►
Description
This is the second episode in a series that focuses on the 20% Principle, and moves into a discussion about what Sustainable Finance means to 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
Thanks
for
coming
to
our
second
governance,
call
in
an
ongoing
series
of
governance,
specific
meetings-
we're
all
here
today
to
discuss
one
of
the
most
significant
events
in
the
maker
Dow
roadmap,
which
was
the
recent
release
of
the
foundation
proposal.
This
is
the
proposal
that
will
help
shape
the
course
of
maker
over
the
course
of
the
next
few
years.
So
there's
no
shortage
of
things
to
discuss.
Let's
do
some
quick
introductions.
First,
my
name
is
Richard
Brown
I'm,
the
technical
community
manager
of
maker
and
I'll
be
moderating.
B
A
Cool
so
last
week
we
had
an
unbelievable
amount
of
really
good
questions.
We
have
some
some
more
good
ones
lined
up
for
this
meeting
as
well.
As
always,
please
feel
free
to
ask
anything.
You'd
like
as
they
come
to
mind.
If
you
want
to
speak,
please
do
so
Mike.
If
you
want
to
type
your
questions
instead,
type
them
in
chat
Jess
will
be
monitoring
the
chat
and
she'll
be
able
to
read
out
the
questions
for
you
if
you're,
not
in
a
position
to
speak.
A
A
We
need
to
explore,
and
so
this
week
we're
going
to
attempt
to
continue
exploring
some
of
those
threads
and
after
that,
we'll
move
on
through
the
rest
of
the
proposal
of
time
allows
we'd
like
to
touch
on
sustainable
finance,
gradual
decentralization
and
the
market
focused
sections
if
we
can,
but
that
might
be
a
lot
to
get
to
you
today.
One
of
the
things
that
we
won't
be
getting
to,
though,
is
I,
don't
want
to
get
too
deep
into
the
woods.
A
The
format
of
those
will
be
slightly
different,
but
we
will
have
recurring
special
guests,
an
in-house,
a
resident
expert
on
risk,
who's
on
the
form
of
Steven
Becker,
our
head
of
risk,
I'm,
really
looking
forward
to
that
I.
Think,
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
amazing
discussions
coming
out
of
talking
about
how
did
two
governments
correctly.
A
C
So
that's
why
we're
starting
off
with
actually
this
incredibly
complex
proposal
that
has
so
many
thing
once's
to
it
and
we're
so
he's
like
approaching
the
issue
head-on,
because
you
basically
want
to
shape
like
we
beginning
now,
where
the
communities,
the
smaller,
to
figure
out
what
it
takes
for
us
to
shape
the
community
to
a
form
where
we
can
actually
agree
on
these
like
complex
topics,
and
so
the
foundation
proposal
itself
includes
the
scientific
framework
for
the
entire
governance,
which
is.
This
is
mainly
what
governments
of
the
future
will
be
focused
on
right.
C
C
A
C
But
the
twenty
was
in
principle,
is
our
like
big
yeah,
like
attempt
at
shaping
the
the
community
spirit
and
the
culture
of
the
community
is
full
so
know
what
the
twenties
in
principle
is,
is
basically,
this
community
wide
agreement
to
donate
twenty
percent
off
or
surplus.
So
our
like
our
income,
less
expenses,
what's
left
over
there
like
the
surplus
that
we
have,
we
want
to
take
twenty
percent
of
that.
C
Rather,
we
want
the
entire
community
to
want
to
take
20%
of
it
and
donate
it
to
charity,
and
initially
the
foundation
is
proposing
to
to
like
achieve
this
by
allocating
a
big
chunk
of
the
defunct
which
will
then
be
used
to
basically
finances,
essentially
in
real
time
right.
We
can.
We
can
monitor
what
is
this:
what
is
the
surplus
of
the
system
and
then,
as
surplus
of
the
system,
is
game
fun's
a
move
into
a
like
a
charity
I
want
to
move
under
the
control
of
charity
Beasley,
which
can
be
in
various
ways.
C
A
C
To
well
yeah
right
I
mean
we
want
to
introduce
this
idea
of
a
charity
and
what
we
call
it
abundance
mentality
in
the
community,
and
we
want
to
do
this
by
not
only
having
the
community
agree
on
the
fact
that
we
want
to
you
know
and
share
the
wealth.
Basically,
but
you
know
it's
an
advantage
to
us,
but
also
half
of
everyone
should
have
the
feet:
fingers
deep
in
charity
in
a
sense
right.
Everyone
should
be
like
just
in
the
same
way
that
everyone
has
to
be
deep
in
the
advanced
financial
risk
analysis.
C
C
A
That's
possibly
where
a
lot
of
the
questions
come
in
from
the
community,
because
the
what
you're
talking
about
is
fantastically
kind
of
important
and
it
can
encompass
it,
can
be
executed
in
a
pile
at
different
ways
and
and
the
closer
we
get
to
talking
about
implementation.
The
the
closer
we're
getting
to
just
hypothetical
situations,
I
think
walking
that
fine
line
is
going
to
be
tough,
but
you
mentioned
abundance,
mentality
and
I.
Think
that
people
that
are
don't
have
a
lot
of
familiar
familiarity
in
this
space
might
not
understand
completely
what
that
means.
C
So
right
so
so
for
the
SOE,
like
the
specific
arguments
from
y21
is
so
close
to
charity
is
a
good
at
here.
