►
From YouTube: MakerDAO Community Meeting July 30th, 2019: Wouter Kampmann, Discussion about MCD Security Roadmap
Description
In this video, Head of Engineering at the Maker Foundation, Wouter Kampmann, joins us to talk about the recently released Bug Bounty program and the overall security roadmap for MCD.
Maker is a Decentralized Autonomous Organization(DAO) that manages the Dai Credit System 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.
If you're curious to learn more about MakerDAO explore some of the resources below:
Awesome-MakerDAO Resource Repository: https://github.com/makerdao/awesome-makerdao/blob/master/README.md
CDP Portal: https://cdp.makerdao.com/
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Governance Forum: https://vote.makerdao.com/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
A
B
A
Everybody
welcome
to
July
30th
edition
of
the
Maker
dal
community
call.
We
do
this
call
every
week
on
Tuesdays.
My
name
is
David
I.
Am
the
community
development
lead
here
at
Maker,
Dao
and
I
facilitate
these
calls?
So
if
you
don't
know
about
these
calls
already,
we
use
them
to
pretty
much
go
over,
what's
been
happening
in
the
maker
Dial
universe
for
like
the
last
week,
all
right,
so
we
go
over
everything
from
governance,
milestones,
governance
events,
technical
milestones,
partnerships,
podcasts,
videos,
things
like
that.
We
also
go
over
the
stuff.
A
That's
been
happening
in
the
maker
blog
we
go
over
highlights
from
the
community
stuff
developers
have
been
creating
around
die
cool
articles
that
came
out
cool
threads
that
have
been
happening
even
events
and
every
once
in
a
while.
We
have
a
guest,
and
today
we
do
have
a
guest.
Mr.
buuder
Kempton,
who
was
the
head
of
engineering
here
at
maker
Dow,
and
he
is
gonna
talk
a
bit
about
security
for
multi
collateral
die,
so
we're
gonna
devote
the
first,
maybe
20-30,
minutes
to
this
topic.
A
So
if
you
guys
have
been
following
along
the
maker,
blog
actually
came
out
with
a
blog
post,
announcing
the
public
bug
bounty
program.
So
to
give
you
guys
a
link
to
that
I'll
just
post
it
in
the
chat,
but
again
if
you
are
not
able
to
join
the
call
and
you're
listening
after
the
fact
in
the
thread,
I'll
post
the
link
to
the
agenda
so
you'll
be
able
to
find
any
links
that
I
talked
about
here.
A
B
Yeah
I've
been
working
with
making
mouse
since
I
believe
November
2017,
so
quite
a
while
and
yeah
I'm
here
on
the
call
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
IANA
security
that
we
released
last
week,
I
believe
and
obviously
we
also
have
a
lot
of
people
from
the
team.
I
stay
on
the
call.
So
if
there
are
questions
or
comments,
then
already
I
have
to
get
back
in
today.
Right.
A
B
Yeah,
it
means
that,
even
after
the
launch
plan
to
be
even
as
we
add
new
system,
governance
processes,
the
big
20
program,
the
layer
will
just
continue
and,
of
course,
was
very
good
reason
for
that,
as
basically
it
is
a
bug
bounty
program
for
single.
If
you
can
pack
the
system
and
you
can
slow
the
collateral,
that's
a
pretty
high
bug
bounty,
so
yeah,
it's
in
everyone's
interest,
I
believe
you
have
this
program.
A
Right
so
before
we
were
able
to
come
out
with,
like
the
public
version
of
the
bug
bounty
program,
what
were
some
of
the
steps
that
had
to
happen
because
I
know
a
lot
of
people
were
anxious
for
the
last
few
months
about
a
bug
bounty
program.
They
were
kind
of
wondering,
what's
taking
us
so
long
like
what
do
you
think
like?
Not?
What
do
you
think,
but
what
were
kind
of
the
essential
steps
before
a
program
like
this
should
have
been
launched
and.
B
The
most
important
thing
is
that
the
the
team
felt
I
comfortable
that
at
least
internally
we
already
did
all
the
necessary
checks
and
run
ran
all
the
security
checks
that
we
want
from
our
side
right,
because
I
mean
it
would
be
ashamed
to
launch
a
program
like
this
and
then
have
a
I
could
find
something
that
we
would
easily
have
been
able
to
weed
out
ourselves
and
have
to
pay
a
high
back
penalty
for
it.
So
one
and
obviously
the
security
checks
that
the
auditing
our
internal
work
for
that
it.
It
only
happens
after
development.
B
Yeah,
so
formal
verification
is
is
an
extremely
important
element,
but
this
is
very,
very
important
that
you
realize
the
limitations
of
it,
because
otherwise
it's
good
great.
