►
Description
This week the Antelope Coalition discusses the progress made with P2P Peer Discovery, Antler CDT, Ledger support, adding new chains to the coalition, Secure Smart Contract Library RFP, and more!
00:00:00 Start
00:00:03 P2P Peer Discovery
00:03:34 Antler CDT
00:05:00 Milestone payment for SDK
00:06:40 Ledger app support update
00:08:26 Trezor hardware support update
00:09:59 Adding new chains to the coalition
00:12:23 Secure Smart Contract Library
00:17:42 RAM issues for research RFP
00:41:32 EOS Nation solution spreadsheet
01:43:45 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 #EOSIO #Web3
A
A
A
A
The
purpose
of
this
is:
if
we
go
through
each
of
the
proposals,
we
look
at
their
requirements
and
we
say:
oh
okay,
this
requirement
feels
like
they
really
did
a
great
job,
we'll
give
them
a
four
on
that
this
one
they
didn't
hit
it
all,
so
we're
gonna
give
them
a
one.
Just
kind
of
it
kind
of
gives
us
a
blush
overview.
A
It's
not
overly
complicated
and
again,
if
one
team
scores
more
than
the
other.
That
gives
you
information,
because
the
one
with
the
higher
score
also
might
have
the
higher
price
and
the
lowest
prices
you
guys
know
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
the
best.
There's
a
lot
of
factors
you
guys
will
work
through,
so
I
thought
I'd
throw
this
out
as
a
as
a
possibility.
A
B
I,
like
this,
it's
extra
data,
it
doesn't
even
mean
that
we
select
based
on
them,
but
it's
extra
data.
It
gives
a
starting
point
for
people
to
review,
because
my
first
question
what
you
mentioned
we
have
a
week
after
December
5th
is
it's
extremely
short,
so
anything
to
be
able
to
kind
of
facilitate
that
process.
I'm
in
support
of
this
is
cool.
First
time,
I
see
it
I
like
it.
E
A
A
A
A
G
Well,
I
think,
last
week
we
voted
and
said.
Yes,
everyone
was
okay,
that
we
would.
You
know
that
the
enf
would
build
it
because
it
made
it
where
we
could
get
Bucky
on
it
right
away.
There
are
three
items
now
Guillaume
joined
us
this
week
on
the
the
the
planning
session.
There
are
three
CDT
items
that
are
in
they're,
looking
to
go
into
the
March
31st
release
and
we're
still
doing
you
know
with
your
team,
we're
doing
the
sizing
to
try
to
make
sure
they
all
squeeze
in
there
crop
properly.
G
G
D
B
B
B
So
we
would
be
using
active
unless
there's
a
for
some
reason:
stance,
still
the
the
Coalition
disbands
and
now
we
we
have
these
liabilities,
then
we'd
be
able
to
kind
of
as
a
fallback.
So
everything
is
agreed
to
everything
was
good.
Saul
proposed
that
M6,
so
that
the
funds
can
be
transferred
and
essentially
the
funds
earmarked
for
web
client
SDK
are
going
to
be
sitting
in
that
account
instead
of
the
current
treasury,
which
is
the
same
permission
set
as
the
current
Treasury.
So
I'll
close
the
loop
on
that.
Thank
you.
G
F
C
G
He
yeah
I'll
read
you
a
status.
If
you
guys
want
to
hear
one,
it's,
maybe
not
what
you're
expecting
good
news?
We
will
be
able
to
fix
the
issues
raised
by
scan,
build
and
rerun
the
testing
to
validate
correctness.
I
expect
we'll
be
completely
fixes
by
Tuesday
November
15th.
The
date
is
an
estimate
subject
to
change.
We
found
issues
during
the
testing
may
have
difficult
performing
the
tests.
Can
you
confirm
the
steps
that
we
need
to
take
to
upgrade
U.S
Ledger,
et
cetera,
Etc?
G
G
D
A
A
A
B
And
I
don't
know
Jeff
if
you
want
to
add
something
to
that
agenda,
but
I
have
somebody
that
reached
out
I'm,
not
convinced
that
they
want
to
join
the
Coalition,
but
they
seem
to
want
to
be
able
to
have
their
logo,
perhaps
posted
on
the
antelope
website,
because
they
use
antelope
so
anyways
not
to
discuss
here,
but
I
I
want
to
discuss
it
next
Monday.
If
we
have
that
discussion,
what
are
we
doing
with
that
type
of
request.
F
A
A
A
All
right
good
flying
through
these
all
right,
secure,
smart
contract,
Library
the
so
thank
you
to
Ted
and
Douglas.
They
reviewed,
negotiated
down
the
price
a
little
bit
and
agreed
to
the
final
settlement.
Contract
is
being
drafted
right
now.
It
is
almost
done.
What
I
will
do
is
as
soon
as
we
have
that
contract
again,
just
for
a
second
set
of
eyes,
I'll
make
sure
Ted
you
can
look
at
it
Douglas!
You
can
look
at
it,
make
sure
that
we've
got
the
price
negotiations
as
expected.
B
E
E
B
Or
my
impression
was
that
you
and
Ted
or
whoever
but
I,
think
it
was
using
Ted
were
going
in
to
lead
the
negotiations
and
then
you
come
back
to
the
table
and
say
Here's
what
essentially
we've
negotiated
with
them,
but
we
still
need
kind
of
a
final
I.
Don't
even
know
what
the
total
cost
is,
for
example,
so
I
I
thought
we
would
then
review
knowing
that
two
people
were
sent
in
to
negotiate
and
then
but
then
take
a
formal
vote
on
whether
or
not
we
actually
agree
with
it.
E
E
B
The
numbers
we
can
do
the
vote
right
now:
I
guess
that's
what
we
did
for
sdks
for
instant
finale
and
such
so
I
would
I
would
still
do
that.
I
guess
one
thing
is:
do
the
does
the
team
believe
that
they've
already
won
the
bid?
