►
Description
Agenda: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/core-unit-launch-pod-sessions-session-15-starknet-engineering-core-unit-sne-001/10047
Governance Forum:
https://forum.makerdao.com/
StarkNet Engineering Core Unit Proposal: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip39c2-sp19-adding-the-starknet-engineering-core-unit-sne-001/9745
A
Hi,
everyone
welcome
to
another
co-unit
lunch
spot
session
today,
we're
in
session
number
15
and
we
are
exploring
the
stark
net
engineering
core
unit,
so
yeah
we're
with
the
louis
vuitton
and
the
team
and
they're
going
to
be
explaining
a
bit
more.
What
they
are
working
for
and
hopefully
there'll
be
some
time
to
answer
questions
as
always.
If,
if
you
want
to
to
jump
into
the
mic
you're
more
than
welcome
to
to
join
and
and
yeah,
if
you
want
to
take
it
away.
B
As
derek
explained,
the
collateral
is
not
going
to
stay
or
all
the
collateral.
It's
not
going
to
stay
for
ages
on
l1
because
of
transaction
speed
and
because
of
gas
costs,
and
so
in
that
context
there
is
a
push
for
filmmaker
to
pretty
much
be
on
different
chains,
faster
chains,
scalability
solutions
and
l2
and
just
for
context,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
proposal,
just
the
v80
of
the
core
module
consumed
about
6000
years
in
gas
fees
that
are
all
passed
down
to
to
the
users.
B
So
far.
So
for
those
who
don't
know,
we've
been
trying
to
give
context
about
what
stockwear
is
and
what
stockmate
is
in
the
in
the
proposal.
I'll
just
give
again
a
quick
recap
so
and
or
here
his
product
manager
at
stockwere.
Oh
I'd
feel
free
to
jump
in
if
I'm
not
representing
anything
right
here
so
starkware
in
matrix.
So
today
it's
about
250
million
in
tvl
125
million
in
funding.
B
Most
of
it,
I
believe,
is
venture
funding,
onboarded
two
major
protocols
and
I
think
five
in
total,
including
dydx
and
sora,
note
that
dydx
is
a
liquidation
based
protocol
and
after
porting
over
the
uidx
onto
stockx,
they
saw
a
number
of
protocol
improvement
levels
that
they
could
pull
to
ultimately
make
the
protocol
more
efficient
and
starkware.
Today
it's
about
50
employees.
B
So
now
what
is
stock
net
so
stockknight?
It's
a
permissionless
zonage
roll
up,
that's
operating
as
an
l2
over
ethereum
the
users
and
the
companies
operating
on
starclx
today
are
expected
to
go
over
startnet,
and
so,
if
I
understand
correctly,
which
at
this
point
I'm
pretty
sure
I
do,
the
vision
is
to
have
all
the
companies
building
building
pretty
much
on
stock
net.
B
D
B
B
So
quick
summary
of
what
this
project
is
about,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussions
on
the
on
the
forum
about
about
the
scope
of
the
of
the
project,
and
I
think
the
those
comments
were
totally
legit.
So
we
really
decided
to
focus
on
phase
one
and
so
phase.
One
is
just
gonna
be
building
a
bridge
between
maker
and
stocknet,
and
so
the
deliverables
are
going
to
be
a
bridge.
So
this
is
going
to
be
a
contract
on
l1
and
a
contract
on
startnet.
B
B
B
There
is
no
incentive
for
the
team,
no
additional
incentive
for
the
team,
neither
in
maker
nor
in
any
type
of
stock
equity,
and
I
think
we
just
want
to
show
good
faith
for
phase
one.
And
if
we
do
a
good
job
for
phase
one,
then
we
can
talk
about
more
incentive
for
phase
two
for
the
team
for
phase
two.
But
this
phase
is
just
gonna,
be
straight
up
salaries
and
no
additional
incentive
on
any
side
of
the
equation,
and
so
for
the
team.
The
confirm
number
there
is
myself
the
facilitator.
