►
From YouTube: Community Collateral Onboarding Call: October 7, 2020
Description
Introduction: @juanjuan
Presentation 1 (0:00:55): Balancer
Presentation 2 (0:28:33): tBTC
Agenda and Discussion:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-collateral-onboarding-call-10-wednesday-october-7-17-00-utc/4368/6
Governance Forum:
https://forum.makerdao.com/
Disclaimer: The videos in this playlist are produced by MakerDAO community members. Content produced by the community may not be representative of the views held by the Maker Foundation.
A
A
A
B
B
So
you
can,
you
can
put
the
assets
that
you
have
and
battlestar
will
balance
them
for
you.
So
if
you
start
to
pull
with
thirty
percent
die
forty
percent
each
and
thirty
percent
wbtc
or
tbtc
you
can.
You
can
rely
on
balancer
to
always
keep
that
balanced
for
you
and
instead
of
like
conventional
index
funds,
where
you
have
to
pay
the
management,
the
manager
of
the
fund,
you
have
to
pay
a
fee
like
a
fidelity
or
others
on
balancer
with
balancer.
B
You
actually
get
a
fee
just
like
lp's
get
fees
on
on
unit
swap
balancer
posts
also
have
trading
fees,
and
we
also
have
a
flexible
choice
for
trading
fees,
so
you're
not
always
forced
to
to
have
a
0.3
percent
trading
fee
like
on
unit
swap
you
can
choose
0.001
or
all
the
way
up
to
10.
So
that's
our
idea
is
like
to
be
fully
flexible
and
to
be
a
primitive
for
people
to
build
on
top
and
get
creative.
So.
B
The
the
the
two
types
differently
from
unit
swap
the
two
types,
that
of
pools
that
are
available
on
balancer,
are
private
pools
and
shared
pools
so
share.
Let's
start
with
shared
posts.
Share
tools
are
like
unit
swaps,
anyone
can
provide
liquidity
and
they
get
shares
here,
see
20
shares
of
those
pools
and
they
can
withdraw
at
any
time
and
those
pools
are
immutable.
That
means
that,
whatever
pool
you,
you
add
liquidity
to
you're,
100
sure
that
the
weights
are
not
going
to
change.
B
B
So
those
are
the
two
types
of
of
pools
that
are
on
balancer
and
there
is
a
very
interesting
thing
that
can
be
built
actually
with
private
pools
that
we
have
been
working
a
lot
on
recently
and
it's
it's.
What
we
call
a
smart
pool,
so
a
smart
pool
is
actually
a
private
pool
with
the
owner
being
another
smart
contract,
so,
instead
of
juan
or
will
owning
a
private
pool
and
putting
their
money,
it's
a
smart
contract.
B
That's
putting
its
money,
and
the
nice
thing
is
that
that
smart,
that
controller,
let's
call
it
the
controller
smartpool,
it
can
be
a
gateway
for
external
liquidity
to
be
added
to
this
private
pool,
which
is
flexible
according
to
the
rules
of
the
controller.
So
a
very
simple
and
exciting
example
of
how
this
can
be
useful.
B
Imagine
a
search
pricing
pool,
so
we
all
know
very
well
black
thursday
there's
times
when
there's
a
lot
of
demand
for
liquidity,
people
want
to
trade,
they
want
to
cover
their
vaults
in
order
to
avoid
being
liquidated,
they're
not
really
worried
about
a
0.5
fee
or
a
1
fee.
All
they
want
is
to
buy
die
at
the
price.
At
the
current
price,
because
they
they
fear
that
in
two
hours
the
price
might
be
half
the
the
price
now,
so
people
are
less
sensitive
in
those
moments
the
smart
pool.
B
So
it's
I
like
to
compare
that
to
uber
and
taxis,
pools
that
we
see
today
on
baluster
in
uniswap.
Unisoft
is
always
0.3.
Balancer
can
be
any
number,
but
it's
static
for
shared
posts
because
it's
immutable,
but
it's
it's.
It's
not
adapting
to
the
market
market
conditions
right.
So
with
the
smart
pool,
you
can
have
a
controller
that
people
who
provide
liquidity
to
that
smartphone.
They
know
they
can
read
the
rules,
the
code
in
the
smartphone
controller.
