►
Description
Rune joins us again dig into to some major themes concerning the '20% Principle', explore some of the finer points of what makes 'Sustainable Finance', and talk about the road to 'Gradual Decentralisation'.
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
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
B
A
Okay,
so
we've
like
I,
said
this
is
the
fourth
meeting
we've
been
plowing
through
the
foundation
proposal,
sort
of
top
to
bottom.
Most
of
the
time
so
far
has
been
spent
discussing
some
of
the
nuances
around
the
20
percent
principle
and
I
think
we
might
have
maybe
one
or
two
questions
left
there,
but
this
week,
I'm
hoping
that
we
will
be
able
to
move
on
to
some
of
the
other
major
sections
that
are
I,
think
no
less
important.
A
We
need
to
touch
on
sustainable
finance.
What
that
means.
The
gradual
decentralization
which
I
think
is
is
huge
and
it's
something
that
were
kind
of
in
a
position
to
set
the
stage
for
the
rest
of
the
space.
So
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
to
talk
about
there.
Maintaining
market
focus
is
another
big
issue
that
we
should
give
some
time
to.
One
thing
that
we
won't
be
discussing
in
too
much
depth
in
this
call
is:
are
things
related
to
scientific
governance?
We
have
a
specific,
regular
meeting
on
Thursdays
of
tomorrow.
A
A
C
Sir,
so
scientific
governance
is
like
the
name
of
one
of
the
1st
of
May
5
times.
Well,
if
I
put
the
five
principles
we
still
down
in
the
foundation
proposal
and
it's
kind
of
like
it's
it,
the
most
like
it's
like
the
deepest
rabbit
hole
of
all
the
principles,
because
it's
kind
of
like
the
entire
umbrella
term.
It's
kind
of
like
how
we
want
to
describe
the
overall
framework
for
our
risk
governance,
and
that
clear
is
basically
you
want
to.
C
Our
most
important
goal
is
to
avoid,
like
basically
popularity
contests
for
how
:
was
chosen,
because
there's
a
lot
of
miss
there
for
pumping
interest
and
then
just
like
bad
decisions,
and
rather
we
want
it
to
be
a
consensus
seeking
of
a
compromise
seeking
exercise
using
scientific
arguments
and
data-driven
evidence
driven
decision
making
to
try
to
achieve
something
that
is
like
as
objectively
good
as
possible
for
a
maximal
stability
of
life.
But.
A
When
we
have
when
it
comes
to
making
a
governance
decision,
it's
not
based
on
the
weight
of
the
or
the
compel
and
how
compelling
the
argument
is:
it's
based
on
the
the
data
set,
that's
used
and
how
reproducible
that
model
is
and
how
well
fleshed
out
and
understandable.
It
is
based
on
established
best
practices,
the
scientific
principles.
A
C
And
so
we
have
Stephen,
who
is
the
head
of
risk
in
the
major
foundation?
He
will
be
called
every
Thursday.
He
just
recently
released
the
first
of
his
papers
in
scientific
governance,
but
he
is
like
releasing
a
whole
series
of
them
and
doing
calls
every
every
first
date
against
their
the
scientific
debate.
C
There
will
always
be
this
like
human
element
and
you're
like
political
and
social
elements
to
it.
But
what
we
want
to
do
is
we
want
to
minimize
that
as
much
as
we
possibly
can
and
then
try
to
bridge
the
last
mile
kind
of
like
the
last
gap
of
the
potential
for
countries
of
interest
and
social
political.
C
All,
these
issues
they're
basically
bricks
that,
by
having
a
super
high
quality
of
community
of
experts
and
people
like
idealists
with
the
right
mindset
and
then
also
there's
like
higher
level
of
integrity
and
principle
based
like
community
raisiny
right
that
that
is
really
exemplified
by
by
the
20
percent
principle
in
like
the
right
ear
that
create
the
shared
commitment
to
charity.
That,
then,
is
the
basis
for
how
we
resolved
unite
around
that's.
You
know
like
this.
C
The
greater
goal
is
to
make
make
something
you
know,
make
the
perfect
standpoint
and
we
are
to
get
a
balloon
in
it
together
to
contribute
to
this
and
also
see
all
these
other
beneficial
comes
from
the
world
and
then
as
a
side
effect
of
that
we
also
get
rich
because
we
invest
in
NPR
and
so
on,
but
kind
of
like.
The
point
is
time
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
self
the
selfishness
of
like
that
component
doesn't
become
the
primary
driver
in
governments,
because
then
things
can
very
quickly
go
to
financial
crisis.
A
A
Right
so
I'm
going
to
start
tossing
some
some
hard
balls
at
you.
That's
I
think
there's
still
some
confusion
around
the
source
of
the
of
the
funds
that
will
be
devoted
to
the
20
percent
principle.
There's
been
talk
of
matching
of
funds
matching
from
the
dev
fund.
Then,
eventually
the
dev
phone
becomes
distributed
and
potentially
they'll
be
drawn
from
fees.
Can
you
provide
us
some
clarity
of
where
the
the
money
comes
from
for
the
20
percent
principle
and
some
timelines
around
them?
Yeah.
C
So
that's
sort
of
the
number
so
there's
so,
no
matter
what
we,
the
foundation
says,
sort
us!
