►
Description
The Delegate Office Hours call is hosted by the Governance Communications Core Unit in collaboration with Recognized Delegates of MakerDAO.
The call aims to bring together all delegates and discuss recent events, governance activity, and other domains relative to governance and delegation.
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/fixed-rates-strategies-and-mechanisms-in-the-decentralized-collateral-scope/18529/2
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/endgame-plan-diagram-of-the-scopes-and-ecosystem/18139
A
All
right,
hey
everybody
Welcome
to
October
27th,
delegate
office
hours.
This
is
a
weekly
call
where
it's
a
it's
an
office
hours.
Anybody
could
join.
You
could
ask
questions.
There
is
a
random
assortment
of
delegates
that
join
sometimes
there's
one,
sometimes
there's
two
hell,
sometimes
there's
seven
or
eight,
but
today
we
have
two
flip
side,
crypto
and
3F
delegate
and
the
rest
of
us
are
just
the
members
of
the
organization
in
various
regards,
and
so
we
don't
have
a
set
agenda
for
these
calls.
A
A
B
What's
the
topic
this
week.
A
So
there
is
no
set
topic
this
week.
It's
just
a
pure
office
hours.
Anybody
joining
can
bring
up
anything
which,
by
the
way,
Frank
maybe
I'll,
start
a
really
really
huge
man.
I,
just
I.
Just
I
need
to
give
you
so
much
kudos
for
those
videos
that
you
do.
The
drinks
would
make
with
maker
delegates
I've
been
really
enjoying
them
and
you're
editing.
It's
been
getting
better
and
better
I
like
it.
B
Oh
yeah
man,
I
I,
actually
took
some
of
your
advice
about
the
sound
effects
being
too
loud
and
I
figured
it
out,
and
you
know,
but
you
know
all
the
credit
goes
to
chupi
plc
who
comes
up
with
all
these
ideas.
It's
not
really
me,
but
it'd
be
nice
to
have
an
intern
one
day.
Right.
B
I
could
do
all
this
stuff,
as
opposed
to
me
since
I'm
getting
too
old
to
get
as
cool
as
some
of
you
young
people
here,
but
yeah
man,
so
I
guess
we're
celebrating
the
proposal.
The
passing
of
the
end
game
right
well
with
some
of
your
takeaways
anybody
here
from
yesterday's
BBC
call.
They
got
the
end
I,
don't
know
if
I
got
too
tired
or
I
wasn't
paying
good
enough
attention,
but
I
heard
something
about
the
Surplus
buffer
being
negative
and
I.
B
Think
I
saw
a
conversation
on
the
general
channel
on
the
Discord
Channel
about
the
same
thing:
negative
Surplus
buffer,
which
negates
the
ability
to
Flap
I
thought,
that's
what
I
heard
Rune
say:
flap
f-l-a-p
not
flop,
so
I'm
not
sure
anybody
here
can
correct
me,
but
it
sounds
to
me
we're
not
flopping.
Any
I'm,
sorry
flapping
anymore,
assuming
there
is
a
parameter
that
keeps
it
negative
at
a
certain
threshold.
A
So,
just
to
be
just
to
clarify
these
terms,
so
I
believe
flop
is,
to
you
know,
print
mkr
and
solid
per
die
to
recapitalize
any
like
bad
debt
in
the
protocol,
whereas
flap
would
be
the
opposite,
it
would
be
buying
mkr
with
excess,
Surplus
and
burning
it,
which
is
the
buy
and
burn
mechanism
and
so
and
so
yeah
curious.
A
If
anybody
has
any
insight
into
that,
and
just
a
point
of
clarity,
the
way
that
POV
passed
in
the
pre-launch
and
game
mipset,
it
was
only
approved
for
a
20
million
draw
right.
It's
not
going
negative
in
terms
of
like
the
actual
amount
in
the
Surplus.
Is
that
right.
B
Yeah
exactly
thank
you
for
clarifying
that
you're
right
it.
It
should
have
been
flop.
I
thought
I
heard.
Maybe
his
Danish
accent
got
me
there.
Oh
he's
Danish
right
yeah,
but
yes,
that's
right
flop,
it's
pretty
much
when
you
flop
and
you
fall
on
your
face
and
you
have
to
Mint
mkr
for
bad
governance
right
that
bad
management
of
the
protocol
so
yeah,
and
thank
you
for
clarifying
that
on
the
pope,
the
protocol
own
emulator.
B
So
maybe
we
can
discuss
that
because
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
there
right
we're
looking
at
a
possibility
of
having
a
negative
Surplus
I'm,
not
sure
if
the
community
is
used
to
running
on
a
negative
Surplus
right,
I've
only
seen
it
once
David
I
think
you
also
only
seen
it
once
that
was
in
2020.
B
D
D
We
start
flopping
again
and
we
would
like
to
avoid
that,
but
as
long
as
we
don't
have
hit
the
the
surface
buffer,
which
is
currently
configured
I,
like
I,
think
like
250
million,
so
as
long
as
the
system
Surplus
is
below
the
Surplus
buffer
of
250
million,
we
will
just
not
do
any
nkr
buyback
and
burning
and
I
mean,
with
a
with
the
current
burn
rate
compared
to
to
the
income
that
the
protocol
is
making.
We
are
decreasing
in
the
system
Surplus
by
what
50
something
or
not
yeah.
D
We
did
we're
decreasing
the
system.
Surplus
constantly
right
now,
as
long
as
we're
not
going
to
I,
don't
know,
cut
expenses
or
yeah
start
making
a
lot
of
income
again,
which
is
probably
not
a
big
deal
from
my
point
of
view,
so
we
still
have
we
hit.
We
still
have
some
I
mean
quite
some
budget
left
actually.
