►
Description
The EOSIO Coalition discusses Supra token, funding ratios for milestones and Proton potentially joining the Coalition.
00:00:00 Intro
00:00:04 Agenda by Kersten
00:01:08 Re-Branding and payment methods by Justin, Yves, Ted
00:18:20 Supra Token and IBC milestones by Yves, Jesse, Gnome
00:32:10 Funding for Faster Finality and IBC by Yves
00:45:56 Cost ratios breakdown and LP token by Zack, Yves, Gnome
01:03:44 Time based Milestones by Gnome, Yves,
01:08:05 Market Fluctuations and Token values by Kersten, Yves
01:10:59 Wrapping it up with Proton joining the Coalition by Yves
01:13:33 Outro
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://eosn.foundation
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosn.foundation
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
I'm
back
glad
to
see
you
all
here
and
glad
to
see
everybody's,
healthy
and
and
working
so
I've
been
trying
to
kind
of
follow
up
with
the
recent
calls,
but
I
didn't
manage
to
to
listen
to
all
of
them,
even
switching
to
1.75
speed
on
youtube,
so
it
it
might
be
that
I'm
not
fully
up
to
speed
with
all
the
decisions
and
discussions
that
we
we
took
so
far,
excuse
that,
but
I
think
we
we're
gonna
be
good
going
forward.
So
I'm
just
looking.
A
A
B
C
B
C
B
D
Yeah,
I
think
we
would
prefer
wordpress.
We've
got
a
lot
of
experience
with
wordpress
and
you
know
just
the
fact
that
maybe
different
members
of
the
coalition
are
available
at
different
times.
Wordpress
is
a
pretty
ubiquitous
platform.
We
run
the
enf
all
on
wordpress.
We
have
a
really
good
wordpress
vendor.
That's
super
responsive.
If
there's
any
issues
or
you
know,
we
do
all
our
stuff
in
three
languages.
So
you
know
we've.
D
We've
got
a
really
pretty
well
worn
in
you
know
system,
and
so,
if
you
guys
wouldn't
mind
doing
that,
then
when
we
got
you
know
if
we
gave
zach
say
a
log
in
from
the
enf,
so
that
when
there's
a
need
whatever
you
know,
it
just
makes
it
easier,
because
it's
it's
it's
by
far
the
most
ubiquitous.
You
know
publishing
platform.
E
F
Question
on
that
note,
we
do
have
the
domain
all
set
up
and
I
can
point
at
it
wherever
you
know,
I'm
happy
to
configure
that
I
haven't
yet
set
up
the
google
suite
for
email.
I
know
we
need
to
do
that
and
then,
when
we
start
talking
about
wordpress
and
having
a
vendor
there,
we
already
have
like
the
domain.
I
added
it
to
our
aws,
which
is
pretty
low
cost.
We
already
had
it
set
up
for
the
g
suite.
Is
there
a
payment
method
that
we
have
or
should
we
discuss?
F
You
know
a
consistent
payment
method
for
all
the
expenses
for
the
coalition.
These
are
all
like
small,
one-off
things,
but
that'd
be
probably
good
if
they
were
all
for
any
net
new
things
all
on
the
same
payment
method-
I
don't
know,
but
just
maybe
should
we
discuss
that.
I
hesitated
to
like
just
jump
in.
I
was
like
okay.
Well,
what
credit
card
should
I
use
to
pay
for
g
suite
and
I'm
like
I'll
bring
that
up.
D
On
the
call,
so
there's
there's
more
than
just
this,
you
know
we
have
kirsten
and
jeff
charge
their
time
back
as
well.
So
probably
the
easiest
way
because
it'll
be
hard
to
get
the
coalition
to
get
a
credit
card.
The
easiest
way
would
be.
I
mean
we
can
take
it
if
you
want
or
you
can
take
it
and
then
just
monthly
or
you
could
quarterly.
D
C
Just
to
be
clear,
the
invoice
would
actually
go
to
the
enf.
The
way
that
we
have
the
funds
set
up
right.
Technically,
the
enf
is
owner
of
the
current
treasury,
but
the
nf
can't
do
anything
with
it
because
of
the
m6.
But
if
you
recall
the
invo,
the
enf
invoiced
all
of
the
respective
chains,
you
guys
then
had
an
expense
to
the
enf.
That
became
an
revenue
to
the
enf.
So
then
the
way
to
proceed
would
be
in
your
case.
Let's
say:
jesse
you
would
invoice
to
the
enf.
C
F
For
the
domain
I
mean
I'd
almost
say:
that's
negligible,
the
cost
of
the
domain
and
the
dns,
and
we
already
had
it
set
up
right.
So
we
just
added
it
to
our
account.
We
have
to
figure
out
how
much
of
our
aws
bill
is
allocated
from
from
that
domain,
which
is
no
big
deal,
but
for,
like
the
other
things
like
the
one-off
small
ones,
I
was
just
thinking
just
administrative
overhead
and
the
cost
of
transferring
usdt
around
for
small
invoices.
F
D
C
Yeah,
I
would
definitely
add
them
up
and
then
they
can
just
be
an
invoice
with
itemized
lists.