E
He's
shaking
his
head
he's
making
me
go
so
kind
of
in
the
phase
one
then,
in
terms
of
the
bridge,
I
was
wondering
if
you
can
kind
of
give
some
context
to
what
that
kind
of
provides.
The
maker
community
like
right
now
is
their
die
over
on
startnet.
How
how
are
bridges
occurring-
and
you
know
what
I
guess,
how
big
of
a
deal
is?
Is
this
bridge
for
for
the
community.
B
B
It's
two
contracts
that
are
gonna
be
tested
that
are
gonna,
be
audited,
and
then
it's
gonna
be
a
governance
mechanism
to
upgrade
those
two
contracts.
So
at
some
stage
we
will
say
that
those
contracts
cannot
be
upgraded
anymore
unless
there
is
a
governance
vote
approving
it.
The
other
thing
that's
important
to
mention,
but
this
is
next
page,
but
we
have
a
die
limit
to
the
breach,
so
we
will
start
we're
proposing
for
a
thousand
die
as
the
limit.
E
F
So
the
main
difference
is
that
stalknet
is
a
validity
proof
based,
meaning
that
everything
we
do
on
the
layer.
2
is
proven
and
then
verified.
So
smart
contacts
on
chain,
weather,
arbitral
and
and
optimism
optimistic
call
up.
So
the
security
mechanism
relies
on
listeners
that
listens
to
the
state
that
is
frozen
for
seven
days
after
the
submission
and
submitting
fault.
B
I've
been
going
through
the
projects
of
pretty
much
allowing
fast
withdrawals
on
on
optimistic,
roll-ups,
totally
doable.
It's
quite
an
endeavor.
We
don't
necessarily
need
it
in
that
case,
so
it
kind
of
simplifies
the
design
and
I
think
that's
not
benefits
for
phase
one,
but
when
we
think
about
phase
two
potentially
phase
three,
just
the
ability
to
have
an
oracle,
that's
that's
going
much
faster
will
just
give
us
the
opportunity,
as
a
community,
to
like
experiment
on
ways.
B
A
B
I
think
there
would
need
to
be
some
level
of
force
measure
for
this
to
happen
and
I'm
just
taking
the
I've
been
going
through
the
the
dydx.
You
know,
I
would
call
it
success
of
dydx
going
over
starkx
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
the
that's
kind
of
the
north
star
for
us
as
as
as
maker
here,
it's
like,
that's,
probably
where
we
want
to
be
and
like
explore
ways
to
improve
to
improve
the
protocol.
B
F
Like
from
from
the
starco
perspective,
we
aim
that,
in
like
three
months,
stock
net
would
be
on
minute
with
like
few
first
pop-ups
of
projects.
The
dive
bridge
is
one
of
them
and
that
in
six
to
nine
months
it
would
be
like
a
rich
ecosystem
with
the
stockx's
instances
deployed,
etc,
and
we
see
the
maker
protocol
as
a
great
protocol
to
have
there
in
six
to
nine
months,
and
we
know
that
in
order
to
get
this
falling,
we
need
to
to
start
now.
A
B
Yes,
pretty
much,
I
think
there
is
part
of
the
phase
one.
That's
gonna
be
about
planning
for
phase
two
for
phase
one.
We
prefer
just
a
very
tight,
very
competent
team
and
phase.
Two
will
probably
be
a
bit
meatier
a
bit
thicker
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
work,
and
we
may
need
a
few
additional
resources.
A
B
I
I
just
expect
potentially
a
couple
of
additional
developers
on
the
on
the
team,
but
that's
pretty
much
it
which,
by
the
way,
if,
if
we
really
wanted
on
like,
if
we
really
wanted
to
to
have
maker
moving
over
start
net,
we
we
would
anyway,
my
recommendation
as
the
facilitator
of
this
project
would
any
way
to
have
some
people
in
the
ecosystem
learn
cairo
just
to
ensure
we
don't
have.
We
don't
have
too
much
of
a
concentrated
knowledge
with
very
few
people.
