►
Description
The Antelope Coalition updates the community on Leap 3.1 system contracts, Scalability+ blue paper, FF / IBC status updates, Wallet SDK approvers and more!
00:00:04 FF/ IBC status report
00:10:33 Scailability+ blue paper
00:17:32 Website V2 development
00:21:37 Font usage and logos
00:28:35 Leap 3.1 system contract
00:29:40 RFP secure contract library
00:31:09 Creating Standards for Antelope
00:38:40 P2P RFP
00:52:33 Block Explorer discussion
00:53:30 Assignment technical project managers
00:55:14 Future process and resources for RFP creation
01:03:08 Wallet SDK approvers / champions definition
01:23:28 Discuss a process for community votes on top 21 items
01:45:00 Antelope channel admins
Everything EOS is the official media channel of the EOS Network Foundation (ENF). The EOS Network Foundation coordinates financial and non-financial support to encourage the growth and development of the EOS Network. We’re harnessing the power of decentralization to chart a coordinated future for the EOS Network as a force for positive global change.
// EOS Network Foundation //
https://www.eosnetework.com
https://twitter.com/EosNFoundation
https://www.linkedin.com/company/eos-network-foundation
https://t.me/EOSNetworkFoundation
https://discord.gg/eos-network
info@eosnetwork.com
#EOS #EOSIO #ENF
A
B
B
Essentially,
we
went
a
bit
further
in
the
code,
they're
still
probably
I'd,
say
we're,
probably
like
halfway
through
on
that
ribbon
process.
There
are
a
few
things
that
we
discovered
since
then.
The
most
the
major
one
was
the
essentially
like
as
part
of
the
mandel
slash
upgrades,
there's
now
a
action.
Well,
there's
a
action,
return
value
feature
that
has
been
activated
on
the
two
public
destination
jungle
and
on
thailand,
and
that
changes
the
way
that
proofs
need
to
be
constructed
for
ibc.
B
So
it's
pretty
pretty
deep
what
it
affects
because,
essentially
like
we
need
to
support
proofs
all
the
way
until
that
feature
activation
using
a
certain
way
and
then,
as
after
the
future
activation,
you
need
to
switch
to
another
way
so
and
of
course,
needs
to
be.
This
needs
to
be
to
work
across
all
chains,
whether
or
not
they've
activated
as
well
as
if
they
eventually
activate
that
feature.
B
We
need
to
be
able
to
take
that
into
account
so
that
that
impacts,
of
course,
the
smart
contracts
that
impacts
the
idc
server.
That
impacts
the
I
guess,
like
the
the
front
end
or
any
other
process
that
depends
on
the
whole
thing.
So
it's
it's
not
very
complicated
the
the
change
that
it
requires.
It's
just
it's
just
tedious.
You
just
have
to
go
through
the
entire
stack
and
which
takes
all
of
that.
But
that's
that's.
We've
got
a
grip
on
over
that.
So
that's
that's
not
a
problem.
B
There
are
a
few
other
things
that
we
have
pending
to
address
some.
I
guess
like
improvements
here
and
there
that
that
eric
pointed
out
as
he
was
reviewing
code,
but
in
general
still
going
pretty
well
and
then
I
guess
for
the.
I
think
I
think,
in
what
probably
would
help
from
the
coalition
is
to
try
to
figure
out
what
timelines
are.
B
So
we
don't
want
to
overwhelm
that
that
attention
mind
space
from
our
audience,
so
so
yeah.
So
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anyone
at
the
enf
or
that
has
kind
of
a
calendar
of
releases
and
kind
of
like
pr
and
marketing
events
and
whatnot,
and
if
we
can
take
a
look
at
that
at
some
point
and
just
figure
out.
Where
do
we
slot
ivc
releases
and
and
whatnot?
Are
that
useful.
C
We
do
have
that
and
you
can
reach
out
to
ted
for
that.
It's
also
publicly
available
on
the
website,
but
I
guess
ted
or
steven
I
would
imagine,
would
have
maybe
more
details
on
the
subject.
Go
up.
Let's
say
attention
space
yield
class,
one
of
them
is
more
of
a
financial
service
and
or
had
that
financial
component
to
it,
which
is
different
than
the
ibc
side
of
things.
So,
although
both
of
them
need
to
have
marketing
considerations,
one
of
them
is
really
in
a
different
category
than
the
other.
B
B
But
I
can
talk
to
aaron.
We
already
had
a
few
discussions
on
the
topic
and
we
can
can
probably
work
together
in
kind
of
coordinating
the
the
work
so
that
so
that
when
we
launch
the
whole
solution,
for
example,
anker
already
supports
it
and
has
like
the
robo
infrastructure,
also
supports
it
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
so
that
that
that's
definitely
something
we
can
look
into
and
we
can
line
together
if
that
works.
B
C
B
B
C
C
And
if
these
would
be
one
of
them
as
well
we're
speaking
to
atomic
tomorrow,
that's
one
that
when
people
bring
up
ibc
one
of
the
first
things
that
I
hear
often
is,
will
I
be
able
to
move
my
nft
because
that's
really
it's
tangible
for
them.
It's
it's
more
than
just
it's
token,
but
with
everything
else,
right.
C
B
A
D
D
So
I
I
asked
for
some
feedback
in
the
group
and
it
doesn't
look
like
anyone
responded
yet
of
kind
of
what
to
do
so.
We
have
the
actual
like
in
the
this
blue
paper
is
different
than
the
previous
ones,
because
the
proposals
were
kind
of
just
like
not
final
proposals.
They
were
just
the
the
first
draft.
Essentially,
where
is
on
this
one?
We
already
have
actual
budgets
and
costs
and
proposals
for
ibc
and
finality.
D
So
I
I
think
it
but
I,
but
at
the
same
time
those
proposals,
I
don't
think
we
have
public
links
to
them
necessarily,
and
I
don't
know
what
we
could
link
out
to.
But
if
we
could
do
something
like
that,
that
would
close
the
gap
a
little
bit
on
not
having
the
information
at
the
end
of
the
article
at
the
end
of
the
paper
itself.
D
Yeah,
so
I
mean
I
shared
this
in
the
scalability
plus
group.
Everything
looks
good
and
ready
to
publish,
except
I
I
caught
that
at
kind
of
like
the
last
minute
is,
I
think
what
happened
was
the
text
was
probably
pulled
from
another
blue
paper,
probably
the
wallet
plus
and
it
just
like
gives
it's.
It's
got
texting
estimated
costs
and
estimated
timelines,
but
neither
of
those
are
given
in
the
actual
proposals
on
page
15.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think,
last
week
we
we
discussed
like
every
everyone
was
basically
like
chiming
in
whether
or
not
they
agreed
to
publish
the
the.
I
guess
like
the
rf
bid,
and
everyone
was
okay
with
it.
So
I
think
I
think
it's
probably
just
fine
to
take
that
summary
page,
and
then
I
mean
you
could
link
to
it.
If
you
wanted
or
just
like
that,
but.
B
D
D
C
C
A
C
D
C
D
F
D
G
Yeah,
so
sorry
justin's
not
on,
but
he
is
supportive
of
this
and
wanted
to
bring
forward
the
proposal.