It's
this
very
false
sense
of
security
and
what
formal
verification
actually
does
it's
it's
tremendously
important,
but
it's
is
very
focused
on
the
low-level
functioning
of
the
system.
B
So
when
you,
when
you
write
a
smart
contract
in
solidity,
you
have
to
compile
it
down
to
VM
code,
the
byte
code
and
that's
what
the
what
the
nodes
actually
actually
execute
and
the
quite
a
good
only
thing
it's
a
huge
thing,
but
the
only
thing
that
formal
verification
does
is.
It
makes
sure
that
the
intention
has
expressed
in
the
high-level
language
is
actually
the
behavior
of
the
low-level
byte
code
and
that
there
is
no
secondary
behavior,
no
yeah
additional
behavior
that
that's
actually
in
the
byte
codes.
B
So
when
you
realize
that,
then
it's
obvious
that
there
are
a
lot
more
things
to
add
to
that.
Definitely
because
formal
verification
is
is
limited
to
single
transactions,
and
so
it's
on
a
very
local
level.
So
you
can
imagine
that
you
can
exploit
vulnerabilities
in
the
system
that
actually
are
more
advanced,
that
are
that
involve
multiple
transactions
and
that's
something
that
you
wouldn't
catch
with
formal
verification.
The
another
thing
is
the
actual
logic.
The
business
logic
of
the
system
are
the
only
thing
that
formal
verification
does.
Is
it
tells
you
that
the
the
intention.
B
They
will
actually
build
on
top
of
the
form
of
verification
models
that
we
have
because
our
models
they
run
as
as
I
mentioned
on
the
local
level,
and
you
can
actually
apply
formal
verification
on
the
higher
level
and
the
logic
and
that's
what
they
will
do
it.
They
will
build
this
higher
level
logic,
this
logic
model
of
the
system
and
run
formal
verification
that
level
as
well.
So
that's
that's
one
thing
in
the
article
I
I
compared
it
to
to
unit
testing
versus
integration
testing.
B
B
They
are
very
valuable
partner
in
this
because
they
have
been
working
with
us
for
since
the
beginning,
basically
right
so
single
class
will
die
and
then
throughout
the
the
first
audit
as
well,
that
we
did
some
some
time
back
on
the
first
version
of
the
curve
collateral
done
and
now
that
we
do
have
formal
verification.
These
two
levels
trail
of
bits
will
be
focusing
especially
on
the
aspects
that
are
not
covered
by
formal
verification.
A
Thank
you.
That
was
a
really
really
great
answer.
So
sorry,
it's
this
bug,
bug
bounty
program.
It
was
opened
up
privately
in
early
June,
writes,
who,
like
a
handful
of
select
researchers
and
now
it's
public
and
with
the
public.
One
I
think
the
maximum
bounty
is
I,
think
fifty
thousand
for
a
critical
bug
and
that's
like
super
clearly
defined
on
the
hacker
one
comm
page,
where
we
actually
list
all
the
details
for
the
bounty
program.
But
do
you
see
the
bouncy
for
the
critical
bug
increasing?
What's
the
what's
kind
of?
B
That's
that's
a
very
interesting
question,
so
actually
there
are
two
things
to
consider
right.
So
it's
the
bug,
bounty
amount,
but
also
the
scope
of
the
the
program
and
both
will
be
increasing.
So
currently
we
started
with
the
scope
that
includes
the
core
contracts
and
then
some
of
the
the
most
important
additional
contracts,
especially
the
auctions,
for
example.
B
Now
there
are
a
lot
of
contracts
currently
that
are
netskope
yeah,
because
what
I
said
in
the
beginning,
which
is
that
we
haven't
finalized
our
own
security
checks,
so
we
yeah
we
will
be
adding
to
that
scope
as
as
we
progress
and
our
own
audits
progressed,
the
debug
bounty
amount.
So
there
are
there
are.
There
are
three
ways
that
we
actually
calculated
this
and
it's
yeah
and
in
the
end,
it's
much
more
an
art
and
a
science.
B
But
one
way
to
look
at
it
is
the
potential
damage
that
that
you
can
mitigate
by
by
having
these
programs
and
obviously
that
one,
if
you
calculate
like
the
damage
that
you
I,
could
avoid
by
catching
a
bug
that
would
otherwise
be
exploited
in
the
production
environment,
that
that's
potential
doesn't
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
right.
So
that's
huge.
The
second
way
of
looking
at
it
is
simply
from
kind
of
competitive
point
of
view
for
the
the
hackers
for
the
researchers
so
they're
these
actors.
They
will
be
working
on
on
some
projects
anyway
right.
B
B
Might
this
chance
might
be
quite
small
that
you
actually
find
something
at
this
point
but
from
our
competitive
point
of
view,
we're
already
in
the
range
of
our
competitors.