Because,
if
that's
the
case,
then
we
need
to
maybe
clean
that
up
next
time,
but
if
they
don't,
then
there's
no
issues
there.
A
Yeah
I'm
and
honestly
I
think
this
is
my
mistake.
I
might
have
said
I'm
pretty
sure
I
said:
okay.
The
next
step
is
we'll
kind
of
go
through
contract
negotiations.
You
know
like
I
mean
because
I
was
talking
to
Denny
and
we've
You
know.
Denise
knows
our
process
with
that
as
well.
I
think
D5,
box
and
and
pizza
was
on
the
phone
as
well.
A
So
that
certainly
is
big
enough,
where
my
mistake
is
still
allows
for
us
to
have
that
final
review
and
vote
on
it.
What
I
can
do
is,
after
this
call
go
get
that
document
together
posted
on
the
Coalition
Channel
and
if
you
guys
review-
and
if
you
think
it's
okay,
that's
fine.
If
not,
if
there's
follow-up
questions,
then
we
can
make
a
plan
for
that
right
when
we
can
get
back
together
and
talk
about
it
is.
B
A
A
A
B
B
So
when
I
look
at
the
business
requirements
here
from
my
point
of
view,
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
it
is
to
find
out
what's
wrong,
but
there's
no
business
requirement
in
there.
The
way
you
read
it
that
tells
me
and
then
to
present
Solutions
specific
solutions
to
address.
What's
wrong,
it's
a
little
bit
more
in
the
technical
requirements,
but
not
really
in
the
business
requirements.
So
I
don't
know
if
a
BR4
needs
to
be
added
and
then
the
overall
feeling
as
well
with
some
of
this.
B
B
I
want
to
ensure
as
well
that
those
solutions
that
are
being
presented
as
a
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
business
requirement
or
a
technical
requirement,
but
that
is
something
that's
feasible,
because
what
I
could
foresee
is
somebody
comes
back
and
says:
well,
yeah
you
can
read
re-architecture
and
your
your
protocol
to
make
it
that
you,
you
no
longer
have
those
issues
and
I'm
thinking,
for
example,
of
a
a
PSI
base,
listen
to
cybase,
but
that's
not
realistic.
We
can't
upgrade
we.
B
We
need
to
basically
shut
down,
it's
a
hard
fork
and
it's
even
more
of
a
hard
Fork
I
think
it
requires,
even
more
of
that.
So
I
would
like
to
have
a
business
requirement
or
a
technical
requirement,
I'm
not
sure
where
it
fits.
That
specifically
mentions
that
the
upgrades
and
the
solutions
proposed
need
to
be
compatible
with
actual
antelope,
so
that
we're
not
off
on
all
right,
we're
scrapping
envelope
and
starting
from
scratch
with
something
else.
B
B
B
It
short
yeah,
yeah
or
yes,
I,
understand
that,
because
this
is
so
big
it
will
likely
require
hard
fork
and
or
some
type
of
sick
system,
contract
upgrades
or
whatever
it
may
be,
but
that
the
premise
is
yes,
it
needs
to
to
be
built
off
of
antelope,
not
replace
antelope
and
then
I
guess.
The
first
part
is
in
I.
Guess,
that's,
maybe
more
of
the
business
requirements
is
that
Solutions
need
to
be
presented.
Not
just
here
are
the
problems.
We
have
a
pretty
good
idea
of
what
the
problems
are.
B
B
Because
part
of
the
idea
is
we
don't
know
what
the
potential
solution
can
be.
That's
why
we're
doing
research
so
I,
don't
want
to
say.
The
solution
needs
to
address,
for
example,
needs
to
discuss
solid
state
drives,
maybe
there's
a
solution
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
that.
That
is
actually
found
and
viable
and
I'm
making
this
up,
but
just
looking
at
tr5,
for
example,.
B
D
D
Making
it
clear
that
whatever
Solutions
are
presented
are
not
you
know,
out
of
the
left
field,
where
it's
like,
okay,
build
a
new
blockchain
right.
That's
that's
not
a
solution.
It's
not
a
solution
exactly
it
has
to
be.
It
has
to
be
framed
within
the
antelope
framework
and,
ideally
something
that
doesn't
require.
You
know
some
crazy
upgrade
where
you
have
to
you
know
just
be
down
for
days
right.
B
I
guess
VR4
what
you
just
I'm,
guessing
Jeff
that
you're
the
one
that
wrote
this
I
think
addresses
my
first
comments:
I'm,
good
and
tr-10
that
you
added,
maybe
that
can
be
rewarded
slightly
like,
must
be
compatible
with
or
must
build,
build
off
of
or
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
proper
language
is
there,
but
that's
kind
of
the
general
idea.
Yes,.
B
B
That
will
essentially
create
a
new
blockchain
in
order
to
solve
your
solution
and
then
well,
yeah
sure
I'm,
building
off
of
antelope,
but
now
you're
bound
by
my
token.
So
it
can't
be
something
that
locks
Us
in
another
project.
Somehow
it
needs
to
be
open
source.
It
needs
to
be
built
off
of
antelope.
C
B
F
D
D
F
Maybe
the
wording
should
be
some
along
the
lines
of
that.
The
solution
needs
to
have
a
clear,
a
clear
and
kind
of
the
right
word,
but
a
clear
upgrade
path
for
the
four
Coalition
chains,
because
you
also
need
to
consider
between
you
know,
I.
Think
all
four
of
us.
We
have
the
unique
resource
models
right
like
EOS
is
power,
propeller
says
racks,
I,
don't
think
wax
has
racks.
I
think
ux
has
I,
am.
D
F
E
F
B
F
B
C
C
Well,
I
mean
yeah,
I,
think
I,
think
I
think
it's
having
you
know
like
a
new
resource
made
available
is
okay,
but
what
is
probably
outside
of
the
scope
would
be
to
make
assumption
about
the
academic
relationship
between
that
new
resource
and
the
existing
economic
relationships
that
already
exist
between.