So
one
of
the
things
we'd
like
to
do
is
move
forward
with
the
pros
the
wordpress
deployment
of
the
site,
which
will
give
us
more
flexibility
for
content
management,
and
there
will
be
some
improvements
to
the
design
as
well.
As
you
know,
we
we
scrambled
to
get
that
out
and
during
the
week
of
launch-
and
now
we
do
have
a
proposal
back
for
four
days
of
work
at.
G
I
think
it's
twenty
one
hundred
dollars
for
double
up.
Who
is
our
wordpress
expert
that
has
helped
the
enough
launch?
Take
this
on
and
they're
able
to
slot
this
in
so
we'd
like
to
propose
move
forward
with
that.
If
everyone
is
in
agreement,
we
can
get
this
done
within
the
week
and
that
will
allow
some
flexibility
for
things
like
zack
is
saying
for
for
publishing
of
of
content
and-
and
you
know,
shared
responsibility
across
the
coalition.
G
D
And
I
guess
just
so
we're
clear
on
this
budget
is
to
essentially
port
what
we
currently
have
to
wordpress,
because
there's
not
a
lot.
So
it's
kind
of
like
a
this
is
just
phase
one
to
get
us
to
the
baseline,
so
we're
on
a
cms,
which
is
something
basic,
that
we
need
really
bad,
but
as
we
in
the
future
decide
to
build
up
more
pages
and
things
like
that.
That
would
be
a
that's,
not
included
in
this
all.
G
G
C
E
D
Yeah,
it's
essentially
a
three-page
site,
it's
what
we
currently
have,
which
is
just
a
landing
page.
It's
an
index
page
where
you
see
all
the
blog
posts
or
press
posts,
whatever
we
want
to
call
them,
and
then
the
post
page
itself,
which
is
like
what
we
currently
have
where
the
text
of
a
single
article
would
live.
C
G
B
G
G
What
we,
I
think,
where
we
we
agreed
upon,
is
to
move
forward
with
the
font
usage
at
the
3
800
and
that's
with
a
50
discount
for
nonprofit,
and
that
gives
us
some
you
know
baseline
access
to
the
the
font
that
we're
using
and
flexibility
around
how
we
use
that
going
forward.
So
I
think
the
gtm
team
is
supportive
of
this.
I
know
douglas
has
had
you
know
an
opinion
here
as
well.
That
I
think
has
been
incorporated.
C
H
I
think
that
the
initial
cost
estimates
made
it
made
it
way
more.
You
know
it
was
also
way
more
expensive
when
yeah
it's
insane
and
the
and
the
thing
that
I
was
bringing
up
and
then
and
then
patty
you
know
it
seemed
to
agree
right
away,
was
what
we.
What
we
really
need
is
a
lock
up,
which
is
not
like
an
editable
font
that
people
can
do
whatever
it's
a
you
know.
It's
a
single
vector,
flat,
vector
file,
showing
the
word
antelope
in
our
preferred
usage.
H
H
I
actually
think
we
could.
We
could
buy
one
seat
and
be
legal
if
we
did
it
like
this,
but
it
it
is
what
it
is.
I
I
would
I'm
a
bit
so
as
much
as
I
like
we're,
worried
or
wired.
I
don't
know
how
to
pronounce
their
their
name
as
much
as
I
like.
The
work
they've
done
they.
This
is
a
this
is
a
point
where
they
kind
of
fell
down
on
on
fonts,
and
they
didn't
they.
H
C
Just
so
that
others
know,
some
of
the
options
were
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
pay
for
a
font
and
with
not
exclusive
usage
with
a
certain
amount
of
life.
I
just
don't
even
I
can't
comprehend
that
so
38.50
is
pretty
cheap,
even
though
I
think
it's
expensive.
I
I
support
that
and
I
would
vote
for
yes
for
that.
That
way
forward.
H
Yeah-
and
this
is
a
font
that
this
is
a
font
that
we
were
only
going
to
use
for
our
initially
only
going
to
use
for
our
for
our
our
you
know
the
word
antelope
all
locked
up,
and
you
know
it
was
yeah.
It
was
a
mistake.
You
know
it
was
a
bump
in
the
road,
but
if
we're
gonna
have
one
that,
I
guess
this
is
a
good
time
to
have
it.
I
actually
you
know
to
your
point
eve:
it's
not
even
that
special
font.
H
C
Know
I
guess
to
ask
for
clarity
if,
in
the
future,
we
didn't
want
to
elaborate
on
the
use
of
the
lettering
in
that
particular
font.
Nothing
prevents
us
from
then
engaging
in
those
discussions
at
that
time
and
potentially
absorbing
cost
correct,
spread
right,
we're
not
locking
ourselves
in
anything
yeah
then
yeah.
G
This
way
yeah
one
to
five
users.
I
think
it
is,
and
it
gives
us
the
flexibility
again
like
starting
we're
covered
legally,
and
you
know
it's
it's.
I
think
it's
it's
good.
We've
done.
You
know
the
responsible
thing
for
for
what
we're
using
and
it
is
unique,
so
there's
value
in
terms
of
using
it
for
the
brand
and
we've
launched
it
launched
it
as
well.
So
you
know
we're
this
will
just
catch
up
from
the
work
that
has
to
be
done.
H
E
A
E
H
C
C
I've
got
one
minor
update
there,
which
is
just
that.
We've
added
it
as
a
backlog
item
for
the
core
enf
team
to
accomplish
so
we're
aligned
that
we're
good
to
move
forward
and
we'll
get
reference
dash
contracts
as
the
name
inside
of
the
antelope
org,
and
I
anticipate
that
happening
within
the
next
business
week.
It's
not
a
lot
of
effort,
it's
just
a
matter
of
just
getting
that
as
the
next
thing
that
somebody
does
okay,
good.
A
C
A
A
Those
final
rfps
are
due
on
the
16th.
As
a
reminder,
a
priority
for
next
week
is
kirsten
and
I
are
going
to
work
together
and
come
up
with
a
evaluation
framework,
because
that's
something
we've
not
had
to
do
before
is
try
to
dispassionately,
evaluate
something.
So
we
will
put
something
together
and
then
we'll
bring
it
back
and
discuss
it
as
a
group
and
see
if
we're
on
the
right
track.
C
I
have
heard
informally
that
the
groups
that
are
currently
bidding
may
now
be
actually
changing
their
approach
and
being
as
one
because
the
secure
smart
contract
libraries
have
multiple
smart
contracts,
and
so
none
of
the
teams
essentially
have
the
same
or
they
have
some
and
they
don't
have
some,
and
these
teams
have
worked
together
before,
and
so
there
may
be
a
proposal
where
ultimately,
they
join
forces
and
reduce
overhead
and
coordinate
as
one
I'm
not
sure
how
formal
that
is.
But
I
have
heard
that
in
the
background.
E
Okay,
one
one
thing
I
would
make:
I
mean
it's
relevant
to
that:
we've
never
really
discussed
or
pursued
standards,
and
I
think
it's
a
critical,
critical
thing
we're
missing
and
it
feels
like
it
maybe
fits
in
there.
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
just
dog
pile
on
and
say,
hey.
We
need
to
add
standards
to
a
requirement
of
this
rfp.
