►
From YouTube: DELETE ME
Description
The Coalition discusses Yves financial restructuring proposal, rebranding updates, and how best to move forward in the current market conditions.
00:00:00 Start
00:00:05 This weeks topics by Jeff
00:00:50 Summary of last week's call and level playing fields by Yves, Jeff
00:08:34 Faster Finality finance restructuring proposal by Yves, Gnome
00:49:00 Branding update by Yves, Justin, Douglas
00:53:33 Wrapping it up with open Items by Jeff
00:54:38 End
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://eosn.foundation
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosn.foundation
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
B
So
great
and
there's
actually
a
short
agenda
today.
The
first
thing
is
somewhat
informational
is
that
grey
mass
is
actually
asked
for
a
little
extra
time,
putting
the
rfp
numbers
together,
because
they
are
responding
to
the
list
of
components
that
they
recommended
sent
to
the
group,
and
you
know,
got
the
feedback
on
that.
So
that's
just
as
an
fyi.
B
I
don't
think
that
would
be
top
of
mind
today
anyway,
given
our
other
topics,
the
other
two
main
topics
today
is
around
the
faster
finality
rfp
and
the
overall
eve.
Do
we
want
to
give
a
summary
or
continuation
of
the
tuesday
call
about
general
finances,
and
I
believe
you
have
something
that
you
would
like
to
propose
to
the
group
around
that
correct.
C
Yes,
before
we
move
to
that
just
a
question
about
process
for
extension
of
time
for
sdks
to
confirm
in
this
case,
there's
only
grey
mass
pitching
or
the
only
they're.
The
only
people
essentially
raise
their
hand
for
the
in
the
future.
Should
there
be
multiple
people,
we
would
have
to
take
that
into
into
consideration
as
to
whether
or
not
we
want
to
allow
an
extension
of
time
correct,
whereas
in
this
case
it's
somewhat
irrelevant.
Okay,.
B
D
E
Okay
well
and
just
to
add
clarity
to
the
email
I
had
sent.
We
posted
our
recommendations
in
the
telegram
channel,
as
per
our
discussion
either
last
week
for
the
week
before,
and
we
have
received
zero
feedback.
So
we
are
kind
of
waiting
for
feedback
on
those
items
before
we
go
ahead
and
research
and
quote
them
because
that's
going
to
be
hours
of
time.
C
C
C
And
yes,
then,
on
the
second
item,
so
the
continuation
of
tuesday's
call
so
tuesday
we
met
with
essentially
everybody
other
than
ux
being
present
to
review
the
faster
finality
bid
and
to
correct
any
or
here
to
to
ensure
that
everybody's.
On
the
same
page,
there
was
some
confusion,
apparently
within
our
community
anyways
in
eos,
when
they
listened
to
the
call
last
week.
The
impression
that
some
people
got
was
that
this
bid
had
already
been
approved.
That
is
not
the
case
of
the
call
last
week
was
to
review
the
bid.
C
This
was
the
bid
was
formally
presented
last
week
and
the
call
that
was
recorded
and
subsequently
made
available
was
the
rest
of
the
coalition
reviewing
that
bid.
So
no
decisions
have
been
made
until
now,
and
so
what
you
saw
was
essentially
what
some
of
the
community
members
were
asking
for
was
seeking
questions
on
that
bit.
That's
essentially
what
we're
doing
after
that
call.
C
We
then
got
on
a
another
call
earlier
this
week
with
everybody
except
ux,
so,
as
we
discussed
during
the
last
meetings,
call
to
review
as
the
coalition
outside
of
the
person
bidding
in
this
case,
which
we
would
do
normally
if
it
was
from
an
external
third
party.
We'd
do
the
same
thing,
but
we
do
it
the
four
people
or
the
four
chains.
Now
we
did
it
without
that
one
so
that
we
could
discuss
the
the
bid
in
itself
more
so
financially
and
talk
about
whether
or
not
we
would
you
know.
C
Is
there
anything
we
want
to
change
to
that
bit?
Is
there
do
we
want
to
make
a
counter?
What
would
that
counter?
Look
like?
Are
we
okay,
with
the
way
it
is
being
proposed?
Milestone-Wise?
Are
we
okay
with
the
milestones?