The
first
line
of
argumentation
is
some
of
the
internal
value,
so
like
the
value
that
we
get
like
sort
of
like
how
the
community
grows
by
you
know
having
it
being
hands
deep,
having
expands
in
directly
into
check
right
and
yeah.
C
They
may
also
come
to
the
conclusion
that
if
they
do
something
that's
a
negative
root
system,
they
can,
they
may
feel
that
they
can
gain
so
selfishly
gain
from
the
system
rather
than
you
know,
holistically
a
collaborative
begin
by
working
together.
They
can
do
some
sort
of
attack
negative
behavior
that
where
they
know.
C
A
whole
everyone
loses
big
time,
but
they
might
gain
a
little
bit
and
that's
result.
You
can
have
these
lots
of
optimal
choices
made
by
different
actors
in
the
system
and
there's
actually
no
like
you
can't.
You
know
you
can't
like
invent
an
incentive
that
fixes
this
I
mean
we
tried,
obviously
enlisted
people
coming
with
a
lot
of
suggestions
and
so
on,
but
ultimately
trying
to
fix
this
issue
is
kind
of
like
making.
A
The
point
that
keeps
getting
raised-
or
at
least
people
are
touching
on
it,
at
least
in
reddit
threads-
is
that
there
is
this
competing
sort
of
two
ideologies
where
it'd
be
nice
to
have
a
perfect
algorithm
that
takes
care
of
creating
a
stable
coin
or
a
perfect
algorithm
that
takes
care
of
altruistic,
giving
to
organizations
that
deserve
it.
But
I
think
that
the
point
that
we
keep
bringing
up
in
different
locations
is
that
that's
such
a
perfect
algorithm
doesn't
exist.
That's
what
governance
is
required.
A
C
And
so,
and
then,
because
of
that,
we
have
to
accept
okay,
we
have
to
deal
with
human
nature
and
and
sort
of
the
pitfalls
of
human
nature
and
so
on,
and
that
is
where
abundance
mentality
is
like
one
of
my
key
weapons
or
like
a
key
tools.
We
have
available
to
actually
try
to
affect
human
nature
right
and
the
idea
is
basically
that
we
can
and
we
need
to
foster
a
culture
where,
as
people
succeed
and
it's
like
the
project
succeeds
and
so
on.
C
The
eyes
stay
on
some
of
this,
like
the
goal
of
the
greater
good
incentive
like
the
public
with
this
I
mean
crypto
as
a
whole
in
watching
and
so
on.
All
of
us
came
out
of
idealistic
groups
right
they're,
all
about
like
opening
up
finance
and
opening
up
money
and
technology
to
the
masses
and
sort
of
breaking
the
bank
monopolies.
I
think.
A
That
that's
possibly
where
things
get
a
bit
tricky,
because
that
those
are
obviously
our
roots,
but
every
year
I
guess
we
can
see
an
influx
of
people
that
that
might
not
be
familiar
with
some
of
those
core
principles.
So
how
do
you
balance
this
kind
of
a
core
group
of
people
that
are
sort
of
visionaries
when
it
comes
to
the
crypto
space
and
another
core
group?
C
C
And
then,
and
this
this
and
then
you
can
some
expand
on
that
in
terms
of
this
like
how
the
practice
can
change
over
time.
It's
alright,
so
there's,
maybe
two.
There
will
be
two
big
effects
of
it,
like
other
than
if
we
assume
that
in
regular
useless
at
community
members
in
the
system
sort
of
feel
that
they're
personally
engaged
in
charity
from
our
time,
they
just
become
more
likely
to
get
like
get
this
abundantly,
so
I
mean,
and
then
let
me
just
like
further
to
find
one
like
so
buns
mentality
is
basically
actually
get
more.
C
C
You
know
we
need
to
have
as
a
positive
abundance
mentality
where
the
success
of
our
system
has
to
be
positive
for
the
rest
of
the
world,
because
as
individuals
we
also
need
to
like
individual
success
needs
to
help
other
sort
of
the
other
way
around
right.
Look.
We
all
need
those
individuals
to
contribute
to
the
success
of
the
system
as
a
whole,
and
only
then
can
it
get
through
success
and
as
we
achieve
that,
we
even
share
it
even
further
with
charity
as
well
Chronicle,
and
then
we
receive
achieve
is
sorry,
but
that's
what.
C
Is
the
existing
and
camelus
and
community
members
and
is
like
ecosystem
members,
become
more
charitable
right
and
like
some
altruistic,
because
they
said
I
mean
you
just
it's
almost
like
the
PlayStation
and
Xbox
it
right
once
your
I
mean
if
you're
already
doing
charity,
you
might
as
well
embrace
it
right,
because
it's
like
free
free
goodwill
in
a
sense
right
I
mean
you
can
feel
good
about
maker.
You
know
earning
the
returns
and
helping
you
do
charity.
You
can
feel
bad
about
it
right
and
you're.
B
C
Is
in
terms
of
how
like
affects
new
people
coming
in
so
basically
like?
Obviously
we're
going
to
attract
people
like
they'll,
even
be
a
class
of
people
attracted
to
are
only
attracted
for
the
sake
of
charity.
Right.
That's
like
that.