But
you
know
if
they're
going
to
build
secure,
smart
contract
libraries-
and
we
don't
have
like
a
standard
for
certain
things-
then
we
might
be
kind
of
shooting
ourselves
in
the
foot.
E
You
know
just
obviously
you
know
open
zeppelin,
erc20
erc.
You
know
the
other
standards
that
other
networks
have
where
they
have
the
same
nft.
You
know
interfaces
and
we
don't
even
goes
back
to
the
ibc
conversation
of
you
know:
let's
move
nfps
across
well
what
if
we
don't
all
have
the
nft
standards.
You
know
in
unison,
across
the
board,
so
it
just
seems
like
we
haven't
really
done
much
to
pursue
standards
and
it's
definitely
a
thing
that
has
caused
a
lot
of
success
and
harmony
on
other
networks.
So.
C
Agreed,
I
think
the
standard
discussion
by
itself
is
a
major
one
that
we
should
be
undertaking.
As
a
group.
Just
like
you
mentioned
you
know,
any
type
of
standard
in
antelope
right
now
is
non-existent.
We
don't
have
a
standard
process,
we
don't
have
an
eip
process
equivalent.
We
don't
have
an
erc
process
equivalent.
We
we
have
none
of
that
for
antelope.
E
And-
and
some
of
that
might
be
really
easy-
I
mean
you
know,
we
leon
telos,
run
a
different
nft
standard
that
that
craig
built,
then
what
is
you
know
taking
off
on
wax?
Flax,
obviously
is
probably
most
successful
out
of
the
envelope
chains.
By
far
for
nfts,
you
know
and
adopting
a
standard
that
is
clearly
leading.
You
know
we
have
a
token
standard.
It's
just
unspoken
like
eosio.token
is
the
standard
right
like.
If
you
don't
implement
those
interfaces,
it
won't
work
in
any
wallets.
So
that's
that's
an
easy
one.
C
E
Yeah
I
mean
it:
does
we
don't
enumerate?
Everything
should
behave,
probably
mostly
like
the
default
token
contract,
but
yeah
I
mean
to
extract
out
standards
from
you
know.
Just
you
know,
fungible
and
non-fungible,
most
popular
tokens
that
we
have
and
just
really
define
a
standard
around.
Those
might
be
good
enough
for
that
first
pass
and
the
process
to
get
everybody
to
rubber
stamp
that,
because
we
all
agree
that
those
are
the
standards,
but
we
need
to
establish
them
as
standards.
You
know
whatever
process
we
rubber
stamp,
those
with.
E
Maybe
then
the
third
one,
which
will
be
probably
much
more
like
a
rfc
type
approach.
You
know
whatever
the
third
standard
is
outside
of
the
fungible
and
non-fungible
token
can
go
through
that
same
process
and
community
can
build
and
drive
towards
consensus
on
it.
I
don't
know
it
is
its
own
conversation
you're
right,
but.
E
C
H
The
first
step
in
a
standards
conversation
is
just
even
trying
to
figure
out
which
standards
we
need.
I
mean
there's
some
obvious
ones
that
are
that
are
we've
been
using
they're
sort
of
de
facto
standards
or
close
to
it,
but
there's
other
things.
I
think
that
are
you
know
as
we
as
we
you
know,
as
we've
been
working
on
like
open
block
explorer
and
things
like
that,
there
have
been
things
that
come
up
and
go.
Oh,
is
you
know
how
how
do
we?
How
do
we
build
something?
C
C
B
B
E
We
have
one
and
I
put
quotes
in
the
air
client,
which
is
node
os
and
that
again
establishes
an
unspoken
standard
of
how
the
responses
should
look.
But
if
maybe
in
theory,
we'll
have
some
golang
based
client
or
whatever
in
the
future,
we
should
have
it
already
established
that
it
needs
to
respond
in
the
same
way
that
node
os
does
because
node
os
implements
the
standard.
Not
the
standard
is
node
os
or
all
the
history
solutions.
Like
you
said,
that's.
B
H
A
C
C
C
The
reason
why
I
mentioned
this
is
this
is
way
more
than
what
I
feel
comfortable
in
assigning
for
this
work,
and
it's
much
longer
than
I
feel
would
be
reasonable
to
do
this
amount
of
work
as
well.
I
mentioned
that
because
in
the
so
so
one
is
already
been
constantly
to
draft
this,
so
that
the
content
itself
of
the
rfp
should
we
in
the
future
wish
to
go
out
to
tender
again.
We
could
do
so
that
the
rfp
was
very
well
written.
C
C
From
my
perspective,
I
would
not
feel
comfortable
in
assigning
this
contract
for
that
price.
For
that
amount
of
time
it
would
require
a
treasury
top
up
again,
which
will
inevitably
happen
again.
We
need
to
do
another
treasury
top
up
the
final
two
million,
because
we've
already
done
the
two
million.
We
did
the
three
point:
eight
million
for
faster
financial
abc,
which
kind
of
gives
us
that
six
million
three
quarters
need
to
do
the
final
quarter.
C
C
The
peer-to-peer
networking
code
rewrite
has
also
been,
if
you
want
to
call
it
tech
debt
that
we
knew
from
four
years
ago,
essentially
when
the
main
launches
and
is
when
these
discussions
originally
started
waiting
a
few
months
to
see,
if
perhaps
there's
somebody
else
that
comes
and
bids
for
this
and
or
if
we
can
get
more
details
from
oci,
I
don't
think,
is
the
end
of
the
world.
We've
essentially
been
waiting
for
four
years.
That's
kind
of
my
first
impression.
I
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
vote
for
this
at
this
time.
C
C
B
I
mean
from
my
standpoint
this
is
it's
nice
to
have,
but
not
necessarily
a
must-have
at
the
stage.
So
I
don't
think
we
miss
anything
by
delaying
that
decision
and
maybe
maybe
we
actually
gain
something
by
delaying
it,
because,
as
we
are
speaking
for
ourselves
as
part
of
fast
finality,
we
will
also
introduce
additional
message,
types
and
kind
of
slightly
different.
I
guess
like
well
additional
patterns
of
communications
between
nodes
and
I
feel
like
I
feel
like.
B
B
So
if
we
were
to
delay
taking
that
decision,
we
would
potentially
gain
more
insight
at
the
same
time
on
what
we
need
faster
finality-wise
and
then
potentially
have
an
opportunity
to
re-open
that
bid,
make
some
amendments
to
it
and
essentially
get
get
more
bang
for
a
buck
as
we
when
we
decide
to
do
it.
So
I
would
say,
in
a
I'm
very
comfortable
waiting
a
bit
longer
before
we
take
a
decision
that
one.
B
B
B
I
don't
know
if
that'll
weigh
into
it,
but
I
bring
this
up
just
as
a
wax's
opinion
may
be
valuable
here
and
the
situation
that's
ongoing
on
a
wax
could
be
applicable
to
all
chains.
Realistically,
so
there
are,
there
are
certainly
justifications
for
why
this
system
should
exist
and
the
justifications
become
more
prevalent
when
there's
a
fire.
C
E
E
I
kind
of
tend
to
drive
things
from
a
problem
and
what
we're
solving
perspective
wax
seems
to
have.
You
know,
like
aaron
said
you
know,
potentially
issues.