Would
we
completely
change
the
way
that
we'd
like
them,
or
that
we'd
like
to
structure
this
potential
project
should,
should
it
be
accepted
et
cetera,
et
cetera?
So
that's
what
we
talked
about
on
tuesday
and
the
idea
was
then
part
of
that
discussion.
C
We
are
currently
sitting
on
roughly
two
million
dollars
in
the
treasury
for
the
coalition
and
this
bid
came
or
was
presented
at
two
million
dollars.
We
know
that
there
are
other
priorities
that
we
would
like
to
tackle
this
year
and
being
cognizant
of
the
current
market
conditions.
We
didn't
want
necessarily
take
that
bid
in
a
void.
C
We
wanted
to
see
how
else
could
we
potentially
structure
this,
knowing
that
there
are
other
priorities
that
we'd
like
to
tackle
knowing
the
market
conditions,
knowing
that
two
of
these
bids
that
we're
waiting
on
one
being
faster
finality,
the
other
one
being
ibc,
would
be
coming
from
the
ux
team?
Knowing
all
of
these?
C
How
could
we
potentially
look
at
this
from
a
much
higher
level?
A
higher
point
of
view,
so
that
we
can
hit
on
a
few,
let's
say
wins
for
for
everybody
involved.
One
of
the
wins
would
be.
How
could
we
try
and
structure
something
so
that
we
can
do
more
than
one
priority,
because
there
was
some
serious
discussion
about?
Do
we
potentially
deploy
capital
only
on
faster
finality,
or
only
on
ibc,
or
only
sdks,
or
only
something
else?
C
So
how
can
we
potentially
grow
that?
How
can
we
signal
that
to
the
market
is
one
of
them
by
continuously
deploying
capital
showcasing
that
when
we
put
out
bids
that
we
actually
do
want
to
proceed
with
them,
but
also
importantly,
that
we're
willing
to
invest
within
the
ecosystems
within
each
of
our
respective
ecosystems,
in
terms
of
capacity
or-
I
guess-
function
as
well
as
human
resources
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
wider
developer
base?
C
We
set
the
stage
so
that
it
really
signals
going
forward
that
the
coalition
is
fiscally
prudent
and
it
it
actually
looks
at
things
very
seriously
and
how
it
deploys
its
capital,
because
this
capital
is
given
to
us
by
the
the
four
coalition
members
and
each
coalition
member
has
different
governance
mechanisms
and
different
ways
of
how
it
needs
to
come
to
consensus
on
how
it
even
contributes
funding
to
the
coalition.
So
looking
at
all
of
that
essentially
leads
to
this
call
today,
so
I
was
just
giving
that
context
after
that
call
on
tuesday.
C
I
did
also
meet
earlier
this
morning,
with
guillaume
from
ux,
to
give
kind
of
a
a
summary
of
our
discussion
from
tuesday,
so
that
we'd
be
prepared
for
this
call
today,
so
that
it
wouldn't
come
as
a
surprise
and
such
and
effectively.
This
is
where
we're
starting
now
we're
starting
out
everybody
generally
now
on.
This
call
has
the
same
level
of
information
give
or
take,
and
now
because
the
conversation
can
ensue.
You
know
with
that
information.
C
C
What
if,
because
so
and
I'll
guess
I'll,
lay
out
the
what
we
don't.
So
what
we
know
is
that
one
of
the
pitches
for
faster
finality
or
the
bid
for
faster
finality
is
two
million
dollars
the
bid
for
ibc
that
he
is
informal
that
has
not
been
formally
submitted,
but
we
did
have
a
technical
call
about
ibc,
and
so
we
kind
of
laid
out
what
those
muscles
would
look
like
what
the
requirements
would
be
and
such
stands
at
three
million
dollars.
So
we
know
that
that's
five
million
dollars.
C
We
know
that
sdks
roughly
depending
on
on
where
they
will
land
the
current
draft
proposal
within
the
wallet
plus
blue
paper
stands
at
1.1,
give
or
take
million
dollars.
We
know
that
we
have
two
million
dollars
in
the
current
treasury.
That's
already
been
locked
in
in
usdt,
and
the
majority
of
that
still
remains.
I
don't
know
the
exact
number
right
now,
but
just
under
2
million,
but
it's
pretty
much
there.
