►
Description
Host: David Utrobin
Special Guests:
We will be joined by a number of community members to talk about the Surplus Buffer.
Primoz Kordez
Sebastien Derivaux
Sam MacPherson
and others!
Maker is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization(DAO) that manages the Maker Protocol on the Ethereum blockchain.
This video is a weekly community call that covers all Technical Milestones, Online Events, Partnerships, New Hires, Highlights from the Community, Real-Life Events, and more. Every now and then we even have a guest.
Maker Relay Ep 30
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/maker-relay-ep-30
If you're curious to learn more about MakerDAO explore some of the resources below:
Awesome-MakerDAO Resource Repository: https://awesome.makerdao.com/
Technical Documentation: https://docs.makerdao.com/
Community Portal: https://community-development.makerdao.com/
Governance Forum: https://forum.makerdao.com/
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
A
Hey
everybody
welcome
to
february
2nd
maker
down
community
call.
My
name
is
david
utrobin.
I
am
a
community
development.
Sorry,
community
development
lead
here
at
the
maker
foundation
and
a
long-time
megadot
community
member,
and
I
have
the
good
pleasure
of
facilitating
these
things
every
week,
and
so
this
one
is
gonna
be
really
fun.
A
So
there
is
a
lot
to
talk
about,
so
I
am
going
to
be
inviting
on
screen
sebastian
diravaux,
who
has
recently
actually
voted
on
to
the
risk
team
as
a
risk
risk
team
facilitator.
So
welcome
sebastian.
I
also
have
primo
cordes
coming
on.
He
is
actually
one
of
the
risk
oh
geez
at
maker,
so
he's
going
to
be
coming
on
in
a
second,
I
believe.
A
A
B
A
A
A
So
if
you
scroll
over
yeah
over
yourself,
you
should
get
like
a
little
panel
with
a
bunch
of
controls.
Yeah
got
it
thanks!
No
problem,
all
right
cool
well
welcome
everybody!
I
guess
maybe
for
like
these
first
few
remarks,
I
would
love
for
everybody
to
just
introduce
themselves
and
and
kind
of
talk
a
little
bit
about
yeah
who
you
are
at
maker
and
why
you're
interested
in
this
conversation.
E
Sure
I
can
start
if
you
want
so
I'm
sebastian,
I'm
a
risk
facilitator
for
maker
and
I
am
currently
applying
for
a
car
unit,
which
is
called
a
real
world
finance
that
explores
a
lot
of
traditional
finance
concepts
like
capital
like
ukt,
like
all
the
stuff
and
try
to
apply
them
to
to
make
it
down
and
just
say
the
other
way.
The
other
true
to
let
the
rest
of
the
traditional
finance
know
that
we
are
the
solution
of
every
problem,
because
the
solution
of
every
problem
is
making
it
up
and
that's
about
it.
D
For
everyone,
I'm
pretty
much,
I'm
the
second
risk
facilitator.
I
think,
since
october
last
year
I
think
I'm
at
maker
now
for
about
two
and
a
half
years
previously
we
worked
on
risk
with
currently
it's.
Basically,
our
team,
we're
working
on.
You
know,
proposing
risk
parameters
for
maker
risk
evaluations
for
new
collateral
assets.
D
C
C
B
Okay
hi,
my
name
is
tim.
I
think
I
bought
my
first
maker
tokens
and
opened
a
cdp
by
the
time
in
the
end
of
2017
and
since
then
have
been
lurking
in
the
forum
and
yeah.
I
got
into
the
habit
of
spamming
the
forum
with
signal
requests
in
the
I
don't
know
last
couple
of
months,
yeah
trying
to
get
more
and
more
engaged
into
the
whole
thing,
because
it's
great.
B
C
B
A
D
D
I
believe
so
millions
of
losses
and
we
soon
realized
that
the
surplus
buffer
may
not
be
sufficient
right
at
that
time.