The
only
the
only
thing
that
we
need
to
do.
We
as
a
coalition
is
everybody
refuse
and
then,
if
we
approve,
then
everybody
signs
the
the
effective
transfer
right.
If
it's
the
enf
on
boarding
costs,
then
it
really
becomes
an
internal
transfer.
We
still
so
then
there's
no
accounting
per
se,
but
then
there
still
needs
to
be
the
transfer
the
mc
created
or
in
order
to
actually
transfer
out
of
that
account.
F
C
A
Yeah
but
anyway
I
mean,
for
in
our
case
we
we
tend
to
have
like
a
monthly
or
a
bi-monthly
invoice
for
for
my
support.
So
we
can
add
up
those
costs
to
that
to
that
invoice,
and
I
think
that
the
amounts
are
significant
enough
to
to
to
justify
and
put
put
those
costs
on
those
if
we
want
to
and
then
the
question
is,
does
enf
have
like
a
credit
card
assigned
that
you
could
use
to
to
pay
those
regular
payments,
not
currently
yeah
yeah?
We
we
either.
So
we.
C
To
having
one
actually
the
same
same
thing
here,
we
can
actually
have
one,
but
it's
that's
another
topic,
but
I'm
thinking
specifically
for
the
google
cost
ted.
Do
you
think
we
could
just
on
board
to
the
sata
contract
we
have?
Yes,
we
could,
if
which
means,
then
there's
no
credit
card
involved,
and
we
can
actually
resolve
this
with
no
invoices
to
anybody.
D
F
I
haven't:
I
have
not
set
anything
up
at
google,
so
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
do
the
legwork
of
setting
it
up.
Of
course
you
know
somebody
from
the
tcd
that
actually
does
that
for
a
living
could
do
it.
They
do
it
regularly,
but
it
sounds
like
you
is
that,
like
a
contractor
that
you're
a
service
provider
that
manages
your
google.
D
D
Google
gives
them
a
fraction
like
they
make
30
or
40
of
the
bill,
and
google
keeps
the
rest
but
you're
so
you're
paying
standard
google
pricing,
but
instead
of
doing
the
deal
with
google,
you
do
it
with
sata
sada
they're,
the
largest
bar
for
google,
and
then
you
actually
have
you
know
an
account
rep,
customer
support
and
and
all
of
that
stuff
we
also
have
an
account
with
aws.
So
I
mean
we
could
put
this
in
aws
that
bill
bills
directly
to
the
enf.
You
know
at
the
end
of
the
month,
well,
yeah.
D
F
F
D
Just
talking
about
purely
the
domain
registration
and
dns,
that's
we
only
renew
that
once
a
year
so
and
that's
I
don't
know
I
guess
that
was
pretty
expensive.
That
was
an
expensive
domain,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
that
expensive
to
renew
it.
It's
like
12
bucks
a
year
to
renew
it
once
we
own
it
right.
F
D
F
D
Again,
yeah:
whenever
you're
ready,
we
could
you
know
I'm
happy
to
talk
with
you
guys,
help
you
get
that
all
going
yeah.
We
just
have
a
vendor
that,
like
we
did
a
lot
of
special
stuff.
All
of
anything
we
publish
is
goes
out
chinese,
korean
and
english.
At
the
same
time,
so
we
had,
we
had
some
really
unique
needs
and
this
vendor
has
been
flawless
they've
just
just
been
amazing.
F
D
D
I
believe
that's
what
we
were
saying
instead
of
trying
to
pay
for
the
credit
card.
If
it's
the
same
price,
we
probably
need
that
to
be
a
separate
and
we
could
probably
do
it
under
the
same
contract
I'll
I'm
meeting
with
her
again
next
thursday.
My
account
rep.
We
probably
need
to
do
that
under
a
separate
domain
and
so
it'll
be
like
we'll
have
them
all
under
the
same
contract
but
it'll
be
broken
out
because
they
it
is.
D
It
is
a
separate
organization
right
and
you
can't
just
confuse
the
eosnetwork.com
and
the
coalition
emails.
You
know
it'd
be
confusing
yeah,
you
don't
want
them
intermingled
at
all
and
we're
probably
not
going
to
make
that
many
coalition
emails
right.
I
mean
we
would.
We
all
also
have
coalition
emails,
because
it
would
be
a
whole
separate
inbox
to
go
check,
or
is
this
just
going
to
be
for
like
info
and
contacts
and
stuff
like
that.
F
D
F
D
And
then
or
justin,
are
you
just
going
to
have
a
splash
page
initially,
because
the
splash
page
doesn't
matter
where
the
splash
page
is
it's
once
we
go
beyond
the
splash
page
where
we
might
want
to
blog,
or
we
want
a
few
different
pages
we
want
to
be
able
to
edit
them.
That's
when
we
should
go
to
wordpress.
D
D
D
Yeah,
we
should
actually
be
adding
it
to
our
side.
We've
just
we've
been
a
little
busy
just
getting
the
site
working
correctly
with
all
three
languages
and
everything.