That
would
be
a
direct
thing
that
we're
solving,
but
you
know
rewriting
just
because
it's
bad
and
frustrating
when
you're
like
in
that
code
or
you
know
no,
it
could
be
better,
you
know
not
to
say
if
it
ain't
broke,
don't
fix
it,
but
the
the
spend
the
amount
of
time
and
money
that
we're
talking
about
here
to
address
something.
C
B
Just
have
to
like,
if
it
is
delayed
this
proposal,
because
I
like
not
that
my
voice
matters
a
ton,
but
it
is
longer
and
more
expensive
than
I
anticipated
too
we're
just
gonna
have
to
accept
that
there
are
going
to
have
to
be
patches.
Adjustments
like
we're
going
to
have
to
macgyver
a
solution
out
of
what
we
have
from
time
to
time.
If
this
is
delayed,
so.
H
My
take
would
be
that
we
put
out
an
rfp
for
this.
It
came
back
really
far
above
what
we
thought
not
to
not
to
say
that
that's
unreasonable,
but
but
out
of
scope
with
our
general
priorities.
It
might
be
ins
if
this.
If
this
wasn't
on
fire
for
everybody,
I
think
it
might.
We
might
re-evaluate
our
priority,
but
but
still
the
you
know
a
year
is
going
to
take
a
long
time
to
get
there.
H
I
think
that
I
think
they're.
Actually,
my
understanding
of
the
ibc
solution
is
that
there
is
going
to
be
some
natural
improvements
in
in
just
you
know,
in
peer-to-peer
connectivity
there
that
might
might
contribute,
might
shorten
the
shorten
the
the
road
once
that's
out.
I
think
we
should
probably
just
hold
this
just
because
we
put
out
an
rfp
doesn't
mean
that
we're
obligated
to
do
anything.
It's
not
the
right
one.
We
can
revisit
it
later.
H
H
C
In
in
the
rfp
asked
or
in
the
process,
it's
very
clear:
we
made
sure
that
we
put
that
in
there.
I
think
it's
one
of
the
first
clauses
that
you
are
not
guaranteed
a
winning
a
bid,
or
I
guess,
you're
not
guaranteed-
to
win
the
bid,
if
you,
if
you
go
if
you
actually
submit
and
or
if
you're,
the
sole
person
right.
So
we
do
make
that
very
clear.
Oh.
H
D
C
H
Said
I
said
a
pejorative
word
and
I
don't
want
to
characterize
this
particular.
You
know
this
particular
proposal,
as
you
know,
as
like
we're
suckers
or
anything,
but
I
but
completely
separate
from
this
exact
one.
I
don't
want
people
to
feel
like
oh
yeah
once
they
do
it,
they're
gonna.
You
know
I
I
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
pick
one.
You
know
I
we
gotta
make
sure
that
that's
not
the
perception
that
we
set
up
in
these
early
days.
C
Important,
thank
you,
jeff
yeah.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we,
we
may
not
always
decide
to
go
forward
with
something.
I
think
that
that's
really
important.
That
brings
and
it
speaks
to
the
accountability
of
this
group
and
that
fiscal
responsibility
and
the
the
greater
overall
vision
of
ensuring
that
that
we
are
responsible
with
what
we're
doing
here
in
this
group.
I
think
that
that
is
really
important,
yeah
and
we're
doing
so,
transparently.
H
I
think
it's
this
is.
This
is
unfortunate,
it's
not
we're
not
gonna,
be
able
to
do
it
right
away,
but
the
serendipitous
part
is
it.
Lets
us
show
that
we
are
frugal.
We
are
what
our
principles
are
and-
and
you
know
there
we
can
revisit
this.
You
know
in
a
quarter
probably
and
see
see
where
we're
at
at
that
point.
B
H
A
H
Yeah,
on
a
case
by
case,
but
generally
minimum
of
two,
the
the
goal
is
to
get
the
plan
was
to
assign
those
people
very
early
in
the
process
so
that
everyone
knew
you
know
down
the
road
who
who
was
going
to
the
approver
and
we
probably
probably
have
a
limited
number
of
people
who
can
improve
each
thing
so
we'll,
but
we'll
try
to
balance
that
as
best
as
possible
and
beyond
that.
I
think
I
think
we
settle.
We
generally
settle
that
this
is
my.
C
B
H
C
Well,
there's
something
that
actually
is
relevant
to
what
was
discussed
with
peer-to-peer
p2p
rfp,
so
that
first
line
resources
for
future
rfp
creation
might
be
required.
So
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
example
of
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
assign
resources
for
rfp
writing,
especially
if
we're
using
external
resources,
because,
ultimately,
if
we
decide
not
to
pursue,
then
at
least
that
line
is,
is
already
clear
from
the
get-go
and
people.
C
Don't
have
this
sense
or
this
feeling
of
having
been
whatever
there's
there's,
not
there's
no
hard
feelings
per
se,
because
conversation
was
done
for
the
actual
drafting
of
the
rfp
and
also
if
we
ultimately
want
to
use
that
rfp
again
in
the
future
we've.
You
know,
we've
paid
in
into
a
certain
extent
for
that
content,
and
so
now
we
can
reuse
it
without
again
reigniting
the
feeling
of
hey
you're
using
my
work
and
you
went
in
a
different
direction.
C
So
I
think
we
should
actually
make
it
somewhat
of
a
standard
standard
in
a
way
or
part
of
our
processes
that
we
assign
a
small
budget
for
rfp
and
and
people
can
agree
to
help
draft
those,
and
we
could
use
internal
resources
kind
of
as
an
extra,
because,
obviously
we
need
to
to
a
certain
extent.
But
then
we
assign
somewhat
of
a
pool
for
that
every
time,
roughly
around
the
same
amount,
depending
on
the
complexity
of
summers
really
complex,
maybe
there's
a
next
allotment.
But
otherwise.
H
Yeah
I
I
agree-
I
mean
I
I
I
think
I
was
one
of
the
people
who
originally
championed
this
and
because
the
other
piece
is
that
we
don't,
we
don't
want
to
be
limited
to
things
that
we
have.
You
know
not.
Anyway,
we
have
subject
matter
experts
in
within
our
group
already,
so
we
want
to
be
open
to
those
things
so
for
all
those
they're.
C
F
We
don't
I
mean
we
could
go
back
and
scrape
it
and
try
to
get
an
idea,
but
we
don't
have
a
not
off
the
top
of
our
head.
It's
it.
We
can
deconstruct
it
or
reconstruct
it
from
the
billing
hours,
because
we
know
who
worked
on
it
and
we
know
approximately
what
time.
So
we
can
go
back
and
and
get
an
estimate
offline.
C
H
H
H
C
H
H
C
H
H
C
H
Yeah,
no,
no,
no,
it's
it's
an
ear
mark
right.
So
if
it
doesn't
get
you
it
just
it
just
lets
us
it
just
lets
us
do
our
general
accounting
so
that
we
can
so
we
have
something
there
and
the
budgets
don't
all
get,
don't
all
get
allocated
without
us
doing
that
25
grand!
I
think
you
and
I
both
like
that
or
comfortable
with
that
number.
D
C
An
item
for
me
so
last
week
we
did
a
vote
to
approve
the
sdks.