They
know
that
all
it
can
do
is
change
the
trading
fee
based
on
volatility.
B
It
can't
add
a
new
token.
It
cannot
change
weights,
it
only
can't
change
the
trading
fees
now.
The
nice
thing
is
that
the
the
smartphones
are
flexible,
so
we
have
a
a
a
template
like
a
factory
where
anyone
can
choose
which
rights
that
smartpool
can
have-
and
this
is
very
useful,
for
example,
for
other
projects
like
paidow
or
like
realty
like
realty.
B
At
least
that's
the
feeling
I
have
that
the
make
your
dog
community
is
going
is
let's
scale
maker
now
by
accepting
more
types
of
collateral,
including
real
world
assets
like
things
that
are
tokenized
right,
so
it
the
the
nice
so
just
to
to
explain
the
idea
of
realty,
like
they
have
many
different
properties
that
are
tokenized
and
people
who
own
shares
of
the
erc20
tokens
of
those
properties
they
get
daily
rent.
So
the
rent
that's
paid
to
the
actual
property
is
converted
to
die,
and
then
people
get
the
rent
and
die
every
day.
B
Now
the
nice
thing
about
balance
is
that
balancer
is
that
it
allows
realty
to
have
an
index
fund
of
all
the
properties
that
I
have
right,
so
they
put
them
all
into
a
pool
and,
and
the
and
the
pool
token
is,
is
a
share
of
the
index
fund
of
all
realty
properties.
Now
the
problem
is,
if
you
want
to
add
that,
to
that
poo
token,
as
collateral
for
maker
dao,
it
cannot
change
every
second
week
or
every
month
right.
It
has
to
be
something
cons
like
kind
of
perennial
and
not
ephemeral.
B
B
Instead,
they
can
have
a
smart
pool
where
they
can
add
new
tokens,
so
they
can
grow
the
index
fund,
adding
new
properties
while
maintaining
keeping
the
same
smart
pool
token,
which
is
used
as
collateral
on
maker
dial,
constant
right.
So
if
they
have
more
than
eight
properties,
eventually
they
can
replace
properties
by
cities
and
cities
are
actually
other
smart
pools
that
have
have
other
properties
from,
I
don't
know
florida
or
miami.
And
then
you
can
grow
this
tree
of
of
neighborhoods
cities
and
still
keep
the
same
year.
B
B
And
the
nice
thing
is
that,
by
having
a
pool
being
used
as
collateral,
you
keep
the
underlying
fluid
and
and
liquid,
so
having
a
bpt
staked
as
or
or
put
escalator
in
maker,
doesn't
prevent
people
from
trading
the
the
the
tokens
that
are
inside
this
pool
back
and
forth.
So
it's
it's
going
to
be
more
and
more
used
by
projects
instead
of
staking
or
staking
or
locking
up
the
project.
Token
they're
actually
going
to
lock
up
a
balancer
pool
token
that
has
their
project
their
project,
tokens
and
eth.
B
So
actually,
you're
staking
the
proof
that
you're
providing
liquidity
between
your
token
and
eth
right.
So
it's
it's
this
kind
of
idea
of
instead
of
drying
up
the
the
liquidity
of
your
token,
by
locking
up
collateral,
which
is
just
the
token
you're
locking
up
the
bpt.
That
has
your
token
and
heath.
So
you,
you
kind
of
are
proving
that
you're
providing
liquidity
with
your
token.
A
B
That's
that's
a
great
question,
so
the
there's
there's
no
way
we
can
name
a
pool
like
unit
swap
could
say
this
is
the
die
usdc
pool
because
there
can't
be
two
pools
with
those
two
tokens
right.
Balancer
can
have
duplicate
pools.
Anyone
can
create
like
the
same
pool
in
in
a
number
of
times.
So
actually
you
need
the
address
juan.
So
whenever
you
have
vpt
tokens,
those
tokens
are
actually
the
erc20s
produced
or
or
minted
by
the
pool
that
has
the
tokens
that
are
being
yeah.
B
A
D
Yeah,
I'm
kind
of
interested
from
from
an
oracle's
perspective.
How
how
would
you
value
like,
theoretically,
how
would
you
value
a
bpt
token?
