►
From YouTube: Focus On #02: Focus On New Silver
Description
Focus On #02: Focus On New Silver
Focus On is yet another a new MakerDAO original series, where we talk with Core Units about their progress and deep dive into the details.
@SebVentures will be joining us again alongside @prankstr25 to discuss:
- New Silver’s latest update
- All the specifics that you want to know about the deal
- Any other questions you might have!
Agenda: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/focus-on-02-focus-on-new-silver/8817
Governance Forum:
https://forum.makerdao.com/
Disclaimer: These calls and the summaries are produced and hosted by MakerDAO community members. Content produced by the community are not the statements or views of the Maker Foundation.
A
A
B
B
B
The
company
mission
is
to
help
to
help
enable
entrepreneurial
growth
by
providing
real
estate
investors
with
fast,
conveniently
accessible
capital
and
by
harnessing
technology
to
improve
the
investors
journey
from
property
search
to
sale.
I'd
like
to
lose
some
background
on
what
we're,
how
we're
doing
this.
As
I
said,
we
started
in
2018
we're
in
the
business
of
fix
and
flip
lending
and
then
providing
some
ancillary
services
to
real
estate
investors.
Our
target
market
is,
you
know,
a
kind
of
a
us-based
small
business
investor.
We
only
lend
to
businesses.
B
Typically,
it's
a
you
know,
one
to
five
or
so
partner
type
of
an
arrangement.
So
it's
a
you
know
it's
a
relatively
small
business
that
we
work
with
we've
lent
over
50
million
dollars
since
our
founding
and
have
had
no
losses.
Thus
far,
we've
developed
a
bunch
of
proprietary
technology
for
faster
loan
approval,
underwriting
pricing
loans
and
then
some
other
value-added
tools.
B
We
partner
with
a
bunch
of
different
data
providers-
and
you
know
and
are
kind
of
thinking
about
you
know
adding
more
data
as
we
as
we
kind
of
grow,
and
you
know
our
team
is
I'm
on
the
tech
side.
We
also
have
alexi-
who
is
not
here
today,
but
he's
our
cto
alex
comes
from
commercial.
He
oversees
the
he
oversees
the
loan
origination
process
and
we
have
a
head
of
underwriting
as
well
proprietary
technology,
so
we've
developed
some
api
driven
data
driven
software.
B
That,
basically,
you
know
when
someone
applies
online,
they
can
get
approved
in
under
10
minutes
are
conditionally
approved
in
under
10
minutes.
We
pull
a
bunch
of
different
data,
sets
to
do
that
from
third
parties
and
from
ourselves,
and
you
know
this
can
essentially
help
us
scale
very
quickly.
This
is
not
something
that
many
other
loan
originators
in
this
space
have.
So
I
think
that
that's
this
is
a
huge
differentiator
for,
for
our
borrowers
is
essentially
the
speed
to
the
speed
to
loan.
B
For
us,
it
helps
us
underwrite
more
efficiently.
So
when
we
look
at
a
loan
after
someone
applies,
we
already
have
kind
of
the
red
flags
highlighted
we
we
know
you
know
whether
or
not
we
like
this
geography.
We
know
the
you
know
the
the
values
we
know
a
bunch
of
different
stuff
about
this
property
and
the
census
area
of
the
you
know
the
of
the
zip
code
and
so
forth,
and
we
make
a
decision
based
on
about
20
different
factors.
I
mean
the
most
important
ones
are
probably
more
common
in
the
industry.
B
We've
also
developed
a
tool
called
flip
scout,
which
is
something
we
will
probably
continue
to
build
upon
right
now,
it's
kind
of
in
its
fairly
early
versions,
but
it's
getting
a
fair
amount
of
usage.
It's
essentially
a
complimentary
tool
that
anyone
can
register
and
use
and
it
helps
people
find
on
market
property,
so
it'll.
It's
basically
a
search
engine
for
people
who
do
fix
and
flips
or
long-term
investments,
and
it
helps
them
locate
properties
based
on
a
number
of
different
factors.
B
B
Our
potential
clients
do
more
than
just
lend
them
money,
just
a
high
level
overview
of
our
loan
products
so
fix
and
flip.
This
is
what
we
do
the
majority
of,
and
this
is
what
tin,
lake
and
and
maker
dower
are
mostly
involved
in,
and
it's
essentially
a
short-term
loan
up
to
24
months
of
duration.
Our
current
rates
start
from
6.99
for
the
very
top
tier.
You
know
highly
qualified
borrowers,
and
the
idea
is
that
somebody
borrows
you
know.
B
B
Refinance
is
very
similar,
same
type
of
property,
but
these
people
who
have
bought
using
their
own
cash
or
partially
cash,
or
they
may
have
had
a
different
use
case
for
it
originally,
and
now
I
want
to
switch
to
fix
and
flip.
So
if
they
already
have
a
loan
and
they
have
a
good
use
case,
we
can
help
them
refinance
and
essentially,
you
know,
get.
You
know
the
same
thing
as
as
the
fix
and
flip
parameters,
ground
up
construction,
also,
very
similar.
B
B
So
you
know
we're
basically
a
middleman
in
these
transactions,
but
it's
a
it's
a
similar
product
to
what
banks
do,
except
that
it
looks
at
that
to
income
ratio
a
little
bit
differently
than
banks,
and
so
it
is
quite
actually
a
popular
product
out
there
with
a
real
estate
investor.
But
it's
for
somebody
that
wants
to
purchase
a
property
and
rent
it
out.
Essentially
so
so,
specifically
on
the
tin
lake,
we
opened
the
pool
about,
I
believe
december.
B
We
did
the
first
transaction,
we
have
37
live
assets
and
one
repaid
asset.
Approximately
a
7
million
plus
total
pool
value
average
loan
to
value
across
the
book
is
set
about
72,
average
fico
and
the
credit
score
is
707
16,
which
is
which
is,
I
think,
fairly.
You
know
it's
not
at
the
the
highest
here,
but
it's
sort
of
at
the
next
to
the
highest
tier.
B
So
it's
a,
I
think
our
fico
score
average
is
pretty
good
for,
for
the
you
know,
the
types
alone
in
the
industry
loan
to
cost.