You
know
the
token
and
the
other
resources,
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
like
it's
basically
like
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
it
should
be
a
technical
solution
and
not
a
economic
or
social
or.
B
E
F
D
D
F
This
stuff
has
to
go
somewhere,
but
if
it
means
you
need
to
spin
up
a
whole
new
like
side
chain,
you
know
liquid
apps
Network,
that
not
all
block
producers
are
going
to
run
and
there's
a
whole
new
level
of
trust
like
to
me
that
probably
wouldn't
necessarily
solve
it,
but
maybe
I
don't
know.
Maybe
if
people
disagree,
if
it's
not.
G
D
B
Well,
maybe
that's
what
we
say:
Lucas,
maybe
we
say
it
needs
to
be
part
of
node
OS.
It
needs
to
be
part
of
system
contracts.
It
needs
to
be
at
the
protocol
level.
That
makes
sense
and
very
much
agree
with
what
you
said
Jesse
in
the
sense
of,
of
course,
if
we're
expanding
the
capacity
and
capability
of
the
network,
that
means
yes,
inevitably,
the
cons,
the
the
the
validators
may
need
to
buy
more
Hardware
in
order
to
be
able
to
accommodate
that.
But
it's
still
the
same
validators.
It's
not
a
new
consensus
mechanism,
foreign.
B
F
E
B
So
if
we
go
to
tr12
that
must
provide
you
a
clear
upgrade
that
we're
not
that
we
say
you
know,
then
that
upgrade
must
occur
within
a
certain
time
frame
like
12
months
or
eight
months
or
whatever
it
is,
or
no,
it
doesn't
matter,
because
the
reason
why
I'm
thinking
of
this
is
this
is
really
important
for
wax.
So
do
we
make
it
a
requirement
that
whatever
is
being
presented?
Not
only
does
it
need
to
be
strong,
it
needs
to
be
something
that's
achievable
within
a
relatively
manageable
amount
of
time.
C
Right
but
I
mean
it's
because
I
think
I
think
here
it's
more
like
we're,
we're
building
this
RFP
to
get
material
that
will
be
essentially
used
in
drafting
further
rfps.
Like
probably
like,
let's
say,
let's
say
we
publish
this
one,
someone
responds
they
produce
some
sort
of
research,
they
say:
okay,
like
here's,
a
bunch
of
different
solutions,
yeah
and
and
then
like,
and
then
other
people
would
probably
bid
on
these
Solutions,
and
they
would
then
propose
timelines
and.
E
You
yeah
sure
so
with
if,
with
with
IBC
and
and
instant
Fidelity,
we
knew
what
what
it
was
that
was
being
done,
and
so
those
those
could
be
created.
We
we
have
to
remember
that
this
is
a
challenging.
It's
a
very
challenging
proposal
and
I,
don't
think
we
can
just
mandate
that
it
be
done
in
some
period
of
time.
You
know
like
I,
don't
know
that
they're
that
there
are
any
Clear
Solutions
that
are
you
know
for
what
we're,
what
we're
trying
to
do
so.
C
But
we
can,
we
can
add
in
there
that
you
know
like
those
Solutions
should
be.
You
know
like
commercially
reasonable
to
undertake
in
a
short
period
of
time
and
then
like
but
I,
don't
know
exactly
the
language,
but
we're
essentially
looking
for
something
that
won't
take
like
three
years.
You
know
like
we're
looking
for
something
that's
going
to
be
reasonable
to
undertake,
and
it's
not
just
like
a
this
big
moonshot
type
of
thing.
There.
D
Right
I
see
a
couple
different
buckets
right,
so
so
maybe
maybe
we
we
also
ask
for
solutions
to
be
categorized.
Within
These,
different
buckets
like
so
bucket
number
one
is
short-term
resources,
maybe
that
but
I'm
thinking
more
about
like
okay,
so
the
question
of
account
being
represented
on
Antelope
and
how
resource
allocation
fits
into
that
right,
specifically
rum
so
account
is,
is
one
bucket,
then
you
know
node,
processing,
information
and
and
how
how
the
block
producer
is
able
to.
Actually
you
know,
validate
transactions
and
and
then
process.
D
What's
coming,
you
know
right
now
everything
has
to
sit
in
memory
right.
So
that's
another
bucket
in
terms
of
like
you
know
how
how
the
node
software
is
is
structured
and
then,
and
then
the
third
pocket
could
be.
You
know
this.
This
mutable
immutable
data
and
how
smart
contracts
address
it
right
that
that
could
lead
into
like
this
third
or
fourth
type
of
resource.
A
Two
reasons,
one
that
will
increase
the
cost
of
this
RFP
because
then
they're
going
to
have
to
scope
everything
relatively
well
enough
to
be
accurate
and
we
might
not
even
pick
all
of
the
items
right
they've.
They
might
come
back
with
14
items
and
we
only
want
three
of
them
or
five
of
them,
but
we've
paid
for
them
to
scope,
seven
additional
ones.
Second
of
all.
If
if
we
take
those
five,
we
want
and
then
we're
putting
them
out
as
RFP
again
we're
using
the
marketplace
to
drive
down
those
costs
a
little
bit.
A
So
you
know
if
two
companies
bid,
we
want
to
see
an
unbiased
view
initially
of
how
long
they
think
it's
going
to
take.
But
if
we
already
have
how
long
we
think
it's
going
to
take
before
the
put
that
second
round
of
rfps
out,
then
you
know,
somebody's
like
oh
I-
could
have
done
this
in
like
three
weeks,
but
we
said
it
was
going
to
take
four
months.
They're
going
to
come
back
with
like
three
months,
they'll
be
like
oh
we're
doing
a
discount
right,
see
what
I'm
getting
at.