So
it's
already
quite
attractive
at
this
point
to
join
the
program,
knowing
that
it
will
continue
indefinitely.
So
did
the
time
that
you
invest
as
a
researcher
is
not
lost.
If
you
don't
find
a
bug,
let's
say
before
I'm
City
launch,
you
can
use
that
knowledge
to
find
out
the
bugs
later
and
our
yeah.
B
Actually
I'm
not
too
certain
about
that,
be
the
the
scope
that
we
currently
started
with
is
one
that
the
team
feels
comfortable
about
that.
We
have
properly
checked
now.
I
would
need
to
look
at,
for
example,
the
adapter
contracts,
sill
adapter
contracts,
the
collateral,
adapter
contracts,
Jam,
join
and
so
on.
B
They
have
not
been
formally
verified
yeah
to
the
extent
that
is
possible,
because
this
is
actually
a
type
of
contract
that
you
run
into
the
limitations
of
formal
verification,
and
the
reason
is
that
is
that
the
contracts
that
they
connect
to
these
external
systems
write
to
the
external
collateral
contracts.
So
that
would
basically
mean
if
you
want
to
fully
cover
the
behavior
of
the
adapter
contract
that
you
would
have
to
include
the
entire
behavior
of
the
system
that's
connected
to
it.
B
That
was
one
of
the
starting
principles
on
which
we
based
the
development
of
the
city
contracts,
so
yeah,
that's
where
we
will
run
into
the
limitations
of
formal
verification
and
for
this
contract
it's
it's
extra,
important
that
they
are
checked
and
that
they
are
included
in
the
bug
bounty
program.
So
we
already
reviewed
them
ourselves
and
yeah.
They
are
already
included,
even
though
we
cannot
fully
formally
verify
them
so.
A
A
B
That's
a
very
hard
question
to
answer:
I
think
like
could
we
do?
Theoretically?
Obviously,
we
can't
write
because
it's
a
matter
of
I
mean
if
you,
if
you
make
it
a
principle
that
you
do
not
like,
for
example,
as
the
G
theorem
community
evolves
and
be
together.
We
take
this
decision
that
we
won't
tolerate
any
contracts
that
will
be.
That
will
not
be
formally
verified
that
we
can
do
that
right.
B
B
So
we
we
actually
committed
to
the
plot
are
formally
verifying
all
the
contracts
that
we
can
formally
verify
within
what
is
technically
feasible,
but
for
other
systems
it
might
not
make
sense
to
you
really
maintain
that
level
of
security,
because
if
the
value
that's
locked
up
in
the
system
might
not
really
be
worth
it
and
I
think
you,
you
will
always
have
the
mix-up.
What
will
happen
is
that
it
will
probably
get
easier
as
we
definitely
as
we
maybe
switch
to
other
programming
languages
to
express
the
logic
of
smart
contracts.
B
A
Nice,
by
the
way,
anybody
in
the
call
feel
free
to
ask
why
louder
questions
I'm
kind
of
just
football
on
my
own
questions,
but
feel
free
to
jump
in
yeah
cool.
So
since
the
bug
bounty
program
will
be
continuing
indefinitely
and
and
that
maximum
bounty
amount
is
also
going
to
increase
as
the
risk
of
loss
increases
right,
like
it's
gonna,
be
a
lot
more
on
main
that
MCD
than
it
is
right
now,
as
you
know,
not
you
not
all
the
contracts
are
launched
it's
on
Cove
on.
A
So
my
question
is:
who
funds
that,
like
I,
know
existentially?
The
community
is
expecting
that
the
foundation
winds
down
after
the
launch
of
MCD.
So
do
you
have
any
insight
into
how,
for
example,
this
bug
bug
bounty
program
would
be
funded,
maybe
50
100
years
out
like
would
it
be?
Would
it
be
governance
funding
it?
Would
it
be
some
other
special
purpose
entity?
B
Yeah,
that's
that's!
That
would
be
really
speculative
right,
but
Sam
yeah,
every
I
think
it's
specifically
for
the
bug
bounty
program.
It's
it's
hard
to
say,
but
if
you
put
it
a
little
bit
broader
and
talk
about
security
in
general,
I
think
that's
just
part
of
what
we
need
to
figure
out,
as
as
part
of
the
governance
process
within
the
community.
How
we
organize
that
I
alluded
a
little
bit
to
it
earlier.
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
setting
your
standards
to
degree
as
community.
B
What
is
necessary
from
a
security
point
of
view
and
then
really
apply
all
the
tricks
that
that
you
have
for
funding
open
source
projects
right
so
I
think
it
will
very
much
be
a
mix
of
commercial
commercial
companies
just
paying
for
pieces
of
it
because
they
they
benefit
from
it.