So
this
is
a
metric
that
we
use
to
kind
of
evaluate
the
whole
loan.
The
average
we
go
up
to
90
loan
to
cost
on
our
average
of
83
after
rehab
value
is
another
metric
that
we
use
to.
You
know
to
look
at
the
loan.
We
go
up
to
75.
B
B
B
I
want
because
I
wanted
to
address
some
of
the
potential
questions
and,
and
you
know
we
could
take
questions,
obviously,
after
after
I'm
done
with
the
short
president
and
have
an
open
discussion.
But
you
know
some
of
the.
I
wanted
to
highlight
some
of
the
items
that
we
have
in
place
for
the
protection
of
of
the
dow.
So
you
know,
first
and
foremost,
we
only
we
go
up
to
90
loan
to
cost
on
the
loans
that
we
originate
to
our
borrowers.
B
So
that
means
that
the
very
very
best
borrowers
have
to
bring
at
least
10
percent
equity
when
they're
buying
these
properties
and
the
average
is
above
15..
So
you
know
the
typical
amount
of
money
people
have
to
bring
is
more
than
15,
so
that
is
obviously
for
everyone's
protection.
We
do
not
do
100
financing.
B
We
require
skill
in
the
game.
We
don't
do
anything
that
some
other
folks
in
the
industry
do
like
cross,
collateralization
or
or
other
ways
to
kind
of
finance.
We
want
people
to
bring
money
to
the
closing
and
have
that
skin
in
the
game,
so
that
they're
committed
to
the
project.
First
and
foremost,
the
loan
to
value
average,
as
I
mentioned
before,
is
50
72.
B
The
loan
to
value
of
the
property
is
roughly
72
so
that
you
know
that
that's
already,
you
know,
28
cushion
built
in
to
the
approximate
value
of
the
property,
then
below
that
we
have
the
junior
trans.
That's
that's,
which
is
at
a
minimum,
has
to
be
15
and
it's
currently
last
time
a
check
that
was
sitting
around
22.
B
So
that
means
that
they're
in
the
first
loss
position.
So,
after
the
you
know,
let's
say:
there's
a
there's,
a
some
kind
of
an
event
or
where
the
values
drop.
You
know,
obviously,
first
of
all
the
the
borrower
themselves,
their
equity
is,
is
at
the
very
top
right.
Then
we
still
have
the
loan
to
value.
You
know
protection
that
from
72
roughly
that
it
can
potentially
decrease
in
value.
B
Then,
after
that,
the
the
first
investor
loss
is
tin
is
the
junior
charge
which
we're
we're
currently
at
22,
but
the
minimum
is
15
and
our
personal
tip
investment
is
around
100
grand
a
hundred
thousand
die.
Also
we're
keeping
a
hundred
and
five
percent
drop
over
catalytization
and
maker
dow
owns,
I
believe,
less
than
70
at
the
the
maximum
we
could
own
75
of
outstanding
drop.
B
B
B
We
have
a
licensed
third-party
servicer
called
fci
and
the
website's
right
there
called
myfci.com.
All
of
the
loans
that
are
on
tin
lake
are
serviced
by
fci,
so
that
means
that
they
collect
payments.
They
will
you
know
if
somebody
doesn't
pay,
they
will
reach
out
and
try
to
collect
those
payments.
If
there
is
a
default,
they
can
manage
the
default
process,
they
have
attorneys
and
their
full
service
end-to-end
as
the
servicer
for
anything
real
estate,
and
so
there
there
you
know
another
level
of
protection
in
case.
B
I
guess
something
may
happen
to
you
know
to
new
silver.
Also,
the
current
covenants
that
are
in
place,
the
maximum
of
15
percent
of
loan
to
volume,
can
be
above
85
percent.
I'm
sorry
maximum
15
of
the
total
loan
volume
can
be
85
percent.
It
can
be
at
higher
than
85
percent
loan
to
value
and
we're
we're
below
that
right
now.
Maximum
state
exposure
is
maximum
of
30,
so
we're
actually
a
little
bit
above
that
now.
B
We
will
still
continue
to
originate,
but
we
just
won't
be
able
to
give
those
deals
to
the
tower
lake
and
I
think
that's
gonna,
be
you
know
that
that's
probably
not
the
best
business
strategy
in
my
opinion,
but
we
can
just
that
right
now,
the
maximum
single
loan
is
below
500
000,
which
is
which
has
got
roughly
10
percent
of,
I
hope,
there's
some
background.
Noise.
B
Which
is
roughly
ten
percent
of
the
of
the
total
debt
ceiling
and
maximum
borrower?
Exposures
are
25
to
those
to
a
single
borrower,
with
a
fight
code,
650
and
15
to
a
single
borrower
with
a
fico
below
650.,
independent
director
protection,
so
we're
hiring
a
company
called
citadel
spd
and
we're
signing
and
operating
a
new
operating
agreement.
That's
going
to
include
them,
and
this
independent
director
will
essentially
authorize
what's
called
material
action
and
those
are
at
a
high
level.
B
You
know
bankruptcy,
reorganizations,
reassignment
of
collateral
changes
in
material
terms
of
on
the
executive
summary
for
investors,
and
so
you
know,
independent
director
will
make
sure
drop
investors
are
notified
and
then
there
is
no
pending
drop
redeem
going
on
before
the
terms
are
changed.
I
think
14
days
what
we
thought
about.
Originally
we
were
talking
about
extending
that
a
little
bit
to
maybe
21
days
to
you
know
to
provide
a
little
more
time,
but
you
know
we
plan
on.
I
think.
B
B
That's
a
material
change
will
be,
you
know,
there's
gonna
be
a
nodeless
period
and
you
know
we'll
be
able
to
address
all
questions
and
then,
if,
if
maker
dow
does
not
agree
with
the
changes,
the
you
know,
I
it'll
probably
go
to
a
vote
within
the
dow,
I
presume,
and
then
you
know
the
drop
can
be
redeemed
and
those
changes
will
not
take
place.