A
Yeah
I
remember,
at
least
with
the
80
mil
that
strategic
Finance
was
projecting
a
three-year
Runway
and
so
with
like
60
mil.
We
still
have
like
a
couple
of
years
right
and
on
top
of
that,
looking
at
some
of
the
budget
proposals,
there's
there's
a
handful
of
cuts
that
are
being
done.
For
example,
my
team
is
proposing
a
23
bottom
line
reduction
in
our
budget.
Sorry,
the
the
dog
food,
my
team,
a
little
bit
but
yeah
but
I-
think
we're
not
in
a
bad
spot.
C
Yeah
I
mean
certainly
give
you
credit,
and
you
deserve
the
credit
for
actually
cutting
your
run
rate.
All
these
other
core
units
are
increasing
their
spend
it's
being
pitched
under
the
guise
of
a
budget
reduction
and
sure
if
you
budgeted
for
something
that
was
completely
unnecessary
for
your
first
year,
six
months
or
whatever
period
and
then
you're
requesting
a
slightly
lower
budget.
But
your
spend
is
50
of
that.
That's
going
to
result
in
an
increase
burn
rate,
so
I
I
really
don't
like
how
some
of
these
budget
mips
Are,
Being
Framed.
D
Also,
we
we
should
take
into
account
that
the
system
Surplus
is
is
actually
also
meant
as
a
as
a
risk
mitigation
thing
right.
D
So
theoretically,
I
mean
we're
totally
not
sticking
to
this
plan,
but
theoretically,
every
time
we
onboard
something
where
we
think
there
is
a
certain
risk
like
rwas
for
example,
or
it
was
even
the
idea
for
I,
don't
know
having
having
something
really
big
on
l2s,
for
example,
we
shouldn't
mint
more
or
shouldn't
should
not,
or
should
it
should
have
a
debt
ceiling
below
the
extra
system
Surplus
right
now,
which
was
the
idea
so
I,
don't
know
they
can
back
in
the
Denver
days
this
year
there
was
the
idea
to
actually
artificially
increase
the
system
Surplus
by
by
selling
equity,
which
is
probably,
if
I
I,
don't
know.
D
A
I
guess
I'm
curious
with
the
shrinking
Surplus
buffer.
With
you
know,
funds
being
allocated
to
the
protocol
Vault
protocol
owned
Vault,
emulator,
yeah
I-
guess
like
what
are
your
views
as
delegates
around
like
wanting
to
increase
that
risk
Capital,
because
you
make
a
really
great
point
and
that
that
was
the
original.
E
Yeah
I
think
something
here
that
we
need
to
maybe
bring
back
into
conversation.
I
think
it
was
also
during
the
number
of
times
that
we're
talking
about
having
separate
Surplus
buffers.
Essentially
this
idea
that
not
everything
comes
from
same
pot.
So
we
have
a
basically
I
mean
this
is
just
like
on
the
it
doesn't
need
to
be
on
the
protocol
level.
E
It
can
just
be
on
the
management
level
of
having
basically
different
accounts
like
refreshing
management
accounts
here,
and
we
look
at
this
is
what
we
expect
to
use
for
team
expenses
is
what
we
use
for
yeah
Insurance
funds,
essentially
because
I
think
that's
a
good
name
for
what
we
need
for
real
assets,
because
it's
kind
of
like
right
now
we
if
I,
mean
if
all,
if
all
current,
we
all
as
a
deals
fail.
We
are
we're
pretty
much
very
much
in
the
negative.
E
So
again,
I'm
not
saying
we
need
to
be
over
collaborized
on
real
assets,
but
we
should.
We
should
have
a
a
good
understanding
of
how
much
how
much
risk
we
have
on
those
on
those
deals.
D
Yeah,
but
to
a
certain
extent,
those
auditor
wallets
actually
already
serve
that
purpose.
I
mean
at
least
for
a
bit
of
Runway
not
like
this
is
this.
The
sum
of
auditor
wallets
is
not
like
summing
up
to
I,
don't
know
the
expenses
for
the
next
year,
because,
to
a
certain
extent,
those
auditor
bullets
could
be
used
for
that.
E
A
Yeah
I,
don't
know
the
numbers,
but
between
the
auditor
wallets,
which
have
some
amount
of
money
and
also
I,
guess
operational
wallets
that
have
some
amount
of
money.
There's
also
like
I'm,
seeing
12
million
die
of
claimable
die
in
DSS
vests,
which
hasn't
been
pulled
from
the
Surplus
buffer.
Yet
so,
technically
speaking,
if
all
the
core
units
and
an
active
streams,
pull
they're
available
die
right
now,
we
would
be
sitting
at
like
a
65
million
dollar
Surplus
buffer,
so
that
20
million
draw
would
result
in
a
45
million
dollar
Surplus
buffer.
A
But
a
lot
of
teams
obviously
are
just
sitting
on
cash
and
and
it's
it's
there's
a
lot
of
surplus.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
right,
Mark.
D
I
mean
a
lot
just
for
for
the
reward
Finance
core
unit.
We
have
roughly
4
million
sitting
and
DSs
West.
A
No
no
worries
Mark
yeah
I
was
just
saying
that
a
lot
of
the
funds
right
now
between
the
unclaimed
die
in
DSS
Fest
and
the
dice
or
Fiat
sitting
in
operational,
wallets
and
auditor
wallets
is
Surplus
right,
like
people
are
grabbing
their
budgets,
but
their
actuals
are
are
some
amount
less
than
than
their
actual
budgets.
B
Yeah
tying
this
back
to
the
end
game
right,
because
that
is
the
next
stage
and
getting
back
to
the
protocol
own
bolt
and
emulator
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it.
