►
Description
Introduction: @juanjuan
Working Group Presentation (0:02:06): @SebVentures
Presentation 1 (0:04:06): Centrifuge
Presentation 2 (0:28:01): 6s Capital
Agenda and Discussion:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-collateral-onboarding-call-8-wednesday-september-16-17-00-utc/4062
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
Again
we
have
seen
him
a
couple
times
it's
good
to
to
reinforce
and
be
able
to
discuss
more
about
it
and
same
thing
for
the
second
half,
when
we
will
have
matthew
ravinovitz
from
6s
capital
presenting
his
project
so
well
more
on
it.
On
a
personal
note,
I
think
that
well,
I
won't
see-
and
I
think
everyone
else
joining
me
here-
we
want
to
see
real
world
assets
in
in
the
platform,
not
only
the
community
but
the
community
at
large.
A
So
almost
everyone
there's
like
a
pressure,
so
we
want
to
see
a
little
bit
of
progress.
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
information
scattered.
We
have
a
lot
of
industry
experts,
a
lot
of
people
that
have
essay
so
we're
at
the
point
where
we
need
to
organize
and
structure
a
working
plan
and
move
things
forward.
A
B
Yeah
sure
so,
I'm
kind
of
leading
this
group
to
find
a
way
to
get
rid
of
assets
on
maker
as
soon
as
possible,
and
mainly
to
offer
a
third
view
because
we
have
centrifuge.
We
propose
one
kind
of
collateral,
many
collaterals
by
the
way
and
success.
That
prop
was
something
a
bit
different,
but
still
a
real
asset.
And
I
want
to
explore
a
third
way
to
try
to
find
how
we
can
merge
those
kind
of
assets
to
get
rid
of
saturn
maker
as
soon
as
possible
and
in
the
better
shape
for
all
maker.
A
So
yeah
to
add
a
little
bit
and
to
answer
on
the
questions
on
the
chat.
Frank
asked
if
this
meeting
is
happening
every
wednesday,
so
not
yet,
but
ideally
we
would
leave
with
some
action
points
that
could
be
one
of
them
and
again
there's
this
forum,
both
that
sebastian
posted.
So
ideally,
we
would
get
people
value
around
that
and
get
something
concrete
going
on.
B
C
A
B
C
So
this
call,
to
put
it
very
simply,
just
for
the
people
that
don't
know
about
centrifuge
centrifuge
is
a
set
of
a
technology
that
allows
asset
originators
to
bundle,
different
loans,
not
in
form
of
nfts,
creates
pools
of
assets,
so
sort
of
securitize
them
and
issue
tokens
against
them
that
they
represent
a
share
in
this
pool.
These
tokens
are
interest
bearing
and
sort
of
entitled
the
own,
the
holder
of
these
tokens
to
an
interest
in
the
in
the
in
the
pool,
and
also
in
sort
of
in
case
of
default.
C
Six
proposals
that
allow
these
to
to
start
this
process
of
onboarding.
These
assets
to
maker
I've
mentioned
before
we
have
like
freight
shipping
invoices,
real
estate,
inventory,
trade,
finance
and,
and
so,
if
we're
sort
of
looking
into
all
these
different
kinds
of
assets.
Because
of
course
we
believe
that,
like
as
a
big,
a
big
variety
of
different
real
world
assets
is
in
the
end,
but
a
system
like
maker
needs,
and
so
we've
been
working
with
with
different
ones.
C
C
We
went
live
in
may
with
sort
of
this
product,
mostly
focusing
on
direct
investors,
buying
buying
these
drop
tokens
and
investing
in
these
assets.
These
were
all
settled
in
crypto,
al,
so
settled
in
die,
and
so
the
borrowers
actually
got
die
and
the
the
investors
got
their
interest
paid
and
died,
and
so
on.
This
is
sort
of
based
on
what
we've
been
doing
with
sort
of
very
closely
with
the
maker
community.
C
For
over
a
year
now
we
did
our
first
sort
of
transactions
with
other
asset,
originators,
new
silver
and
and,
for
example,
at
the
time
was.
It
was
our
first
transaction
that
we
did
together
so
showing
how
this
could,
in
the
future,
lead
to
real
world
assets
being
onboarded
into
maker,
but
also
sort
of
all
of
d5,
because
of
course,
by
bringing
real
world
assets
into
d5.
C
We've
actually
been
sort
of
working
with
the
domain
teams,
but
also
by
on
our
own,
by
ourselves,
sort
of
looking
for
trying
to
find
issues,
questions
and
propose
solutions,
and
we've
done,
we've
published
a
few
formal,
mid
proposals
and
informal
blog
forum
posts
to
start
these
different
discussions,
and
we
now
sort
of
in
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
We've
come
to
a
point
where
sort
of
I
think
objectively,
we
can
say
that
centrifuge
is
ready.