The
die
supply
was
around
100
million
and
we
had
one
percent
in
reserves
in
that
sense,
so
there
was
some
kind
of
push
to
you
know
this
could
happen
again
and
higher
surplus
buffer,
isn't
it
and
I
think
we
increased
it
to
2
million
right
after
black
thursday
and
so
on.
It
went
right
when
the
dive
supply
was
increasing.
D
D
A
And
it's
interesting
because
when
the
surplus
buffer
was
raised
to
2
million,
that's
when
we
had,
as
tim
pointed
out
about
100
million
die
and
since
then,
over
the
last
year,
we've
we've
increased.
The
total
die
supply
to
almost
2
billion,
like
while
we're
sitting
at
1.6
billion
die
right
now,
and
the
surplus
buffer
did
not
go
through
a
similar,
10x
plus
increase,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
we
are
now
yeah
and
so
maybe
like
a
good
first
question
would
be.
D
The
first
one
is,
of
course,
managing
risk
parameters
right,
so
how
we
defend
against
losses
is
we
simply?
We
can
simply
limit
the
depth
exposure,
we
can
set
different
liquidation
ratios,
we
can
even
increase
rates,
and
this
is
the
first
line
of
defense
where
we
need
to
be
cautious.
The
second
line
of
defense
before
it
comes
to
losses
is
probably
you
know.
We
have
two
tools.
One
of
them
is
circuit
breaker.
D
D
Freeze,
maybe
there's
another
one,
and
I
forgot,
but
this
is
how
I
see
it
like
in
some
kind
of
correspondence
and
then
the
next
line
of
defense
is
surplus
buffer,
and
this
is
you
know
the
line
of
defense
when
the
losses
are
already
generated
and
we
need
to
set
it
properly
and,
of
course,
the
next
line
after
this.
The
next
line
defense
is
maker
delusion
and
the
last
problem
outcome
is
just
emergency
shadowing
when
it's
already
delayed
and
how
high,
how
I
see
surplus
buffer
from
the
risk
perspective,
is
as
such.
D
So,
first
of
all,
you
know:
there's
there
needs
to
be
some
notion
of
losses
that
we
want
to
be
hashed
against.
You
know.
Community
needs
to
you
know,
basically
set
some
value
with
which
it
wants
to
be
cached
again,
so
let's
say
we
had
a
presentation.
Last
month
we
proposed
some.
We
estimated
some
value
at
risk.
Numbers
valued
risk
is
pretty
common
financial
term
to
you
know,
show
the
value
of
the
tail
event
losses,
but
at
the
end
it
really
depends
on
community
risk
appetite.
D
So
in
you
know
in
banks
they
use,
you
know
high
value
at
risk.
You
know
99,
percentile
and
even
higher
at
maker.
This
really
depends
which
one
would
you
want
to
take,
for
instance,
if
you
think
that
our
estimates
are
too
conservative,
maybe
a
50
or
60
percentile
value
at
risk
is
something
that
maker
community
wants
to
be
hashed
against,
and
let's
say
you
know,
this
comes
to
a
number
of
50
million,
and
then
somebody
needs
to
ask
himself.
D
D
D
You
need
to
make
make
your
delusion
and
this
dilution
can
be
really
expensive
right,
because
when
prices
crash
maker
maker
price
also
crashes
and
when
you
raise
money,
you're
raising
money
at
probably
the
worst
time
right.
So
this
is
how
we
see
you
know
from
there
is
perspective,
but
this
already
touches
on
the
business
perspective,
which
would
be
obviously
our
next
topic
in
some
sense,
but
it's
like
the
main,
the
main
trade-off
that
they
see.
A
Yeah,
that's
really
really
really
well
framed,
and
actually
I
wanted
to
dive
into
one
of
those
downsides
for
when
there's
too
much
dye
into
in
the
surplus
buffer.
You
said
that
a
part
of
it
is
the
opportunity
cost
of
not
being
able
to
put
that
die
to
use,
and
I
know
in
the
forums
the
community
has
proposed
using
this
new
piece
of
code
called
the
keg
to
actually
stream
payments
to
potentially
even
other
reserves
in
the
protocol.