This
is
all
going
to
change
right
because
again
that
that's
how
we
kick
this
off.
B
This
conversation
we're
looking
at
going
at
a
negative
Surplus
buffer
and
using
any
excess
to
go
out
there
and
buy
some
steak,
which
you
know
some
might
be
a
proponent
of
some
might
not
be
I,
guess
I,
just
kind
of
want
to
know
what
the
parameters
are
for
that
and
how
negative
it
should
go
and
how
again
the
community
is
going
to
react
to
that
as
far
as
budgets.
There's
a
lot
of
them
coming
up
in
the
next
couple
of
governance
cycle.
I.
B
Think
all
the
way
running
to
maybe
January
February
of
2023
I
think
a
lot
of
these
core
units.
Unfortunately,
as
the
protocol
pivots
into
the
end
game
are
going
to
have
to
kind
of
improvise
and
start
thinking
about
the
clustering,
the
ecosystem
actors,
maybe
even
third-party
providers,
because
I
think
I
think
one
thing
that
we
failed
and-
and
you
know
during
yesterday's
discussion
with
Nadia
I-
forgot
to
ask
her
if
there's
something
she
told
me
when
I
saw
her
in
Bogota
that
every
individual
in
this
Dao
is
an
independent.
B
You
know
we're
just
independent
entities.
If
you
think
about
it
right,
like
every
single
one
of
us,
we
don't
work
for
a
company.
This
is
a
Dao
and
we're
all
free
to
do
whatever
we
want,
and
you
know,
I
think
a
lot
of
core
unit
team
members
forget
that
I
don't
blame
them,
because
you
know
growing
up
through
Society.
B
You
already
are
conditioned
to
think
that
you're
going
to
work
for
a
corporation
or
a
company,
but
instead
now
we're
in
a
different
Paradigm
we're
in
a
Dao
and
as
the
end
game
comes
around
the
corner,
we're
all
just
going
to
have
to
think
like
how
do
we
cluster
into
either
meta
Dows
or
as
ecosystem
actors?
So
a
lot
of
those
budgets.
You
know
it's
going
to
be
interesting
to
see
how
the
delegates
react
to
them,
whether
they're
going
to
get
a
a
big,
yes
or
a
big,
no
and
yeah
it's
gonna.
B
A
Yeah
I
guess
so
to
fill
in
some
more
context
with
regards
to
the
POV
I.
Don't
think
anything
is
actually
happening
until
the
DSs
Kiln
completes
like
a
final
audit
and
is
deployed
for
this
purpose.
So
I
think
we
might
hear
from
Derek
on
that
in
the
coming
weeks.
Not,
unfortunately,
he's
not
going
to
speak
on
today's
governance
and
risk
call,
which
is
right
after
this,
but
but
yeah,
there's
still
some
steps
to
be
had
before
we
actually
deploy
the
capital.
A
By
the
way,
I'm
curious
what
your
understanding
is
of
ether
die,
so
my
understanding
is
right
now
the
way
that
the
nip
launched
POV
would
be
buying
Lido's
St
eth,
but
that
eventually
it
would
switch
to
this
thing,
called
ether
die
and
ether
die
is
a
like
maker.
Bespoke
wrapped
St
is
am
I
understanding
that
correctly
I
would
love
to
get
some
more
understanding
on
that.
B
Okay,
I
believe,
is
a
synthetic
of
rap
steak,
so
essentially
just
forking
steak,
Eve
and
wrapping
it
a
lighter
steak
Eve,
but
it's
just
a
synthetic
of
of
Lido's
steak.
Eve.
A
So
do
you
know
what
what's
the
purpose
of
that?
Why
not
just
stick
with
stick
these.
B
Diversification
I
think
right
now,
coinbase
and
light
override
play
a
big
role
in
in
stake
Eve,
but
go
ahead.
Josh!
Sorry
about
that.
Yeah.
F
I
think
I
asked
Erin
about
that
and
I
think.
The
idea
is
that,
like
we'd,
have
multiple
providers
of
stake
teeth
like
the
what's
it
called
our
eth
and
so
either
die
would
be
like
a
like,
be
able
to
be
backed
by
steak
teeth
or
our
eth
or
whichever
provider
is
providing
the
steak
teeth.
G
Yeah
one
interesting
thing
is
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
seen
like
the
liquid
Collective,
it's
a
bunch
of
different
node
providers
and
custody
who's,
trying
to
create
an
index
of
these
stake
teeth
products.
So
it's
like
coinbase,
it's
Kraken!
It's
this
company
called
alluvial
and
they're
trying
to
build
a
similar
product
as
her
wrap
stickies.
A
lot
of
people
are
actually
saying
it
embeds
into
D5
better,
just
because
of
the
smart
contracts.
G
It's
called
the
liquid
Collective,
it's
a
pretty
big
project,
they've
been
doing
kind
of
some
private
fundraising,
but
it's
also
from
a
bunch
of
you
know:
centralized
exchange
and
custodians
as
well.
It's
alluvial
Conway,
coinbase,
Cloud,
figment,
Rome
blockade,
Labs,
Kraken,
staked
and
more.
B
And
also
you
know
getting
back
to
the
DVC
code.
From
less
than
24
hours
ago,
there
was
a
I
kind
of
felt
like
there
was
a
discussion
there
about.
You
know
the
protocol
engineering
team
looking
to
obviously
a
portion
of
the
protocol
engineering
team
wants
to
automate
a
lot
of
this
stuff
and
that's
that's
super
wonderful
right,
like
hopefully,
eventually
5
10
15
years
from
now.
Everything
will
be
automated,
but
one
thing
that
came
up
was
setting
rates
and
I
was
interesting.