It's
just,
which
is
the
primary
point
that
that
brings
them
into
the
system,
but
also
people
would
just
like
in
a
you
know,
like
crew,
maybe
they.
C
A
C
I
mean
what
I
think
the
effect
on
institutions,
I
think
should
actually
be
like
I.
Don't
think
that
really
matters
to
them,
because
I
think
they
would
just
contributes
or
read
like.
Let
me
just
be
rational
in
a
sense
really
well.
I
would
say
that
in
like
like
at
a
certain
sort
size,
it
becomes
like
it's
something
that
it's
wrecks
institutions-
and
this
is
like
another
point
ones
like
this
institutional
regulatory
aspect
of
charity.
C
That
makes
everything
a
lot
smoother
and
easier
because
everyone
sort
of
you
know
just
yeah
Lexus
and
if
someone's
saying
here
right
is
like
PR
and
some
at
a
certain
size.
Everyone
no
matter
who
they
are.
We
think
about
PR
charities,
obviously
always
good
here,
but
then
the
other
thing
is
filtering.
So
at
one
hand
we
are
retracting
right
people,
but
we
are.
A
B
C
A
thing
as
wrong
people
I
mean
it's,
it's
it's
a
sad
to
have
to
say,
or
whatever
I
mean.
This
is
sad
reality,
but
basically
there
are
a
type
of
person
out
there
who,
if
too
many
of
those
people
were
in
control
of
maker,
would
ultimately
like
crash
it
like
because
they
were
basic
like
I
mean-
and
this
is
like
the
sort
of
the
well
maybe
like
selfish
people
is
like
ultra
selfish
people
would
would
effectively
see
like
we
tried.
We,
usually
we
simplify
this.
You
know
you
just
vote
for
your
thoughts.
C
Let's
give
those
point:
the
craziest,
wristbands
we've
ever
seen
and
public
rise
to
the
moon,
and
then
it
crashes
and
NPR
sees,
is
you
know,
inflated
to
infinity
and
so
on,
but
the
evil
genius
who
like
did
this
whole
Graham,
became
rich
because
yellow
love,
those
clock
right-
and
this
is
kind
of
like
that's-
not
gonna
happen,
but
it
you
know
like
something
it's
just.
The
point
is
that
this
isn't
like.
C
A
I
see
your
point
like
one
of
the
things
that
fascinates
me
the
most
about
the
maker
Dow
ecosystem.
Is
that-
and
this
is
kind
of
touched
on
in
the
pit
mechs
blog-
is
that
that
there
is
no
one
mechanism.
That
does
any
one
thing.
It's
a
it's
a
large
and
sometimes
complex,
combination
of
competing
and
complimentary
incentives,
and
so
it
feels
like
what
you're
talking
about
is
the
20%
principle
is
sort
of
another
positive
incentive
in
the
tool
chest
that
can
have
beneficial
effects
on
on
wider
areas
or
even
okay.
A
B
C
You
can
send
money
to
anyone
anywhere
in
the
world
and
is
stable
and
you
don't
need
some
kyc
or
something
right
like
anyone
could
do
this
stuff
right
and
obviously-
and
this
is
actually
business
it
like
a
comment.
Someone
just
made
right
like
shouldn't,
we
give
them
die
and
yes,
absolutely
right,
like
I
mean
obviously
there's
going
to
be.
The
main
point
of
this
is
that
it'll
be
biased
or
maybe
even
exclusively,
you
know
die
based.
C
Giving
though
I
mean
I
mean
I,
think
to
some
degree
there
has
to
be
some
element
of
like
you
know.
Sometimes
we
don't
you
know
we
shouldn't
like.
Let
people
stop,
because
they
don't
accept
that
something
right.
There
are
some
tracks
we
shouldn't
fall
into,
but
in
general
we
obviously
need
to
take
a
very
commercial
attitude
to
this
weird,
like
any
time
that
makes
sense,
and
in
general
we
have
this
agenda
of
like
turning
over
the
entire
charity,
mystery
to
you,
since
I
really.
A
C
B
So
we
have
a
few
questions
popping
up
in
the
chat
so
rune.
It
looks
like
you
already
clarified
that
the
charity
would
in
fact
be
given
and
die
as
opposed
to
MKR,
and
so
that's
one.
Another
question
from
Aviv
Filner
is
when
a
shareholder
investment.
They
are
investing
in
a
product
and
a
team.
Why
would
it
be
more
efficient
for
a
company
like
maker
to
reduce
their
own
equity
and
decision-making
abilities?
Do
you
believe
that
speculators
and
new
shareholders
are
better
decision
makers
in
the
context
of
the
maker
and
the
dye
system.
C
So
I
think
I
think
instead
of
ant-like
instead
of
answering
this
question
directly.
I
just
want
to
talk
about
one
of
my
clearing
signals.
Determinately
gonna
interpret
like
the
for-profit
mindset
towards
charity
and
using
bunch
of
us
apart,
but
so
basically,
in
this
case,
right
off
basically
Apple
tax
case.
C
B
C
And
then
the
partners
making
like
Apple
is
a
massive
company
they're
benefiting
so
you
know,
they've
been
made
and
hugely
and
still
they're,
like
still
you
know
like
they
were.
You
know,
they're
really
like
not
just
like
refusing
to
give
back
they're
like
making
a
point
of
it
in
a
sense
right,
like
really
trying
to
to
squeeze
system
as
much
as
they
possibly
can,
and
what
happened
was
actually
because
public
opinion
was
became
so
extremely
distorted
against
Apple.