C
The
asset
originators
are
ready
and
I
think
I
hope
to
a
point
as
well,
or
at
least
that
is
my
understanding
of
the
maker
community,
that
we
are
ready
to
actually
talk
about
onboarding
these
assets
concretely,
and
so
we've
done.
We've
put
forward
a
declaration
of
intent,
this
this
mip
13
that
talks
about
sort
of
how
we
want
to
start
this
onboarding
process,
and
this
should
sort
of
lead
up
to
to
a
collateral,
onboarding
application.
C
It's
sort
of
similar
to
the
current
mip
12,
but
is
modified
slightly
to
be
more
specific
on
real
world
on
the
questions
that
you
have
to
ask
and
answer
on.
The
real
world
assets
in
in
parallel
sort
of
mip
22
is
a
proposal
that
we
did.
That
came
out
of
solving
one
of
the
trickiest
questions
in
in
real
world
assets.
C
We
can
lick
either
liquidate
these
assets
off
chain,
refinance
these
assets
off
chain,
so
just
find
another
bank,
for
example,
that
will
want
to
extend
credit
against
these
assets
or
just
let
them
age
to
maturity,
which
is
actually
a
lot
of
times,
not
even
that
long.
For
example,
our
sort
of
console
phrase
invoices
have
an
average
maturity
date
of
of
less
than
45
days.
So
it's
actually
quite
fast
to
just
let
this
portfolio
sort
of
mature
and
and
liquidate
it
through
that,
and
so
this
this
is
sort
of
the
third
piece.
C
That's
in
progress,
so
in
the
request
for
common
phase,
so
we're
here
right
now,
maybe
a
little
bit
more.
This
graphic
is
a
bit
outdated,
so
we
are
in
the
in
the
request
for
common
phase
for
these
two
mips
and
and
sort
of
working
on
on
the
map
that
will
onboard
some
of
this
first
collateral
going
into
detail
a
bit.
The
mip
13
declaration
of
intent
is
a
way
for
the
maker
community
to
declare
something.
C
What
does
that
mean?
It
means
that
a
statement
is
sort
of
written
iterated
on
together
with
the
community
and
then
brought
forward
to
a
vote
on
chain,
and
so
in
then,
in
the
governance
cycle.
Mkr
holders
are
able
to
vote,
and
so
the
way
we've
we're
using
this
as
sort
of
to
think
of
it
as
a
term
sheet
that
the
maker
community
can
say.
Okay,
we
roughly
agree
with
the
process
that
centrifuge
is
proposing
to
bring
these
assets
online
and
sort
of
to
follow
this
process.
C
Of
of
onboarding
these
assets-
and
so
you
can
read
the
map13
component,
three
subproposal
five,
which
is
our
specific
declaration
and
sort
of
in
in
four
bullet
points.
What
we're
proposing
is
we
we
want
we're
saying
we
want
to
start
small
meaning
around
5
million
died
debt
ceiling
for
collateral
type,
no
more
than
15..
The
reason.
C
The
second
component
is
that
we
will
be
working
supporting
this
as
much
as
we
can
as
centrifuge
centrifuge
has
a
team
of
software
engineers
that
have
extensive
experience.
Writing
smart
contracts.
We
also
are
very
familiar
with
maker
and
maker's
code
base,
and
so
I
think
we're
in
a
good
position
to
actually
do
a
lot
of
integration
work
ourselves.
That
doesn't
mean
we
don't
need
any
help
from
the
domain
team
and
sort
of
the
the
team
that
is
designing
large
parts
of
the
of
the
smart
contracts.
C
The
the
component
we're
working
on
now
is
mip.
I
call
it
xx
just
because
we
don't
know
the
specific
number
yet,
but
this
is
intended
to
and
I'm
not
looking
at
the
chat,
but
I
can
try
to
jump
in
if
there's
something
or
maybe,
if
you
want
to
interrupt
me-
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
for
questions
as
well,
but
yeah
so
so
this
this
mip
is
really
is
what
mip,
12
and
component
do
component
2
does
for
assets
like
rap
bitcoin
and
k
and
c
and
zero
x
token.
So
it's
it's!
C
The
the
final
executive
vote
that
the
dow
will
decide
on
to
onboard
a
specific
collateral
type.
So
it's
it's
the
spell
the
technically
the
spell
that
will
onboard
this
collateral.
