►
Description
Introduction: @juanjuan
Real World Assets Working Group Update (0:00:45): @sebventures
Presentation 1 (0:02:28): Paperchain
Agenda and Discussion:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-collateral-onboarding-call-15-wednesday-november-11-18-00-utc/4983
Governance Forum:
https://forum.makerdao.com/
Disclaimer: These calls and the summaries are produced and hosted by MakerDAO community members. Content produced by the community are not the statements or views of the Maker Foundation.
A
Hello-
everyone
good
evening
and
welcome
good
morning
afternoon,
depending
on
where
you
are
welcome
to
another
call
collateral
boarding,
call
I'm
here
joined
by
a
bunch
of
people
interested
in
maker
in
general
and
real
world
assets
morning,
particularly
today.
We
have
a
really
good
project
that
I
like
a
lot
so
we're
we're
here
with
bad
white.
That's
going
to
give
us
more
of
an
insight
and
overview
about
the
project,
but
before
that
yeah,
I
want
to
give
the
floor
to
sebastian
daniel.
B
B
Phil
and
william
are
working
on
centrifuge
assets,
so
new
silver
and
consult
rights.
So
they
are
making
quite
some
progress
here.
We
should
have
some
risk
assessment,
maybe
in
two
weeks,
maybe
a
bit
more.
We
will
see
and
on
my
side,
I'm
working
with
matthew
on
success
crater
and
we
have
some
great
I'm
almost
at
the
end
of
the
risk
assessment.
So
there
will
be
some
round
of
review
and
I
will
be
able
to
put
that
on
on
the
I
don't
know,
maybe
next
week,
maybe
the
week
after.
A
A
A
C
C
Great
well,
thanks
for
having
me
on
I've,
been
with
paperchain
now
for
six
months.
My
goal
here
today
is
to
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
team,
what
we're
doing
as
a
company,
this
specific
asset
that
we're
originating
and
how
it
may
be
similar
or
different
from
other
asset
originators
that
you've
had
present
here
and
then
talk
about
next
steps
and
kind
of
where
we're
going
with
centrifuge
and
maker.
C
C
A
C
Sure
yeah,
I
think,
there's
like
three
or
four
distinct
sections,
so
I'll
stop
for
questions
at
each
one,
okay,
let's
let's
dive
into
it.
So
the
first
thing
I
want
to
cover
is
who
we
are.
As
a
team.
I
think
it's
important
to
kind
of
understand.
You
know
where
we
came
from
to
understand
what
it
is
we're
building
in
the
way
that
we
look
at
the
market,
so
I'm
going
to
focus
on
the
team
first.
So
daniel
is
the
original
founder
of
the
company.
He
started
the
company
in
2017..
C
He
comes
from
a
background
in
sound
and
music.
He
was
a
sound
engineer.
Then
worked
at
a
data
analytics
company,
so
he's
very
familiar
with
how
the
music
industry
works
really
particularly
around
like
the
the
back
end
data,
so
he's
seeing
first
hand
kind
of
the
problem
statement
we're
going
after,
which
is
artists,
earn
revenue
on
a
micro
transaction
basis,
whether
it's
spotify
or
youtube
or
or
apple,
but
they
get
paid
out
and
block
sums
down
the
line,
so
he
kind
of
founded
the
company
got
it
into
techstars,
which
is
in
new
york.
C
Oh
well,
I
guess
there's
different
locations,
but
dan
and
the
company
went
through
techstars
blockchain
accelerator
here
in
new
york
city
and
then
kind
of
built
the
basis
or
the
hypothesis
of
what
we
wanted
to
build.
I
joined
the
company
six
months
ago.
I
come
from
a
asset
origination
background.
I'm
not
sure.
If
anybody
here
is
familiar
with
blend
blend
is
one
of
the
biggest
players
in
the
the
mortgage
asset
origination
space
so
really
familiar
with
collecting
data
from
individuals.
