►
Description
## Agenda
We will be joined by @LongForWisdom @charlesstlouis and a few others to talk about options for improving the monthly Governance Cycle.
## Information
MIP3: Monthly Governance Cycle: https://github.com/makerdao/mips/blob/master/MIP3/mip3.md#mip3-governance-cycle
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
You
know
and
that's
what
this
meeting
is
about,
so
I'm
gonna
invite
long
for
wisdom,
peyton
pretty
much
everybody
on
this
call
to
yeah
to
to
start
this
discussion,
but
yeah.
This
call
is
mainly
gonna,
be
a
discussion.
It's
not
really
to
be
a
presentation
by
a
single
person
or
anything
like
that
so
yeah.
A
I
guess
I
want
to
start
off
by
just
giving
it
to
long,
because
I
know
long
being
the
current
governance
facilitator
at
maker,
dao
and
who's
been
involved
in
a
lot
of
these
conversations
about
how
to
improve
the
monthly
governance
cycle.
He
has
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
ideas
about
about
it,
and
maybe
I
don't
know
long,
do
you
want
to
take
it
from
here
or
should
I
do
like
a
general
overview
of
what
the
monthly
governance
cycle
is?
B
C
C
A
A
Okay
cool,
so
here's
the
three
governance
cycle-
mip:
it
was
ratified
back
in
june
july
crap,
what's
5
may
yeah
may
may
2nd
of
2020.
So
you
know
last
year
and
and
here
is
basically
the
breakdown-
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
entire
map,
but
I
do
want
to
go
through.
I
think
there's
actually
a
graphic.
A
B
B
B
The
reason
so
I'll
leave
a
slight
reason
for
something
I
guess
and
describe
what's
there.
So
we
have
those
inclusion
polls
that
take
place
for
three
days
on
week.
Two,
these
this
kind
of
one
inclusion
poll
per
proposal
or
proper
or
per
set
of
proposals
since
they're,
sometimes
grouped,
and
we
basically
each
proposal
has
to
pass
this
poll
before
it
continues
to
the
before
it
continues
to
the
next
stage
in
the
governance
cycle
in
week.
B
A
One
caveat
that
that
should
be
mentioned
with
that
executive
vote:
the
bundled
executive
vote
that
happens
here
in
week,
four,
so
that
executive
vote
has
an
expire
expiration
date,
so
it
only
runs
for
four
days.
It's
the
only
executive
vote
in
maker
governance
that
has
an
expiration
date.
Everything
else.
A
Oh
yeah
yeah,
I
guess
yeah
you're
right
30
days
for
the
other
ones
and
yeah.
I
think
part
of
the
stress
part
of
the
conversation
was
that
these
last
few
governance
cycles
we've
been
coming
really
really
close
to
that
four
day.
Expiration
and
it's
not
clear
whether
it's
because
of
voter
apathy
or
gas
issues
or
a
combination
of
a
number
of
things.
B
D
I
just
wanted
to
add
a
kind
of
like
summary
of
kind
of
the
logic
behind
why
the
current
decision
for
this
type
of
structure
was
chosen.
So
I
mean
in
general,
part
of
myth.
3's
motivation
was
to
provide
this
kind
of
awareness
or
notification
for
governance
activities
for
mkr
holders
to
kind
of
stay
informed
on
relevant
topics
participate
in
voting
at
any
point
during
the
cycle,
even
if
they're
busy
or
time
constrained.
D
Knowing
that
the
people
who
have
participated
in
the
past
have
already
been
informed
and
made
these
decisions,
and
so
on.
So
so,
depending
on
what
kind
of
participation,
users
or
governance
community
members
want
to
do,
they
can
join
in
voice
their
opinion
throughout
the
entirety
of
the
governance
cycle
and
still
have
that
impact.
D
Obviously,
the
impact
at
the
beginning
is
a
little
easier
at
the
inclusion
poll
stage
where
these
users
decide
what
they
want
to
bundle
together
into
a
next
stage.
Governance
goal,
so
kind
of
serves
as
that
threshold
to
necessitate
the
attention
of
a
governance
poll
later
on
and
also
acts
as
a
filter
to
kind
of
remove
any
proposals
that
people
don't
like
individually.
