►
Description
Rune presents a special Governance Meeting to share his thoughts about the Foundation Proposal and answer questions from the community. This is the first episode in a series that focuses on how altruistic initiatives can be a fundamental part of the structure of the MakerDAO.
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundation-proposal-caeb382465c1
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
All
right
that
might
be
enough
to
kick
it
off.
We
can
reward
the
people
who
showed
up
one
time,
I'm
going
to
get
started.
I
guess
so
hi
if
it
sounds
like
every
other
script,
is
because
I'm
using
enough
to
forgive
me
again
so
hi
everyone
thanks
for
coming
to
a
special
community
meeting
dedicated
to
discussing
the
release
of
the
foundation
proposal.
It's
something
that
we
feel
is
a
watershed
moment
in
the
history
of
maker
cow.
So
it's
it's
great
that
everybody
showed
up
for
this.
A
This
proposal
will
set
the
stage
for
the
next
few
years
of
makers,
so
we
have
a
lot
to
go
over
today.
First,
let's
do
some
introductions.
We
can
go
around
the
room
that
doesn't
make
sense
anymore,
because
there's
no
room
I
thought
you
guys
were
gonna,
be
together
today,
so
I,
let
everybody
know
who
we
are
I'll
kick
it
off.
My
name
is
Richard
Brown
I'm,
the
Technical
Community
Manager
at
maker
I'll
be
moderating
this
call
with
Jess.
C
A
C
So,
and
so
the
foundation
is
really
the
the
result
of
the
early
development
team.
Essentially,
what
we
became
over
time
is,
we
realized
we
actually
have
to
set
up
this
entity.
To
sort
of
you
know,
just
like
be
the
under,
like
the
underlying
support
for
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole
and
what
we
really
want
to
be,
and
what
we
essentially
already
are
is
like
what
we
call
like
the
bedrock
of
the
ecosystem
right.
C
So
the
foundation
is
kind
of
like
this
underlying
organization
that
takes
care
of
all
the
stuff
that
needs
to
be
taken
care
of,
and
in
a
sense
we,
you
know.
Maker
is
all
about
creating
this
brand
new
economic
model,
like
this
new
ecosystem,
a
community,
something
that's,
never
really
been
seen
before
right,
where
it's
it's
based
around,
like
unlocking
freedom
with
blockchain
technology
and
doing
all
these
immature
stuff,
and
in
order
for
all
of
these
experiments
that
play
out
in
a
like
a
safe
and
sustainable
way.
C
It's
it's
also
very
important
that
there
are
people
who
sort
of
keep
their
eyes
on
the
ball
and
essentially
create
environment
that
allow
all
all
the
people,
the
community,
to
essentially
experiment
with
the
wonders
of
blockchain
technology.
So
that's
kind
of
what
we
want
the
foundation
to
be
essentially
the
like
the
bedrock
that
drives
the
project
forward
and
maybe
sometimes
that
a
lot
of
stuff
that
that
could
be
considered,
boring
or
like
business
like
of
even
corporate.
But
it's
necessary
for
it
to
succeed.
C
A
All
right
sounds
good
if
nobody
has
any
questions
of
both
the
introduction
there
I
think
we
should
probably
start
walking
through
the
document
of
it.
The
foundation
proposal
self.
The
first
major
section
I'd
like
to
address
excuse
me,
is
the
20%
principle
section
which
I
think
they
got
the
most
feedback.
Excuse
me
from
the
group
and
there's
a
lot
of
questions
there.
So
where
do
you
want
to
talk
briefly
about
the
20
percent
principle
and
then
we
can
delve
into
some
of
the
questions
we've
done.
Yes,.
C
So
I
mean
so
the
very
brief
or
over
22
question
is
its
assets.
Sorry,
the
20
percent
principle
right
is
that,
as
its
outlined
in
the
proposal,
it
is
basically
that,
like
fundamentally,
a
maker
has
to
do
more
than
just
do
some
financial
innovation
right.
We
actually
have
to
change
what
Finance
means
and
how
it
fundamentally
works,
and
essentially
that
the
20%
principle
is
just
ensuring
that
20%
of
the.
C
A
Ok
great,
we
had
some
questions
and
read
it
from
some
of
our
really
engaged
community
members.
Duster
12:12
asked
he
wants
more
information
about
the
principle
in
depth,
primarily
about
how
it
will
be
funded.
I
think
you
kind
of
touched
on
that
a
bit
and
what
proposals
you
foreseen
and
I
know.
That's
that's
tough
to
kind
of
guess.
But
what
kind
of
things
would
you
like
to
see
as
a
proposal
yeah.
C
I
mean
so
that's
a
baby,
so
basically
it
will
be
just
like
to
bury
be
very
specific
about
how
its
funded
right.
It's
basically
that
we
have
currently
the
foundation
has
this
development
fund
that
is
consist
of
about
38
percent
of
the
total
of
their
supply,
so
about
380,000
yeah,
and
the
idea
is
to
take
a
block
of
200,000
MPR
and
essentially
allocate
that
in
a
by
unison
in
a
fund
or
like
in
an
accounting
structure
that
essentially
is
able
to
sustainably
fun.
C
This
20%
to
charity
set
up
so
what's
interesting,
is
that
it's
not
really
taken
directly
out
of
the
system.
It's
just
taken
out
of
this
existing
pool
of
development
funds
and
will
basically
cut
the
heart
like
cut
in
half
what
the
foundation
have
like
what
the
foundation
currently
controls,
where
the
other
half
go
into
business
development
and
more
short
term
goals.
We
will
then
like
we'll
learn
alongside
that
park,
these
20%
towards
this
goal
of
just
creating
creating
this
like
this
fundamentally
quality
functionality
of
the
system.