That's
kind
of
the
mechanism
that
we're
building
in
in
case
you
know
in
case
the
community
decides
that
they
don't
like
some
of
the
changes
that
we're
proposing.
B
I
wanted
to
show
this
quick
slide
here.
This
is
just
kind
of
on
the
safety
of
the
asset
class
itself.
So
again,
these
are
real
estate-backed,
short-term
bridge
loans.
This
is
from
a
company
called
peer
street,
so
they
are
an
aggregator
of
such
loans
and
they
buy
from
you
know
hundreds
of
loan
originators
throughout
the
country,
and
this
is
their
queue.
B
These
are
negative
returns.
They
don't
show
how
much
was
recovered,
but
you
know,
let's
just
presume
there
was
some
negative
return
there
and
then
out
of
the
ones
that
went
to
reo
0.31
yielded
negative
returns,
so
in
total
there
was
a
negative
return
on
only
0.4
of
the
loans
out
of
this
large
pool
of
similar
loans.
I
just
wanted
to
illustrate
that
this
is
a
you
know,
and
these
numbers
are
in
line
with
with
the
rest
of
the
industry
from
what
I've
seen.
B
So
you
know
it
seems
like
a
fairly
you
know,
a
relatively
safe
asset
class
overall
and
then
the
request
going
forward,
which
will
you
know
we'll
put
to
a
vote
in
the
hopefully
near
future.
We
we
are
now
about
halfway
through
the
debt
ceiling
and-
and
we
have
you
know,
loans
that
we
already
originated-
that
we'll
be
adding
to
tin
lake.
So
we
expect
to
use
the
rest
of
the
debt
ceiling.
B
You
know
within
the
next
30
days
or
so,
and
I
would
like
to
ask
for
an
increase
of
debt
ceiling
to
about
20
million
that
should
go.
Potentially,
you
know
approximately
until
the
end
of
the
year
we're
originating
three
to
five
million
per
month,
and
let's
say
if
we
have
at
the
low
end,
there's
six
months
left
or
so
you
know
until
the
year
end.
So
I
I
believe
that
we'll
we'll
use
up
the
the
20
million
prior
to
the
end
of
the
year.
Some
loans
will
pay
off.
Of
course.
B
B
A
lot
of
people
have
changed
to
using
loan
to
cost
in
the
last
couple
years,
and
then
we
can
rethink
the
maximum
state
exposure
kavanaugh,
which
is
at
30
right
now,
but
you
know
that
I
just
don't
don't
think
it's
the
best
way
to
measure
geographic
concentration.
If
we
want
to
measure
it
at
all.
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
that
we
need
to
measure
it,
but
you
know
there's
other
ways
to
measure
it.
If
we
do
so,
that's
about
it
happy
to
take
questions
or
open
discussion.
D
No
I'm
happy
to
kick
us
off
if
no
one
else
is
itching
to
go.
I
know
one
big
thing
the
community
was
perhaps
like
not
understanding
or
was
a
little
upset
about
for
lack
of
a
better
term
was
the
change
on
the
ltv
max
or
the
minimum
minimum
equity
that
the
borrowers
have
to
put
down.
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
give
us
any
insight
as
to
why
that
was
raised
up
to
90.
B
We've
always
had
loan
to
cost
up
to
90
right,
I
think
the
it
was
you
know
most
likely.
We
should
have
thought
through
the
initially
when
we
were
going
live,
so
it
was
maybe
something
that
we
should
have
kind
of
thought
about
a
little
bit
more
initially,
but
we've
always
had
a
loan
to
cost
of
90
percent.
What
we,
what
we
restated,
I
think
in
the
executive
agreement.
B
B
We
you
know
our
kavanaugh
is
right.
Now,
with
maker
is
no
more
than
50
percent
of
the
loan
amounting
above
85
that
you
know,
none
of
our
covenants
were
ever
broken.
I
think
we
just
restated
what
we
already
had
and
we
should
have
probably
stayed.
I
had
done
it
like.
I
said.
A
better
job
up
front
from
you
know,
started
to
use
ltc
immediately
and
not
used
ltv,
but
really
nothing.
You
know
the
the
nothing
really
changed
on
our
end.
E
So
there
are
really
three
matrix
that
we'll
look
at
the
most
important
one
is
loan
to
cost,
which
measures
how
much
equity
the
borrower
is
bringing
to
the
table.
Then
there's
an
as
repaired
value,
the
arv
which
measures
what
the
loan
amount
is
compared
to
the
final
value
after
the
rehab,
and
that
is
75.
E
So
we
never
go
about
75
percent,
really,
there's
a
couple
exceptions.
I
think
in
special
cases,
but
75
arv
is
the
matrix
that
measures
what
the
total
loan
amount
is
for
both
purchase
and
rehab
compared
to
the
final
value
after
the
rehab
is
completed,
and
then
the
ltv
is
the
initial
loan
amount
compared
to
initial.
E
As
is
appraised
value,
so
that's
the
least
important
in,
in
my
opinion,
for
these
specific
loan
ties,
but
certainly
you
can't
really
look
at
just
the
ltv
without
considering
the
final
arv
ratio
and
the
ltc
which
measures
the
borrower's
equity.
So
you
know
the
the
ltv
is
is
usually
only
higher
than
85
in
cases
where
the
rehab
portion
is
really
really
small,
so
the
it's
really
a
cosmetic
rehab,
so
the
total
loan
is
still
has
the
75
arv
cushion
on
the
final
value.
E
It's
just
that
that
rehab
is
completed
very
very
quickly
and
you
know
the
ltv
because
of
the
way
the
loan
is
structured
is
a
little
bit
higher.
So
we
don't
necessarily
look
at
that
matrix
alone.
If
the
ltc
and
the
arv
are
within
our
parameters,
then
the
ltv,
sometimes
above
85,
but
again
we're
still
maintaining
the
requirements
required
thresholds
and
the
other
two
matrix.
So
that's
kind
of
where
those
numbers
came
from.
But
again
our
overall
portfolio
is
still
below
the
common.
E
A
Alexandria,
there's
something
I
wanted
to
to
comment
on,
but
I'm
first
of
all,
let
me
say
that
I'm
far
from
being
an
expert
in
real
world
finance
or
yeah,
anything
that
has
to
do
with
structure
finance.