C
We
also
know
based
on
the
bid
that
that
we
submitted
in
faster
in
faster
finality.
The
enf
was
one
of
the
third-party
contractors
that
was
presented,
and
so
we
know
as
the
enf
and
everybody
else
knows
what
we
were
asking
in
terms
of
hourly
rate
for
our
principal
engineer,
to
fulfill
a
particular
role
within
that
pitch
and
that
stands
at
that
was
at
350
an
hour.
So
that's
kind
of
a
baseline
that
we
knew
of,
and
we
know
how
we
came
to
that
number.
C
So
that
impacts
how
we
look
at
the
other
numbers
that
were
proposed.
We
also
know
the
cost
at
which
the
coalition
or
the
cost
of
the
coalition
pays
for
jeff
and
or
kirsten
for
the
project
management
administrative
functions
within
the
coalition.
So
that's
also
something
that
we
could
use
as
a
baseline.
C
C
I'll
take
the
silence
as
a
no.
I
think
I
laid
everything
out
so
knowing
all
of
this,
what
I've
pitched
to
to
everybody
is
what,
if,
instead
of
paying
for
faster,
funality
and
ibc
by
taking
the
formula
that
we
have
giving
out
the
same
thing
that
we
did
last
time
giving
out
our
respect
or
trading
our
respective
tokens
or
swapping
our
respective
tokens
for
usdt,
putting
that
into
a
treasury
further
amplifying
or
decreasing
the
liquidity
pools
that
are
currently
affected
in
this
market.
C
What
if
ux,
was
open
to
receiving
those
tokens
but
in
the
actual
token,
so
not
selling
the
token?
What
if
those
tokens
were
vested
for
a
period
of
time,
so
that
the
funds
could
be
sent
the
the
work
could
be
paid
for,
but
the
tokens
themselves
would
not
be
sold,
so
it
won't
create
further
downwards
pressure
on
those
respective
tokens.
C
So
let's
just
take
the
five
million
dollars
as
as
a
basic
sample.
Now
we
have
a
counter
for
that,
and
I've
already
proposed
it
to
darren
sorry
to
young.
I
have
not
talked
to
darren,
I
young.
Maybe
you
want
to
comment
whether
or
not
you've
spoken
to
darren,
since
just
so
that
everybody?
Yes,
no
yes,
okay,
yeah
yeah
yeah!
C
What,
if,
instead
of
running
the
formula
that
we
ran
last
time,
the
same
way
that
we
ran
it
last
time
which
looks
at
market
cap
and
liquidity
depth
over
a
period
of
time
whereby
liquidity
depth
over
a
period
of
time
in
a
way
penalizes
eos,
because
eos
has
more
liquidity
depth.
What
if
we
inverted
that
component
so
that
the
as
so
instead
of
having
eos
pay
almost
80
percent
of
that
treasury
for
these
particular
items
that
we
inverted
that
component
eos,
instead
of
paying
71.6,
would
likely
pay
something
like
66.
C
C
All
of
this
would
be
outside
of
the
current
treasury,
and
so
the
current
treasury
would
still
remain
at
roughly
2
million,
just
under
2
million,
which
would
open
up
then
the
idea
of
having
faster
finality
and
ibc
being
done
instead
of
having
to
choose
one
or
the
other,
still
having
the
possibility
of
having
the
sdks
be
done,
and
potentially
one
or
two
more
priorities.
These
other
two
priorities
in
terms
of
a
priority
within
the
private
list
that
we
determined
a
few
months
back,
were
peer-to-peer
networking
code
rewrite
and
vram
limitations.
C
What?
If
now
we
have
the
possibility
of
doing
those
four
or
those
five
priorities
instead,
because
we're
actually
only
using
this
part
of
the
treasury
for
that
and
what
I
just
mentioned
beforehand-
would
be
tokens
within
the
respective
tokens.
Don't
touch
the
actual
treasury,
what
else
ux
in
this
instance,
so
the
the
chains
in
the
respective
chains
now
give
the
tokens
within
their
respective
token
those
tokens
are
locked.
So
it
doesn't.
You
know
those
tokens
can't
be
sold,
so
it
doesn't
create
any
downward
pressure
on
their
token.