If,
if
enough,
mkr
voters
hold
on
a
vote
on
it,
the
the
work
that
sort
of
has
to
be
done,
of
course
in
the
in
the
in
the
governance
in
governance
to
go
through.
This
is
sort
of
doing
the
risk
model,
doing
the
audit
of
the
smart
contracts
doing
so.
Setting
up
this
spell
and
publishing
it,
and
so
in
a
way.
This
follows
very
similar.
C
It's
very
similar
to
I've
posted
an
example
here,
and
I
can
share
those
slides
later
to
what
like
a
collateral.
Onboarding
would
look
like
for
a
crypto
asset,
and
so,
but
it
will
be
slightly
different
in
differences
that
I'll
go
go
into
in
in
a
bit.
So
this
is
really
the
final
milestone
and
our
goal
is
to
get
to
that
final
milestone
with
one
or
two
first
assets
as
soon
as
possible.
C
We
all
know
that
we
need
to
scale
the
dye
supply
significantly
and-
and
I
think
the
community
is
convinced
that
real
world
assets
is
a
way,
is
one
one
way
to
do
it
a
good
way
to
do
it,
and
so
this
is
what
we're.
What
centrifuges
is
sort
of
focusing
on
right
now
and
pushing
this
this
process
forward?
C
So
I
want
to
highlight
a
few
of
the
key
differences
between
the
regular
mips
to
make
12
process
and
what
we're
what
we're
proposing.
We
talk
a
lot
about.
I
thought
we
had
a
lot
of
chats
and
forum
posts
and
and
calls
about
the
differences
just
how
real-world
assets
work
and
how
how
crypto
assets
work.
C
I
would
if
you're
interested
go,
look
at
them
happy
to
answer
specific
questions
as
well,
but
I'm
mostly
this
might
be
a
bit
too
too
much
in
detail
for
for
some
of
the
audience,
and
so
I
would
recommend
you
like
sort
of
dig
through
the
forum
posts
a
bit
to
get
to
catch
up.
But
let
me
jump
right
in
here.
C
C
C
We
won't
be
trying
to
feed
in,
like
exchanges
or
or
sort
of
real-time
market
data
to
find
out
what
the
price
of
these
assets
are,
but
that
is
rarely
needed.
So
our
tin
lake
pools
have
a
way
to
calculate
a
nav
model
that
the
nav
on
chain
nav,
is
just
net
asset
value
sort
of
which
means
it
tries
to
determine
the
current
value
of
all
of
the
assets
in
this
pool.
C
It
takes
into
account,
for
example,
factors
in
probability
of
default
and
sort
of
expected
revenue,
so
interest
revenue
that
is
owed
by
by
borrowers
and
can
price
the
entire
pool.
So
as
a
so
for
maker's
perspective,
it
can
look
at
that
nav
model
and
if
it
determines
it
to
be
accurate,
then
that
can
be
used
as
the
as
a
price
source.
C
The
goal
can
be
that
we
can
have
these
this
data,
that
the
astro
originator
reports
be
verified
by
third
parties
and
have
oracles
that
provide
this
data
on
chain,
and
so
this
could
be,
for
example,
data
like
the
credit
score
of
the
borrower.
If
it's
a,
if
it's
a
consumer,
it
could
be
a
real
estate
estimate
or
it
could
be
like
some,
some
other
kind
of
asset
liquidation.
C
I've
mentioned
this
is
a
mip
22,
and
I
see
I'm
I'm
running
a
bit
over
time.
So
I
want
to
end
it
quickly,
but
liquidation,
just
there's
a
specific
way.
We
liquidate
these
because
there's
no
liquid
market,
the
actually
the
best
way,
is
to
have
the
asset
originator,
refinance
these
loans
or
let
the
portfolio
mature,
and
so
the
liquidations
work
slightly
differently
in
this
survey,
published
in
in
map22
again,
please
ask
your
questions
and
sort
of
engage
here,
the
risk,
the
risk
work.
C
We
are
sort
of
still
needs
to
happen,
and
that's
where
we
have
been
working
with
the
asset
originators
to
provide
like
data
package
on
as
much
information
that
we
can
give
to
to
sort
of
determine
what
this
should
be
and
there's
different
inputs
that
we're
sort
of
providing.
We
have
the
asset
originators
underwriting
process
so
how
they
make
decisions
themselves.
C
We
will
ask
them
to
publish
information
about
their
past
performance,
but
also
competitive
offers,
so
a
lot
of
them
have
offers
from
banks
reputable
banks,
sort
of
showing
okay
like
this
is
a
realistic
cost
of
capital
for
them.