You
can
never
like
altima
ting
we're
just
suggesting
governance
behavior
for
the
community
to
vote
through,
but
and
then
the
second
thing
is
the
community
has
the
power
to
do
pretty
much
anything
if
it
works
like
if
it
can
come
to
consensus.
Voting
board
maker
is
incredibly
flexible
on
how
we
can
well,
for
instance,
how
we
can
like
troll
money
out
of
the
system,
so
we
can
do
stuff
like
for.
C
Maybe
our
owners
can
vote
to
fund
Oracle
instance
right,
so
they
actually
paid
money
to
ensure
they
have
promised
security
and
have
they're
the
right
incentives
and
and
basically
anything
else.
That
could
also
be
that
in
pianos
could
vote
to
give
to
charity
at
anytime.
They
wanted
to
in
any
amount
or
whatever
they
want
to
do
right,
because
you
can
just
simply
the
system
just
allows
you
to
do
that.
You
can
vote
for
it.
C
Anyone,
but
specifically,
what
we
are
proposing
with
the
foundation
proposal,
is
actually
not
and
thought
like
we're,
not
proposing
a
photo
behavior
like
we're
not
seeing
in
the
future.
We
think
you
guys
should
vote
like
this,
and
you
should
vote
to
us
to
like
assign
fees
to
to
charity
out
of
the
stability
piece
in
the
1-1
ways.
What
we're
proposing
is
that
we
take
200,000
limpiar,
which
we
currently
hold
indefinite
and
we
initially
like
we
initially.
C
We
just
manage
those
internally
in
the
foundation
and
then
later
basically
do
legal
research
and
consult
with
the
community
to
figure
out
the
best
long-term
setup
for
this
cool
of
200,000
MPR,
and
then
from
that
pool.
We
draw
the
funds
that
we
draw
the
funds
that
are
going
to
be
used
for
the
strength
of
20%
principle,
and
we
do
so
in
a
sustainable
manner
so
that
the
pool
of
funds
never
runs
out
and
and
then
that's
where
some
of
the
20%
comes
in,
because
200k
of
the
total
into
our
supply.
C
A
That
covers
some
of
the
basics,
so
initially
people
that
sort
of
viciously
self-interest
to
financially
self-interested
to
have
a
little
concern
about
missing
out
on
dilution
of
the
maker
token,
because
this
further
for
the
foreseeable
future,
at
least
it's
just
exclusively
coming
out
of
the
debt
fund
right.
The.
C
C
I
mean
and
I
appreciate
you
pointing
out
that
it
can
sound
very
scary.
What
is
it
I
mean?
So
let
me
clarify
I
mean
I'm
talking
about
the
technical
capabilities
of
the
smart
country,
infrastructure
right
and
my
point
is-
that
is
extremely
strong
and
all
the
power
is
in
the
hands
of
MPLS,
because
the
the
tech
is
truly
decentralized.
So
there
is
no
middleman
or
something
like
that
right,
like
Authority,
or
something
that
that
can
make
it
could
possibly
make
these
decisions
like
it's
taken,
be
impossible
for
that
to
be
the
case
in
the
system.
C
Unless
I'm
careless
choose
it,
but
I
mean
again
right
take
technically,
they
have
the
ability
to
do
whatever
they
want,
but
no
one
else
has
the
ability
to
impose
to
some
in
a
technical
sense
and
post
anything
that
okay,
others,
but
of
course,
and
and
I'm
not
even
like
this
is
entirely
outside
like
this
is
missing.
The
framework
of
the
this
is
missing
the
context
of
the
governance
framework,
because,
of
course,
with
the
last
thing
we
want
is
that
you
can
do
you
know,
tell
a
garrulous
you
could
do
whatever
you
want
to
go.
C
C
But
obviously
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
is.
Is
you
know
it's
something
where
you
just
have
a
bunch
of
smart
people
and
then
hope
hope
it
works?
You
need
a
really
good
plan,
and
that
plan
is
what
we
call
gradual,
decentralization
right
and
basically
the
idea
is
that
you
know
the
may
the
way
we
make
something
decentralized.
It's
not
saying.
Okay,
guys,
if
you
know
you
free,
go
out
and
do
your
thing
it's
rather,
we
we
basically
start
off.
Being
almost
I
mean
right
now,
single
collateral
die
is
it
is.
C
It
is
fundamentally
decentralized,
but
it's
like
controlled
in
a
very
is
still
like
that
the
infrastructure,
the
technology
itself
is
decentralized
but
sort
of
a
social
layer
around.
It
is
very
centralized
which
can
be
seen,
for
instance,
how
we
are
voting
through
like
how
increase
dessaline
presence,
where
it
was
primarily
Foundation
employees
and
like
some
of
the
early
early
adopter
community,
who
also
happened
to
be
developers
and
able.
C
You
know
who
are
able
to
use
the
command
line
interface
to
actually
vote
in
a
safe
way,
because
there's
no
way
to
like
safely
vote
for
someone
who's,
not
highly
technical,
I,
know
and-
and
we
actually
like
this-
is
in
it
to
some
extent
this
is
on
is
deliberate
because
we
don't-
you
know
like
right
now.