Also,
maybe
they
ended
up
like
they
ended
up
getting
punished
through
early
legislative
leads.
C
In
in
Europe
method,
like
I,
think
specifically
in
Europe,
there's
like
new
law
that
text
among
revenue
was
introduced.
That
only
applies
like
giant
companies,
and
it's
just
like
I
mean
it's
a
Samuel
of
power
like
there
is
this
expert
like
there's
this
public
expectation
that,
when
you
with
with
great
power,
comes
great
responsibility
or
something
like
that
right.
C
Doesn't
it
that
still
means
I
mean
it's
still
going
to
be
a
major
infrastructure
that
basically
will
play
at
like
that,
could
easily
play
a
major
pocket
world
and
will
have
a
lot
of
people
know
using
and
relying
on
it
and
sort
of
revenue
in
right
like
making
you
know
possibly
sharing
with
brand
and
so
on
and
yeah
I
mean
you
know
we
need
to
earn
the
the
affection
of
all
these
people
in
a
way.
That's
like
goes
beyond
what
some
typical
like
physic
company.
Something
would
be
right
because
we
really.
C
What
are
we
trying
to
do
is
something
that's
hit
like
it's
something
at
a
much
larger
scale
and
a
much
more
yeah
I
mean
it's
just
like
really
intense.
In
a
way
right,
I
mean
it's
kind
of
like
a
major
major
battle
or
like
a
major
land
grab,
we're
trying
to
do,
and
if
you
want
to
do
this,
we
need
to
do
this
in
a
way
where
people
want
to
talk
like
we
need
the
rest
of
world
to
really
want
it.
C
To
have
my
school
right,
I
mean
even
people
who
are
completely
unaffected
by
us
are
still
in
very
real
sense.
Our
stakeholders,
because
we
rely
on
operating
in
every
single
jurisdiction
around
the
world,
and
we
have
to
ensure
that
it's
not
gonna
be
now.
We
don't
have
to
have
the
democracies
in
the
world
supporting
us
in
a
sense
and
regulators
everywhere,
but
it's.
A
B
B
I
mean
I
know
a
little
bit
about
this,
because
I'm
familiar
with
just
our
traditional
foundations,
were
on
that
I
used
to
work
for
one
and
I
know
that
typically
people
who
want
money
are
the
ones
who
are
sending
you
the
grants
and
the
foundation.
Typically,
you
know
assess
the
grant
and
the
importance
of
the
Foundation's
on
framework
giving
that
they
would,
you
know,
do
a
grant
and
then
require
reporting
and
problems.
B
There
would
be
a
lot
of
work
in
terms
of
tracking
the
effectiveness
of
the
money
and,
like
the
be
mentioned,
Mena
Chad,
that
he
thinks
that
you
know
why
not.
Why
don't
we
just
send
it's
like
to
do
this
for
like
a
Red,
Cross
or
somebody?
Let
them
manage
it,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
really
does
much,
because
you
still
fall
into
the
trap
of
you
know.
In
addition
sees
of
the
old
model.
C
C
You
might
think
that
like
so
that
means
we
already
haven't
really
dangerous
and
complicated
task
ahead
of
us
and
now
we're
adding
something
even
more
like
some
additional
complexity
on
the
plate,
but
basically
I
mean
we
we've
reached
a
point
where
I
mean
for
this
to
really
work
and
truly
scale.
The
way
it's
supposed
to
do
right,
I
mean
we
actually
need
to
like
gather
excitement
from
like
the
entire
planet
in
a
sense
right.
C
We
need
to
get
actually
every
single
person
would
like,
through
knowledge
of
this,
on
board
and
get
you
know
like
out
of
the
desire
to
you
know,
to
participate
and
contribute,
and
so
on
all
the
way
out
of
like
I
mean
we
well
I.
Guess,
there's,
like
sense
of
like
I,
feel
I
guess
what
we
really
want
to
achieve.
Is
this
yeah.
This
is
like
this
notion
that
this
is
how
things
should
be
right,
like
you
know,
like
a
good
outcome
of
the
world,
is
a
mega.
Succeeds
everyone's
happy.
In
that
case
the
other.
C
A
I
guess
more
specifically,
I
think
the
question
might
be
like
how
how
hands-on
are
we
gonna
be
with
the
disbursement
of
the
funds?
Is
it
going
to
be
listless
find
somebody
in
the
space
that
really
knows
what
they're
doing
I
think
they
can
have
a
block
of
cash
or
or
do
we
identify
a
charitable
organization
and
sort
of
Mentor
and/or
follow
up
on
the
way
that
the
funds
are
being
used?
Yeah.
C
C
Kind
of
makeup
needs
to
be
like
truly
community
driven,
but
the
charity
is
it
particularly
is
meant
to
be
like
the
place
where
we
can
start
up
again,
creative
as
quickly
as
possible,
right
I'd
like
to
start
seeing
some.
You
know
decentralized
contributions
like
interesting
ideas
and
interesting
stuff
that
you
know
that
well,
I
mean
yeah
like
focuses
a
lot
of,
especially
like
taking
taking
the
space
to
the
next
level
and
like
take,
you
know
like
using
the
technology
of
technological
advantage.