C
At
this
time,
eos
gets
a
benefit
from
this
because
then,
instead
of
paying
more
and
bp
lines
for
more
liquidity,
it
actually
pays
a
little
bit
less.
But
if
the
ux
team
needs
to
access
capital,
it
can
sell
the
eos
that
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
vested,
so
it
benefits
from
that.
But
then
eos
liquidity,
that's
less
so
of
an
issue
and
so
less
over
problem
ux
benefits
because
it
gets
faster
finality
as
well
and
it
gets
ibc
deployed
on
four
chains.
C
The
ux
also
benefits,
because
it
now
sits
on
treasury
that
potentially
could
be
valued
more
if
we
deem
that
you
know
this
direction
overall
is
going
to
elevate
and
increase
the
value
of
the
respective
product
ecosystem
that
we're
working
in
ux
also
benefits,
because
through
this
period
of
time,
it
gets
subsidized
to
do
work
and
work
on
core
protocol
enhancements
and
so
its
engineers
actually
kind
of
go
through
a
training
process
in
a
way
over
the
next
year.
So
their
skill
sets
actually
increase
over
this
period
of
time.
C
Very
solid
priorities:
the
coalition
wins
again
as
well,
because
then,
in
terms
of
strengthening
the
coalition,
we
now
showcase
that
we're
able
to
even
in
a
period
where
it
is
difficult
financially
for
everybody
that
we've
somehow
figured
out
a
way
to
work
together
and
to
continue
this.
So
we
start
building
that
track
record,
one
of
them
being
ibc
very
very
quickly.
So
we
get
the
the
benefits
of
ibc
almost
immediately
within
our
respective
chains.
C
And
I
did
I
forget
something-
I
think
that's
it.
So
that's!
Basically
the
idea,
that's
what
I've
talked
about
to
everybody.
I
still
believe
that,
instead
of
having
to
choose
a
priority
over
another
or
any
of
the
priorities
that
we
laid
out
and
having
to
choose
between
any
of
them,
I
believe
that
this
is
a
means
by
which
we
could
do
effectively
everything,
without
necessarily
creating
undue
financial
hardship
on
anybody.
C
F
Thanks
eve,
that's
a
lot
to
that.
That
was
a
mouthful
and
I
think
you
described,
I
think
you
discussed
it
very
well
and
conveyed
it
very
well.
Can
you
tell
us
anything
more
about
you
brought
this
to
guillaume,
and
can
you
tell
us
more
about
you
know
how
you
felt
like
what,
whether
you
felt
he
was
receptive
to
this
or
how
would
you,
how
would
you
character.
D
C
But
no
but
then
it'll
give
color,
because
then
guillen
can
explain,
because
when
I
spoke
to
young
darren
wasn't
there
and
darren.
I
have
no
idea
what
darren
thinks
and
so,
when
I
originally
pitched
the
idea
to
guillaume
in
a
void
without
talking
about
the
amount
of
1.6
million
instead
of
2
million
for
faster
finality.
So
just
talking
about
the
general
idea,
my
sense
was
that
this
was
a
possibility,
but
we
both
agreed
that
coming
to
the
specifics
was
where
we
weren't
at
anywhere
near,
but
the
general
idea.
C
If
everybody
agreed
generally
to
this,
then
we
could
likely
fall
on
something
that
worked
for
everybody.
That
was
my
sense
of
the
first
time
I
spoke
to
guillaume
about
it.
When
I
spoke
to
guillaume
about
the
1.6
million
dollar
today
and
then
the
general
idea
of
the
3.6
to
3.8
million
dollar,
I
did
get
a
sense
that
there
was
some
pushback
there
and
that
there
would
likely
be
a
counter
to
the
counter,
but
I
still
generally
got
the
sense
that
there's
something
dead
that
we
could
likely
work
with
as
a
whole.
I
So,
just
before
I
answer
first
of
all,
thanks
eve,
this
is
this
is
very
much
a
very
good
summary
of
what
what
I
understood
and
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page
about
what
the
counter
meant.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
jesse
and
lucas
is
that
your
understanding
as
well.
Are
you
guys
comfortable
with
that
counter.
A
I
Okay,
good
yeah,
so
essentially,
I
think
I
think
the
the
general
direction
is,
it's
definitely
the
correct
one.