G
We
always
have
this
conviction
that
the
zika
roll-ups
they'll
eventually
be
ready
as
well,
and
they
provide
somewhat
stronger
security,
grantees
right
and
as
make
a
in
my
opinion,
should
scale
out
to
all
the
roll-ups,
because
it's
very
likely
that
the
future
is
multi-chain.
We
just
need
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
put
our
resources
right
now
to
make
sure
that
when
that
does
happen,
we
can
move
in
quickly
right
and
building
our
own
bridge
rather
than
using
the
generalized
bridge.
F
D
And,
and
so
the
reason
why
I
asked
is
because
I
was
reading
on
immutable
x
because
right
there's,
a
lot
of
excitement
with
nft
and
immutable
x
is
gonna,
be
this
plus.
You
know
layer,
two
where
you
can
trade
nfts.
What
have
you
if
I
understood
it
correctly,
so
I
was
reading
that
they're
going
with
a
volidium
mode.
A
D
They
need
what's
called
a
data
availability
committee
or
a
dac,
and
theirs
is
made
up
of
like
some
big
heavy
hitters
like.
Obviously
one
of
them
is
starkware,
the
other
one
is
diversified
in
fiora
everybody
knows
infuria
and
occlusion,
which
is
actually
from
the
cosmos
team.
So
I
was
just
wondering
like
if
that
is
the
case
like
how
are
the
members
going
to
be
chosen
to
decentralize
it
enough
right,
like
you
just
mentioned
that
cairo
should
be
learned
by
everyone
in
the
product
engineering
core
unit?
F
Soon,
no,
like
you,
are
correct,
you're
correctly,
describing
how
things
working
currently
in
immutable
x,
and
but
this
is
like
not
our
only
mod
of
that
availability.
We
support
dydx,
for
example,
chose
to
have
one
chain
data,
so
the
state
difference
like
the
entire
state
difference,
is
published
as
call
data
with
any
state
update
and
users
can
like
index
this
data
from
any
archive
node
and
reconstruct
the
entire
state,
which
is
like
the
costlier,
but
also
the
more
trustless
approach
with
starknet.
F
We
will
for
sure
from
day
one
support
this
costlier
and
more
fastest
approach
of
like
just
report
to
l1
all
the
state
differences
and,
of
course,
it's
much
more
costlier
than
what
immutablex
are
doing
so
in
case
you'd,
like
to
move
out
to
to
such
kind
of
committee,
will
have
proposals
and
discussion
around
the
members
etc.
But
this
is
very
far
ahead.
D
G
I
think
it's
a
question
to
broader
community
than
just
pe,
but
but
I
think,
anything's
possible
in
the
future
I
mean,
given
that
the
vision
is
to
have
a
generalized
computation
platform
and
composable
blocks.
We
can
definitely
consider
building
whatever
will
be
necessary
and
psm
is
definitely
one
of
the
options,
but,
but
I
think
you
know
this
is
definitely
something
that
would
be
quite
hard
right
now
to
even
plan.
F
And
so,
in
this
regard,
we
had
like
those
two
development
teams
at
starkwear
and
uidx
working
together
and
each
company
funded
its
own
engineerings.
And
so
here
we
view
the
collaborated.
Effort
is
co-funding
this
external
team
right,
because
we
don't
want
the
people
that
are
doing
it
to
be
fully
internal.
Like
workers
of
stockholm.
A
B
Yeah,
if
I
can
add
to
this,
I
think
I
think
we
so
I
dug
a
bit
into
this
to
just
show
that
things
things
that
are
fair.
My
understanding
is
that,
when
maker
has
had
similar
projects
with
other
l2s,
the
work
was
distributed
on
both
sides,
but
there
never
was
a
such
a
sharp
budget
discussion,
as
we
have
here,
because
here
we're
talking
about
having
a
core
unit
working
on
this.
So
my
understanding
is
that
this
is
a
fair
situation
compared
to
what.