The
needs
of
single
collateral
die,
look
very
much.
It's
kinda
like
a
it's
a
beta.
It
needs
to
exist
and
sort
of
provide
a
good,
stable
point
until
we
get
to
multiple
level
type.
C
But
it's
not
really
supposed
to
do
anything
beyond
that.
So,
and
so
we
don't
want
to.
We
don't
want
to
like
encourage
a
lot
of
like,
like
basically
community,
like
large-scale
governance
like
slash
scale,
involvement
in
how
single-level
dies
run
because
it's
just
not
is
not
the
system
that
people
actually
supposed
to
focus
on
right.
That's
just
in
this
x,
so.
A
Can
you
sort
of
helped
me
to
form
a
mental
model
of
what
gradual
decentralisation
would
look
like,
so
so
ruled
out
over
time?
So
obviously,
one
of
the
hard
criteria
is,
we
need
publicly
facing
and
safe
governance
tools
that
make
sense
to
into
our
end
users.
We
need
to
have
like
a
very
well
established.
We
need
to
with
a
high
level
of
quality
for
the
proposals,
the
scientific
proposals
and
frameworks
that
we
use
to
establish
what
people
vote
on
and
then
is
there.
C
I
mean
I
think
so,
focusing
on
risk,
governance
and
focusing
on
proposals
is
one
of
the
things
to
look
at,
but
actually
what
I
prefer
to
think
in
terms
of
is
actually
so.
It's
actually
like
the
identity
of
name
calendar
and
how
they
sort
of
identify
themselves
in
the
overall
system
and
basically
right
now-
and
this
is
the
case
it.
This
is
totally
the
case.
C
C
You
know,
like
that's,
not
a
total
disaster,
because
the
foundation
is
actually
taking
on
this
role
being
like
the
guys
who
are
holding
the
fort
and
making
sure
that
everything
was
running
as
its
supposed
to
right
now
and
the
end
goal
like
where
we
want
to
be
in
the
future.
Is
that
as
an
in
Kerala,
you
are
the
first-class
citizen
like
you
are
the
governor
of
the
system
and
there
needs
to
be
a
completely
level
playing
field
and
no
type
of
like
hierarchy
or
like
like
both
in
terms
of
like
social
structure.
C
I
guess,
you
can
say
right
where,
like
there
is
like
there's
no
people
who
are
yours,
like
as
a
member
of
the
community,
you're
supposed
to
defer
more
to
these
guys
because
they
have
this
title
of
this
role
or
something
right,
and
this
and
that's
actually
circles
to
most
scientific
governance
and
like
thank
you,
because
what
you
don't
care
about
who
who
they
are
you
care
about?
What
they're
saying
so
you're.
A
Saying
that
the
path
to
gradual
of
the
centralization
is
is
not
just
tooling
and
not
just
frameworks,
but
it's
also
a
process
of
education.
Is
that
what
it
is
sort
of
ramping
up
the
the
most
engaged
stakeholders
to
understand
oversights?
Maybe
makers
been
doing
up
until
this
point
in
the
work
that
needs
to
be
continued.
Yeah.
C
C
You
know
socially
engineer
into
some
position
that
actually
gives
you
a
semblance
of
control
of
the
system
right,
but
rather
the
system
and
the
community
and
the
people
involved
fundamental
needs
to
to
feel
and
to
sort
of
demand
that
there
is
no.
There
is
no
like
central
authority,
there's
no
one
with
special
rights
or
axis
well,.
A
That's
a
fascinating
topic:
if
we're
talking
about
cartels
and
coalition's
and
and
parties
forming
or
even
activists
investment
investors.
If
you
want
to
look
at
from
that
perspective,
so
do
you
think
that
the
primary
way
that
maker
will
defend
against
that
kind
of
thing
is
a
cultural
through
cultural
consensus
or
is
it?
Will
there
be
actual
mechanisms
in
place
soon?
It's
a
to
guard
against
that.
C
I
mean
I
think
both
I
guess
I
mean
up,
but
I
think
yeah,
absolutely
I.
Think
it's
cultural.
It's
like
it's
a
car
like
I
spill
and
I
think
that
tea
sensation
yourself
is
like
a
cultural
thing.
I
mean
I.
Think
someone
like
Bitcoin
is
primarily
decentralized
because
people
receive
it
as
decentralized
since
on
a
fight
for
its
decentralization
and
and
let's
I
mean
if
you
actually
think
about
the
thing
that
keeps
Bitcoin
centralized
is
not
actually
the
technology
or
the
blocks
or
the
proof
of
work
or
anything
like
that.
C
It
is
the
thread
that
ultimately
we
will
we
will
manually
go
in
and
like
for.
You
know
how,
for
if
someone
tries
to
I
don't
know
like
we
will
move
to
another
softball
will
many
ways
so
for
if
some
rogue
minor
tries
to
like
truly
take
on
system
like
people
be
like
well
nevermind
like
no,
the
Bitcoin
I
value
is
not
the
one
where
this
guy's
is
doing
stuff.
So
I'm
gonna,
move
to
this
other
and
just.
C
B
C
A
That
leads
me
to
a
list
of
questions
that
have
been
collecting
from
reddit.
Really
it's
a
gradual
decentralisation
did
throw
some
of
those
at
you.