C
You
know
determining
risk
originating
assets
and
then,
with
digital
asset.
I
started
taking
some
of
the
assets
reoriginating
and
doing
more
interesting
financial
operations
on
them.
Digilas
was
a
blockchain
company
kind
of
how
I
dip
my
toe
into
this
water.
The
rest
of
the
team
is
comprised
of
music
industry
veterans
and
kind
of
data
science
gurus
a
couple
of
things
about
us.
C
Yeah
blend,
I
think
they've
purchased
blend.com,
but
I
think
the
fallback
would
be
blendlabs.com
the
quick
elevator
pitch
for
them
is
they
have
a
white
labeled
workflow
process,
large
originators
like
bank
of
america
and
wells
fargo
use
them
for
the
majority
of
their
mortgage
originations.
Both
mobile
and
browser-based.
C
Interested
great,
so
that's
us!
So
what
are
we
solving
so
going
back
to
kind
of
like
our
ceo's
vision,
we've
identified
that
digital
content
is
generated
continuously
through
micro
transactions,
but
it's
paid
up
to
90
days
later,
so
really,
what
we're
focusing
on
today
is
spotify.
You
know
you
and
I
can
spend
all
months.
Racking
up
listens
on
our
favorite
album
at
the
end
of
that
month,
spotify
says
I
have
a
statement
for
you
as
an
artist.
C
You
earned
a
thousand
dollars,
but
for
some
reason,
spotify
takes
60
days
to
pay
that
out
many
other
platforms.
This
is
just
a
small
cross-section
of
the
market.
Typically,
have
their
payment
cycles
allocated
every
month
every
two
months,
every
quarter,
whatever
it
may
be.
There's
this
opportunity
to
kind
of
tap
into
a
very
rich
source
of
data.
We
know
what
the
sales
look
like.
We
know
what
the
revenue
numbers
look
like,
but
they
don't
the
the
individual
creators
of
that
content.
Don't
have
access
to
that
capital
and
that's
kind
of
where
paperchain
comes
in.
C
C
A
lot
of
artists,
especially
this
year,
have
been
trying
have
been
relying
on
the
streaming
revenues
because
they're
not
touring,
because
they're
not
doing
live,
shows
and
what
we've
seen
is
a
increase
in
the
amount
of
streaming
revenue.
It
was
a
bit
peculiar
kind
of
in
the
the
march
time
frame.
We
saw
a
huge
drop
in
artist
revenues
and
we
kind
of
attribute
that
to
people
using
spotify
during
commuting
and
then
not
commuting
from
march
onward,
and
then
there
was
this.
C
You
know
kind
of
this
valley
and
then
it
spiked
right
up
and
kind
of
how
we
read
that
data
is
people
went
from
just
using
spotify
during
commuting
hours
to
actually
working
from
home
and
listen
to
it
all
day.
So
now
we're
finding
most
of
our
artists
have
about
a
50
bump
in
what
they
were
earning
from
spotify
apple
and
youtube,
google
play,
which
is
quite
interesting,
so
where
does
paperchain
fit
in?
C
C
C
C
We
might
see
that
look
like
250
000
streams
from
a
blended
rate,
we've
built
a
deep
learning
algorithm
to
be
able
to
price
that
within
about
a
one
and
a
half
percent
confidence
interval,
and
then
all
of
the
under
underwriting
for
the
loan,
the
issuance
of
the
loan
and
the
security
issuance,
is
all
built
into
the
paper
chain
platform
as
well.
On
the
other
end
of
the
ecosystem,
we
have
capital
providers
that
are
providing
the
capital
that
we
then
lend
or
advance
out
to
the
individual
artists.
C
And
then
we
can
go
ahead
and
offer
them
in
advance.
I've
called
out
here
a
90
percent
of
their
advance,
but
we'll
go
a
bit
more
into
the
advance
advance
rates,
with
the
risk
weightings
a
little
bit
later
on.