D
And
finally,
the
executive
vote
is
just
when
the
community
kind
of
gives
that
final
stamp
of
approval
and
allows
it
to
be
implemented.
Basically,
so
that's
generally
how
I
like
to
summarize
the
f3
governance
cycle,
but
I
am
definitely
interested
to
talk
more
about
how
we
can
improve
it
and
what
the
kind
of
current
problems
are
like
long
and
david
just
mentioned,.
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
one
big
criticism
that
I
hear
from
everybody
is
this
idea
that
all
right
we
have
in
inclusion
polls
for
the
individual,
mips
and
sub
proposals.
Then
we
have
a
bundle
poll,
that's
a
governance
poll
that
bundles
everything
together
and
then
we
have
another
bundle
poll,
that's
an
executive
and
that's
three
levels
of
voting
for
the
same
thing
and
people.
The
main
criticism
is:
is
that
too
much?
Is
that
creating
too
much
noise,
and
is
that
actually
contributing
to
people's
lack
of
engagement.
B
So
if
you
then
get
to
the
point
where
you
change
this
governance
cycle
to
be
faster,
then
there's
no
real
reason
to
have
different
cycles.
And
it's
because,
like
as
kind
of
charles
kind
of
laid
out
like
there
are
advantages
to
having
a
longer
cycle,
in
addition
to
a
shorter
cycle,
mainly
that
it
gives
more
people
more
chance
to
participate.
A
Can
I
actually
add
just
a
little
bit
of
of
context
to
that
so
for
mip,
three,
that's
the
monthly
governance
cycle
and
if
you
are
interested
in
the
other
governance
cycle,
that
long
is
mentioning
he's
mentioning
the
weekly
governance
cycle
and
that
has
been
outlined
in
mip
16
and
we
passed
that
back
in
july
of
2020,
so
I'll
post.
The
link
to
that
also
here
in
the
chat.
B
B
There's
also
like
security
implications
for
the
protocol
as
well,
because
having
kind
of
three
executive
votes
in
the
space
of
like
10
days
12
days,
whatever
it
is,
is
kind
of
a
little
bit
more
risky
and
that
it
splits
the
mkr
across
various
hats.
It's
just
getting
a
little
bit
technical,
but
basically
you
kind
of
want
in
the
make
protocol.
You
want
as
much
mkr
as
possible
to
be
on
one
proposal,
because
that
makes
it
harder
for
other
people
to
pass
proposals
which
could
be
malicious.
C
So
I
actually
have
a
question:
has
there
been
analysis
around
like
what
the
current
kind
of
voter
outcomes
have
been
in
terms
of
like
the
experience?
So
I
feel
that
we're
trying
to
there's
a
lot
of
variables
that
are
adding
up
like
there's
a
lot
of
things
we
don't
know,
but
maybe
there's
a
way
we
can
try
to
like
segment
some
of
these
and
kind
of
try
to
test
through
through
them.
C
So
something
that
when
oh,
I'm
thinking
sam
had
mentioned,
you
know,
like
perhaps
us
rethinking
this
executive
vote
area
was
that
he
said.
Oh,
I
look
through
some
of
the
past
votes
and,
like
you
know,
it's
almost
all
unanimous
right.
So
maybe
some
of
these
data
points,
if
you
guys
have
any
and
you
can
share
with
us-
this-
can
give
us
more
insight
to
like,
what's
just
generally
happening
in
terms
of
voter
activity,.
B
Yeah,
so
so,
okay,
we're
saying
we
haven't
done
any
sort
of
you
know
like
official
kind
of
data
analysis
to
try
and
figure
out
what
is
going
on
on
chain.
Just
because
it's
moderately
complex,
we
just
don't
go
around
to
it
kind
of
anecdotally.
It
does
seem,
as
kind
of
sam
said,
that
most
proposals
pass
right.
B
Like
anything,
we
failed
to
pass
an
executive
in
like
ages
like
not
in
the
last
like
sort
of
three
to
six
months
at
the
very
least,
which
kind
of
I
mean
implies
can
apply
a
couple
of
things
right.
It
can
either
imply
that's
everyone's
super
aligned
and
happy,
or
it
could
imply
that's
kind
of
said
in
the
sidebar.
You
know.