B
It
was
interesting
to
hear
because
it
feels
like
the
momc
I'm
sorry
about
this
Tim
Tim
schuettner,
but
it
sounded
to
me
like
eventually
you
know
that
that
OMC-
and
you
know
I'll-
tell
you
straightforward.
There
were
some
people
that
sometimes
they're
not
happy
with
you
guys.
You
know
always
change
rates
up
and
down.
What
have
you
I
actually
value?
You
guys
I,
think
you
guys
do
a
good
thing
right
for
the
protocol,
but
getting
back
to
automating.
B
All
of
that
do
you
think
that's
possible
by
using
the
module,
the
IM
module
to
to
automate
all
this
stuff
and
eventually
getting
rid
of
the
MMO
momc.
D
So,
first
of
all,
the
movc
is
just
the
only
incarnation
of
those
parameter
proposal
groups.
So
if
everybody
is
just
not
satisfied
with
the
proposals
we
are
doing,
everybody
is
free
to
create
their
own
parameter
proposal
group
and
just
propose
something
different
I
think
a
lot
of
stuff
can
actually
be
automated.
D
So,
for
example,
if
we
would
want
to
have
I,
don't
know
flexible
tins
or
touts
on
PSM,
depending
on
the
utilization,
that's
something
that
could
be
totally
done
with
an
instant
access
module,
but
there
is
a
certain
certain
Dimension
that
at
least
the
the
makeup
marketee
takes
into
account,
which
is
the
assessment
by
the
risk
guys
so
I,
don't
know.
The
proposal
is
not
up
yet
so
I'm
not
going
to
lead
too
much
about
that.
D
But
if,
if,
for
example,
one
of
the
collaterals
that
we're
having
is
having
severe
liquidity
problems-
or
we
think
it's
in
in
a
pretty
desperate
state
in
terms
of
its
Hypes
too
much
so
it's
actually
not
correctly
evaluated
I
mean
markets
are
not
yeah.
Well,
we
don't
need
to
dig
into
that.
That
stuff
is
not
something
that
you
can
compute
on
chain
or
maybe
to
a
certain
extent
you
could,
but
it's
probably
not
worth
the
effort
of
doing
that.
D
There
is,
there
is
a
certain
component,
or
there
are
certain
components
right
now
that
yeah
that's,
which
is
going
to
make
it
pretty
hard
to
automate
everything.
D
Also,
you
have
to
take
into
account
that
there
is
always
engineering
effort
in
building
up
those
instant
access
modules.
So
I
don't
know
I
mean.
Do
we
rather
want
to
build
inside
SS
modules
to
get
rid
of
people
thinking
about
stuff,
or
do
we
want
them
to
I?
Don't
know
work
on
either
Die
For
example,
or
something
like
this
I
mean
the
amount
of
of
the
capacity
that
we
have
on
the
engineering
side
is
limited,
pretty
heavily
I'd,
say
so.
D
D
There's
actually
not
that
much
that
we
need
to
change
and
we
haven't
changed
that
much
so
far
I
mean
we
could
also
do
something.
I
I
actually
was
doing
even
a
prelip
on
that
having
an
instant
access
module
on
the
systems
in
the
Surplus
buffer,
because
this
could
be
also
some
kind
of
function
based
on
I.
D
Don't
know
the
the
capital
at
risk
versus
whatever
this
could
totally
be
something
commissionless,
but
as
we're
not
changing
the
Surplus,
the
system
Surplus
buffer
anyway,
right
now,
I
mean
we
haven't
since
we,
since
we
updated
it
to
250
million,
nothing
has
changed
there.
So
there's
really
no
point
in
automating,
something
you
need
to
you
automate
things
that
are
changing
constantly
and
where
it's
making
sense.
But
right
now
it's
I,
don't
know
we
are
meeting,
usually
every
four
weeks
yeah.
D
You
might
say
that
it's
all
rubbish
copy,
produce,
I,
don't
think
so,
but
yeah
I
I,
don't
think
the
the
effort
is
justifying.
You
know
the
value
that
we
get.
All
of
that.
D
Maybe
that
would
change,
but
so
far
nobody
was
really
interested
in
in
creating
that
yeah
I
actually
would
love
to
see
that,
because
it's
not
really
decentralized
how
we're
dealing
with
this
stuff
right
now,
but
yeah,
not
a
not
not
a
primary
problem.
Obviously,.
B
And
yeah,
just
to
clarify
I,
think
roon
was
referring
to
using
the
instant
access
module,
for
things
were
a
certain
collateral
type
goes
over,
you
know
a
large
amount
and
then
automatically
erases.
The
stability
fee
right
say
from
one
percent
to
1.5
and
that's
just
automated,
so
yeah.
So.
D
Totally
doable
I
mean
yeah
to
a
certain
extent.
We
do
this
manually
in
the
makeup
Market
Community
right.
If
we
see
that
certain
a
certain
collateral
is
above
the
model's
risk
debt
ceiling,
then
we
need
to
do
something
about
this,
so
yeah,
but
I
mean
it's.
It's
not
like.
Those
things
need
to
get
changed
directly.
It's
most
of
the
times.
It's
okay.
If
it
takes
I,
don't
know
two
weeks
or
something
which
is,
which
is
the
the
amount
of
time
that
we
need.
D
Actually,
so,
even
if
you
would
meet
now
and
say,
okay,
we
need
to
propose
changing
I,
don't
know
the
stability
fee
of
each
a
again
back
to
five
percent
or
something
like
this.
It
will
just
take
two
weeks
until
it's
actually
live
at
least
because
it
takes
a
couple
of
days
when
it's
on
the
Forum,
then
it
takes
a
couple
of
days
being
on
chain
on
the
pole.
Then
it
takes
at
least
10
days
until
it's
on
an
executive.