B
H
G
So
I
can
add
some
extra
colors
to
this.
Just
looking
at
our
experience
of
optimism
and
we've
built
optimism,
bridge
and
we're
finishing
our
bitram
bridge
and
to
build
this,
you
need
a
very
in-depth
knowledge
of
optimism
or
cairo
and
obviously
vm
and
make
a
protocol
and
how
it
works
and
how
the
governance
works.
H
Yeah,
that
is
why
I'm
asking
because
this
is
a
more
of
a
general
question
about
maker's
l2
strategy
and
building
our
multi-chain
strategy.
So
when
we
build
a
bridge
in
this
case
to
starknet,
we
will
need
competency
on
both
sides.
That
is
the
in
this
case,
the
cairo
for
the
stark
net
side
and
solidity
for
ethereum,
and
we
will
have
to
repeat
this
process
for
every
bridge
we
build.
G
Yeah,
I
guess
in
principle
you're
right,
but
the
steam
when
the
bridge
is
built
they
can
move
on
and
they
can
try
to
deploy
the
full
maker
protocol
on
cairo
and
by
deploying
I
mean
something
much
more
complex
than
doing
it
on
evm
compliant
chain
like
optimism,
because
it's
literally
deploying
and
then
you
know
changing.
Maybe
some
of
the
interfaces
here
we're
very
likely
talking
about
the
re-implementation.
G
I
mean
the
the
l1
side
will
be
very
very
similar
and
that's
why
you
know
we
kind
of
want
to
somehow
supervise
such
teams
and
make
sure
that
you
know
we
provide
guidance
from
the
product
or
engineering
and
provide
some
sort
of
a
final.
I
don't
know,
however,
you
want
to
call
it
an
audit,
maybe
or
some
other
process
that
will
make
sure
that
you
know
we're
like
happy,
and
this
is
no
different
but
much
more
complex
than
collateral.
Onboarding,
potentially
done
by
a
separate
team
than
protocol
engineering.
B
B
D
Yeah,
I
guess
for
me
it
would
be
on
the
fee
structure-
is
maker
and
startnet
going
to
front
the
withdrawals
right
because
I've
heard
that
dydx
some
of
the
folks
there
are
fronting
what
I
mean
by
that
I
mean
I
think
you
got.
I
think
you
know
what
I
mean
like
they're,
putting
up
the
in
order
to
make
it
a
faster
withdrawal
right
if
they
could
believe
in
dydx.
It
was
something
like
seven
hours,
eight
hours,
so
they
cut
it
down
to
under
one
hour.
D
I
could
be
wrong
so
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
there,
but
some
someone
or
a
company
is
fronting
the
money
to
to
provide
the
faster
withdrawal
right,
and
so
I
just
kind
of
want
to
get
how
the
fee
is
going
to
work.
There
is
maker
expected
to
put
up
some
of
that
money
from
that
money
and
is
that
the
reason
why
we're
going
to
start
off
with
a
thousand
die?
F
Of
course,
if,
if
the
dow
wants
to
do
it
as
well
as
are
very
welcome
to,
if
not,
we
can
reach
out
to
external
liquidity
providers
and
and
like
that,
they
would
probably
do
it
with
very
minor
fish
at
all.
And
does
this
answer
all
questions,
because
I
think
you
asked
several
questions
combined.
So
yeah.
F
D
D
F
Yeah
I
mean
we.
The
phase
installment
is
something
that
we
didn't
implement
today
at
the
first
version
of
stockman.
That's
supposed
to
hit
mannet
on
later
this
year,
probably
wouldn't
be
implementing
the
fees
yet
and
in
this
situation
stockman
stockholm
would
subsidize
all
the
transactions
like
optimism
run,
for
example,
for
a
while
doing
the
same
thing
and
looking
far
ahead.
F
Of
course,
starcore
subsidizing
100
of
the
network
wouldn't
last
forever,
but
I
I
I
do
think
that
if
we
don't
hit
like
times
10
times,
20
salty
reduced
cost
compared
to
compared
to
mainnet,
considering
all
the
components
right
so
submitting
transactions
to
l1
and
proving
and
and
revenue
for
the
network
operators.