So,
for
example,
the
collateral
adaptors.
That's
it's
very
obvious
like
if
you,
if
you
have
a
token
that
you
want
to
have
included
as
as
collateral,
then
you
might
find
the
corporation
and
that's
actually
I'm
happy
to
pay
for
that
right.
B
And
if
you
said
that
to
give
the
standard
as
a
community,
then
they
know
they
know
the
bar,
they
have
to
meet
so
it's
yeah.
But
that's
that's
one
example
other
things
that
have
more
to
do
with
the
core
system.
I
think,
as
we
add
additional
upgrades
to
the
system,
there
won't
be
a
lot
of
variation
and,
like
the
size
of
the
upgrades,
are
the
smaller
upgrades
that
might
actually
be
the
most
critical
ones.
I
think
will
be
scrutinized
and
verified
by
the
community.
That
won't
be
a
problem.
B
The
the
larger
additions
for
those
we
might
want
to
put
a
process
in
place,
for
example,
and
make
improvement
a
proposal
process
that
will
combine
the
really
the
purpose
of
gathering
the
requirements
seeking
the
right,
a
party
to
execute,
to
implement
the
functionality
and
then
once
again
adhere
to
your
security
standards
and
include
that
as
part
of
the
the
package
that
needs
to
be
delivered.
So
I
think
it's
really.
It's
really
just
a
subsection
of
the
much
bigger
question
of
how
you
can
maintain
development
and
secure
developments
in
an
open-source
community
as
a
cheering
yeah.
A
That's
a
really
great
point:
that's
a
really
great
point
at
all
kind
of
transitions
into
that
whole:
open
source,
community,
driven
effort.
So
there's
a
question.
The
chat
from
Jordan
last
do
any
of
these
languages
that
will
make
formally
verifying
smart
contracts
available.
Yet
when
would
these
languages
be
available?
Are
you
referring
to
languages
that
will
be
possible
on
the
US
on
virtual
machine.
B
B
So
I
definitely
would
like
to
see
more
research
into
that,
because
I
think
that
community
would
tremendously
benefit
from
a
language
that
has,
for
example,
stricter
type
conditions,
then
then
solidity,
which
basically
has
none
and
someone
with
these
language
be
available.
This
is
really.
This
is
an
ongoing
thing.
B
There
are
some
work
available
already
and
I'm
sure
that
we'll
do
a
lot
more
research
and
yeah
so
switch
me
to
he.
Wasn't
that
one
it
might.
It
might
benefit
this
because,
as
we
start
using
this
more
generic
framework,
basically
more
tools
might
be
readily
available.
So
we
use
one
formal
verification
framework,
but
if
you
start
using
a
virtual
machine
execution
language
that
actually
is
also
used
outside
of
the
context
of
a
theorem,
then
a
lot
more
tools
become
available,
so
that
might
be
a
boost
and
yeah
I'm.
Definitely
looking
forward
to
that.
A
So
let
me
just
read
the
questions
out:
lots
of
the
audio
catches
it
so
our
Frank
had
one
but
I'm.
Gonna
just
asks
Jordan's
first,
since
it's
connected.
So
what
you
just
answered,
for
example,
would
Russ
compile
to
Wasson
be
better
for
formal
verification
and
it's
nice
that
webassembly
itself
is
formally
identified
right.
Yeah.
B
Because
and
it's
yeah
it's
exactly
as
you
say
so,
webassembly
itself
is
already
formally
verified,
so
that
kind
of
puts
one
basic
building
block
in
place.
If
you
have
a
language
that
actually
has
compiler
that
is
formally
verified,
for
example,
then
you
can
look
at
the
higher
level
constraints
constraints
on
the
level
of
the
higher
the
higher
level
language
and
that
might
open
a
lot
more
information
that
you
have
which
allows
more
automation
and
which
also
it
it
drinks
the
design
space
right.
B
So,
as
a
developer,
you,
you
cannot
do
certain
things
that
are
inherently
unsafe,
so
one
I
have
to
say:
I'm,
not
really
certain
at
roost
in
particular,
but
even
though,
with
formal
verification
about
head
level.
Other
aspects
also
matter
a
lot
of
automation
in
terms
of
performance
and
in
terms
of
constraints
on
the
design
space
in
the
first
place.
Yes,
alright.
A
Cool
so
I'm
gonna
do
two
more
questions:
I'm
gonna
do
Frank's
and
then
I'm
gonna
give
one
more
on
my
own
and
then
we're
gonna
cut.
It
short,
even
though
this
is
a
really
really
wonderful
conversation,
so
Frank
asks
is
there
a
is?
Are
there
sorry
if
there
are
performance
issues
with
formal
verification?