I
think
you
just
sort
of
touched
on
one
of
them,
but
to
formalize
it
question:
what
are
some
of
the
threats
to
the
vision
of
long-term
decentralization?
What
does
the
foundation
and
the
voters
need
to
be
cognizant
of
as
we
head
down
this
road.
C
So
I
mean
so
so
now
we
talked
a
lot
about
the
long
term.
What
we,
where
you
want
to
end
up
right
and
then
both
the
point
of
the
Graduate
decentralization
is.
It
is
actually
to
some
degree
that
we
cannot
sit
down
today
and
define
what
the
future
exactly
would
look
like.
So
what
we
can
do
is
like
we
can
try
this
one
on
like
decide
which
direction
which
path
will
try
to
go,
and
that
is
basically
what
like
that
is
one.
C
Where
and
and
I
mean
I
guess
you
can
only
really
find
it
based
on
the
long
term.
The
long
term
view
right
but
like
what
one
of
the
things
that's
really
important
is
that
people
have
the
influence
people
have
is
based
on
their
marriage,
but
it's
kind
of
like
when
you,
when
you
participate
in
something
in
a
decentralized
system,
and
you
let's
say
when
you
contribute
to
the
Bitcoin
source
code
right,
your
contribution
is
accepted
based
on
its
quality
and
nothing
else
right
and
that's
sort
of
what
we
like.
C
We
have
so
many
places
in
make
it
where
you
can
not
just
a
freaking
source
code
but
which
actually
is
also
open
for
contribution
right,
but
also
governance
and
also
control
like
mary,
is
like
controlled
like
marius,
what
you
call
them
like
control
consciousness
and
right.
Oracle's
blown.
So
like
all
these,
these
these
things
you
even
have
charity
as
well.
That's
another
component
where
people
people
will
be
actively
contributing
to
that
and
basically
gradual
decentralization
means
when
we
open
up
community
punch
Nishan
at
the
social
level.
C
So
when
we
sort
of
socially
go
out
and
say,
hey
guys,
let's
start
really
discussing
and-
and
you
know
and
make
and
make
future
executive
decisions
based
on
these
open
discussions
and
nothing
else,
because
that's
how
it's
gonna
be
in
one
run.
But
when
we
go
that
when
we
do
that
for
some
particular
thing,
we
have
to
have
already
educated
the
community
on
that
thing,
and
also
we
have
to
have
already
have
ensured
that
everything
else
we've
tried
to
centralize
it
so
far
has
been
a
success.
C
A
I
think
I'm
following
along
I
think
so
it
it's
served.
I'm
gonna
recap
against
the
kind
of
cultural
consensus
that
we
all
kind
of
arrive
at
as
a
group
over
the
next
few
months.
There's
an
educational
component
through
these
meetings
and
other
documents,
where
we
sort
of
pull
back
the
curtain
on
the
exact
requirements
and
mechanisms
and
challenges
to
to
manage
the
DAO.
C
You
can
take
that
and
you
can
build
up
on
that
and
see
what
what
kind
of
the
debate
and
ultimately
the
decision
you
can
make
out
of
it.
And
if
we
then
see
like
this
highly,
you
know
we
see
there's
like
organic
emergence
of
how
people
are
like.
Actually
you
know
they're
they're,
the
taking
the
approach
we
want,
which
is
the
impact,
the
evidence
driven
approach
right
and
and
it's
it's
done
like
well.
C
C
The
the
final
part
of
the
like
the
final
step
towards
through
decentralization
happens,
which
is
diversification
of
the
communication
channels,
so
eventually
there
will
be
none
foundational,
controlled
forums
and
community
calls
and
all
the
stuff
where
the
debate
can
have
them
as
well,
so
that
even
you
know
even
sent
it
even
becomes
censorship.
Persistent
right
and
I
mean
that's
gonna,
be
a
very
long
process
and
it's
going
to
be
very
hard
to
keep
a
coherent
community
spirit
through
this.
C
But
at
the
same
time
I
was
thinking
it's
it's
doable
because
I
think
it's
like
gonna
be
like
people
who
participate
in
this
stuff.
It's
gonna
be
like
hard
work.
It's
gonna
be
boring
if
you're
not
actually
into
it
right.
That
means
something
like
charity,
for
instance,
like
you,
need
to
actually
care
about
it
before
you
bother
with
this
kind
of
stuff.
C
So
I
think
there
is
the
potential
layer
to
just
create,
like
this
I
create
a
community
of
people
who
are
given
power
recently
for
them
to
to
use
in
a
very
like
given
that
power,
because
they
have
shown
they're
able
to
use
it
well
and
from
there
they'll,
because
they'll
see
the
the
results
of
their
own
skills,
basically
of
what
they,
what
they've
created
in
their
own
community
that'll,
just
that'll
fuel
them
to
continue
and
grow.
The
community
right
like
create
this
strong
community
spirit
that
can
potentially
be
long-term,
sustainable.
D
C
C
It
is
like,
like
it's
a
field
where
everyone
are
playing
with
lives,
right
and-
and
so
you
have
is
like
this
spirit
of
when
you
have
like
the
doctors,
both,
for
instance,
also
right,
but
that's
not
maybe
that's
that's
more
like
in
practice
and
medicine
more
like,
but
in
when
it
comes
like
research
and
development
of
medicine.