That's.
A
C
I
mean
this
whole
question
of
decentralizing,
the
Deaf
father
like
what
to
do
with
the
fact
that
the
difference
that
they're
big
is
you
know
it's
also
in
a
sense,
addressed
further
down
the
foundation
both
right,
but
it's.
It
is
basically
that
we
like
we're
sort
of
making
a
like
a
strong
allocation
of
what
is
this
stuff
actually
supposed
to
be
useful
and
then
also
basically
saying
I
mean
at
the
same
time
we're
saying
18%
right
of
the
total
38
percent
of
the
total
supply.
C
I
mean
so.
This
is
a
great
question
right,
and
this
is
kind
of
where
I'll
actually
make
the
case
for
why
it
makes
sense
to
allocate
20
percent
right
and
I
see.
There's
basically,
two
really
I
mean.
So
the
question
is:
what
is
the
primary
driver
and
basically
I
think
there
are
so
many
drivers
and
it's
really
hard
to
to
like
I,
didn't
even
identify
any
single
one.
That's
the
primary
reason,
I
like
being
necessarily
stronger
than
than
other
their
arguments,
but
I
sort
of
like
just
to
split
it
up
into
two
parts.
C
That
will
also
be
introducing
a
lot
more
over
the
next,
the
next
couple
of
months,
leading
up
to
multiply
to
launch.
So
basically,
mkl
was
right.
They
have
to
work
together
in
this,
like
this
scientific
community,
essentially
this
like
environment
of
like
scientific
understanding
and
and
and
a
desire
to
seek
consensus
and
seeks
of
common
ground
on
how
we
actually
control
system
like
the
fundamental
threat
to
the
governance
model.
That
we
believe
is
the
strongest
is
tragedy
of
the
Commons,
essentially
right.
So
it
is
like
the
idea
that
it
would.
C
It
could
happen
that
NPR
whole
is
simply
so
cast
aside
the
the
primary
goal
of
having
maker
be
a
success
and
then
being
like
an
exercising
well
the
corporation
and
instead
just
to
the
fall
into
like
selfish
patterns
of
just
doing
whatever
you
know
will
benefit
themselves
in
those,
and
we
you
tube
you
describe
this
as,
like.
You
know
just
voting
for
your
own
clients
right.
That's
not
a
bird,
that's
one
of
the
big,
as
you
say,
cultural
risks
to
the
government
model
and
the
solution
to
that
is
what
I
call
an
abundance
mentality.
C
So,
basically
the
abundance
mentality
is
the
you
know
the
the
fundamental
state
of
mind
that
needs
to
underpin
our
governance
system
as
a
whole
and
like
our
governance
community,
and
the
idea
is
basically
like
that
an
abundance
mentality
is
basically
right,
like
when
you
feel
when
you
feel
wealthy
and
powerful
or
when
you
feel
like
fulfilled.
There's
like
an
abundance
right
and
you
sort
of
start
to
think
about.
C
C
You
know
like
the
governance
of
the
system,
rather
than
the
other
thing,
which
is
actually
that
you
could.
It
can
have
them
that
success
and
wealth
makes
people
more
greedy
right
and
it's
actually
more
prone
to
to
tragedy
at
the
Commons
and
the
one.
The
one
path
like
the
the
abundance
meant
like
the
path
of
an
abundance
mentality
means
that
maker
would
become
more
and
more
stable
and
more
powerful.
C
Yeah
you're,
like
leading
like
into
a
dead
end,
essentially
right,
we're
increased
success
of
the
system,
actually
results
and
worse
actions,
which
is
I,
mean
it's,
and
this
is
why
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
senseless
governance
is
such
a
grand
experiment
right,
because
this
is
kind
of
like
the
big
questions?
Can
a
community
even
do
this?
C
Why
can
a
community
actually
work
together
to
achieve
like
a
common
good
and
and
an
open
system
that
isn't
controlled
by
a
single
entity
or
something
and
yeah
I
mean
committing
to
20%
charity
and
they're
sort
of
recognizing
that
this
is
in
fact
an
outcome
with
some
arguments
about
later,
but
like?
This
is
not
like,
like
recognizes
that
this
is
really
what's
expected
of
a
system
like
this.
C
C
C
Right,
there's
also
more
like
he
has
a
quantifiable
effect,
which
is
one
hand
like
you'll
you'll,
generally
tenth
like.
If
you
have
a
system
that
supports
charity
versus
system
it
doesn't.
You
would
generally
see
that
selfish
actors
would
gravitate
towards
the
one
without
charity
right,
unlike
insane,
in
fact,
even
leave
the
system
that
that
does
it
become
just
sort
of
I
mean
one
thing's
being
selfish,
alright,
but
another
thing
is
like
being
anti
charity,
which
in
some
sense
could
even
go
beyond
being
selfish
and
even
being
like.
C
You
know
it's
just
like
it's
a
moral
stance
or
like
even
of
like
charity
being
bad
or
something
right
up
being
like
undecidable
and
and
people
with
that
kind
of
mindset
are
very
dangerous
for
the
government's
process
because
they
will
tend
to
not.
You
know
in
this
is
because
it's
kind
of
like
a
and
it's
it's
like
almost
like
a
psychological
thing
right,
but
it's
like
about
basic
trust
right.
It's
basically
about
whether
you
believe
you
could
give
you
do
good
stuff.
C
Is
that
actually
gonna
result
anything
good
or
you
just
being
naive
right
and
if
you
believe
that
it's
not
the
case,
which
means
that
you
can
fundamentally
lack
basic
trust.