We
have
available
in
terms
of
how
to
do
a
vision,
charity
and
I.
C
Think
by
having
this
like
experimentation
with
how
we
do
the
charity
of
how
we
can
be
created.
There
will
also
like
help
with
the
creativity
that
we
will
need
eventually
forever
in
risk
assessment
becomes
truly
decentralized,
like
truly
needs
to
scale
at
a
very
extreme
level
and
yeah
the
sooner
we
can
get
started
with
this,
like
more
community
driven
governance
of
activities,
the
better
right.
So
charity
is
the
perfect
list
of
stuff.
Okay,.
A
That
sounds
good
we're
at
the
halfway
mark
of
the
meeting,
and
we
haven't
got
to
the
questions
that
I
wrote
for
the
20%
principles.
We
should
start
try
and
get
some
rapid
fire
modes
going.
Did
you
have
anything
else?
He
specifically
wanted
to
touch
on
on
the
20%
principle,
or
should
we
start
working
through
some
questions.
C
Yeah
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
was
talking
about
this
adoption
pot
I've
been
read
that
we're
giving
people
die
directly
and
it's
kind
of
like
I
mean
here
it's
like
paying
for
you
know
giving
them
money
instead
of
paying
for
marketing,
but
another
big
fact
is
also
the
regulatory
aspect
of
like.
Oh,
it's
so
much
easier
for
us
to
talk
to
regulators,
big
institutions,
old
people.
You
know
all
of
that
stuff,
if
we're
doing
it
we're
giving
charity.
C
You
know
like
because
it
just
like
changes,
changes
everything
and
we
have
a
lot
of
that.
To
do
I
mean
a
lot
of
people
have
misconceptions
about
how
maker
can
be
like
truly
decentralized
and
so
on.
Lugging,
it
well
I
mean
I
would
say
this.
It
can
be
true
to
decentralize
totally,
but
the
question
is:
can
it
like
totally
avoid
the
old
world?
Just
look
build
a
new
new
world
and
the
answer's?
No,
it
can't
right.
We
actually
need
to
work
very
closely
with
existing
institutions
and
jurisdictions,
because.
C
A
Right
so
I
got
silent,
gaucho
I
hope,
I'm
pronouncing
that
correctly
asked.
How
would
the
foundation
react
to
a
negative
externally,
ignoring
externality,
ignoring
actors?
So
if
we
had
an
oil
company-
or
you
know
insert
that
company
here
bought
up
enough
maker
vote
to
back
their
own
token,
do
we
enforce
altruism
at
that
point,.
C
A
C
And,
and
what's
important
to
think
about
is
how,
like,
ultimately,
governance
of
maker
works,
the
same
way
as
government
similar
to
this
English
government
etherium
right?
That
is
actually
ultimately
like
decide
by
crude
like
like
which
thing
is
actually
going
to
be
used
right.
You
could
have
anyone
can
create
a
new
maker
instance,
but
it
it's
useless
unless
it's
the
one
that
everybody
uses
like
the
value
comes
from
the
network
effect,
and
that
is
actually
one
of
the
like.
C
If
we
have
the
ability
to
move
to
new
systems,
which
we
do
I
mean,
there's
there's
book
like
manually
moving
and
there's
even
the
global
settlement,
emergency
shutdown,
let's
not
get
into
that,
but
I
mean
one
day
in
the
future.
In
governments
talks,
we
can
talk
about
like
global
settlement,
politics
and
Forks
and
stuff.
Ultimately,
the
community
itself.
Even
people
who
don't
hold
it
here
have
the
I
mean.
C
In
fact,
you
could
say
that
the
real
owners
and
like
the
real,
like
people
who
have
power
and
system
are
just
dyin
CP
uses
because
whichever
system
they
choose
to
use
is
a
system
that
gets
all
the
endowment
like
where
all
the
in
piano
goes
goes
because
that's
where
the
value
is
right,
that's
where
you
stop
to
regulate
and
ultimately
like
in
some
nightmare
takeover
scenario.
We
would
count
on
the
grassroots
of
the
community
to
like
rise
up
and
basically
be
like
nope.
C
We
don't
want
this,
we're
gonna
move
to
something
else,
and
this
should
be
that
I
mean
and
that's
why
the
21
principle
is
that
it's
a
principle
right.
It's
not
something.
We
can
truly
like
program
into
the
system.
It's
only
something
we
can
try
to
argue
and
convince
the
community
that
this
is
an
important
part
of
like
this
is
the
part
of
the
mentality
that
you
know
like
that.
Helps
us
define
us
as
community.
We
are,
and
also
helps
us
maintain
consensus
and
yeah.
A
That's
interesting
that
can
be
rising
up
idea
and
and
the
fact
that
everybody
needs
to
understand
that
as
stakeholders
and
maker
voters
we're
all
sort
of
in
charge
of
maintaining
the
system
and
I
think
that
ties
into
something
that
we
want
to
talk
about
later.
If
we
ever
get
to
gradual
decentralization,
but
voter
apathy
is
always
going
to
be
one
of
the
major
selling
blocks
to
make
sure
that
we
do
respond
to
these
types
of
negative
actors.
A
The
next
question
from
NK
pine.
He
had
a
lot
of
really
good,
tough
questions,
but
he
would
love
to
hear
more
from
the
team
regarding
the
perceived
long-term
weaknesses
of
the
system's
existing
crypto
economics
that
might
require
altruistic
Network
participants
to
balance
I
think
that
he
wants
to
touch
on.