So
that
is
that,
when
my
next
meeting
with
sebastian,
we'll
we'll
ask
him
how
much
brain
surgery
it's
gonna
take
to
to
put
that
plug-in
in
on
our
enf
website.
A
C
Things
there
one
it's
called
the
supra
token
s-u-p-r-a,
although
it's
gonna
be
super,
that's
not
its
name,
but
no.
I
think
we
can
close
that
that
card.
There's
nothing
really
to
discuss
at
this
stage.
On
this,
the
majority
of
the
discussion-
and
I
think
where
we
should
be
focusing
the
time
today
unless
there
are
really
any
other
items-
is
to
continue
down
the
path
of
finalizing
the
ibc
milestones,
which
we
still
don't
have,
because
the
ibc
milestones
will
which
we
do
have
for
faster
finality.
F
One
one
thing:
did
I
jump
here,
the
last
call.
I
asked
this
question
gnome.
You
were
present
to
answer
and
speak
to
it
and
eve.
I
think
you
did
your
best,
but
acknowledge
you
don't
know
the
details.
Just
I
I
missed
the
ibc
presentation.
We
never.
I
don't
know
if
we
ever
got
a
formal
rfp
presentation,
but
we
got
like
a
kind
of
a
high
level
of
the
tech
is
is.
C
What
we
had
decided
to
do
was
to
get
a
walkthrough
of
their
current
solution
and
then
to
provide
comments
as
to
what
it
is
we'd
like
to
see
added
or
changes
made.
So
that's
the
call
that
I
believe
you
didn't
attend
and
think
at
this
point,
it's
three
weeks
ago
or
so,
and
and
that's
the
continuation
of
that
three
week
ago,
call
was
then
held
this
tuesday,
which
you
did
attend.
So
we
don't
have
an
official
bitter
official
rp,
because
the
solution
itself
is
already
built.
C
So
we
decided
to
then
just
go
the
route
of
okay
what's
there
and
what
would
we
like
to
add
in
order
to
be
where,
as
the
coalition
we'd
like
to
adopt
that
solution,
and
then
so,
we've
done
this?
I
guess
on
two
occasions
now
so
there's
been
some
modification
and
that's
the
documentation,
maybe
yom
you
want
to
share
it
again.
C
F
And
I
guess,
if
I
should've
been
clear,
I
don't
need
to
see
the
rfp
format.
That's
not
my
concern,
I'm
more.
You
know
and
know
me
right
here,
but
I'll
just
throw
it
out
there,
like
I
asked.
Is
this
a
hub
and
spoke
model?
If
I
mean
I
is,
is
this
purely
for
tokens
or
is
it
all
kinds
of
messaging
between
chains
and
does
the
messaging
have
to
go
through
a
single
network
like
you
know,
ux
or
is?
F
Are
we
getting
tech
that
could
be
used
where
there's
not
a
single
point
of
failure
or
a
single
bottleneck?
I
think
I
kind
of
got
an
answer
but
kind
of
didn't,
and
so
maybe
those
those
are.
Those
are
my
concerns
like
what
kind
of
what
is
the
coalition
paying
for
in
terms
of
a
generic
tool
versus
a
more
network,
specific
implementation.
G
C
F
C
C
H
C
My
opinion
on
everything
and
for
tldr
jesse,
because
I
guess
we
can
fast
track.
Yes,
it
is
hub
and
spoke.
For
example,
we
wouldn't
need
to
go
through
ux.
We
could
just
do
telos
to
eos,
we
could
do
telos
to
wax
directly
and
it
is
very
much
kind
of
a
plug-and-play
type
of
model
that
doesn't
require
an
intermediary
being
ux
in
this
case
or
whoever
else
it
can
be.
It.
G
C
F
Yeah,
okay,
yeah,
I
mean
I'll
I'll
watch
it
and
understand.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
know
we're
as
a
coalition
and
the
tbd
name.
Software
that
we're
kind
of
promoting
here
is
something
that,
if
somebody
wanted
to
launch
a
private
chain
of
the
private
network
of
networks
or
whatever
that
they're
not
going
to
have
to
deal
with
any
of
our
public
networks
or
correct,
you
know.
F
G
But,
okay,
and
and
just
just
to
also
give
you
the
the
short
answers.
This
applies
also
to
any
action
that
can
happen
on
a
blockchain,
so
it's
not
limited
just
to
token
transfers
and
nft
transfers.
It's
really
anything
and
then
your
other
question
regarding
central
point
of
failures.
We've
designed
that
solution
to
have
absolutely
no
central
point
of
failure.
F
G
The
only
thing
you
need
really
is
a
history
solution
to
gather
the
information.
That's
required
to
generate
the
proof
so
far,
we've
built
it
with
with
support
for
diffuse.
We
also
confirmed
that
support
for
fire
hose
is
already
present,
so
we
already
have
whatever
everything
that
we
need
on
the
fire
hose
to
do
this.
We
also
spoke
to
igor,
I
was
building
hyperion.