The
nf
wrote
the
contract
that
has
been
sent
to
grain
mass.
I
believe
grey
mess
is
signed,
but
before
I
sign
it
I
or
aaron
you
just
said
you
did.
Okay,
I
do
have
something
before
we
sign,
though,
that
I'd
like
to
ask
for
the
group
the
way
that
the
current
contract
is
written
is
between
the
enf
and
grey
mass,
because
angel
of
the
organization
doesn't
exist
yet
so
we
have
the
funds
in
the
treasury.
C
However,
if
for
some
reason
the
coalition
decides,
for
whatever
reason
not
to
transfer
all
their
funds,
but
grams
does
do
the
work.
Enf
right
now
would
be
liable.
So
what
I
would
ask
for
the
group
is
that
the
group
allows
us
to
transfer
over
the
full
amount
under
the
control
of
the
enf,
and
then
we
onboard
that
liability,
because
now
we
have
the
funds,
but
we
have
the
contract
with
them.
And
now,
as
a
group,
though,
we
still
vote
on
whether
or
not
gray
mass
has
met
the
particular
milestone,
so
that
doesn't
change.
C
C
So,
essentially,
the
right
now
this
this
goes
to
a
larger
discussion
right
now,
enf,
you
guys
are
we
sent
invoices
to
you
guys
to
fill
up
that
treasury
right
so
on
our
books?
That's
an
income.
We
have
no
expense
to
match
that
income.
This
would
actually
close
that.
So
we
would
close
off
1.43
million
dollars
worth
of
expenses.
C
That
now
would
be
earmarked,
so
we
would
no
longer
be
liable
for
those
taxes
as
well
and
that
accounting
on
that
side,
so
that
would
be
very
beneficial
to
us
because
by
default
right
now
we're
we
are
taking
on
that
liability
on
behalf
of
the
coalition.
So
we
close
that
off
and
then
we're
also
taking
on
the
liability
whereby,
when
we
get
into
a
contract
such
as
this,
which
is
very
different
than
what
we
did
with
ux,
because
each
chain
signed
this
one,
it's
only
eos,
that's
signing-
or
I
guess
enf
that's
signing.
C
C
So
you
would
like
to
transfer
over
that
amount,
which
is
the
total
amount
for
the
contract,
which
is
what
the
contract
is
written
for
that
way,
we
have
the
funds
that
way.
That
is
an
expense
that
then
we
come
from
the
enf
so
that
we
can
actually
earmark
that
for
accounting,
which
then
offset
the
income
that
we
got
when
we
loaded
the
treasury.
E
A
E
C
E
C
To
close
off
that
liability,
ideally
actually
the
funds
are
transferred.
Before
that
way,
we
can
sign
the
contract.
But
if,
if
there's
the
commitment
to
sign
the
msig,
then
one
can
come
after
the
the
other,
I'm
I'm
less
worried.
It's
not
that!
I
don't
trust
you
guys.
It's
really
to
close
that
gap,
and
our
end
of
year
is
for
enf
is
in
30
days
or
september
30th.
That
would
actually
close
the
other
liability
which
we've
been
carrying
for
the
last
eight
months
or
so.
E
I
would
be
fine
with
that.
The
other
thing
that
I
would
ask
is
well,
I
would
say,
is,
I
think
you
know
we're
not
doing
any
significant
budgeting,
but
it's
good
to
get
that
out
of
that
account
either
way
right
if
it
goes
into
your
hands
because
you're
liable
on
the
contract,
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
even
if
it
was
all
of
us
liable,
I
feel
like
just
taking
it
out
of
that
account
and
putting
it
in
one
named.
You
know
wallet
dot
whatever
you
know
just
splitting
it
out.
C
H
Right
it
underscored
this
is
this
underscores
the
need
for
that
to
just
to
create
that
entity.
There
have
been
time
conversations
recently
where
we've
said
well,
you
know.
Maybe
we
don't
need
an
entity,
but
then,
but
then
these
things
come
up
and
we
go
oh
yeah.
You
know
we
really
do.
We
have
to
do
that.
I
would
say
this
is
not
ideal,
but
the
the
reality
is
that
that
it's
a
very
practical
way
to
do
it.
H
H
C
C
What
I
do
want
to
ensure
is
that,
when
those
milestones
come
up,
that
the
coalition
is
still
involved
in
the
determination
of
releasing
the
funds
so
that
the
other
members
are
still
participating
in
the
yes,
we
agree,
great
mass
has
achieved
milestone
x,
eos
or
you
know.
If
go
for
it,
we
we're
we're
good
with
releasing
that
one.
So
I
would
still
want
that
record
so
that
we're
all
still
participating
in
this.
It's
just
the
technical
side
here.
H
H
There
is
a
perception
in
the
community
that
that
that
the
you
know
the
the
coalition
is
the
enf,
and
you
know-
and
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
do
you
know
things
like
this
sort
of-
could
potentially
feed
that,
but
I
just
think
it's
not
that's,
not
a
big
enough
concern
to
to
do
it
in
some.
You
know
you
know
non-productive
way
on
this
one,
but
but
yeah
I
would
want
us
I
would
want
to.
H
I
would
want
to
see
that
everybody
remains
on
the
on
the
approval
of
milestones
and
also
that
you
know
that
this
is
this
is
sort
of
a
detail
that
doesn't
need
to
be.
You
know
it's
not
secret
and
we're
not
going
to
keep
it
secret,
but
we're
also
not
going
to
we're
also
not
going
to
bring
that
forward.
So,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
it's
it's.
It's
always
seen
as
a
coalition
project
right.
E
C
E
C
H
C
Maybe
that's
a
good
opportunity
to
create
the
account
that
zach
mentioned,
which
is
antelope.wg,
and
we
transfer
over
response
to
that
account
that
account
and
then
we
can
change
the
permission
set
in
the
future.
But
at
least
that
would
be
the
first
usage
of
that
account
and,
having
said
that,
because
this
is
going
to
be
recorded
and
published,
can
somebody
go
and
reserve
that
name
or
by
that
name.
C
D
C
Oh,
I
think,
because
we
tried
different
like
foundation
or
found
or
whatever
and
there's
too
many
characters,
and
it
was
hard
to
do
yeah
but
antelope
del
wg
works.
I
just
now
need
to
find
okay,
I'll
I'll,
try
to
figure
that
out
and
brandon
I'll.
Let
you
know
if
you
need
to
remove
that
before
we
actually
publish.
B
H
Sorry,
the
one
thing
with
with
with
moving
all
this
into
the
antelope.wg
I
mean
this
is
a
slightly
different
use
of
funds
that
this
is
a
specific
I
think,
the
I
don't.
I
think
that
this
actually
does
require
its
own
its
own.
If
we're
going
to
have
enf,
be
the
owner
key
and
then
everybody
else
be
on
the
you
know,
it's
multi-sig
the
act,
the
active
key.
I
don't
think
we
want
to
do
that
for
everything
we
do.
I
think
that's
sort
of
the
specific
project
right.
C
E
B
C
E
E
C
C
C
Itself,
but
wait
a
minute.
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
have
one
owner
key.
No.
Can
you
also
create
some
type
of
a
time
we
need
protection
on
that
account
if
there's
gonna
be
1.4
million
dollars
in
it.