D
Maybe
if
you
can
faster
it
it's
just
three
days
or
something
like
this,
but
so
far
the
the
pain
on
that
point
is
not
big
enough
to
actually
do
that,
but
yeah
totally
stability
of
these
could
be
could
be
made
up
on
a
function
based
on
utilization
of
a
of
a
collateral
or
milk.
G
Tim
Tim:
what's
your
thoughts
about
like
teams
like
Gauntlet
who
are
trying
to
do
this
and
kind
of
like
monopolize,
you
know,
risk
parameters
for
protocols
like
do
you
think
there's
a
future
for
them
in
maker,
or
it
should
be
kind
of
people
like
yourselves
kind
of
owning
this
process
and
working
with
other.
D
Might
be
stupid,
but
I
have
no
idea
what
they're
actually
planning.
Maybe
you
can
explain
a
bit.
G
They
do
risk
parameters,
I,
don't
know
their
exact
model,
they
have
big
contracts
yet
Ave.
They
have
big
contracts
at
Ben
key.
They
have
big
Pro.
They
have
a
lot
of
big
contracts
kind
of
across
different
protocols,
but
what
they
are
doing
is
exactly
what
you
say:
risk
parameters
as
a
service.
D
Yeah,
but
we
we
actually
have
the
risk
core
unit
which
I
I
value
very
much
I
think
those
are
very
bright
brains
there
and
they
are
doing
a
good
job.
So,
for
me,
it
sounds
like
Gauntlet
is
doing
that
as
a
service.
What
the
risk
call
unit
is
doing
and,
of
course,
the
Risco
unit
is
very
yeah,
very
valued
input
for
the
makeup
Market
commodity,
a
lot
of
times
it's
yeah.
We
are
following
the
proposals
off
of
the
riskore
unit,
especially
when
it
comes
to
situations
like.
D
Oh,
we
think
this
asset
is
actually
too
risky
and
we
should
do
something
about
this.
Then
it's
usually
the
risk
call
unit
actually
bringing
this
to
the
table.
Okay,.
B
Switching
gears
so
the
Gemini
USD
big
news
right
in
the
last
24
hours
as
well
getting
filled
up
over
100
million
in
the
PSM
G
USD
PSM,
but
one
thing
I
will
say
and
I
know
we
have
a
couple
of
the
individuals
here
from
CES
I
believe
I
saw
Robert
and
I
saw
a
couple
of
of
the
strategic
Finance
folks
here,
thanks
for
thanks
for
joining
us,
but
you
know
I
want
to
say
first
of
all,
congratulations
great
job,
every
single
one,
one
of
you
guys
and
also
the
growth
team
and
anybody
else
that
was
involved.
B
But
you
kind
of
see
it
in
live
that
there's
a
lot
of
lack
of
communication
between
teams.
B
You
know
as
how
something
is
going
to
a
collateral
type
or
how
something
is
going
to
get
on
board.
Or
what
have
you
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
guys
are
what
what
you
guys
are
thinking
when
the
end
game
does
get
implemented
and
there's
a
couple
of
clusters
that
become
approved
metadows
in
the
end
game
plan.
Is
this
going
to
change
where
there's
going
to
be
better
communication,
or
should
we
still
expect
to
kind
of
have
teams
doing
different
things
and
then,
when
something
comes
to
the
table,
everyone
has
a
different
idea.
B
Because
I,
because
I
think
you
know
again,
you
guys
did
a
great
job,
but
then,
like
this
morning,
just
watching
Everybody
interact
and
how
the
the
fruits
of
the
labor
for
the
gusd
PSM
and
this
proposal
from
Gemini.
You
know
how
to
get
the
how
to
get
the
the
goods
whether
to
do
it
to
the
DSs
blow
or
write
a
new
smart
contract.
You
know
just
watching
this
discussion
makes
me
realize
that
in
2022,
like
core
units
are
still
not
communicating
with
each
other,
so
just
wondering
how
you
guys.
I
Correct
I,
don't
think
it's
a
matter
of
communication.
I
think
that
there
is
it's
the
pattern
that
I've
observed
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
to
stay
in
the
GNR,
to
give
some
thoughts
about
CEs
and
next
steps,
as
it
relates
to
the
end
game
and
I'll
more
directly
address
your
question
in
the
way
of
what
happens
with
the
The
Meta
Dows
and
at
least
my
opinion
based
upon
mips
83,
but
for
this
particular
situation.
This
is
a
our
pattern
as
a
Dao.
This
is
not
to
call
anyone
specific
out.
I
It's
just
the
way
it
works
is
that
a
deal
gets
proposed
and
the
deal
gets
posted
and
then
there
are
details
behind
the
deal
and
because
we're
all
independent
thinkers
we
have.
We
have
our
own
opinions
on
what
we
believe
needs
to
be
done
based
upon
our
domain
experience
right
so
see.
Yes,
we
look
at
it.
I
We
look
at
something
and
say:
how
do
we
make
sure
this
is
stable,
secure
and,
at
the
same
time,
don't
introduce
a
lot
of
friction
into
the
process,
because
you
know
we
all
understand
why
we're
doing
what
we're
doing
right
now
right.
There's
no
question
there,
and-
and
so
you
know
we
have
our
coordination
call,
but
but
people
have
the
ability
to
have
different
opinions
on
how
something
needs
to
get
done.
There's
no
way
to
control
that
and
and
there's
no
desire
to
do
that
either.
I
So
as
we
get
into
the
details
of
the
implementation,
we're
mired
in
that
with
every
single
deal
and
regardless
of
how
simple
something
is
presented
for
any
rwa
deal,
it's
not
simple!