You
would
also
be
very
unlikely
to
actually
believe
that
the
government's
process
can
work
at
all
right
because
you'd
be
thinking
well,
everyone
else
is
going
to
vote
for
their
own
points
right.
So
why
shouldn't
I?
Also
just
like
vote
and
push
11
points?
It's.
A
C
We're
basically
come
in
and
they're
interested
in
governments,
because
they're
interested
in
governing
charity
and
that's
sort
of
attracted
to
that
function
and
as
a
result,
they
also
spill
over
into
the
overall
collateral
governments,
because
I
mean,
if
they're,
if
they're
happy
to
see
charity
being
done.
They
obviously
also
want
need
to
participate
in
our
overall
governments,
because
that's
what
actually
makes
this
charity
posterity
possible
in
the
first
place.
So
yeah
I
mean
that
is
an
entire
like
internal
argument.
Right
is
that
this?
C
A
Well,
I
not
play
the
devil's
advocate
here,
not
not
completely
devil's
advocate,
because
I
I
feel
the
same
concerns
as
some
of
the
members
and
reddit
have
had
so
there's
a
risk
that
charitable
giving
can
be
viewed
as
a
political
act
and
I
think
that
you've
addressed
that
in
the
document
and
some
of
your
comments
and
reddit,
where
you
mention
the
concept
of
brand.
It's
something
we
need
to
be
concerned
about
it's
easy
to.
Imagine
that
any
particular
initiative
can
be
aligned
with
the
left
or
the
right,
whatever
those
terms
actually
mean.
A
C
So,
first
of
all,
I
really
I
really
rejects
the
idea
that
charity
itself
is
political,
like
they
I,
like
I,
mean
in
that
sense,
I
think
not
like
a
lack
of
charity
is
as
much
political
s.
The
excess
of
charity
is
as
much
political
as
the
existence
of
Chery
right,
but
I
mean
in
terms
of
like
the
left
and
right
argument,
I
like
the
how
this
could
be,
for
instance,
commutes,
are
considered
leftists
or
or
whatever
rights
status
to.
C
Maybe
even
there
are
some
don't
some
people,
some
people
out
there
saying
thinking
somewhere
like
I,
mean
I
think
in
general,
most
people
I
mean,
of
course,
politics
don't
simply
boil
down
to
left
and
right,
but
I
think
for
most
people.
It's
not
a
question
of.
Should
we
do
charity
or
knowledge,
it's
a
question
of.
Should
it
be
forced
sex
ation?
C
I
should
it
be
voluntary,
giving
right
and
that's
really
what
it's
what
a
lot
of
about,
and
that's
actually,
where
I
mean,
if
you,
if
you
frame
it
in
that
sense
maker
permitting
twenty
percent
of
charity
is
really
profoundly
rightists,
so
to
speak
right
since
its
voluntary.
It's
not
about
enforcing
taxes
on
on
people
with
with
the
threat
of
force
right,
it
is
voluntarily
committing
to
charity,
because
there
are
a
number
of
benefits
work
and
by
the
way
I
still
need
to
get
to
the
external
benefits,
but
but
I'll,
just
like
I'll.
C
C
It's
very
naive
to
think
that
it's
possible
to
not
take
stance,
and
especially,
if
you're
in
finance
and
fully
like,
embroiled
in,
like
regulation
and
and
strongly
like
at
the
within
the
the
scope
and
its
target
of
regulators,
all
of
the
world
right
which
I
will
get
to
in
a
moment,
but
so
that,
what's
interesting
about
the
20%
principle,
is
that
the
20%
number
comes
from
a
very
like
it
exists.
Is
it's
20%
for
very
specific
reason,
and
that
is
well.
C
First
of
all
is
actually
because
it's
like
a
round
number,
just
a
good
selling
point,
but
secondly,
it's
because
it's
very
close
to
the
average
corporate
tax
rate
and
like
none
non-text
havens.
Basically
in
like
regular
country,
it's
like
real
countries
with
real
respectable
companies,
a
tribute
you
pay
a
twenty
percent
corporate
tax
rate,
so
it's
actually
very
common
to
pay
twenty
percent
of
what
you
earn
to
to
the
public
good
and.
C
Yeah,
like
it's,
it's
kind
of
like
I
mean
if
you
do
this,
we're
just
positioning
ourselves
and
saying
we're
not
you
know
we're
not
like
so
back
to
the
question
right
is
like
to,
she
would
be
brightest
should
be
leftist
should
be
neutral
or
something
that
I
don't
think
it's
possible
really
just
just
being
useful,
which
of
course,
is
kind
of
the
ideal.
Thank
you,
but
there
is
this
notion
of
being
centrist
right,
like
being
kind
of
like
whatever
works.
C
You
know
just
like
so
get
you
know,
don't
like
don't
have
an
extremist
opinion
and
just
do
like
the
the
middle
ground
and
sort
of
what
everyone
else
is
doing
and
that's
that's
what
I
think
the
number
twenty
percent
really
represents
right.
So,
in
my
opinion,
being
leftist
would
be
paying
like
fifty
percent
to
charity
or
eighty
percent
to
do
something
right
and
then
paying
nothing.
I
think
would
very
much
be
like
rights,
it's
kind
of
like
you
know
now
we're
like
we're
like
it's
like.
C
C
Almost
riding
on
life
is
Libre
check,
these
libertarian
and
electricity
roofs
that
really
exist
in,
for
instance,
a
big
park
over
a
long
time,
and
that's
what
I
think
ultimately
for
something
for
like
a
project
like
maker
and
very
long-term
like
reaching
reaching
very
large-scale
if
it
really
contributed
nothing
to
the
public
good
and
essentially
just
yeah
like
just
just
I
mean
basically,
you
know
contribute
nothing
to
about
me.