Is
it
just
the
the
the
underlying
and,
if
it
is,
how
do
you
kind
of
how
do
you?
How
do
you
make
sure
that
the
underlying
isn't
you
know
the
ratio
isn't
manipulable
to
kind
of
manipulate
the
price
of
a
bpt
token
from
from
an
oracle
perspective,.
B
B
It's
just
like
each
each
price
has
the
exponent
of
the
weight.
So
if,
if
a
pool
had
100
of
one
token,
it
would
be
just
that
price
of
that
token
to
to
one
which
would
be
the
the
same
prices
that
it
doesn't
exist,
because
the
pool
has
to
have
two
or
more
tokens,
but
the
there
is
the
risk
of
having
a
sandwich
attack
so
yeah
yeah.
So
you
would
have
to
have
some
kind
of
fallback
option
like
like,
like
link
or
chain
link
or
any
other
anti-sandwich
attack
mechanisms.
D
So
so
is:
is
there
a
way
to
kind
of
normalize
the
the
ratio
over
over
time
so
the
way
uniswap
kind
of
does
this?
Is
they
have
this
kind
of
price
accumulator
right?
So
it's
basically
right.
It
adds
like
the
the
ratio
of
the
right,
the
ratio
of
the
reserves
right
over
time,
and
so
you
can
take
two
different
points
right
and
kind
of
calculate
your
own
normalized
kind
of
reserve
ratio
instead
of
relying
on
the
ones
from
the
contract.
B
No,
so
right
now
we're
going
to
do
that
for
balancer
v2,
but
we
don't
have
that
accumulator.
For
now,
one
one
option
would
be
to
use
unit
swap
as
kind
of
a
a
double
check
right,
a
sanity
check
about
the
the
prices
so
yeah,
because
unit
swaps
oracles
are
kind
of
more
more
resilient
to
to
gaming
because
of
the
accumulator.
E
All
right,
so
I
had
a
question
as
well
like
I
think
I
really
know
the
answer.
I
just
kind
of
want
to
confirm
with
any
liquidity
pool
the
the
kind
of
value
of
the
pool
is
like,
so
I
guess
the
risk
of
the
pool,
I
guess,
is
contingent
on
the
risk
of
like
the
weakest
token
in
the
pool,
because
you
always
have
this
problem
as
if,
like
the
weakest
token
drops
to
like
zero,
then
it
floods,
the
pool
and
the
rest
of
the
the
value
is
drained.
Is
that
correct.
B
That
is
correct.
There
is
correct,
but
there
are
some
practical
kind
of
limitations
to
that.
So,
in
order
for
in
order
for
a
token
to
drain
all
the
others,
it
would
need
infinite
supplies,
the
infinite
supply
attack.
So
it
doesn't
really
suffice
or
it's
it's
not
enough
for
the
price
to
go
to
zero.
You
really
need
to
gather
like
concretely
and
impress
like
in
practical
terms.
B
B
So
if
you
have
a
very
low
weight,
if
even
if
the
drop
that
the
price
drops
by
100x,
for
example,
the
price
of
the
like
the
impact
of
of
that
drop
in
the
whole
pool
will
be
the
the
the
the
drop
of
that
token
to
the
power
of
the
weight.
So
I
don't
have
my
calculator
here,
but
if
you
do
like,
if
you
have
a
token
of
two
percent
weight
and
it
drops
by
10
times,
10x
you're-
probably
gonna
like
lose-
I
don't
know
five
to
ten
percent.
Only
of
the
value.
B
E
C
Yeah,
I
have
one
so
hi
fernando
thanks
for
the
presentation,
so
in
case
makerdale
considers
to
onboard
liquidity
token
so
bpts.
The
idea
there
is
that
essentially
make
the
boosts
yields
of
liquidity
providers
right,
the
the
the
you
know.
Basically,
farmers.
However,
you
want
to
call
them,
so
the
idea
is
that
we
would
be
obviously
charging
stability
fee.
That
is
a
percentage
of
liquidity
mining
rewards,
but
I
know
that
those
rewards
are
a
function
of
balance,
surprise,
but
also
of
the
of
the
distribution
right.
C
B
Yeah
great
great
question,
so
the
the
we
are
trying
to
not
change
too
often
how
how
the
rules
apply
to
liquidity.