B
Maybe
it's
just
people
are
so
fatigued
that
they
don't
read
the
executive
vote
and
just
wait
on
it,
assuming
that
it's
fine,
which
I
wouldn't
recommend,
but
it's
obviously
you
know
not
something
that
we
can
control
so
yeah
I
mean
in
terms
of
data.
I
don't
think
we
really
have
anything
kind
of
harsh
to
point
to.
B
Yeah,
it's
pretty
interesting
like
so
again.
Actually
I
can
tell
you
that
some
other
things
as
well,
so
we
have
green
light
poles
right,
which
last
two
weeks
and
in
general
those
tend
to
pick
up
more
participation
than
the
regular
three
day,
weekly
polls,
which
is
kind
of
what
you
would
expect
right.
It's
up
for
two
weeks,
so
there's
more
chance
for
people
to
kind
of
look
at
it
and
to
kind
of
to
kind
of
vote.
B
They
also
sometimes
tend
to
be
contentious,
because
people
have
like
opinions
around
tokens
right
so
so,
what's
interesting
is
we
kind
of
do
often
see
a
lot
of
participation
there,
often
more
than
we
do
in
the
weekly
polls
specifically
regard
to
the
to
go
to
government
cycle.
We
often
see
that
the
inclusion
polls
have
more
participation
than
the
the
bundle
poll
that
happens
in
week,
three,
which
is
also
kind
of
interesting
and
also
kind
of
maybe
signals
towards
what
what
kind
of
planets
was
referring
to
in
terms
of
people.
B
So,
to
kind
of
summarize
like
saying
that,
I
think
there's
a
three
main
action,
access
axes
or
three
main
areas
of
kind
of
kind
of
concern
people
have
had
and
we're
definitely
looking.
I
think
we're
trying
to
address
the
kind
of
first
and
third
in
that,
like
we
want
to
reduce
the
numbers
of
votes
if
possible,
and
we
want
to
try
and
mitigate
the
issues
with
the
security
issues
and
kind
of
issues
around
the
executive
itself.
B
A
B
Yeah,
so
that
has
issues
in
other
directions.
Naturally,
in
that
the
so
the
main
reason
for
the
week
three
port
to
exist,
like
the
middle
pole,
is
to
ensure
that
all
of
the
inclusions
inclusions
like
people
are
kind
of
happy
with
the
aggregates
of
inclusions
right,
because
you
can
run
into
this
situation
where
someone
like
some
group
of
people
really
favors.
B
Then
you
have
another
group
who
I
don't
know,
there's
a
universal
basic
income,
and
this
group
is
like
super
pro
universal.
Actually,
sorry
super
there's
a
different
group.
That's
super
against
universal
because
you
can
come
but
really
pro
as
taking
rewards
to
the
point
that,
if
you
had
both
of
them
in
the
same
executive,
like
both
groups
that
detested
to
the
others
proposal
would
both
like
fail
like
we
both
reject
the
executive.
B
No
because
inclusion
polls,
only
like
you
vote
on
like
one
like
one
at
a
time,
right
so
say
like
50
of
people,
really
love
this
staking
thing,
but
like
sorry,
60
and
the
other
40
percent
are
like
dead
set
against
it.
I
mean
there's
another
group
that,
like
again,
the
ubi
thing
has
like
60
in
favor
and
40
against.
D
I
mean
just
to
kind
of
recap:
the
problems
with
like
the
entire
governance
cycle,
the
monthly
sorry,
the
main
problem,
so
in
in
the
in
the
near
term.
Let's
say
a
couple
months
down
the
line
when
we
have
a
vote
delegation
in
place.
Do
we
imagine
that
the
four
day
limit
will
still
be
as
big
of
a
problem
as
it
is
today?
D
Because
I
mean
if
we
go
ahead
and
change
this,
if
we
suspend
it
or
create
an
amendment
for
it,
it
will
take
some
time
as
well.
So
I'm
just
trying
to
really
think
how
much
like
like.
Do
you
really
want
to
solve
for
this
and
and
change
it
now
or
is
it
not
a
huge
problem?
I
just
really
kind
of
want
to
weigh
these
pros
and
cons
before
we
actually
make
a
big
change
and
and
kind
of
go
through
it
over
two
months
and
and
so
on.
A
Yeah
I
mean
you're
you're
100
right,
there's
a
governance
contract
redesign
coming
you
know.