G
He
said
these
would
be
also
relatively
simple
changes
to
make
to
hyperion,
then
a
pending
discussion
to
have
with
aaron
to
add
support
for
robo,
and
then
I
think
I
think
we
discussed
as
well
with
the
enf
engineers
the
possibility
of
having
even
vanilla,
eos
nodes
like
http
plugin
exposed
short-lived
apis.
That
would
allow
us
to
generate
these
proofs.
G
F
Sounds
good
yeah,
I
think.
Maybe
I
don't
need
to
listen
to
the
they
call
them,
because
that
that's
about
it.
I
I
think
one
of
my
questions
was:
you
know
maintenance
of
infrastructure.
If
there
is
any
it
sounds
like
there's
not
so
maybe
that
effort
goes
into
kind
of
what
you
and
erin
were
talking
about.
I
read
the
conversation
on
telegram
as
well.
When
you
had
it
so
you
know
those
types
of
things
kind
of
replace
the
the
off
oracle.
G
Cool,
so
I
guess
I
guess
just
to
maybe
on
my
end
I
took
essentially
like
the
the
notes
that
I
kind
of
wrote
down
on
tuesday's
call,
and
I
I
just
modified
the
document
a
little
bit
to
include
these.
So
I
shared
I,
I
bumped
the
document
link
in
the
scalability
plus
group.
So
if
you,
if
anyone
is
not
in
that
group,
just
let
me
know
I'll
try
to
share
it
in
the
coalition.
Oh,
I
think
yeah
you
know
yeah.
G
You
should
be
able
to
to
view
that
document
anymore
with
the
link
so
yeah
in
the
scalability
plus
group.
You
should
have
access
to
the
document
which
outlines
basically
the
the
main
requirements
as
they
stand
today
and
has
essentially
like
we,
we
presented
them
and
then
presented
to
the
rest
of
the
coalition.
So
there's
probably
like
a
I'd
say
like
well.
G
It's
been
already
a
few
a
few
times
that
we
we
go
over
these
so
hopefully,
if,
if
anyone
else
has
any
questions
or
any
additional
feature,
requests
would
be
a
good
time
to
reach
out
to
me
and
let
me
know
otherwise.
I
would
start
working
on
these
with
these
notes.
These
bullet
points
and
create
a
bit
more
of
a
kind
of
formal
proposal,
as
well
as
milestones
and
yeah
like
a
little
bit
of
breakdown
of
the
work.
C
If
that
makes
sense,
yeah
that
definitely
makes
sense,
and
for
those
who
really
have
questions
yes,
the
calls
have
been
recorded.
We've
gone
quite
deep
into
this.
I
think
we
have
maybe
three
hours
four
hours
worth
of
calls
on
this.
That
went
really
deep.
So
if
there's
anything
else
then
obviously
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
young.
If
not,
if
you
could
start
working
on
the
breakdown
for
milestones,
as
you
did
for
faster
finality,
that
would
be
great,
perfect.
A
C
The
ratios
which
I
did
share
in
in
the
call
earlier
this
week
in
the
in
the
chat
earlier
this
week,
so
that
everybody
can
then
go
back
to
their
respective
chains
with
a
full
on
essentially
proposal
of
what
is
being
asked
of
them
and
whether
or
not
they
approve,
but
so
far
there
was
a
high
level
approval
in
a
certain
way
of
continuing
down
this
path.
With
what
had
been
presented
to
date.
G
G
You
right
with
all,
but
I
mean
these
are
getting
not
that
big,
not
that
big
modifications
to
what
we
already
have,
and
we
believe
that
they
will
also
like
increase
the
value
of
the
solution
for
everyone.
Us
included,
so
we're
happy
to
keep
the
same
price
tag
for
the
the
whole
solution.
With
these
features.
C
C
So
for
everybody
else,
and
obviously
this
will
be
posted
because
it's
recorded
the
original
ask
was
five
million
dollars.
Essentially,
we've
negotiated
down
to
3.8
in
a
very
specific
manner
as
well,
and
so
that
that
some
capital
is
locked,
some
of
it
is
vested.
Some
of
it
is
accessible.
All
of
it
is
dispersed
through
milestones.
C
Ibc
and
fast
refinance
are
very
different,
so
ibc
there's
an
ish
initial
in
a
way
capex,
but
that
is
taken
from
funds
that
are
made
accessible
by
eos.
So
all
of
that
will
be
laid
out,
but
one
thing
that
is
very
different
from
anything
that
we
received
to
date
elsewhere
is
that
this
is
a
comprehensive
over
the
next
12
to
18
months
proposal.
C
C
And
it
does
not
tap
into
the
current
treasury
that
we
have,
and
so
it
makes
again
available
the
coalition
to
choose
a
few
other
priorities
outside
of
these
two
continuing
down
the
path
of
even
more
deployment,
future
development
and
deployment,
without
necessarily
causing
financial
strain
on
any
of
the
coalition
members.
So
it's
it's
a
huge
win.
C
If
we
can
get
this
in
a
place
where
we
formally
approve
it
and
start
the
the
process
and
guillen
should
that
be
the
case,
because
it
will
take
a
few
weeks
before
we
actually
settle
I'm
guessing
on
the
on
the
final
final
agreement.