E
C
E
Okay,
so
just
a
bit
of
accounting,
but
you
will
see
it's
really
simple,
but
it's
really
important
to
understand
what
you
are
doing,
because
you
are
speaking
of
dye,
but
most
of
the
time
when
we
say
there
is
some
dyes
in
the
circus
buffer,
there
is
not
a
single
dye
in
the
surplus
buffer.
There
is
an
amount
of
stuff
that
is,
is
measured
in
die,
but
you
can
say
dollars.
It
will
be
the
same
because
it's
not
diets
so
just
two
quick
rules
of
accounting-
and
you
will
be
my
content
like
no
other.
E
E
I
financed
it
a
bit
using
a
maker
loan,
so
I
asked
maker
to
loan
me
some
money,
depositing
some
ease
that
are
on
the
asset
side,
but
I
that
allowed
me
to
have
exposure
leverage
exposure
to
it
and
the
rest
is
my
equity,
which
is
my
net
worth
the
amount
you
have
when
you
are
using
a
xerion
and
what
is
the
value
of
your?
What
and
there
is
a
simple
rule.
Is
that
the
so
two
simple
rules?
It's
the
equity-
is
always
different
between
the
assets
and
the
liabilities.
E
E
E
And
maker
can
create
die,
which
is
a
promise
of
maker
to
pay
one
dollars
of
assets.
That's
emerson's
shutdown,
an
only
maker
can
create
die,
which
obviously
makes
sense,
because
if
everyone
can
create
die
maker
will
have
a
lot
of
liabilities,
so
you
can
create
a
lot
of
dyes
if
you're
a
maker,
you
increase
your
liability
side
and
you
have
the
same
amount
of
dye
on
the
asset
side,
so
you
own
yourself
an
amount
of
dye
which
is
quite
useless,
because
if
I
own
myself
one
million
dollars,
I'm
not
richer
at
all.
E
E
E
So
it's
all
the
origin,
only
we
both
own
is
in
wallets
and
you
can
see
at
this
stage.
I
can
create
to
make
a
loan
because
I'm
using
a
makerbot,
the
details
are
not
important,
but
I
can
create
the
same
liability
and
the
same
assets
and
make
a
loan
so
from
the
world
number
one
and
maker
can
create
dies
on
the
assets
and
the
liabilities
and
with
a
simple
swap
maker
can
buy
the
macaroon.
E
You
know
that
there
is
some
accurate
interest
on
the
make
alone.
So
let's
say
this
is
my
new
balance
sheet
and
I
have
the
make
a
loan
number
one.
If
I
spend
I
wait
a
little
bit
to
make
a
loan
will
increase
the
value,
so
my
equity,
my
net
worth,
will
be
decreasing.
I
hope
not
because
I
hope
heath
will
be
increased,
but
if
this
doesn't
increase,
my
eq
will
diminish
and
the
maker
on
maker
balance
sheets
the
value
of
the
loan
increase
as
well
because
of
the
ankle
interest.
E
The
liabilities
of
diet
doesn't
change
because
diet
doesn't
tackle
interest
so
by
using
the
simple
rule
that
what
is
left
is
the
qt
or
the
net
worth
or
what
we
call
for
maker,
the
surplus
buffer.
We
are
generating
the
surplus
buffer,
and
so
that's
so
the
cool
stuff
with
maker
is
that
we
are
creating
some
summary
and
we
we
say
that
the
surplus
buffer
is
an
amount
of
dye.
E
But
if
you
look
on
the
asset
side,
there
is
not
a
single
die
because
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
maker
to
own
die
on
the
asset
side
and,
for
instance,
when
we
try
to
buy
and
burn
mkr
token.
We
start
from
the
left
position.
We
will
create
some
dye
on
the
both
on
the
assets
and
liabilities,
just
to
explain
it.
First,
we
swap
die
for
our
maker
and
then
we
will
burn
the
maker
side,
so
it
will
diminish
the
equity
because
you
cannot
say
that.