Mining
there's
been
quite
a
quite
quite
some
time
that
no
new
factors
are
have
been
added,
so
we
we
reached
a
stage
where
we're
quite
comfortable
with
the
system
not
being
gameable,
so
it
is,
though,
the
decision
by
the
government.
B
So
if
people
decide
that
there's
some
some
attacks
or
some
types
of
gaming
happening
that
are
kind
of
being
being
detrimental
or
not
so
beneficial
to
the
protocol,
governance
can
change
the
way
the
distribution
of
bottle
tokens
every
week
happens.
It's
a
fixed
amount
every
week.
So
it's
a
zero-sum
game.
So
if
people
somehow
try
to
game
or
manage
the
game
and
get
a
lot
of
bow,
it
means
that
others
will
get
less
bowel.
B
But
it's
interesting
to
note
that
if
bpts
are
used
as
collateral
with
maker
dial,
then
maker
dial
we'll
be
getting
would
be
getting
those
vpts
right
and
then
there's
like
maybe
another
way
for
maker
dao
itself
to
be
kind
of
earning
more
fees
from
from
those
those
fees
from
those
bow
tokens
that
are
paid
as
liquidity
mining
every
week.
So
I
don't
know
how
you
guys.
Think
of
of
dealing
with
that.
B
The
kind
of
the
the
obvious
solution
would
be
to
just
send
all
the
bow
tokens
that
are
that
that
vault
gets
because
it
holds
bpt,
send
it
to
the
owner
of
the
vault.
That
would
be
the
the
easiest
way
in
my
opinion,
but
you
guys
can
charge,
as
you
said,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
mentioned
that,
but
if
you
mention
that,
but
the
maker
dial
itself
could
charge
a
portion
of
the
bowel
tokens
that
the
the
vault
gets
and
and
keep
that
as
a
protocol
revenue
or
fee.
It's
an
idea.
C
Yeah
that
that's
basically
an
idea,
it's
you
know
it's
no
hard
to
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
possible
to
code
codify
the
fee
based
on
the
yield
itself,
so
essentially
we're
probably
going
to
need
to
be
a
bit
more
conservative
and,
as
I
said
it's
from
that
perspective,
it's
really
important
to
know
how
how
low
can
the
yields
fall?
So
we're
not
you
know
having
too
high
stability
fee,
because
you
would
have
an
immediate
unwinding
of
those
vaults
which
would
be
would
be
actually
bad
for
die
itself.
C
I
mean
for
the
price
and
for
the
liquidity
and
slippage.
Therefore,
you
know
it's
really
good
to
have
some
estimates
where
the
yields
would
be
considering.
Balancer
token
can
drop,
but
actually
my
question
was:
if
you
consider
bell
heat
liquidity
pool,
is
it
possible
that
you
know
governance?
Could
just
the
next
day
decide
so
that
this
fool
doesn't
get
any
divorce
anymore?.
B
It's
possible,
but
that
would
be
a
really
a
very
dumb
decision,
because
probably
we
would
get
de-listed
as
collateral
and
then
the
protocol
as
a
whole
would
would
suffer
balance.
The
balancer
protocol
would
suffer
so
I
think
the
bowel
token
holders
and
governance
has
been
very
rational
so
far,
so
there
there
is
the
risk,
so
the
governments
could
like
decide
to
do
anything,
but
I
think
yeah
governance
is
rational,
so
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
see
that
happening
at
all.
E
I
have
one
more
as
well,
but
it's
we
can
maybe
skip
this
thing
as
well.
How
fast
so
my
other
question
was
gonna,
be
like
like
we're,
considering
like
onboarding
battle
itself
as
well.
So
I
guess
I
was
gonna
kind
of
ask
how
value
accrues
to
the
battle
token,
like
I
guess
it
currently
used
for
governance
like.
B
Yeah,
that's
that's
a
great
question
and
it's
it's
really
up
to
the
bowel
token,
to
governance,
to
decide
whether
this
is
going
to
happen
or
not.
The
like
the
assumption,
in
my
opinion
that
bao
has
value,
relies
somehow
on
on
that
on
that
hypothesis
that
in
the
future
there
is
some
chance
that
this
is
going
to
be
activated
just
the
way.
