►
From YouTube: Meet Your Delegate | Ep.9 Ft. Hasu
Description
For this episode, we will have one delegate candidate presenting their platform and holding a Q&A session.
@Hasu - Delegate Platform will be added here soon
https://forum.makerdao.com/tag/delegate-platform
Host: Payton Rose
Maker Forum: https://forum.makerdao.com/
Maker Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome
this
is
meet
your
delegate
number
nine
we're
slightly
out
of
order
here,
but
it's
okay.
This
is
a
very
exciting
one
for
the
community.
We
have
hassu
joining
us
talking
about
his
platform
to
be
a
recognized
delegate
here
at
maker
dao
as
usual.
These
will
be
pretty
short
meetings.
We've
allocated
30
minutes
for
a
brief
presentation
and
some
q
a
afterwards.
A
So
please
be
respectful
that
time,
try
not
to
speak
over
one
another,
as
this
will
be
reported
on
youtube.
If
you're
not
comfortable
asking
your
question,
that's
totally
fine,
just
drop
it
in
chat
and
me
or
someone
else
will
will
be
happy
to
ask
it
for
you.
So
so
I
don't
need
up
too
much
time
here.
Let's
go
ahead
and
kick
it
over
to
hosu
and
let
you
get
started.
B
B
I
tend
to
think
on
a
very
long
time
horizon,
make
my
investments
on
that
timer
as
well
wrote
a
bunch
of
articles
and
research
papers,
mostly
looking
at
things
from
adversarial
lens.
I
currently
have
a
full-time
job
leading
a
strategy
at
flashboards,
and
I
also
do
some
research
and
co-investing
with
paradigm
put
out
some
some
stuff
there
papers
on
amms,
taking
derivatives
and
recently
one
on
how
to
design
nft
launchers
so
pretty
wide
spectrum.
B
I
co-host
the
uncommon
core
podcast,
with
suzu
of
three
arrows
and
yeah
maker
has
been
one
of
my
longest
time.
Holdings
kind
of
had
a
laugh,
slash,
hate
relationship
with
it
for
a
few
years,
as
I
thought
it's
the
foundational
project
of
d5,
but
I
was
unhappy
with
some
of
the
decisions
that
have
been
made
over
the
years,
such
as
focusing
on
the
use
of
real-world
assets
and
the
the
vote
against
negative
interest
rates
in
favor
of
centralized
collateral.
B
So,
but
none
of
this
has
really
turned
me
off
from
engaging
with
the
project,
so
I
think
yeah,
I
very
respect
for
the
relationship
with
the
maker
community.
I
love
using
dye
and
yeah.
I
just
at
this
point.
I
think
I'm
in
a
position
to
get
engaged
more,
and
I
have
some,
hopefully,
some
cool
ideas
for
improving
the
project.
B
Next
slide
thanks.
I
think,
because
I
I
do
have
a
full-time
job.
I
want
to
be
fully
upfront
sort
of
about
the
the
amount
of
resources
that
I
can
dedicate
to
the
project.
I
want
to
focus
mainly
on
two
ideas,
and
at
least
initially
first
is,
I
think,
maker
has
a
very
flat
hierarchy,
the
core
units
and
make
up
mkr
holders
voting
on
every
decision.
B
You
know
basically
privileged
managers,
operators
that
have
any
kind
of
privileged
information.
It's
really
more
a
way
of
adding
a
little
bit
more
strategic
direction
and
long-term
thinking
and
overseeing
the
work
of
the
core
units,
because
I
think
I
think,
what's
mainly
missing
or
what
I've
been
missing
from
from
maker
is
really
it's
sort
of
a
unified
long-term
strategy
and
and
road
map.
B
I
think
we
have
seen
a
bunch
of
yeah
visions
expressed,
thought
maker
could
do,
but,
and
then
they
pass
on
the
forum
such
as
to
get
the
clean
money
vision,
for
example.
But
then
nobody
is
really
in
charge
of
actually
seeing
it
through
and
making
sure
that
all
core
units
adapt
their
roadmap
to
this
vision
and
put
it
in
action,
and
I
think,
what's
also
missing.
I
think
that
there
has
been
some
hope
that
the
delegates
actually
play
this
role,
but
I
don't
think
so.
B
I
have
a
tremendous
respect
for
the
work
that
the
delegates
have
done
so
far,
considering
that
there's
very
little
that
very
little
has
been
done
by
my
car
so
far
in
terms
of
incentive
alignment,
I
think
that
what
delegates
are
getting
paid
today,
it's
not
really
competitive
in
the
market.
I
think
I
would
I
would
try
to
experiment
with
attracting
actual
leadership
talent
with
more
of
an
executive
salary,
slash
incentives
to
to
align
them
with
the
project
yeah.
B
I
think
I
would
be
very
careful
here,
though,
to
always
make
sure
that
we
don't
create
any
regulatory
attack
vectors
for
maker.