Good
essentially
did
a
serum
percent
to
charity.
That's
what
that
would
be
a
right
way.
C
Like
I
mean
that
would
be
a
political
decision
to
say
something
like
you
know,
no,
we
don't.
You
know,
we
don't
need
to
contribute
inequality
because
we're
like
capitalists-
and
we
do
every
want
China
20%-
is
basically
saying
we'll
just
do
what
has
already
been
done
right
and
I.
Think
from
the
political
point
of
view,
I
think
it's
like
it
I
think
it's
like
it
is
very
important
to
to
sort
of
just
like
follow.
C
Follow
the
mainstream
here,
because
not
paying
like
being
perceived
itself
as
like
a
major,
successful
corporation
like
major,
successful
watching
whatever
economic
entity
that
then
you
know
doesn't
contribute
to
public
good
can
become
it
like
can
be
a
very
negative
thing
for
like
branding
its
own,
which
you
also
get
to
like.
But
there's
thing
a
an
example.
It's
very
like
a
very
good
example.
I
think
is
his
Apple.
When
they
were
they
really.
C
There
was
like
a
major
scandal
because
it
became
obvious
how
they
were
avoiding
tax
and
like
holding
all
the
money
in
tax
havens
and
we're
doing
this.
They
were
paying
this
like
effective
tax
rate
of
zero
point
something
percent
right,
and
there
was
a
major
global
poverty
piece
like
in
the
Western
world,
like
a
major
public
art
for,
and
it
actually
resulted
in
legislative
action
to
get
so
much
so
they
actually
ended
up
getting
hit
by
this
European
big
business
tax,
which
is
based
on
revenue
rather
than
being
at
like
a
regular
taxation.
So.
A
C
I
mean
so
that
is
kind
of
I
mean
so
they
break
I
mean
so
the
main
like
net.
Let's,
so
that's
that's
where
we
get
into
these,
like
the
more
short-term
external
benefits
of
committing
to
charity
at
this
point
right,
so
it's
basically
that
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
the
main
external
advantage
is
really
the
perception
of
regulators
right,
but
not
really
not
tax
authorities
and
not
like
the
risk.
C
Someone
legislating
to
to
somehow
like
extract
money
out
of
the
system
through
force,
rather
than
us
voluntarily
just
committing
to
do
what
is
basically
the
the
mainstream
business
commitment
at
this
point
in
time,
but
that
is
just
financial
regulation.
So
now
we're
talking
about
like
getting
dye
and
CDP's
accepted
SS.
C
You
know
like
a
legitimate
mainstream
financial
product
and
currency,
and
that's
because
of
the
way
regulators
think
so
basically
regulates
they
like
justify
everything
to
do.
Based
on
this
idea
that
they're
helping
the
weak
right,
I
mean
they're
like
protecting
investors
and
they're,
protecting
consumers
that
kind
of
stuff-
and
that
means
what
when
they
go
out-
and
they
do
they-
you
know
something
like
the
SEC
or
European
regulators
or
Asian.
Regulators
do
basically
anyone
they
go
out
and
they
look
for
bad
guys
right.
C
They
like
look
for
someone
doing
some
scam,
it's
a
trick
or
something
what
doing
something:
that's
dangerous,
that's
dangerous
to
the
economy
or
dangers
to
to
regular
people
or
something
right,
and
then
they
they
sort
of.
You
know
they.
They
are
their
agents
of
justice
right
and
that
means
they've
been
terribly
like
and
in
many
cases
it
actually
doesn't
matter
a
lot.
C
What
they
personally
think
like
I
mean
the
law
is
one
thing,
but
also
the
interpretation
of
the
law
by
individual
bureaucrats
in
power
is
also
really
a
major
thing,
and
they
just
tend
to
be
much.
You
know
like
it
completely
changes
everything
they
immediately
perceive
us
as
okay.
These
guys,
obviously
good
guys
right
because
they're
they've
made
this
significant
commitment
to
charity.
Some
like
Lamborghini
ICO
dude
would
never
do
that
right,
like
I
mean
they
were
never
like.
C
A
Interesting,
so
not
only
does
do
we
so
not
only
is
maker
sort
of
a
non-predatory
organization.
Already
we
tack
on
this
pyaare
sort
of
benefit,
an
organization
that's
actually
doing
good,
so
that
lowers
us
significantly
takes
us
off
the
top
10
list
of
the
people
to
look
at
from
regulators
right
yeah.
C
A
C
This
is
maybe
something
I
should
just
get
in
good.
You
know,
so
it's
a
little
bit
more
right,
but
it
is,
we
are
like
mega,
really
is
a
very
unique
project
compared
to
basically
any
other
project,
even
in
the
crypto
space,
because
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
essentially
doing
a
land
grab
for
a
global
natural
monopoly.
C
Right
I
mean
we're
trying
to
be
sort
of
an
entrenched
global
financial
infrastructure
that,
if
it
actually
goes
in
place,
will
be
bit
like
well
in
fact
be
impossible
to
remove,
read
through
anything
else
than
sort
of
this
coordinated
global
action
that
comes
out
of,
let's
say,
I
mean
PR.
Problem
strikes,
write
a
regulation
problem,
so
something
on
that
coming
out
of
people
basically
being
like.
Why
should
we
a
lot?
You
know?
Why
should
we
accept
this
this
project
to
be
essentially
to
sit
on
our
financial
infrastructure?
C
Is
this
content
of
the
social
contract
right
of
like
this
fundamental
relationship
between
the
public
and
like
regular
people,
and
then
people
or
or
entities
and
power
right
and
it's
a
very
important.
A
social
contract
makes
sense
for
everyone
are
you
they'll,
be
friction
and
eventually
an
instability
and
twenty
percent
commitment?
