►
From YouTube: Filecoin Plus - February 28 Notary Governance Calls
Description
The forth set of Notary Governance calls of 2023 February 28 to discuss the Filecoin Plus program.
Slides and Links: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1e4-psMweLq_VYYBrAY8Wkeb5N888EptjfjIIhQrue5k/edit?usp=share_link
Agenda
Notary
- Slack Comms Summary for the week
- 835: List of 4th Round Notaries added to multisig (+instructions on next steps if your organization is not on this list)
- 836: New Multisig created
Working Group Updates
- T&T - 829: DAO
- T&T - 833: KYC
Proposals
- Final Discussions - 817, 81, 821, 829
- 832: Per Dataset application
- 839: JSON Filetype
Community Discussions
- Fsector - Filecoin Graphical Operation Platform (1st call)
- Open Forum
All LDN application presentations are a-sync will be discussed in #fil-plus-application-review SLACK
If you would like to attend these meetings LIVE, the Fil+ Notary Governance calendar is available at: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/u/0/embed?src=c_k1gkfoom17g0j8c6bam6uf43j0@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles
Follow Filecoin!
Website: https://bit.ly/3ndAg44
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3ObND0x
Slack: https://bit.ly/3HKfFy7
Blog: https://bit.ly/3HFZFNv
Reddit: https://bit.ly/39N4Jmv
Telegram: https://bit.ly/3bkP8Ly
Subscribe to our newsletter! https://bit.ly/3Oy8J9j
#filecoin #ipfs #libp2p #web3 #nft
A
We
have
two
big
updates
from
the
working
groups
taking
place.
It's
going
to
be
RG,
leading
discussions
around
the
Dow
discussion,
that's
taking
place
as
well
as
some
updates
around
kyc
under
the
proposal
section
of
the
call.
We
have
four
current
issues
that
are
getting
ready
to
kind
of
reach
that
sunset
time.
I
wanted
to
flag
these
as
one
last
opportunity
for
any
discussions
or
comments
before
the
those
moved
over
to
async
and
are
closed
out.
Then
we
have
two
new
proposals
on
the
radar.
The
first
is
the
Json.
A
Excuse
me
the
per
data
set
and
how
applications
are
filed
and
requesting
that
LDN
data
and
the
second
has
to
do
with
the
Json
file
types
at
the
end
of
the
call
we
have
time
set
aside
for
Community
discussion
and
if
time
permits,
we
have
a
short
presentation
from
a
project
built
by
F
sector,
so
we'll
get
to
that
on
this
call
of
time
permits.
Otherwise
we
might
punt
that
back
to
the
remaining
call
on
the
fifth.
So
with
that,
let's
kick
off.
This
is
the
fourth
call.
A
We
keep
these
posted
in
the
governance,
Google
Calendar,
as
you
can
see
here.
So
if
this
is
your
first
time
or
you
haven't
been
added,
follow
this
link,
it
will
add
a
link
on
your
shared
calendar
and
you
can
keep
up
as
well
as
see
as
all
the
next
calls
that
we
have
there's
two
calls
per
day.
This
is
the
zero
eight
hundred
Pacific
1600
use.
Dc
call
any
topics
that
we
discuss
on
this
call
WE
Post
in
the
agenda
in
GitHub.
A
If
you'd
like
to
see
anything
added
to
the
discussion,
just
feel
free
just
to
link
it
in
here
or
or
just
say,
Hey
Kevin
may
I.
Please
have
four
minutes
to
update
on
X
Y
and
Z
as
we
go
through
as
a
friendly
reminder.
We're
now
doing
all
async
discussions
on
LDN
applications,
async
in
the
build
plus
review,
or
if
you
have
a
proposal
or
a
video
that
you
want
to
share.
A
The
two
links
are
right
there
in
chat.
So
with
that,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
teams.
We
make
up
your
governance
team,
so
if
you
ever
need
support
or
have
an
issue,
these
are
the
people
that
are
appropriate
to
back.
You
up,
you
could
tag
Us
in
slack
if
you
ever
are
unsure
who
to
tag
or
where
to
go,
to
feel
free
to
Loop
me
in
and
I
can
help
sue
you
to
the
right
person
to
help
with
your
question.
A
In
slack,
there
are
several
channels
that
can
go
to
help
you
with
Communications
or
any
questions
or
any
topics
you
might
want
to
flag.
The
two
that
are
most
commonly
used
are
the
build
plus
Channel
with
2100
members
and
the
private
bill,
plus
notaries
for
any
technical
questions
or
notary
specific
issues.
A
A
So
again,
slack
is
really
helpful
for
these
quick
conversations,
but
if
it's
a
broad
topic
that
you'd
really
like
to
dive
into,
if
you
make
a
GitHub
issue
first,
we
can
then
pull
that
GitHub
into
slack
for
a
discussion
or
keep
it
on
GitHub.
So
GitHub
is
a
really
effective
way,
despite
its
limitations,
to
kind
of
have
more
transparency
with
this.
So
let's
get
into
the
notaries.
So
there
were
three
slack
discussions
that
I
saw
come
through
over
the
past
couple
of
days.
A
I
wanted
to
give
a
chance
just
to
Bubble
these
and
make
sure
that
these
were
on
all
of
your
Radars
as
we
as
the
government's
team
work
through
them.
The
first
was
flagged
by
fadian
in
the
Phil
plus
Channel,
and
it
was
a
question
about
top
off,
so
essentially
they
weren't
seeing
any
data
cap
that
was
topped
off
this
is
currently
being
investigated
by
d-mob.
I
know
that
we
have
Phil
on
the
call
Phil.
Do
you
want
to?
Can
you
speak
to
this
at
all?
Is
this
currently
in
process?
A
A
Pause
we'll
go
through
we'll
come
back.
The
second
one
was
the
fill
plus
website
export
city.
Thank
you
for
flagging
this.
This
came
through
just
today
and
we
flagged
this
for
the
teams.
It's
currently
an
investigation
we'll
have
that
back
up
and
running
as
the
update
goes
well
and
the
last
was
Banyan
asking
the
question
about
sector
size.
So
essentially,
is
it
based
off
the
payload
and
how
does
it
work
deep?
A
Have
a
really
detailed
answer
that
I
pretty
much
just
plagiarized
and
put
here
for
us
and
essentially
it's
going
to
round
up
to
the
nearest
payload.
So,
for
example,
if
you
had
17
it's
going
to
round
up
to
that
32-bit
sector,
so
any
other
questions
on
these
feel
free
to
fly
for
discussion,
I'm
going
to
pause
for
just
one
moment.
If
anybody
has
any
additional
things
that
they'd
like
to
ask
or
discuss,
but
these
are
some
of
the
three
that
would
impact
everybody
over
the
last
week.
A
Great
here's
the
mean
potatoes
part
of
it
so
notaries.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
patience
and
thank
you
so
much
for
working
with
us
on
this
increased
transparency,
around
disclosure
forms
and
sanctions
check.
So
over
the
past
few
weeks,
we've
been
going
through
every
application,
every
notary
and
communicating
with
you
over
slack,
your
GitHub
or
email
to
try
to
run
this
down
and
last
Friday
Galen
created
issue
835
in
this
issue.
We've
essentially
taken
every
notary,
that's
completed
all
of
their
verifications
in
the
registry.
A
Every
notary,
that's
completed,
their
disclosure
form
provided
a
first
name
last
name
a
human
pass,
a
sanction
check
and
Galen
created
this
issue,
which
then
adds
you
it's
going
to
be
added
to
the
multi-sig
for
new
LDN
signing.
So
they
ask
if
you
look
at
this
application-
and
your
name
is
not
listed
on
here
or
The
Ledger
address
is
incorrect.
Please
either
comment
directly
in
that
GitHub
application
or
I'm
going
to
press
enter
on
a
slack
message
in
the
private
notaries
Channel
and
use
that
thread
to
kind
of
get
back
to
us.
A
So
this
could
be
topics
like
hey
I
didn't
have
a
first
name
last
name
at
the
time,
but
now
I
do
or
I
change.