Why
do
you
have
it
like?
You
know?
C
People
really
have
this
incentive
to
work
together
to
solve
real
problems,
and
they
sort
of
you
know
like
they
still
deal
with
the
exact
same
problems
that
we
have
growing
people
expect
to
deal
with,
which
is
like
commercial
interests.
Bugling
of
interest,
like
I,
said
right,
personal
personal,
like
like
self
gratification,
which
is
a
huge
issue
in
science
and
will
always
be
for
us
as
well
right,
because
once
you
take
away
money
as
a
big
effects
of
some
of
the
ego
becomes
another
thing
that
becomes
really
important
and
like
Fame
and
so
on.
C
But
this
I
mean,
but
despite
all
that,
basically
all
science
is
doing
really
well,
so
so
I
that
is
just
like
a
like.
It
is
possible
to
create
a
global
spanning.
You
know,
community
that
can
agree
in
99.9%
of
cases
of
what
kind
of
chemicals
can
you
safely
inject
into
your
brain,
to
let
cure
some
esoteric
disease
right
and.
D
C
Yeah
wikipedia
has
a
great
extended
like
a
we
be
is
so
amazing
because
it
also
has
that,
like
there's
like
a
seriousness
to
it
right,
because
if
they
know
it
affects
real
people
when
there's
so
so
it's
just
not
accepted
to
like
try
to
put
in
your
commercial
interests
in
to
compete
or
yeah
like
like
troll
it
or
something
right
like
it's
very
hard.
It's
protected
very
well
against
those
kind
of
things
and
and
I
imagine
I
mean
I,
don't
really
know
about,
but
I.
C
Imagine
that
it's
never
really
happened
when
someone's
that
managed
like
bribe
a
bunch
of
Wikipedia
moderators
and
like
really
because
because
I
get
like
cuz
they're,
not
getting
paid
in
the
first
place,
they're,
not
they
ever
money
in
the
first
place.
So
like
all
those
like
typical
Technic,
just
just
don't
work
in
the
same
way
right.
D
And
so
and
yeah
that
actually
is
a
that
point
as
a
great
site
to
my
next
question,
which
is
that
you
know
because
of
Wikipedia
that
the
currency
in
that
community
is
essentially
its
reputation.
You
go
it's
not
explicitly
financial,
whereas
in
maker
there
is
this
token
that
has
financial
value.
The
question
is:
how
does
the
the
distribution
of
token
holdings
play
into
progressive
decentralization
in
a
in
a
practical
sense?
Academy
intend
to
manage
that,
and
this
I
think
comes
back
to
the
foundation
proposal,
but
yeah.
How
important
is
token
distribution
here?
Yes,.
C
I
mean
actually
I,
guess
yeah
I
think
you
can
say
that
the
token
the
question
of
the
token
the
power
of
the
total
internal
distribution
is
the
main
problem
we're
trying
to
tackle
with
the
entire
print,
because
what
we
actually
want
to
achieve
is
that,
under
normal
conditions,
the
token
Gerald
should
have
absolutely
it
should
mean
nothing.
The
only
thing
is
you
matter
is
you're
like
arguments
and
your
facts
you
bring
to
the
table,
are
your
data
and
so
on?
C
You
can't
reach
a
consensus.
Maybe
you
can
reach
a
compromise,
but
sometimes
it's
like
well,
we
have
to
either
do
one
or
the
other,
and
that's
then,
where
the
totem
is
just
like,
like
those
are.
The
kind
of
situations
where
like
Tomek
rollers
could,
for
instance,
like
vote
on
their
opinion
when,
with
all
the
experts
like
fall
down
on
each
side
of
a
debate
and
their
base
like
yeah,
we
just
you
know,
like
I
mean
we
can
see
the
other
side,
we
can
see
your
own
side.
These
are
the
arguments
of
each
side.
C
Now
we're
just
gonna
have
a
a
community
vote
on
it
and
then
we'll
have
like.
Let's,
let's
take
that
s
as
basically
as
the
decision,
so
we
can
move
on
because
we
also
need
like-
and
we
still
take
that
as
a
compromise.
Basically
right,
we
like
compromise
by
deferring
to
a
community
vote,
so
it
is
again
super
crucial
that
they've
catalysts
are
like
very
legit
and
know
what
they're
doing
in
this
type
of
situation.
C
But
I
also
think
that
there's
going
to
be
a
very
big
difference
between
active
MP
ahold
like
active
MP,
are
voters,
and
so
passive
and
care
voters,
and
another
important
goal
for
us
is
also
to
ensure
that
there's.
That
is
actually
not
too
like
a
big
list
that,
for
instance,
if
there's
too
many
passive
and
who
don't
really
have
an
opinion
basically
like
want
to
really
have
a
you
know.
Maybe
they
want
to
trade
on
the
outcome
of
the
governance
process,
which
is
actually
also
super
like
like
interesting
service
in
this
incident
provides.
A
Did
that
answer
your
question
because
that
segues
into
another
community
question?
Yes,
sorry,
I'm,
just
gonna
jump
in
really
fast,
just
from
the
community
there's.