But
then
also
we
can
look
at
sort
of
what
the
industry
performance
is
and
we're
hoping
that
we
can
sort
of
work
with
the
real-world
asset
working
group
here
in
finding
finding
a
way
that
we
can
define
these
and
sort
of
get
get
a
risk
assessment
by
the
by
the
community.
C
D
C
Taking
these
these
differences,
all
together,
will
ultimately
result
in
this
mip
that
will
outline
exactly
how
this
asset
should
be
onboarded.
What
risk
parameters
will
be
will
be
proposed
and,
as
as
sebastian
mentioned,
I
am
proposing
that
we
will
meet
every
other
wednesday
at
the
same
time,
we're
meeting
now
so
alternating
with
the
collateral
community,
call
that
we've
been
doing
and
sort
of
discussing
these.
These
points.
C
A
C
C
B
C
But
in
summary,
the
idea
is
that
maker
itself
is
not
an
illegal
entity,
and
so,
if
you're
buying
these
tokens
that
represent
a
share
of
security,
then
of
course
you
will
have
to
go
through
kyc
and
you're
acquiring
a
regulated
security
token
maker,
when
an
ass
originator
deposits,
these
assets
as
collateral
in
in
the
dao.
It
is
not
actually
issuing
the
security
because
you're
merely
using
it
as
an
escrow,
and
it
never
leaves
this
decentralized
entity.
C
And
so
because
of
that,
we
don't
have
this
issue
that
we
would
need
to
kyc
every
like
maker
dao
as
an
entity
or
like
think
of
okay,
we're
seeing
every
die
holder,
which
would
be
even
worse.
So
roughly.
The
idea
is
that
this
is
so.
The
security
transfer
only
happens
if
it
would
go
to
an
to
an
individual
person
which
would
maker
is
not
the
case
but
and
I'll
share.
There's
some
discussion
in
the
forum
about
that
as
well.
B
C
C
I
would
this
would
be
a
question
to
for
for
us
sort
of
to
the
maker
community.
What
is
like
the
best
format
for
us
to
do
this
and
like
we
can
set
up
a
google
drive
with
some
like
anonymized
information,
that
you
could
look
at
publicly.
Definitely
the
asset
originators.
Some
of
them
have
already
been
on
calls
and
sort
of
answered
questions
directly.
This
is
something
we
can
do
as
well.
Just
sharing
pdfs
like
we're
planning
to
do
everything,
but
yeah
definitely
we'll
do
that.
C
B
A
I
was
going
to
comment
on
that
actually,
because
maybe
it
would
be
good
and
no
not
a
comment
for
you,
but
more
for
the
working
group
to
have
like
very
clear
steps
on
on
what
do
we
have
what's
next?
What
do
we
need
from
all
the
like
risk?
Point
of
view,
the
technical
point
of
view,
anything
any
meat
that
should
be
approved
for
it
to
happen,
and
maybe
do
like
an
faq
section
where
we
can
post
these
questions
with
answers
and
supporting
documents
like
started
wiki.
Somehow
I
think
it'll
be
very
useful.
C
A
A
D
All
right,
so
I
am
at
rabinowitz
for
success
capital
referencing
the
credit
facility
for
today
now
that
we're
getting
a
little
bit
further
in
the
weeds.
My
attorney
made
me
put
up
a
disclaimer,
so
you
guys
can
spend
your
time
reading
at
some
other
time.
But
summary
is
this
is
not
a
securities
offering
anything
that
would
be
a
securities
offering
will
be
in
an
offering
memorandum
that
goes
to
a
would-be
investor
of
which
that's
not
the
objective
of
this
call.
D
So
fundamentally,
please
everybody
ask
questions.
Public
private
multiple
conference
calls
whether
or
not
we're
doing
this
on
the
forum
posts
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
personally,
etc.
It's
important
to
get
everybody
engaged
in
this,
not
only
for
my
proposal
for
centrifuges
for
the
next
five
that
come
after
that.
The
only
way
this
is
going
to
work
is
if
we
really
optimize
the
solutions
and
make
it
work
better
for
everybody.
So
what
are
we
trying
to
accomplish?
D
D
Nothing
we're
using
or
discussing,
is
new
in
terms
of
legal
structuring.
Most
importantly,
lenco
never
actually
touches
die
I'll
get
to
that
asterisk.
In
a
moment.
What
is
fundamentally
different
is
while
using
common
structures
and
common
agreements,
we're
taking
input
variables
from
mkr
governance,
that's
the
difference.
D
D
In
that
context,
everything
that
happens
from
a
smart
contract
perspective
of
maker
is
largely.