My
address
again,
what's
happened
is
that
these
have
forked
in
several
places
with
DMS.
So
maybe
we've
missed
it.
Maybe
you've
done
it
in
the
last
couple
of
days,
but
this
will
be
the
last
week
that
we're
allowing
to
kind
of
make
these
manual
trade-offs.
So
I've
worked
with
some
of
you.
Some
of
them
are
on
the
call,
very
friendly
reminder
to
please
check
that
slack
and
go
forward.
B
Awesome,
yes,
I,
think
I
think
the
next
slide
is
also
talking
about
836,
but
I
just
wanted
to
say
again
here,
as
Kerry
just
said:
if
you
are
a
notary
and
there
is
a
question
or
an
address
issue,
please
put
it
on
this
one,
eight
three
five.
This
is
sort
of
the
like
proposal
issue
where
we
are
keeping
track
of.
This
is
like
the
record
of
like
who
are
the
signers.
B
B
B
You
know
giving
that
multi-sig
the
data
cap,
so
this
one
is
really
mostly
just
for
like
our
tooling,
and
you
know
the
different,
like
dashboard
audits,
but
we
want
to
like
keep
the
conversation
off
of
this
issue
A36,
because
this
one
will
get
really
noisy
with
a
lot
of
like
bot
comments
back
and
forth
as
it's
ready
for
a
Top-Up.
It
goes
to
the
front
end.
The
keyhole
there's
sign
like
that
sort
of
thing.
B
We're
actually
like
talking
about
some
tips
to
allow
for
some
like
bulk
multi-sig
changes
like
bulk
ad
signers,
and
we
found
a
fun
little
Lotus
bug
where
it
will
trim
a
message.
If
the
message
is
too
long
and
run
into
an
issue
so
trying
to
create
this
multi-sig
V
3.1,
it
had
an
issue
adding
that
many
signers
all
at
once.
So
anyway.
That's
why
it's
3.1
and
it's
not
4.0.
We
didn't
really
structurally
change
how
the
logic
of
this
multi-sig
works.
B
B
If
a
notary
address
changes
you,
you
no
longer
have
access
to
your
Ledger
wallet
that
sort
of
thing,
and
then
it
has
a
list
of
those
notaries
that
are
on
there.
Those
are
the
ones
that
should
be
using
the
front
end
to
propose
and
approve
and
not
be
making.
You
know
administrative
edits
to
the
multi-sig
itself,
so
this
new
V
3.1
multi-sig
I,
checked
it
this
morning
before
this
called
on
Lotus.
It
now
has
50
Pips
of
datacad.
B
B
Do
an
audit
perform
your
diligence
track
your
diligence
in
the
issue
and
sign
an
allocation
all
of
the
previously
existing
there's,
something
like
390,
something
open
allocations,
all
the
ones
that
do
not
already
have
a
proposal
we're
working
with
Kiko
to
roll
those
to
this
new
one,
six,
two,
five,
all
the
ones
that
already
have
one
signature.
So
one
of
the
previous
V3
notaries
signed
it.
Those
will
stay
on
the
V3
notary
until
they
get
their
second
signature,
because
we
can't
move
that
one
proposal
to
a
new
notary.
B
B
There
are
allocations
that
were
kicked
off
to
the
V3
notary,
but
did
not
yet
get
a
signature.
We
will
work
on
rolling
those
to
625
sometime
in
the
next
like
week
or
two,
and
there
are
allocations
that
have
one
signature
already
from
the
previous
V3.
Those
will
stay
on
the
previous
V3
waiting
for
a
second
signature.
So
if
you
are
a
V3
notary,
please
go
look
for
the
ones
that
already
have
one
signature.
B
A
proposal
message
go,
perform
the
diligence
and
see
if
it
is
safe
enough
to
sign
so
that
we
can
clear
those
also
because
that
client
has
been
waiting
for.
However,
long
with
one
notary
approval,
there's
some
questions
in
the
chat,
but
I
don't
know
if
they
relevant.
Let
me
just
take
a
second
and
see
if
anyone
else
like
raises
a
hand
and
has
a
question
on
this.
A
B
So
if
you
were
a
third
round
notary-
and
you
did
not
apply
in
the
fourth
round-
and
you
did
not
complete
the
disclosures-
you
will
not
be
added
to
the
LDN
V
3.1
will
be
on
that
LDN
V3,
like
I,
said
it
has
a
few
outstanding
signatures
ready
and
waiting
for
it.
You
will
still
have
whatever
remaining
personal
data
cap.
You
had
for
Direct
allocations,
and
that
is
your
third
round
amount
of
power,
and
then
yes,
Phil
also
corroborated
that
statement.
B
B
No
questions
all
right,
then,
if
you
are
a
fourth
round
notary
and
you
have
been
saying,
when
can
I
start
signing
stuff,
the
answer
is
like
this
week:
you
should
be
able
to
start
going
into
plus.fill.org
signing
in
and
looking
for
one's
allocation
request
to
9625
and
as
long
as
you
are
often
to
GitHub,
and
you
have
selected
your
notary
address
that
you
gave
us.
Then,
when
you
click
on
one
of
those
little
sections
in
the
table,
it
will
allow
you
to
construct
a
proposal
or
approval
message.
B
If
you
are
not,
if
you
do
not
have
your
correct
address
selected
from
the
drop
down,
then
when
you
click
on
the
table,
it'll
say
you're
not
authorized
to
like
sign
this,
so
we
have
some
like
help.
Videos
about
that
and
again,
if
you
run
into
problems
with
this,
that
is
a
great
place
where
the
slack
channels
are
really
useful
for
like
k-ray
was
talking
about.
That
is
a
great
type
of
troubleshooting.
Take
some
screenshots
drop
in
those
screenshots.
B
A
Hey
thanks
for
that
Galen,
so
one
last
foot
stop
in
835.
Take
a
look
if
you're
not
on
this,
come
to
the
private
notaries.
Channel
bill
and
I
will
help
you
all
right.
Working
group
update.
We
have
two
big
updates
from
RG
coming
from
the
trust
and
transparency
working
group,
so
RG
I
see
you
on
the
call
the
floor
is
yours.
D
D
I
think
I
checked
the
issue
earlier
today
and
it
seems
like
it
hasn't
received
as
much
engagement
as
I
was
expecting
to
so
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that
here
in
the
governance
call,
and
so
you
might
see
that
it
says
conclusion
today,
but
I
think
we
want
a
bit
more
time
for
everyone's
input
and
opinion.
So
I'll
be
I'll,
be
altering
that
today
and
then
ideally
discuss
this
at
the
next
TNT
working
group
call.
D
But
if
you
are
someone
who
would
like
to
contribute
to
the
code
of
conduct,
please
do
so
by
contributing
either
to
the
discussion
post,
which
is
linked
in
the
in
the
in
the
comment
section
of
the
issue
or
if
you
think
that
we
don't
need
a
code
of
conduct
and
if
you
feel
otherwise,
you
can
also
engage
with
the
issue
itself.
By
commenting
on
the
on
issue,
89
yeah
you
can,
we
can
move
to
the
next
one
Kerry.
D
D
If
you
have
suggestions
around
this,
please
get
and
again
engage
in
this
issue
and,
yes,
we
are
very
much
open
to
startups
or
tools
that
you
might
be
aware
of.
That
might
be
using
ZK
kyc,
as
someone
just
suggested
in
the
comments
but
yeah.
We
are
very
much
open
to
that
and
then
this
also
directly
aligns
with
some
of
the
work
that
KZ
has
been
doing
with
the
E
field,
plus
so
yeah
very
open
discussions.
D
They
do
require
a
government
ID
and
we
are
exploring
if
it
would
work
for
clients
all
over
the
world,
especially
in
Asia
and
so
I
think
we're
trying
to
separate
KYB
and
kyc
right
now
with
KYB
I,
think
we've
been
using
evil
plus
has
been
using
a
tool
called
synapse,
which
does
verification
of
bank
statements
and
things
like
that,
but
I
think
a
simple
email
kyc
has
not
proven
to
be
enough
so
far,
and
so
either
I
guess.