E
Oh
I
I
have
some
dire
abilities,
but
let's
pretend
it
doesn't
exist.
No,
we
cannot
do
that.
So
the
only
thing
that
can
change
if
we
burn
maker
is
that
we
decrease
the
amount
of
the
surplus
buffer.
But
the
decreasing
amount
of
surplus
buffer
is
a
consequence
of
burning
the
m
car.
It's
not
the
consequence
of
or
the
source
of
value
to
buy
the
mkr
in
the
first
place.
E
E
It's
what
can
be
done
using
strategic
reasons,
so
we
have
some
amount
of
microloans.
So
all
the
volts
we
have
is
a
is
b
and
so
on.
We
have
some
dye
generated
so
that
are
outside
of
the
system
to
otherwise
we
have
some
surplus
buffer
and
we
can
take
some
of
this
surplus
buffer
and
put
it
in
what
we
can
call
strategic
reserves
and
we
can
buy
some
assets
with
that
to
put
those
assets
in
networks.
E
If
you
just
take
the
surplus
paper
plus
the
strategic
reserves
equity,
we
can
buy
a
lot
more
of
assets,
and
why
is
that?
Because,
if
you
are,
if
you
are
using
maker,
we
can
mint
some
dye
to
buy
some
assets
and
it's
not
unpacked
to
die,
because
there
are
something
on
the
asset
side
university.
We
are
still.
We
have
still
a
lot
of
equity
and
this
provide
us
a
bigger
surplus
buffer.
If
something
bad
should
happen
on
the
mecca
loans
or
on
the
asset
side,.
A
I
do
have
one
question
just
to
help
clarify.
For
me:
the
surplus
buffer
is
on
the
liability
side
because,
in
the
event
of
an
emergency
shutdown
that
die
gets
distributed
to,
like
you
know,
well
not
that
die
that
gets
distributed,
it's
more
that
that
die
gets
taken
out
of
the
amount
of
the
collateral
value
that
gets
distributed
in
the
event
of
an
emergency
shutdown
right.
Let
me
check.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Basically,
what
you
are
doing
is
you
are
printing
a
mkr
token
selling
them
for
die
and,
as
you
get
more
die,
so
you
will
have.
You
will
buy
some
dice
by
meeting
some
mk
tokens.
It
could
be
something
like
that
and
as
we
define
that
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
have
die
on
the
asset
side.
We
just
remove
this
one
this
part
and
remove
this
one.
C
A
A
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
questions
in
the
chat,
so
juan
asks,
surplus
buffer
hasn't
been
collected,
yet
the
user
hasn't
paid
it
yet
right,
yes,
but
functionally
the
protocol
can
pull
that.
You
know
out
of
the
surplus
buffer
right
like
we
can
use
it
functionally
as
dye,
even
though
technically
the
user
hasn't
paid
it.
Yet
it
is
like
actively
accruing
and
can
be
used
as
an
asset
right
yeah.
E
It's
a
surprise
buffer.
If
you
have
three
million
of
surplus
buffer,
that
means
that
you
can
mint
three
million
die
and
burn
them
burn
the
asset
side
like
you're,
paying
people
for
three
million
like
burning
and
care
for
two
million.
At
the
end,
you
will
no
longer
have
a
surplus
buffer,
but
you
will
have
more
die,
which
happened
for
instance
here,
because
you
start
with
a
big
surprise
buffer.
E
A
E
E
We
can
illustrate
it
here.
Let's
say:
if
someone
is
paying
a
loan,
so
he
will
bring
some
dyes
into
this
stem
in
exchange.
We
will
diminish
the
loan
we
have
only.
It
will
be
something
like
that
and
again,
as
it
doesn't
make
sense
for
maker
to
have
to
own
some
die.
We
will
remove
this
die.
Let's
put
it
here
and
decide
to
diminish
all
liabilities,
and
this
will
be
the
new
balance
sheet.
A
Sorry
yeah,
this
is
a.