I
would
use
the
word
almost
agnostic-
it's
not
it's
very
relevant,
but
not
relevant
for
lenco.
It
just
happens,
which
is
somewhat
what
makes
it
elegant
lenco
then
does
its
fundamental
operations
pursuant
to
agreements
that
it
has
with
the
trust
and
why
it
could
borrow
money
in
the
first
place,
to
deploy
capital
into
would-be
borrow
codes
that
are
in
specifically
scope,
approved,
mkr
governance,
approved
structures,
specifically
credit
quality
credit
tenant
leases.
D
So
again,
let's
switch
our
perspective
if
this
structure
has
been
used
before
this
is
not
new.
In
this
scenario,
a
trust
is
being
created.
The
trust
is
the
lender.
The
trust
is
the
representative
body
of
all
mkr
holders.
Lendco
is
now
the
borrower
taking
that
money
from
the
trust
and
then
using
that
money
to
then
turn
around
and
lend
to
would
be
borrow
codes
and
there's
a
credit
agreement
between
the
two
with
an
asset
collateral
pledge
between
them
to
secure
the
loans.
This
is
nothing
new,
so
today
in
the
world
of
credit
tenant
leases.
D
D
D
Scale
from
the
eyes
of
maker,
if
we
were
to
do
every
one
of
these
projects
from
maker
we'd
be
having
to
have
a
vault
onto
our
own
into
our
own
scenario,
which
equals,
in
my
mind,
mkr
cognitive
overload
of
how
we
would
handle
multiple
quantities
of
vaults.
So
how
does
this
evolve?
It
evolves
by
having
a
centralized
structure
that
already
has
raised
equity
that
gets
married
with
a
with
a
maker
facility
into
one
centralized
structure
that
gets
audits
that
gets
inspection
that
has
inspection
rights.
D
That
then
turns
around
and
lends
money
out
to
the
would-be
projects.
All
of
those
projects
will
have
scope
approved
tenant
approved,
so
the
credit
quality
will
be
known
from
it
from
the
isa
developed
from
a
developer.
They
just
see
a
100
percent
loan
to
cost
from
a
would-be
lender
from
the
eyes
of
a
debt
facility
from
a
senior
debt
facility
right
now,
making
it
generic
whether
or
not
the
capital
is
100
or
whether
or
not
some
of
it's
done
with
equity.
D
D
If
there's
ever
a
default,
the
senior
lender
facility
is
the
one,
is
senior
to
everything
and
wipes
everybody
else
out.
So
how
do
we
do
this
on
scale
from
a
success
capital
perspective?
We
do
with
an
execution
team
and
we
break
everything
down
into
phases:
different
tenants,
different
structures.
Just
like
we're
building
an
aircraft.
D
We
start
off
by
figuring
out
how
much
we're
going
to
need
in
terms
of
time
we
make
the
developer
the
borrower.
In
this
case
they
do
all
of
the
front-ended
research
they
do
all
of
the
development
work
work
that
we
never
even
see
or
touch.
We
only
show
up
with
capital
when
we
have
a
shovel
ready
project
when
the
project
can,
when
the
lender
can
have
a
senior
lien
on
the
project
and
a
general
contractor
is
committed
to
do
the
projects.
D
Projects
can
last
anywhere
from
between
six
months
to
18
months
and
between
18
to
24
is
the
divestiture
period,
and
at
that
point
all
capital
is
returned
and
recycled
so
fundamentally,
phase
one
reach
excuse
me
real
estate
research.
This
is
where
developers
go
out
and
find
selection,
they're
negotiating
with
people
they're,
building
up
a
package
to
share
with
a
tenant
to
get
their
blessing.
D
Who
takes
the
risk?
The
developer,
senior
lender
and
the
investor
don't
touch
anything
here
same
thing
on
the
development
stuff.
They
engage
with
tenants.
They
work
on
getting
together
a
package
and
executing
the
bill
to
suit
and
the
ground
lease.
The
developer
takes
all
of
this
risk.
The
senior
lender
touches
nothing
here.
D
We
talk
about
when
there's
a
shovel
ready
project
is
at
the
point
where
everything
has
culminated
to
the
point
where
there
is
an
actual
closing
where
the,
where
there
is
a
guarantee
in
favor
of
the
lender,
where
there's
a
general
contractor
committed
the
land
is
simultaneously
acquired
into
a
newly
formed
llc
in
exchange
for
the
capital.
To
do
all
of
that,
success
receives
a
senior
lien
over
the
entire
project.
D
This
takes,
as
I
mentioned
before,
anywhere
between
five
to
18
months,
depending
on
the
scope
of
the
project
and
the
depth.