The
short
answer
is
yes.
D
D
G
A
A
You're
good
all
right,
if
there's
any
other
topics-
or
you
guys
want
to
discuss
this
further,
we
can
move
to
the
GitHub
issue
as
we
have
it
linked
there
or
we'll
have
time
to
begin
to
come
back
to
this
issue.
So,
under
the
proposal
section
of
the
call,
we
have
four
currently
open
proposals.
A
lot
of
those
will
be
wrapping
up
in
the
next
couple
of
days,
so
this
is
just
one
of
those
friendly
reminders.
A
If
you
haven't
done
so
already,
please
come
to
the
notary,
governance,
GitHub
issue
and
then
under
open
you'll
see
these
four.
The
first
is
staking.
The
second
is
Auto
closing
of
applications
after
two
weeks
issue.
Two
one
is:
how
do
we
remove
data
cap
and
then
829
the
trust
and
transparency
code
of
conduct
that
ties
into
issue
830.?
So
again,
we've
talked
about
these
on
past
calls.
If
there
was
anything
that
you
wanted
to
flag
we'll
save
time
on
the
community
discussion
for
these.
A
But
again
this
is
the
last
call
to
go
to
those
issues
before
they
might
move
forward
for
anything
else,
and
you
can
see
all
those
links
here
in
the
deck.
If
you
want
to
grab
into
them
and
at
the
end
of
this
call
we'll
save
time,
if
there's
any
Alibis
or
any
topics
on
those,
you
wanted
to
kind
of
come
back
to
the
two
new
issues
that
we
wanted
to
flag
on.
This
call
will
come
back
to
RG
for
a
summary
on
the
per
data
set
and
what
this
means
and
what
it
will
impact.
D
That
is
more
than
five
Pips.
So
I
think
there
is
a
little
bit
of
confusion
that
I've
received
in
DMS.
So
the
second
thing,
which
is
the
second
issue
which
is
about
if
the
data
set
is
more
than
five
Pips-
you
do
need
to
open
multiple
ldns,
multi-part
ldns
right
now,
because
the
we
we
still
haven't
passed
the
issue
regarding
raising
that
limit.
D
But
this
issue
is
specifically
about
separating
the
different
data,
sets
that
a
client
is
trying
to
apply
for
for
ldns,
and
so
there
is
a
some
interesting
in
conversation
in
the
comments
we
have
both
supporters
and
people
who
think
that
this
might
not
be
the
right
move.
So
I
think
we
want
to
have
more
discussion
on
this,
also
just
a
general
flag
for
anyone
opening
a
new
issue.
A
A
H
Yeah
so
Hey
guys,
this
proposal
is
basically
a
proposal
to
change
the
way
we
store
LDN
application
data.
Currently
how
we
do
it
is
not
the
best
way.
What
we
do
is
we
store
all
the
information
and
comments
and
a
Keiko
bot
would
scrape
it
and
that's
how
you
see
everything
pop
up
in
the
notary
dashboard
for
you
to
sign,
because
Kiko
is
scraping
GitHub
for
the
comments,
and
we
think
that
that's
not
the
best
way.
H
The
the
notaries
who
signed
that
allocation
would
be
added
to
that
Json
file.
So,
instead
of
two
comments,
saying
approval
and
request,
it
would
just
be
one
entry
in
that
Json
file
update.
So
this
does
multiple
things.
First,
it
standardized
the
the
the
way
we
store.
The
data,
which
is
very
useful
for
our
backend,
because
now
to
analyze
large
amounts
of
data,
it's
very
easy
to
query.
H
Trust
and
transparency
is
better
because
now
we
have
a
history
of
all
the
commits
you
can't
just
randomly
delete
files
or
randomly
change
stuff
without
without
history,
it's
much
more
reliable,
because
now
we
don't
have
to
scrape
all
these
comments.
That's
what's
leading
to
like
the
really
high
load
time
and
that's
what's
leading
to
all
the
inconsistent
data.
H
Sometimes
you
see
like
like
it's
not
being
refilled
or
like
it's
not
being
like
your
stuff
is
not
being
shown
up
on
on
on
on
on
the
registry
or
it's
taking
a
long
time
to
load.
So
this
would
help
those
issues
so
overall,
I
think
it's
a
very
good
thing
for
notaries.
It
should
not
change
how
you
interact
with
the
system
for
clients.
It
will
push
you
to
apply
through
other
websites
such
asplus.storage,
but
otherwise,
which
is,
by
the
way,
a
cleaner
way
to
do
it.
H
B
Yeah
I
would
say
that,
as
Phil
mentioned,
like
I
think
this
is
going
to
like
really
help
and
push
us
and
I
will
just
call
out
that
I
think
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
think
the
like
thing
we
might
lose
is
some
of
the
like
ease
of
readability.
So
one
of
the
things
right
now
is
like
when,
when
a
new
project,
when
a
client
opens
like
an
issue
or
opens
a
new
application,
it
opens
an
issue.
B
You
can
land
there
and
like
read
through
it
in
like
a
human
readable
way
to
understand
like
what
their
project
is.
And
then
you
can
go
back
and
forth
in
the
comments
like
asking
questions,
and
so
from
a
like
diligence.
Standpoint
like
going
into
one
issue
and
reading
like
what
the
application
is,
it's
a
little
bit
easier.
B
B
I
Yeah
I
would
like
to
double
check
with
Phil.
So
if
you
make
the
judges
like
with
the
history
to
per
every
application,
can
you
just
put
the
I
mean
the
GitHub
account
history
also
including
that
Json
file,
because
we
can
use
the
Json
file
as
a
kind
of
the
application
system
to
approve
the
the
account
ID
and
or
the
previous
also
allocation
information
into
that
file?
That
will
be
more
useful
for
both
account
ID
and
the
applications.
H
So
yeah
in
what
we
have
now
is
per
LDN
application.
There
will
be
or
the
current
idea
per
LDN
application
will
have
a
new
Json
file
and
in
that
Json
file,
we'll
have
all
the
information
GitHub,
ID
client
address
everything
you're
proposing
history
of
it
has
all
the
history
of
all
the
LDN
of
that
LDN
application.
I
Yeah
I
mean
the
Chisel
can,
including
can
combine
the
GitHub
account
with
what
it
addressed
together
so
to
show
approve
the
older
history
information,
especially
regarding
to
the
account
IDE,
which
is
some
community
members.
Mention
is,
is
just
created
a
few
days
ago.
So
it's
it's
recorded
as
a
non-reputation
account,
so
very
familiar.
Come
will
be
more
useful
and
get
the
higher
representation
in
our
communities.
Yeah.
H
B
It
sounds
like
what
you're
talking
about
is:
let's
also
take
that
and
do
an
analysis
and
say
well
how
old
or
how
many
other
issues,
and
can
we
turn
that
into
a
reputation
score,
and
those
are
like
really
great
comments
and
ideas.
We
do
want
to
go
in
directions
like
that
of
having
different
reputation
scores,
and
so
this,
like
switch
to
a
Json
file,
is
sort
of
a
first
step
in
having
better
data.
A
A
We
have
a
Community
member
who's
on
the
line,
F
sector
that
has
an
update
that
they
want
to
share
so
I'm,
going
to
give
them
the
floor
first,
to
kind
of
walk
through
what
they're
working
on
and
that'll
save
us
around
15
minutes
for
any
topics
that
we
want
to
call
or
discuss
or
come
back
to
so
F
sector
I
saw
you
guys
join.
Thank
you
for
coming.
A
A
J
J
The
first
part
our
our
system
is
DC
automatic
operation
and
maintenance
management
platform.
That's
our
project
introduction
the
first
page.
We
have
three
plus
our
aim.
Our
aim
is:
it's
a
One-Stop
service
for
falconing
storage
providers
to
realize
automatical
deployment,
automatic
management,
reduce
operation
and
maintenance
costs
and
improve
operation,
converging
efficiency
yeah
the
second
part,
the
problems
we
we
want
to
solve
number
one
solved.