But
for
the
sake
of
this
example,
let's
say:
there's
a
thousand
dollars
worth
of
streaming
revenue
sitting
there
at
the
end
of
august,
we'll
advance
them
about
900
of
that
thousand.
C
Going
to
november,
when
spotify
would
pay
out
that
artist,
the
agreement
that
we
make
with
them
here
is
not
only
a
loan
agreement
and
security
arrangement,
but
we're
actually
doing
a
redirection
of
payment
from
spotify
to
paper
chain
on
behalf
of
what
that
artist
would
get
paid.
So
in
november,
when
those
royalties
come
in,
it
actually
goes
directly
to
paper
chain
and
again
we
only
advanced
90
percent
of
whatever
that
was
so
the
remaining
10
percent,
less
any
fees
that
have
incurred
get
forwarded
to
that
artist.
C
What
this
kind
of
looks
like
here
is
a
little
bit
less
like
a
a
loan
or
factoring
agreement.
What
we're
trying
to
get
into
the
habit
of
our
artists,
interfacing
with
us,
as
is
more
of
a
payments
solution,
get
paid
like
our
company
or
motto,
is
get
paid
now
for
the
money
that
you
already
own
on
these
platforms,
I'm
going
to
take
a
a
break
right
there
for
any
questions
that
might
have
come
through,
because
that
was
a
big
chunk
of
information.
B
Yeah
but
hey
this
is
tadeo,
so
I
know
that
you're
you're
distancing
yourself
from
invoice
refactoring,
which,
from
my
point
of
view,
it's
it's
what
kind
of
what
it
looks
like.
But
in
essence
my
understanding
is
that
you're
trying
to
understand
through
machine
learning
other
things,
the
real,
the
real
count
of
songs
for
each
artist.
Can
it
be
possible
to
work
with
spotify
to
get
that
the
actual.
C
Yep,
that's
a
really
good
question
I'll
address
both
parts
of
it.
So
the
the
second
part.
First,
we
do
through
spotify's
bulk
api
get
all
of
the
data
surrounding
the
the
play
counts.
So
we
know
everything
from
how
many
times
a
certain
song
was
played,
as
well
as
what
type
of
user
was
listening
to
that
song.
Was
it
a
spotify
premium
versus
a
free
versus
a
family
plan?
What
geography
was
it
in
and,
more
importantly,
what
royalties
contract
is
written
to
the
royalties
contract
for
the
different
rates?
C
C
C
That
question
the
first
part
of
that
question
was
the
the
question
about
this.
Looking
like
a
factoring
agreement,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
the
cash
flows
work
like
a
factoring
agreement.
The
only
difference
is
that,
with
factoring
you're
buying
a
discounted
invoice
in
our
case,
we're
actually
at
this
point
in
time
we're
assembling
an
invoice
on
behalf
of
spotify.
C
A
A
C
Yes,
I'm
glad
you're
glad
you
brought
that
up.
I
didn't
fake
it
into
this
presentation,
but
the
the
kind
of
long-term
vision
of
paperchain
is
to
bring
in
multiple
different
sources
of
digital
content.
The
next
one,
that's
kind
of
adjacent
to
what
we're
working
with
now
is
content
creation
from
youtube
and
twitch,
but
any
sort
of
affiliate
marketing
advertising
online
retailer
that
has
a
rich
source
of
data
that
is
is
or
is
not
priced
is
something
that
we
can
feed
into
this.
C
C
C
C
What
we're
doing
today
is
tokenizing
them
using
the
centrifuge
platform
and
then
going
out
to
investors
to
trade,
the
representations
of
all
of
the
agreements.
So,
in
our
case,
it
is
a
lending
agreement,
a
security
agreement
and,
in
most
cases,
a
letter
of
redirection
of
payment
that
gets
wrapped
up
in
an
nft
token
and
then
traded
with
investors.
C
C
The
biggest
question
is
well,
why
not
just
set
up
wallets
for
the
individual
artists
and
honestly,
that's
where
we
want
to
go
we're
already,
disrupting
a
archaic
industry
like
the
idea
of
of
paying
artists
every
month.