I
don't
want
to
be.
I
actually
don't
want
that
under
my
name,
and
I
would
not
want
that
where
there's
only
one
key
that
definitely
needs.
H
C
E
H
It
doesn't
give
us
antelope
the
protections,
as
I
recall
initially
the
the
idea
was
that
would
give
them
that
would
give
the
bps
on
eos
three
days
in
case.
You
know
you,
you
ran,
you
know
you
proposed
something
and
you
ran
off
and
they
would
have
the
ability
to
then
freeze
out
which
we
don't
have,
and
so
you
know
and
again
we're
saying
you
guys
are
assuming
the
liability.
You
know
yeah,
you
guys,
you
know
f.
This
liability
also
is
going
to
have
you
know,
control
of
the
funds.
C
H
I
wasn't
suggesting
that
you
personally
do
it.
I
was
saying
that
when
I
said
you
in
that
context,
I
meant
enf
whatever
that
that
no
other
third
party
needs
to
be
involved
in
in
that,
but
the
enf
then
manages
that,
through
whatever
internal
multi-sig
processes,
you
use
it's
not
really.
It's
not
really
for
us
to
determine
that
here
right.
The
the
question
the
the
solution
we've
come
up
with
is
that
we,
the
active
key
will
be
will
be,
will
be
the
four
you
know
the
three
of
four
multi-sig.
C
H
C
C
H
C
H
H
You
need
to
figure
out
what
your
own
internal
process
is,
and
I
know
you
haven't
figured
out
right
now,
but
you
guys,
you
definitely
will
you'll
figure
it
out.
You
know,
that's
it's
not
unsolvable.
So
I'd
say
I'd,
say
we
kind
of
just.
You
know
what
this
body
votes
on
and
determines
we've
kind
of
figured
out.
If
you
occur
to
come
back
to
us
and
say
you
know
what
guys
it's
just
not
going
to
work
out
because
of
whatever,
which
I
think
is
unlikely,
then
we
could
re-accept
it.
H
A
H
Yeah,
we'll
yeah
we'll
do
that
and
the
and
the
the
vote
would
be
that
the
active
permissions
are
as
per
everything
else
and
the
and
the
the
owner
permissions
are
controlled
to
the
just.
You
know
to
the
discretion
of
the
enf
and
and
what
they
which
they
will
propose
right,
and
then
we
don't
have
to
that's
what
I
would
that's
what
I
would
propose.
We
do.
C
I
won't
sign
the
contract
until
we
figure
this
out,
because
yeah
and
and
so
I'd
rather
I'll
work
with
aaron,
maybe
aaron,
and
I
can
make
a
proposal
and
then
at
that
time,
in
the
channel
we
can
vote
because,
even
if
you
vote
on
putting
this
liability
on,
I
could
choose
not
to
accept
that
just
status
for
remains.
So,
let's,
let's
come
back
with
an
actual
proposal.
C
C
A
H
It's
so
so
this
is
something
I
don't
think
we
act.
Unfortunately,
I
don't
think
we
actually
addressed
in
a
timely
manner
that
we
need
to
so.
The
idea
behind
this,
if
I
recall
correctly,
is
that
we
decided
we're
going
to
up
we're
going
to
periodically
review
our
top
21
voting
within
the
group,
and
we
also
decided
previously
that
one
of
our
core
values
is
that
we
are
going
to
is,
if
we're
going
to
allow
meaningful
input
from
our
community
on
what
you
know
on
on.
H
H
Let
people
know
that
there's
a
period
a
comment
period,
give
them
time
to
comment
and
discuss,
and
you
know,
give
and
give
us
time
to
read
that
and
and
and
hear
their
and
hear
their
concerns
before
we
just
go
ahead
with
you
know,
with
a
decision
making
process,
because
we
we
truly
want
this.
We
truly
want
the
input,
not
it's
not
just
a
optics
thing,
so
so
the
we
need
to
figure
out
what
that
process
is,
and
you
know
how
how
long,
how
long
comment
period?
H
How
where
what's
the
venue
things
like
that
and
of
course,
as
we
get
closer
and
closer
to
the
to
the
meeting,
you
know
now
we're
just
a
week
out
from
the
meeting
that
was
going
to
let
you
know
where
we're
going
to
try
to
start
determining
these
things,
and
we
haven't
opened
that
up
for
comment.
We
are
losing
time
to
do
that,
so
we
either
need
to
say
okay.
H
H
C
I
think
I
would
just
be
setting
an
amount
of
time,
and
each
respective
chain
has
to
figure
out
how
they
do
their
own
thing,
but
basically
we
allow
whatever.
So
we
said,
I'm
just
making
several,
let's
say
two
weeks
or
whatever
it
is,
and
then,
within
that
period
of
time
the
chains
need
to
figure
out
what
they
do
on
their
end.
C
H
Anything
yeah,
I
think
we
should
we
should,
I
think,
that's
essentially
it
we
should.
We
should
set
a
process
where
every
quarter
on
the
you
know
whatever
week
of
the
quarter
right,
the
fourth
monday
of
the
quarter
or
whatever
we
or
first
whatever
it
may
be.
We
we
we
are
going
to
have
this
meeting,
and
so
we
just
back
date.
These
other
things
to
you
know
to
to
okay.
We
want
we
want.
You
know
two
weeks
of
comment
period
of
open
comment
period
prior
to
us
making
that
decision.
H
H
Well,
do
we
want
to
do
we
want
to,
you
know,
have
a
have
a
shortened
period
of
of
comment,
or
we
just
want
to
push
back
that
decision
and
have
the
full
period
that
we're
going
to
do
and
just
have
it
come
a
little
bit
later,
which
is
probably
what
I
would
lean
towards
right.
So
if
we
say
hey
we're
going
to
do
this
on
the
x
week
generally,
but
this
first
time
we're
going
to
do
it
two
weeks
later,
so
we
can
have,
we
have
meaningful
input.
H
A
The
one
thing
I
would
suggest
considering
is
that
the
after
the
first
prioritization
round
I
it
took
a
lot
longer
to
work
through
details
than
I
think
anybody
expected
and
so
instead
of
and
then
also
now,
because
we
have
several
rfps
going
out.
A
lot
of
the
key
constituents
of
some
of
the
communities
are
now
very
well
engaged
for
the
near
future,
maybe
instead
of
focusing
on
how
often
a
year,
we
would
do
this.
Let's
just
pick
when
the
next
date
is
and
focus
on
that
and
then
see
where
we
are
to
determine.
H
A
The
next
one
because
like
if
we
were
to
repriorize
reprioritize
today
right
what
is
the
likelihood
we
could
really
find
enough
developers
out
in
the
world
to
do
the
top
three
priorities
right,
it's
very
small
and
that's
what
I'm
saying
is
I
just
if
we
focus
on
the
next
one
to
make
sure
we
get
the
process
down
again.
This
is
just
suggestion,
but
I'm
just
throwing
it
out.
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
burden
people
with
a
recurring
process
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
an
actionable
output.
H
Well,
I
think
that
you're
probably
right
for
you
know
we
have
a
lot
going
on,
but
I
think
I
I
believe
that
you
know
if
you
want
something
to
work
and
you
you
know
on
an
ongoing
basis,
you
need
to
set
up
a
reproducible
process
and
that's
that's
how
I
I
think
that
for
for
that,
we
should
just
move
forward
and
that
we,
but
that
we
don't
consider.