J
J
And
the
second
page
is
a
chart
flow
for
how
how
it
works.
This
is
the
assistant
course
Regional
system.
You
can
see
Singapore
compute,
room,
Hong,
Kong,
computer
room,
European
computer
room
and
it's
a
it's
a
system.
The
product
model
is
a
platform
plasma
model.
The
client
is
independently
deployed
and
connected
to
the
computer
room
and
equipped
through
the
network
to
realize
automatical
operation,
maintenance
and
management.
J
The
third
page,
the
third
page,
is
for
you
how
to
how
to
use
it.
That's
just
a
automated
operation,
quick
with
quick,
start
first
step.
You
need
to
apply
second
step,
deploy
a
third
step
get
talking.
Finally,
you
can
use
it
and
that's
all
say
thank
you.
If
you
have
any
questions,
we
you
can
ask
me:
I
will
write
down
and
I'll
answer
you
or
think.
K
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Were
there
slides
during
your
presentation.
We
could
just
see
you,
but
it
sounded
like
you
might
have
some
visuals
if
you'd
like
you,
could
link
the
visuals
in
the
GitHub
presentation
and
I'll
put
that
in
the
next
call,
or
you
could
put
the
slides
in
the
thread
in
the
Phil
plus
Channel
a
slack
that
way
everyone
can
see
them
as
well.
J
A
A
Well,
thank
you
for
that
always
excited
to
see
Community
coming
together
to
build
stuff
to
make
this
network
more
more
robust
and
faster,
as
we
continue
to
onboard
data.
Thank
you
again
for
stepping
up
and
sharing
that
presentation
with
us
looking
forward
to
it
evolving
as
it
goes
forward
all
right.
We
have
exactly
around
15
minutes
left,
so
the
floor
is
open.
Any
topics
that
are
on
mine
either
the
proposals
that
we've
discussed
any
Communications
in
slack
any
conversations
in
GitHub
personal
findings.
C
C
G
D
I
D
D
A
Good
question
Kobe!
Thank
you
for
that
all
right.
Well
with
that.
Thank
you
for
a
very
productive
call:
lots
of
proposals,
lots
of
updates
coming
we'll
see
you
in
the
slack
channels
and
notaries.
If
you
took
one
thing
away
from
this
call
amongst
many
others,
it's
please
go
check
out
issue
835
or
look
in
the
notary
channel
to
verify
that
you're
on
that
list.
A
Let
us
know
if
there's
any
complications
and
we'll
we'll
technically
unblock
you
for
the
data
cap
this
week,
all
right
thanks,
everybody
I'll
see
you
tonight
or
have
a
great
week,
hello
and
welcome
to
the
second
notary
governance
call
of
2028..
Let's
take
a
look
so
on
this
call.
We
have
it
broken
into
four
categories.
A
If
Bill's
able
to
join
he'll
speak
to
him,
otherwise,
again,
deep
and
I
will
kind
of
highlight
those
for
you
and
then
in
the
morning
call.
We
had
lots
of
time
at
the
end
for
Community
discussions.
We
had
an
update
from
F
sector
on
a
work
progress
that
they're
doing
so.
This
call
will
have
lots
of
time
for
comments,
thoughts
and
discussions,
and
so
with
that,
let's
take
a
quick
look.
As
always,
we
put
the
governance
calls
in
the
shared
Google
Calendar.
A
If
this
is
your
first
time
go
check
it
out,
the
links
are
in
a
build
plus
Channel.
If
you
want
to
see
that
as
well
and
the
agenda
is
posted
in
GitHub.
So
if
there's
ever
a
topic
that
you'd
like
to
see
added,
simply
go
to
the
GitHub,
make
an
issue
and
say:
Hey,
Kevin
I'd
like
to
have
XYZ
added
and
we'll
reach
out
and
we'll
get
that
on
the
schedule.
For
you.
A
The
SLA
format
I'm
putting
in
chat
right
now
you
existing
notaries.
This
is
how
we
mark
down
for
the
leaderboard
that
will
be
rolling
out
shortly,
as
well
as
take
into
account
for
future
elections.
So,
if
you're
on
the
call
now
hey
greatly
behooves
you
just
to
fill
out
this
form
and
say,
hey
I
was
here
that
way
in
a
few
months,
if
you
ever
come
back,
we
have
some
way
to
just
show
your
participation
in
the
community,
so
the
forms
right
there
in
chat.
A
In
slack,
we
have
several
com
channels.
The
most
frequent
two
for
notaries
is
the
fill
plus.
This
is
used
for
General
topics,
questions
and
discussion,
and
the
private
notary
channel
for
updates
specific
to
only
notaries.
But
again
we
list
them
here.
We
have
this
all
in
the
slide
deck
for
review,
but
there's
lots
of
avenues
if
you
need
to
reach
out
for
support
questions.
A
A
So
it's
great
for
questions
it's
great
for
like
looking
for
support
or
help,
but
if
it
comes
to
anything
that
you
want
to
flag
for
like
a
more
long-term
discussion
in
the
community,
putting
that
in
GitHub
goes
a
long
way
for
GitHub
any
issue
that
you
make
I'll
go
through
there
and
tag
it
make
sure
that
it
has
a
home
and
owner
and
help
route
that
through
as
well
as
add
that
to
Future
governance
proposals
so
again,
friendly
reminder.
If
there's
anything
you
wanted
to
flag.
A
A
The
first
thing
to
kind
of
flag
is
there
were
three
conversations
in
slack
that
were
taking
place
over
the
last
week,
just
bubbling
these
up,
so
that
we
had
just
this
on
your
radar
in
case
you
had
any
questions
as
this
went
through.
The
first
was
the
top
off
question
like
hey.
When
will
this
address
be
topped
off?
This
got
asked
by
fadian
in
the
Phil
plus
Channel.
They
are
currently
investigating
with
this
with
D
Mob.
This
came
up
on
the
call
today.
H
So
dmob
notified
me
that
it
should
be
okay.
This
is
the
this.
Is
the
top
up
bug
you're
talking
about
right?
That's
right,
yeah!
It
should
be
working
now,
if
you
still
have
any
errors,
just
ping
me
and
I'll
relay
it,
but
it
was
basically
a
bug
between
Keiko
and
dimob,
and
it
was
because
of
a
few
things.
We
recently
migrated
to
another
URL,
and
because
of
that
there
was
some
problem
with
like
the
API
key.
H
A
This
came
through
on
slack,
you
might
have
seen
this
in
the
Phil
plus
Channel
just
wanted
to
Bubble
this
up,
while
we
had
kind
of
the
community
for
any
other
issues,
but
essentially
what
Eddie
was
flagging
was
that
the
export
side
wasn't
allowing
any
exports
to
go
through.
So
we
have
a
Contracting
team
that
we
meet
with
on
Tuesday
morning.
I
was
prepping
for
this,
calling
on
on
it
we'll
run
down
the
answers
for
you
guys
and
make
sure
that
that
slack
conversation
gets
updated.
A
The
second
or
third
excuse
me
was
sector
size.
This
came
through
a
few
days
from
Banyan
good
flag
and
what
they
were
trying
to
figure
out
is
if
you're
uploading
data
and
it
comes
through,
does
the
program
have
like
a
payload
pad
that
goes
into
it?
Deep
answered
this
and
so
I
kind
of
pulled
his
answer
and
just
bubble
this
up
for
everybody.
A
Essentially,
if
you're
uploading,
17
gigs
the
way
that
this
will
parse
is,
it
will
essentially
double
that
to
the
roundest
number,
which
will
come
out
to
32
as
we
put
that
in
there
and
that
will
result.
So
if
you're
curious
to
kind
of
see
this,
the
thread's
in
slack
good
conversation
good
bubble
up
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
gave
these
a
voice
and
kind
of
bubble
them
for
everybody
to
know
I'm
going
to
pause
here
and
see.