So
I
think
this-
these
are
the
two
things
that
have
to
be
balanced,
adding
a
bit
more
strategic
direction
and
oversight
accountable
to
mkr
holders
without
creating
any
additional
regulatory
attack,
surfaces.
B
Okay,
next
slide,
please,
okay,
the
second
something
I've
been
really
passionate
about
in
the
last
year
is
treasury
management.
I
think
this
is
I've
written
an
article
about
this
with
monet
supply
who's.
Also,
a
maker
delegate
and
some
of
you
might
have
read-
I
think
that
generally
dao's
don't
think
properly
about
treasury
management.
I
think
that
the
treasuries
they
run
tend
to
be
too
small
and
because
they
they
view
their
native
token
as
part
of
the
treasury,
which
I
think
is
a
pretty
great
mistake.
B
I
think
the
time
to
sell
mkr
is
when
mkr
is
overvalued
to
what
we
think
the
fair
value
is.
So
what
we
really
need,
I
think,
is
a
holistic
framework
for
making
good
treasury
management
decisions,
and
for
that
I,
I
would
like
to
see
like
us
to
explore
the
idea
of
creating
a
dedicated
treasury
management
core
unit.
I
have
since
learned
that
recently
we
have
the
new
strategic
finance
core
unit.
Maybe
there
is
a
way
to
expand
their
expand
their
responsibilities
to
include
that.
B
B
Historically,
I
think,
is
a
pretty
big
mistake.
One
could
argue
that
mkr
is
undervalued
to
fair
value,
so
I
definitely
personally
see
that,
but
I
think
any
money
that
we
can
invest
in
growth
today
is
probably
has
a
much
higher
yield
than
money
that
we
can
pay
ourselves
in
the
form
of
dividends
or
buybacks.
B
So
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
stopping
the
buybacks
indefinitely
for
now
investing
all
the
money
in
growth
and
also
greatly
expanding
our
capital
buffer,
because,
as
I
said,
I
don't
think
we
should
rely
on
minting
mkr
in
the
case
of
a
capital
shortfall.
I
think
maker
is
actually
pretty
under
capitalized
compared
to
traditional
financial
institutions
and
for
a
project
that
you
know
prides
itself
on
being
more
conservative.
B
B
Another
thing.
I
think
it
would
be
very
interesting
to
create
a
debt
offering
for
maker,
so
I
think
that
the
flip
side,
basically
the
opposite
of
an
equity
offering
would
be-
would
be
a
debt
offering.
So
when,
when,
when
the
the
rates
the
market
offers
us
at
this
low,
then
I
think
this
is
a
pretty
interesting
opportunity
for
maker
to
actually
borrow
die
from
the
market
at
a
fixed
duration,
and
then
we
can
spend
that,
for
example,
on
growth.
B
B
Yeah
and
then
just
a
few
other
points,
so
I'm
my
general
position
is
that
I'm
I'm
against
running
maker
as
a
public
utility.
I
know
this
has
also
been
a
long,
long
term
divide
and
there
are
camps
in
inside
the
maker,
dao
favoring,
both
positions,
I'm
personally
very
pro,
maximizing
growth
and
future
profit
stream
care
holders.
So
to
me,
this
explicitly
does
not
mean
utilizing
fronzinomics
to
boost
the
mkr
price
in
the
short
term,
but
rather
make
decisions
that
pay
off
over
a
10
to
20
year
time
horizon.
B
So
if
it
pays
off
earlier,
that's
great,
but
that's
not
the
kind
of
decisions
that
I
like
to
make
for
the
same
reason:
I'm
not
convinced
of
the
clean
money
vision.
I
think
that
what
the
world
really
needs
is
is
a
bank
that
is
independent
from
political
influence.
That's
truly
neutral,
and
I
think
that
every
every
central
bank
in
the
world
is
already
already
has
a
mandate
or
is
giving
itself
a
mandate
that
expands
to
to
social
to
a
social
agenda
and
it's
not
purely
focused
on
creating
good
money.
B
That
might
be
my
my
vision
alone
and
that's
fine,
so
I'm
just
putting
it
out
there.
Finally,
I
would
say
I
think
that
some
of
the
work
that
we
have
done
in
the
past
of
appraising
individual
borrowers
is
probably
not
the
most
scalable.
I
think
I'm
I'm
more
in
favor
of
creating
frameworks
that
can
scale
for
us
to
focus
on
like
really
high
value,
individual
customers
and
and
lending
to
protocols.
B
So
I
think
that
the
direct
deposit
modules
have
been
one
of
the
biggest
success
stories
in
in
d5
period.
I
think
I
would
like
to
see
them
utilized
and
expanded
to
a
lot
more
protocols
and
eventually
also,
I
think,
to
many
other
blockchains,
yeah
and
yeah.