Uniswap
has
this
today
116
going
to
to
the
protocol,
so
I
do
believe
that
lots
of
people
think
there's
value
in
the
token.
B
Because
of
that,
though,
this
is
not
in
our
power
so
that
that
would
never
be
done
for
regulatory
reasons
like
bouncer
labs
is
not
going
to
vote
or
propose
anything
like
that.
But
but
governance
like
token
holders
can
enact
a
a
protocol
level
fee.
That
goes
to
bow
to
the
ball
token
or
cruise
added
to
the
to
the
token
yeah.
D
B
B
F
Okay,
the
only
other
concern
I
have
is
like
with
something
in
liquid
there's
kind
of
this
recursive
thing
right.
So
if
it's
xyz
token
with
eth,
and
then
you
create
like
balance
or
pool
tokens
which
then
go
into
the
maker,
and
then
you
mint
die,
you
kind
of
lever
up
the
mark
maker
who's
on
the
other
side,
when
liquidations
happens,
will
have
no
liquidity
in
terms
of
liquid
like
liquidating
the
underlying
tokens
right
like
they
would
get.
F
B
B
That's
something
that's
great
for
maker
doll,
because
it
is,
it
is
already
partially
collateral
that
we
use
and
eat
and
die
is
something
that,
if
you
think
of
it,
yeah
it's
kind
of
helping
to
add
liquidity,
helping,
add
liquidity
to
to
die,
which
is
one
of
the
most
important
pieces
of
the
of
the
maker
dialogue
system,
so
yeah.
Of
course,
no!
No,
it
wouldn't
be
like
just
any
bpt.
It
has
to
be
decided
based
on
the
the
tokens
that
are
underlying
and
if
you're,
if
you're
talking
about
shared
pools.
B
B
F
F
A
B
G
So
briefly,
I'll
recap:
what
tbtc
is
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
with
the
project
go
over?
How
our
first
launch
went
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we're
doing
for
this
second
release
growth,
community
involvement
and
what
I
hope
we
can
do
with
maker.
So
a
reminder:
tbtc
is
a
bitcoin
sidechain
on
ethereum.
G
I
don't
use
the
sidechain
language
lightly.
This
is
a
project
that
is
meant
to
bring
bitcoin
to
ethereum,
but
it's
built
by
bitcoiners
and
four
bitcoiners,
so
you're
not
going
to
see
any
centralized
custodians.
I
think
the
only
real
point
of
failure
we
actually
have
right
now
is
a
centralized
maker
dial
oracle
for
the
btc
price.
G
G
We
have
built
something
that,
on
the
one
hand,
verifies
spv
proofs
for
bitcoin
that's
deposited
into
tbtc,
which
is
a
pretty
gas-hungry
process.
It
allows
tbtc
to
be
minted
if,
and
only
if
bitcoin
is,
is
presented,
and
then
we
have
an
economic
second
level,
bonding
process
that
ensures
that
the
custodians
for
that
bitcoin
return,
the
bitcoin
and
physically
deliver
when
a
particular
holder
of
tbtc
wants
to
get
back
to
bitcoin's
l1.
So
honestly,
that
by
itself
is
an
hour-long
conversation
going
over
the
system
design.
G
G
We
have
folks
in
the
middle
like
pbtc
and
run
btc
that
have
come
up
with
some
sort
of
like
half
decentralized
approach.
We
have
others
like
sbtc,
which
are
really
focused
on
bringing
price
exposure
of
bitcoin
to
ethereum,
but
not
necessarily
physical
delivery
and
then
on
the
farthest
right.
You
have
tbtc,
which
is
a
huge,
a
huge
amount
of
engineering
to
get
that
far
right
and
it's
definitely
more
expensive
to
operate
for
it.
But
I
I
think
that
it's
something
that
hasn't
really
been
done
yet
in
the
space.
G
G
G
I
I
really
really
recommend
you
read
it,
because
I
think
that
what
we
want
to
do
as
a
project
is
provide
the
most
assurance
possible
to
bitcoiners
and
and
to
people
who
want
to
trust
their
money
that
that
they
think
is
sort
of
like
the
hardest
money
possible
and-
and
so
we
can't
take.