Some
of
them
have
much
more
horizontal
construction
than
our
other
that
are
otherwise
needed
and
at
the
very
end
we
die.
The
excuse
me.
The
developer
is
incentivized
to
divest
and
dispose
of
the
project.
The
developer
makes
zero
dollars
until
the
project
is
sold.
When
the
project
is
sold,
the
senior
lender,
success,
development
is
repaid
and
whatever
is
left
over,
goes
to
the
developer.
D
So,
let's
evaluate
like
the
three
fundamental
big
picture
risks-
and
these
are
clearly
not
totally
comprehensive
again.
My
attorney
made
me
say
it
fundamentally:
we've
got
smart
contract
risk.
Legal
risk
tenant
risk,
so
let's
go
through
those
now.
These
are
all
the
legal
contracts,
so
smart
contract
risk.
So
if
we
were
to
just
break
this
down
like
what
happens,
if
lenko
break
loses
his
private
keys
or
they're
compromised,
lenco,
never
touches
the
die,
so
largely
all
lenco
does
is
cause
the
dye
to
be
moved,
but
never
actually
takes
possession
of
it.
D
D
We
just
wait
till
there's
a
fix.
That's
been
implemented
same
thing
on
the
lend
co
side.
If
there's
a
risk,
we've
mitigated
the
risk
related
to
having
a
trust,
that's
providing
a
loan
by
implementing
a
trustee
with
legal
enforceability,
the
same
component
for
all
of
these,
where
every
enforceability
of
the
loan,
a
trust,
has
a
court
of
law,
a
standing
in
law
trus.
The
trust
can
cause
the
foreclosure
of
any
pledge
collateral
to
recover
proceeds,
and
one
of
my
favorites
lenko
manager
me
gets
hit
by
a
bus
right.
D
D
If
we
do
a
bad
deal,
lenco
has
to
recapitalize
itself
before
the
determination
period
or
this
whole
project
gets
unwound
and
lenco
gets
liquidated
when
the
money
that
gets
hit
first
would
be
the
equity,
because
30
percent
of
the
capital
has
to
be
in
the
form
of
equity
for
a
new
construction,
as
per
my
proposal
or
15,
if
it's
already
stabilized,
meaning
that
we'd
have
to
have
all.
If
there's
a
liquidation,
the
senior
money
gets
paid
back
first
and
if
there's
a
haircut
that
goes
down
to
the
equity.
D
So
at
the
borrow
co,
what
happens
if
there's
a
risk
of
bad
title
now?
All
of
our
closings
are
done
through
title
companies
that
issue
title
insurance.
We
make
sure
that
we
have
clear
title
and
that
the
senior
lender
receives
first
position.
Lien
on
everything.
Borroco
is
exposed
to
operational
risks.
If
there's
a
weather,
what
happens
weather
delays?
Well,
they
they
have
to
wait,
but
they
ultimately
pay
more
interest.
If
there
are
overruns,
the
principles
of
borrowco
end
up
having
to
inject
more
cash.
They
make
nothing
until
the
project
is
divested.
D
Now
the
real
question
comes
down
to
the
market
and
tenant
risk
of
what
happens
with
pricing,
because
the
piece
that
we
can't
de-risk
is
our
tenants
and
how
they
run
their
operations,
but
we
can
decide
which
tenants
we
can
select
and
why
fundamentally
we're
in
the
business
of
making
money
and
we
need
to
borrow
money
to
make
money
so
we're
only
going.
We
are
highly
motivated
to
only
pick
credit
worthy
tenants
and
we
only
get
investors
capital
because
they
believe
in
the
structure
we're
putting
forth.
D
Why
we're
not
putting
right
now
in
the
middle
of
covid,
putting
together
movie
theaters,
which
would
be
obviously
catastrophic,
so
we
can
cause
borrowers
to
have
insurance.
We
can't
obviously
control
the
weather
or
the
storms,
but
if
there
is
a
an
environmental
issue
that
causes
a
massive
destruction,
insurance
will
reinvent
reimburse
them
and
they
can
continue
with
their
project.
D
Worst
case
scenario,
market
conditions,
deteriorate
and
borrow.
Co
cannot
sell
the
completed
project
at
which
point
lenco
forecloses,
on
the
project
that
is
producing
a
yield,
which
is
c,
which
is
better
than
the
cost
of
capital
that
we're
getting
from
maker.
In
the
first
place,
we
collect
rent
payments
and
continue
to
do
so
until
we
sell
the
project
which
we're
not
in
the
business
of
holding
projects,
we're
in
the
in
business
of
lending
for
them,
we
wouldn't
fire
sale
it,
but
we
would
divest
it
appropriately
and
the
borrow
co
would
forfeit
all
of
its
profit.