So
I
think
that
actually
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation,
so
yeah
hoping
to
get
a
lot
of
questions
and
and
a
good
discussion.
A
C
Perfectly
okay
yeah.
So,
first
of
all,
I
completely
agree
with
what
you
said
about
focusing
on
on
growth,
as
opposed
to
being
a
public
utility.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me,
especially
if
you
look
at
traditional
growth
companies,
I
mean
it
would
make
no
sense
to
be
paying
dividends
when
you
could
focus
on
on
achieving
growth.
So,
first
of
all,
I
think
that
makes
perfect
sense.
C
I
have
two
questions:
if
that's
okay,
so
the
first
one
would
be
you
mentioned
initially,
one
of
the
gripes
you
had
with
with
the
strategy
has
been
like
the
movement
towards
real-world
assets.
I
was
interested
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
that
and
then.
Secondly,
when
you
mentioned
the
notion
of
focusing
on
high-value,
high-value
customers
and
potentially
like
being
the
bank
for
banks,
would
that
would
that
would
that
entail
contract
to
contract
lending,
perhaps
under
or
uncollateralized
lending
kind
of?
What
your
were
your
thoughts
with
respect
to
how
that
would
look.
B
If
can
we
expand
sort
of
the
range
of
collateral
that
people
want
to
borrow
against
fast
enough,
and
I
think
the
answer
at
least
before
the
invention
of
the
direct
deposit
module?
I
think
the
only
answer
that
make
ahead
to
this
was
yeah.
Let's
get
into
real
world
assets.
I
think
the
most
elegant
and
most
scalable
solution
would
have
been
the
implementation
of
negative
interest
rates.
I've
written
about
that
quite
a
bit
in
the
past.
B
So
I
was
a
bit
sad
to
see
that
sort
of
this
was
decided
against
and
especially
with
the
role
of
reward
assets
actually
being
so
slow
that
the
only
actual
solution
was
just
you
know.
Putting
a
ton
of
stable,
centralized
data
coins
on
our
balance
sheet,
so
I
think
this
put
for
the
longest
time
put
maker.
You
know
in
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
where
it
was.
B
It
wasn't
as
efficient
and
scalable
as
the
centralized
stable
coins,
but
it
was
also
not
the
price,
like
the
preferred
choice
for
someone
seeking
an
actually
decentralized
form
of
collateral.
So
I
think
that
you
know
by
doing
that
maker
kind
of
gave
up
its
unique
market
position.
I
was
very
surprised
to
see
it
scale
or
you
get
the
kind
of
adoption
that
it
did.
B
I
think
I
would
leave
this
to
the
core
units
to
figure
out
how
to
structure
the
deals
with
high
value
customers
and
the
direct
deposit
module,
I
think
is,
is
something
that
has
been
proven
to
be
very
effective.
But
I
think
also
our
deals
with,
I
think,
is
it
nexo
and
like
one
and
celsius
I
think
two
of
the
five
largest
vaults.
I
think
there's
a
lot
more
that
we
can
do
in
this
regard,
including
under
collateralized
loans.
B
I
think
in
general,
any
form
of
business
that
we
can
do
carries
a
certain
amount
of
risk
and
not
doing.
It
also
carries
a
certain
amount
of
risk,
and
I
feel
like
this
inaction
is
generally
something
that's
that
that
is
my
my
sense
that
it's
it's
something
that's
sort
of
under
appreciated
in
the
maker
community.
B
Also
with
regards
to
growth
right.
So
we
we
always
like
to
pretend
that
we
take
a
risk-free
approach
to
things,
but
then
all
of
a
sudden
there's
a
project
like
abracadabra
and
they
get
to
like
5
billion
5
billion
within
like
2
months
right,
and
we
are
super
surprised
like
how.
How
is
this
possible?
And
the
reason
is
simply
that,
like
we
can
tell
ourselves
where
we
don't
like,
we
are
taking
a
risk-free
approach
by
not
going
to
these
other
chains
and
not
expanding
the
collateral
that
we
accept,
etc.
A
D
D
Obviously,
with
centrifuge
and
kind
of
some
of
the
initial
things
that
have
been,
you
know
happening
on
the
acid-backed
finance
and
in
terms
of
asset-backed,
like
real-world
non-crypto
assets,
like
I'm
curious
to
just
kind
of
get
your
opinion
on
whether
or
not
you
think
that's
the
right
direction
for
maker
to
go
to
diversify
its
treasury
or,
if
you
think
you
know,
perhaps
there's
other
you
know
it's
not
worth
it.
I
I'm
just
pretty
open-ended
question
just
curious
to
get
your
thoughts.
B
I
think
I
think
diverse
for
diversifying
the
treasury,
I'm
definitely
in
favor
of
diversifying
our
usd
exposure.
Basically,
if
there's
something
we
can
do,
I
would
be
curious
to
to
explore
it.