We
don't
like
treat
this
necessarily
like
it's
the
biggest
thing
in
the
world
right.
H
This
is
especially
this
first
one
where,
where
we
can
be
clear
with
people
we're
doing
this
and
we're
going
to
listen
and
we're,
but
but
it's
you
know,
it's
not
necessarily
likely
we're
going
to
have
we're,
probably
not
going
to
have
any
kind
of
major
reshuffling,
because
we
just
already
did
that
like,
but
we
do
need
to
re-periodically
revisit
it
or
else
we
get,
or
else
we
get
entrenched
with
things
it
also.
It
also
means
by
having
a
process,
then
then,
as
things
come
up
to
discuss,
then
we
can.
Then
we
say:
well,
you
know.
H
Unless
this
is
on
fire,
you
know,
then
we
can.
We
can.
You
know
we
have
a
process
and
we
can
table
any
such
discussions
and
it
also
saves
us
time
in
the
future.
From
you
know,
when
things
come
up,
we
go
okay.
Well,
you
know
this
is
not
a
there's,
not
an
ongoing
hack
happening
here,
or
anything
like
that,
so
this
is
going
to
get
tabled
until
our
scheduled
meeting
for
it.
So
there's
a
lot
there's
a
lot
that
having
a
set
process
helps,
I
in
you
know,
as
you
guys,
probably
will
notice.
H
H
I
don't
want
this
to
be
a
things
that
where
everything's
done
ad
hoc
and
because
it's
a
coalition-
because
it's
because
you
know
sometimes
we
don't
even
know
who's
going
to
be
running
the
meeting
from
time
to
time
and
things
like
that,
I
think
all
that
works,
but
the
more
we
have
like
something.
That's
that's
nailed
down
as
a
process.
The
more
we
can.
We
don't
have
to
think
about
it
on
a
on
a
daily
basis.
We
can
just
push
those
off.
That's.
F
Douglas
one
one
thing,
I
think
that
I
I
agree
with
this
on
is
that
we
should
re-groom
the
top
21
it's
22
or
whatever
you
know
every
quarter,
and
then
I
think
we
can
leave
it
up
to
the
chains
on
how
they
want
to
run
their
process
of
collecting
input
and
going
through
that.
So
some
chains
may
want
a
lightweight
process.
F
Some
chains
may
want
a
really
in-depth
process,
but
we
agree
that
on
some
set
date
that
you
know
kirsten
and
jeff
can
run
that
will
do
the
regroom
and
whether
you're
bringing
your
community
data.
Or
you
know
it's
it's
just
you
know
someone
is
the
dictator
in
in
that
chain.
Then
the
chains
can
at
least
go
back
and
do
a
vote
and,
and
they
used
whatever
process,
they
felt
was
usable
for
them
and
but
I
think,
I
think
for
sure
we
should
re-groom
this
list
periodically.
F
C
I'm
not
necessarily
convinced
that
we'll
be
able
to
meet
that
frequency
or
assign
the
amount
of
resources
to
do
the
work
after
the
priorities
have
been
set
to
rewrite
because
we
did
right
after
the
prioritization,
we
actually
laid
down
every
item
what
that
entailed
et
cetera.
That
was
a
lot
of
a
work
on
very
few
people.
Now,
of
course,
if
we're
retaking
the
21
adding,
if
you
would
we're
not
necessarily
recreating
the
wheel
every
time,
but
I
would
I
would,
I
would
prefer
kind
of
like
what
jeff
mentioned.
C
We
say
when
the
next
one
is.
The
target
is
every
three
months,
but
the
next
one
will
inform
whether
or
not
is
it
really
in
three
months
or
is
every
every
four
months
and
three
times
a
year
instead
of
four
times
a
year.
I'm
not
convinced-
and
I
I
guess
I'm
with
jeff
on
that
one.
The
amount
of
work
afterwards
was
quite
substantive
after
the
prioritization
yeah,
the
actual
work.
C
H
C
H
Yeah,
I'm
also
fine,
I
I
mean
I'm
not
a
quarter
was
was
suggested,
but
you
know
it
could
be
semi-annually,
but
what
I
would
but
to
respond
to
what
you
said
ted.
I
actually
don't
believe
this
is
a
chain
by
chain
issue.
I
think
that
you
know
because
we've
said
hey.
This
could
be
something
where
develop.
You
know
a
group
of
developers
that
aren't
necessarily
affiliated
with
any
one
chain
could
come
in
and
and
share
their
and
share
their
needs.
It
could
be
something
where
ultra
says
hey.
H
We
need
you
know,
so
I
think
it's.
I
think
it's
more
of
a
general
comment
period
and
not
a
and
and
but
you
know
that
that
can
be
that
can
be
send
your
email,
send
your
emails
here,
right
or
or
or
here's
the
here's,
the
you
know,
here's
the
you
know,
here's
the
telegram
group
or
whatnot,
and
people
can
bring
these
forward
and
and.
A
H
F
Right
but
the
four:
if
the
four
chain
heads
are
laying
down
their
boats,
they're
human
beings
they're
going
to
determine
how
they
want
to
absorb
that
information
and
what
forms
and
what
methodologies
and
ways
right.
Because
in
the
end,
you
have
four
people
voting,
and
you
know
you
can't
tell
eve
well
eve.
You
have
to
listen
read
through
all
of
these
forums
and
you
have
to
comb
through
these
emails.
You
have
to
do
this.
There
might
be
some
data
presented.
H
Sure
I
think
that
the
cr,
I
think
that
good
ideas
could
come
from
anywhere
and
that
the
cream
rises
to
the
top.
And
if
something
is
you
know
enough
that
we
would
actually
can
you
know
that
we
would
actually
consider
adding
it
to
our
one
of
our
priority
lists
that
it
would.
It
would
be
something
that
you
know.
We'd
all
want
to
weigh
in
on
no
matter
where
it
came
from
because
we
needed
to
vote
and
that
not
every
idea
is
going
to
do
that.
H
Right,
like
most
ideas,
are
going
to
be
yeah,
we've
heard
it
yeah.
Most
of
these
things
are
going
to
be.
Yes,
we
are
fully
aware
of
this,
but
you
know-
or
it's
already,
we've
already
decided
or
whatnot
there's
going
to
be
very
few
new
ideas,
but
when
the
new
ideas
do
come
in
and
they're
good
it's
you
know,
we
don't
know
for
sure
where
they're
going
to
come
from.
F
Last
time
we
didn't,
you
know,
do
the
process
where
we
allowed
each
chain
head
to
kind
of
promote
the
ideas.
They
were
most
passionate
about
and
lobby
the
other
chain
heads
to
maybe
consider
altering
their
votes.
We
just
kind
of
blindly
filled
out
this
weird.
It
just
took
so
much
time
we
just
kind
of
put
the
numbers
in
versus,
allowing
you
know
douglas
you
to
sit.
You
know
talk
for
a
while
and
explain
why
item
number
13,
you
know
that
we
were
voting
on
was
you
know
you
felt
real
really
strongly.