E
A
Yeah
and
we
don't
have
to
do
a
one-to-one,
so
if
somebody
comes
back
with
an
idea
that
we
believe
is
monolithic,
it
might
be
a
good
idea,
but
could
be
broken
into
like
six
parts.
Well,
when
we
put
the
second
round
of
rfps
out,
we
can
break
it
into
six
parts
like
we
don't
have
to
have
people
bid
on
the
the
monolith.
C
C
E
I'll,
take
that
as
a
yes,
so
I
would
like
to
see.
I
would
like
to
have
some
documentation
of
any
approaches
that
they
spent
any
any
amount
of
time
on.
You
know
any
significant
amount
of
time
on
and
then
rejected
and
a
reason
why
so,
because
I'm
concerned
that
we,
you
know,
we
we
don't
want
to
keep
sort
of
chasing
the
same.
You
know
cold
fusion
crap.
F
B
E
A
A
F
C
E
A
I
got
it
all
right.
Let
me
pull
this
up
and
my
monitor's
doing
weird
things
so
I'm
going
to
share
it.
This
way,
all
right.
So
what
what
was
discussed
is
the
type
of
hours
used
in
design
and
in
architecture
were
reduced
and
that's
where
the
cost
overall
cost
reduction
is
found.
You
can
see
it's
a
28
480
less
at
this
adjusted
cost
and
then
the
rest
of
this
was
untouched
and
if
I
bring
over
this
other
spreadsheet,
you
guys
see
the
spreadsheet.
B
E
So
again,
in
in
asking
and
coming
back
to
them
and
asking
for
a
revised
proposal,
we
said:
don't
worry
about,
don't
worry
about
the
prices
we're
going
to
keep.
We
want
to
keep
those
standardized.
It's
just
about
the
hours
and
in
my,
in
my
view,
the
the
contingency
on
contingency
was
concentrated
in
in
those
those
areas
which
are
also
the
Hyatts.
E
The
320
an
hour
rate,
so
I
I
didn't
want
to
I,
didn't
want
to
create
a
big
hassle
that
I
felt
would
have
diminishing
returns
in
in
moving
this
forward
and
I
think
we
wanted.
We
were
pretty
good
with
it.
We
wanted
to
move
it
forward.
We
wanted
to
push
back
on
price
with
good
reason,
but
I
I
also
considered
it
as
sort
of
an
unstated
mandate
that
I
that
we
not
turn
this
into
an
overly
complex
over
the
context
bidding
process
and
Eve.
E
A
So
what
you
saw
you
can
see
I
put
a
sum
function
in
so
this
is
the
total
function
for
all
parts.
This
includes
the
requirements
that
all
four
groups
are
splitting
up
and
the
requirements
that
the
one
group
is
doing
separately.
We've
explained
to
them
that
there's
going
to
be
one
contact
for
the
contract,
there'll
be
one
contract
that
goes
out,
so
this
is
now
fully
inclusive.
It's
the
485
14.
B
A
Are
we
looking
at
the
right
thing?
Good
point?
So
no,
it
is
the
correct
thing.
They
gave
us
a
spreadsheet
that
had
two
dimensions
on
the
hours.
One
was
by
the
roll
or
task,
which
is
what
you
were
looking
on
the
other
sheet
so
and
this
one
is
by
requirements.
The
reason
why
they
had
things
discounted
on
the
roller
task
was
because
we
were
asking
for
a
discount
on
the
hours
for
architecture,
and
so
they
pulled
that
essentially
out
of
multiple
requirements
by
just
discounting
the
overall
amount
of
time
spent
on
that.
B
Got
it
and
then
what
you
were
saying
Douglas
is
that
basically,
that
I
guess
the
two
previous
lines
that
were
in
yellow
those
were
the
areas
that
were
targeted
because
they
were
higher
amount
of
hours
and
the
highest
rate
per
hour
was
the
same
exercise
done
for
the
others
as
well
or
the
others,
in
your
opinion,
reflected
an
accurate
amount
of
cost
per
hour
and
rough
number
of
hours.
In
your
best
opinion
to
do
those
tasks,
yeah.
E
It's
a
little
backwards
from
that
they
were
the
ones
that
I
asked
them
to
review,
primarily
because
I
thought
that's
where
the
most
padding
was
it,
but
it
also.
They
also
corresponded
to
the
highest
rates
and
therefore
it
seemed
like
the
best
place
to
attack.
I
didn't
dig
into
other
things.
It
seemed
like
a
you
know
given,
given
that
we
we
do,
intend
a
certain
amount
of
padding
or
you
know
contingency,
because
you
know
we're
asking
for
a
firm
bid
and
all
the
all
the
things
that
that
entails.
E
E
A
F
B
So
this
stemmed
out
of
the
idea
in
audit
plus
blue
paper
right,
the
secure
smart
contract
libraries,
so
the
secure
smart
contract
libraries
in
the
blue
paper,
which
were
very
very
rough
in
terms
of
General
timeline,
had
a
total
estimated
cost
of
170
000.
So
we're
looking
at
roughly
three
times
a
little
over
three
times.
B
E
You
know
that
I
expected
they
would
be
just
because
they
were
the
most
they're,
the
ones.
Anyone
any
knowledgeable
person
would
expect.
They'd
be
so
I
I
didn't
I.
Don't
I
did
not
compare
these
back
to
the
back
to
the
blue
paper.
I
I
dealt
with
what
was
in
front
of
me,
and
nothing
that
was
in
front
of
me
seemed
that
it
was
that
it
was,
is
the
out
the
number
of
hours
we're
being
proposed
were
were
out
of
touch
with.
B
And
to
confirm
what
we
get
out
of
this
or
what
the
Coalition
gets
out
of.
This
is
a
series
of
smart
contracts
that
replicates
building
blocks
in
the
defy
space.
Correct,
so
it'd
be
like
here's,
a
here's,
an
audited
template
that
you
can
use
for
I,
don't
know
building
something
like
a
vault.
Here's
a
smart
con!