Will
there
be
a
centralized,
kill,
switch
and
MCD
to
stop
activity?
If
AK
is
detected,
I.
B
B
Yes,
there
are
way
that
the
system
is
designed
that
running
number
of
two
delays
working
with
delays,
for
example,
is
a
very
potent
tool
to
to
reduce
risk
like
that
too.
But
the
the
trick
really
is
that
you
have
to
look
at
specific
cases
and
see
for
each
of
these
cases.
What
is
the
best
defense
against
the
delays
might
especially
be
useful
for
everything
that
happens
on
the
governance
layer
and
that
might
go
wrong
in
the
governance
layer.
B
If
you
build
them,
if
you
have
been
building
that
delay
before
changes
are
actually
applied,
then
yeah,
you
can
monitor
the
system
and
then
actually
stop
any
action
that
would
have
tremendous
damaging
effects
on
other
levels
brings
out
that.
Let's
say
that
in
the
very
core
of
the
system,
something
is
wrong.
If
there
is
a
vulnerability
there,
then
still
you
might
want
to
really
narrow
down
that
scope.
So,
for
example,
could
be
that
there
is
a
problem
with
a
particular
collateral
type.
In
that
case,
you
want
to
shut
down.
B
B
And
one
of
the
so
I
talked
about
like
additional
measures
of
the
perform
of
aira
fication
right,
but
what
I'm
currently
talking
about
looking
at
these
specific
attack
vectors
and
then
have
a
scenario
that
he
that
you
know
how
to
react
in
all
these
different
cases.
So
that's
actually
the
kind
of
threat
modeling!
That's
that's
part
of
our
security.
Remember
that
wasn't
even
mentioned
in
the
blog
but
said
that
were
currently
also
looking
into
so.
Yes,.
A
So
cool
I
have
one
more
question
for
you
der
that
I
really
want
to
ask,
even
though
we're
over
time
so
I
also
read
in
the
bug
bounty
announcement
that
there
is
a
the
fourth
track.
Is
an
integration
partner
program
to
test
MCD
in
collaboration
with,
like
our
closest
partners,
in
a
realistic
environment?
Can
you
just
talk
a
bit
about
that,
like
what's
the
scope
of
that?
When
does
that
begin?
Just
yeah.
B
Yes,
this
really
is
something
that
we
need
to
do
in
order
to
prepare
our
integration
partners
and
the
business
partners
for
the
the
launch
at
MCD,
because
security
doesn't
security,
concerns
then,
and
at
the
boundaries
of
our
own
system
right.
So
if
we
have,
for
example,
application
partners
who
employ
an
integration
that
contains
some
critical
vulnerability,
then
that's
just
as
as
much
a
menace
to
the
system
versus
vulnerabilities
that
are
within
the
MCD
system.
B
So
you
really
have
to
be
careful
that
you
that
you
inform
your
integration
of
business
partners,
so
they
they
properly
integrate
with
the
MCD
system,
and
integration
also
has
this
additional
challenge
that
it's
really
hard
to
to
simulate
this.
So
you
can
do
this
on
the
covent
does
not
work.
You
can
do
this
in
a
QA
environment,
but
ultimately,
because
you
have
these
multiple
young,
multiple
systems
that
interact
yet,
it
really
is
an
art
to
get
us
as
close
as
possible
to
the
production
environment.
A
B
I
guess
what
you
would
expect
that
with
everyone
I
would
definitely
want
everyone
to
participate
in
the
bug
bounty
program.
So
also,
if
you
know
people
who
might
be
interested,
let
them
know
and
yeah
just
be
aware
that
the
the
bug
bounty
program
will
be
running
indefinitely
and
that
we
will
be
increasing
the
amounts
so
yeah.
You
shouldn't
feel
demotivated
if
you
feel
that
it's
a
lot
of
investment
of
your
time
and
that
the
chances
of
actually
finding
something
with
all
the
other
security
checks
in
place
are
pretty
small.
B
B
B
Someone
who
has
a
background
in
a
smart
contract
development
and
yeah
is
able
to
work
on
higher
levels
or
work
with
stakeholders
to
figure
out
requirements
and
I
work
with
the
teams
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
best
possible
technical
implementations
and
then
we're
still
hiring
for
two
additional
smart
contract
developers
and
our
teams
yeah.
If
you
know
any
candidates,
please
send
them
to
our
websites
and
well
we'll
happily
talk
to
them
right.
B
A
You
for
having
me
all
right,
so
the
next
portion
of
the
call
we're
gonna
go
through
all
the
stuff.
That's
going
on
this
week,
so
I
hope
you
enjoyed
that
cuz
I
did
I,
definitely
learned
a
bunch
from
uder.