F
It
would
help
all
four
chains
and
for
eve
to
talk
a
while
about
an
item
he
cared
about.
We
just
kind
of
threw
numbers
in
the
spreadsheet
and-
and
you
know,
maybe
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
an
improvement
if
we
had
people
talking
about
why
they
did
or
did
not
feel.
You
know
that
some
of
these
items
should
be
more
highly
ranked
than
others.
We
just
did
that.
H
H
F
F
H
C
C
With
different
chains,
like
our
eos
constituents
may
say,
this
item
is
priority
rank
one
with
weight
of
whatever
the
top
rank
or
something
that
which
may
differ
from
somebody
else
right
and
that's
where
listening
to
our
constituents
will
be
different
than
listening
to
the
other
constitutions.
Maybe.
C
A
One
thing
one
thing
I
could
suggest
is:
if
you,
if
everybody
recalls
last
time,
some
of
the
votes
were
on
basically
titles
that
didn't
really
have
descriptions
and
something
that
came
out
afterwards
was
there
was
different
interpretations
of
what
the
title
was.
So
one
thing
we
could
do
to
simply
to
help
alleviate.
That
is,
if
each
of
the
chains
coming
into
these,
these
kind
of
collaborative
meetings
make
sure
that
they
write
out
that
one-pager
executive
summary
for
the
ones
that
they
care
about.
So
it's
not
like
we're
gonna
try
to
write
down.
C
H
Yeah,
absolutely,
I
think,
in
the
in
the
initial
process,
what
we
were
trying
to
do
was
capture
everything,
and
you
know,
even
even
if
we
had,
even
if
some
of
those
things
had
very
different
definitions
within
us,
we
know
we're
not.
We
know
those
are
lower
priority.
I
think
it's
fine,
that
we
didn't
that
we
didn't
do
those
if
but
again,
if
anybody
either
because
either
because
it's
a
direct
priority
from
their
users
from
their
from
their
core
dev
team
or
because
their
users
are
demand
demanding
it
or
anything.
H
For
whatever
reason,
we
need
to
put
something
forward,
then
yeah
part
of
that
would
be
okay.
You
know
if
you're
gonna
put
something
forward,
you
have
to
have
an
actual
description
like
you
have
to
provide
that
right.
If
you're,
if
you
are
whether
you're
a
chain
or
a
community
member
or
whatever
you
gotta,
you
gotta,
not
just
happen,
you
can't
just
say
hey.
H
We
need
this
name
like
put
together
a
minimum,
viable
sort
of
description
of
what
what
that
is
for
us
to
consider
right
and
then
that
moves
that
that
moves
that
onto
the
proposer,
which
I
think
is
where
it
belongs,
as
opposed
to
we're
going
hey.
We
want
this
feature
and
then,
after
the
fact
say,
oh
what?
What
do
we
actually
mean
by
that
right
in
considering
something?
And
if
we
want
that,
those
good
those
good
suggestions
to
rise
to
the
top?
We
need
to
have
it
we
need.
H
H
So
if
we
push
this
back
to
the
first
week
of
october-
and
we
continue
to
keep
the
the
prep
on
our
on
our
lists
on
our
agendas
for
each
meeting,
I
think
that
would
be
fine.
If
we
push
it
back
further
than
that,
and
then
we
get
into
you
know
end
of
year
holidays.
It's
not
going
to
be
a
priority,
and
I
wouldn't
want
it
to
slip
that
far
because
then
we
just
won't
do
it
would
be
my
fear.
H
So
I
propose
we
push
it
back
to
we
push
we.
We
pick
a
date
around
the
first
week
of
october
and
we've
in
this
discussion.
We've
we've
come
up
with
a
lot.
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
good
solutions
there
and
we
need
to
just
kind
of
keep
pushing
keep
pushing
forward
and
then
we
could
with
a
goal
towards
starting
the
actual
comment
period
in
two
or
three
weeks.
From
now.
A
E
E
I
brandon
I
discussed
maybe
setting
up
a
bot
that
would
have
some
answers
to
commonly
asked
questions
and
just
some
high
level
rules,
because
you
can't
really
have
admins
if
there's
no
rules,
so
I
just
wanted
to
see.
If
there's
any,
I
guess
concerns
with
setting
up
a
bot
and
having
you
know
like
a
treat
other
people
with
respect
role
and
a
no
price
talk
role.
Price
talk,
typically
in
official
channels
leads
nowhere,
and
I
advocated
we
used
the
same
bot
that
delos
uses,
which
gives
you
like
just
type
forward.
E
Slash
p
and
you
reply
to
somebody.
That's
asking
about
price
with
forward
slash
p,
the
bot
deletes
your
comment
and
then
the
bot
replies
to
them
with
something
that
says.
Price
talk
is
not
you
know
here,
but
in
an
unofficial
price
talk
channel
go
over
here,
link
some
I
thought
was
we
could
have
every
response
you
know
include
all
the
coalition
chains
respective
channels.
E
You
know
as
we
evolve
it,
we
could.
Somebody
wants
an
explorer,
we
could
link
to
each
channel's
explorers.
We
could
have
one
that
explains
there's
no
new
token,
because
that's
another
frequent
question.
We
get
asked
that
just
maybe
general
info.
That
just
explains,
I
think,
brandon's
suggested
ecosystem.
It
explains
you
know,
antelope's
the
framework
analytics
of
software.
There's
no
new
token
eos
isn't
going
away,
you
don't
have
to
claim
anything
etc,
like
just
some
high
level,
like
basically
an
faq.
E
H
H
E
H
E
E
So
it
could
be
the
the
dick,
dick
bot
or
brandon
had
a
good
one,
something
else,
but
anyway,
before
we
like
decided
just
between
the
two
of
us,
that
that
was
a
good
idea
and
we
were
going
to
do
it.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
nobody
here
has
any
reservations
about
that
and
and
then
I
think
some
people
suggested
each
change
should
have
a
representative
admin
in
there
and
I'm
fine
with
that
too.
I
saw
you
accepted
no,
but
you
know
what
you
know.
Something
like
that.
I
think
probably
makes
sense
too.
E
C
C
C
B
C
B
B
H
H
Then
I
mean
this:
is
this
again
goes
back
to
the
things
that
we're
a
bunch
of
people
who
run
things
already
and
sometimes
we,
you
know,
bend
over
backwards
to
make
some
things
you
know,
so
you
know
equitable
or
whatever,
that
we
actually
just
we'd,
actually
just
slow
it
down.
Let's
let
brandon
and
jesse
do
what
they
think
should
be
done
and
if
there's
a
problem
we'll
discuss
it,
but
I
doubt
there
will
be.
H
Is
that
reasonable
way
to
go
forward
for
everybody?
I
mean
we're,
not
spending
any
money
on
this
and
we're
not.
You
know
and
it's
to
serve
our
community
so
and
it's
not
rocket
science
either.
So
I
just
propose
we
just
let
let
them
go
and
have
their
head
and
and
if
they
screw
up
or
if
they're,
some
bad
decisions
or
if
they
make
some
questions.
You
know
things
people
question,
then
we
just
talk
about
it.
You
know
and
and
move
on
like
this
doesn't
need
to
be
a
topic
of
discussion
here
in
this
meeting.