There
was
a
question
that
in
one
of
the
calls
we
touched
briefly
on
the
voter
apathy
and
ruin.
You
just
mentioned
something
about
that.
Can
you
expand
a
bit
on
some
potential
plans
to
combat
that.
C
Yeah
I
mean
so
I
think
I
think
for
I
mean
there
are
several
levels
to
look
at
this
problem
right
and
I.
Think
the
most
crucial
thing
to
to
address
is
like
the
existential
threat
from
various
attack
vectors,
so
that,
like
I,
mean
I,
mean
the
motivation
won't
mean
a
lack
of
honest
attack.
So
literally
someone,
you
know,
let's
say
nobody
votes,
so
some
guy
by
its
eyes,
20,000
PR,
that's
enough
for
him
to
actually
take
control
of
the
system.
Does
everyone
lose
their
money?
C
And
in
this
case,
and
of
course
the
answer
to
that
must
be
no
right.
You
can't
like
that's
too
fragile,
based
me.
If
that's,
that
can
actually
kill
off
the
system
and
in
fact
our
solution
is
that
we
have
like.
We
have
two
completely
immune
actually
in
terms
of
like
this
type
of
tech
causing
damage
to
end-users
because
of
global
settlement
and
our
security
delays.
So
basically
what
happens
if
someone
performs
at
51%
government
attack
because-
and
that
is
possible
plan
to
do
because
of
voter
apathy-
is
that
the
entire
system
is
shut
down.
C
I'm,
what
I'm
call
the
surface
community
so,
like
the
part
of
the
community,
that's
actually
actively
in
touch
with
each
other
and
actually
doing
governance,
and
some
of
are
the
ones
setting
the
social
consensus.
Maybe
they
come
to
a
social
consensus
about
who
is
going
to
who
of
their
parents
are
going
to
be
like
included
in
this
new
NPR
distribution
and,
for
instance,
like
an
attacker,
definitely
should
always
be
cut
out
right.
C
That's
like
very
straight
following
someone
like
votes
for
and
a
malicious
proposal
with
a
hundred
thousand
PR,
and
we
have
to
shut
down
the
system
because
of
that
when
we,
when
we
restart
the
system,
meaning
we
create
a
completely
fresh
deployment
and
we
sort
of
share
drop
everything
on
top
of
the
old
set
up.
We're,
definitely
not
gonna.
C
Give
that
guy
any
money
right
like
he's,
not
gonna,
get
any
new
it
yeah
he's
gonna
lose
he's
gonna
pay
for
that
attack
with
a
hundred
thousand
yeah
and
then
provides
some
level
of
compensation
for
their
the
system.
Actually,
because
getting
a
hundred
thousand
care
burned
does
somewhat
make
up
for
the
the
you
eggs
hassle
of
going
through
a
little
settlement.
So.
A
So
the
global
settlement
also
has
a
dampening
effect
on
the
formation
of
cartels
are
at
least
Hass
takeovers,
which
is
interesting.
Traditionally,
when
people
talk
about
voter
apathy,
they
they
end
up
in
kind
of
in
two
different
camps.
One
is
incentivizing
voters,
I
think
which
has
some
attendant
risks.
Obviously
that's
how
kind
of
cartels.
If,
if
we
reward
people
from
voting,
then
somebody
will
figure
out
how
to
profit
from
that
outside
of
the
actual
goals
of
the
voting
infrastructure.
A
C
C
It's
actually
like
kind
of
like
an
add-on
feature
that
you
can
build
a
target
and
we
will,
of
course,
in
the
foundation
build
our
own
sort
of
official
initial
version
of
this,
but
in
the
future,
maybe
there's
gonna
be
some
more
advanced
stuff
of
this
type
that
people
want
to
make
a
future,
and
anyone
can
at
any
time
create
very
like
create
these
kind
of
advanced
governance
features.
So
so
all
like
any
type
of
like
advanced
crazy
governance
of
voting
strategy
or
feature
that
people
can
thing
up.
C
All
of
that
stuff
is
technically
supported
by
maker
and
it
will
be
kind
of
like
a
free
market
where
people
can
basically
say,
hey
guys.
Look
at
this,
my
new
app
where
you
can
do
special
type
of
mode
delegation
or
maybe
like
let's
say,
like
or
like
guess,
search
it
like
a
right
like
a
like
a
like
a
marketplace
like
a
cold
and
act
like
a
place.
A
D
C
And
so,
what's
and
and
yeah
he's
got
and
he's
on
laid
out
this,
like
I,
guess
this
generalized
concept
of
how
I
feel
to
some
degrees
messages
even
like
vote,
fine
is
inevitable
and
yeah
is
inevitable.
Kinda,
it
is
like
it
is
like
happens
because
of
market
forces
and
this
kind
stuff,
which
I
think
actually
I
mean
generally
I.
C
Think
our
manpower
approach
at
major
is
to
begin
to
like
assumed
that,
like
assume
things
in
that
sense,
right,
like
we
kind
of
you
kind
of
have
to
like
assume,
you
live
in
a
world
where,
if
someone
can
make
money-
but
you
know
like
people
no
morals,
they
will
do
whatever
it
takes
for
them
to
get
ahead
or
make
money
or
something
like
that
right
and
you
can
never
like
assume
that
out
of
the
goodwill,
they
were
like
not
to
take
your
money
from
you.