Two
months
quarter
is,
is
you
know
what
50
years
old
so
we're
dealing
with
a
very
old
payment
system?
C
We
are
in
terms
of
bringing
on
individual
clients
working
with
large
labels
that
want
to
be
able
to
do
things
like
set
up
wallets
for
the
individual,
individual
clients
and
that's
something
that
we
want
to
do
in
the
future.
But
as
it
stands
today
we
are
handling
all
of
the
movement
of
cash
out
and
kind
of
monitoring
that
and
during
repayment
spotify,
when
they
pay
us,
you
know
they
paid
into
a
bank
account
that
is
owned
by
the
sbv.
That
kind
of
has
to
be
a
us
dollar
based
transaction
today.
C
So
I
I
guess
you
know
that
was
a
long
way
of
saying
that
you
know
we
are
now
acting
as
this.
You
know
traditional
world
asset
on-ramp,
but
to
do
that
not
only
do
we
need
to
originate
the
assets,
we're
also
moving
all
of
the
fiat
around
as
well,
but
we've
become
quite
efficient
at
it
and
we're
happy
to
do
so
to
be
able
to
get
assets
that
I
mean,
don't
even
exist
today.
There's
there's!
A
C
Sure
so
the
there's
an
fpv
setup
for
each
individual.
What
we're
doing
is
by
month,
so
we're
not
doing
huge
volume
right
now
we're
doing
about
three
to
five
loans
a
month
each
one
of
those
is
set
or
put
into
its
own
special
purpose
vehicle,
which
is
kind
of
you
know,
putting
a
sense
around
the
risk.
That's
to
the
to
the
extent
of
what
we're
doing
the
the
only
way
we're
mitigating
it
today.
C
So
in
terms
of
calling
out
the
players
here,
the
counterparty
definition,
I
think,
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
different
on
this
asset.
We
are,
we
are
signing
a
a
promissory
note
to
a
borrower
right
and
that
borrower
can
either
be
the
artist
or
the
label
or
who
ultimately
owns
the
rights
to
that
information,
but
in
terms
of
counterparty
risk,
we're
not
really
worried
about
the
borrower
defaulting,
because
the
borrower's
not
paying
us
spotify
as
a
payer,
is
paying
us.
C
So
when
we
go
into
the
different
factors
for
assessing
risk,
a
lot
of
them
are
around
the
payer,
such
as
the
size
of
the
payer,
the
country,
but
then
also
the
relationship
between
the
payer
and
the
borrower.
So,
for
example,
I
mentioned
that
we
tap
into
spotify's
bulky
api
and
we
can
pull
down
two
different
types
of
information.
C
So
really
this
last
parameter
is
how
how
how
long
of
a
track
record
have
they
shown
with
us
to
be
able
to
get
preferential
treatment
and-
and
really
all
of
this
is
just
a
long-winded
way
of
saying
how
to
what
percentage
of
the
available
capital
they
have
sitting
there
that
we've
calculated.
Will
we
advance
we'll?
C
Never
do
a
hundred,
because
our
algorithms
are
not
a
hundred
percent
accurate
they're
about
98.5
percent,
accurate,
so
the
highest
that
we
will
originate
is
90
of
whatever
is
sitting
there,
depending
on
all
the
other
parameters.
You
know
what
country
they're
in
what
what
size
in
terms
of
volume
per
month
are
they
doing
and
then
the
amount
of
actual
data
that
we
can
feed
into
our
algorithms?
It
will
kind
of
affect
the
amount
that
we
will
advance
in
terms
of
pricing.
C
This
is
it's
more
of
a
collateralized
loan
in
the
sense
that
we
know
for
one
with
a
pretty
good
certainty
of
price,
what
they
will
be
getting
paid
in
60
to
90
days
to
stepping
in
front
of
that
payment.