I
mean
in
general,
if
something
happens
to
usdc,
then
I
think
the
crypto
space
is
probably
in
a
very
bad
place.
Anyway,
I'm
kind
of
I'm
I'm
always
willing
to
take
some
risks.
I
think
usdc
is
a
risk
that
I
don't
see
as
particularly
strong
or
dangerous
to
maker.
B
At
this
point,
whether
sort
of
with
regards
to
expanding
into
reward
assets-
I
must
say
this
is
something
I
don't
have
much
experience
in.
I
would
rather
defer
to
other
delegates
here
and
also
to
to
reward
asset
core
unit
with
making
this
decision
so
yeah.
My
I
would
say
my
my
area
of
expertise
is:
is
more
within
sort
of
treasury
management
and
hopefully
finding
a
way
to
make
better
decisions
at
maker,
not
at
this
point
in
in
sort
of
the
area
of
real
world
assets,.
A
E
Hey
thanks,
I
kind
of
caught
sort
of
mid
to
the
end
of
the
presentation
and
you
sort
of
touched
on
it
a
few
times
here
and
that's
things
like
you
know
the
treasury
management
side
of
things,
and
maybe
you
put
under
partnerships.
Maybe
you
don't,
but
I
wanted
to
get
your
position
on
dow
treasury
swaps
and
you
know
if
that's
something
that
you
sort
of
contemplated
for
this
or
just
your
general
opinion
with
regards
to
treasury
swaps,.
B
E
B
I
think
in
general
this
can
make
sense
when
they,
when
you
want
to
develop
a
really
strong
partnership
between
two
protocols,
I'm
not
sure
between
which
protocols
that
would
make
sense.
Today
I
mean
one
that
I
can
think
of
would
be
lido
like
the
originator
of
steak,
eve,
which
is
already
supported
in
maker-
and
I
mean
my
personal
thesis-
is
that
the
thief
will
probably
replace
eve
entirely
over
the
next
10
years.
B
If
all
goes
according
to
plan,
so
I
think,
if
maker
can
position
itself
to
be
the
place
where
you
can
get
the
cheapest
leverage
on
your
stake
thief,
I
think
that's
probably
a
potential
partnership,
but
full
disclosure,
I'm
also
an
investor
in
lydo.
So
yeah,
don't
don't
don't
don't
just
count
on
my
words
here.
Apart
from
that,
I
don't.
I
don't
really
see
any
opportunities
for
maker
to
to
do
any
treasury
swaps.
E
Not
no,
not
particularly,
I
just
think
it's
a
potentially
interesting
mechanism
going
forward
in
terms
of
a
partnerships
but
being
some
diversifying
treasury
holdings.
So
having
you
know
a
percentage
allocate
to
two
swaps
and
and
that
may
be
a
potential
way
of
diversifying
the
treasury,
but
only
like,
but
like
you
say,
though,
there's
got
to
be
things
that
come
with
that
this
you
know
the
swap
is
one
thing,
but
things
like
clifty
and
cliffing
investing
all
those
things
need
to
be.
You
know
thoroughly
thought
through,
and
you
know
strong
agreements
in
place.
B
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
guess,
for
diversification.
All
of
crypto
is
so
correlated
at
this
point
that
I
don't
see
a
lot
of
diversification
effect
from
it.
If
that
changes
then
yeah,
I
think
that's
that's
probably
another
story
for
now.
I
only
think
it
makes
sense
if
you
want
to
if,
if
two
projects
really
want
to
develop
a
close
relationship
with
each
other,
then
you
can
do
a
treasury
swap
as
a
part
of
that
cool.
Thank
you.
F
Hi
hassel,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
I
have
two
questions.
One
is,
what
would
you
say
is
the
main
maker
product
balls
or
die,
and
what
do
you
think
we
should
focus
to
communicate
and
push?
That
is
one
and
the
second
one
is:
what
do
you
think
about
maker
going
to
l2s
and
potentially
other
l
ones
right
with
that
opportunity,
utc
maker,
as
the
banks
of
banks,
or
also
as
the
banks
for
end
users?
Thank
you.
G
B
Mariano
thanks
for
your
question,
so
I
think
that
maker
cannot
just
focus
on
products.
I
think
maker
is
a
two-sided
marketplace
between
borrowers
and
holders
of
dye.
You
can
also
look
at
it
as
like,
a
long
and
a
short
sight
and
die
being
yeah,
basically
like
a
perpetual,
so
I
think
it
always
has
to
develop
both
sides
right.
B
But
you
cannot
actually
do
the
opposite,
so
we
cannot
charge
holders
of
die
in
order
to
incentivize
more
borrowing,
and
arguably
that
is
a
structural
problem
that
is
making
that
makes
die
and
make
her
less.
Scalable
that
I
would
have
liked
to
fixed
would
have
liked
to
fix
a
few
years
ago,
but
unless
we
did
not,
so
I
think
we
really
have
to
make
sure
that
we
prioritize
both
at
the
same
time,
both
borrowing
and
and
landing.