If
you're
like
give.
C
So
the
way
we
like
I
mean
I
like
to
think
about
vote-buying
and
sort
of
and
I
think
we
should
approach
it
is
well.
They
say,
I
mean
I
would
say
primarily
like
first
and
foremost,
I
think
it
is
actually
cultural,
but
just
because
that's
like
the
first
thing,
that's
like
there,
but
it's
not
it's
not
the
actual
defense,
because
well
I
mean
the
first
line
of
defense
is
not
the
real
thing
to
use
to
protect
you.
You
protect
yourself
right
but,
like
I,
think
personal,
for
instance.
C
C
That's
paint
with
20
I
mean
that
is
that
is
perhaps
stretching
it
a
bit
but,
like
I,
think
there's
some
there's
no
connection
there
that
we're
like-
and
this
is
like
the
filtering
we're
talking
about
in
terms
of
the
between
teams
in
principle
that
the
kind
of
people
who
would
do
you
know
who
would
do
vote
buying
this,
like
maximally
profit-seeking
activity,
could
like
filter
themself
out
of
the
community
because
they're
like
well.
These
guys,
obviously
I,
don't
you
know
they're
they're,
naive,
there's,
no
way.
C
I'm
gonna
be
involved
here,
because
you
know
they're
getting
20%
to
charity
and
the
other
thing
is
kind
of
like
it's
more
like
it's
more
like
like
just
like
the
social
levels.
Well
like
the
mayor
as
a
community
and
as
like
entity
will
be
one
where
people
not
really
it'll,
be
very
frowned
upon.
You
know
like
you
can
never
like
you
will
never
in
luck,
never
be
socially
acceptable
in
some
of
them.
C
A
community
to
to
to
like,
like
participate
in
vote-buying
I,
like
consider
like
mate,
actually
make
like
feel
Diane
type
arguments
to
say,
like
well,
I
mean
I'm.
This
is
something
with
your
talking.
You
know
like
we
are
all
free
people.
We
can
do
whatever
we
want.
Some.
Why
shouldn't
like
you
know
I'm.
Let's,
let's
make
a
vote
buying
circle
you
know
and
who
wants
right
because
you
can
anyone
of
you
can
come
and
join
me
because
you
all
you
know,
you're
free,
you're,
free
humans.
C
You
can
do
whatever
you
want
and
I
think
that
kind
of
like
like
that
kind
of
people,
would
actually
buy
the
kind
of
acumen
right.
They
would
be
like
yeah,
no
I
mean
I,
don't
I'm,
not
gonna.
Give
you
a
platform
to
like
try
to
create
some
vote-buying
scheme,
but
I.
Think
yeah
I
mean
that
maybe
it's
not
so
interesting
right,
because
I
think
it's
the
case.
Almost
every
single
watching
project
so
anyway,.
C
C
C
Basically,
here's
you
know:
here's
the
executive,
like
here's,
an
executive
book
and
in
the
executive
vote
you
can
either
vote
from
the
executive
proposal,
which
is
which
basically
represents
all
the
the
changes
to
the
system
that
the
community
has
already
agreed
upon
in
a
completely
open
and
transparent
process
where
everyone
has
been
allowed
to
be
able
to
participate.
Everyone
has
had
a
platform
for
their
fact
and
evidence
based
opinion.
C
So
it's
not
a
like,
so
the
executive
boat
is
not
something
where
people
are
presented
with
a
choice.
The
only
show
I
mean
other
than
and
very
simple
choice,
which
is
so-called
the
system.
By
voting
on
the
executive
vote
of
the
stuff
that
you
already
agreed
upon,
or
a
tank
is
system
by
voting
for
something
else,
and
yes.
B
So
that
actually
proposes
a
sort
of
interesting
idea
along
those
lines
that
asks
to
sort
of
counter
low
turnout
risk.
B
If
we
had
layers
of
government-
and
he
specifies
the
idea
that
inhale
are
holders
would
be
like
a
Congress
and
the
maker
foundation
act
as
an
executive
branch,
meaning
we'd
have
two
rounds
of
voting,
and
so
the
first
round
would
be
based
on
the
MK
our
stake
and
then,
if
passed,
the
foundation
would
get
a
chance
to
go
ahead
and
veto
the
proposal
and
then
send
it
back
to
the
community
requiring
a
two-thirds
vote
to
overrule
the
Foundation's
veto.
Does
a
sort
of
layers
of
government
structure
like
that
makes
sense
within
this
solution,
room
yeah.
C
C
Basically
and
there's
like
a
government
scares
in
which
point
it's
kind
of
the
point,
is
kind
of
moot
because
that
means
like
we
are
now
in
a
we're
sort
of
in
uncharted
like
we're
in
we're
in
a
situation
that
we
hope
that
we've
trying
everything
you
possibly
can
to
never
get
to,
and
if
we
do
get
to
that
situation
it
might
even
be
that
decentralized
governance.
The
way
we
were
trying
to
do
just
what's
impossible,
maybe
our
community
fundamentally
is
not
able
to
to
govern
maker
or
something
on
that
right.
So,
like
I,
think.