D
The
real
issue,
I
think,
we're
going
to
find
in
six
months,
is
just
raw
concentration
between
a
large
amount
of
dye
going
into
very
few
entities.
Until
there
are,
you
know,
a
portfolio,
a
cohort
of
five
or
ten
other
equivalent
lencos
out
there
that
have
substantial
amounts
of
dye
to
get
people
comfortable
very
similar
to
the
stable
coin
issue
we
have
today
with
usdc.
D
So
let's
compare
and
contrast
so
assets
pros
and
cons.
You
know:
we've
got
eth
it's
decentralized,
but
it
relies
on
lots
of
centralized
on-ramps
wbtc
large
market
cap,
but
it's
somewhat
quasi-centralized
custodian.
We
go
down
this
list
and
real-world
assets
not
specific
to
credit
tenant
leases,
but
just
in
general,
using
a
trust
and
a
lendco
structure
which
is
known
and
battle
tested.
D
As
long
as
we
price
it
correctly
and
competitively,
we
will
have
almost
unlimited
demand
for
credit
and
then
the
issue
turns
into
credit
concentration
and
do
only
a
few
lend
codes.
Well,
initially,
one
or
ten
we
wanted
to
get
it
to
ten.
It
has
many
benefits,
and
the
only
con
is
that
it's
semi-liquid.
D
This
piece
I've
already
discussed
or
I've,
shown
this
before
I'm
happy
to
go
through
it.
I
don't
think
we
can
go
through
parts
of
it
now.
Fundamentally,
the
big
key
takeaway
here
is
that
success
capital
partners,
quote-unquote
lenco,
ends
up
with
a
portfolio
a
diversified
portfolio
of
lend
of
lenders,
senior
lend
senior
liens
in
a
variety
of
different
projects
that
are
geographically
distributed
with
different
tenants
and
that
tenant
list
is
expanding
based
upon
the
quantities
of
developers
that
want
to
use
our
services.
D
D
So
our
fundamental
generic
sequence,
you
know
we've
submitted
our
declaration
of
intent.
We
are
in
the
process
now
of
the
community
community
discussion
we'll
get
through
a
formal
cycle
here.
The
real
important
piece
here
is
because
we're
talking
about
actual
legal
structures
being
implemented
and
these
structures
are
not
cheap,
in
fact,
they're
very
expensive.
D
We
are
going
to
go
through
an
executive
vote
in
effect
to
approve
the
term
sheet,
as
lucas
had
outlined,
of
our
mip
13.
and,
if
accepted,
which
would
be
great
we're
going
to
conditionally
set
the
debt
ceiling
to
zero.
So
we're
going
to
vote
on
an
actual
number,
but
the
implemented
debt
ceiling
would
be
zero.
So
up
until
the
very
last
step,
the
community
is
going
to
take
basically
zero
risk.
D
It's
only
after
the
success
team
working
alongside
the
maker
representative
put
together
and
show
the
community
all
the
documents,
all
the
structures
that
have
been
implemented.
Then
the
community
would
have
another
executive
vote
to
further,
basically
ratify
it.
If
you
will
and
then
re-implement
the
previously
approved
debt
ceiling
going
from
zero
to
whatever
is
approved,
and
at
that
point,
success
would
be
able
to
borrow
against
it
pursuant
to
the
credit
facility
agreement,
which
has
a
whole
lot
of
covenants.
That
say
that
we
can't
borrow
money.
D
D
D
D
Understood
yeah
the
challenge:
here's
the
biggest
issue
on
that
is,
we
haven't
selected
the
trust,
the
trustee,
yet
the
trust,
company
and
they're
going
to
require
us
to
use
their
form.
There
is
no
scenario
where
we
present
an
agreement
and
say:
is
this
okay
use
us
they
have
their
own
form.
We
don't
get
a
choice
on
that,
but
the
law
that
we're
going
to
follow
is
the
delaware
statute,
delaware,
statutory
trust
and
that
actually
put
in
one
of
the
forum
links
it's
defined
there.
D
C
D
D
So,
in
effect,
from
a
tenant
to
a
developer
perspective.
Forget
us
for
a
second
from
a
tenant
to
a
developer
perspective.
The
tenant
is
looking
at
the
at
the
developer
as
being
almost
their
outsourced.
Investment
bank
they're
almost
creating
a
bond
with
these
net
lease
properties
and
that's
how
they
trade
in
the
market
once
they're
stabilized
and
the
temp.