Originally,
we
did
suggest
that
the
the
amounts
come
in
the
in
the
tokens
of
the
respective
chains.
Our
our
intent
is
to
is
to
actually
hold
on
to
these
tokens
for
the
the
majority
and
then
use
them
as
the
basis
for
for
essentially
like
ram
the
liquidity
for
amm
as
it
launches
imminently,
so
that
that
was
that
was
our
our
initial
position.
I
This
being
said,
we
we
discussed
darren
and
I
about
the
numbers.
I
think
I
think
when
we,
when
we
put
together
these
numbers,
we
presented
them
last
week,
although
we
had
kind
of
thought
about
it
for
much
longer,
and
when
we
came
up
with
these
numbers,
the
market
was
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
less
less
soft
and
it
was.
I
It
was
definitely
before
that
big
dump
recently,
so
things
have
changed
and
we're
willing
to
recognize
that
there's
definitely
a
you
know
like
a
lot
of
pressure
on
on
everyone.
So
I
think
if
we,
if
we
target
3.8,
I
think
I
think
we're
okay,
with
that
the
details
of
the
of
the
the
release
and
the
the
vesting
can
be
essentially
like
they
can
go.
You
know
like
in
line
with
the
milestones
as
we've
presented
for
faster
finality.
I
I
However,
I
also
discussed
with
eve
with
regards
to
the
ibc
portion
of
the
deal
would
be
we
would
do.
The
two
thirds
that
would
be
payable
now
would
be
an
eos
and
the
one
third
that
would
be
through
the
milestones
would
be
in
wax
plus
telos
in
order
to
maintain
this
vesting
for
wax
and
telos.
So,
under
these
general
terms,
I
think
we
we
would
be
inclined
to
move
forward.
C
C
I
Well,
the
way
we
look
at
it,
it's
probably
a
separate
discussion,
but
the
there
will
be
some
some
overlaps
in
the
two.
But
I
think
at
this
point
for
the
simplicity,
I
would
just
keep
them
separate.
We
will
most
likely
get
some
some
some
of
the
set
token
benefits
kind
of
stemming
from
this
general
approach,
but
yeah
for
a
second
simplicity.
I'd
probably
just
leave
it
in
formal
at
this
stage,
but.
C
I
D
F
You
know
responsive
to
or
receptive
to
eve's
idea
about
about
sort
of
folding
these
together
and
offering
a
comprehensive
counter,
and
so
that's
exciting.
To
me,
I
want
to
clarify
just
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
keeping
those
deals.
Separate
is,
is
your
position
that
they're
they're
just
completely
distinct
deals,
meaning
the
deal,
meaning
the
any
discussion
we
would
have
going
forward
on
on
the
it's
like
super
token
or
anything
along
those
lines.
Or
are
you
saying
hey?
I
I
At
this
point,
so
I
I
would
say
probably
best
to
keep
them
separate
on
the
super
token,
since
we
discussed
it
earlier
this
year
with
you
guys,
but
we
would
probably
would
probably
take
a
bit
more
time
and
kind
of
readjust
our
initial
model
so
that
it
fits
the
reality
of
the
market
and
takes
into
account
your
feedback,
mostly
doug,
douglas
and
other
people.
That
commented
back
then
so
we
would
probably
come
up
with
a
revised
model.
I
D
I
just
I
think
I
think
what
I'd
probably
just
add
that
you
know
what
is
a
discussion
point
that
capital
committed
today
can
be
reflected
in
the
in
the
kind
of
in
the
kind
of
initial
allocation
algorithm
from
the
super
token.
So
if
there
is
a
kind
of
if
we
have
that
that
funding
piece
that
we
we
we
kind
of
tag
on
the
end,
have
the
headroom
function.
D
I
can't
because
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
looked
at
it,
but
we
have
that
headroom
function,
which
is
designed
to
allocate
tokens
for
kind
of
for
code,
development
or
or
general.
You
know
on-chain
economic
development.
I
suppose,
then
we
can
actually,
you
know
back
date,
some
of
that
to
the
to
the
kind
of
money
spent
so
far
by
the
various
chains,
or
something
like
that.
So
I
think
we
could
like
a
coalition
allocation
for
for
capital
already
committed,
so
there's
ways
of
playing
with
that.
F
Sure
I
I
guess
what
I
the
main.