What's
the
game
theory
aspects
of
altruism,
how
does
that
make
the
system
stronger,
yeah.
C
I
mean-
and
this
is
really
I
mean
I-
was
also
basically
there
is
this
real
risk
of
almost
like
game,
theoretical
death
or
like
the
system
just
fundamentally
not
working
and
just
failing,
because
it's
impossible
to
to
govern
like
it's
impossible
to
have
a
community
that
can
actually
go
on
them
and
I
mean
yeah.
The
failure
mode
is
like
I
wrote
from
no.
C
Something
like
you
know,
like
I,
think
that
this
can
actually
be
done
right
if
we
had
with
the
right
start
and
the
right
like
initial
path
and
the
right
initial
momentum,
we
may
actually
be
able
to
make.
You
know
to
maintain
an
equilibrium
that
works
together
and,
like
is
able
to
to
run
this
like
community
governments.
A
B
So
a
view
Milner
ass,
as
a
company
gets
more
wealthy,
they
get
more
greedy
and
it's
looked
more
harm
on
the
world.
This
is
his
paraphrase
of
what
room
was
saying:
I,
don't
know
if
I
agree
with
this
and
I
think
that
capitalism
is
a
good
medium
of
charity,
make
a
good
product,
make
it
efficient
and
affordable.
We'll
get
people
to
see
the
utility
and
use
the
product
to
solve
their
problems.
That
is
the
real
charity.
B
B
D
C
I
think
I
mean
I
mean
this
is
a
really
important
point
right
and
it's
kind
of
like
really
frugal
that
we
able
to
probably
address
this
right
but
like
but
yeah
I
mean
one
way.
It's
like
one
way
to
look
evade.
The
question,
I,
guess
is
to
say,
like
I,
said
before
right.
Actually,
it's
marketing
right
like
and
in
fact
the
people
who
need
die.
The
most
are
exactly
that
like
like
child,
like
charity,
is
one
of
the
primary
use
cases
where
dies
like
able
to
disrupt
right
now,
which
is
also
why
you
know
like.
C
C
A
C
Like
because
we
can't
wait,
we
can't
design
mechanisms
that
you
that
purely
use,
like
monetary
incentives
to
to
incentivize
individuals,
because
they
like
the
individual
incentive,
will
always
be
something
a
long
line
of
both
from
our
parks.
Right.
Do
some
sort
of
clever
attacks
thing
like
the
prisoner's
dilemma?
Basically
right
and
I
think
I
mean
that's.
Maybe
that's
the
best
answer
to
this.
C
This
type
of
question
right
is
that,
like
this
is
actually
ultimately
about
just
making
dye
more
stable
and
like
making.
You
know
like
making
anymore
yeah
I
mean
I,
guess
but
yeah.
Well,
then
I'm,
basically
getting
you
beyond
that
I
may
be
getting
into
signaling,
it's
also
about
like
people
trusting
time
or
if
they
see
fill
the
event's
room,
but,
like
you
know,
like
a
governance
mechanism
that
is
naturist
in
its
own
right.
C
D
Thank
you
in
for
the
response,
so
you
think
that
charity
is
a
better
industry
to
disrupt
with
a
censorship
resistant,
stable
cryptocurrency,
because
I
can
tell
you
for
well.
I
mean
I've
had
a
different
view
of
where
people
really
really
need
die
and
I'm
not
entirely
convinced
that
charity
is
the
disruptive
place
to
do
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
hey.
B
B
C
Would
like
to
also
just
like
it
I
mean
so
I
think
basically,
I
mean
basically
what
you
were
telling
me.
What
you
just
talked
about
right
was
the
sort
of
the
disruption
as
like
the
magazine
aspect
of
it,
and
basically
what
I'm
saying
is
don't
think
about
that
like
if
you
want
to
like
anything,
you
took
like
markets
and
trade
offs
and
stuff.
Actually
we
the
main
thing
to
focus
on
that.
C
The
charity
is
again
like
the
internal
value,
but
basically
the
fact
that
if
mega
government
gives
to
charity-
and
it's
sort
of
like
supports
public
good
and
has
his
like
abundance
mentality,
this
ability
to
reach
consensus
around
how
to
benefit
the
public
good
that
results
in
better
and
more
robust
risk
parameters
to
die
right.
So
that
results
in
like
look
if
benefits
die
in
a
way
that
you
can't
really
like.
C
Basically,
we
can
through
something
to
attract
the
kind
of
person
we
know
isla.
It's
less
likely
to
be
like
that
right,
and
this
is
yeah
I
mean
this
is
like
the
the
great
internal
benefit
of
the
charity
between
teams
in
principle.
Right
is
that
it
really
changes.
What
can
make
our
governance
community
is
like
and
sort
of
what
the
community
spirit
is
and
sort
of
whatever
what
one
life's
all
about
innocence
right,
which
is
really
in
some
pieces.
C
A
That
there's
somebody
else
mentioned
the
rabbit
hole
already,
but
I
think
that
this,
the
20%
principle
might
be
a
rather
hole
that
never
quite
ends
so
I'd
like
to
try
and
get
on
to
the
next
section
of
the
doc.