So
we
actually
get
paid
before
they
do
and
then
three
we're
trying
to
bring
the
price
that
we're
offering
to
the
individual
artists
closer
down
to
what
a
collateralized
loan
should
be,
which
in
many
markets
is
kind
of
you
know,
sub
10,
which
is
really
the
target
that
we're
trying
to
get
to.
C
That's
really
the
the
what
I
wanted
to
hit
on
for
kind
of
risk
and
pricing,
and
I
know
that,
as
the
working
group
you
know,
works
through
the
first
couple-
asset
originators
from
centrifuge
you're
going
to
have
a
really
good
understanding
of
you
know
what
else
you
want
to
dig
into
in
terms
of
risk
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
just
on
the
surface,
I'm
wondering
if
there's
any
other
questions
or
things
I
can
answer
in
this
arena.
Right
now,.
C
That's
correct,
so
the
the
spotify
data
is
certain
in
the
sense
that
everything
that
they
published
is
what
they
intend
to
pay
out.
So
in
terms
of
like
the
the
workflow
of
spotify,
it's
already
gone
through
their
counter
fraud,
so
any
potential
fraudulent
streams
have
been
removed.
It's
just
a
business
practice
of
spotify
not
to
assemble
a
dollar
value
until
they're
about
to
pay,
which
is
two
to
three
months
after
the
fact.
B
B
Wouldn't
this
be
easier
if
you,
if
you
just
become
like
an
invoice
refactoring
service
for
spotify,
so
you
just
charge
for
you
just
get
money
from
the
discount
rate
and
then
basically,
through
spotify,
artists
are
able
to
get
paid
earlier
than
the
60
days
net
that
they
currently
have,
and
they
just
simply
select
the
percentage
of
discount
rate
they're
they're
willing
to
take.
And
then
you
just
you,
you
get
your
fee
from
there.
C
C
Yeah,
I'd
love
to
chat
more,
you
know
in
the
financial
arena
you
know
factoring
agreements
are
quite
new
to
me
coming
from
blend
as
a
background.
Everything
looks
alone,
so
you
know
whether
that's
good
or
bad,
but
yeah.
I
would
love
to
maybe
chat
offline
and
see
if
there
is
a
way
for
us
to
make
it
look.
But
we
did
a
lot
of
work
six
months
ago
trying
to
figure
out
with
our
legal
team
if
we
could
make
this
look
like
a
factoring
agreement
and
kind
of
their
take
on
it.
D
My
internet
dropped
out.
I
got
a
quick
question,
but
it's
related
to
that
exact
space
like
how
often
have
you
seen
or
would
expect
to
see
the
data
be
different
than
the
like.
Have
the
data
then
be
subsequently
modified
like
in
effect
they
said
somebody,
I
don't
know,
listen
to
a
song
50
000
times,
but
it
was
actually
5
000
or
the
reverse.
C
Very
seldom,
typically,
what
we
find
is
a
label
will
represent
numerous
artists
within
that
portfolio
that
the
label
has
one
artist
would
maybe
hire
a
bot
streaming
company
and
try
to
up
their
stream
count.
It's
never
an
aggregate,
it's
never
a
label
or
or
kind
of
the
entire
account
that
we're
dealing
with
trying
to
do
something
like
that,
and
we
have
counter
fraud
measures
built
into
the
algorithm.
So
usually
we're
able
to
identify
these
individual
bad
actors
like
an
individual
artist
in
a
label
a.
D
Better
way
of
asking
better
way
of
asking
the
same
question:
it's
like
a.
What
is
the
gross
dollar
amount
impact
that
you
expect
even
on
a
percentage
basis
like
out
of
the
total
amount
of
the
net
portfolio?
Two
percent
sometimes,
is
dodgy.
That's
question
number
one,
but
really
when
even
if
it's
not
nefarious,
but
I
mean
forget
the
fact
there
might
be
some
type
of
fraud
but
a
scenario
where
spotify
just
screws
up
and
they
need
to
figure
out
that
it
wasn't
63
million
views.