The
main
thing
I
was
trying
to
to
address
was
for
telos.
We,
you
know
we
will
decide,
but
ultimately,
our
our
community
on
important
anything
as
important
as
that
our
community
will
decide
whether
you
know
we
would
be
able
to.
You
know
what
we'd
be
able
to
contribute
and
whatnot,
and
so,
if
we
are
so,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
all
have
the
same
expectation
around.
F
You
know
good,
you
know.
Basically,
the
good
will
that's
being
created.
You
know,
probably
on
both
sides
by
by
forward.
You
know,
by
having
some
flexibility
in
how
this
deal
is
done,
so
that,
if
you
know
six
months
from
now
that
comes
together,
we
you
know,
if
we're,
if
there's
an
expectation
that
that
this
is
meant
also
in
some
way
to
you
know
to
create
good
will
towards
that
that
it.
If
so
it
said
it's
a
memorialization.
F
When
we
go
to
our
when
we
go
to
our
you
know
constituents
we
we
can
say,
look
guys.
We
you
know
we're
not
this.
This
does
not
start
from
zero.
There
was
a
lot
of
you
know
they.
They
provided
a
lot
of
additional
tech
at
a
price
that
you
know
they
were
able.
They
were
flexible
in
their
initial
proposal
for
how
to
get
all
these
other
things
done,
and
we
need
to
bear
that.
You
know,
and
we
encourage
the
you
know
the
chain
to
to
hold
to.
F
You
know,
take
that
into
consideration
how
you
vote
versus.
If
there's
not
like,
we
can't
just
go.
We
I
think
we
need
something.
If
we,
if
you
want
that,
I
think
and
I
think
that's
reasonable.
I
think
that
it
just
needs
to
be
memorialized
now,
somehow
that
we
can
point
back
to
at
that
point
in
the
future.
F
F
F
You
guys,
you
know,
play
ball
on
this
and
and
we're
saying
they're
separate,
but
I
just
want
to
understand
the
actual
if
the,
if
they
are
you're,
saying
they're
separate,
but
in
fact
there's
a
there's,
a
expectation
being
set
there
for
represent
reciprocity,
because
I
don't
because
without
some
kind
of
notating
that
then
I
can't
I
don't
feel
like
I
can.
We
can
guarantee
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
convey
that
strongly
to.
F
I
consider
I
consider
them
cutting
their
price.
You
know
they.
I
thought
their.
I
thought
in
many
respects
both
those
of
proposals
were
were
were
reasonable
in
in
you
know,
and-
and
I
don't
think
there
were
any
under
any
obligation
to
cut
their
price,
but
they
are
cutting
their
price
and
I
don't.
I
just
want
to
understand
if
there's
an
expectation
going
forward
that
that's
that
we're
going
to
go,
you
know
that's
going
to
come
into
future
negotiations.
C
A
C
I
think
douglas
is
asking
about
super
token,
which
is
outside
of
the
priorities
that
we've
been
talking,
but
he's
asking
a
very
valid
question.
The
question
of
is
the
expectation
now
with
what
is
being
proposed
that
the
rest
of
the
coalition
would
effectively
owe
ux
in
the
future.
Should
they
at
that
time,
come
back
and
ask
the
coalition
hey
we'd
like
to
you
know,
move
forward
with
the
super
token
you
owe
us,
I'm
saying
I
didn't
sign
up
for
that.
Darren
confirmed
that
no,
that's
not
their
expectation,
which
is
then
outside.
A
D
A
Is
just
so
I
understand
as
well.
The
super
token
was
the
aggregate
of
all
four
right
and
then
the
mention
of
the
amm
and
using
the
tokens,
and
I
agree
with
what
douglas
said
I'd
I
would
be
in
support
of
the
vested
tokens
still
being
able
to
participate
in
an
amm,
but
the
lp
being
locked,
that's
a
creative
way
of
doing
it
and
it
lets
things
happen
sooner
with
them.
Liquidity
is
liquidity,
but
is
the
is
the
suggestion
of
the
ibc
enabling
tokens
to
flow
freely
and
an
amm
coming
imminently.
A
Maybe
they'd
be
trading
in
the
amm
independently
of
each
other
right
right.
It
wouldn't
be
trading
as
an
aggregate
super
token
they'd
be
trading,
you
know.