The
charity
is
just
also
like
a
very
you,
know,
strong
and
like
solid
essential
commitment
in
the
social
contract.
It's
like
very
obvious
for
people.
Why
should
we?
You
know?
Why
should
we
accept
this
technology?
Oh
because
it's
kind
of
like
building?
C
A
C
So
so
this
question
is
so
actually
before
I
answer
the
question.
Great
I
mean
something
that
that
had
like
so
right
now,
the
20%
principle
has
only
been
described
and
like
this
broad
overview
of
what
it
actually
means
right.
It's
like
20%
to
charity,
but
there
will
be
some
more
like
20%
to
public
good.
C
In
fact,
but
essentially
one
thing,
that's
gonna
be
really
important
for
it
to
be
sustainable
is,
for
instance,
that
let's
say
we
do
have
to
pay
taxes
right
in
in
in
the
jurisdictions
where
the
foundation
is
incorporated
or
maybe
in
in
like
I
mean
multiple
jurisdictions
right
depending
on
how
you
operate,
then
this
would
count
towards
the
2010
commitment,
because
first
basically,
I
mean,
of
course
we
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
want
our
our
charity
or,
like
I'll,
probably
go
to
go
through
governance.
C
You
can
avoid
it,
but
if
we
get
something
returned,
for
instance,
you
know
who
get
a
good
jurisdiction
to
operate
in
then
was.
We
should
still
be
happy
to
do
it
right
now,
shoot
in
general,
not
try
to
be
like
tax
avoiders,
because
again
the
able
case
where
it
is
actually
received
really
badly
by
the
public.
C
If
you,
if
you
try
to
like
really
get
out
of
the
Texas,
that
you
sort
of
go
in
in
a
sense
of
the
spirit
of
the
law,
so
I'm
the
way
we
basically
check
ourselves
against
having
to
pay
corporate
taxes
is
that
we
just
say
well.
If
we
do,
then
we
count
those
as
basically
a
part
of
the
twenty
percent
principle.
C
C
B
C
Well,
I
mean
this
is
up
to
maker
governments,
but
but
I
mean
but
I
mean
let
me
get
into
like
what
like
so
in
the
very
short
term.
Right
I
mean
I.
It
would
definitely
be
exactly
about
a
funding
stuff
like
Bifrost
right
and
the
kind
of
initiatives
are
already
doing
in
sharing
space.
In
fact,
maker
is
kind
of
already
a
brand
in
the
charity
sector
is
like
a
technology
provider
and
will
just
and
it
and
it
interestingly,
it
turns
out.
C
C
So
what
we're
all
about
is
we're
building
this
global
financial
ecosystem
that
labels
the
playing
field
for
everyone
in
their
access
to
find
finance
and
we're
sort
of
making
it
possible
if
you're
unbanked,
you
can
now
have
a
bang
Bank
on
the
throne
and
then
by
also
committing
to
equality,
in
addition
to
just
equality
of
access
to
finance,
but
also
just
like
equality
in
terms
of
capital.
Basically
like
distribution
of
capital,
it
means
we
you
know
like.
C
Not
only
could
we
can,
we
can
we
do
projects
where
we
go
out
and
set
people
up
with
a
bank
account
on
the
phone
right,
but
we
can
also
literally
give
them
money
but
give
and
I
and
and
I
think
that
angle
is
basically
also
just
looking
at
charity
really
as
marketing
or
like
adoption.
Right
I
mean
we're
just
paying
reduction
in
a
sense,
because
we're
I
mean
we
could
pay
for
ads
everywhere.
I
tell
people
by
diet
right
used,
I.
What
we
could
just
literally
given
by
and
and
what's
also
really
good.
C
Is
this
like
the
the
correlation
between
who
you're
trying
to
target
and
who
sort
of
the
ideal
use
of
a
diet,
and
in
terms
of
like
how
much
of
a
difference
we
can
make
for
the
individual
user?
It
definitely
is
of
the
unbanked
and
underprivileged,
and
maybe
even
the
people
in
conflict
zones
and
like
victims
of
starvation
of
the
kind
of
stuff
who
really
are
the
ideal
dye
user
in
terms
of
how
can
we
get
this
explosive
adoption?
It's
what
we're
looking
for!
So
what's.
A
C
They
don't
even
have
you
know
they
don't
have
time
to
like
switch
over
to
adopt
new
technology
and
like
gain
benefits
from
it
before
the
people
who
already
were
already,
you
know
good
shape.
They
have
sort
of
tried
to
capture
as
much
of
the
games
as
possible,
and
this
just
like
natural
I
mean
it's
kind
of
like
a
natural.
Naturally,
how
kind
of
like
economics,
basic
work
and
like
Commerce
and
so
on?
Right
I
mean
it's
also
just
like
this.
C
That
sort
of
it's
sort
of
like
it's
a
profitable
decision
in
a
sense
right,
because
we
are
we're
creating
your
users,
we're
giving
money
to
the
kind
of
uses
we
want
and
we're
also
at
the
same
time,
just
like
nullifying
and
it's
any
type
of
like
like
resistance
to.
You
know
to
the
idea
that
technology
is
good
for
the
world
right
now,
rather
like
we.
You
know
like
that,
the
fear
of
new
technology
and
especially
how
that
can
manifest
itself
in
again
like
problematic
politics
or
a
loss
or
so
on.
So.
A
C
Well,
yeah
I
mean
absolutely
the
I
guess,
like
the
charity
sector
itself,
but
I
also
just
mean
like
the
general
people
and
then
essentially
like
democracies
and
how
they
respond
to
the
rise
of
maker
and
right
and
I.