This
is
a
really
great
illustration.
I
think
wrapping
my
head
around
the
balance
sheet
view
of
the
maker
protocol
has
been
something
I've
been
trying
to
do
for
for
many
months,
and
I
you
do
a
really
great
job
here
to
show
what
it
looks
like
in
practice
and
so
bringing
it
back
to
actually
the
management
of
the
surplus
buffer
and
referencing
some
of
the
things
that
primorsh
said
about
the
downsides
of
having
it
too
large
and
the
downsides
of
having
it
too
small.
A
E
E
Is
it
once
a
month
once
a
year
once
a
decade,
I'm
one
of
the
one
of
one
each
ticket?
That's
enough
for
me,
because
every
time
you
will
debut,
sometimes
it
will
work
well
and
sometimes
it
will
just
fail
and
you
will
delete
at
market
price
of
maker.
Let's
say
10
dollars
per
mkr
token.
So
that's
not
great,
but
what
is
important
is
that
we
are
on
the
asset
side.
E
We
have
some
diversified
assets,
they
don't
fall
in
price
at
the
same
time
and
that's
super
important,
because
if
we
only
have
heath
on
the
assets
on
the
on
the
asset
side,
he's
sloan
a
lot
like
we
have
currently.
If
his
price
fall
and
liquidation
doesn't
work,
we
lose
a
lot
of
money,
200
million
100
million.
We
don't
know
exactly,
but
a
lot.
E
E
E
E
A
B
B
You
would
not
expect
some
kind
of
buyback
and
burn
program
and
we
shouldn't
and
from
my
point
of
view,
we
we
should
just
try
to
grow
it
as
hell
and
it.
By
the
point
of
time
we
are
unable
to
basically
spend
money
on
crazy
marketing
actions
or
whatever
or
yeah,
just
going
crazy
on
providing
low
fees
and
going
very
high
on
the
debt
cold
bar.
B
So
as
soon
as
we
have
strategic
reserves
or
a
keck
or
whatever,
then
we
can
easily
go
back
and
I
mean
looking
at
the
at
the
latest
signal,
I'm
pretty
happy
that
a
lot
of
people
are
are
fine
with
raising
it
by
20
million,
but
I'm
kind
of
disappointed
that
there
are
still
so
many
people
wanting
to
burn
maker
tokens,
because
I
think
it's
just
we
have
it's.
Basically,
we
are
missing
an
opportunity
to
grow
like
hell,
because
this
is
what
we
should
do
as
a
product
right
now.
B
So
it's
not
only
about
risk,
and
this
is
the
hardest
part
for
me
to
rip
my
ahead
around
the
all
those
risk
parameters,
because
I'm
not
really
an
expert
on
this
topic,
but
it's
not
only
about
risk.
It's
also
about
preventing
the
buyback
program,
which
we
should
not
do
right
now.
From
my
point
of
view,.
C
A
A
Naturally,
because
you
end
up
buying
mkr,
really
high
and
burning
it
or
you
end
up
selling
mkr
and
deluding
yourself
really
cheap,
and
so
it
just
seems
like
a
not
efficient
way
to
spend
like
company
capital,
so
yeah
there's,
definitely
a
matter
of
business
interest
involved
in
raising
the
money
that's
being
raised
in
the
surplus
buffer,
and
we
are
in
a
moment
right
now
at
the
maker
protocol,
where
we're
making.
I
think
north
of
40
million
dollars
a
year
being
accrued
into
that
buffer.
D
I
just
want
to
mention
that
there
was
right.
There
was
a
benefit
to
having
buy
and
burn
like
it's,
not
a
total
nonsense.
When
we
had
a
high
die
price
hard
pack
on
higher
pack,
it
was
actually
beneficial
right
to
be
selling
die.
Currently
it
doesn't
seem.
This
would
be
a
real
issue,
although
we
still
have
stable
coins
in
portfolios
portfolio,
but
this
is
not
something
that's
really
beneficial,
as
it
was
in
the
past
and
also
you
know,
maker
price
is
higher,
making
buy
and
burn.