Here's
a
smart
contract
template
that's
been
audited
that
you
can
use
for
something
like
curve
Etc,
the
ones
that
you
just
mentioned
correct,
like.
E
That
yeah
yeah
there's
five
of
them,
yep,
okay,
and
so
one
thing
I
didn't
do,
though,
is
I
did
I
assessed.
This
I
felt
that
my
I
was
tasked
with
assessing
this
based
on
the
reasonable
reasonability
of
of
what
was
proposed
in
terms
of
costs
and
and
basically
times
for
the
tasks
laid
out.
What
I
did
what
I
didn't
factor
in
in
any
in
any
way
shape
or
form,
was
whether
the
overall
cost
was
was
going
to
be.
E
You
know
how
to
had
a
good
cost
benefit
return
for
for
Antelope
and,
in
fact,
I
I
looking
at
it
on
the
face
of
it.
I
personally
would
think
that
that
half
a
million
dollars
for
for
these
is
a
lot
so
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
I
mean
just
in
terms
of
I,
understand
how
they
got
there.
These
numbers
I,
don't
think
it's
unreasonable
how
they
got
these
numbers.
E
Given
what
the
what
was
asked
for
in
the
proposal,
and
also
remember
bearing
in
mind
that
that
part
of
the
you
know,
part
of
the
cost,
is
since
they're
not
paid
for
the
proposal
it
it.
We
do
include
some.
We
do
should
include
some
of
that
in
the
in
the
the
kind
of
final
cost
for
those
who
who
win
the
bid
right,
because
it's
not
it
just
this
is
not
non-trivial
but
I,
don't
know
I'm,
not
I'm.
You
know
I'm
not
signing
off
that
that.
Having
these
you
know,
five
contracts
is
worth.
E
B
So
I
guess
just
looking
at
this
I
thought
it
would
be
a
little
bit
simpler.
But,
looking
at
this
right
now
and
comparing
it
I'm
still
surprised
that
the
the
price
point
that
is
coming
out,
based
on
the
hourly
rate
for
smart
contract
engineers
and
smart
contract
security
Engineers,
so
I
only
hope
that
the
320
per
hour
I,
don't
know
what
the
other
rates
are.
E
E
B
E
B
B
D
E
We
we
do
have
that
it's
in
the
form
of
it's,
it's
it's
in
the
form
of
I,
think
two
spreadsheets
that
needed
to
be
looked
at
side
by
side,
one
that
was
just
one
of
the
contractors
and
one
that
was,
that
was
all
the
other
contractors,
so
it
wasn't
fully
unified
the
the
reason
that,
but
the
rationale
for
having
the
320
rate
is
the
idea
that
doing
they're
the
they're
proposing
that
doing
that
work
requires
a
a
top
level
developer
right.
Somebody
who's.
E
E
Essentially,
there's
there's
it's
a
port
from
existing
smart
contracts
in
in
evm
and
solidity
to
Antelope
to
smart
contract
language
I.
In
discussing
that
And
discussing
points
with
them,
they
were
there.
The
response,
as
I
recall,
was
that
you
know
these
are
contracts
that
are.
These
are
contracts
that
you
know
are
going
to
be
presented
as
standard
We.
There
are
there's
no
straight
porting
of
of
you
know,
one
to
another.
E
But
that
is
I
mean
that
is
open
to
that's.
You
know,
that's
a
that's
just
a
that's!
That's
a
judgment
call
on
this
I
was
you
know.
I
had
asked
actually
that
somebody
else
joined
me
in
it
and
Ted
was
there,
but
Ted
was
and
and
Bart
was
there,
but
you
know
they
were
basically
both
I
thought
was
relying
on
on
me
to
to
do
that
assessment.
E
So
I
would
love
it
if
some
if
an
additional
person
would
come
in
and
and
and
do
this,
although
I
fear
that
I
may
have
you
know
if
the
if
the
numbers
aren't
right,
I
fear
that
I
may
have
misunderstood
what
was
being
asked
and
and
given
them
a
better
sense
that
that
we
had
agreed
to
their
negotiation,
so
that
is
that
is
sort
of
a
you
know.
A
Sticky
Wicket
there
was.
E
There
was
I
said
what
whatever
point
there
was
a
miscommunication
about
how
about
exactly
what
we
were
doing
and
I
did
not
know
that
we
needed
to
come
back
to
the
group.
I
have
no
ties
to
any
of
these
groups,
so
there's
no,
so
there
shouldn't
be
any
expectation
of
of
any
kind
of
favoritism
or
anything.
E
B
C
I
mean
like
the
the
only
thing
that
was
discussed.
That
is
maybe
a
little
bit
relevant.
Is
that
following
this,
let's
call
it
the
negotiation.
The
hours
were
reduced
from
the
first
two
items
so
like
the
design
and
the
smart
contract
engineering,
but
we
decided
to
apply
that
reduction
across
the
board,
so
everybody
took
essentially
like
a
15
haircut
on
all
of
these
items.
So
so
that's
that's
that's
relevant
somewhat,
but
regarding
the
rest,
I
mean
no
I.
C
E
E
C
C
B
Okay,
where
I'm
going
with
this,
is
that
if
I
do
444
hours
plus
190
hours,
but
then
I
reduce
the
now
with
the
reduced
hours
it's
just
under
for
540
hours,
540
hours
divided
by
40
hours
a
week,
that's
13.5
weeks.
If
there's
two
people,
that
means
it's
six
and
a
half
weeks.
So
it's
a
month
and
a
half
of
two
people
at
320
an
hour
doing
nothing.
B
But
this,
for
example,
it's
only
one
person
that
means
that
person
is
working
for
four
months
doing
nothing,
but
that
if
it's
four
people
you
get
my
drift,
so
I'm
I'm
wondering
how
many
people
are
actually
at
that
rate
the
amount
of
hours
either.