Eventually,
the
whole
paradigm
is
gonna
shift
to
you
know
having
more
delegates
in
the
community
having
you
know
more
thought
leadership
and
like
issue
leadership
from
the
community,
so
maybe
in
that
kind
of
future,
also,
especially
because
we
can
run
concurrent
executive
votes
yeah
this
yeah.
All
of
these
issues,
kind
of
like
this
whole
governance
cycle
is
gonna,
have
to
be
revamped
anyway.
B
I
mean
not
necessarily
like
the
issues,
we're
kind
of
talking
about
exist
today
and
we
don't
know
when
dss
governor
is
going
to
come
in
right.
So
I
don't
think
we
necessarily
want
to
wait
for
dss
gov.
I
I
do
think
we
should
try
and
make
sure
that
any
any
kind
of
change
we
come
up
with
also
works
with
the
ss
gov,
which
I
think
is
doable
so
yeah.
D
There's
this
period
where
the
smart
contracts
domain
team
works,
to
kind
of
figure
out
the
details
and
then
put
up
another
executive
vote
to
actually
implement
it
on
chain.
So
really
the
governance
poll
and
the
executive
are
kind
of
basically
the
same
thing,
because
nothing
is
really
getting
executed,
except
for
the
hashes
of
the
mips
on
on
chain
right,
like
that's.
The
only
effect
right
now.
A
A
C
B
Yes,
so
I
think
it's
worth
saying
that
I
don't
I'm
pretty
sure
we
can
have
hashes
go
on
chain
without
requiring
an
executive
vote
as
well,
which
might
be
something
to
pursue
yeah
like
so
as
far
as
somewhere.
I
think
paul's
contents
are
already
hashed,
I'm
pretty
sure
that
goes
on
chain
alongside
the
polar
link.
So
I
think,
if
you
just
included
like
a
link
to
the
commit
which
was
the
mip
right,
then
that
would
be
included
in
the
content
hash
for
the
poll.
B
C
I
guess
to
to
what
extent
should
it
be
somewhat
difficult
to
change
or
to
add
mips
for
for,
for
that
matter
I
mean
I
guess
these
are
obviously
major
major
changes
to
the
protocol
and
there
are
other
factors
in
terms
of
like
a
mandatory
submission
period
and
and
other
hurdles.
We
have
to
make
it,
so
you
can't
do
things
super
quickly,
but
in
terms
of
like
voting
challenges
like
how
many
chances,
I
guess
realistically,
should
we
be
giving
ourselves
to
to
catch
something
potentially
dangerous.
B
B
We
need
to
do
after
these
notification
ports.
So
I
could
kind
of
easily
see
a
system
where
we
have
week,
one
which
is
like
formal
submission
and
then
week
two
to
four
or
two
to
three.
Are
then
these
ratification
polls,
which
last
either
two
or
three
weeks?
Like
one
thing
I
was
considering?
It
might
be
good
to
make
them
like
end
like
midnight
on
the
last
day
of
the
month,
because
that's
kind
of
kind
of
easily
kind
of
like
a
kind
of
date.
C
In
this
case
we
shorten
it,
but
it's
something
like
we,
where
two
to
three
months
might
make
sense
for
a
review
process
as
things
might
progress
or
change.
But
then,
when
I
think
of,
like
you
know
getting
a
declaration
of
intent
or
like
maybe
just
you
wanted
to
get
sentiment
of
around
like.
Should
we
work
on
this?
It
feels
really
long
to
wait
two
two
months
to
get
something,
and
so
have
we
also
considered
it.
A
So
I
I
think
there
is
something
important
to
note
there.
I
think,
the
so
when
the
initial
mips
framework
was
launched,
I
believe
it
was
in
mip2.
Actually
it
talked
a
little
bit
about
like
special
flexibility.
Wait
where's
my
2
special
flexibility
for
the
first,
like
you
know,
phase
our
launch
period
right
and
it.
A
You
know
everybody
has
one
month
to
do
the
rfc
and
kind
of
it
just
ensured
a
flexible
way
for
mips
to
be
handled
during
this
period,
but
I
think
in
the
future,
there's
definitely
room
to
say:
hey
process
maps
should
go
through
one
week.
You
know
one
month,
rfc
poll
declarations
of
intent
can
go
through
a
one
week.