D
A
D
I
personally
believe
it's
not
it's
yeah,
maybe
it's
premature,
but
it's
you
know
how
we
decide
the
surplus
buffer.
Basically
it
should
be.
It
should
be
a
percentage
of
some
sort
of
risk
weighted
collateral,
collateral
portfolio.
So,
for
instance,
let's
say
you
grow
on
let's
say
six
months
ago
you
would
say
three
percent,
but
then
you
start
including
stablecoins
in
the
collateral
portfolio.
D
Now
you
would
question
yourself:
does
it
make
sense
to
raise
surplus
buffer
because
you
have
500
million
of
stable
coins
in
some
sense?
Yes,
but
it's
not,
you
know,
surplus
buffer
doesn't
catch
against.
You
know
usdc
failing
so
percentage
wise.
It
doesn't
make
sense
unless
you
do
proper
risk
weighted
metric
of
a
collateral
which
is
basically
what
we're
doing
right
value
at
risk.
Metric
is
doing
that
right.
We
when
we
measured
it
per
collateral
type.
D
We
saw
that
the
the
highest
increment
on
value
at
risk
number
is
comes
from
each
b-volt,
which
is
logic.
Now
I
don't
imagine
how
we
can
put
this
into
a
smart
contract
to
say
you
know
calculate
all
these
simulations
value
at
risk
and
then
say
you
know
we're
going
to
take
this
confidence
level
and
then,
let's
say
you
know,
there's
50
million.
D
So
I
can't
imagine
how
to
put
that
in
a
smart
contract
the
whole
process,
but
you
know
if
we
come
up
with
value
risk,
metrics,
something
that's
refreshed.
We
can.
Basically,
you
know
by
by
you
know,
asking
community
how
much
you
want
to
be
hashed
against
it.
We
could
see
what's
the
surplus
and
then
just
you
know,
set
surplus
accordingly
and
that's
it.
This
is
probably
the
easiest.
C
Yeah,
I
would
I
like
to
echo
that
sort
of
premature-
maybe
it's
useful
to
do
later
on,
but
especially
with
smart
contracts,
so
limited
with
resources
right
now
doing
these
things
manually
until
they
like
become
frequent
enough
that
we
should
spend
time
to
optimize
it.
I
think
it's
it's
infrequent
enough
at
this
point,
like
we've
done
it
like
twice
now
three
times
adjusted
the
surplus
buffer.
It's
it's
not
enough
to
spend
smart
contract
dev
time
optimizing.
I
don't
think
when
we
can
just
do
it
easily
enough
manually
for
now.
A
E
E
It's
only
when
liquidation
fails
that
it's
becoming
an
issue
and
whatever
is
not
correlated
at
all
to
that
is
good
for
us,
so
it
can
be
a
real
estate
loans,
always
loans
mainly,
but
if
we
can
have,
for
instance,
the
psm,
whereas
we
are
having
some
usdc
on
our
balance
sheet
and
we
are
making
a
little
spread
by
selling
and
buying
usdc
versus
die.
So
that's
to
use
you
it's
using
a
little
bit
of
our
balance
sheet.
E
Well,
maybe
not
more
than
a
little
bit
almost
100
million
but
they're
generating
revenues,
but
there
was
no
link
between
you
having
usdc
on
all
balance
sheets.
That
is
doing
almost
nothing
and
having
is
a
loan,
because,
if
ease
goes
down,
probably
usdc
will
not
change
at
all,
and
on
top
of
that,
there
is
some
work
to
use
this
usd
we
own
on
our
asset
side
and
put
them
on
compound
and
earn
a
yield.
That
means
that
will
increase
the
risk.
E
The
protocol
risk-
let's
say
of
compound,
but
is
the
protocol
risk
of
compound
related
at
all
to
a
sharp
decrease
of
its
price?
Maybe
maybe
not
that's
something
to
me.