B
And
so
today,
the
number
of
stable
coins
on
our
balance
sheet
is
a
great
indicator
for
the
imbalance
between
the
two.
So
looking
at
how
much
dye
is
backed
by
usdc
and
we
can.
We
can
really
tell
that
there
is
much
more
demand
to
hold
die
than
to
borrow
it,
and
so
I
think,
for
the
next
year
we
should
really
focus
on
boosting
the
borrowing
demand
in
order
to
replace
more
usdc
with
other
forms
of
collateral.
B
So
that's
the
first
question
and
the
second,
I
think,
was
to
what
I
think
about
expanding
to
layer,
one
and
layer,
two
right
yeah.
So
I
I
kind
of
answered
that
a
short
while
ago,
as
already
so
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
expanding
to
other
blockchains
for
one
I'm
a
strong
believer
in
a
multi-chain
thesis
and
for
crypto.
I
think
there
will
be
a
lot
of
blockchains
that
are
going
to
flourish
in
the
future
and
I
think
they're,
that
sort
of
their
risk
is
greatly
overemphasized.
B
I
think
they
will
all
stick
around.
They
will
not
be
shut
down
by
regulators
or
anything
like
that
and,
as
I
said,
it's
not
like
mecca
is
not
taking
any
risk
by
not
going
to
these
chains
right,
so
it
minimizes
the
the
risk
of
sort
of
diabetes
on
another
chain
becoming
unpacked,
but
it
gains
the
risk
of
being
leaving
the
market
open
to
a
competitor,
and
arguably
abracadabra
was
a
very
amateurish
attempt
at
competing
with
maker.
B
In
these
regards,
I
think
there
could
definitely
be
a
competitor
that
doesn't
blow
up
from
its
own
incompetence
and
all
of
a
sudden
maker
finds
itself
on
the
back
foot.
So
that's
something
that
I
would
really
like
to
prevent.
I
think
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
boring
demand
on
these
other
chains
and
this
could
sort
of
the
pre
sort
of
the
problem
introduced
by
or
that
was
addressed
in
your
previous
question
as
well,
which
is
there
really
isn't
enough
boring
demand.
B
But
there
is
a
ton
of
boring
demand
on
these
other
chains,
and
so
I
would
definitely
like
to
go
I'd
like
to
see
maker
go
on
these
chains
and
we
can
still
run
so.
The
way
that
I
look
at
it
is
like
every
new
chain
that
we
expand
to
is
basically
just
the
cdp
right,
so
we
can
run
our
own
risk
parameters
on
it
and
slowly
increase
the
debt
ceilings
as
we
become
more
comfortable
with
the
security
parameters
of
their
chain
and
yeah.
I
think
that's.
H
H
H
B
Hey
thanks
for
your
question,
yeah,
so
the
problem
that
I
think
that
it's
trying
to
solve
is
that
if
you
have
a
hierarchy
that
is
too
flat,
I
think
you
end
up
with
very
few
people.
Actually,
so
I
mean
the
reality
is
that
very
few
holders
actually
participate
in
governance
and
the
ones
that
do.
I
think
they
don't
all
pull
in
the
same
direction.
B
I
think
we
we
it's
almost
like
every
year
we
have
a
different
focus
and
there
isn't
really
a
long-term
plan
that
is
being
executed
on,
and
so
I
think
it
doesn't
it's
almost
of
secondary
importance.
What
the
plan
is.
I
think
it's
more
important
that
there
is
someone
who
sets
a
plan
and
everybody
focuses
their
resources
in
the
same
direction,
and
so
that
is
kind
of
what
I
would
hope
to
achieve
by
having
someone.
Almost
anyone
set
a
consistent
vision
and
minimize
sort
of
resources
spent
on
anything
else.
B
I
don't,
I
would
say
how
this
can
be
implemented,
is
the
totally
tbd
I
just
yeah.
I
just
have
a
sense
that
we
need
a
bit
more
structure,
setting
the
agenda
and
yeah.
I
mean
you
raise
very
good
points
clearly
with
how
to
minimize
privileged
control
and
information.
I
think
we
will
need
very
strong
reporting
to
mkr
holders.
B
Definitely
the
ability
to
remove
these
delegates
at
any
time
if
users
think
that
they
no
longer
operate
in
the
best
interest.
Overall,
I
think
just
you
need
a
very
strong
system
of
checks
and
balances,
so
nobody
should
have
unilateral
control.
Everybody
should
be
accountable
to
someone
else
in
sort
of
a
web
of
accountability.
B
That's
all!
I
can
really
say
about
that
right
now.
I
just
have
seen
other
dows
where,
if
the
hierarchy
gets
too
flat,
then
I
think
yeah.
The
result
is
basically
that
nobody
is
incentivized
to
think
really
long
term.