So
I
might
my
question:
might
come
off
as
knife
a
bit,
but
basically
what
what
stroke
something
that
was
striking
for
the
community.
A
It
was
more
the
kind
of
like
a
unilateral
change,
so
if
there
is
a
parameter-
and
I
might
be
wrong
right-
but
if
there
is
a
parameter
that
has
been
set
to
something
and
one
of
the
parties
changes
unilaterally,
that
doesn't
reflect
very
well
on
the
on
the
agreement
that
was
originally
set.
So
that
would
be
point
number
one
and
the
the
second
one
I
don't
know.
If
I
don't
know
if
the
the
the
fact
that
maker
could
potentially
liquidate
the
drop
is
the
best
way
to
to
go
around
it.
A
B
And
none
of
the
conditions
change
and
we
were
never
breach
of
it
in
any
component
right.
We,
our
loans,
are
less
than
15
of
85
that
are
85
overall
ltv.
So
the
way
that
we,
you
know,
we
explained
it.
I
guess
on
the
executive
summary,
we
wanted
to
just
change
the
way
that
it's
explained,
but
the
way
that
that
maker
invested
that
nothing
there
has
changed.
I
mean
the
covenant
is
that
15
of
the
loans
could
be
above
80,
85
percent
ocd,
and
that
that
didn't
change.
F
The
difference
between
what
was
told
to
the
community
and
what
was
in
the
spreadsheet-
and
you
changed
the
executive
summary,
but
this
was
approved
by
the
community
as
there
was
a
provision
for
that
and
one
maybe
the
the
best
example
to
compare.
That
is
when
you
are
investing
in
etf,
for
instance,
from
a
provider.
Anyone
if
the
provider
want
to
change
the
nature
of
the
etf.
F
B
The
etf
can
buy
and
sell
securities
at
any
time
without
anyone's
permission.
So
that's
not
that's
not
how
etfs
work.
It's
not
a
very
good
example.
I
think.
But
and
if
you
invest
in
any
fund
and
most
of
the
funds,
they
can
do
almost
whatever
they
want
right
like
as
long
as
the
covenants
aren't
preached,
we
never
breached
any
of
the
covenants.
I
think
we
restated
and
we
sent
out
an
email
within
the
two
week
notice.
B
So
I'm
not
sure
what
you
know
what
everyone's
upset
about,
but
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
fix
here
is
is
kind
of
giving
a
longer
notice
and
having
the
independent
director.
You
know
kind
of
sign
off
on
that.
So
I
think
again
I
I
don't.
I
think
we
restated
what
was
already
implied.
That's
how
it
looks
to
us-
and
maybe
that's
not
the
best.
E
E
So
that's
what
the
loan
to
cost
is
the
loan
to
value,
so
our
loan
to
cost
is
in
the
previous
example
for,
for
instance,
if
we
do
90
of
the
total
150
the
50
000
rehab
will
be
always
in
reserves.
They
don't
get
the
money
up
front.
They
have
to
come
complete
the
work
it's
on
reimbursement
basis.
After
we
do
inspections
then
confirm
the
work's
been
completed,
and
then
we
release
the
funds
for
the
items
that
are
completed.
E
E
50
000
of
that
would
be
in
reserves
for
the
rehab
and
85
000
would
be
up
front
for
the
purchase,
so
the
85
upfront
purchase
out
of
a
hundred
thousand
cost
of
the
property.
So
if
the
appraised
value
is
the
same
as
the
purchase
price,
the
as
is
appraised
value
of
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
then
the
ltv
becomes.
The
initial
loan
amount,
divided
by
the
as
it
is
appraised
value
which
would
be
85
000
over
100
000
and
that's
85
percent.
That's
where
ltv
comes
from.
E
If
the
appraisal
value
is
higher
than
the
purchase
price,
which
in
a
lot
of
cases
it
is,
then
a
ltv
is
below,
but
in
any
case
the
loan
amount.
The
total
loan
amount
is
within
75
of
the
arv.
So
as
soon
as
the
property
is
completed
and
the
rehab
is
done,
then
our
max
loan
amount.
Our
total
loan
amount
is.
This
is,
is
only
75
percent
of
the
actual
value
of
the
property
post.
Completion
yeah.
B
E
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
one
trying
to
explain
so
that
initial
loan
amount
over
the
initial
as
this
value
becomes
a
lower
ltv.
If
the
rehab
is
amount
is
higher,
because
we
always
cover
100
percent
of
rehab
in
the
loan.
So
essentially
borrowers
pay,
10
or
more
upfront
of
the
total
cost
of
the
project
which
includes
rehab,
so
they
contribute
10
percent
of
the
rehab
on
the
front
end.
E
D
D
E
The
ltv
is
the
matrix
of
the
initial
loan
to
the
initial
value.
The
air
v
is
the
matrix
of
the
total
loan
to
the
final
value,
and
the
ltc
is
the
matrix
of
the
borrower's
equity
in
the
deal
and
the
total
equity
they
have
to
put
in.
You
know
to
the
total
loan
so
they're
all
interconnected,
obviously,
because
the
initial
value
and
final
value
are
connected
and
then
what
the
borrower
puts
into
the
total
cost
is
is
also
connected.
E
For
example,
if
the
borrower
is
buying
a
property
for
a
discounted
price
and
the
appraisal
comes
in
at
a
much
higher
value
than
what
they're
paying
for
it,
then
then
we
could
do
a
very
low
ltv
loan
that
would
confirm
to
the
covenant,
but
it
would
be
a
hundred
percent
of
the
cost
of
the
property,
so
they
have
no
equity
in
the
project.
So
just
to
look
at
ltv
without
ltc
is
a
little
bit
misleading,
as
as
far
as
assessing
the
risk
of
the
fraud
project.
Overall.
D
B
That's
probably
one
of
the
reasons
you
know
we
went
with
that
initially,
and
you
know
the
better
picture
would
be
because
again
ltd
only
measures
the
value
today
are
our
people
that
borrow
funds
from
us
begin
to
rehab
immediately
so
after
they
hit
the
first
nail
into
the
wall,
the
lcd
is
already
different
and
we
don't
get
a
new
measure
of
lpd
so
lcd
alone.