So
anything
that
is
not
correlated
to
the
biggest
risk
is
overall,
not
increasing
the
the
overall
risk
of
maker
and
doesn't
require
to
increase
the
surplus
buffer,
but
it
adds
on
revenues.
So
we
can
increase
the
revenues
while
keeping
the
same
risk
and
the
same
surplus
buffer
and
that's
what
we
need
to
optimize.
E
That
means
that
if
you
have
a
buffer
or
let's
say
100
million
and
a
balance
sheet
of
1
billion-
and
you
have
10
asset
classes,
islam
being
one
of
the
asset
classes
that
are
fully
uncorrelated,
meaning
that
you
don't
lose
money
on
one
on
only
one
at
a
time
you
will
never
create
mkr
delusion
and
the
risk
is
the
same.
If
you
have
one
asset
class
of
100
million
or
10
times
this
amount.
E
If
you
have
10
asset
classes
that
are
uncorrelated,
you
are
earning
10
times
more
cash,
but
not
not
increasing
the
risk.
Obviously,
in
real
life
it
doesn't
work
because
nothing
is
fully
uncorrelated.
But
that's
that's
the
idea
and
clearly
having
using
new
silver,
for
instance,
which
is
using
real
estate.
Loans
is
not
credited
at
all
to
the
east
price
and
not
to
the
liquidation
issues
on
the
east.
One
is.
A
A
So
I'm
actually
curious
about
the
the
usdc.
That's
on
the
maker
protocol
balance
sheet,
that's
sitting
in
the
psm,
so
seb
you
mentioned
a
bit
about
eventually
being
able
to
earn
a
yield
on
that.
I
was
curious
if
that
usdc
can
be
counted
towards
being
employed
in
the
event
of
losses.
Like
let's
say,
black
thursday
happened
again,
you
know,
surplus
buffer
disappears
goes
negative.
A
E
E
A
E
E
E
If
it's
continued
to
decrease,
you
can
see
that
the
surplus
buffer
is
disappearing
and
we
need
to
to
print
some
some
mkr
token
to
buy
some
dice
because
we
have
a
we
have
too
much
liabilities.
So
we
need
to
buy
back
some
dyes
and
the
fact
that
we
have
some
esc.
We
can
use
them
to
buy
dye,
so
we
can
use
all
the
serious
disease
and
diminish
the
dye
side,
but
there
is
still
the
same
difference.
E
But
obviously
having
you
can
see
that
I
was
having
some
issues,
because
here
we
have
the
uhdc
that
doesn't
change
if
there
was
a
crash,
and
so
the
mecca
loans
should
diminish
by
80
percent,
to
kill
the
surplus
buffer
and
that's
the
same
sex.
That's
thanks
to
the
depassification,
because
when
mecca
loans
diminish
your
decision
just
move,
so
we
can
take
more
risks.
A
D
D
A
Yeah
that
that
is
a
really
interesting
concept,
juan
says:
can
we
delude
a
little
a
little
bit
but
yeah?
It
is
an
interesting
concept.
I
know
people
are
definitely
not
not
liking
the
idea
of
diluting
mkr,
but
that
seems
to
be
a
far
more
like
efficient
way
to
raise
capital,
especially
if
we
know
a
very
crazy
event
might
be
happening
in
the
near
future.
C
C
E
And
sadly,
we
need
to
wait
for
maker
to
have
an
insane
price,
but
for
no
reason
there
is
never
an
insane
price
for
makers.
We
need
to
pump
a
little
bit,
but
tesla
just
did
that.
I
mean
they
cannot
borrow
any
money
because
no
one
want
to
lend
to
tesla,
and
then
there
was
the
frenzy
the
pump,
and
so
the
the
share
price
was
so
high.
They
can.
They
could
raise
the
five
billion
dollars
without
too
much
dilution
right.
We
see
it's
super
dependent
on
the
price.
D
Right
there
is
one
good
example
how
markets
are
pretty
irrational,
so
I
I'm
not
sure
I
may
be
wrong,
but
they
remember
when
land
was
doing
migration
to
ave.