We
can't
take
issues
with
user
funds
security
lightly
at
all.
G
But
since
then,
what
we've
done
is
we've
spent
the
last
over
a
quarter
on
just
digging
in
making
sure
that
the
practices
that
allowed
that
bug
to
exist
in
the
first
place
were
removed.
We
got
two
additional
audits,
one
from
trailer
bits,
another
from
sergey
delgado
who's,
a
prominent
lightning
researcher.
G
We
have
an
ongoing
retainer
now
with
trail
of
bits.
I
believe
we
have
16
engineer
hours
per
month
ongoing
and
then
we're
also
doing
at
least
quarterly
audits
with
them
we're
also
starting
to
bring
formal
verification
into
our
process.
So
we
have
a
an
audit
coming
up
with
sertora
later
this
month.
I
think
the
real
takeaway
for
us
part
of
it
has
been
making
sure
that
our
process
is
better
for
this
release,
but
the
other
part
has
been
that
tbtc
is
an
immutable
set
of
contracts.
G
G
I
don't
think
that
that
velocity
is
natural,
it's
being
incentivized
by
the
way
that
we
are
distributing,
keep
tokens
which
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
in
a
minute.
We've
also
had
pretty
significant
interest
from
eath
holders.
48
000
eth
right
now
is
in
in
the
system
and
ready
to
back
the
tbtc
bridge.
23
000
is
currently
locked
and
actually
backing
bitcoin.
G
This
is
the
growth
so
far
again
you're
going
to
see
a
step
function,
because
this
is
a
guarded
release.
I
think
people
haven't
run
into
the
cap.
They've
sort
of
stopped
shortly
under
it,
and
then
we've
seen
it
slowly
going
up
with
each
with
each
increase,
but
it's
definitely
still
early
days,
we're
four
weeks
in
I'm
pretty
excited.
I
think
that
this
is
the
one
and
that
we're
going
to
make
it
the
full
nine
weeks.
G
And
then
a
little
bit
to
kind
of
show
the
deposits
and
redeems.
So
obviously,
the
current
supply
is
an
interesting
number,
especially
interesting
when
you're
looking
at
tbtc
as
collateral
for
something
like
maker,
but
when
you're
actually
looking
at
security
of
the
system
and
whether
or
not
it's
working
well,
I
think
the
most
important
thing
is
to
see
how
much
money
has
actually
gone
through
the
system.
G
So
so
far
you
can
see
that
the
deposits
and
redeems
have
been
fairly
matched,
so
people
are
definitely
putting
money
through
taking
it
out
waiting
a
little
while,
currently
there's
not
much
to
do
with
your
tbtc
once
you're
on
ethereum,
we
haven't
yet
launched
liquidity
rewards.
We
want
to
be
very
careful
with
incentivizing
deposits
in
a
new
system
and
our
integrations
with
curve,
and
some
of
these
other
players
in
the
space
are
going
to
be
dropping
shortly.
G
G
So
here's
the
accumulative
volume
so
far,
I'm
just
kind
of
driving
that
home
and
then
keep
stats
as
well.
So
funny
thing,
I'm
I'm
pretty
proud
that
our
community
has
actually
built
all
the
tools
that
I've
shown
you
so
far
for
all
these
stats.
So
if
you
guys
are
interested
in
tracking
this,
it's
keepstats.org,
but
moving
on
a
little
bit,
the
the
community
has
grown
incredibly
so
far
we
have
131
stakers
on
mainnet
backing
tbtc
deposits
and
over
500
on
robson.
G
G
Employees
are
starting
to
come
online
right
now,
so
folks,
who
have
been
involved
with
the
creation
of
tbtc
and
then
we'll
see
plenty
of
the
larger
holders
of
keep
also
getting
involved
over
the
next
three
months
or
so
so
the
community
engagement
has
been
great,
and
then
I
just
also
want
to
talk
about
what
we
have
done
so
far
with
liquidity,
so,
instead
of
focusing
on
growth,
obviously
this
guarded
release
has
handcuffed
us,
and
that
was
intentional.
That
was
something
that
we
chose
to
do
to
make
sure
that
this
release
was
safe.