If
we,
if
we
did,
that,
you
would
launch
the
amm
we'd
put
the
telos
into
a
liquidity,
pool
against
ux,
I'm
assuming
or
or
a
coin
or
both
and
unlock
the
liquidity,
but
it
would
be
telos
paired
with
something
else
not
tell
us,
plus
wax
plus
eos
plus
ux
and
a
super
token
paired
against
something
else.
I
Correct,
well
I
mean
like
not
to
go
too
much
in
detail
on
our
amm,
but
rmm
essentially,
is.
I
think,
the
first,
the
first
that
I've
heard
of
that
supports
multiple
assets
that
are
dynamic,
balanced
so
essentially
like
it's.
It's
not
one
pair
against
another.
It's
a
full!
It's
a
full
basket
of
all
the
tokens
that
you
put
in
there
and
there's
there's
an
implicit
price
that
exists
between
every
single
permutation
of
the
pairs
that
can
be
created
from
the
basket.
I
But
in
any
case,
in
any
case,
if
we,
if
we
go
at
that
route,
we
would
essentially,
as
douglas
and
darren,
would
were
suggesting.
We
would
lock
the
lp
liquidity
instead
and
that
would
be
vesting
over
a
period
of
time
matching
the
milestones,
so
the
liquidity
could
not
be
removed.
Essentially,
you
could
still
trade
the
tokens
against
each
other,
but
they
would
not.
We
would
not
be
able
to
withdraw
them
from
the
from
the
emm.
K
K
I
C
So
there's
going
to
be
a
few
things
that
we'll
need
to
do.
I
guess
one
of
the
parameters
that
will
be
key
will
be
proposing
running
the
algorithm
again
for
the
ratios
based
on
market
cap
and
liquidity
depth
and
then
proposing
that
to
the
group
with
that
inversion
of
liquid
depth
and
see
what
that
looks
like
we
haven't,
run
the
numbers.
I
don't
know
if
you
own
there
and
you've
got
to
run
the
numbers,
I
have
not
seen
them
so
seeing
whether
or
not
that
makes
sense
and
how
that
actually
impacts
the
percentages.
C
That
would
be
one
thing
determining
the
milestones,
which
would
be
very
key
for
determining
the
muscles
and
the
muscle
payments
and
what
that
vesting
period
will
look
like,
and
if
those
tokens
are
vested
at
the
onset
and
sent
out
at
the
onset
then
having
contracts
in
place
to
whether
or
not
their
legal
contracts
or
or
their
on-chain
contracts,
so
that
it
prevents,
or
that
everybody's
everybody's
good
with
it,
because
there's
a
concrete
here's,
how
the
testing
works,
there's
no
social
agreement
or
anything
like
that.
We
know
that
those
don't
work
out
very
well.
C
C
What
else
do
you
guys
see
needs
to
be
done,
but
we
would.
We
would
still
need
to
figure
out
the
other
primary.
So
this,
then
that
would
solve,
I
guess,
the
faster
finality
and
ibc
component.
Potentially,
we
still
need
to
go
through
the
regular
process,
though
with
the
sdk,
for
example,
bid
and
still,
then
that
leaves
us
between
eight
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
within
the
current
treasury.
C
Depending
on
how
much
the
sdk
proposal
comes
in,
it
still
leaves
us
quite
a
bit
of
money
to
be
able
to
handle
a
fourth
or
potentially
even
a
fifth
priority,
so
we
would
still
continue
on
the
rfp
process,
which
has
currently
taken
somewhat
of
a
a
pause,
because
we
weren't
even
sure,
if
we'd
be
able
to
do
more
now,
we'd
re-engage
that
with
potentially
the
two
that
I
mentioned.
Peer-To-Peer
workflow
remind
and
theme
ram
limitations
and
vram
limitations.
C
I
did
talk
about
the
other
day
and
lucas.
I
think
you
were
gone
by
then
something
that
came
up
and
maybe
you
and
I
can
touch
offline,
and
I
can
bring
that
up
to
you,
because
I
know
that
that
was
a
one
of
your
top
priorities
and
there's
something
relevant
to
that
that
I'll
bring
up.