So
we're
dealing
with
the
low-level
details
and
then
there
are
other
opinions
that
come
in
and
we
agree
to
disagree.
So
a
lot
of
this
shows
up
inside
of
of
the
forums
and
Discord
so
I
think
there's
just
a
it's.
A
natural,
healthy
discussion.
I
I
would
love
to
have
that
in
the
CSI
calls
on
Monday
as
we
go
through
that,
but
sometimes
it
doesn't
happen
there
and
it
becomes
public
so
and
and-
and
also
you
know,
sometimes
the
solution
that's
being
presented
doesn't
introduce
the
friction.
In
fact
it
can
make
a
deal
go
quicker,
but
we
have
different
opinions
on
that.
I
So
I
don't
know
what
the
solution
looks
like
I,
don't
know
where
improvements
can
be
made.
I
think
we
have
the
necessary
constructs
set
up
to
have
the
discussions.
It
would
be
nice.
Maybe
if
we
had
those
discussions
up
front
and
are
clear
on
that,
but
a
lot
of
times
the
deals
that
come
in,
we
don't
know
the
details,
so
it's
really
hard
to
say
how
an
implementation
might
work
until
we
get
the
actual
details
and
along
the
way,
you're
going
to
see
a
lot
of
discussion.
I
B
I
appreciate
that
and
it
you
know,
I
think
that
you
guys
are
at
least
every
single
team
right,
strategic
Finance,
even
protocol
engineering
with
Sam
and
CES.
B
You
guys
are
sorting
through
it
right
because
a
lot
of
companies
when
they
have
a
strategy,
they
don't
know
how
to
execute
it.
In
other
words,
they
say
they
have
a
strategy
which
is
pretty
much
like
an
ambition
right,
like
I,
have
an
ambition
to
maybe
one
day
go
watch
Manchester
United
versus
Manchester
City,
but
if
I
don't
sort
through
how
I
get
to
that
game,
it's
never
going
to
happen.
B
B
The
the
end
game
is
going
to
change
this.
When
every
cluster
becomes
a
meta
dialed,
then
each
metadatao
has
its
own
governance
and
each
metadata
is
responsible
for
onboarding,
something
like
the
the
g-usd
PSM.
It's
going
to
be
super
interesting
and
you
know,
and
then
eventually,
10
years
from
now
I
see
you
know
maybe
500
meta,
dials,
hopefully
and
then
500
meta
dollars
working
either
with
each
other
or
competing
against
each
other.
It's
going
to
be
super
interesting,
but
yeah,
it's
it's
early
for
that.
So.
J
H
I
Yeah
and
and
my
comment
on
a
couple
of
GNR
calls
ago,
was
that
hey
there's
work
to
do
here
and
the
response
was
no.
There
isn't
like
okay,
we
can
agree
to
disagree
there
and
if
there's
a
different
approach,
I
mean
you
know,
strategic
Finance
has
the
Mandate,
so
please
feel
free
to
to
do
what
you
want
to
do.
I
I'm
I'm,
not
I'm,
just
trying
to
make
it
clear
from
a
perspective
of
when
we're
doing
implementation,
there's
a
lot
of
things
to
consider
and
there
are
potentially
quick
ways
to
do
something
and
workarounds
and
I
get
it,
but
we
also
as
it
relates
to
building
you
know.
We
talk
about
a
more
robust
solution
in
the
future,
but
we
really
don't
I
mean
it's
not
really
what
we
do
here
and
it
hasn't
been
the
culture.
I
So
we
just
get
things
done
quicker
and
I
understand
the
need
by
the
way,
so
I'm
not
trying
to
provide
resistance,
but
it's
never
as
simple
as
we
make
it
to
be
at
least
the
way.
For
me,
it's
represented
in
the
forms
and
Discord.
So
that's
my
only
comment.
There.
J
Yeah
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
you
are
not
saying
that
we
want
to
move
forward
at
whatever
cost
and
not
take
care
of
things,
because
it's
not
at
all
what
we
are.
We
don't
have
a
button
on
this
I
mean
if
you
look
all
my
work.
What
I
said
there
was
reporting
I
published
reporting
on
me.
65
already
made
some
work
here
and
that's
not
just
implementations.
That's
the
world
quality
or
quality
management
life,
so
I
think
we
agree
on
on
the
fact
that
we
want
to
do
proper
job
to
focus
on
priorities.
J
I
Yeah,
there's
no
intention
on
my
part
to
say
that
people
are
trying
to
do
something.
You
know
to
hurt
the
protocol.
The
the
the
pattern
that
I
see
is
is
that
we
just
we
get
deals
and
there's
a
lot
of
details
to
work
through
and
sometimes
it's
hard
to
know
what
to
do
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
opinions
on
how
to
proceed,
and
then
we've.
I
Then
we
build
up
to
the
action
that,
for
example,
I
know
we're
trying
to
figure
out,
for
example,
the
deal
terms
with
with
block
tower
and
centrifuge,
and
you
know
working
through
that
and
there's
just
a
lot
that
goes
on
and
there's
a
there's
different
opinions
on
how
potentially
that
can
be
implemented.
I
think
people
are
working
a
good
faith,
but
it's
just
an
example
of
how
we
typically
work
here
at
maker
Dow.
We
figure
it
out
as
we
go
along
and
then
we
get
to
a
conclusion
and
then
we
agree
upon
an
implementation.
B
Yeah,
perhaps
things
get
lost
in
translation
right?
Communicating
on
Discord
is
not
best
platform
in
my
opinion,
but
also
we
saw
Kurt
Barry
from
protocol
engineering
coming
on
and
suggesting
that
there
should
be
work
put
into
getting
a
smart
contract
to
hold
the
MIP
81,
the
usdc
and
a
smart
contract,
as
opposed
to
in
a
custodial
wallet
at
coinbase,
and
then
obviously
we
saw
a
different
opinion
from
roon
I
believe
this
morning,
I'm
not
sure
but
yeah.