A
All
right,
straightforward,
stuff,
we'll
get
to
the
good
stuff,
so
notaries.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
It's
been
really
a
lot
of
disclosure,
docs
and
Ledger
verifications
and
I
think
we're
reaching
that
finalization.
So
on
Friday,
Galen
and
deep
sat
down-
and
we
went
through
this
all
and
what
we
did
was
we
created
a
brand
new
multi-sig,
we'll
talk
about
the
next
issue,
but
in
issue
835
in
GitHub.
A
So
the
ask
if
you
were
a
notary-
and
you
are
not
on
this
835
issue-
you
don't
see
your
name
or
your
address.
That
means
that
something
got
lost
in
comms,
so
check
your
slack
with
me
reach
out
the
best
way
to
make
sure
that
we
get
you
immediate
help
is
comments
in
that
835
issue
like
Hey,
Kevin,
I
thought
I
had
everything
good,
but
I
don't
see
my
name
on
this.
A
What
I'm
going
to
do
is
I'm
going
to
circle
back
with
that,
as
well
as
a
final
ping
to
anybody
who
had
not
completed
their
disclosure
form
or
completed
their
registry
I
also
started
a
thread
in
the
private
notaries
channel,
so
respond
to
that
thread.
This
will
help
all
of
us
keep
eyes
on
and
get
you
plugged
in.
A
What
we're
going
to
do
is
circle
back
a
couple
days
and
manually
add,
but
this
is
really
that
final
window,
if
you
miss
this,
it's
going
to
be
a
really
difficult
process
to
get
you
on,
but
saying
that
everybody
on
this
call
is
participating.
I,
don't
anticipate
that
for
a
few
people
that
might
have
dropped
off.
So
the
main
ask
with
this
is:
if
you
don't
see
your
name
on
A35
and
you
were
a
fourth
round
notary,
you
will
not
receive
data
cap.
Please
comment
on
that
issue
and
we'll
come
back
and
help.
A
You'll
also
see
issue.
836
Galen
created
this,
and
what
this
is
is
essentially
a
brand
new
multi-sig.
So
when
we
had
the
third
round
of
Elections,
we
rolled
out
this
multi-sig,
which
allows
for
multi-application
signing.
We
called
it.
Ldmb3
this
is
LDN
3.1,
and
what
this
allows
to
do
is
now
it's
supporting
multiple
addresses
on
that
chain,
and
this
is
what's
going
to
enable
that
data
cap
to
flow
out.
A
So
the
big
update
for
everybody
on
the
call
is
because
this
was
a
tech
Improvement,
and
this
was
a
brand
new
onboarding
process
for
everybody
coming
on
board.
Any
third
round,
notaries
will
not
be
added
to
this.
New
multi-sid
they'll
still
remain
their
sighting
privileges,
but
they're
not
put
onto
this
new
tech
Improvement,
which
is
why
highlighting
and
participating
in
these
new
disclosure
forms
and
updates
allows
you
to
kind
of
onboard
onto
these
new
tech
as
they
roll
out.
A
So
we
had
some
questions
from
this
in
the
morning
from
some
third
round
notaries,
who
did
not
reapply
in
the
fourth
round
I've
been
in
Cons
with
them
today.
So
if
you're,
a
third
round
notary,
you
have
any
questions,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
directly
and
I'll
work
with
you.
Fourth
round
automatic,
all
of
you
that
applied
were
accepted
and
have
been
onboarded
will
automatically
be
set
up
for
this
I'll
pause
and
see.
If
anybody
has
questions
on
getting
added
to
the
multi-sig
or
how
this
process
works,.
A
G
A
I
G
Totally
so
one
of
the
other
things
that
we've
been
looking
to
do
is
the
fact
that
people
can
add
and
remove
GitHub
accounts
for
free
and
there's
a
lot
of
finger,
pointing
coming
into
play
where
it's
like.
Oh,
this
is
a
brand
new
GitHub
account,
there's
no
historicity
to
this
account.
We
don't
know
whether
or
not
to
take
this
seriously.
G
Making
a
bunch
of
accounts
is
a
useful
and
valuable
thing,
and
so
the
GED
working
group
has
identified
a
tool
called
Julio,
which
so
far
seems
to
be
a
pretty
good
option
of
doing
third-party
kyc
checks
linked
to
GitHub
accounts
and
seems
to
be
pretty
good
coverage
from
like
Global
standpoints,
so
Lots
I
think
every
country
pretty
much
that
we
have.
Somebody
in
the
Canadians
should
have
coverage
through
this
platform
and,
if
not,
then
obviously
you
know
the
the
desire
would
be
to
find
a
different
platform.
G
G
L
G
Was
just
saying,
DND
working
group
I
think
is
working
through
the
details,
but
I
would
imagine
that
this
could
come
into
place
for
everything.
I.
Think.
The
initial
proposal,
though,
was
for
LDN
applications
that
are
coming
in
directly.
It's
issues,
I
personally
think
we
could
apply
it
across
the
board.
Right,
like
anybody
applying
theoretically,
should
be
applying
from
a
GitHub
account
that
has
done
like
a
super
basic
like
checkbox
like
yes,
I'm,
a
human.
L
So
yeah,
so
my
my
concern
here
is
that
yeah
I
I
agree
with
the
GitHub
stuff,
but
it
I'm
not
sure
about
the
kyc,
because
I
could
be
I
could
be
applying
trying
to
get
data
cap,
for
whatever
reason
and
and
the
qac
process
can
be,
can
be
something
that
I
don't
know.
Maybe
it
may
be
not
so
so,
open
or
or
so
fair
or
whatever
so
yeah
yeah
I.
Think
I
would
suggest
that
we
keep
this
for
LDN
if
possible.
Yeah.
G
G
Either
way
you
know
just
we
could
always
try
it
and
if
it
really
does
suck
personal
things
done,
a
lot
I
think
all
these
decisions
are
pretty
reversible.
The
idea
is
that
it
reduces
the
ease
of
like
the
spam,
pinging
or
automating
applications
and
just
generating
a
bunch
of
noise.
It's
very
easy
to
do
that
today
as
well,
and
so
we
want
to
ensure
that
we're
able
to
find
a
way
to
mitigate
the
traffic
coming
to
notaries
so
as
to
ensure
that
their
time
is
being
spent
in
the
best
way
possible.
L
A
A
I'm
gonna
take
that
silence
as
the
year
out
there
taking
names
and
kicking
rears
all
right.
If
there's
any
questions,
this
will
be
up
in
the
transition
transparency
group.
This
is
issue
833
and
829
they're
linked
here
in
chat
as
well
as
the
deck.
So
thanks
for
that
all
right,
the
next
portion
of
the
call
we
dedicated
to
the
proposals
and
what's
nice,
is
that,
as
we
start
to
grow
really
quickly,
proposals
are
a
great
way
that
we
make
sure
that
everybody's
feedback
is
heard
Incorporated
and
discussed
in
an
open
Forum.
A
So
ideally
nothing's
happening
in
a
black
box.
So
anything
that's
coming
through
is
a
change.
We
make
these
proposals,
you
can
make
them
as
well
I'll
go
through
and
make
sure
that
they
get
the
voice,
as
always,
so
with
that
there's
four
proposals
that
we've
talked
about
over
the
last
two
calls,
rather
than
regurgitating
that
and
spending
time
us
talking
about
it
at
the
end
of
this
call
we'll
have
time
in
the
open
discussion.
A
Three:
what
is
the
process
for
data
removal
if
anybody
violates
and
that
trust
and
transparency
code
of
contact
that
we
just
talked
about
with
the
working
group
so
to
find
these
just
go
into
GitHub
they're
in
the
notary
governance,
repo
you'll
see
all
those
proposals
listed
if
you're
new
to
the
community-
and
you
don't
know
where
to
find
these
find
me
in
slack.
Send
me
a
message:
I'll
be
happy
to
link
you
and
point
you
through
it.
So
again,
these
will
close
out
soon.
A
This
is
like
a
last
call
at
the
end
of
this
during
discussion.