Do
you
still
believe
that
it
is
realistic
that
each
of
the
coalition
chains
would
be
in
a
position
to
deploy
at
least
on
a
test
net
the
ipc
in
the
next
a
few
weeks
and
then
potentially
even
on
the
connecting
the
main
ads
over
the
next
few
months?.
G
So
we
did
confirm
that
fire
hose
is
enough
to
has
all
the
information
to
generate
the
proofs
and
we're
happy
to
also
prioritize
this,
basically,
like
the
the
proof
generation
using
fire
hose,
which
I
believe
now
yes,
nation
runs
on
on
telos,
but
yeah,
that's
other
than
that,
like
all
the
other
three
chains,
ux
diaz
and
wax
all
have
the
fuse,
which
is
our
the
history
solution
that
we've
built
first.
So
with
this
caveat,
yes,
the
answer
is
yes.
A
C
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
the
question,
but
let
me
attempt
to
answer
it
so
when
the
I
think
I
know,
but
if,
if
I'm
off
track,
stop
me
at
any
time
so
in
the
original
proposal
for
faster
finality.
This
doesn't
apply
to
ibc,
because
we
had
never
gotten
a
breakdown
of
faster
fundality
cost
in
the
same
way
that
we've
gotten
for
of
ibc
cost
in
the
same
way
that
we
got
for
faster
finality
and
the
faster
finality
bid.
C
We've
gotten
a
breakdown
of
where
that
short
of
just
short
of
two
million
dollars,
where
that
was
coming
from
per
function
per
hour,
number
of
hours,
etc.
I
I
don't
recall
if
you
were
in
the
call
where
we
went
over
all
of
that
everybody
except
ux,
was
in
that
call,
so
that
wax
and
telos
reviewed
this.
We
did
modify
the
numbers,
the
hourly
rates,
to
a
point
where
we
were
all
comfortable
in
making
a
counter
proposal
to
ux.
C
When
we
did
the
counter
proposal
pitch
to
ux,
we
didn't
just
put
faster
finality
in
the
void
we
presented
that
we
presented
the
justification
as
where
we
got
to
1.6
million
dollars
instead
of
2
million,
but
we
then
also
approached
it
and
gave
the
proposal
of
how
we
would
pay
that
alongside
wanting
to
have
ibc-
and
so
that's
where
the-
what
we
knew
of
ibc
was
a
three
million
dollar
ask.
What
we
knew
of
faster
finality
was
a
two
million
dollar
ask.
What
we
eventually
landed
on
is
3.8
million
dollars.
C
So
split
that,
however,
you
like
this
is
what
we're
gonna
figure
out,
but
it
is
likely
the
2.2
million
dollars
going
to
ipc
1.6
million
dollars
going
to
a
faster
finality
faster
finality.
Those
milestones
and
those
milestone
payments
are
already
determined,
so
the
numbers
just
need
to
be
updated.
Now
that,
let's
say
the
1.6
is,
is
changes,
obviously
the
the
amounts
per
milestone
payment
as
compared
to
when
it
was
two
the
three
million
dollars
that
was
for
ibc
is
now,
I
guess,
effectively
2.2
million
dollars
of
that
2.2
million
dollars.
C
The
idea
was
that
two-thirds
would
be
coming
up
front
because
we're
essentially
buying
something
that's
already
there,
and
so
that
amounts
to
you
know
something
like
1.425
or
1.433
million
dollars,
but
then
how
that
comes
about
so
is
it
in
eos
tokens
and
teles
tokens
and
wax
tokens.
That's
where
then.
We
also
went
into
further
detail
of
the
breakdown.
The
modified
and
updated
ratios.
C
That
way
there's
no
confusion
and
then
the
respective
chains
will
be
able
to
go
back
with
that
package
and
really
then
make
a
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
they
they
approve
that.
Having
said
this,
in
theory,
the
three
chains
have,
in
theory
approve
the
general
idea
behind
this,
but
in
order
to
go
back
and
let's
say
formally
cast
a
vote,
what
we
left
off
with
last
week
was:
let's
put
the
pen
to
paper,
be
able
to
to
present
it
tangibly
to
everybody
so
that
we
have
something
to
sign
off
on.
C
H
A
No,
it's
it's
more
clear
to
me
now
I
I
was
just
I.
I
was
just
under
the
impression
and
that's
what
what
I
was.
What
I
had
as
a
feedback
from
our
team
was
that
we
had
like
one
daily
rate
that
was
assigned
or
hourly
rate,
which
was
like
300,
whatever
dollars,
which
would
be
applying
to
like
as
a
fixed
cost
for
the
whole
for
the
whole
team,
independent.
C
C
C
C
E
E
The
upfront
cost
is
not
3.8
billion,
you're
right,
two-thirds,
yeah,
there's
there's
other
breakdowns.
My
question
is:
is
the
ratio
used
at
the
beginning
of
this
contract,
which
is
paid
in
milestones
over
a
period
of
time
based
on
those
milestones
being
achieved?