It's
you
know.
B
3F
delegate
is
a
proponent
of
having
a
smart
contract
for
this
and
I
know
it.
Yes,
I
agree,
that's
going
to
take
some
work
and
it's
gonna
kind
of
delete
things,
but
I
I
don't
know.
If
anybody
here
has
a
different
point
of
view
on
that
and
the
other
delegates,
it
would
be
nice
to
innovate
right
and
my
from
my
end
I
wish
it
could
happen
in
24
hours,
but
that's
not
realistically,
but
then
I
do
see.
That
Sam
says
it's
going
to
take.
B
Maybe
10
10
lines
of
code,
so
that's
refreshing,
so
yeah
I
was
wondering
how
anybody
felt
about
that.
If
we
should
make
a
push
towards
a
smart
contract
that
can
hold
that
usdc
PSM.
I
Frank,
the
there's
a
there's,
a
contract
that
we've
already
shared
with
coinbase
and
so
I
think
that
the
the
question
for
us
is
to
say:
if,
if
one
approach
is
to
follow
the
smart
contract,
how
can
we
estimate
the
amount
of
work
that
would
take
to
onboard
the
deal
and
then
compare
that
to
if
we
didn't
do
that
and
we
set
up
an
entity?
What
what's
going
to
take
longer
right,
I.
I
I
It's
a
question
of
risk
right
and
so
I
I
had
heard
from
the
community
that
it
was.
There
was
a
really
big
concern
about
risk
and
so
to
try
to
address
that.
You
know
this
is
the
approach
that
we
proposed
and
then
so
I'm
not
sure
I
mean
that
there's
a
group
of
delegates
on
this
call.
How
would
we
interpret
Roan's
comments
on
this
particular
issue?.
B
B
It'd
also
be
this
is
just
my
you
know,
I'm
just
speculating.
It
could
also
be
that
you
know
that
no
company
in
their
right
mind,
and
obviously
this
is
not
a
company,
but
no
even
individual
right
individuals
shouldn't
have
like
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
under
their
bed
mattress
or
sitting
at
GP
Morgan
Chase,
doing
nothing
like
collecting
dust
and
having
JP
Morgan
run
circles
around
the
real
world
with
that
money
right.
B
B
It's
not
earning
anything,
and
at
this
point
you
know
most
folks
that
understand
custodial
Services
understand
that
they
do
work
right,
like
companies
like
JP
Morgan,
again
they're,
not
in
the
business
of
rugging
people
with
their
custodial
services,
and
it's
a
matter
of
whether
it's
going
to
take
you
know
another
three
months
to
get
the
baby
one
off
the
ground
or
or
get
that
PSM
usdc
to
go
to
work.
So
it's
all
about
timing.
B
Everything
that
goes
by
the
protocol
loses
money,
so
I
kind
of
understand
why
roon
wants
to
get
this
done
already
and
then
the
proposal,
the
myth
that
was
put
together.
There
are
some
interesting
points
there.
If
you
look
closely
that
you
know,
coinbase
wants
to
try
this
out
the
old-fashioned
way,
but
they
are
open
right,
which
is
super
cool,
especially
that
you
know
they're
working
with
you
guys
at
CES
to
hopefully
get
some
type
of
innovation
going,
but
I
see
Patrick's,
hands
up.
Sorry
Patrick
go
ahead.
H
That's
okay!
Thank
you.
Thank
so
I'm.
Just
gonna
Echo
we'll
respond.
What
Robert
said
you
know
I
think
runes
comment
isn't
particularly
complex.
You
know
he
said
he
wants
the
MIP
enacted
as
written,
which
is
not
a
technical
solution.
H
So
that's
what
he
wants
to
happen
and,
and
you
know
this
is
kind
of
what
we
were
flagging
prior
to
this
book
right.
You
know
that
this
myth
does
not
provide
for
Technical
Solutions.
That's
what
we
that's.
What
gavalpha
said
and
that's
what
CES
said.
It's
been
approved.
Okay,
so
now
we
need
to
make
it
work,
but
I
I
think
that's
quite
clear.
What
he's
trying
to
say.
J
J
But
we
will
not
make
the
deal
any
in
any
case,
probably
be
thousand
of
the
year.
So
we
have
plenty
of
time
to
develop
the
smart
contract,
except
if
robots
say
that.
Well,
two
months
is
not
enough
to
the
previous
a
news
market
right,
yeah
sure.
Then
we
have
a
problem
that
other
than
that
there
is
no
problem.
J
I
mean
we
have
the
time
we
have
other
issues
and
it
doesn't.
We
don't
need
to
focus
on
an
issue
that
we
don't
have
and
we
can
discuss
as
much
as
we
want.
Should
we
go
now.
Should
we
wait
for
a
smart
contract?
Well,
the
fact
is
that
we
cannot
go
now
and
we
will
have
plenty
of
other
problems,
because
we
need
a
nounger
that
is
willing
to
do
it.
J
There
is
no
simple
plan,
but
it's
not
complicated.
It's
just
a
lot
of
issues
that
you
have
to
solve
one
by
one,
but
you
start
to
solve
the
first
one.
The
most
pressing
one
and
the
smart
contract
when
I
say
for
CS
is
a
good
idea.
We
should
work
on
it
and
if
it's
I
guess
it
will
be
done
before
the
regular
permutation.
So
there
is
no
problem
so
no
need
to
create
problems
where
we
have
none.