Now
they
used
to
measure,
I
think
the
whole.
The
whole
thing
has
to
be
has
to
be
looked
at
and
and
to
us.
F
B
Not
not
for
not
for
now,
and
if
there
are,
then
we
will
follow
the
new
process,
which
will
be,
I
mean,
we're
still
ironing
about
the
final
details,
but
I'll
be,
I
believe,
it'll
be
like
a
21
day
no
less
period.
We
can
post
the
changes
in
the
forum
with
the
new.
You
know
the
chain,
I
guess
just
the
changes
or
the
new
proposed
executive
summary,
and
then
we
will
send
out
an
email
communication.
B
A
Kill
something
that
and
yeah
I'll
assume
something
that
I
wanted
to
mention
is
that
eventually
the
mkr
holders
don't
care
much
about
this.
These
terms,
what
we
want
to
understand
this,
how
these
deals
are
comparable
to
each
other.
I
don't
believe
that
mekoda
wants
to
become
an
expert
in
in
real
estate
and
flipping
things
right.
A
So,
ideally,
what
we
need
is
an
abstraction
of
these
terms,
so
if
we
have
an
expert
to
to
explain
how
these
terms
interact
with
each
other
and
then
setting
potentially
thresholds
and
saying
like
okay,
these
three
parameters
are
very
important,
so
they
could
not
go
over
this
number.
These
others
are
just
measurements
and
we
don't
care
if
they
move
or
not,
because
right
now,
what
I'm
hearing
is.
This
was
moved
unilaterally
and
some
people
are
saying:
well,
it's
not
a
big
deal
and
the
other
people
are
saying
it's
a
huge
deal.
A
A
So
potentially
we
need
to
speak
about
audits,
too
right,
but
if
these
are
the
parameters
that
are
important
and
they
have
not
been
changed,
everyone
should
be
happy
because
things
are
running
smoothly
as
as
they
should
be,
and
otherwise
this
potentially
should
include
a
liquidation
which
is
not.
I
imagine
that
it's
not
something
fun
to
do,
because
you
need
to
do
it.
C
All
it
means
is
that
from
that
point
on
maker
will
be
asking
new
silver,
or
in
this
case,
or
the
asset
originator,
to
get
to
direct
any
loan
repayments
or
any
new
investments
that
come
in
from
other
investors
to
make
her
as
their
withdrawing
drop
tokens.
This
also,
this
means
that
no
new
loans
can
be
originated
until
maker
has
been
fully
repaid.
C
The
10
lake
smart
contracts
make
sure
that
no
new
loan
originations
can
happen
when
a
an
existing
investor
wants
to
exit
the
pool.
So
in
that
case,
what
we're
adding
with
the
independent
director
is
that
the
independent
director
ensures
that
these
this
executive,
summary
change
or
sort
of
these
changes
are
not
put
into
place
until
all
these
investors
have
been
repaid
and
there's
also
protection
for
that
on
the
smart
contract
side.
A
C
D
C
There's
a
notice
period,
so
that's
why
the
notice
period
is
there,
so
that
maker
can
have
this
discussion
in
internally
in
the
community,
but
also
the
asset
originator
and
make
the
decision
of
whether
whether
well
there's
three
outcomes
right
as
as
originator
says,
here's
what
we
want
to
change
then
maker
can
decide
fine
with
us.
We're
not
going
to
do
anything.
C
Let
the
notice
period
expire
and
accept
it
maker
can
say
we
don't
want
you
to
do
that.
If
you
do
that,
then
we
would
decide
to
liquidate
and
the
asset
originator
can
say:
okay,
that's
fine!
We
will
maybe
find
a
compromise
and
put
forward
a
new
proposed
change.
In
that
case,
that's
obviously
the
ideal
scenario
or
or
in
case
maker
and
the
asset
originator
can't
come
to
an
agreement.
Right
then,
really
the
way
forward
would
be
that
the
ass
originator
accepts
that
they
will
be
off-boarding
maker
and
having
to
go
use.
C
Other
sources
of
liquidity
to
originate
their
loans
and,
in
that
case
maker
would
before
before
the
notice
period
is
a
la,
is
lapsed,
submit
the
the
drop
token
redemption,
which
means
it
would
trigger
the
liquidation
in
the
maker
system
and
ask
for
the
for
the
investment
back,
which
would
then
start
the
process
that
I
described.
No
new
loans
being
originated
and
any
repayments
from
loans
or
new
investors
that
want
to
join
the
pool
would
then
be
redirected
to
the
pending
redemptions.
F
F
And
then,
if
that's
the
entire
equity
in
the
into
the
pool,
you
will
just
try
to
optimize
the
parameters
and
then
you
end
up
with
subprimes,
because
they
are
purple
a
stuff
like
that.
So
there
is
always
a
balancing
act
between
flexibility
and
just
relying
on
the
number,
and
we
have
all
the
all
the
information
at
the
end
of
the
month.
G
Is
that
any
drop
token
holders
who
are
paying
attention
and
they
see
that
the
largest
arm
of
financing
for
a
pool
is
about
to
be
redeemed?
I
worry
that
they
can
front,
run
us
and
drain
the
pool
of
any
liquidity,
and
so,
even
if
the
assets
under
management
do
not
become
impaired,
we
may
have
to
wait
for
quite
a
while
in
order
to
get
our
money
back.
So
perhaps
does
anybody
have
any
thoughts
or
obvious
solutions
to
those.
C
This
was
voted
on
signal,
requests
and
sort
of
that's
why
we
said
I
mean
in
new
silver's
case,
if
the
average,
if
the
average
loan
term
is
18
months,
a
mature
loan
portfolio
will
be
fifty
percent
liquidate.
Like
fifty
percent
repaid
after
after
nine
months
right
a
hundred
percent
after
after
eighteen
months,
it
means
for
the
senior
token
holders
they
will
get.
They
will
they
only
care
about
the
first
85
percent
of
the
of
the
time.