If
you
have
any
feedback,
we'll
talk
about
it,
there
are
two
new
proposals.
Alexander.
If
you
don't
mind,
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
wait
till
the
end
yeah
11..
There
are
two
new
proposals
that
just
came
through
and
I
think
since
RG
might
be
out.
There
is
two
that
come
down
with
the
data
set.
I
can
talk
about
the
data
set
Simon.
A
All
right
so
essentially
eight
three
two:
this
was
a
community
issue
and
what
this
is
essentially
saying
is:
if
you
have
a
very
large
diverse
data
set,
it
doesn't
always
make
sense
to
have
many
applications,
but
if
you
might
have
a
data
set,
that's
kind
of
coming
from
the
same
Source
or
comes
from
the
same
program.
Why
are
we
not
having
that
individual?
So
it's
really
coming
down
to?
Are
we
splitting
these
applications
up
into
multiple?
That
can
be
segmented
and
reviewed?
A
Are
we
just
onboarding
massive
amounts
of
data,
a
one-time
check
on
it
and
then
going
forward?
So
what
this
is
trying
to
do
is
limit
the
potential
for
abuse.
As
you
see,
the
call
out
open
up
that
transparency
and
then
spread
this
across
that
way.
If
we
have
this
data
set
that
comes
through
it,
doesn't
just
have
this
one
massive
application.
We
might
be
able
to
chunk
this
off
and
really
look
at
it.
A
A
C
A
G
It's
also
because
we're
seeing
like
a
lot
of
applications
that
are
combining
different
types
of
data
sets
from
different
sets
of
data
owners
than
data
types,
and
it's
making
it
really
hard
to
like
blanket
another
opinion
across
the
entire
set.
It's
obviously
the
more
granular
you
get
the
more
specific
another
your
decision
can
be,
but
then
that
also
comes
to
the
trade-off
of
like
operational
overhead
and
not
being
able
to
prioritize
small
data
sets
and
stuff,
and
so
there's
already
a
ton
of
chatter
on
this
issue.
G
A
lot
of
like
onboarders
and
open
data
sets
have
shared
a
bunch
of
their
thoughts
like
me
personally.
I
also
think
that
this
doesn't
work
in
in
every
single
location,
so
I've
invested
in
I
mean
the
scope
in
which
cases
we
actually
apply.
Something
like
this
so
I
would
definitely
encourage
that.
You
take
a
look
at
832
and
see
if
there's
anything
you'd
like
to
add
daddy,
you
ever
had
to
go
for
it.
Yeah.
A
H
Yep,
so
this
proposal
is
won't
change
anything
for
notaries.
It
will
make
things
faster
for
you
guys.
Hopefully
the
idea
is
to
change
the
way
we
store
GitHub
issues.
Currently,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
storing
we're,
storing
LDN
application
data,
so
data
about
the
tranches
and
which
notary
signing
all
that
is
stored
as
comments
on
GitHub.
So
right
now,
what
happens
is
when
a
notary
proposes
or
approves
of
a
data
cap
tranche
it
it's.
H
So
the
proposed
change
is
to
have
everything
as
one
Json
file,
so
how
this
would
how
this
flow
would
work
is
when
a
client
applies.
It
opens
the
Json
file
with
all
the
information
of
the
LDN
application
and
then,
whenever,
whenever
a
notary
to
a
notary
signed
to
allocate
new
data
cap
to
this
LDN
application,
this
file
is
edited
and
extended.
H
H
If
right
now
we
have
fill
plus
dot
storage,
that's
Simon
created
and
that
clients
can
enter
information
through
there
and
it
can
be
stored
as
a
Json
file
and
then
also
for
trust
and
transparency
purposes.
It's
really
difficult
to
just
delete
a
comment
in
the
past
without
any
history
of
it,
since
we're
editing
everything
through
pull
requests,
and
then
it's
also
much
more
reliable
since
we're
not
scraping
through
comments,
so
there
might,
there
will
be
much
less
glitches
and
much
less
inconsistent
data
yeah.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions.
L
H
Sorry,
let
me
clarify
the
flow,
so
client
makes
a
a
new
application
through
surplus.storage
website.
Then
a
new
Json
file
is
a
PR's
made.
A
new
Json
file
is
added
to
the
LDN
repo
right
with
all
the
information
of
this
LDN
application
that
the
client
filled
out
and
then
a
new
PR
is
opened
whenever
a
new
data
cap
tranche
is
going
to
be
allocated,
so
PR
is
opened,
notaries
will
sign
through
the
normal
notary
registry
right
and
then
Keiko.
H
So
it's
not
one
big
Json
file
for
everything.
It's
per
LDN
application.
There's
one
Json
file
with
all
the
history
for
that
LDN
application,
or
at
least
that's
what
we're
talking
about
we're
still
in
ideation
phase.
So
if
you
guys
want
to
read
it
and
I
put
the
schema
there
and
everything,
and
if
you
have
other
thoughts
or
you
think
you
it
needs
to
be
edited
just
reach
out
to
me
or
comment
in
this
yeah
Danny
has
raised
his
end.
M
H
H
That
and
I
guess
there's
also
on
chain.
You
can
check
like
the
transaction
right
that
message
right.
So
those
are
the
two
things.
Obviously,
the
trend,
the
CID
for
the
transaction
message
would
be
stored
on
this
Json
file.
So
whenever
a
data
is
issued,
like
there's,
gonna
be
a
new
record
on
that
LDN
up
LDN.
M
K
G
You
repeat:
hold
on
one.
Second:
can
I
can
I
take
a
stab
at
this
real,
quick,
okay,
so
there's
a
set
of
things
that
are
generated
as
part
of
like
the
application
life
cycle.
Let's
say
of
a
falcon
Plus
data
cap
application
that
will
never
end
up
on
chain
unless
somebody
would
have
like
store
them
on
chain
right
like
artificially
effectively
and
so
that
flow
today
is
basically
somebody
opens
up
an
issue.
A
bunch
of
people
comment
down
there.
G
We've
got
two
link
that
comes
in
comments
on
it
and
then
that
that
issue
basically
just
gets
really
really
long
and
then
one
day
it
gets
close
right.
This
is
basically
an
alternative
to
that
where,
instead
of
it
being
one
really
long
living
issue,
you
actually
have
a
representation
of
that
exact
same
thing,
but
in
code,
and
so
every
time
a
new
allocation
comes
in
instead
of
it
being
oh
subsequent
allocation,
but
open
up
a
comment:
notaries
got
paint,
it's
a
new
PR
opened
up
that
suggested.
How
much
data
cap
should
be
granted
right.
G
No
reason
to
have
the
same
conversation
the
same
back
and
forth
the
same
CID
Checker
stuff
runs
all
that
runs,
but
it
each
instead
of
it
being
a
thing
in
GitHub,
that's
open
for
the
life
cycle
of
a
whole
application.
It's
now
a
thing
in
GitHub,
that's
open
for
the
life
cycle
of
an
individual
tranche
in
the
LDN
flow,
and
then
that
gets
documented
into
this
thing
because
then
effectively,
instead
of
like
somebody
building
an
Analytics
tool.
G
M
M
L
L
G
Yeah
I
think
we
we
had
three
and
we're
still
going
to
have
three
Alex.
It's
just
that,
like
the
the
first
two,
the
non-chain
ones,
there
they
end
up
being
way
more
reliably
preserved
than
in
the
current
format,
and
so
the
this
capability
and
the
analytics
is
way
higher.
The
trustworthiness
is
way
higher.
The
liability
is
way
higher,
but
the
risks
during
an
open
thing
are
effectively
similar.
I
think
the
only
other
big
upset
we
have
here
is
basically
when
there's
an
issue
like
issues
are
very
easily
deleted.
G
There's
like
no
concept
of
like
archiving,
and
things
like
that
PRS.
You
can
always
go
back
and
override
something,
but
you
always
maintain
the
commit
history,
and
so
just
even
from
like
a
long
term
back
and
forth
management
standpoint
and,
like
tracking
updates
over
time
way
more
auditable
way
more
transparency.