Rfc
poll
there's
definitely
improvements
there,
but
I
think
that
that's
different
from
the
actual
monthly
governance
cycle.
B
Just
to
just
to
clarify
that
the
rc
periods
on
polls
right
there,
the
durations
which
needs
to
be
an
rfc,
not
not
individual
votes,
yeah
yeah,
yeah
amy-
is
going
to
expand
on
on
david's
answer.
I
will
kind
of
say
I
agree
with
you.
I
I
think
some
some
mips
obviously
have
longer
rsv
periods
than
others,
like
technical
maps,
should
probably
be
discussed
and
have
a
longer
request
for
comments
phase
for
stuff,
like
declarations,
intent
where
it
should
potentially
be
shorter
than
a
month.
B
I
don't
really
disagree
and
I
think
it's
possible.
We
would
want
to
move
some
processes
like
that
to
the
weekly
cycle
rather
than
the
monthly
cycle,
but
yeah,
I
kind
of
don't
I
kind
of
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
to
kind
of
subdivide
the
monthly
cycle.
I
think
it
makes
more
sense
to
just
kind
of
move
things
that
should
happen
quicker
to
more
appropriate
cycles
if
they
exist
for
the
declaration
of
an
example.
B
C
To
present
a
counterpoint,
I'm
not
sure
that
the
type
of
map
would
define
how
long
they
need
to
or
how
urgent
they
are
or
important
like,
for
example,
if
we
see
a
business
opportunity
that
needs
to
be
executed
executed
relatively
soon,
then
probably
I
can
imagine
the
smart
contracts
team
spending
a
lot
of
time,
reviewing
that
and
making
it
everything
else,
as
I
don't
know
as
thoroughly
as
possible.
But
I
don't
know
if
adding
more
time
to
the
rfc
is
the
best
idea.
B
B
So
in
cases
where
someone
is
doing
something
more
complicated,
which
is
not
critical,
then
you
know,
then
we
might
kind
of
like
sort
of
say
to
them.
Well,
you
know
we
think
this
could
use
a
little
bit
more
discussions.
Maybe
we
kind
of
leave
it
up
for
another
month
right
so
to
kind
of
address
your
point
yeah,
maybe
that's
a
good
reason
not
to
kind
of
enforce.
The
technical
proposals
have
to
have
three
months
rst
but
yeah.
It's
kind
of
like.
D
Yeah,
like
maybe,
we
could
just
add
a
requirement
on
kind
of
or
further
requirements
on,
what's
required
for
it
to
be
formally
submitted.
If
they
get
it
done
in
a
month
or
or
two
months,
then
they
can
go
ahead
and
do
it.
But
I
mean
there
should
be
a
minimum
amount
of
requirements
needed
for
these
technical
proposals
to
be
pushed
forward
and
if
they
don't
have
them
yet
it
should
go
to
the
three-month
kind
of
thing
and
we
we
do
have
requirements
in
place.
A
D
In
in
general,
I
I
like
the
idea
of
having
different
rfc
periods
for
kind
of
like
a
declarations
of
intent,
something
that's
not
as
contentious
and
requires
a
further
proposal
after
that,
and
it
wouldn't
even
be
implemented
right.
It's
just
kind
of
like
that
validation
from
mkr
holders
to
proceed
with
it
at
the
same
time
like
having
a
standardized
rfc,
makes
it
a
lot
easier
for
the
governance
domain
and
people
to
manage
and
maintain
keeping
track
of
different
rfc
periods.
Different
proposals
adds
a
lot
of
like
overhead
and
work
now.
A
Yeah,
yeah,
and,
and
so
just
to
bring
us
back
to
the
main
conversation
that
this
call
is
focusing
on
it.
It
is
improving
the
monthly
governance
cycle
and
kind
of
looking
at
what
it
is
now
and
seeing
if
there
is
a
lightweight
or
fairly
simple
change
that
we
can
make
that
both
you
know
decreases
the
amount
of
time
and
gas
and
effort
people
have
to
do
to
participate
in
the
monthly
cycle,
while
also
just
like
yeah,
making
an
improvement.
Helping
people
be
more
willing
to
engage
requiring
less
of
the
voters.