C
So
the
first
like
the
the
roughly
15
months
and-
and
that
is
really
under
the
assumption
that
every
other
drop
investor
would
would
exit
before.
If,
if
maker
is
joining,
if
makers
joining
the
redemption
in
just
a
pool
in
general,
then
then
that
would
be,
it
would
obviously
be
a
lot
faster.
So
so
this
is
like
this
is
just
the
sort
of
the
worst
case
maturity,
sort
of
waiting
for
maturity,
which
I
believe
we've
when
we
haven't
changed.
G
So
I
think
I
think
a
lot
of
my
concern
is
less
about
the
underlying
credit
and
more
about
the
mechanisms
by
which
we
can
withdraw
our
capital
and
I
and
to
be
fair.
I
was
not
here
back
when
these
discussions
originally
originally
occurred,
but
it
strikes
me
as
like.
If
I
were
a
drop
token
holder-
and
I
saw
that
maker,
which
currently
holds
30
about
a
third
of
this
pool
right
and
10,
more
than
10
of
all
financing
currently
on
centrifuge.
G
If
I
saw
that
they
were
about
to
get
rid
of
their
entire
stake,
because
the
way
it's
set
up,
it
has
to
be
all
or
nothing.
Why
would
they
not
want
to
get
in
front
of
us
in
line
to
get
their
money
out
unless
they
just
aren't
paying
attention?
And
I
don't
want
to-
I
just
don't-
want
a
mechanism
where
our
ability
to
begin
recovering
any
of
our
principle
is
reliant
upon
our
co-invest
effectively
our
co-investors
at
the
same
seniority
to
just
not
be
paying
attention.
C
C
Then
then,
from
that
point
on
maker
will
see
90
of
the
cash
flows,
the
the
loan
repayments
go
to
them
and
are
not
sorry,
not
90
of
1995
right
would
see
would
see
the
the
majority
of
the
loan
repayments
go
to
them.
It's
not
a
first
come
first
serve,
it's
best
effort
per
rata,
the
same
way
that
mutual
funds
typically
work
right,
where
you
sort
of
collect
interest
in
on
repayment
on
redemptions.
C
C
Is
no,
there
is
no
reserve
with
a
maker
pool,
there's
a
maker,
it's
technically
impossible
for
a
maker
to
be
have
any
debt
outstanding
in
a
pool
that
has
a
reserve.
This
would
be
completely
against
the
idea
of
only
paying
the
maker
credit
line
when
you
need
it
right.
So,
at
any
point,
in
time,
when
maker
is
invested
in
a
pool,
there
is
no
reserve,
because
why
would
the
pool
pay
maker
a
stability
fee
when
it
has
died
in
its
own
reserve?
That
would
be
a
waste
of
of
money.
G
G
C
So,
but
this
is
so
so
in
your
example
right
so
like
maker,
has
a
10-day
discussion
on
a
pool
with
an
average
on
a
pool
with
an
average
maturity.
Loan
maturity
of
nine
months
so
like
that
means
effectively
if,
if
everyone
outside
of
maker
would
be
10
days
early
at
redeeming
right,
we're
talking
about
like
the
word
absolute
worst
case
scenario
here,
which
is
like
I
don't
know
like
this.
D
C
C
Catastrophic
event
where,
like
everyone
is
running
for
basically
a
bank
run,
so
in
this
case,
right
maker
would
be
say,
10
days
slower,
because
they're
taking
their
time
to
discuss
it.
That
only
means
that
these
loans
mature
over
two
years
or
over
18
months,
that
means
maker,
would
only
be
10
but
would
only
suffer
in
the
first
10
days
of
these,
of
of
the
like
over
over
300
days
of
repayments.
Coming
in
so
effectively
like.
C
G
H
Doesn't
sound
right
to
what
lucas
was
saying
you
know,
so
if
in
in
redemption
scenarios
lucas
has
described
it,
your
over
collateralization
of
five
percent
is
already
protecting
you
from
the
front
running
you
know.
So
I
really
think
that
is
a
non-issue.
You
cannot
compare
this
front
running
with
a
typical.
You
know
liquid
asset
liquidation.
That
is
really
where
the
underlying
term
is
protecting.
You
here,
yeah,
you
know
even
a
10
days
decision
period
is
a
non-issue.
G
A
There's
something
I'm
I'm
still
worried
about
the
process.
It
seems
like
the
process
is
like
default,
cheating
right.
It's
like
your
partner,
calling
you
every
night
and
saying
like
hey.
Can
I
sleep
with
someone
else
and
if
you
are
not
fast
enough
to
say
no,
it's
like
okay
yeah.
We
assume
that
because
you
didn't
answer
to
the
email
and
you
didn't
speak
with
the
maker
holders
and
you
didn't
vote
no,
we
changed
the
terms.
So
maybe
maybe
I'm
totally
wrong
on
that
one.
But
that's
how
it
sounds.
D
B
But,
but
I
think
I
think
that
you
know
I
I
mean
to
me
like
some
of
these
points
are
a
little
bit
moot
because
we
have
covenants
right
so
as
soon
as
the
covenants
are
breached,
I
mean
maker
can
stop
the
credit
line
right,
so
we
could
change
whatever
we
want
in
in
whatever
we
want,
but
as
soon
as
the
covenants
have
reached,
the
credit
line
can
be
cut
right.
So
I
think
that's
how,
if
you,
if
we
go
to
a
bank
to
get
a
line
of
credit,
they
give
us
covenants.
B
If
the
covenants
are
breached,
then
they
have
the
right
to
suspend
the
line
of
credit.
We
can,
you
know,
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
change
our
origination
parameters
or
whatever
and
banks
don't
care
about
them
as
long
as
their
covenants
aren't
breached.
So
I
think
that
the
right
covenants
have
to
be
in
place,
and
you
know
if
they're
breached,
then
the
credit
line
can
be
can
be
cut
basically.
A
A
No,
I'm
not
talking
about
the
covenants,
I'm
talking
about
any
other
parameter
right,
like
you're,
saying
hey,
we
moved
it
from
80
to
90,
but
we're
not
breaching
anything.
Why
didn't
you
start
saying?