L
Yeah
I'm
pretty
happy
with
this,
because
this
goes
as
well
into
another
discussion.
We
had
some
of
the
best
meetings
about
having
backups
and
a
method
of
actually
not
relying
so
much
on
GitHub
so
having
having
a
file.
Actually,
you
can
just
get
clone
and
and
you're
good
to
go,
except
from
the
exact
requests
and
or
not,
but
from
the
that's.
That's
easy,
though
yeah.
G
A
C
A
A
A
That
is
a
great
question,
so
there
are
two
working
groups:
one
is
Enterprise
skill
plus,
which
is
led
by
KZ.
The
second
is
trust
and
transparency
led
by
RG.
They
both
have
slack
channels.
I
will
quickly
once
I
finish,
talking,
link
those
here
in
chat.
If
you
go
to
those
slack
cleverly,
they
have
pinned
in
the
top
of
the
slack
bars
all
of
the
information
for
joining
so
KZ
created
a
form
that
you
could
fill
out.
Rg
has
separate
meetings
that
run
concurrent
to
this
time.
C
K
C
K
The
kept
duration
multiplier.
This
proposal
is
going
to
have
a
fairly
big
impact,
I
think
on
Fall
point
plus
I
think
people
I'm,
hoping
people
here
have
read
it
and
haven't
looked
at
it
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
anyone's
got
any
comments
and
I
feel
like
this
is
maybe
the
reason
I'm
interested
in
this,
because
I
feel
like
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
I've
been
looking
at
a
lot
more
applications
and
I've
maybe
been
satisfied
with
then
meeting
the
rules,
but
maybe
not
the
principles
of
file.
K
C
G
G
Yeah
totally
honestly
I'm
a
pretty
big
fan
of
the
way.
Some
of
the
things
that
are
being
brought
up
in
this
proposal
might
be
of
use
as
well
as
how
they
could
possibly
impact
like
the
current
macroeconomic
condition
within
the
Falcon
Island
economy
and
on
net
I
am
supportive
of
this.
It's
a
proposal,
Mark
I,
think
it's
a
relatively
good
one.
I
have
some
good
ideas
baked
into
it.
Extension
of
max
deal
terms
is
really
interesting.
G
The
ability
for
a
storage
provider
to
self-select
into
different
types
of
roles
in
the
network
is
also
really
interesting,
like
creating
like
a
like
a
per
like
a
stakeholder
type
effectively
within
the
SP
classification,
where
you
have
like
an
XP.
That's
like
dedicated
to
be
here
to
serve
storage
versus
an
SP,
that's
dedicated
for
like
securing
the
network,
or
you
know
just
as
interested
in
running
fem
contracts,
and
things
like
that.
G
Like
they're,
the
role
for
that
person
and
I
think
this
proposal
really
highlights
that,
like
popcorn
started
out
as
a
network
very
focused
on
storage,
but
with
fbm
and
the
amount
of
Hardware
that's
been
dedicated
to
it,
there's
a
lot
of
different
directions.
They
can
go
in
and
it's
pretty
flexible
when
it
comes
to
that,
and
so
we
should
be
able
to
leverage
those
things.
G
I've
seen
a
couple
of
comments
come
up
on
the
field
plus
side
too,
ranging
from
like
reasonable
criticisms
to
unnecessarily
disparaging
without
any
useful
or
productive
follow-up,
but
I,
all
of
them
honestly,
fair
game
like
it's
totally
reasonable,
I
think
to
flag
it.
My
personal
opinion,
that
is,
that
I
think
it's
a
bit
of
a
straw
man
policy
to
like
pursue
this
as
like
a
adjustment
to
the
usefulness
of
the
Plus
in
the
network.
I
think
the
proposal
like
stands
for
a
lot
more
than
that.
G
G
The
second
thing
that
I
think
it's
really
interesting.
It's
with
the
way
the
macroeconomic
condition
has
moved
in
falcoin
it's
and
like
it's
no
secret
today.
Right
that
likes
the
way,
storage
provider,
business
models
are
set
up,
they're
disproportionately
reliant
on
verified
deals
today.
Part
of
that
is
because
people
are
still
exploring
and
using
field
plus
as
a
way
to
experiment
cheaply
to
figure
out
like
what
kind
of
demand
they
want
to
serve
and
what
kind
of
Business
Development
they
want
to
do.
G
But
a
much
larger
part
of
it
is
the
way
in
which,
like
the
token,
has
moved
alongside
the
rest
of
like
the
crypto
macro
economic
Cycles,
relative
to
Fiat,
Investments
right,
like
people
are
buying
Hardware
in
Fiat
and
then
earning
returns
in
crypto
and
if
crypto
slides
against
Feud,
then
your
return
profile
looks
worse.
Your
role
that
looks
worse
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
has
happened
with
the
fill
token
price.
G
G
Why
should
you,
you
know,
continue
to
make
like
another
reason,
life,
harder
and
or
your
own
life
harder
and
trying
to
find
ways
to
gamify
the
system
when
you
could
just
go
like
CLC
sectors
for
10
years
and
I?
Think
that
that's
a
tremendous
upside
and
you
know
keeping
deal
terms
flexible.
Also,
that
means
like
SPS
that
are
trying
to
onboard
Enterprise
data
can
now
start
creating.
G
Like
you
know,
sales
orders
purchase
orders
for
clients
like
down
the
line
with
actual
like
dollar
amounts,
stacked
to
them
and
start
to
build
like
business
models
that
are
not
destroyed
on
a
on
a
network
subsidy,
so
yeah.
If
the
CDM
proposal
goes
through,
do
I
expect
that,
like
deal
onboarding
verified
versus
unverified
will
change,
probably
not
I,
still
think
a
majority
of,
like
all
deals,
will
be
verified
deals,
but
do
I
think
as
many
verified
deals
will
happen
or
as
much
like
throughput
will
be
required.
G
No
I
think
that,
like
the
pressure
will
ease
off
definitely
think
I
speed
that
I'm
more
interested
in
just
doing
CC
will
have
an
opportunity
to
be
able
to
much
more
like
justify
that,
whether
that's
to
their
own
investor,
their
to
where
they're
getting
their
collateral
loans,
Etc
and
so
I.
Honestly,
I
I
see
it
as
another,
really
positive
thing
yeah.
Hopefully
that
makes
sense.
I,
I
think
I.
K
I
guess
one
thing
is
like
some
of
the
applications
I've
been
looking
at.
It's
like
it's
very
questionable
whether
they
meet
in
my
mind,
the
the
fall
Point
principles
and
I've
got
one
here
that
I
can
talk
to,
but
I
disagree
with
it,
but
another
murderer
has
jumped
on
and
approved
it
and
I
guess,
there's
like
as
you
as
we
bring
on
more
notaries
like
getting
on
the
same
page
that
this
is
like
really
hard.
K
G
Yeah
I
I
I
completely
see
where
you're
coming
from
I.
Just
think
that
that's
like
a
conversation
we
should
be
having,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
this
was
a
proposal,
and
it's
just
straight
up,
orthogonal
to
like
the
fifth
discussion
right
like
if
we
should
be
raising
the
bar
for
like
what
notaries
are
sending,
we
should
be
raising
the
bar
for
what
kind
of
clients
make
it
through
the
Philips
application
process.
Whether
or
not
CDM
is,
if
actually
doesn't
influence
that
much
at
all
like.
G
We
should
all
be
here
trying
to
reduce
the
amount
of
potential
abuse
in
the
system
and
like
targeting
a
higher
quality
of
data
being
served
in
the
faculty
Network.
And,
given
that,
obviously
you
know,
we
can't
check
all
data.
It
turns
into
higher
quality
of
clients
being
served
in
the
network,
and
so
I
think
that,
like
one
of
the
good
outcomes
of
this,
like
CDM
thing
is
that
it
is
bringing
a
lot
more
people
into
the
conversation
and
like
there's
a
lot
more
renewed
interest.