D
B
An
executive
as
well
and
having
all
the
polls
just
for
your
application
polls
is
that
using
the
portal,
currently,
you
can
vote
in
multiple
polls
at
once,
which
saves
on
gas
and
polls
are
generally
less
expensive
than
voting
an
executive
anyway.
So
it
would
slightly
reduce
the
gas
costs
required
to
vote
every
month
as
well.
A
B
Yeah,
so
quorum
is
kind
of
the
interesting
question
that
I
know.
Kind
of
charles
has
his
kind
of
thoughts
on
my
kind
of
so
we
did
discuss
something
like
requiring
like
kind
of
higher
quorum
for
stuff.
That's
like
technical
things,
which
are
maybe
more
dangerous
or
not
more
dangerous
or
more
like
important.
I
guess
or
blackberry,
just
setting
like
a
sort
of
general
quorum
for
like
everything
right.
B
The
kind
of
question,
so
charles
has
kind
of
issues
with
quorum
generally
my
kind
of
issues
without
more
practical
is
that,
like
you,
then
need
to
kind
of
set
the
quorum
correctly.
Based
on
how
many
photos
you
generally
have
so
you
know
we
could
maybe
safely
set
it
to
like
10
000
setting
it
to
like
30,
000
or
50
000
would
better
kind
of
approximate
the
current
executive
right,
like
the
current
exact,
tends
to
have
around
50
000
in
as
the
hat
and
sometimes
more
but
usually
50
000..
B
D
D
B
Yeah
in
terms
of
variable
quorum,
there's
currently
a
couple
of
things
we
could
do.
We
could
explicitly
leave
it
up
to
the
facilitators
to
set
a
quorum
each
month,
but
that's
kind
of
open
to
abuse,
potentially,
like
there's
already
like
a
lot
of
ways.
Governance
is
going
to
use
things,
so
maybe
that's
fine,
but
like
again,
maybe
not
maybe
not
the
best
thing
to
do.
B
No
is
that
because
there
were
like
20
000
like
20,
000,
no
vote
weight
and
they
obviously
didn't
vote
because
they
knew
that
they
would
lose
and
they
would
pass
the
quorum
or
is
it
because
it's
actually
like
really
popular
but
like
there
was
just.
You
didn't,
really
have
participation
so
doing
that's
kind
of
setting.
A
B
D
D
I
mean,
eventually,
you
could
kind
of
just
make
it
like
an
automated
process,
but
I
mean
I
imagine,
to
begin
to
kind
of
learn
and
understand
how
it
works.
You
kind
of
have
to
do
it
manually
just
like
we
do
with
a
lot
of
the
manual
processes
that
we've
turned
into
automated
modules,
but
yeah,
that's
something
I
definitely
want
to
think
about
more.
I
don't
have
an
answer
right
now.
Unfortunately,
sorry.
B
Yeah,
that's
fine,
no
he's
always
a
valid
answer.
So
so
I'm
worried
about
kind
of
enforcing
like
that
sort
of
again,
I'm
not
sure
it's
really
called
a
quorum
but
like
enforcing.
That
is.
You
can
then
end
in
situations
where,
like
the
majority
wants
something
and
because
the
margin
is
small,
you
then
don't
take
the
you
know.
You
don't
take
the
map
right
and
so
in
that
situation,
you're
essentially
saying
that,
like
okay,
like
55
of
you,
want
this,
but
we're
not
gonna.
B
B
I
mean
there's
lots
of
potential
things
we
could
do
like
you
could
you
know,
there's
some
models
where
you
have
like,
instead
of
just
having
like
a
hard,
you
have
like
a
sort
of
yes
or
no
split.
You
have
like
a
you
kind
of
like
like
have
yes,
then
you
have
like
soft,
no
and
like
hard.
No
right
where
you
can
sort
of
say
you
know,
if,
like
30
and
if
or
like
33
of
the
of
the
votes
are
hard.
B
No,
then
you
just
don't
do
it,
but
otherwise,
if
there's
you
know,
if
there's
a
majority
between
yeah,
yes,
no
block
exactly
yeah,
so
that
is
something
we
could
explore.
That
would
kind
of
represent
a
bigger
change
from
what
we
have
now,
though,
and
I
would
rather
kind
of
keep
the
changes
kind
of
minimal
to
address
the
problems
that
people
have
shared
rather
than
kind
of
changing
it
for
the
sake
of
changing
it.