If
we
can
before
the
end
of
the
meeting,
unless
you
know
we're
in
there's
anything
that
you
absolutely
want
to
get
out
there
before
we
move
on
yeah.
C
This
I
just
want
I
mean,
do
you
want
to
say
anything
in
the
end?
Do
you
have
any
less
I
mean
now
to
in
response?
Is
what
I'm
saying
right
and
I
think
we
can
actually
argue
that
plans
and
principle
results
in
better
governance,
and
we
can
ignore
all
the
other
components
and
just
look
focus
on
that
part.
I.
Don't.
D
Don't
think
it
will
likely
ever
be
spoken
about
about
the
kind
of
people
that
really
really
need
died,
but
but
I
do
see
when
you
said
the
marketing
perspective,
I
agree,
there
is
an
aspect
or
if
the
community
sees
a
positive
leader
and
a
positive
team
that
does
add
value,
I
hundred
percent
agree.
We
see
that
tether
has
a
negative
atmosphere
around
it.
I'm
hoping
that
maker
Dow
can
have
a
much
more
positive
aspect
to
gain
traction
in
different
capacities.
Thank
you
so
much
room
for
your
time
and
for
answering
by.
C
C
So
sustainable
finance
is
right
now.
The
third
principle
in
those
lists
five
principles
right
so
coming
up
in
20
percent
after
scientific
governance
and
then
the
20th
principle.
Then
we
have
sustainable
finance
and
what
it
says
is
it
says
basically,
that
maker
has
a
potential
to
yeah
kind
of
be
like
a
kingmaker.
You
can
say
right,
like
it's
a
system
that
can
actually
really
decide
where
capital
goes
right.
What's
money
spent
on
which
investments
are
the
right
investments
which
ones
on
the
grown
ones?
And
that's
a
result,
it's
very
important
that
it
acts.
C
You
know
like
it.
It
actually
couldn't.
You
know
again
like
it's
about
like
that,
actually
appeases,
all
stakeholders
which
ultimately
are
basically
everyone
on
the
planet
because
of
how
global
and
how
like
deeply
entrenched,
we
see
the
system
being
a
global
society
right,
and
so
it's
important
that
we,
you
know
that
capital
allocation
and
so
risk
parameters
of
the
system
are
given
out,
based
on
all
launched
infectious
of
a
thing
that
we
invest
in
right.
So
basically,
we
I
mean
yeah
the
most
obvious
examples
like
fossil
fuels,
Versalles
renewable
energy
right.
C
It's
important
for
us
that
maker
doesn't
end
up
massively.
It's
like
doing
business
with
and
like
subsidizing
fossil
fuels,
without
taking
into
account
the
fact
that
it
may
look
like
a
good
investment
right
now,
but
if
you're
looking
in
like
you,
can
think
about
like
the
externalities
of
it
over
time,
it
can
be
a
completely
different
picture
and
there's
actually
two
sides
to
sustainable
planet.
So
one
is
the
true
risk.
C
Well,
yes,
so
one
is
the
true
risk
like
the
two
long-term
risk
and
the
other
is
the
PR
and
signaling
and
perception
right
and
in
a
sense
you
could
argue
that
the
true
long-term
risks
should
be
covered
by
scientific
governance,
because
I
mean
it's
just
obvious
and
of
course
the
way
to
said
risk
is
to
really
set
the
true
risk
of
something
right
which
includes
twenty
years
down
the
line.
What's
gonna
have
the
photo?
C
A
Touched
on
a
couple,
interesting
ideas:
already,
though,
you
say
that
they're
signalling
involved
with
with
US
capital
allocation
signaling
and
the
I'm
wondering
whether
the
acceptance
of
a
certain
asset
class
into
maker
has
some
larger
implications,
because
you
can
kind
of
view
the
the
asset
classes
that
we
adopt
as
being
a
token
curated
registry.
It's
almost
like
a
seal
of
approval
from
the
maker
foundation.
We've
done
a
pile
of
research.
The
community
has
spoken,
an
asset
class
has
been
adopted
and
therefore
we're
kind
of
endorsing
in
a
way
that
this
asset
is
code
is
cool.
C
So
this
is
an
extremely
important
point
right
because
and
I
guess-
and
this
is
something
like
there-
needs
some
more
important
constancy
so
right.
So
the
goal
is
very
much
with
scientific
governance
right
and
like
the
scientific
framework
is
that
it
should
not
be
like
a
seal
of
approval
or
like
some
sort
of
like
winner,
like
these
are
the
ten
winners
right
and
everyone
else
the
losers.
Our
goal
is
basically
that
everything.
C
B
C
C
The
sense
of
how
they
currently
like
how
this
regulatory
capture
and
and
like
saw
them
in
it,
looks
like
a
shady
industry,
not
the
juicers,
like
physical
attributes
from
all
I,
just
see
that,
because
of
the
kind
of
network
effect
of
the
people
are
involved
and
yeah
I
mean
we
also
need
to
protect
ourselves
from
the
PR
component
of
all
of
this
right,
I
mean
this
is
nothing
we
can't
really
like.
Try
it
like.
We
were
supposed
you
stopped
bidding
on
tracks.
C
If
we
try
to
introduce
this
like
financial
revolution,
where
the
little
guy
is
finally
no
longer,
you
know
it
exploited
by
the
system
itself
right
when
it
says
the
system
where
everyone
suite
equally
and
in
fact
there
is
a
mechanism
for
charity
building
right.
