
know
things
to
help
and
we
just
need
them.
You
know
get
a
little
bit
of
that
education
and
then
just
get
formally
like
brought
into
the
fold
of
the
process.
So
they
can.
D
A
couple
of
things
there
if
I
may,
first
of
all,
we
do
hold
a
meeting
where
we're
kind
of
going
through
the
backlog
and
grooming
the
backlog
and
then
seeing
how
things
are
going
we're
doing
this
in
two
week,
Sprints
we're
well,
we
welcome
anyone
from
you
know:
Telos
wax
or
ux
network
to
join
those
calls
a
second
item
and
Jeff
I.
Don't
know
where
we
put
this
one
I'm.
Sorry
there
was
an
education
thing
that
I
just
didn't,
have,
updates
and
I
didn't,
have
updates
and
I.
D
D
D
For
any
of
you
that
know
who
Phil
mesnier
is
he's
one
of
the
early
members
of
oci
oci
is
our
number
one
partner.
That
kind
of
helps
build
a
lot
of
this
stuff
other
than
our
own
development
team.
They
have
agreed
to
build
a
training
program.
We
have
the
outline
of
the
training
program
written
by
Phil.
Masnier
Phil
was
one
of
the
original
Engineers
that
was
on
eosio
at
at
block
one
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
why
he
rolled
off
the
account,
but
he
is
a
partner
level
person
at
oci
very
senior
there.
D
D
The
way
they
came
up
with
the
payment
model
that
maybe
he
could
get
something
in
December
I
think
that's
kind
of
pushing
it
like
the
mid-December
is
in
a
well
the
I
mean,
maybe
maybe
mid-December,
but
then
everybody
kind
of
goes
away
for
the
end
of
December,
but
so
I'm
thinking
January
is
real
I'm
happy
to
afford
the
outline.
It's
not
the
whole
training
program,
but
it's
the
outline
of
the
training
program.
D
Obviously,
if
we
wanted
to
give
feedback,
I've
gotten
their
agreement
that
they
would
allow
ux,
Network
folks
through
and
I
think
possibly
and
I
I
that
was
long
ago,
so
Guillen,
please
don't
worry,
I
wasn't
bringing
you
up
in
the
last
call
after
you
and
I
talked
I've
left
you
kind
of
out
of
it,
but
the
goal
was
that
we're
gonna
put.
We
have
five
new
Engineers
that
don't
really
understand
the
core
protocol,
other
than
learning
from
Matt
Bucky
and
arig
Etc.
D
So
we're
we're
going
to
put
those
five
Engineers
through
it.
Oci's
goal
is
to
have
more
engineers,
and
so
they
might
even
put
some
training
through
what
they
want
is
for
us
to
pay.
The
training
of
their
engineers
to
go
through
is
how
they
will
then
allow
our
Engineers
to
kind
of
go
through
for
free
but
the,
but
once
the
engineers
are
trained
up
on
their
side,
we
have
to
then
hire
the
engineer.
D
Even
though
we
paid
for
them
to
with
a
partial
discount
to
go
through
the
training,
then
we
agreed
to
have
them
work.
You
know,
as
consultants
I
think
we're
employing
about
on
the
equivalent
of
about
five
Engineers
full-time
from
oci
right
now
as
well.
So
you
know
I
think
Guillaume.
You
were
kind
of
hinting
that
you
might
start
to
hire
a
few
oci
people.
Obviously
they
have
this
training
program.
If
you
paid
to
push
them
through
the
training,
then
they
train
your
other
Engineers
kind
of
for
free.
D
You
have
to
pay
for
the
trainer
and
stuff
like
that,
but
you're
not
paying
you
know,
you're,
not
paying
per
person
you're
just
paying
the
hour
that
their
trainer
does
of
the
the
training
or
the
whatever
we're,
not
sure
we're
going
to
land
on
that
model.
I
have
to
kind
of
prove
it
out
to
Eve
Bart
loved
it
Bart's
very
supportive.