On
behalf
of
the
protocol
and
a
lot
of
forces
start
to
pull
into
very
different
directions,
and
you
end
up
diluting
yourselves
well
and
spreading
yourself
too
thin
when
really
you
should
be
focusing
all
your
time
and
pushing
in
one
direction.
B
G
You
know
something
that
more
amy,
though,
like
kind
of
like
emulate
kind
of
like
almost
like
a
prime
road
bridge,
or
something
like
that
like
like.
Is
that
something
that
maker's
looking
at
as
far
as
like
product
wise
goes,
I
mean
like
sorry
and
yeah
so,
like
yeah,
I
basically
had
yeah
that
question.
You
know
obviously
like
I
think,
like
you
know,
kind
of.
B
G
The
collateral
itself
that
you'd
be
borrowing
against,
I
mean
like
while
things
are
like
highly
correlated
like
you
talked
about
earlier.
Like
you
know,
maybe
this
sort
of
thing
matters
a
bit
less,
but
as
there's
more
of
a
dispersion
in
those
correlations
that
it's
much
more
capital
efficient,
essentially,
you
basically
have
a
pool
of
assets
that
you
borrow
against.
B
Uh-Huh
so
avoid
that
supports
more
than
one
asset.
Basically,
that's
yeah!
That's
right!
Okay,
yeah!
It's
a
good
question!
I
mean
basically
that's
how
compound
other
etc
work
right
right,
so
you
can
provide
different
kinds
of
collateral
and
it's
all
counted
towards
your
balance,
and
then
you
can
borrow
against
it.
I
think
would
be
interesting
for
maker
to
do
some
research.
How
important
this
feature
is
to
borrow
us
personally.
G
I'm
not
yeah
yeah
well
with
with
cdp
based
systems.
You
could
do
things
like
you
know,
like
obviously
like
the
like.
The
interest
rates
are
just
kind
of
constructed:
they're,
not
neces
they're
like
not
completely
necessarily
like
a
market-based
rates
since
you're,
creating
the
stable
coins
out
of
thin
air,
so
yeah.
So
I
think
that's
that
that's
like
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
like
abracadabra
or
something
like
shot
up
in
popularity
is
because
you
can
basically
borrow
at,
like
you
know,
close
to
zero.
G
I
guess
liquidy
like
same
thing
and
that
if
you
basically
just
encourage
collateral
that
collects
interest,
you
could
just
take
a
cut
of
the
basically
like
a
cut
of
the
interest-bearing
collateral
as
those
balances
change
rather
than
like.
You
know,
basically
making
it
very
cheap
for
people
to
borrow,
but
also
having
that
other
revenue
source,
and
so
there's
like.
I
think,
there's
like
some
different
yeah
anyway.
B
Well,
if
it's
about
sort
of,
if
we
are
talking
just
about
sort
of
cross
collateral
or
multicollateral
voids,
I
would
also
point
out
that,
due
to
the
direct
deposit
module,
you
can
already
put
multiple
forms
of
collateral
inside
these
other
lending
markets
and
then
benefit
from
the
same
interest
rate
as
you
would
in
makeup
right
via
the
direct
deposit
module.
So
I
don't.
B
I
So
I
have
a
question
about
korean
it's
because
right
now
we
have
been
this
right
now
now,
like
the
in
the
last
months,
we
have
been
discussing
a
lot
about
the
new
career
units
that
we
could
have
on
the
dao,
and
I
think
this
is
this
is
something
that
you
will
be
voting
in
the
following
weeks
and
it's
how?
What
do
you
think
about
korean?
It's
like
how
many
koreans
does
the
dao
need,
because
I
I
understand
that
you
want
to
grow
the
protocol
to
grow
the
protocol.
I
So
yeah,
I'm
curious
about
about
how
to
scale
that
out
on
the
on
a
number
of
car
units,
and
also
do
we
need
like
a
different
korean,
is
doing
the
same
thing
at
this
stage,
or
that
is
something
for
the
future
because,
like
the
original
vision
of
of
it
is
like
as
a
decentralized
organization,
we
need
a
more
than
one
korean
doing
the
same,
the
same
thing,
because
we
don't
want
to
centralize
the
power
just
in
one
group.
So
I'm
I'm
curious
about
what
you
think
about
it.
B
Hey
nadja
thanks
for
your
questions,
so
I
don't
even
know
how
many
co-units
there
are.
I
think
this
is,
I
think,
it's
very
hard
to
really
manage
the
budget
of
a
darwer
already
at
this
size
unless
you
are
full-time
delegate-
and
I
I
think
this
goes
back
to
this
idea
of
you-
know-
maker-
not
really
incentivizing
or
incentive
aligning.
B
You
know
the
right,
the
right
kind
of
full
time
that
I
get
so
I
mean
the
the
work
that
the
delegates
do
right
now
and
I've
seen
now
some
of
it
from
the
inside.