Maybe
I'll,
send
you
a
voicemail
later
there
has
been
no
movement
on
on
that
for
the
rest
of
you
who
know
what
I'm
talking
about,
and
yes,
I'm
being
very
cryptic
for
a
reason.
C
So
I'll
leave
you
a
message,
lucas
and
let
you
know,
but
yes,
it
would
be
doing
the
rfps
for
that,
potentially,
if
they're
required
and
see
what
would
that?
What
would
that
cost
so
that
we
could
potentially
have
four
or
five
priorities
and
doing
all
the
communications
around
this,
so
brandon
zack
getting
everything
in
line
so
that
we
can
communicate
to
the
community.
C
C
C
C
Of
course,
we
even
had
a
poll
yesterday
in
our
eos
fireside
chat
very
informal,
but
whether
or
not
people
thought
that
it
was
sarcastic
or
it
was
real
and
I
was
like
it
doesn't
matter
who
wants
to
vote
for
it
doesn't
matter,
because
we
were
able
to
get
tons
of
traction
on
yasayo
because
of
that
everybody
got.
You
know
a
boost
in
media
attention
and
an
opportunity
to
be
able
to
showcase
that
your
products
are
awesome.
C
Any
movement-
oh
actually,
maybe
a
report-
we
did
skip
this
at
the
beginning,
jeff
a
report
on
branding
we
as
the
branding
some
committee
met
with
word
again,
was
it
earlier
in
the
week.
I
think
it
was
monday.
This
week
we
went
through
or
we
started
working
on
the
values,
the
values
and
I
guess
the
values
proposal,
because
part
of
what
is
going
to
be
coming
out
when
the
branding
assets
come
out.
C
So
on
top
of
the
logo,
the
design,
the
visuals
and
such
there's
also
the
written
words
that
go
alongside
that,
so
whether
our
mission
values,
how
do
we
position
the
messaging
around
that
brand
etc?
So
we
had
a
call
with
word
on
monday
to
really
dive
deep
into
that
part.
We
are
now
coordinating
two
calls
for
next
week
to
continue
down
that
path,
one
where
they
will
present.
I
believe,
if
not
not
mistaken
justin,
I
guess
you
could
confirm.
J
C
C
So
that's
also
coming
coming
along
and
I
think
douglas
had
given
a
very
high
level
idea
of
roadmap
for
when
this
would
be
out-
and
I
think
we're
still
on
track
with
that
where,
at
this
point,
what
maybe
three
weeks
from
now
three
to
four
weeks
from
now,
where
maybe
we'd
be
ready
to
release
publicly
give
or
take
no
commitment.
So
maybe
in
two
weeks,
we'd
be
able
to
showcase
to
this
group.
The
first
iteration
of
messaging
and
digital
identity.
F
Right
it
comes
down
to
how
many
rounds
of
review
and
outfit
those
can
be
the
effect
yeah.
No,
I
know
you
know
that,
but
for
everybody
else
so
yeah,
I
think
two
three
weeks
is
pretty
reasonable
at
this
point,
and
since
we
haven't,
since
we
haven't,
you
know
felt,
I
do
think
we
should
just
come
out
with
a
really
strong
proposal,
and
that
means
we're.
J
Yeah,
I
think
we
we
can
definitely
take
care
of
it
if
we
wanted
to
do
something
more
kind
of
visual
or
has
like
background
graphics.
You
know,
because
we're
pretty
much
going
to
be
taking
a
lot
of
what
is
produced
and
then
just
putting
that
within
a
frame,
essentially,
which
is
good.
It's
going
to
be
a
nice
landing
page,
I'm
sure,
but
there's
like
a
step
beyond
that
that
we
could
do
but
we'd
probably
say
need
to
send
that
to
an
agency
or
something.
F
F
A
C
B
No
and
there's
because
some
of
the
open
items
because,
as
I
said
last
week,
kirsten
has
been
under
the
weather,
so
he-
and
I
owe
you
guys
a
couple
things
of
lower
priority
like
quality
assurance
and
qualifications
of
I'm
sorry,
the
testing
and
acceptance
strategy.
We
were
talking
about
things
like
acceptance
by
three
bps
and
things
of
that
nature,
but
we
just
haven't
really
gotten
into
it
because,
unfortunately,
he's
been
under
the
weather,
but
other
than
that.
I
think
we're
good.