G
So
what
we've
done
instead
is
we've
incentivized
cover
through
nexus
mutual,
so
right
now,
there's
10
million
dollars
of
cover,
which
is
quite
a
bit
higher
than
the
supply
cap
available.
For
anyone
who
wants
to
mint
tbtc
and
be
confident
that
they
have
have
an
you
know,
an
actual
treasury
backing
it
in
case
there
are
any
issues
we
are
going
to
be
announcing
one
other
similar
protection.
G
First,
liquidity
reward
within
the
next,
hopefully
within
the
next
couple
weeks,
with
a
separate
team
and
then
shortly
after
you
guys
will
hear
more
about
the
d5
rewards
launching
with
curve.
We
expect,
with
balance
our
unit
swap
etc,
to
share
a
little
bit
more
about
liquidity,
rewards
and
and
growth.
Five
percent
of
keeps
token
supply
has
been
set
aside
just
for
tbtc
liquidity.
G
G
G
G
E
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
question,
but
I
please
I
I
remember
the
comment
on
like
the
online
incentivizing
diamond
thing:
yeah,
we've
kind
of
talked
about
the
same
like
I
was
dealing
with
the
peck
for
a
while,
so
we
we
kind
of
talked
about
the
same
sort
of
sort
of
thing
with
like
maker
and
other
stuff.
One
of
the
reasons
like
I've
personally
thought
it's
a
bad
idea.
Is
that
there's
nothing
really
forcing
someone
to
like
sell
the
die
and
it's
actually
like
safe
if
they
hold
on
to
it.
G
Yeah
yeah,
so
let
me
be
clear:
well,
we
would
actually
be
incentivizing,
and
this
is
kind
of
a
tricky
smart
contract
to
write,
which
is
why
I
didn't
come
to
the
meeting
with
it
is
for
you
to
mint,
die
and
put
it
into
an
amm,
so
yeah
yeah.
It
needs
to
be
in
the
market.
Otherwise,
it's
not
helping
with
the
price
yeah
for
sure
cool.
G
G
G
Do
yeah
yeah
they
do
yeah,
so
we've
started
very
low
with
just
five
bips
in
tbtc,
so
every
time
you
meant
the
fee
for
that
is
set
aside
and
upon
successful
redemption.
It's
given
to
those
signers.
There
are
a
few
governorable
components
of
the
system,
so
I
think
we've
got
it
down
to
five
functions,
but
there's
the
pause
of
new
deposits,
there's
setting
the
signing
fees
and
then
there's
also
setting
the
lot
sizes
and
the
collateral
ratios.
G
All
of
those
governable
components
are
governable
forward,
so
they
don't
impact
existing
deposits
on
the
new
deposits
right
now,
the
team
has
that
power.
We
haven't,
announced
our
plans
to
give
it
away,
but
I
have
no
interest
in
holding
on
to
the
liability
of
that
for
very
long.
We
just
want
to
hold
it
as
long
as
we
think
it's
necessary
for
the
network
so
likely.
Those
governance
abilities
will
also
go
to
keep
token
holders.
A
Matt,
I
do
have
a
question
regarding
the
the.
If
it
seems
that
the
that
the
tbtc
is
collateral
twice,
maybe
like
the
you
would
hold
the
btc
on
the
btc
multisig
contract
potentially,
and
on
the
other
hand,
you
would
also
hold
enough
ease
so
that
if
one
of
the
contract
fails,
you
have
the
backup
from
the
is
that
how
it
works.
G
G
So
what
this
system
allows
is
that
you
additionally
hold
each
collateral.
Where
not
only
will
the
custodian
be
punished
if
they
walk,
but
users
actually
get
full
recourse,
so
you
buy
back
tbtc
and
deliver
it
back
to
them
and
they're
not
out
any
money.
If,
if
a
custodian
does
refuse
to
physically
settle,
we've
already
had
a
demonstration
of
this
once
on
mainnet,
where
a
novice
staker,
just
like
flipped
off
their
machine
and
didn't,
have
anything
backed
up.
It
was
pretty
incredible.
It's
really
good
learning
moment.
G
G
G
There
is,
there
are
plans
for
a
v2,
but
it
would
look
very
much
like
a
side-to-die
migration
where
the
ecosystem
has
to
decide
if,
if
they
want
to
move
over
really
the
tbdc
v1
is
set
to
kind
of
live
forever.