Since
I
became
one
myself
just
watching,
you
know
how
the
sort
of
the
workload
that
the
that
the
existing
delegates
do
and
I
think,
given
the
current
level
of
incentivization,
it's
actually
crazy.
So
I
don't
know
how
you're
supposed
to
make
these
decisions
without
being
a
full-time
delegate.
B
So
I
think
this
for
me
would
be
you
know
an
argument
in
favor
of
having
you
know
a
little
more
centralized
control
at
this
layer,
basically
at
the
layer
of
making
financial
decisions
with
the
dow
money-
and
you
know
who
should
the
c
c
usb?
How
many
do
we
need
and
what
is
their
budget
and
how
do
we
hold
them
accountable?
B
So
I
think
this
yeah.
Basically
in
a
nutshell,
I
think
this
is
impossible
for
the
current
set
of
cus
to
decide
and
it
will
become
even
harder
over
time
as
we
grow
further.
So
I
I
can't
tell
you
if
we
need
all
of
the
cus
that
we
onboarded
in
the
last
six
months
or
that
are
currently
being
voted
on,
and
I
don't
know
how
I
would
get
a
sense
of
it,
because
I
think
the
time
required
to
think
through
all
of
this
is
just
way
too
big.
B
B
I
think
they
are
probably
they.
I
think
they
are
probably
the
oldest
cu
right
and
and
probably
sort
of
the
most
important
one,
and
in
order
to
avoid
you
know
political
centralization,
and
you
know
one
core
unit
gaining
too
much
control.
This
may
be
the
first
thing
that
I
would
look
at,
but
also
in
the
sense
that
there
are
many
things
that
we
want
to
do
at
the
same
time
so,
for
example,
work
being
done
on
different
domains
versus
new
wall
types,
etc.
B
B
But
I
mean
I
should
say
that
really
this
is
all
kind
of
half
speculative.
On
my
part
right
I
mean
there
have
been
people
in
here
that
have
been
working
in
maker
for
years
and
now
all
of
the
you
know
existing
power
structure,
you
know
and
the
problems
with
difference
you
use
in
their
relationship,
etc.
A
J
Hasu
I
wanted
to
welcome
you
and
thank
you
for
you
know
showing
up
and
coming
through
and
mentioning
me
in
your
intro.
I
was
surprised.
I
can't
thank
you
enough
for
hearing
someone
else
talk
about
a
treasury.
I've
been
doing
this
for
years
now
and
thinking
about
how
you
know
maker
backing
the
protocol
is
almost
guaranteed
to
sell
low
and
buy
high
by
a
flat
flop
mechanic.
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
some
some.
J
B
J
You
know,
so
you
think
about
every
deal
you
do
and
every
collateral
type
you
add
in
dc.
You
add
you
think
about
it
against.
What's
the
surplus
here
right,
what's
our
risk
and
the
goal
was
really
to
move
forward
so
I'll?
Let
you
chat
here,
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
because
I
have
a
list
and
I
have
to
get
out
of
here
soon.
I
want
to
hear
you
so
I
want
to
say
something
generally
running.
J
Negative
interest
rates
in
the
ways
it
was
presented
was
not
well
received
by
governance,
and
so
I
think
we
can
address
it,
but
I
generally
governance
was
reluctant
to
do
that.
You
talk
about
wanting
to
address
governance
issues
and
and
having
an
executive
team.
I
look
forward
to
that.
I
think
it'll
be
interesting
and
challenging
your
web
of
accountability
is
also
interesting
and
I'm
going
to
point
out
something.
J
My
own
analysis
suggests
dow
expenses
to
perform
similar
functions
to
companies,
or
at
least
two
to
three
times
it'll,
be
interesting
to
hear
what
thoughts
you
have
on
this,
and
the
reason
is
just
redundancy
and
quality
insurance,
and
I
can
give
you
example
like
we
can
look
at
rwf
and
rwa
here.
You
know
you
really
don't
want
your
steel
sources
to
also
be
your
team
doing
the
reviewing
on
the
assessments.
You
really
would
like
those
to
be
firewalled
options,
and
so
it's
going
to
kind
of
make
that
more
expensive.
J
There's
other
things
you
might
want
to
duplicate.
I
look
forward
to
discussions
and
so
my
question
is
like
what
do
you
think
about
the
cu
expense
ramp
compared
to
revenue
the
trend
here?
So
that's
my
question
for
you.
You
can
write
that
down
and-
and
we
can
talk
more
about
cross-platform
swaps-
I'm
in
the
middle
of
a
couple
of
these
right
now
and
they
are
kind
of
non-trivial
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
and
different
things
that
you
can
do,
and
so
it's
an
interesting
topic
of
discussion.
J
We
don't
have
to
address
it
now
and
then
your
last
point
is
under
collaterized
loans.