A
Is
that
the
guess,
decentralized,
gradual,
decentralization
governance
and
most
of
the
other
topics
that
we
discuss
in
these
meetings
are
what
we're
proposing
is
iterative
in
the
point
of
these
meetings
for
all
of
us
to
get
together
and
figure
it
out
as
we
go
along,
it's
going
to
be
a
long
road,
I
think
before
before
we
come
up
with
a
solution
that
works,
and
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
series
of
solutions
that
work
so
nothing's
gonna
be
handed
down.
Hi
we're
up
coming
up
on
five
minutes
left
and
Jordan.
A
B
Yes,
so
Jordan
I
can
just
go
and
jump
in
here.
So
yes,
that
number
of
specific
questions
and
he'd
like
to
know
exactly
where
the
biggest
in
care
holders
that
we're
talking
about
how
to
what
extent
they
expect
to
be
heavily
involved
and
risk
assessment.
And,
for
instance,
where
are
they
now
like
is
just
poly
chain.
Have
someone
that's
on
this
community
call
at
the
moment
and
are
some
of
the
larger
and
PR
holders
from
the
maker
team
attending
to
submit
their
opinions
and
analysis
as
an
MPR
motor
or
as
a
foundation
team
member.
C
C
Logical
on
us
to
do
is
to
like
that,
like
like
it
well
either,
do
nothing
or
delegate
the
votes
to
like
spend
some
time
for
them
to
figure
out
who
is
the
who
of
the
active
governance,
people
who
I
think
are
the
best
ones
and
then
delegate
and
boots
them.
That
being
said,
polishing,
for
instance,
are
just
like
a
very
active
community
member
I
mean
there's
like
big
fans
of
maker
and
currently
they're
not
really
participating
in
any
public
governance
at
all.
C
D
They
really
certain
interest.
This
is
by
the
way
why
I'm
I'm
on
the
call
andreessen
horowitz
as
a
token
holder,
I'm
from
a
16z
crypto
and
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
how
we
can
best
participate
and-
and
you
know
so,
learning
learning
sort
of
the
way
a
land.
The
land
is
the
first
step
and
then,
as
we
better
understand,
the
processes,
I
think
you
know,
we
look
forward
to
getting
involved
as
well.
C
It
is
actually
happening
and
I
and
and
like
Jesse,
saying
right,
like
someone
like
for
someone
like
entries
and
Horowitz,
to
participate
in
Internet
community
governance,
it's
kind
of
like
you
know,
it's
not
something
you
just
like
go
out
and
do
right.
You
need
to
like
first
spend
a
lot
of
time
like
I
mean
first
maker
has
to
be
you
ready
for
it
right
and
then
Jesse
and
and
andreessen
horowitz
as
a
whole
has
to
like
get
a
feel
for.
What's
even
going
on.
C
What's
even
like
what's
gonna
happen,
that's
alright,
but
then
in
the
in
the
long
run,
I
think
you
know
he's
gonna
be
really
like
it's
just
gonna,
be
as
like
logic
yeah,
unless
they
will
just
like,
even
because
they're,
not
necessarily
expected
to
really
I
mean
really
like
over
I
guess
depended
on
trust.
I,
don't
want
a
system
that
doesn't
break
if
the
logic
calendars
don't
act.
The
way
we
expect
them
to
do,
but
I
mean
they
still
have
that
incentive
right,
because
I
mean
if
your
logic
beholder
you
just
want
to
make.
C
You
know
you
don't
want
some
crazy
people
to
come
in
and
screw
everything
up
right.
You
want
to
actually
make
sure
you
have
a
handle
on
on
what's
going
on
in
governance
and
then
how
the
parameters
are
set
and
so
on,
and
this
is
the
case
where
all
like
it,
you
know
like
sort
of
economic
relationships
in
general.
Right
I
mean
anyone
who
has
an
economic
interest
in
something
always
want
to
the
larger.
That
interest
is
the
more
likely
they
are
to
meddle.
C
I
guess
is
not
the
right
word,
the
more
likely
they
are
to
participate
right
out
of
their
own
interest
and
also
out
of
to
some
degree
I
mean
like
actual
enthusiasm.
Right
I
mean
that's
also
one
I'm
sure
in
both
Andreessen
Horowitz
and
Poli
teen.
It's
also
just
like
some
people
are
just
also
into
stuff
because
they're
into
crypto
and
they
think
it's
cool
yeah.
A
Not
the
the
least,
the
reason
there's
definitely
not
that
sorry.
Let
me
rephrase
all
that
we're
all
here,
because
we
believe
in
the
project
I
think
primarily
and
and
that
there's
there's
definitely
returns
to
be
made
here.
So
I
think
that
assuming
the
best
intentions
is
probably
or
at
least
a
financial
self-interest
is
probably
the
best
position
to
assume
the
RIA
out
sent
a
Jordan.
A
It's
a
great
follow
up
question
asking
about
the
these
large
stakeholders
having
significant
financial
and
you
know,
infrastructure
resources
to
put
towards
some
of
the
things
that
we're
talking
about
and
I,
agree
and
I.
Think
that
probably
I
was
that
that
interest
will
be
expressed
in
the
scientific
governance
meetings
on
Thursday,
where.