He
is
the
man
so
uh-huh
before
I.
Go
on
just
reminder
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
at
any
point.
Questions
are
welcome,
but
I'm
gonna
go
through
kind
of
the
usual
agenda
that
we
do
every
week.
So
first
we're
gonna
go
through
some
governance
stuff.
This
week
we
had
our
usual
Thursday
governance
and
risk
call.
A
We
posted
a
summary
of
a
written
summary
of
that
as
well
and
I
think
that,
if
you've
been
following
governance
and
maker
you'll
know
that
we
created
a
forum
website
on
this
course.
So
the
URL
is
super
simple.
It's
like
all
of
the
other
maker
front-ends
instead
of
CDP
maker
comm,
it's
just
form
maker.com
and
so
it'll
link
you
to
our
pretty
much
our
new
forum.
Where
we're
focusing
all
of
our
discussions,
all
our
posts,
all
of
the
current
issues
in
governance.
You
can
find
all
of
them
in
that
forum,
so
we're
gonna
be
posting.
A
So
as
for
votes
this
week
on
Friday,
we
had
a
vote
put
up
for
a
decrease
of
the
stability
fee
by
200
basis
points
which
is
2%
down
to
18
and
a
half
percent
per
year.
So
currently
there
was
earlier
in
the
weekend
around
26
K
voting
for
the
current
proposal,
but
the
legacy
proposal
had
78,000
maker
blocking
it.
So
if
you
don't
know
much
about
maker
voting,
executive
votes
run
on
a
continuous
voting
system.
A
So
the
way
that
it
works
is
any
new
proposal
needs
more
MKR
in
it
than
the
legacy
proposal
and
I'm
I'm
totally
simplifying
this
a
little
bit
to
pass
so
currently
for
a
proposal
to
pass.
It
has
to
beat
78,000
mkr,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
by
the
time
it
hits
like
40,000
mkr,
maybe
like
30,000
of
that
MK
are
moved
from
the
old
proposal
so
really
like.
As
more
people
engage
in
the
voting
system,
the
scales
shift
and
I'd
realistically
see
something
like
50
k.
A
Mk
are
needed,
assuming
that
some
of
them
care
from
the
legacy
proposal
moves
but
but
yeah,
so
currently
we're
still
sitting
at
20
and
a
half
percent,
and
since
today
is
Tuesday
I.
If
you
guys
are
already
used
to
the
cadence
you'll
know
that
yesterday
a
governance
poll
came
out,
so
governance
polls
are
a
way
that
maker
governance
seeks
soft
consensus
from
MPR
holders,
so
basically
it
just
informs
what
the
next
executive
vote
is
going
to
be,
and
so
this
yesterday
we
launched
a
poll.
It
has
nine
options
to
change
the
stability
fee.
A
You
could
vote
for
options
between
16
and
a
half
percent,
so
it's
24
and
a
half
percent.
The
vote
ends
on
Thursday
at
4
p.m.
UTC
or
12:00
p.m.
Eastern
Standard
Time,
pretty
much
Thursday
at
the
same
time
that
this
call
starts
right
and
so
right
now
it
looks
like
the
governance
poll
is
showing
a
winning
vote
for
18
and
a
half
percent,
which
is
actually
the
same
thing
as
the
executive
vote.
That's
running
so
looks
like
the
community
is
still
in
agreement.
A
So
right
now
we're
seeing
a
way
more,
a
market
way
closer
to
like
the
reality
of
the
supply
and
demand
of
dye
in
general.
He
also
talked
a
bit
about
the
impending
change
for
how
we
handle
stability.
Few
changes
in
multi
collateral
die.
He
talked
about
the
fact
that
scaling
maker
Dow
also
involves
things
like
what
fluidity
has
done
this
week
and
I'll
mention
a
bit
about
that
later.
A
But
they
are,
they
created
kind
of
a
white
paper
and
a
method
to
introduce
tokenized
securities
to
protocols,
and
that
includes
maker
down,
but
it's
not
exclusive
to
make
it
out,
but
regardless
they're
testing
this
with
Treasury
bills,
which
would
be
really
really
cool
tab
I'll
make
her
down
I'm
sorry,
my
voice
is
a
little
bit
messed
up
today,
so
yeah,
so
he
definitely
read
his
narrative.
It's
always
a
definitely
informative.
A
It's
probably
a
15-minute
read,
probably
lost
if,
if
you're
quicker
than
reading
than
I
am
besides,
that
we
have
our
governance
at
a
glance,
thread
updated.
So
governance
at
a
glance
is
a
thread:
that's
up
capital
by
a
user
that
goes
by
the
name
of
long
for
wisdom
and
and
so
two
new
things
were
added
there
this
week,
including
a
new
carrot,
category
called
current
affairs,
and
so
this
week
we
saw
kind
of
not
a
vulnerability
but
a
potential
issue
that
needed
to
be
addressed
in
the
voting
system.