It
wouldn't
be
stuck
well
potentially
at
this
point,
because
we
aim
to
decentralize
the
network,
and
since
there
is
no
point
to
it,
so
we
will
be
sure
to
be
well
well
under
this
line.
G
I
think
it's
also,
if
I
can
just
you
know,
come
in
here.
It's
worth
noting
that
the
fast
control
scheme
for
optimistic
roll-ups
is
very,
very
different
than
fast
withdrawal
for
zika
roll-ups
for
optimistic
roll-ups.
The
withdrawal
window
is
seven
days.
It's
like
huge
nuisance
that
uses,
and
we
can
do
it
like.
G
We
can
immediately
withdrawal
essentially
using
our
oracle
network,
like
we
described
in
in
one
of
the
forum
posts
for
fast
withdrawals
right,
we
can
die
and
just
give
it
to
user
and
then
claim
the
die
back
in
seven
days
with
literally
zero
risk
physical
roll-up.
The
problem
is
slightly
different
because
the
withdrawals
are
actually
fast,
but
if
users
want
to
have
it
like
immediate
right,
we
can
use
what's
called
a
conditional
withdrawal,
and
I
think
the
scheme
is
slightly
different
and
we
might
consider
as
a
maker
to
facilitate
that
as
well.
G
F
G
D
F
D
I
was
thinking
more
like
going
from
layer
one
to
starknet,
but
you
know
I
guess
my
wishful
thinking
is
that
one
day
kraken
coinbase
finance,
et
cetera,
are
going
to
allow
you
to
go
directly.
You
know
all
the
way
from
your
centralized
account
to
your
start
that
account.
So
it's
all
good.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
F
E
E
B
F
2
and
the
operator
slash
operator
sends
all
you
so
self
custodian
means
that
you
can
submit
the
l1
transaction
directly
to
the
original
one
and
say:
look,
I
really
want
to
withdraw
my
money
and
then
either
your
request
is
like
taking
someone
take
care
of
it
in
the
next
two
to
three
days
and
all
you
get
the
right
to
come
again
to
the
village
and
tell
him
look.
Someone
sends
all
my
withdrawal
requests
for
three
days.
F
Something
is
clearly
wrong
and
then
we
turn
to
like
an
escape
hatch
or
a
mass
exit
mode
and
optimism
has
a
similar
mechanism
in
the
sense
that
you
can
turn
to
the
smart
contract
and
include
any
transaction
you
want
and
it
would
get
included
eventually
after
time,
some
time
or
again
something
really
bad
happens,
with
bridges
to
side
chains
like
polygon.
I
don't
think
they
they
basel
to
implement
it
because
they
use
different
trust
assumptions.
But
I'm
not
sure.
A
No,
I
was
going
to
comment
that
it
was
nice
to
see
the
endorsement
from
the
from
the
protocol
engineering
team
in
that
signals,
at
least
that
it's
been
reviewed
by
by
people.
We
trust
so
yeah.
I
I
don't
know
if
I
don't
know
frank
if
you,
if
you
had
any
questions
regarding
the
the
agreements
that
you
were
asking
the
forum
or
that's,
been
cleared.
D
I
think
yeah,
I
think
so
I
think
we
are
waiting
right
to
so
I
mean
I
guess
I'll,
do
a
shameless
request
for,
like
I
was
thinking
more
like
along
the
lines
of.
Would
it
be
possible-
and
this
is
just
me
speaking-
I'm
not
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
entire
community
right.
They
could
be
totally
against
this
if
we,
if
we
can
maybe
in
the
future,
have
some
way
of
being
giving
back
to
the
maker
treasury
starkware.
You
know
tokens
if
they
ever
come
into
fruition.
D
B
F
D
Yeah,
that's
understandable,
but
yeah
I
mean
it'd
be
good.