J
H
So
you're
right,
so
there
are
other
dependencies
needed
here,
such
as
the
legal
assessment,
but
it
would
be
a
lot
better
to,
in
my
opinion,
to
thrash
out
a
lot
of
these
things
before
passing
a
bit
rather
than
after.
The
fact,
which
I
think
is
the
point.
Robert
was
making.
J
It's
not
easy.
Why
would
you
do
it?
So
that's
the
world
problem
of
working
with
the
house
working
on
complex
things
and
we
need
to
have
take
and
give
but
I
fully
agree.
That's
all
the
meat
process
is
working
right
now
is
not
ideal,
but
that's
life
and
I
can
I
could
write
a
meat
to
make
it
better,
but
I
will
not,
because
it's
not
my
main
target
for
now
and
it's
working
quite
well.
J
If
you
have
some
flexibility
because
we
are
dealing
with
I,
don't
know
complex
organization,
so
there
are
some
with
a
bit
of
flexibility.
Everything
is
easier.
H
So
I
I
agree
with
everything.
You're
saying
right,
but
mips
shouldn't
be
flexible.
Mips
should
be
specific,
that's
actually
in
Bit
Zero,
so
we
shouldn't
be
having
to
interpret
mips
after
the
fact
that
they're
passed,
we
should
be
interpreting
myths
before
they
pass.
So
we
know
what
so
everyone
knows.
What's
going
to
happen,
you
know
no
one
knew
once
this
map
was
passed
or
right
now,
CES
are
going
to
go
and
develop
a
technical
solution
because
that
wasn't
in
the
myth,
so
I
I
agree
with
your
points.
H
J
Yeah
well
so
they
can
do
whatever
they
want,
and
there
is
plenty
of
mips
that
should
be
implemented
and
they're
weren't.
So
at
the
end
of
the
world,
I
mean
if
we
want,
if
we
need
to
invite
the
meatball
to
make
it
within
AP
what
we
need
for.
I
Yeah
the
way,
the
way
that
I
read
rune's
response
is
pretty
clear
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
there's
from
a
CES
perspective,
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
work
to
continue
to
move
forward.
At
this
moment.
B
B
Know
yeah
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
it.
You
know
I
I,
get
it
right.
Maker
Dao
is
a
protocol
for
business
to
business.
This
is
not
a
business
to
Consumer.
Oh
sorry,
for
consumers.
What
have
you
retail
whatever
you
want
to
call
them?
So
you
know
that's
just
just
gonna
have
to
roll
with
the
punches
right
because
I
I,
you
know
I
spent
some
part
of
my
daily
life
in
a
lot
of
these
telegram
groups,
and
a
lot
of
these
folks
are
not
fans
of
maker.
I
I
mean
just
just
to
be
clear,
so
this
is
a
great
example
of
figuring
things
out
as
we
move
forward
right.
So
there's
new
information,
that's
been
presented,
thankful,
you
know,
Patrick,
you
know
from
the
Govern
perspective,
there's
an
opinion
with
that.
You
know
Seb
his
feared
his
opinion.
I
look
at
it.
I
have
to
form
my
own
opinion
and
when
I
read
what
has
been
written
it
to
me,
it
seems
very
clear
that
roon
wants
to
stick
to
the
mint,
which
means
that
it's
not
a
smart
contract
solution.
I
So
at
this
moment
my
decision
is,
is
that
okay,
I,
don't
know
the
next
step,
because
it
seems
like
there's
a
lot
of
work
from
a
legal
and
maybe
deal
perspective.
Whatever's
listed
in
the
map
would
need
to
get
done.
I'm
happy
to
support
if
there
are
technology
updates
or
changes
to
the
current
technology
to
support
this,
we
will
do
that.
But
at
this
moment
it
seems
like
the
next
step
is
to
figure
out.
Is
there
an
arranger?
Is
there
a
legal
structure
needed?
What
are
those
next
steps
and
I?
J
And
another
Point
Patrick,
because
just
to
be
in
line
with
the
governance,
now
that's
some
sub
facilitator
have
some
superpower,
Hobart
can
say:
I
will
not
put
anything
regarding
me
pt1
if
it's
not
following
my
smart
contract.
That
I
think
is
better
and
then
we
are
done.
So
we
don't
have
enough
to
make
a
modification
of
the
Meep,
because
Robert
can
decide
whatever
he
wants.
H
J
H
No,
but
you
have
to
look
at
the
real
politic
for
Robert
as
well.
If
he
refuses
to
do
something
he
you
know,
he's
he's
risking
getting
off
boarded
as
a
core
unit
or
as
a
facilitator.
So
well,
technically!
Yes,
you
know.
Governance
has
there's
a
sort
of
Damocles
kind
of
hanging
over
him
if
he
refuses
to
carry
out
instructions
of
governance.
J
Yeah
but
again
we
are
making
a
big
politic
mess
because
ruins
they
want
to
to
have
something
quick
and
it
will
not
get
it
quick
in
any
case,
so
we
have
time
to
implement
the
smart
contract,
so
Queen
will
be
happy.
Everyone
will
be
happy.
Actually,
the
process
would
be
followed.
Hobart
might
want
to
have
to
to
just
write
a
sentencing.
Well,
no,
we
will
mix
with
smart
contracts
and
he
can
even
say
well
sap
C.
So
if
you
want-
and
we
are
good.
A
I
just
want
to
jump
in
here.
We
are
at
almost
three
minutes
at
the
top
of
the
hour.
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
stop
the
recording
and
give
over
the
host
privilege
to
artem
who
will
stay
past
the
hour
if
you
guys
want
to
continue
discussing,
but
we
do
have
the
governance
and
risk
calls
starting
shortly
and
I
as
the
host
has
to
run
so
yeah
gonna
end
it
here
guys.
Thank
you
for
the
really
rich
conversation.