If
that
makes
sense,.
D
Yeah,
I
definitely
agree.
I
mean
one
thing
that
I
was
interested
in
was
holographic
consensus,
where
you
kind
of
enable
these
big
decisions
to
be
made
like
some,
the
more
contentious
side
of
things
and
that's
where
the
variable
stuff
comes
into
place.
But
the
bigger
decisions
can
only
be
passed
like
with
some
high
quorum.
Let's
say
like
50
of
all
governance
tokens.
Obviously
that's
just
hypothetical.
D
D
I
think
the
best
example
of
that
is
bd
bzx's
dao,
where
they
kind
of
enabled
that
holographic
consensus
mechanism,
but
at
the
same
time,
like
I
mentioned,
like
you'd,
have
to
kind
of
have
that
observational
period
of
time,
where
you
like,
look
at
the
different
kind
of
lower
participation
polls
and
understand
which
polls
have
lower
participation.
And
why
and
then
you
look
at
the
contentious
ones
and
see
why
those
have
higher
participation.
D
A
I
guess
my
question
would
be
what
would
be
next
steps
after
this
discussion
call
to
to
gather
sentiment
about
what
people
think
is
a
good
option.
So
I
heard
a
few
on
this
call
right.
I
heard
the
ratification
polls
that
basically
just
replace
the
inclusion,
bundled
governance
and
bundled
executive
vote.
I
also
I
mean
I
guess
that's
pretty
much
like
the
only
real
option
we
dug
into.
B
Yeah,
so
it
kind
of
depends
how
much
you
want
to
minimize
the
cha
like
the
impact
of
the
change.
I
guess
so
you
know
we
could
kind
of
go
as
low
like
sort
of
as
low
down
as
saying
okay.
We
just
want
to
fix
the
fact
that
the
expiry
is
four
days
right,
so
we
could
arbitrarily
increase
the
expiry
to
30
days
and
if
it
ran
long,
we
would
just
kind
of
wait
or
like
skip
a
monthly
sorry
skip
a
weekly
executive
to
kind
of
give
it
time
to
pass.
B
Potentially
that's
kind
of
one
option,
like
another
option,
is
sort
of
saying
like
okay.
Well,
let's
not
do
it
on
mondays
anymore.
It's
still
on
fridays
in
place
of
one
of
the
people's,
because
then
that
again
gives
it
kind
of
like
a
full
seven
days
to
pass,
which
is
what
we
normally
manage
for
the
weekly
balls
kind
of
that's
one
of
the
little
middle
ground
thing
I
was
thinking
about.
If
you
wanna
know.
A
B
Yeah
the
kind
of
issues
with
those
they
have
like
trade-offs
right
so,
like
you
have
you
don't
have
to
skip
a
weekly
executive
like
once
once
a
month
or
combine
them,
which
is
bad
in
other
ways,
so
so
yeah.
So
we
could
do
something
as
minimal
as
that,
but
I
think
we
maybe
want
to
go
a
little
bit
further
and
to
try
and
resolve
I
mean
so.
One
of
the
big
kind
of
axes
of
problems
I
mentioned
earlier
was
the
fact
that
the
executive
is
is
bad
for
some
other
reasons
right.
B
A
C
Sure
thanks,
I
was
kind
of
just
piggybacking
on
your
question.
Stepping
back
from
all
this,
like
most
of
what
we've
discussed
so
far,
seems
to
be
around
the
process
and
to
the
degree
to
which
this
is
like
a
short.
You
know,
we
just
need
a
short-term
solution.
It
seems
like
that's
the
place
to
look,
but
I'm
curious.
B
A
I
think
my
opinion
on
this.
This
question
is
that
I
mean
all
of
those
things
that
you
mentioned
probably
play
some
role.
They
have
some
impact
and
I
think
that
you
know
what
the
question
we
should
ask
ourselves
as
a
dao
is:
what
do
we
control
you
know?
Do
we
control
the
apathy
not
really
like?
We
could
try.
Do
we
control
the
gas
issues?
Definitely
not.
Maybe
we
could
improve
our
governance
contract.