Would
we
recalculate
the
ratios
throughout
that
process,
or
would
we
lock
in
the
ratio
based
on
all
of
the
different
market
cap
and
other
factors
initially
and
keep
that
locked
in
through
all
the
payments?
C
Wouldn't
be
payments,
the
funds
would
already
be
in
the
treasury
investing
over
time,
and
I
believe
it
was
douglas.
That
mentioned
in
order
for
ux
to
be
able
to
leverage
the
function
of
having
that
treasury
without
actually
being
able
to
leverage
that
treasury.
We
were
open
to
the
idea
of
creating
some
type
of
lp
token,
which
would
enable
them
to
be
able
to
do
a
m
with
the
funds
without
actually
touching
the
funds.
So
the
funds
would
already
be
sent
all
of
it
would
be
in
the
treasury
and
they
would
unlock
as
per
milestones.
C
C
When
you
release
them
as
per
milestone,
correct,
having
said
that,
though,
this
is
what
we're
talking
about,
and
this
is
what,
at
a
high
level
we've
deceived
decided
to
proceed
with,
but
we
haven't
formally
made
this
decision
because
we
haven't
formally
presented
all
of
this
on
paper
to
each
respective
chain
to
be
able
to
approve,
but
once
I
guess
from
your
side
or
what's
relevant
to
you,
let's
say
for
communications
once
that
paper
is
written
down
all
of
those
details.
You
will
have
very
black
and
white
easy
to
understand,
got
it.
C
C
C
The
difference
being,
though,
is
that
ibc,
a
portion
of
ibc
of
roughly
two-thirds
would
be
paid
up
front
because
we're
deploying
an
already
existing
solution,
the
remaining
one-third,
that's.
What
would
be
then
dripped
out
through
the
milestones
which
they
will
be
working
on
presenting
to
us?
The
upfront
payment
would
likely
be
eos
pain
so
that
it
unlocks
capital
to
them
right
away,
whereas
the
milestone
remaining
one-third
payments
would
be
telos
and
wax's
share
and
that
meaning
that
over
the
next
year
or
so,
some
of
those
tokens
are
investing
while
the
milestones
are
being
achieved.
C
C
And
similarly,
for
faster
finality,
as
the
milestones
are
hit
and
payments
are
made
available
to
them
or
funds
are
being
unlocked
to
them,
they're
vesting
to
them.
The
tokens
that
they
would
be
selling
would
be
the
eos
tokens,
because
we
can.
That
does
not
impact
our
liquidity
so
much,
but
it
does
so
more
for
telos
and
wax.
So
that's
the
entirety
of
you
know.
The
the
benefits
of
the
chains
is
you're
able
to
as
as
telos,
if
I'm
speaking
from
telus
you're
able
to
give
an
amount,
but
not
having
that
amount,
creating
downward
pressure.
F
Now
I
get
that
part,
I
guess
you're
saying
milestones,
investing
kind
of
in
the
same
statement,
I'm
trying
to
understand.
Let's
just
get,
keep
it
real,
simple,
pretend
there's
just
one
chunk
of
work,
and
you
know
there's
two
milestones:
six
months
and
12
months
to
complete
right.
So
at
six
months
some
milestone
is
met.
F
At
that
point,
we
would
then
transfer
the
tokens
to
what
we
talked
about,
transferring
them
over
into
liquidity,
pools
on
the
the
ux
decks,
the
amm
right
and
then
they'd
be
locked
there
and
and
they
would
also
be
invested.
So
we
have
milestones
where
okay,
you
did
the
work,
you
earned
the
tokens
and
you
have
vesting
meaning
well
they're
your
tokens
you're
going
to
get
them
100
guaranteed
you're,
going
to
get
them,
but
over
a
period
of
time.
C
F
Yeah,
no,
that's
fine!
I
was
just
thinking
we
could
like
talk
through
it
at
a
high
level.
Here's
then,
when
you
put
it
on
paper,
it's
a
formality,
not
a
beginning
of
the
conversation.
Okay
sure.
So
let's
talk,
let's
separate
the
two:
let's
talk
about
ibc4
and
I
think
the
relevant
of
the
numbers
just
like
this.
The
strategy
like
where
we're
talking
like
the
the
tokens
and
they
go
into
the
liquidity
pools
when
the
milestone
is
met
right,
so
they
don't
go
into
the
liquidity.
We
don't
take.
C
E
F
But
see
and
I'm
just
maybe
I'm
being
pedantic
and
I'm
not
tr,
I'm
trying
to
get
us
to
just
align
on
from
the
words
that
we're
using,
but
investing
to
me
means
over
a
period
of
time.
You
know,
like
I've
participated
in
a
number
of
vesting
schedules
and
traditional
you
know
software
startups.
You
know
you
have
a
vesting
schedule
over
this
period
of
time.
You're
gonna
get
these.
You
know
shares
as
long
as
you
still
work
at
the
company
right.
That's
to
me.
The
best
thing
is
milestone.
F
C
So
the
eos
tokens
would
not
be
vested,
but
they
would
be
released
upon
milestones
the
telos
and
wax
tokens
as
much
as
possible.