It's
one
person
that's
going
to
be
working
on
this
for
four
months:
nothing,
but
that
or
two
people
on
two
months
or
you
know
four
people
for
one
month,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
the
the
the
idea
here,
because
it
seems
still
quite
High.
C
B
If
it's
a
particular
skill
set,
let's
take,
for
example,
in
the
IBC
or
the
instant
finality
side
of
things,
there
was
those
rates
at
the
very
high
rate,
but
we
knew
this
is
one
individual,
and
so
the
amount
of
hours
were
somewhat
limited
because
it
it's
only
how
many
hours
that
one
person
can
do.
In
this
case,
the
amount
of
hours
is
actually
kind
of
high,
which
leads
me
to
think
it's
more
than
one
individual.
B
Okay,
it
wouldn't
surprise
me
that
in
there,
because
it
says
nation
and
D5
box,
it
wouldn't
surprise
me
that
Denny's
in
there
I'd
say
yes
that
is
worthwhile.
I
agree
with
that
that
if,
if
there
was
another
person,
I'd
be
like
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
person
is
at
that
level,
for
example
in
instant
finale
and
IBC,
we
knew
specifically
it's
that
individual.
Because
of
that
individual
has
a
PHD
that
particular
skill
set
Etc
et
cetera,
is
easy
to
say.
That
makes
sense.
C
B
E
E
And
I
think
that
God
had
death
so,
for
example,
for
the
for
the
swap
contract
that
was
two
man
weeks
for
design
and
development,
and
that
was
not
all
up
front
right.
There
was,
there
was
some
portion
of
the
some
portion
of
that
was
was
in
the
beginning.
Some
portion
of
that
was
was
then
going
to
be
working
with
any
issues
found
during
testing
and
and.
C
B
Are
the
rates
yeah,
but
it
doesn't
tell
me
how
many
are
at
that
rate:
yeah
right
right,
yeah,
see
that
doesn't
tell
me
how
many
are
at
that
rate.
So
all
I
did
was
the
190
plus
444
that
gave
six.
You
know
that
gave
634,
but
then
minus
the
now
reduced
rates
which
give
five
540
hours
538.9,
but
540
divided
by
40
hours.
B
E
C
Hundred
twenty,
like
in
our
case
in
our
case
yeah
and-
and
that
tells
you
that,
because
if
you
look
at
that
screen
here,
it
shows,
for
example,
ux
we're
only
doing
user
documentation
on
a
project
and
we're
only
building
at
the
software
engineer
rate.
So
we
don't
have
anyone
on
that
ticket.
That
is
essentially
like
the
subject
matter.
Expert
subject:
matter
expert
are
from
the
other
teams.
Nation.
B
B
F
B
Dollars
which
would
have
been
about
like
what
you
said,
Douglas
like
a
20
reduction
but
across
the
board,
not
just
for
two
specific
line
items.
Basically,
so
it's
it
is
still
higher
than
what
I
expected
would
be
kind
of
the
final
proposal
and
and
but
not
really
basing
that
off
of
anything
other
than
like
I,
said
the
the
rates
but
adjusted
to
the
people
that
are
actually
doing
that.
E
Yeah
now,
if
you
look
if
you're
on
the
requirements
page
so
I
essentially
went
through
these
and
I
said:
okay,
as
we
look
at
the
Swap
contract,
the
user
documentation,
which
is
I
as
I
understand
going
to
require
it
was
going
to
be.
You
know,
developer
Focus,
but
but
very
easy
with
with
examples
and
whatnot.
E
No
so
I
went
through
so
as
a
big
number
when
you're
looking
at
big
now,
the
user
testing,
like
I,
think
50
hours
makes
sense
testing
we
all
this.
We
all
you
know
that
always
takes
longer
than
you
think
it's
going
to
take.
You
have
to
figure
out
what
you're
going
to
write.
You
have
to
write
them.
You
have
to
run
them,
so
the
do.
B
You
know
if
any
work
that
was
done
here
is
like,
for
example,
I
look
at
flash
loan
template.
Well,
we
know
that
flash
loan
contracts
I
know
personally
that
EOS
Nation
had
a
flash
loan
contract
forever.
That's
been
audited,
that's
out
there
is
there
anything
in
there
where
we're,
especially
paying
for
work.
That's
already
been
done.
E
C
Yeah
yeah
yeah
yeah,
but
in
that
case
I
believe
I
may
be
wrong,
but
I
believe
that
he
essentially
integrated
flash
loan
flash
loans
in
the
other
contracts
and
you
may
not
have
a
standalone
flash
loan
template
by
itself,
which
is
kind
of
you
know
like
it's
a
different
task.
Basically,
like
you
have
you
have
it
integrated
like
bits
and
pieces
in
in
something
else,
but
now
you
need
to
kind
of
pull
it
out
and
build
it
as
a
standalone
version.
So
yeah
you
can.
B
F
A
A
It's
really
honestly,
it's
a
little
different
how
they
did
it.
If
you
look
at
here,
offline
is
included
in
a
bunch
of
these
requirements,
but
notice
BR,
1,
2
and
3
are
not
listed
here.
Neither
is
BR,
17
and
18,
so
there's
another
document
with
br123
and
BR
17
and
18.,
so
it
adds
another
130
000
to
this,
or
this
isn't
the
right
cost.
This
is
pre-edited
so
that
the
480,
something
that
I
summed
up.
That's
the
cost
of
both
of
them
together,
not
including
any
auditing
costs.
E
A
B
B
Okay,
so
it's
not
383
plus
184.,
it's
380,
Fleet
plus
130,
which
gives
them
the
4
5
14,
which
they've
now
discounted
to
five
four
eighty
five,
which
then
we
would
need
to
add
154,
give
or
take
150k
for
audits.
So
the
total
cost
for
us
for
the
Coalition
would
be
around
635
650
000
dollars,
because
there's
no
these
contracts
as
much
as
they're
great
they're,
not
worth
much.