A
A
But
if
you
want
to
dig
deeper
into
it,
I
linked
the
thread
in
the
agenda
for
this
call
which
which
you
could
find
on
the
forum
thread
for
this
call,
and
also
on
the
current
agenda
for
the
current
community
meeting,
because
that
agenda
doc
has
all
the
old
agendas
basically
down
below.
So
you
could
just
scroll
down
and
look
for
the
date
of
this
meeting.
You
could
see
what
I'm
talking
about,
but
the
thread
is
there
and
besides
that,
there's
also
the
question
of
creating
a
Twitter.
A
A
community
managed
Twitter
account
called
@mk
our
gov
to
keep
maker
holders
updated
and
involved
in
regards
to
the
governance.
So
this
is
something
that
everybody
has
kind
of
been
thinking
about
solutions
around,
which
is
how
do
you
get
MKR
holders
to
be
informed
about
stuff,
that's
happening
in
maker
governance,
and
this
is
kind
of
one
effort
to
do
that
so
quadratics.
A
He
grabbed
the
at
MKR
gov
handle
on
Twitter,
and
the
idea
right
now
is
to
create
a
bot
similar
to
how
what
is
it
maker,
CDP
bot
or
there's
this
really
famous
MakerBot
on
Twitter,
but
basically
have
a
bot
announcement,
votes
proposals
come
up
and
then
also
have
kind
of
manual
input
for
interesting
threads
and
discussions,
and
just
have
a
maker
governance.
Twitter
handle
yeah,
make
your
die
bot.
That's
right,
make
your
dive
on
mark
the
founders,
Nicole
yeah.
A
Thank
you
for
the
correction,
we're
appreciate
it
yeah
make
your
die,
but
it's
a
great
pot
and
and
so
yeah.
Hopefully
we
can
have
something
like
that.
For
governance
as
well
to
kind
of
combat
voter
apathy
and
try
to
increase
engagement
with
MKR
holders,
so
that's
about
it
for
governance,
I'm,
going
to
jump
into
some
partners
and
integrations
this
week.
The
most
exciting
one
in
my
opinion
is
fluidity,
so
they
introduced
something
called
the
token
asset
portfolio
and
it's
basically
a
model
to
leverage
real
world
assets
in
defy
credit
facilities.
A
So
they
put
out
a
white
paper
and
it's
basically,
you
know
a
construction
for
how
to
handle
real-world
assets,
tokenize
them
and
also
have
recourse
right
and
also
have
like
all
the
things
necessary
to
actually
use
them
in
a
protocol
like
maker
Dow.
So
definitely
read
through
that.
It's
super,
exciting
I
think
they
did
their
first
pilot
transaction
on
:,
so
to
prove
that
this
kind
of
construction
works.
So
if
you're
interested
in
that
check
it
out,
we
also
had
another
wild
integration,
everex
they're,
a
Thielen
based
wallet
and
they
implemented
the
dye
token.
A
We
also
have
a
couple
of
layer.
Two
organizations
that
I
guess
made
made
themselves
a
compatible
with
dye,
so
tokamak
network
partners
would
make
it
out
I
think
they're
a
Korean
layer
to
solution
on
they
use
a
plasmid
so
like
make
zero
fee
payments
would
die.
I
think
they're
pretty
similar
to
connects
them,
like
all
those
guys,
so
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
layer,
two
stuff
which
is
really
exciting
to
me
and
then
the
other
layer
to
one
is
Matic
Network,
so
they
have
dyes.
The
first
token
supported
on
their
plasma.
A
Abell
enabled
Matic
side
chains,
so
that's
exciting
I
hope
to
see
pretty
cool
stuff
built
out
of
these
things.
Yeah
that's
about
it
for
partners
and
integrations
from
the
Maker
blog.
We
already
covered
all
the
bug,
bounty
stuff,
so
rewind
the
recording,
if
you're
listening
in-
and
you
want
to
catch
details
on
that
so
yeah
now
I'm
gonna
jump
quickly
for
the
last
ten
minutes
of
the
call
and
so
highlights
from
the
community
and
some
real
life
events.
A
So
if
you've
been
checking
out
the
maker
subreddit,
we
saw
that
Callisto
Network
is
voluntarily
on
their
own
performing
a
security
on
it.
Audit
on
the
die
smart
contract,
which
is
pretty
cool,
they
announced
it
earlier
this
week
and
I.
Think
they're
gonna
be
announcing
the
results
in
like
another
week
or
two.