This
is
how
we
need
to,
I
guess,
define
the
the
payment
schedule
would
not
be
needed
in
the
milestones
portion
because
they
could
be
vesting
over
time
if
that
makes
sense
so
that
we
delay
the
potential.
F
G
That
may
help
to
understand,
but
most
of
the
discussion
regarding
vesting
of
these
tokens
stems
from
the
the
ibc
component
of
our
proposal,
considering
that
we
are
asking
for
two-thirds
of
the
amount
upfront,
what
eve
suggested
was
that
we
would
essentially
get
the
the
I
guess,
like
the
the
two
thirds
in
eos
at
the
beginning,
and
then
the
remaining
one-third
for
ibc
would
be
paid
as
the
milestones
over
time
are
delivered.
So
it's
in
a
sense.
G
It
is
both
milestones
and
investing,
because
normally
it
would
have
been.
You
know,
like
two-thirds
of
the
all
the
tokens
from
all
the
chains
at
the
onset
and
then
one-third,
as
these
milestones
would
have
been
met
in
as
we
delivered
the
additional
work
for
ibc,
but
since
the
even
the
the
enf
accepted
to
basically
front
load,
the
the
the
two
thirds
at
the
beginning.
G
Now
the
milestones
become
essentially
like
some
sort
of
investing
schedule,
in
a
sense
with
regards
to
wax
and
pillows,
because
they
are
not
basically
being
paid
at
the
onset,
but
rather
they're
being
delayed
and
aligned
with
the
milestones.
So
this
is
this
is
at
least
like
how
I
interpret
it,
and
what's
my
understanding
of
it
is
so.
This
is
how
I
think
it
probably
reconciliate
the
two
terms
so
just
to
put.
C
A
little
bit
of
specific
numbers
in
there
because
it
may
help
the
3.8
million
dollars
according
to
the
current
ratios
that
were
shared,
would
be
split
as
such
eos
would
pay
2.5346
million
dollars.
So
two
million
five
hundred
thirty
four
thousand
six
hundred
dollars
telos
in
your
case,
you
would
pay
three
hundred
and
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
dollars
worth
of
telos
tokens
wax
would
pay
nine
hundred
fifty
seven
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
However,
all
of
the
tokens
that
would
be
up
front
would
all
be
eos.
C
Over
the
18
months,
that's
when
then
the
telos
tokens
would
be
unlocked.
Having
said
that,
you
would
be
sending
your
three
hundred
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
dollars
worth
of
yours
at
ellos
right
away
and
then
in
order
to
unlock
those
for
ux
to
be
able
to
leverage
the
fact
that
they
are
sitting
on
the
treasury.
F
So
no
I
I
I
so
if
I
understand
all
this-
and
I
can,
I
and
the
numbers
are
insignificant
and,
to
be
honest,
I
I'm
I'm
not
really
personally
worried
in
either
case
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
we
all
understand
what
is
going
to
happen
when
so
that
we
can
put
on
paper
so
you're
saying
that
those
tokens
move
over
right
away.
The
one
third
for
ibc-
and
I
guess
in
theory,
if
we're
applying
the
same
logic,
everything
right
the
milestones
for
faster
finality
as
well-
are
included
in
this
large
one
sum.
F
So
all
the
tokens
move
over
right
away
and
in
this
theory
there's
not
the
18
months
is
suggestive,
and
it's
probably
going
to
take
that
long
for
faster
finality.
But
I
guess
my
point
is:
if
they
complete
them
early,
the
18
month
is
just
an
estimate
for
the
milestones.
It's
not
a
vesting
schedule
right
so
let's
say
gnome
exercises
the
superpowers
and
in
three
months,
everything's
done
those
lp
tokens
go
out
right.
So
it's
a
milestone.
F
F
Reached
the
lp,
the
tokens
go
immediately
to
be
traded
on
an
amm
on
the
ux
network,
which
is
to
their
benefit
and
is
because
that's
totally
fair
because
they're
doing
the
work-
and
you
know,
there's
compromises
being
made,
I'm
not
speaking
against
any
of
that.
I'm
just
saying
that
the
tokens
immediately
go
in
that
amm
for
liquidity
pools.
The
the
lp
is
locked
in
nmc
controlled
by
us
until
milestones
are
met,
is
effectively
what
we're
talking
about
here
and.
C
I'll
throw
another
curveball,
because,
yes,
yes,
what
you
just
described-
yes,
but
then
of
and
that's
why
I
was
laying
out
the
numbers,
the
first
milestones
that
will
be
met.
I,
let's
just
I
don't
think
they'll
do
it
in
three
months,
but
let's
say
they
can
finalize
everything
in
12
months,
which
is
maybe
more
realistic,
but
I
still
don't
think
it
is.
But
let's
just
say
it's
12
months,
the
first
payments
would
still
be
eating
to
the
eos
right.