If
you
know
you
guys,
post
on
the
make
a
forum,
some
kind
of
of
agreement,
and
also,
I
think
I
requested,
if
we
could.
The
only
reason
I
got
inspired
by
this
is
because
I
saw
with
the
real
world
assets.
You
know
gov
alpha
requesting
that
agreements
be
shared
with
the
community.
D
B
D
B
D
C
I
think
I
was
actually
going
to
comment
on.
I
think
it
was
one
of
the
previous
slides
where
you
had
the
the
sharing
of
documentation,
and
my
point
was
to
the
the
yeah,
the
handover,
the
annotated
code
point
and
the
intellectual
property
that
exists
there.
Would
you
know,
naturally,
as
a
team
paid
by
the
dow
belonged
to.
I
presume
that
I
foundation,
and
you
know
much
in
the
same
way,
that
the
protocol
engineering
team-
all
our
code,
has
the
the
relevant
headers
in
it
for
thy
foundation.
C
So
that
would,
I
presume,
be
the
same
case
here
and
you
know
we're
happy
to
work
with
you
guys
on
making
sure
that
that's
visible
not
to
us
but
to
the
community
and
yeah.
So
to
get
back
to
your
original
question,
frank
that
we
don't
have
like
a
written,
formal
agreement,
but
you
know
anything
to
help
us
work
closely
with
the
team
like
more
than
happy
to
get
involved,
understand,
learn
more
about
the
zk
roll
up
space,
so
yeah.
Hopefully,
that
gives
some
more
color
and
I'll
check
out
the
forum.
D
Oh
yeah,
it
does
so
I
get.
I
guess
what
you're
saying
is
that
the
starkware
folks
are
gonna.
You
know,
help
you
know
hand
over
any
annotated
coding.
I
guess
learning
cairo
is
something
that
protocol
engineering
is
just
gonna
have
to
take
up
on
their
own
or
it's
like
starkware,
going
to
kind
of
have
a
hand
in
that
I
mean
you
know
I
don't
code,
so
I
have
no
idea
how
they're
going
to
pick
up
cairo
or,
if
that's
something
that
bartek
and
his
team
is
going
to
pick
up
so
yeah.
D
B
Yeah,
frank,
that's
that's
part
of
the
deliverables.
It's
a
clear
handover
again
to
be
discussed
with
the
community.
My
recommendation
would
be
if
phase
2
assure
that
the
team
is.
We
will
need
this,
a
bigger
team,
but
assure
that
the
team
is
bigger,
just
to
assure
that
more
knowledge
is
transferred.
A
I
guess
my
last
question:
we
would
be
if
you
well,
if
the
team
considered
the,
I
think
it's
me
55
or
six
maybe
pros
can
help
you
in
this
one.
The
special
purpose
fund
to
do
like
a
more
like
a
feasibility
study
and
then
and
then
take
it
to
the
to
the
whole
core
unit
once
that,
we're
sure
that
the
risks
and
the
the
full
scope
of
the
project
is
understood.
A
Yeah,
so,
okay,
thanks
pro
so
there's
mip
55,
which
allows
for
it's
called
special
purpose
fund.
So
basically
it
allows
to
to
draw
die
from
the
surplus
buffer
in
order
to
to
get
something
done
right.
So
in
this
case,
if
there
was
some
risk
analysis
or
feasibility
study
that
needed
to
be
done,
this
would
be
a
potential
route,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
was
something
that
you
considered
or
or
or
not
at
all.
You
want
to
take
the
the
core
unit
path.
B
We
briefly
discussed,
I
think,
for
the
for
the
reasons
that
we
mentioned
that
bartek
mentioned.
We
think
the
core
unit
path
is
the
is
the
best
path
to
take,
and
that's
why
we've
been
just
keeping
going
that
way.
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
at
this
stage
if,
if
a
feasibility
study
would
would
really
help,
I
think
I
think
the
question
is
more
at
the
level
of
yes.
Do
we
invest
in
stock
net?