I
think
on
the
when
they
announced
migration
and
denuded
economics.
I
think
they
just
meant
an
additional
30
percent.
Maybe
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
I
checked
that
at
the
time
they
meant
that
they
diluted
by
additional
30
percent.
D
Normally
you
would
think
of
course,
price
should
crash
by
30
right,
but
because
you
know
there
was
so
much
of
fourier
about
the
protocol
and
so
on
the
price
just
kept
on
going
on,
and
it's
weird
right,
I
mean
if
we
announce
tomorrow,
you
know
we're
changing
something
slightly
and
we're
diluting
by
we're.
You
know
just
meeting
under
30
percent
of
supply,
I'm
not
sure
what
happens
but
yeah
crypto
markets
are
not
rational,
though,
and
I'm
not
suggesting
to
the
loot
maker
to
be
clear.
A
A
I
think
I
think
the
big
meme
happening
now
is
that
you
know
wait.
Stock
valuations
aren't
based
on
fundamentals,
and
then
it's
like
that.
Astronaut
guy
never
have
been
and
everybody's
getting
a
little
bit
more
obsessed
with
just
like
inflows
and
outflows
of
money
into
assets
and
those
being
the
determining
factors
for
valuation
but
yeah.
B
B
A
B
E
I
pre-agree
with
team.
If
there
was
one
slight
change
to
be
made,
there
is
one
flow
in
the
surface
buffer,
but
I'm
not
sure
there
is
a
solution
for
that.
That
would
be
for
maybe
some
to
to
find
the
solution
is
that
having
a
surplus
buffer
is
very
good
and
every
box
in
the
world
should
have
a
surplus
buffer
or
what
they
call
equity
or
capital.
E
The
only
issue
with
maker
is
when
we
trigger
the
emergency
shutdown.
We
lose
all
the
surplus
buffer,
because
every
die
holder
will
have
a
share
of
the
assets
and
not
up
to
one
dollars.
If
it's
more
than
one
dollars,
they
get
more
and
maker
holders,
we
get
zero,
so
we
pay.
We
tell
we
pay
too
much.
The
dial
does
in
this
case,
and
that's
also
an
issue
with
the
surplus
buffer.
A
Yeah,
that's
actually
a
really
good
point
yeah,
I
would
probably
fall
in
line
with
you
sub.
That's
probably
the
one
thing
I
would.
I
would
reconsider
in
the
redesign
but
yeah
it's
it
seems
like
it
really
is
just
a
game
of
being
strategic
and
and
timing
and,
having
like
a,
I
guess,
a
way
to
do
things
wisely.
A
B
Please
go
vote
both
in
the
signal
request
as
on
chain.
They
are
just,
I
don't
know
like
30
or
40
volts
voting.
This
is
insane.
We
need
more
participation,
even
from
people
who
are
just
mute
on
the
forum
or
in
the
chat
like
I
was
for
a
couple
of
years.
Go
participate,
go
educate
yourself
and
yeah
if
you're
a
shareholder.
It's
your
duty
to
vote.
It's
not
an
option.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
for
that
tim.
I
agree
go
vote
even
though
it
might
cost
a
lot
in
gas
sometimes.
Well.
Maybe
if
you
have
like
point
one
mkr,
you
can
get
away
with
not
voting,
but
if
you
have
one
or
more
half
a
more
half
or
more
go
vote
now,
I'm
actually
very
excited
for
the
governance
contract
redesign
yeah.
As
as
to
mention
we
need
delegation
yeah,
that's
going
to
be
a
good
evolution
in
the
protocol.
A
Well
we're
coming
up
at
the
top
of
the
hour
and
it
looks
like
we
covered
quite
a
lot
of
ground
here.
This
was
a
really
interesting
conversation,
and
so
again
I
just
want
to
thank
each
of
you
for
coming
on
the
call
and
all
the
viewers
for
hanging
out
with
us
and
listening,
and
I
hope
this
was
valuable
educational
for
many
of
you
and
yeah.