D
C
Yep
totally
get
it
so
the
the
two
things
that
we
track
are:
we
have
per
account
a
way
of
pricing
and
we
call
it
a
per
unit
rate,
which
is
unique
per
account
that
we
deal
with,
and
then
we
have
the
the
percentage
difference
between
how
we
price-
let's
say
the
month
of
august,
in
what
we
get
from
the
api
versus
three
months
later,
when
we
get
the
actual
account
statement
for
spotify.
What
is
the
difference
between
that?
C
We
know
based
on
things
that
are
out
of
our
control,
with
the
payers
that
we
cannot
be
100
correct,
but
that
being
said,
we've
with
our
clients,
we've
pulled
statements
up
to
36
months
back
and
have
been
able
to
run
our
train,
our
algorithms
on
that
data,
and
that's
where
we
get
that
within
1.5
pricing
per
client
to
know
how
close
they
are,
the
rest
of
it
when
the
statements
come
out
is
exactly
what
you're
talking
about.
Sometimes
sometimes
they
they
may
strike.
C
C
D
Can
I
ask
a
quick
question:
real,
quick,
okay,
but
so
about
a
month
ago,
I
was
reading
that
spotify,
and
I
know
this
is
just
one
of
the
outlets,
but
they
were
you
they're,
losing,
I
guess
subscriber
growth
and
market
share.
So
as
a
company,
you
guys
also
diversifying
where
you're
going
to
target
independent
artists
and
quite
possibly
help
the
movement
of
decentralizing
some
of
these
platforms.
Some
of
these-
I
guess
venues-
is
that
something
you
guys
are
looking
to
do.
That's
my
first
part
of
the
question.
D
C
C
Spotify
is
the
main
example
that,
or
the
main
pair
that
we're
dealing
with
in
the
examples
today,
the
big
three
that
we
work
with
are
also
apple
and
google
as
an
entity.
It
used
to
be
google
play,
but
they've
kind
of
closed
business
from
like
a
revenue,
capturing
perspective
and
have
created
youtube
music
between
those
three
we're
seeing
that's
where
the
majority
of
the
revenue
comes
through
for
the
artists
that
we
have
on
the
platform.
Majority
of
our
artists
are
us-based,
but
we
also
have
west
african-based
and
european-based
artists.
C
That
being
said,
the
number
of
integrations
we're
doing
from
like
a
technology
standpoint
is
ever-increasing.
Different
geographies
will
have
specific
streaming
platforms.
Specific
types
of
businesses
will
also
have
different
platforms,
so
we're
always
trying
to
bring
in
for
the
clients
that
are
interested
in
the
type
of
product
were
creating
for
them.
C
The
the
data
to
get
them
paid
on
everything
that
they're
learning,
so
I
think,
spotify
plateauing
in
terms
of
like
listenership
or
usership,
is
not
something
that
concerns
us
too
much,
even
though
they
do
represent
the
majority
of
the
revenue
on
our
platform
today
that
we
track
we're.
Thinking
of
this
as
a
tech
play
where
once
we
build
the
kind
of
you
know,
data
science
machine
to
be
able
to
bring
in
different
types
of
data
and
price
it
and
then
finance
it.
C
C
A
C
Typical
technology
problem,
how
do
I
take
you
know
2
000,
different
artists
that
have
signed
up
who
have
very
different
revenue
sources,
majority
of
them
spotify,
yes,
create
an
account
for
them.
I
would
love
to
do
like
a
full
demo
of
our
account
to
kind
of
show,
like
the
analytics
behind
what
we
show
our
individual
customers,
but
yeah
we've
had
an
unbelievable
amount
of
interest
and
since
then,
we've
been
slowly
rolling
individuals
who
we've
kind
of
deemed
best
fit.
Are
they
doing
a
high
enough
volume?