Just
I
mean
just
just
doesn't
exam
right,
I
think
it's
like
the
power
of
democracy
and
how
the
interaction
of
democracy
with
the
blocks
like
Crips
parents
and
watch
the
technology
I
think
this
cannot
be
overstated
basically
and
I.
C
Think
the
perfect
example
is
for
having
in
South
Korea
where,
but
actually
was
this
like
momentum
for
a
ban,
essentially
on
cryptic
ranch
in
South
Korea,
and
then
the
people
revolted.
So
like
regular
people
started
like
sending
us
any
angry
emails
to
the
president
pretty
much
and
the
President
himself
was
like
okay.
This
is
for
me
and
you
went
out
and
and
what's
the
first
to
like,
go
out
to
the
people
and
reassure
them.
C
None
of
them
we're
not
gonna
bankrupt
you,
you
know,
like
don't
worry,
I'm,
not
gonna
mess
with
your
bitcoins,
and
this
is
the
kind
of
of
entrenchment
maker
needs
of
having
every
single
country
in
the
world.
Right
I
mean
need
to
fundamentally
convince
every
person
that
maker
is
good
for
them
right
and
if
their
government
tries
to
mess
with
us,
they're
really
messing
with
people.
It's
like
it's
not
a
it.
You
know
they're
they're,
neglecting
their
mandate
of
being
like
a
representative
of
the
people,
because
obviously
the
people
wants
maker
right.
A
B
Sure
so
there
is
a
question
coming
from
James
Moreau
that
is
very
much
aligned
with
the
next
section
of
the
document.
James
asks
and
the
spirit
of
engagement
and
having
people
who
want
to
engage
in
the
process
of
governments,
I'd
like
to
know
how
you'll
approach
this
tactically
so
reminder
is
accountability,
etc.
C
Sorry
so
like
how
we
get
people
to
engage
governance,
that's
right,
yeah
I
mean
so
so
this
is
a
question.
I
mean
fundamentally,
there's
been
so
many
attempts
and
like
really
solving
this
in
some
crypto
economic
way
or,
like
figuring
out
some
fundamental
incentive,
but
we've
had
to
basically
see
that
this
is.
This
is
like.
Ultimately,
people
have
to
engage
to
regulate
governance
out
of
their
own
free
will
to
centralize.
It
has
to
be
maker
holders
who
then
decide.
C
You
know
like
the
the
fact
that
they
can
kind
of,
like
I
mean,
and
this
kind
of
how
the
scientific
community
works
right.
I
mean,
if
you're
in
a
scientific
community.
If
someone
comes
in
and
they
have
something
legit
to
say
you
listen
to
them,
you
don't
care
who
they
are.
You
don't
care
about
what
they
say
right.
So
there
will
be
this
like
complete
openness
in
terms
of
who
can
participate
at
the
low
level.
C
I
mean
no
a
little
liberal
hilum,
depending
on
how
you
think
of
it
by
the
one
mean
by
the
hard
call,
never
love
governance
for
like
actual
financial
experts,
but
we
also
want
I
mean
everyone
else
to
be
able
to
participate
right.
So
so
one
thing
is:
if
you're,
like
a
regular
guy,
where
you
can
participate,
is,
for
instance,
just
choosing
who
other
people
like
other
people,
you
trust
and,
and
some
of
baoshan
call
that
right,
which
can
manifest
itself,
for
instance,
through
vote
delegation,
which
is
also
a
question.
C
I
saw
asked
a
lot
right
like
whether
this
feature
will
exist
and,
and
the
answer
is
it
will
but
not
at
launch
like
it
will
come
probably
a
couple
months
after
launch.
It's
kinda
like
I
mean
but
it'll,
be
there
very
quickly,
and
it
will
definitely
be
like
a
defining
part
of
the
governance
process.
The
other
thing
is
also
just
mean:
will
we
will
make
these
like
a
higher
level
of
some
easier
governance
that
that
sort
of
people
can
participate
in,
depending
on
their
experience
and
their
knowledge
right?
A
C
Has
something
my
tribute
and
ultimately,
every
person
their
input
is
valuable
if
it's
just
like
dealt
with
in
the
right
way
and
and
suddenly
we're
thinking
up
for
the
future
is
like
these
very
easy
to
use
interfaces
where
you
can
go
in
and
you
convince
like
Frank
the
cons
you
like
you
know
the
terms
you
like
you
can
like
write
it
any
knowledge
or
opinion.
You
have
about
basically
anything
and
it
also
be
included
like
it'll,
be
you.
C
In
and
we
dealt
with
s
data
essentially
and
and
then
you
can
decide
how
deep
you
want
to
go.
Do
you
just
want
to
like
rank
your
10
favorite
coins?
But
do
you
want
to
like
grade
every
single
token,
based
on
different
characteristics
that
you
know
about
so
just
like
the
team,
their
business
model
and
and
the
idea
is
that
they'll
be
like
this,
you
know
be
like
there'll,
be
different,
different
stuff
to
do
for
different
people,
and
everyone
so
makes
the
decision.
C
Okay,
I'm,
actually
gonna,
like
I'm
gonna,
have
you
know,
I'm
going
to
show
off
my
abundance
mentality
here
and
actually
decide
to
go
in
and
participate
in
the
system,
and
then
there
should
be
something
for
them
to
do
it
like,
of
course,
it'll
take
a
while
to
get
the
full
mission
of
this
realized.
But
again,
like
yeah
I
mean
the
project's.
A
whole
lot
has
a
very
long
timeline
and
it's
something
that
should
be
that
shouldn't
take
too
long
to
make
either,
because
at
this
point
you
have
some
really
serious
teams
working
on
this.