D
So
Bart
and
I
believe
we're
going
to
get
Eve
to
agreed
to
training
like
yes,
we'll
do
that,
whether
we
go
with
a
completely
different
and
revenue
model,
where
we
say
look,
we
don't
want
to
pay
your
people
to
go
through
training,
we'll
pay
if
we
hire
them,
but
we'll
pay
some
other
fee
per
training
and
it's
about
a
five
six
week:
training
program
per
person.
So
typically
many
of
you
seen
you
know
real
high-end
tech
training
like
when
you
go
off
to
you
know.
D
Back
in
the
day
when
I
was
younger,
I
went
out
to
tech
training
at
Sun,
Sun
Microsystems,
and
for
those
of
you
that
remember
that
company
ever
existed
and-
and
it
was
like
you
know-
between
1500
and
4
000
a
week,
so
you
can
kind
of
see
like
there's
a
precedent
set
for
kind
of
training.
Obviously,
today
you
can
get
on
lynda.com
or
whatever
I
guess
that
was
bought
by
LinkedIn.
You
can
get
on
to
foodami.com
and
you
can
find
a
course.
D
D
If
we
pay
per
person,
we
train
versus
the
model
they're
proposing
where
we
kind
of
pay
for
their
people
to
get
trained,
and
then
we
only
pay
the
trainer
to
put
our
people
through
and
if
you're
planning
on
hiring
a
bunch
of
people,
you
know
that
that
actually
can
work
out
to
be
more
cost
effective
for
you,
because
I
mean
you're,
hiring
a
bunch
of
employees
versus
hiring
two
or
three
oci
people.
Eventually,
you're
it'll
work
out
as
a
savings.
D
So
in
nowhere
is
there
an
upfront
fee
to
pay
for
the
work
Phil
mesnier
did,
which
is
was
interesting
to
me.
They
did
not
want
to
feed
the
so.
The
nice
thing
Jesse
is
you
guys
do
have
really
good
technical
people
and
if
they
wanted
to
learn
core
protocol,
they
could
work
through
some
type
of
process
like
this.
Now,
if
you
don't
plan
to
hire
any
oci
contractors,
that's
where
they'd
have
to
flip
their
model.
D
A
bit
and
say
We'll
charge
you
n
dollars
per
week
of
the
six
week
program
to
put
your
people
through
it
or
something,
but
at
least
what's
going
to
happen
is
there
is
going
to
be
a
core
protocol
level
training
program
that
you
know
Bart
will
sign
off
on
the
technical
merits
of
it.
We'll
continue
to
work
with
them
to
tune
it.
Kevin,
Kevin,
Hefner,
who's,
very,
very
sharp
and
been
with
block
one
from
the
very
beginning
of
of
the
launch,
we'll
be
driving
a
lot
of
the
material
with
with
Phil
messnia.
D
So
we
all
have
an
opinion.
It
will
be
a
very
good
program
and
it'll
just
come
down
to
if
you're
hiring
us
CI
people
that's
their
model
on
how
you'll
kind
of
pay
for
it,
if
you're
not
hiring
them
like
possibly
Telos,
may
not
elect
to
hire
some,
then
in
that
case
there
would
have
to
be
another
model
that
would
let
in,
but
we,
as
representative
of
the
Coalition
will
ensure
tell
us
if
you
want
to
have
access
that
will
find
a
way
that
you
can
have
access.
B
Is
there
any
chance
that
a
yeah,
so
I
know
that
this
is
a
high-end
Hands-On
multi-week
training
program
which
sounds
fantastic?
Is
there
any
chance
that
that,
at
some
point,
this
will
be
recorded,
as
you
know,
as
the
the
any
kind
of
video
calls
or
anything
that
people
can
do
as
a
self-directed?
Obviously
it
won't
come
with
the
same
guarantees
or
or
Hands-On
content
or
anything,
but
just
to
Doc.
D
D
Most,
it's
not
self-directed.
It's
like
you
have
this
objective
to
you.
The
person
is
thought
of
as
being
in
training
for
that
week.