A
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
pull
together,
their
third
pool
has
closed
and
they
have
a
third
winner
and
I,
and
it's
really
exciting
to
see
lossless
lotteries
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
have
access
to
participating
in
one,
but
pull
together
is
here
and
now
I
can
participate
it
and
and
it's
really
freaking
cool
but
they're
opening
their
fourth.
Now
it's
gonna
be
the
last
one
on
their
current
infrastructure
and
they're
gonna
be
upgrading
their
entire
project
and
they
have
a
blog
post.
A
That
I
will
link
here
that
talks
a
bit
about
it,
but
this
is
gonna,
be
the
last
pool
for
for
this
kind
of
construction
and
the
next
one
is
going
to
be
even
cooler
with
cooler
features.
I
think
they're
gonna
do
stuff
like
rollover
where,
if
you
bought
a
ticket,
you
don't
have
to
like,
withdraw
and
then
repurchase
tickets
for
the
next
pool.
A
You
could
just
click
an
opt-in
option
where,
if
you
didn't
win
it
just
rolls
over
and
you
wait
for
the
next
pool
and
you
could
do
this
at
infinite
amounts
of
times,
presumably
but
yeah.
So
that's
exciting.
It's
cool
to
see
than
making
progress.
We
also
saw
a
really
interesting
developer
creation
that
I'm
still
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around.
A
It's
called
die
hard
and
it's
a
borderless
unkillable
crypto
Fiat
gateway,
and
it
uses
this
really
interesting
game
theory,
I'm,
still
kind
of
a
skeptical
because
I
don't
fully
understand
it,
but
it
involves
basically
the
purchaser
of
the
dye
for
Fiat
to
walk
a
third
of
the
value
of
the
trade
in
dye
and
yeah
I'm.
Not
gonna.
Try
to
explain
it
because
I
fully
understand
it
myself,
but
check
it
out.
It's
really
really
interesting.
A
A
So
they
did
a
really
great
video
kind
of
narrating
the
buyer
side
and
then
narrating
the
seller
side
and
showing
you
how
the
whole
thing
works
so
yeah.
As
for
articles
and
threads,
so
articles
we
saw
I
saw
like
a
few
notable
ones.
I
only
put
three:
when
will
we
see
a
defy
bank?
So
this
was
a
pretty
cool
sort
of
think
piece.
A
But
besides
that
there
was
also
this
two-part
series
on
crypto
credit
and
lending
platforms,
whether
your
funds
are
safe.
So
part,
one
goes
into
all
the
decentralized
credit
and
lending
platforms
and
then
part
two
goes
into
all
the
centralized
credit
and
lending
platforms.
So
you
know
as
defy
grows
as
defy
becomes
a
thing.
A
A
lot
of
consumers
are
going
to
be
exposed
to
these
new
financial
options
that
they
didn't
have
before,
and
it's
really
important
for
users
to
be
educated
on
the
risks
around
their
funds
being
used
in
these
different
protocols
and
companies,
and
it's
important
to
explain
to
users
that
they
need
to
differentiate
between
even
a
simple
differentiation
between
decentralized
and
centralized.
You
know
solutions
for
this
is.
A
So
there
was
one
thread
well,
there
was
one
type
of
thread
that
has
been
super
popular
this
week
on
the
subreddit
and
I
thought
it's
very
important
to
to
kind
of
call
it
out
and
address
it.
So,
following
the
coinbase
earn
program
for
the
CDP's,
we
saw
a
ton
of
people
not
figuring
out
how
to
close
their
CDP's
and-
and
I
and
the
basic
reason
for
it
is
because
the
second
you
open
the
CDP,
even
with
the
smallest
amount,
because
your
interest
is
basically
accruing
block
by
block.
A
A
Where
was
it
sorry
about
that
yeah?
So
only
one
event
within
this
week
and
it's
in
South,
Korea
and
sale
and
our
mandu
from
business
development
is
going
to
be
there.
So
it's
a
maker
Dow
and
bean
community
meetup
and
besides
that
we're
gonna
be
participating
in
two
bigger
events
in
the
coming
months:
Berlin
blockchain
week,
it's
coming
up
in
a
couple
weeks.
That's
from
the
19th
to
the
20th
of
August.
I
will
be
there.
A
So
if
you're
there
hit
me
up
and
we
can
get
coffee
and
talk
about
maker
and
yeah,
we
could
we
could
synergize.
Also
we're
gonna
be
participating
in
Osaka
and
October
from
the
8th
to
the
11th.
That's
DEFCON
5
and
more
details
will
roll
out
about
that
closer
becomes
October,
so
yeah,
that's
about
it
and
we're
four
minutes
to
the
hour
and
I
covered
everything
in
the
agenda.
I'm
happy
so
I'm
gonna
open
up
to
you
guys.