A
We
have
about
ten
minutes
left
in
this
meeting
and
it
actually
went
amazingly
from
my
perspective,
I'm
I'm
glad
that
we
focused
so
long
in
the
20%
principle,
I'm
thinking
that
there's
four
other
major
sessions
and
the
foundation
proposal
that
we
didn't
get
to
it
all.
So
we
should
talk
about
having
more
meetings,
I,
think
and
maybe
explore
those
and
another
forum
just
like
this.
A
C
I
mean
so
this
would
make
us
because
it's
like
a
very
interesting
question
right,
because
obviously
that
is
one
of
the
things
we
spend
most
of
the
time.
Thinking
about
from
the
business
perspective
and
what's
interesting,
is
that
in
some
sense
the
answers
is
there,
none
like
in,
like
in
the
broadest
able
point
space,
obviously
they're
a
lot
right,
I
mean
especially
nowadays,
where
there's
like
a
new,
stable
client
popping
up
every
week,
but
they're
kind
of
like
there's
three
types
of
stable
points
right
and
the
first.
C
The
first
kind
is
like
the
tether
model
right,
it's
the
iru,
where
you
have
this
trusted
entity
that
has
a
bank
account
of
something,
and
then
you
create
a
token
and
you
trust
them
to
redeem
your
token
for
you
when
you
watch
it
right
and
in
I
mean
I
would
say
the
biggest
players
tether,
obviously,
but
they're
very.
They
have
PR
issues,
potentially
legal
issues,
then
there's
true
years
T,
which
is
just
like
a
solid
project.
Doing
like
taking
this
model,
then
there's
an
upcoming
circle
coin,
like
sorry,
US
dollar
coined
by
circle
and
I.
C
So
so
the
thing
I
about
these
this
entire
model
I,
don't
think
that
it's
possible
for
this
model
to
scale
at
all
in
the
Saints,
in
the
same
way,
that
I
can
make
a
claim,
like
this
they're,
not
decentralized
so
like
it's
just
like
a
different
product,
essentially
because
the
saver
ends
is
your
building
at
that.
If
you
build
it
on
top
of
something
a
tether
to
you
see
it's
no
longer
at
that
right.
It
just
became
a
net
because
you're
actually
building
in
the
top
of
the
bank.
C
Underneath
your
product
like
your
product,
there
is
a
bank
that
is
essentially
the
the
platform
you're
building
on
because
they're
the
ones
who,
in
a
sense
they
have
to
agree
to
everything.
You're
doing
and
if
they
don't
you're
trouble,
because
they
will
actually
I
mean
they
can,
and
they
will
seize
your
funds,
freeze
them
or
whatever
rightly,
but
whatever
they
do,
have
a
really
nice
role
and
where
they
imp
they
play
really
well
with
the
maker.
C
So
you
can
very
easily
go
to
go
dollars,
two
trios
D
to
die,
and
you
know
in
a
way
that's
much
easier
and
what
you
can
t
have
to
do
and
basically
the
same
for
every
other
at
these
points
and
they
can
even
be
used
as
collateral.
Of
course,
it's
not
really
a
like
it's
not
really
a
long
time
type
of
collateral.
Obviously,
because
why
would
anyone
look
up?
I
can
mean
here
the
their.
You
know
the
the
age-old
question:
why
do
you
want
to
lock
up
a
thousand
dollars
to
generate
500
by
here?
C
It
actually
becomes
true
right,
because
you
are
literally
locking
up
dollars
together
to
get
the
best
dollars,
but
it
does
make
sense
if
your
market
maker,
so
what
it
means
is
that
market
makers
and
basically
traders
who
sort
of
facilitate
the
on-ramp
and
offer
anything
of
tie
into
these
IOU
tokenized
currencies.
We
extreme
levels
of
liquidity,
so
that
means
the
spread
and
sort
of
the
cost
of
going
in
and
out.
C
I
will
be
really
low
and
we
try
really
hard
to
work
together
with
all
these
projects
and
just
make
sure
that
we
have
really
well
integrated
with
them
as
on-ramps
as
collateral
and
and
so
I'm
like.
We
want
to
be
stationed,
I
sort
of
the
the
central
point
in
this
network
of
all
these
different
organized
currencies,
and
then
they
are
sort
of
the
gateway
into
the
real
world,
so
yeah
someone
hand
their
competitors
right.
On
the
other
hand,
we
also
synergize
with
them.
Then,
on
the
other
side,
you
got
the
freaking
senior
chairs
models.
C
So
these
are
the
the
crazies.
You
could
say
right.
I
mean
these
are
the
stable
points
that
want
to
print
money
out
of
thin
air
and
there's
a
lot
of
them,
and
they
are
the
ones
I'm
really
puffing
up
every
day.
There's
like
a
new
guy
got
a
great
idea
and
and
what
they
all
have
in
common
is
basically
there
there's
sort
of
guaranteeing
stability
today
by
sort
of
I
guess
it's
selling
stability
in
the
future
or
like
compromising
stability
in
the
future.
C
So
yeah
I
mean
it's
very
likely
that
a
system
like
that
will
eventually
crash,
at
least
if
it
reaches
a
very
large
scale
and
I
think
also
it's
likely
that
they
will
solve
all
crash
at
the
same
time.
So,
basically,
all
the
senior
shares
models
will
be
lit
interlinked
because
they
all
offer
like
they're
all
based
on
the
fundamental
same
idea,
which
is,
and
you
create
money
out
of
thin
air
right,
and
if
the
answer
to
that
question
is
no,
you
can't
there's
no
reason
why
anyone
would
trust
any
senior
shares
coin
right.