C
C
Do
they
have
licensors
or
distributors
that
work
well
with
us
versus
those
who
kind
of
don't
want
to
have
any
sort
of
kind
of
new
tech
come
in
and
you
know
remove
their
brand
value
from
the
artists
that
they
represent?
It's
it's
interesting,
navigating
the
bureaucracy
of
the
music
industry.
When
really
our
mission
is
the
artist
earn
the
money,
the
second
that
you
listen
to
their
song,
let's
get
it
to
them
as
quick
as
possible,
yeah,
our
the
on
the
business
side,
dan,
the
cr.
C
C
Great,
so
I've
just
got
two
more
slides:
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we've
done
with
centrifuge
so
far
kind
of
within
that
last
year,
and
then
our
next
steps,
so
so
far
with
centrifuge
we've
done,
I'm
going
to
I've
listed
all
three
pools.
Really
we
have
pc1,
which
was
opened
and
has
been
fully
paid
back,
pc2,
which
has
been
opened
in
half
paid
back
and
we're
still
doing
some
issuance
from
that
and
then
pc3,
which
is
we're
us
ramping
up
on
centrifuge
version
three,
the
revolving
pools.
C
C
C
In
this
case.
The
loan
is
paid
back
whenever
the
payer
pays
it
back.
So,
if
I
you
know,
let's
say
october
was
the
most
recent
month
that
closed.
I
originate
a
bunch
of
advances
to
artists,
maybe
three
to
four
days
into
the
next
month
so
into
november.
Once
we
have
all
the
data
coming
from
spotify
and
usually
we'll
see
it
not
at
the
end
of
this
month,
but
the
end
of
next
month.
C
So
that's
about
a
45,
sometimes
60
day
loan,
depending
on
when
spotify
pays
back
so
the
term
for
almost
all
of
them
kind
of
fit
between
that
45
to
60
day
window
pc1
was
just
under
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
worth
of
advances.
That
was
six
advances
pc2
about
twice
as
much
as
that.
Still
six
advances
roughly
the
same
artists
or
borrowers.
Let's
call
them
in
this
case
with
the
addition
of
a
couple
for
pc2
drop.
Yield
has
been
nine
percent.
C
C
They
do
obviously
not
as
much
business
as
spotify,
but
you
know
I
would
say,
for
the
type
of
business
they're
doing
you
know
just
aggregating
payments
and
sending
it
out
to
artists
and
bargaining
licensing
agreements
on
the
behalf
of
their
artists,
they're
about
the
biggest
so
they've
kind
of
fallen
in
kind
of,
like
that,
a
tier
on
our
risk
profile
and
then
underlying
asset
default
rate
has
been
zero.
So
far
in
no
case
has
spotify
or
merlin
not
paid
us
for
the
streams
that
we've
projected
for
these
artists
crunching.
A
A
C
That's
correct
so
the
way
that
the
centrifuge
static
tools
work
is.
We
were
doing
it
monthly
kind
of.
When
I
talked
about
the
movement
or
the
transaction
workflow
per
month,
we
would
put
together
a
pool.
We
would
fund
that
pool
through
the
centrifuge
investor
network,
so
a
bunch
of
dye
would
come
in.
We
would
then
withdraw
that
dye
through
their
contracts
and
distribute
it
or
trade
it
for
us
dollars
and
then
distribute
it
amongst
our
clients.
C
Once
so,
you
know
45
to
90
days
later,
spotify
pays
us.
We
buy
a
bunch
of
diet,
we
pay
back
those
loans
on
centrifuge
and
close
that
static
pool
for
that
month.
They're
revolving,
yes,
you're,
correct.
So
as
soon
as
that
closeout
happens,
the
investor
the
drops
investors
then
can
elect
to
keep
the
die
in
the
pool
to
invest
in
new
advances
that
are
coming
out
rather
than
having
to
pull
it
out
and
then
try
to
get
into
the
subsequent
pool
for
us.