A
B
You
know
had
to
kind
of
great
answers
in
the
forum
previously
to
like
all
the
issues
with
the
voting
process
and
the
the
things
you
mentioned
all
came
up
right,
like
gas
costs
came
up,
and
this
was
like
this
was
like
last
year
when
it
was
when
the
gas
costs
were
much
lower
and
also
apathy
came
up
right
and
like
also
issues
the
process
come
out
and,
like
you
know,
10
other
things.
So
there
are
always
things
we
can
improve
in.
B
Like
all
of
these
areas,
I
think,
as
kind
of
david
said,
I
think
the
the
reason
for
focusing
on
presence
is
because
it's
something
that's
we
can
change
without
requiring
like
smart
contracts
time
and
for
starters.
So
it's
something
we
don't
need
to
wait
for,
dss
go
for
and
yeah,
and
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
more
solid
than
I
guess
than
like
kind
of
things
we
might
do
to
sort
of
resolve
apathy
right
like
we
can
obviously
encourage
people
to
vote.
B
We
can
sort
of
help
convince
them
that
their
votes
matter
and
things,
but
that's
kind
of
always
a
little
bit
harder
to
it's
kind
of
hard
to
measure
like
how
much
is
enough
when
you're
doing
that
right,
like
you
know,
you
sort
of
make
like
a
month-long
campaign
to
kind
of
encourage
people
to
vote.
Okay,
you
know
maybe
you've
encouraged
people
to
vote
for
that
month,
but
then
do
they
go
back
to
being
apathetic
afterwards?
Do
they
stay
around?
A
So
we're
coming
up
to
the
end
of
the
call
we
have
about
five
minutes
left
to
the
top
of
the
hour,
and
so
I
wanted
to
return
to
my
earlier
question,
which
was
to
mainly
to
you
long
but
really
to
anybody
like
what
should
be
next
steps.
What
can
the
community
sort
of
expect
our
governance,
facilitators,
kind
of
gonna
choose
the
wisest
and
lead
the
change,
or
is
there
gonna
be
some
sort
of
like
off
off
chain
consensus
seeking
before,
like
change,
is
actually
proposed
and
made.
A
A
B
Hey
awesome,
sorry
about
that
yeah.
So
I
was
just
saying
in
terms
of
next
steps,
we'll
put
together
a
proposal
that
kind
of
similar
to
what
we
discussed
in
this
call.
With
regards
to
losing
the
last
kind
of
two
weeks
of
the
current
process
and
extending
week
two
and
then
we'll
put
that
on
the
forum
in
the
forum
in
a
mip
form
and
we'll
have
the
rsc
period
and
kind
of
see
what
people
comment
and
potentially
make
changes
based
on
people's.
A
Input
nice
cool
well
with
that
being
said,
seeing
that
there's
actually
amy
had
something
that
she
mentioned,
that
I
don't
think
we
covered.
What
I
would
like
to
see
is
starting
with
some
comparison
of
our
design
parameters,
I.e,
expecting
low
gas
high
voter
turnout,
but
not
realizing,
there's
lower
voter
turnout,
yeah,
so
amy
is
asking
just
for
more
like
data
around
these
things,
yeah
and
then
aaron
actually
asks
have.
You
guys
discussed
the
possibility
of
expediting
certain
mips
based
on
urgency
like
expediting
core
units.
D
I
mean
one
thing
that
you
could
consider
is:
we
did
move
over
collateral
onboarding
to
the
weekly
cycle.
However,
I
do
think
that
I
mean
what
would
be
the
urgency
of
expediting
the
onboarding
of
core
units
like.
Are
they
needed
immediately
right
now,
or
can
we
wait
a
month
or
so,
but
yeah
that's
something
to
decide
for
sure,
but
the
other
I
mean
you
can't
really
go
in
between
the
weekly
and
the
monthly.
That's
the
thing
right,
but
those
are
the
options
and
yeah
just
to
repeat
what
long
was
saying.
D
I
think
a
great
thing
to
do
in
terms
of
next
steps
would
kind
of
just
like
summarize.
This
call
link
to
the
video
provide
some
kind
of
overview
of
what
we've
talked
about
the
problems
we
want
to
solve
for
and
then
kind
of
follow
up
with
that
proposal
that
we're
all
working
on
get
the
feedback
and
then
see
where
it's
at
and
if
it
works
out,
we
can
propose
it
for
the
next
governance
cycle,
so
definitely
aligned
on
that.