Hey
america
maker
we're
going
to
use
90
instead
of
80?
Is
it
to
to
seem
more
competitive
to
start
with,
because.
F
What's
that
the
drop
apr
change
as
well,
we
are
not
impacted,
but
I
mean
if,
in
the
following
years
the
average
rate
for
such
kind
of
product
is
three
percent
most
likely
we
will
decrease
the
the
drop
apr
and
we
will
have
to
decrease
as
a
stability
fee
on
our
end,
and
so
that's
why
you
need
to
be
able
to
change
and
adapt
to
the
market
conditions,
and
obviously
it
was
the
first
time
we
onboarded
water
set.
So
it
was
not
perfect
from
the
start,
because
yeah,
it's
not
easy
to
do
right.
B
B
Process
for
us
I
mean
we
didn't,
certainly
didn't,
do
it
perfectly
the
first
time
around.
I
think
you
know
and
again,
even
if
you
know
we
did
not
preach
any
of
the
covenants
and
I
think
we're
trying
to
improve
you
know
with
the
snowless
process
and
and
other
things
to
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that
every
everybody
is
comfortable
and
everything
is,
you
know
everything
secure
going
forward.
A
F
F
F
H
So
the
the
idea
behind
that
is
really
give
the
community
the
ability
to
have
more
right
than
the
other
investors,
the
ability
to
audit
check
the
loan
tape
check
the
details,
what
what
new
server
is
doing
there
and
the
only
and
best
counterparty
we
could
could
find
was.
Of
course,
you
know
the
real
world
financing
core
unit
to
sign
the
agreement
and
speak
here
for
the
community,
and
that
is
what
zap
is
doing.
F
F
A
F
B
So
I
just
want
to
add.
I
just
want
to
add
that
we
are
we're
working
with
the
centrifuge
team
to
to
basically
make
that
that
and
other
information
available
on
chain
and
and
hopefully
soon
that
report
and
we're
not
opposed
to
doing
like
a
monthly
audit
with
with
whoever
you
guys
want
to
designate
to
do
that.
But
in
addition
to
that,
I
think
it
would
be
better
for
everyone
to
have
all
that
information
available.
You
know
near
real
time
we
just
added
to
our
old
software.
B
We
added
a
new
module
for
servicing,
so
that
will
enable
us
to
basically
provide
some
kind
of
reporting
and,
and
hopefully
it'll,
look.
You
know
similar
to
what
the
monthly
report
looks
like
and
and
be
much
faster
and
and
people
don't
have
to
necessarily
wait
for
the
end
of
the
month.
You
know
to
see
all
the
numbers.
A
Yeah
again,
my
concern
is
with
the
maker
scaling
right,
so
I
I
want
this
to
make
something
very
easy
and
repeatable
for
all
asset
originators
and
make
sure
that
we
have
a
checklist
of
things
that
that
we
need
to
cover
before
we
can
increment
the
debt
ceiling
and
avoid
critical
failure.
I
think
that's
what
we're
trying
to
access
here.
B
I
B
E
I
B
B
E
E
E
E
Definitely
under
a
year
we
just
had
a
very
you
know,
high
stress
situation,
and
we
look
at
the
data.
We
look
at
the
maximum
drop
in
average
values
per
zip
code
when
we
look
at
everything.
So
if
there's
a
25
cushion
on
the
end
value
after
the
repair
is
completed,
we
feel
like
this
is
this
is
enough
to
power
any
potential
situation
which
is
confirmed
by
the
data
over
the
last.
I
Would
you
guys
be
open
to
in
requests
for
the
for
the
debt
ceiling
increase?
The
issue
that's
been
brought
up.
Is
you
know
that,
apparently,
the
terms
now
allow
you
to
change
terms,
change
covenants,
give
a
two-week
notice
and
if
nobody
says
anything
it,
it
goes
into
play
to
make
it
the
opposite
that
you
would
need
to
seek.
You
would
need
to
seek
approval
and
get
approval
to
change
terms,
change
covenants
so
that
it
wouldn't
be
a
default.
Otherwise,
if
you
did
it,
it
would
be.
B
I
just
want
to
stress:
we
didn't
change
covenants,
we
changed
the
executive
summary
description.
We
cannot
change.
Covenants
governance
is
what
makers
said.
So
we
cannot
change
those
but
yeah.
I
think
if
covenants
need
to
change,
they
will
of
course
go
through
the
voting
process.
Absolutely
on
the
executive
summary
we're
trying
to
change
the
process
so
that
there's
a
longer
period
and
independent
directorate
involved
in
that
as
well.
H
It's
really
more
that,
of
course,
new
silver
is
expressing
the
demand
and
the
need
for
changing
terms
and
need
to
explain
that
and
then
you
have
actually
21
days
to
react
and
say
actually
no,
so
it's
it's
not
really
negotiating,
I
get
it,
but
it's
not
really.
They
change
it.
Unilateral,
because
if
you
say
no,
you
start
redeeming,
the
new
terms
will
not
be
executed,
will
not
be
implemented
and
you
redeem
under
all
terms.
H
So
that
is
you
know
something
that
you
basically
currently
already
have
today,
but
the
I
think
was
extending
the
notification
period
introducing
the
the
drop
investor
representatives
having
an
independent
director
supervising
the
process
that
just
gives
you
much
more
protection
around
the
process.
I
think.
I
H
B
I'm
not
sure
the
terms
are
not
changed.
I
mean
again,
I
think,
there's
some
confusion
between
the
maker
covenant
and
and
what
we
originate
or
what
we
describe.
I
mean
none
of
that.
I
think
the
covenants
need
to
be
updated
to
what
we
propose
it,
which
is
you
know,
could
be
arv
ltd.
Ncc
could
be
all
three
of
them,
that's
fine
with
us
and
those
covenants.
We
cannot
change
at
all.
I
mean
we
can't
notify.
We
can't
do
anything
with
that,
so
that
would
have
to
be
changed
by
a
vote.