So
you
know
basically,
when
they're
moving
through
the
program,
you're
like
okay,
we're
you're
gonna,
take
the
next
five
weeks
and
go
to
training,
and
so
in
week
one
it's
like
you
need
to
have
these
objectives,
and
so
at
the
end
of
week
one
the
instructor
says:
okay,
now
we're
gonna
have
you,
you
know,
take
this
this
test
and
then
they
look
at
the
test
and
say
yep.
D
You
learn
the
concepts
in
week,
one
or
no
you're
still
a
little
weak
here
you
might
have
to
have
you
kind
of
you
know
bone
up
on
some
stuff
and
then
week
two
goes
the
same
way.
There'll
be
some
videos
that
they
watch
there'll
be
some
materials
that
they
read
there'll
be
exercises
that
they
do
like.
You
know,
pull
a
pull
request
on
this.
You
know
make
a
modification
that
would
allowed
to
do
that.
That
shows
that
yeah
they
under
they
learn
how
P2P
networking
works
person.
D
They
actually
could
fix
a
bug
or
they
could
look
at
something
or
could
make
an
enhancement.
So
it
is
Hands-On
from
the
standpoint
that
the
developer
is
actually
having
to
read
the
source
code.
Read
the
training
materials
watch
the
videos
and
take
exams,
but
they're
only
kind
of
dealing
with
the
instructor
to
kind
of
learn
like
here's.
What
week
one
is
this
you're
supposed
to
read
these
separate
documents?
D
But
it's
not
like
it's
not
like
if
you've
done
a
demi
or
Linda
or
something
like
that
and
you're
just
sitting
there
turning
the
video
on
and
off
when
you
want-
and
it's
not
meant
to
be
like
part-time
training.
They
believe
they
have.
This
set
up
where,
if
the
person
is
dedicated
for
that
week,
they
should
have
made
this
much
progress
in
a
week
and
if
they
didn't
make
enough
progress.
This
is
how
they'll
also
weed
out
people
of
their
own
that
they're
realizing
this
person
we're
not
going
to
give
this
person
to
the
enf.
D
If,
after
week,
two
or
three,
they
consistently
can't
get
the
material
done
and
pass
the
exam
by
the
end
of
the
week,
they
find
you
know
other
other
projects
for
them
to
work
on,
because
they
know
you
know.
Bucky
and
Aragon.
Matt
and
Bart
are
very
Discerning
as
to
whether
a
person
can
really
pull
their
own
weight
or
not.
D
D
B
A
A
C
Yep
so
this
week,
essentially
working
on
the
just
the
final
items
for
the
the
release
of
IBC
I
mean
the
pre-audit
so
working
on
the
yes
iuibc
contract,
as
well
as
the
the
changes
that
we
discussed
last
week
and
earlier
this
week
on
Monday,
so
that
that's
that's
all
good.
We're
still
still
waiting
on
more
feedback
from
various
teams
that
have
been
working
on
the
on
the
IPC
server,
IBC
proof
server.
C
So
so
far,
yes,
nation
is
the
only
one
that
really
responded,
and
that
has
been
putting
some
time
in
there.
Everything
is
is
going
well,
there
I
think
I
think
Dennis
was
was
gonna,
make
a
final
look
and
try
to
deploy
the
entire
solution
and
confirm
everything
is
working,
but
that
should
be
done
quite
quite
quite
soon.
C
E
C
Did
make
some
progress
there,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
he's
he
basically
approves
the
direction
that
we're
taking
so
as
soon
as
he
gets
back
to
us,
we'll
essentially
have
a
a
pretty
good
game
plan
for
the
first
part
of
it,
so
that
should
also
be
happening
quite
quite
soon.
So
I'll
keep
I'll,
keep
you
guys
in
the
loop
for
more
items,
but
yeah.
It's
been.
G
E
Regarding
the
sdks-
and
this
is
the
point
where
we
can
finally
stop
hiding
things
and
just
do
everything
transparently
so
should
be
cool,
we're
excited
about
it.
There'll
be
some
pretty
things
to
look
at
and
then
we'll
be
diving
straight
back
into
code,
probably
for
the
next
nine
months
or
whatever.