C
Projects
I
guess
we
learning
from
the
IOU
coins
that
you
know
we're
learning
their
legal
strategy
and
we,
and
we
also
trying
to
like
figure
out
how
we
can
best
interact
with
them
sooner
jessica,
lee
and
use
them
in
ways
that
both
projects
and
and
and
ultimately,
hilts
dice
rolls
to
become
this.
Like
future
global
financial
infrastructure.
Okay,.
A
B
So
today
asked
an
interesting
question:
in
order
to
get
nkr
holders
to
vote
maker
down
must
incentivize
the
time
we
put
into
making
these
difficult
decisions,
so
smaller
holders
with
valuable
information
on
risk
management,
non-political
charitable
decisions,
etc,
have
less
incentive
a
little
incentive
to
go
and
play
a
role
and
governance.
The
amount
of
people
in
this
meeting
proves
this:
what
are
your
thoughts
on
paying
and
kr
holders
to,
though
the.
C
If
there
are
already
people
who
wouldn't
vote,
who
would
still
be
engaged
and
voted
out
of
their
own
volition
in
an
intelligent
way,
they
will
still
do
that
and
if
they
weren't,
if
they
were
just
ignore
self
selfish
actress,
alright
I
just
like
apathetic
brought
us
right
or
not.
We
just
don't
really
want
to
spend
the
time
to
vote
correctly.
Then
we'll
just
vote
for
something
random.
C
So
there
has
to
be
some
level
of
control
right
about
like
we
have
to
pay
people
who
not
only
vote
but
also
actually
contribute,
and
maybe-
and
maybe
what's
important-
is
not
so
much
paying
people
to
vote
and
getting
people
to
vote.
It's
actually
more
about
getting
people
to
positively
help
the
like
contribute
to
the
scientific
discourse
right,
unlike
the
helping
reach
this
like
solid
scientific
consensus
and
I
mean
what
I
mean
so
clear
like.
Basically,
this
is
definitely
thing.
We
want
to
do
it
right
and
we
basically
read
like
the
way
to
do.
C
It,
though,
is
in
a
way
where
you're
sure
when
you
pay
people,
you
actually
get
something
out
of
it
right.
So
it's
not
like
you
sort
of
like
pay
here
and
there
and
then
like
I,
mean
because
that
again
becomes
a
system
as
Easter
views
like
so
fundamentally,
it's
really
about
paying
experts
and
most
of
having
experts
providing
this
like
again,
like
the
bedrock
of
the
scientific
community.
Like
that's.
A
C
Sorry,
let
me
just
never
say
so
again:
it's
not
it's
not
a
matter
of
paying
people
to
vote
or
like
paying
experts
to
vote
right.
It's
about
I
mean
the
fundamental
part
of
the
scientific
framework
which
we
didn't
get
to
it
all
now,
but
again,
I
think
it's
a
good
I
mean.
Basically.
The
main
point
to
talk
about
today
is
the
20
was
in
principle
and
is
charity,
because
that
was
the
only
thing
where
people
actually
have
real
concerns
right
and
there's
little
contention,
but
with
fun.
C
I
put
they're
given
social
Authority
in
a
sense
right,
I
mean
they're
people
that
we
basically
for
the
community
votes
to
pay
money
so
that
they
can
output,
legitimate
scientific
results
right
and
models
and
stuff,
and
they
can
you
know
so
they
will
kind
of
be
the
guys
who
again
just
like
the
foundation
is
guys
like
they
will
do
the
boring
stuff
in
many
cases.
Right
and
they'll
be
the
guys
laying
the
groundwork,
yeah
doing
the
stuff
that
nobody
else
wants
to
do,
and
you
have
to
get
paid
to
do
it.
C
They
will
do
that
and
they
will
then
presented
and
sort
of
make
everything
more
easily
digestible
for
the
members
of
the
community
who
are
just
enthusiasts
and
and
once
you
read
some
literally
once
you
reach
that
point
right
where
you
have
this
like
the
boring
stuff
is
done
and
we
can
focus
on
whatever
interests
us.
That's
when
you
really
have
a
much
bigger
chance
of
getting
some
of
the
armchair
economists,
or
maybe
like
I,
mean
just
like
the
experts
who
are
who
have
another
full-time
job.
C
Basically
right
like
they
can
then
come
in
and
be
like.
Okay,
you
can
spend
five
minutes
on
I'm,
just
like
let's
say
you
know,
just
like
giving
a
single
response
to
the
the
you
know,
the
material,
that's
the
risk
team's
produce,
for
instance,
and
the
the
key
thing
about
the
risk
teams
is
that
they
must
be
decentralized
right.
C
So,
like
the
ideas
that
has
to
be
many
of
them,
and
they
have
to
be
some
independence
of
spread
out
and
almost
competitive
in
a
sense
right
like
that,
so
that
we
don't
have
this
the
problem
of,
for
instance,
getting
like
just
one
team.
You
know
sort
of
ultimately
making
most
of
the
research
and
then
it's
wrong
and
then
suddenly
there's
a
huge
problem
right,
but
rather
just
like
in
every
rails.
We
need
to
apply
the
the
principle
of
versification
and
decentralization.
It's
not
just
possible.
Alright,.
A
Thanks
for
that,
you're
right,
it
is
a
huge
topic
and
I
think
that's
probably
one
that
deserves
a
meeting
all
for
its,
so
I
think
we'll
probably
reconvene
next
week
and
continue
on
if
everybody's
available
and
Jess
and
I
will
make
sure
that
the
questions
that
got
asked
in
chat
that
weren't
answered
will
carry
those
over
and
make
sure
everybody's
aware
of
the
meeting
and
Twitter
and
reddit
for
our
next
agenda.
All
right
thanks,
real
thanks,
Matt
thanks.