C
I
think
so
so
what
paper
impairment
and
dave
you're
asking
for
is
just
like
whether
this
is
an
implicit
action
or
an
explicit
action
by
maker
dow,
and
it
is
really
hard
to
define
what
an
explicit
action
by
make
or
die
would
be
right
and
how
we
could
put
something
forward
like
that,
because
the
there's
also
no
one
in
the
maker
community
to
ask-
I
mean
yes,
we
can
ask
a
certain
appointed
person
and
they
can
answer
by
certified
mail
and
then
that's
the
process.
But
like
really.
C
What
should
happen
is
that
the
community
and
I'm
speaking
of
speaking
as
a
as
an
mkr
holder,
as
well
as
like,
like
on
behalf
of
centrifuge
here,
the
reasonable
way
forward
would
be
for
the
community,
of
course,
to
discuss
it
right.
But
if
we
have,
if
we
just
have
a
list
of
five
people
that
need
to
say
yes
or
no,
then
we
end
up
in
the
same
in
the
same
situation
again
where
we're
just
gonna
ask
oh.
C
But
how
do
these
five
people
actually
ask
the
community
and
the
way
this
happened
this?
This
must
happen,
and
this
is,
I
think,
where,
where
a
lot
of
this
this
discussion
is
coming
from
today,
is
that
make
the
real
world
asset
a
real
or
finance
core
unit
needs
to
probably
include
any
such
changes
in
the
weekly
executives
and
if
they
are
not
part
of
it
or
if,
if
those
are
not
approved,
then
like
the
the
response
would
be
to
say
to
to
trigger
the
the
redemption
of
drop
tokens.
C
But
if
we
try
to
come
up
with
a
way
that,
like
this,
is
explicit,
we're
going
away.
This
is
not
something
that
that
we
can
easily
do
on
it
from
a
process
standpoint.
It's
also
not
something
that
I
think
is
reasonable,
like
looking
at
looking
at
at
sort
of
other
drop
investors
like
how.
How
would
we
give
like
it's
not
feasible,
to
give
200
people
the
option
to
like
respond
by
email,
mail,
fax
or,
however,
they
want
to
like
a
term
a
change
of
terms
right.
G
Well
and
the
good
news
is,
we
can
do
that
too
right,
we're
not
bound
by
contract
to
new
silver
new
silver's,
not
bound
by
contract
to
us.
So
you
know
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
identical
terms
to
what
an
actual
drop
holder
would
have,
but
just
by
virtue
of
the
fact
we
are
providing
ongoing
financing,
I
think
it's
not
unreasonable
for
us
to
just
have
some
guard
rails
just
to
avoid
what
happened
the
other
week
right,
I
mean,
I
think
none
of
us
want
to
see
that
happen
again.
Right.
H
Then
a
token
boat
is
actually
being
bound
to
you
know
in
contract
with
new
silver,
so
that
is,
it
goes
through
the
drop
investors
or
the
drop
investor
representatives
that
will
be
persons
and
you
can
appoint
them
and
they
can
actually,
you
know,
have
that
power,
but
having
the
the
token
vote,
that
is
the
issue
here.
We
have
no
one
really
be
able
to
sign
that
you
know
so.
H
G
So
I
guess
I
guess
my
point
is
that
we're
not
actually
drop
investors.
We
are
secured
by
an
iou
for
drops
that
is
being
held
as
collateral
on
our
behalf
at
10
lake
and
so
we're
ultimately,
just
both
parties,
the
the
issuer
and
maker,
are
basically
on
a
renewable
one-day
contract
with
each
other
right
and
so
because
we
have
that
kind
of
ongoing
relationship.
G
I
I
think,
perhaps
it's
easier
just
to
tie
a
lot
of
some
some
automatic.
You
know
hurdles
to
get
in
and
triggers
to
get
out,
based
on
ongoing
cooperation,
such
as
provision
of
documentation
and
audits-
and
you
know,
notification
of
terms
and-
and
you
know
perhaps
our
default
response
can
be.
We
will
liquidate.
But
if
it's
a
reasonable
thing
just
come
to
us
in
advance,
communicate
it
we'll
push
it
through
an
executive
to
say
that
you
know
when
we
receive
notice.
Next
week
we
won't
liquidate
yeah.
H
G
C
G
So
I
guess
my
point
is
I
don't
like
single
points
of
failure?
It's
this
seems
like
a
lot
of
bus
factor
right.
You
know
where
someone
can
get
when
one
person
can
have.
You
know,
break
their
leg,
be
in
the
hospital
for
a
week
or
something-
and
you
know
life
goes
on
right,
but
you
know
the
world
the
world
does
not
stop.
Turning.
So
there's.
C
B
We'll
we'll
put
it
up,
we'll
put
it
into
the
forum
too,
so
I
mean,
I
think
the
forums
are
very
active
and
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
putting
anything
like
that
and
we're
talking
about.
You
know
very,
very
rare
changes,
so
I
think
the
next
time,
if
and
when
that
does
happen,
we'll
we'll
notify
we'll
do
a
better
job
of
notification
and
including
forum.
H
C
But
so
this
is,
this
is
the
same
thing
with
every
other
collateral
type,
though
right,
that
is
a
an
on-chain
collateral
type
when,
when
true
usd
trust,
true
usd
was
had
a
change
of
ownership.
There
was
no
notification
requirement
by
them.
It
was
actually
yet
the
community
discussed
this
and
made
changes.
Thank
you.
C
G
C
I
would
say
martin
and
I
both
have
to
run
and
for
about
25
minutes
over
over
time,
and
it
seems
like
at
this
point
it's
mostly
back
and
forth
between
you
paper
and
pyramid
and
and
us
I
would
I
would
we
will
make
a
we
will
describe
the
independent
director
and
notification
process
in
the
forum,
and
that
can
be
discussed
and
there
will
be.
This
will
basically
be
part
of
the
next.
C
On
sort
of
this
agreed
upon
process
will
be
part
of
what
what
will
go
into
the
executive
on
the
next
assets
that
we're
going
to
deploy
and,
and
that
leaves
it
that
then
gives
gives
the
mkr
holders
another
option
to
agree.
Agree
to
that
or
not,
and
that's
that's
how
we
propose.
We
move
this
forward
because
yeah
I
unfortunately
do
need
to.