In
fact,
it's
like
better
than
our
wildest
dreams
is
like
freaking
saving
the
world.
C
A
Finance
that
there's
a
bit
of
a
balancing
act
there.
So,
as
you
pointed
out
the
we
don't
exclude
asset
classes
from
consideration,
if
the
asset
class
is
not
robust
enough,
then
the
the
framework
will
apply
very
conservative
risk
parameters
to
it.
So
even
potentially
assets
with
with
some
negative
externalities
would
get
approved
into
the
system
and
because
they're
approved
into
the
system,
there's
a
PR
aspect
or
make
needs
to
make
sure
that
this
isn't
an
endorsement
of
any
particular
company
or
asset.
Is
that
true,
yeah.
C
I
mean
I
think
in
a
sense
it's
fight
like
I
mean
it's
not
to
be
again,
and
we
don't
want
to
avoid
having
oil
in
a
portfolio
we
want
to
avoid
having
it
be
the
majority
of
it,
because
it's
hard
from
you
know,
let's
say
there's
like
demand
and
stuff
elsewhere,
and
this
is
one
of
the
few
places
you
can
turn
to
to
get
money
for
oil
investments
right
right.
We
want
to
like
in
basically
capture
that
the
right
sweet
spot
for
way.
It
should
be
one.
A
C
C
At
governments
and
risk
assessment
it
actually
starts
being
less
like.
Then
it's
just
like
the
engine
of
this
question
is
just
you
know
like
we
do
it
with
the
same
way,
we
determine
everything
else
that
we
decide
for
dominance
right,
but
in
a
shorter
run,
I
think
it's
basically
like
there's
a
there's,
a
good
like
you
know,
there's
like
good
guys
and
there's
like
bad
guys,
so,
basically
there's
stuff.
We
want
to
actively
support
and
sort
of
be
associated
with,
such
as
renewable
energy,
sustainable
farming,
blah
blah
all
this
stuff
and
then
there's
stuff.
C
We
want
to
actively
discourage,
which
is
palm
oil
or
whatever
right
like
fossil
fuels
and
whatever
things
like
that
and
actually
admit,
I
think
mostly,
the
the
focus
should
be
more
on
the
positive
things
rather
than
the
negative
things,
because
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
exist
it
to
try
to
argue
that
something
is
like
has
a
lot
of
positive
external
benefits.
Okay,.
A
We're
up
to
we
have
one
minute
left
in
the
meeting,
so
maybe
it
was
optimistic
that
we're
gonna
get
through
the
20%
today.
So
we'll
have
another
meeting
coming
up
and
we're
going
to
continue
applying
through
these
issues
before
we
go,
though
I
want
to
have
I
want
to
lighten
the
mood
slightly
just
ask
a
fun
question:
room
I
want
you
to
describe
what
you
think
maker
is
gonna,
look
like
in
ten
years
time
from
them.
C
So,
most
importantly,
is
that
the
foundation
shouldn't
exist
in
there's.
No
there's
one
of
a
kind
of
like
crucial
parts
of
the
foundation
isn't
supposed
to
eventually
like
kind
of
like
it's
played
itself
up
or
like
to
see
the
greatness.
Well,
actually,
primarily,
that's
split
up
and
to
like
many
smaller
pieces
that
work
more
independently
to
basically
we're
good.
You
know,
I
ensure
that
there
isn't
a
single
who
Rock
will
either
controls.
C
You
know
like
like
a
deep
state
thing
in
long
run,
and
it's
more
spread
out
more
yeah
well,
I
mean
just
being
a
spread
out
of
decentralize
as
possible
right
in
terms
of
what
the
Foundation's
role
is,
and
the
good
news
is
that
the
foundation
today
is
already
incredibly
spread
out.
It's
kind
of
funny,
actually,
how
decentralized
and
all
over
the
world
we
are.
It's
probably
not
many
other
companies
or
projects
in
the
world.
It
would
be
compared
to
it
other
than
like,
like
an
anchor.
C
You
know
like
regular,
open
source
projects
that
are
just
being
contributed
by
by
volunteers,
right
and
I.
Think
you
know
like
hopefully
by
then
maybe
like
Dai,
would
really
like
dominate
as
a
stable
coil
if
it
descends
less
stable
point
that
is
being
used
everywhere.
There's
some
like
anywhere
that
that
is
not
anything
is
not
a
closed
system
like
anything.
C
That's
an
open
system
or
a
connection
between
two
closed
systems
die
is
like
the
standard
thing
you
use
to
exchange
value
across
that
and
because,
like
the
standard
default
thing
that
is
like
programmed
into
everything
at
that
point,
right
looks
like
that's
it's
the
thing
you
use.
If
you
don't
know
what,
if
you
don't
have
some
particular
preference
you
default
to
using
die
for
your
your
bail
expenses,
I,
don't.
A
Know
it
sounds
like
a
good
plan
to
me.
Let's
do
that,
all
right,
it's
10:01.
So
at
least
it's
one
passed,
the
other
I
don't
know
where
every
else
is,
let's
wrap
it
up.
There
I
think
we'll
keep
a
record
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
in
chat
that
didn't
get
answered
and
we'll
carry
those
over
to
the
next
week's
meeting.
Thanks
for
everybody
for
joining
thanks.