G
In
this
conversation
like
there
was
a
you
know,
a
big
sort
of
burst
of
energy
in
this
direction
in
January,
and
we
started
pushing
a
bunch
of
stuff
through
we're,
still
pushing
a
bunch
of
stuff
through.
But
you
know,
some
of
the
conversation
is
Wayne
the
tiny
bit
and
now
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
Resurgence,
and
so
that's
been
really
good.
G
I
think
you
know
we
should
continue.
Having
that
conversation,
there's
a
bunch
of
like
discussion,
topics
that
have
been
opened
up
over
the
last
six
weeks
or
so
that
addressed
this
like
relatively
head-on,
there's
a
bunch
of
open
threads
in
Black
itself.
Ideally
we
start
to
move
them
into
the
same
discussions
in
GitHub
and
so
Mark.
If
you
have
specific
applications
that
you're
like.
Why
was
this
signed?
I
would
just
say
literally.
G
The
first
thing
you
should
have
done
is
commented
the
application
and
said:
why
was
this
sign
like
I,
think
it's
completely
reasonable
for
you
to
hold
another
notary
accountable
and
ask
them
like
what
gave
them
the
confidence
to
do
that,
because
that's
the
only
way
in
which,
like
we
can
actually
have
this
tide
rise
together.
Yeah
and
I
I
just
think
that's
like
I
hope
you
understand
where
I'm
coming
from
when
I
say
it
or
orthogonal
to
the
CDN
thing,
because
I
don't
also
want
to
tie
that
energy
to
the
CDN
thing
right.
G
Like
say,
the
CDN
thing
drastically
changes
over
the
course
of
like
what
we
learned
from
the
modeling
or
people
don't
like
it
or
people
really
like
it
or
it
gets
faster.
It
doesn't
get
past
like
I.
Don't
ultimately
I
don't
care
that
much,
because
we
still
have
to
do
exactly
what
you're
describing,
and
so
we
should
be
doing
it
anyway.
Yeah.
C
K
K
G
Well,
if
they're
coming
to
the
direct
allocation
process,
yep
just
one,
if
they're
coming
through
at
the
end
in
four
but
yeah,
that
I
mean
that's
the
point
of
having
like
a
rubric.
That
is
also
open
to
discussion
and
like
a
process
by
which
you
can
call
people
out
and
track
them
like
publicly
and
start
to
build
a
notion
of
like
notary
reputation.
G
I
think
we're
already
reaching
the
point
where,
like
notaries,
are
effectively
no
longer
serving
as
like,
effective
notaries.
In
some
cases,
I
use
the
word
effectively
twice
there
in
different
ways,
but
adjusting
who
actually
has
that
right
like
it
is
a
very
important
role
in
the
network
that
comes
with
a
decent
amount
of
responsibility.
And
so
it
should
also
you
know,
have
repercussions
when
things
aren't
going
well
and
that's
kind
of
the
point
of
like
standing
up
a
trust
and
transparently
working
group.
G
Where
you
see
people
like
specifically
calling
out
individual
notaries
those
discussions
that
they
were
kicked
off
by
hidden
many
other
community
members,
but
then
also
like
formalized
through
the
TNT
working
group
like
8,
25,
811
stuff,
like
that,
where
there's
like
specific
notaries
being
put
on
blast,
it's
a
really
good
example
of
this
and
I.
Think
it's
completely
reasonable
to
continue
doing
that,
like
you
know,
no
one's
forcing
anyone
to
be
neuter
here.
G
If
you
you
got
elected
because
you
chose
to
set
a
bar
for
yourself
if
you're
no
longer
upholding
that
bar,
it's
reasonable
for
us
as
a
community
to
decide
that
that
person
shouldn't
have
that
right,
anymore
or
shouldn't
have
that
ability
anymore,
because
it
frankly
is
a
pretty
powerful
position
to
be
in
the
network,
and
so
yes
I
everything
you're
saying
is
accurate.
That's
to
do
something
about
it!.
G
Phil
has
an
open
discussion
topic
on
like
introducing
like
potential
Concepts
around
staking
and
collateral
or
like,
in
addition
to
just
reputation,
to
give
people
like
the
right
or
actually
RG
might
have
opened
it
up,
but
around
like
having
the
right
to
put
somebody
on
blast
like
that,
should
also
come
with
some
sort
of
responsibility
in
incentive
time.
That's
one
thing
for
sure.
G
The
other
thing
is
also
that,
where
I
would
say,
Alex
were
actually
seeing
the
cost
literally
right
now
of
like
this,
which
is,
if
you
have
a
community
where
people
aren't
willing
to
hold
each
other
to
a
really
high
standard.
We
don't
maintain
a
really
high
standard
and
then
what
we
end
up
with
is
a
bunch
of
people
being
like.
Oh,
this
community
isn't
seemingly
doing
what
we
expected
them
to
be
doing,
and
we
need
a
course
correct
and
we're
watching
that
play
out
right
now
to
Mark's
point
and
I.
G
K
Yeah
and
then
potentially
I
feel
that
maybe
we
need
to
start
looking
at
these.
It's
like
r
d
type
grants
oppose
of
opposed
to
just
verified
client
data
like
to
talk
to
one
I
saw
the
other
day.
It's
open
data
sets
because
they're
social
media
videos
and
it's
like
okay.
Well,
yes,
it's
open,
but
that
just
looks
like
private
data
that
doesn't
need
to
be
encrypted,
and
so
when,
if
you
go
back
to
like
the
principle
of
5.
plus,
it's
like
accelerating
the
usefulness
and
attractive.
K
G
Yeah
I
think
it's
really
hard
to
objectively
make
that
call
yeah
I
think
it's
very
easy
to
subjectively
make
that
call,
and
we
can
continue
arguing
about
it.
I
think
objectively.
Ultimately,
what
it
really
comes
down
to
is
like
minimizing
floss,
false
positives
to
of
identification
of
put
like
trustworthy
clients
effectively
are
the
cases
where
somebody
is
just
like
purely
BS
in
the
system?
G
I
think
the
time
is
also
right.
You
know,
as
we
get
some
of
those
tools
out
to
look
at
that
qrp
multiplier
change.
Thing
too
I've
been
meaning
to
have
this
discussion
for
a
while.
You
flagged
a
couple
of
times:
Mark,
which
is
like
hey
certain
types
of
stuff.
Being
onboarded
are
arguably
more
or
less
valuable
for
the
rest
of
the
world
than
others.
Why
aren't
we
considering?
Having,
like
you,
know
a
10x
versus
a
5x
versus
a
15x
and
I?
G
A
F
Yours,
hello,
guys
because
I
didn't
come
from
a
technical
background.
I
was
also
rethinking
my
work
and
I
was
thinking
what
non-technical
contribution
can
I
make
to
help
the
community,
but
we
also
have
a
team
that
and
the
technical
problems
are
solved
by
them.
I
currently
organize
the
up
conference
and
I'm
attending
the
espa
check,
ing
the
application
carefully
and
sign
my
name.
So
do
you
have
any
other
suggestions
to
a
new
notary?
A
Wonderful,
wonderful,
wonderful,
I,
love
everything
about
that.
One
other
thing
that
I
would
add,
I'm,
also
not
technical,
at
least
since
I
joined
this
company
and
I
see
how
brilliant
everybody
else
is
I'm
just
programming
a
VCR,
but
one
thing,
that's
helpful
too,
is
a
non-technical,
is
when
you're
looking
at
some
of
the
LDN
applications.
Sometimes
it's
nice
to
not
have
a
technical
eye
and
sunny
does
a
really
good
job
of
this
of
just
responding
to
an
application
like
with
general
questions.
That
would
help
you
understand
like
how
is
their
data
being
stored?
A
Where
is
it
stored?
How
does
it
contribute?
Where
does
it
come
from?
As
you
spend
more
time
in
the
program?
You'll
start
to
see
some
of
these
questions,
so,
in
addition
to
everything
you
just
listed
I
think
those
are
fabulous
ideas
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
you
come
up
with
over
the
next
year,
thanks
for
being
here,
Darlene.