I
think
it's
interesting
to
discuss
and
but
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
bigger
players
and
trying
to
get
some
bigger
stuff
going
on.
I
think
it's
an
interesting
place
to
look.
I
think
governance
is
going
to
have
a
hard
time
dealing
with
it,
and
so
I
want
to
thank
you
again
and
and
if
you
could
address
my
question
on
the
cu
expense
ramp
compared
to
revenues.
That
would
be
great
thanks.
B
Yo,
thank
you
for
yeah
these
comments.
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
on
hoping,
hopefully
materializing
some
of
these
plans.
I
actually
haven't
seen
the
cu
expense
rate
chart
versus
revenue,
so
yeah.
I
would
have
to
catch
up
to
that
and
then
get
back
to
you
later
I
mean,
obviously
I
think
the
two
have
to
be.
You
know
compared
to
each
other,
and
you
cannot
decide
on
on
expenses
without
projecting
what
kind
of
revenue
it
generates
in
the
future.
B
B
Every
dollar
you
spend,
I
think,
as
a
dow,
you
need
a
sense
of
how
much
revenue
it
can
generate
you
in
the
future
and
really
any
decision
can
be
viewed
under
this
lens,
whether
it's
boring
money
or
it's
buying
back
tokens
and
cancelling
them
or
it's.
You
know,
creating
a
new
cu
and
paying
them
a
budget
so
or
if
it's
paying
incentives
on
a
new
chain.
In
order
to
bootstrap
liquidity
there,
so
I
really
would
like
to
see
a
holistic
framework
for
thinking
about
these
things.
I
think
it's
without
that.
B
K
K
While
also,
I
was
thinking
if
it
came,
cannot
be
better
better
asset
for
redeemability
in
terms
of
if
die,
is
above
ebolpec
instead
of
usdc,
because
all
the
time
when,
I'm
speaking
to
other
fans
and
other
like
like
big
guys
who
who
really
care
about
like
decentralization
usdc
or
like
how
like
half
of
the
maker
balance
sheet
in
usdc,
is
for
them
like
big,
no,
no
or
like
against
against
this.
Like
spirit
of
decentralization
thanks,
hey.
K
Yes,
sorry
so
yeah
the
accumulator
just
accumulating,
eat
it
and
like
trying
to
like
pull
out
usdc
from
the
balance
sheet
and
maybe
have
some
like
internal
market
for
for
each.
So
all
the
time
when
dive
will
be
above
one,
there
will
be
like
arbitrage
opportunity
to
have
this
like
cheaper
eat
and
then
sell
it
elsewhere.
K
B
Yeah,
I
think
right
I
mean
so
if,
if
you,
if
you
were
to
sell
the
usdc
from
the
balance
sheet
in
favor
of
eve,
then
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
for
obvious
reasons,
not
a
good
idea,
because
when
eve
goes
down
then
you're
already
under
collateralized,
so
I
think
yeah,
it's
not
good
to
back
die.
If
we
are
talking
about
the
actual
treasury.
Sorry
yeah.
B
Yeah
for
surplus
buffer,
I'm
a
little
more
indifferent,
I
think
in
general
I
would
probably
be
in
favor
of
holding
all
treasury
and
stable
coins.
But
it's
a
bit
of
a
double-edged
sword
in
general,
because
if
you
look
at
I
mean
sometimes
what
happens
in
crypto
is
that
the
company
that's
willing
to
take
the
most
risk.
You
know
if
the
risk
doesn't
materialize,
then
obviously
you're
in
a
very
good
spot.
B
So
there
have
been
many
projects
who
have
held
a
lot
of
crypto
in
in
in
that
treasury
and
then
crypto
went
way
up
and
they
got
into
a
very
dominant
position
right
so
gnosis
for
example.
So
that's
not
the
approach
that
I
would
have
taken,
but
sort
of
it
did
end
up
paying
off
and
and
then
it's
very
hard
to
compete
as
a
project
who
arguably
did
the
more
sensible
thing
and
had
only
stable
coins
and
focused
on
building
that
core
product
and
did
not
also
make
a
price
bet
on
crypto.
A
Yeah
super
encourage
anyone.
If
you
have
questions
left
over
like
please
hit
the
maker
forum,
that's
a
great
place
to
kind
of
organize
the
questions
about
delegates,
as
well
as
other
things
maker,
tao,
huge
thanks,
sasuke
for
hosting,
and
we
appreciate
everyone
for
letting
us
go
a
little
over
today.
So
we
could
feel
all
the
questions
that
came
in
as
a
reminder.
A
This
will
be
posted
on
youtube
and
shortly
after
this
call
we'll
be
taking
care
of
the
technical
back-end
stuff
for
getting
asu
up
on
the
voting
portal
as
a
recognized
delegate.
So
thank
you
again
to
everyone
who
attended.
Please
continue
the
conversations
in
the
forums
and
we'll
catch
you
at
the
next
one.