C
It
would
be
front
loading
all
of
the
eos
being
made
accessible,
and
so
in
this
example
of
three
months
that
you
that
you
mentioned,
for
example,
it
is
possible
that
only
in
the
third
month
is
when
telus
and
wax
tokens
are
made
accessible,
got
it
right
and
because
the
total
sum
is
still
very
much
an
eos
and
then
the
first
tokens
to
be
unlocked
would
always
be
the
eos
ones,
and
so
it's
delaying
the
unlocking
of
telos
and
wax
tokens
so
yeah.
I
don't
think
it's
realistic.
F
No
okay,
I
get
it
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
in
my
head
and
what
I'm
we're
expecting
to
see
on
paper
is
very
clear
in
terms
of
how
it's
mechanic,
what
the
triggers
are
with
the
mechanics,
are
moving
the
assets
around
when
the
assets
get
moved
when
releases
happen,
and
this
all
comes
back
and
supports
the
whole
concept
that
douglas
suggested
originally,
which
is
that
the
numbers
are
cut
on
day.
One
right
we
at
that
point,
we
establish
the
token
amounts
we
probably
no
longer
discussing
dollar
amounts.
F
We're
now
discussing
token
amounts,
and
we
would
you
know,
establish,
like
you
said,
the
milestone
amounts,
the
percentages
of
the
tokens
that
get
released
at
those
milestones
and
and
the
eos
go
out
first,
as
we
hit
those
milestones
and
then
once
the
percentage
exceeds.
What
eos
has
contributed
in
a
I
guess
in
a
token
amount,
then
we
would
move
on
to
like
probably
a
50,
50
split
of
telos
and
wax
or
something
getting
released
at
those
subsequent
milestones.
Right.
Yes,
something
like
that
correct!
Yes,.
F
G
D
F
Milestone
and
achievement
based,
but
to
your
point,
one
of
the
achievements
is
12
months
of
support,
which
then
becomes
fixed
so
yeah.
I
guess
one
other
thing
I
would
point
out.
You
know
if
we're
drawing
up
a
contract
and
stuff
on
paper.
You
know
so
we're
all
clear
and
nobody
has
any
like
future.
Oh
gotchas,
like
we're
talking
about
moving
tokens
to
an
amm
that
obviously
has
to
be
released.
You
know,
I
know
you've
been
working
hard
and
you
say
imminence,
but
obviously
it
has
to
be
a
place
to
move
them
right.
F
So
once
that
has
a
home
and
we
can
move
the
tokens
there
and
then
there
are
lp
tokens
for
those
actual
tokens
that
are
in
the
pools
that
you
know.
I
would
assume,
unless
you've
done
some
miracle
that
bancor
claimed
and
obviously
we've
seen
what
happened
there
is
there
is
like
impermanent
loss
there
are,
you
know
you
will?
The
agreement
is
that
you
will
get
a
percentage
release
of
the
vesting
tokens
of
the
lp
tokens
at
these
milestones.
Right
like
we
just
want
to
be
very
clear.
We
might
move
yes.
I
F
I
F
I
C
C
C
Which
is
basically
what
we
were
stuck
with
with
the
coalition.
We
had
this
very
discussion
a
few
months
back,
some
people
were
reticent.
Oh
we're
going
to
send
two
million
dollars.
It's
going
to
be
worth
10
million
by
the
time
we
use
it.
Yeah
we're
pretty
happy
now
that
we
did
the
opposite.
Yes,
ux
ux
did
ux
takes
that
bit
right,
so
ux
then
sits
on
a
pile
of
tokens
that
it
hopes
will
be
worth
more
and
so
that
it
hopes
the
work
that
is
doing
will
be
worth
more,
but
they
they're
taking
that
risk.
E
C
But
the
advantage
there
is
that
we
get
the
work
right
away
right,
especially
in
the
in
terms
of
ibc.
We
get
the
solution
instantly,
whereas
for
the
rest,
if
they
end
up
not
doing
the
work,
we
get
the
tokens
back
and
so
yes,
if
the
market
went
up,
you
would
get
back
tokens
that
are
valued
more
as
well
you're
you're
putting
tokens
aside,
but
getting
the
work
now
and
if
the
work
isn't
delivered,
you're
getting
those
tokens
back.
C
A
C
Should
that
actually
come
as
a
formal
application.
The
last
time
we
talked
about
this
was
about
two
two
and
a
half
months
ago,
when
there
was
back
and
forth
with
ultra,
we
decided
not
to
open
the
doors
again
at
that
time.
There's
there's
no
formal
application
at
the
time
either
discussion
stop.
But
should
that
be
the
case
again,
it
seems
that
people
are
taking
note
of
the
progress
we
are
making
as
a
coalition,
and
that
seems
to
be
of
interest
to
at
least
proton
from
what
I
hear
and
perhaps
others.
F
C
I
just
yes,
I
do
believe
we
documented,
I
believe
we
even
wrote-
I
I
recall,
writing
back
to
ultra,
but
I
believe
that
we,
because
we
had
talked
about
it,
a
lot
during
the
calls
either
within
the
myro
board.
We
have
some
record
of
you,
know,
specific
reasoning
or
or
what
our
position
was
as
well
as
then
in
the
channels
for
sure
we
do
as
well.