A
D
C
C
Great
thanks
for
the
question
and
then
really
that
was
it
so
next
steps
as
everyone's
aware
here,
the
first
two
in
the
cohort
from
centrifuge
of
asset
originators
are
going
through
assessment
right
now,
once
the
assessment's
complete.
I
believe
that
we're
being
proposed
paper
chain
that
is
to
be
looked
at
by
the
the
working
group
and
then
step
three
is
you
know,
maker
participating
in
the
yield
from
the
paper
chain
assets.
B
A
C
Wonderful,
I
mean
this:
is
you
know
this
relationship
started
before
I
came
on
board
six
months
ago,
so
I've
always
you
know,
coming
from
a
background,
a
digital
asset.
I've
always
really
been
into
like
this.
This
intersection
between
traditional
and
decentralized
finance
and
yeah.
I'm
super
excited
to
be
a
part
of
you
know.
C
D
Yeah,
so
a
quick
question
to
leia
she's
on
the
call
right.
So
can
you
go
over
and
try
to
explain
to
us
how
exactly
the
bridge
works
between
centrifuge
and
getting
to
die
to
ethereum
right
I've
been
on
the
I've
used,
the
what's
it
called
polka
dot,
js
and
checked
out
your
your
chain
running.
It's
pretty
cool
with
your
validator
staking
facilities.
D
E
Yeah
so
we're
lev,
so
the
we
have
our
peer-to-peer
network
where
the
documents
itself
are
created.
So,
for
example,
if
paper
chain
is
to
create
a
new
assets,
they're
going
through
our
gateway,
ui
and
create
the
document
itself
on
our
peer-to-peer
layer
and
then
with
our
chain.
Some
functionalities
are
are
used
to
mint
nft.
E
A
B
B
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
the
worst
thing
that
could
happen
to
a
pool
is
if
one
of
the
payers
does
not
pay.
So,
let's
say:
spotify
becomes
insolvent.
For
example,
cash
will
not
be
coming
in
on
behalf
of
any
of
the
borrowers
that
use
that
particular
pair.
The
way
that
we've
mitigated,
that
is
within
the
promissory
notes,
the
borrowers
are
responsible
for
the
amount
that
they're
they're
we're
lending
to
them.
C
Even
if
the
payers
don't
pay
so
we
kind
of
have
it
baked
in
that
they
are
on
the
hook.
For
that,
then
you
kind
of
get
into
like
the
servicing
market
of
debt,
in
which
case
the
spv
is
responsible
for
collecting
on
all
of
the
loans
default.
Unpaid
loans,
so
paperchain
in
effect,
becomes
a
servicer,
a
debt
servicer
and
goes
after
the
individuals.
C
I
think
worst
case
scenario
or
sorry,
let's
not
say
worse,
medium
case
scenario-
is
that
the
borrowers
are
able
to
pay.
We
just
need
to
go
through
whatever
legal
process.
It
is
to
repay
those
loans
if
they
choose
not
to
just
forward
us
cash
worst
case
scenario
is
they're,
the
borrowers
themselves
are
insolvent
and
it's
a
wash.
But
for
that
to
happen,
spotify
would
have
to
go
to
business.
C
It's
the
same
principle
as
like,
and
again
I
keep
going
back
to
mortgage,
because
that's
what
I
know,
but
when
fannie
mae
buys
individual
loans,
they
wrap
those
up
in
the
pools
and
then
they
take
the
pools
and
then
they
wrap
those
up
in
the
megas.
And
now
you
have
like
an
entire
state's
worth
of
property
wrapped
into
an
asset
that
investors
are.
You
know,
buying
part
of
security
for.
E
C
Yeah,
you
know
I
mean
blend
was
founded.
You
know
during
the
the
the
crisis
right
like
blend
was
like:
let's
take
a
data.
First
approach
to
you
know
bringing
transparency
to
mortgages
and
assets
so
like
yeah,
it's
it's
sometimes
a
terrible
analogy,
but
unfortunately
it's
the
one.
I
know
the
best
great
well.