If
you
don't
audit
them,
especially.
B
E
E
E
B
I,
just
in
the
interest
of
time,
because
we're
well
over
the
hour
at
this
time
from
my
position
and
thank
you
very
much
Douglas
for
actually
doing
all
of
this
work,
we're
looking
at
the
like
one
audit,
600k
give
or
take
two
out
of
700k
from
EOS
I.
Don't
think
I
can
vote
for
yes
at
this
time
on
this
it.
It
needs
me
to
think
more
and
or
to
go
back
a
little
bit
or
it.
B
B
E
E
B
A
B
Do
counter,
for
example,
that
485
the
the
485
that
they
presented?
If
that
included
audits,
I
would
say
that
makes
sense
to
me.
I
can
see
where
we
would
get
value
out
of
that,
but
then
the
basically
45
without
Audits-
and
maybe
we
don't
need
two
artists.
Maybe
we
only
need
one
and
then
we
as
the
Coalition
need
to
onboard
the
second
audit
later
in
the
future,
but
that
cost
is
in
six
to
eight
months
type
of
thing
around
the
500
Mark,
including
an
at
a
minimum
one
audit
to
me,
makes
more
sense.
A
B
F
A
A
And
that's
where
I
was
going
to
go?
Next
is
what
does
everybody
else
think
like
do
you
want
to
negotiate?
That
is
that
still
too
high?
And
you
know
because
honestly,
if,
if
there,
if
you
guys
feel
like
we're
close
enough
where
we
can
continue
to
negotiate
things
like
that,
then
that's
what
we
do.
If
you
think
this
is
just
out
of
the
ballpark,
then
just
like
P2P,
we
would
vote
no,
and
you
know
say
this:
just
came
in
a
higher
cost
than
we
thought
is
valuable
at
this
time.
E
I
I
did
try
to
make
the
the
numbers
be
reasonable
for
what
the
demands
of
the
RFP
were,
but
as
a
separate
question
I,
you
know
so
so,
and
maybe
and
maybe
I
got
that
wrong-
it's
quite
possible
but
I.
You
know
I
at
any
rate,
it's
a
separate
question
of
whether
it's
okay
of
whether
okay
going
through
this
process
in
this
way,
what
is
it
going
to
cost
all
right?
That
makes
sense?
Now
it's
a
separate
question
does
paying
that
bring
a
suitable.
E
E
B
B
D
E
So
I
feel
is:
this
may
have
so
to
be
quite
Frank.
This,
in
terms
of
where
Telos
is
coming
from.
These
don't
have
a
lot
of
value,
because
you
know
we
we
would
probably
focus
on
the
on
the
you
know:
we're
gonna
for
the
foreseeable
future,
putting
a
lot
a
lot
of
work
into
the
evm
elements
of
it
and
and
not
necessarily
the
the
native
contracts
we
I
did.
We
just
have
more
people
engaging
with
the
chain
in
that
way,
I
think
that
I
I
see
the
value
of
these
I.
E
Think
it's
I
think
it's
lit.
You
know,
given
that
that
these
are
doable
there's
some
precedence,
so
I
think
that
I
think
that
this
process,
for
this
was
very
professional,
it's
not
the
same
and
it
and
it
comes
out
with
a
good
outcome
and
I.
Don't
think
this
is
necessarily
the
way
that
that
any
of
us
would
would
approach
it
right.
E
But
that's
not
the
approach
that
you
know,
that's
not
the
that's,
not
the
method
we
set
up.
We
set
up
a
very
professional
method,
but
that
means
that-
and
hopefully
that
means
we're
getting
very
we'll
get
very
professional
results,
but
I
don't
know,
but
it's
not
the
it's,
not
the
the
you
know
you
roll
up
your
sleeves
and
get
it
done,
and
you
know
and
approach
that
I
think
a
lot
of
our
chains
were
were
born
on.
E
So
this
may
be
sticker
shock
just
because
we're
trying
to
bring
in
more
professional
approach
as
well-
and
you
know
when
we
do
that.
Hopefully
that
means
we
get
better
results,
but
also
it
means
that
the
you
know
the
the
costs
blow.
So
there's
a
good
chance
for
myself
personally
and
I,
don't
know
for
who
else
that
I
look
at
this
and
it
seems
high
to
me
because
I
know
what
we've
accomplished.
You
know
how
much
more
and
more
complex
and
challenging
projects
we've
accomplished
on.
You
know
similar
budgets.
B
B
I,
don't
know,
Jeff
I'd
be
comfortable
if
you
share
basically
our
current
thinking
with
them
and
see
if
they
come
back
with
a
counter
proposal
to
their
current
proposal
or
whatever
game
you're
on
that
that
that
group
as
well
and
see
if
anything,
changes
and
if
not,
then
we
can
table
this
for
next
Thursday.
That
would
work
for
me.
E
Well,
that
seems
fine
I
would
ass
I.
My
assumption
is
that
there
that
that
oh,
do
we
that
somebody's
not
going
to
put
together
a
proposal
like
this
if
they
could,
if,
if
they
could,
do
it
for
vastly
Less
right,
so
I
think
it
might
just
might
just
be
the
wrong
way
to
do
it
I.
The
other
thing
that
people
could
look
at
from
this
is
there
could
be.
There
could
be
a
small
team
of
of
developers
out
there.
Who
could
look
at
this
and
go
oh,
my
gosh.
We
could.
A
The
hack
and
slash
is
great
for
startups,
but
if
we're
trying
to
build
a
protocol
that
professional
businesses
are
gonna
way
on
that,
that's
the
the
requirement.
It's
not
really
our
process.
Our
process
is
just
trying
to
drive
us
to
perhaps
a
more
level
of
stability
in
our
software
development
to
build
that
trust.
E
Yeah
I
mean
that
was,
as
I
said,
that's
exactly
the
what
I,
what
I
wrestled
with
right?