So
unless
we
find
a
zero
day,
I
don't
there
aren't
plans
to
like
deprecate
it,
but
yeah.
It
will
focus
on
capital
efficiency
because,
like
while
that's
heavily
that's
great
for
security,
it's
also
really
expensive.
A
G
G
So
that's
pretty
fantastic
if
you
need
to
make
a
run
and
get
out
of
the
bridge
quickly
and
then,
if
you
need
to,
if
you
need
to
seize
and
kick
off
the
auction,
if
you
want
to
just
take
so
like
if
you
basically,
if
you
think
a
particular
deposit
is
well
collateralized,
you
can
kick
off
the
auction
and
then
just
immediately
take
the
auction
yourself.
It's
a
it's
a
falling
price
auction,
in
which
case
again
less
than
an
hour
to
fully
remove
yourself
and
exit
from
the
system.
G
If,
instead,
you
are
trying
to
redeem
from
something
that
you
believe
is
under
collateralized,
then
obviously
you
know
there's
a
there's
a
falling
price
auction
that
can
go
as
long
as
24
hours.
So
I
think
that
what's
nice
is
that,
if
you're
redeeming
for
physical
bitcoin,
you
can
actually
choose
a
particular
deposit
that
you're
redeeming
from
and
you
can
choose
something
that's
high
collateral
and
then
you
would
expect
you
know
when
people
hit
125
percent
they're
up
for
liquidation
anyway.
So
it's
so
far,
we've
seen
a
pretty
flat
btc
collateral
across
the
network.
G
E
Kind
of
important
question
is
how
long
it
takes
those
keepers
to
get
go
from
that
tbtc
back
to
die
like
so
obviously,
there's
like
one
path
you
can
kind
of.
If
there's
liquidity
on
the
ethereum
with
tbtc,
you
can
kind
of
use
that
to
get
it
to
die,
but
if
you
have
to
go
through
this
whole
process
like
how
long
does
it
take
like
end
to
end
sort
of
thing.
G
E
G
G
We
have
a
lot
in
common
with
the
optimism
team,
but
it's
just
like
the
l2
question
is
actually
almost
harder
than
the
l1
question
right
now
in
terms
of
like
where
to
go
so
we're
trying
to
balance.
Obviously
the
engineering
resources,
but
I
do
I
do
expect
that
we'll
have
at
least
two
additional
l
ones
launched
through
2021
and
then
as
far
as
additional
pegged
assets.
I'm
going
to
be
honest,
it's
really
low
on
my
list.
G
No
one
cares
about
bch
and
and
it's
not
as
it's
just
not
a
secure
thing
to
offer
period.
So
I'm
just
going
to
say
up
front.
I
don't
think
our
team
will
ever
launch
a
bitcoin
cash
peg.
Some
of
the
other
pegs
that
you
could
imagine
so
say
something
weird
like
dash.
Are
they
make
it
quite
technically
difficult
to
interoperate
at
like
the
level
of
security
we'd,
like?
I
think
the
one
other
one,
though,
that
we
are
aligned
with,
would
be
zcash.
G
The
reason
is
one
that
that
we
worked
with
the
ecc
and
zcash
teams
to
make
sure
that
ethereum
has
an
eip
to
support
the
level
of
interoperability
necessary
and
then
the
other
is.
I
have
this
dream
of
actually
taking
assets
and
moving
them
all
to
zcash
to
get
like
a
huge,
an
onset,
and
so
like.
That's
just
very
much
like
a
longer
term
thing
we've
been
considering
with
the
zcash
community,
but
like
most
of
the
other
l1
assets
that
aren't
already
on
ethereum
are
not
valuable
right.
G
A
Okay,
so
thank
you
matt
again
for
for
coming.
He
was
very
informative
again,
as
always,
let's
keep
the
conversations
going
in
the
in
the
forum
if
you
yeah,
you
are
in
the
forum.
So
if
anyone
want
to
reach
out
there,
please
do
otherwise.
You
can
follow
him
on
twitter
and
yeah,
thanks
again
to
fernando
for
presenting
in
the
first
half
and
everyone
else
for
participating
here.
Yeah
see
you
in
the
forums.