The
these
net
lease
properties
are
a
very
liquid
market.
D
D
A
D
Yeah,
so
this
is
one
where
I
very
much
want
the
community's
insight
on
this,
because
that
the
rub
is
going
to
turn
into
that
success.
Capital
as
a
lender
comes
in
contact
with
confidential
information
and
some
of
that
information
it
just
cannot
share
under
privacy
laws
period.
End
of
discussion,
with
external,
with
the
public
quote
unquote
and
maker,
is
a
public
protocol,
so
we
have
to
come
up
with
some
other
mechanism
that
gets
the
community
comfortable
and
also
meets
the
legal
obligations
that
success
capital
has
with
would-be
borrowers
and
tenants.
D
D
You
know
yeah
it's
great,
but
I
still
want
somebody
else.
I
want
literally
five
people
from
this
call.
10
people
from
this
call
all
of
you
to
be
a
maker
representative
review,
the
transaction
in
depth
and
report
back
to
everybody
else
that
you
reviewed
it
also
that
this
is
a
legit
transaction
here,
all
the
check
boxes,
here's
the
package,
we've
reviewed
it
and
matt's
not
getting
a
car
out
of
this
we're
just
financing
a
insert
the
name
of
the
tenant
location
in
virginia,
for
example,.
D
I
don't
I
that
that
part
is
part
of
I
would
call
it
version
two
or
in
the
future.
There
are
areas
where
we
could
do
that.
The
question
turns
into
what
is
the
approved
scope
and
how
do
we
scale
it
and
to
me
the
model
is
really
much
more
of
not
necessarily
trust
but
verify
but
verify,
and
if
you
don't
do
it
right,
we
liquidate
and
liquidation
on.
This
scenario
is
so
epically
nuclear
because
it
not
only
impacts
lenco,
which
obviously
impacts
me.
It
impacts
all
the
borrowers
and
it
impacts
everything.
D
It's
something,
that's
possible,
but
I
don't
see.
I
actually
see
that
that
almost
introduces
liability
to
a
maker
representative
and
that's
not
really
the
objective.
The
objective
is
just
to
be
a
proxy
to
be
able
to
convey
the
equivalent
of
specific
information
in
a
translucent
environment
where
it's
more
the
substance
where
all
these
boxes
checked.
D
Yes,
did
he
do
the
annual
audit?
Did
the
audit
come
back
clean,
okay
that
part
much
we
can
do?
Did
you
see
that
the
money
transferred
from
a
to
b
to
c-
and
this
is
the
fund?
This
is
the
specific
project
that
it
went
into.
Yes,
okay,
that's
fine,
but
we
don't
have
to
release.
For
example,
the
borrowers
who
are
borrowing
from
success
capital
may
very
well
have
to
share
their
personal
financial
statements
with
success
capital.
None
of
that
information
is
going
to
be,
public
can
be
public,
it
has
to
be
private.
D
C
A
C
General,
like
my
question,
matt
was
I
I
fully
agree
with
you
like
sort
of
having
an
opt-in
on
every
asset,
and
every
transaction
would
be
it's
better
to
say,
like
there
should
be
a
mechanism
to
halt
something.
It
holds
the
this
whole
mechanism
if
it
goes
out
of
bounds-
and
this
is
also,
of
course,
what
we're
proposing
with
our
asset
originators,
because
I
I
I
see
that
make
sense
and
sort
of
to
some
extent.
D
The
answer
is,
it
depends
right.
So
we
are.
We
are
going
to
be
set
up
with
multiple
tranches,
but
we
have
a
fundamental
requirement
that
we
have
to
deploy
the
equity
first
into
any
given
project
that
ultimately
gets
capital
deployed.
So
if
we
go
after,
let's
just
pick
and
we're
not
doing
mcdonald's
but,
let's
just
say
we're
doing
a
mcdonald's
right
and
the
mcdonald's
needed
and
I'm
picking
easy
numbers
for
math,
because
I'm
tired,
so
let's
just
say
it
was
a
million
dollars.
D
We
have
to
deploy
the
300
grand
first
out
of
equity
first
and
then
the
remainder
comes
out
of
the
the
maker
facility.
Now
how
we
raise
that
equity
is
actually
not
almost.
I
know
where
you're
going
with
it,
but
it's
almost
it
doesn't
even
matter
at
that
point,
because
what
mattered
was
the
fact
there
was
a
buffer
and
the
buffer
is
that
there's
a
million
dollars
worth
of
value
and
maker
has
the
first
position
on
only
700
on
the
full
million
of
value,
but
they
get
700
grand
they
got
sold.