If,
when
you,
if
you
have
a
more,
if
you
have
a
more
professional
process,
you're
going
to
get
a
more
professional
result,
one
would
hope,
or
one
would
expect,
but
you're
also
going
to
get
you're,
also
going
to
get
a
bid
like
this
right,
and
so
when
I
was
saying,
there's
a
disconnect
between
the
process
and
our
expectations.
E
B
We
haven't
reached
internal
agreement
at
all,
but
would
you
even
consider
the
485,
but
with
one
on
it
included
it
and
then,
if
they
say
no,
this
makes
no
sense
from
our
business
point
of
view,
all
right,
it
dies
and
if
they
say
yes,
then,
basically,
we
have
a
different
discussion
next
week
to
talk
about,
but
now
with
an
updated
proposal
knowing
and
they
would
be,
they
would
need
to
know
that
it
doesn't
need
to
be
approved.
It's
just.
This
is
another
opportunity
at
trying
at
this.
Basically
yeah.
E
E
So
because
we
keep
most
things
in-house
and
so
I'm
applying
an
in-house
developer,
and
you
know
it
has,
or
some
contractors
price
to
to
this
I
I
think
that
asking
them
to
negotiate
like
I
feel
like
I,
didn't
give
anybody
an
easy
pass
on
negotiation
when
I
first
brought
up
the
the
concerns
that
I
had
there
was
there
were.
You
know
there
was
a.
E
There
was
a
fair
amount
of
pushback,
and-
and
some
of
it
didn't
make
sense
to
me
because
it
was,
it
was
doing
what
I,
what
I
felt
it
was
doing,
which
was
putting
putting
padding
on
padding
where
one
level
of
padding
was
acceptable,
but
not
not
two
but
I
addressed
that
right
and
and
so
I
feel
like
like
we
negotiated
that
I.
Don't
think
that
we
so
sorry
I
do
I.
E
Do
think
that
we
developed
the
process
and
the
RFP,
and
then
we
asked
them
to
bid
on
it,
and
so
so
this
is.
This
is
a
little
bit
like
a
government
type
bid
and
that's
it's
kind
of
getting
those
prices
and
you
can't
really
pull
out
any
one
thing
and
go:
oh
well
that
doesn't
make
sense,
but
all
together
there's
a
bit
of
a
sticker
shock.
A
E
E
For
this
process
we
did
put
through
this
through
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
specifically
unreasonable,
and
even
when
we
talk
about
it
right,
you
know.
Even
when
you're
saying
hey,
you
know
we,
we
don't
want
the
Slash
and
hack.
We
want
this
process,
that's
I
mean
that's
what
we
asked
for
that's
what
we
asked
people
to
bid
on,
so
it.
A
Well,
I
think
for
an
action,
I
I
think
what
Eve's
trying
to
ask
is
like
I
can
do
the
work
to
go
talk
to
the
group
to
see
if
they're
even
open
to
the
485,
but
include
the
audit
in
it,
but
I
don't
believe
we
want
me
to
go
through
that
work.
If
you
wouldn't
be
comfortable
with
that,
anyway,
I
mean
that's
kind
of.
E
Yeah
I
I
would
I
would
say
it's
not
really
a
negotiate.
It's
not
like
a
green
negotiation.
Technically,
it's
just
saying:
hey.
You
know
the
price
we
negotiated
it
that
doesn't
look
like
it's
going
to
pass,
and
it's
it's
just
it's
just
too
big
for
what
they
think
the
the
value
of
that
is
and
the
value
they
thought
they
that
came
up
with.
Maybe
this
price
that
is
you
know,
I
mean
we.
E
We
should
inform
them
of
that,
because
they've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
it
and
we
don't
want
to
just
be
you
know
all
for
naught,
but
at
the
same
time
we
didn't
you
know
we
never
built
this
negoti,
this
RFP
or
negotiating
process
around.
Can
you
do
it
for
485
sold?
You
know
it's,
it's
all
very
it
it!
It's
a
it's
a
disconnect
on
the
process
and
it's
fine.
E
B
A
E
B
Listening
like
if
it's
the
700
right
now
or
600
right
now,
my
vote
is
no,
and
so
I
can't
speak
for
other
chains,
but
I
can
say
that
if
they
come
back
with
a
485
with
audit
included,
you
would
now
get
my
yes,
whether
or
not
you
get
other
yeses.
That
is
different,
but
you
won't
know
until
you
actually
propose
that
okay.
F
E
Yeah
I
yeah
I
mean
this
was
not
intended
to
be
another
round
of
negotiation.
But
when
we
look
at
the
the
big
number
together,
it
just
seems
out
of
out
of
out
of
relation
to
what
we're
probably
going
to
receive
as
a
benefit
and
so
yeah.
If
I
would
say,
we
know
you
guys
are
listening,
but
I'm
glad
you're
listening,
you've
heard
what
we,
what
our
thoughts
are
about.
It
and
I
would
say
we.
It
looks
like
it's
going
to
be.
It
looks
like
it's
gonna.
E
They
fail
to
pass
at
this
point
if
you
want
to
give
us
new
information
or
or
make
some
changes
based
on
what
you've
heard
the
concerns
you've
heard,
that
is,
you
know,
you're
you're,
welcome
to
do
that.
It's
not
we
never
intended
to
have
this,
be
a
negotiating
tactic
or
anything,
it's
just
the
it's
just
how
it
came
out
right,
so
so
kind
of
balls
in
your
court
guys,
and
we
would
love
to
hear
from
you.
B
E
E
Yeah-
and
it
makes
sense,
I
think
this
makes
sense,
given
the
process
that
we
set
up
and
I
I
see
how
we
got
there
and
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
huge
missteps
there,
but
it's
a
separate
question
of
of
okay,
given
that
this
is
how
much
is
it
going
to
cost
you
know?
Are
we
going
to
still
do
the
project
right
or
or
are
there
things
that
you
may
come
back
and
say
hey?