►
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
Hello.
Everyone
welcome
to
our
fifth
foundation
meeting
with
our
special
guests
during
questions
and
we'll
be
spending
the
meeting
discussing
some
of
the
finer
points
that
were
introduced
in
the
foundation
proposal,
doc
that
was
released
recently.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
read
it,
take
a
look
at
the
description
box
below
we'll
have
a
link
there
to
to
do
some
research.
A
A
C
Co-Founder
of
maker
and
CEO
of
the
maker
foundation,
and
also
the
person
responsible
for
interacting
with
the
community
regarding
our
foundation
proposal,
which
is
this
on
the
proposed
path
forward
for
the
foundation
and
the
community.
That's
really
meant
to,
among
other
things,
bootstrap
and
kickstart,
the
decentralized
governance
maker
and
create
this
sort
of
a
decentralized
identity,
community
spirit
that
can't
turn
maker
into
an
actual
Dow,
not.
A
Going
there's
a
lot
to
potentially
go
over
and
weave
in
these
meetings.
We've
been
doing
a
brief
recap
and
touching
on
some
previous
issues
and
then
sort
of
trying
to
plow
ahead
through
the
document
to
get
to
the
end
of
it.
Did
you
want
to
touch
on
the
20%
principle
it
all
today,
or
do
you
want
to
save
that
to
the
Ender
which,
which
section
do
you
think
we
should
focus
on
now.
C
C
So
this
has
been
most
of
the
topics
we've
been
focusing
on
with
with
me
addressing
the
various
arguments
against
charity.
Basically-
and
it's
like
the
very
the
concerns
people
had
and
yeah
I
think
I
think
we
should.
We
should
go
word
now
as
well,
because
it's
basically
like
the
main
thing
people
care
about,
but
we
could
start
with
something
else.
First
for
a
change
and
then
like
circle
back
to
the
end,
yeah.
A
That
might
be
an
idea
because
it
seems
like,
as
you
said,
there's
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
discussion.
It's
it's
a
hornet's
nest
and
there's
some
definitely
some
ethical
rabbit
holes.
So
if
we
need
to
discuss
with
the
20%
principle
so
sustainable
finance
did
you
want
to
move
on
to
that
first
and
then
we
can
proceed.
A
C
I
mean
so
stay
on
finances
also.
We
also
discussed
that
quite
recently
and
basically
that
so
the
the
core
idea
is
actually
twofold.
First
of
all,
it
is
just
that
accounting
for
our
negative
externalities
and
accounting
for
like
extreme
long-run
effects,
or
rather
look
like
Vic,
like
very
long-run
effects
against
a
bit
of
research,
so
just
like
the
accounting
with
a
very
long
run,
and
basically
some
of
the
permanent.
C
Like,
though,
that
the
idea
that
you
know
what's
what's
what
is
things
going
to
look
like
in
thousands
of
years
when
since
and
so
on,
like
if
you're?
If
you
really
take
that
very
long
run,
look
then,
when
you
do
a
risk
assessment
of
an
asset,
it
actually
makes
look
typically
that
from
the
purely
profit
motive
and
like
something
rational
risk
assessment
actually
does
include,
and
she
does
give
an
advantage
to
stuff.
C
So
that's
I
mean
and
but
the
the
and
there's
a
number
of
other
single
arguments.
I
mean
another
another.
One
is
also
just
something
like
like
an
it's
like
something
like
fossil
fuels,
which
are
not
which
had
like
negative
externalities.
They
actually
like
that
their
their
negative
impact
on
the
world.
In
the
form
of
something
like
climate
change,
let
me
actually
can
because
consider
having
a
direct
negative
epoch
on
other
assets
in
the
maker
collateral
portfolio
right,
because
you
could
have
a
you
know.
You're
gonna
have
a
financial
crash
as
a
result
of
climate
change.
C
A
Though
so,
I
think
that
the
first
place
that
my
mind
goes
to
is
how
to
measure
negative
externalities,
and
we
wait.
There's
many
people
toss
around
examples
and
one
of
those
is
electric
vehicles
and
in
battery
technology
and
trying
to
determine
whether
that's
a
net
benefit
against
the
traditional
fossil
fuels
and
then
trying
to
figure
out
the
impact
of
everything
from
a
heavy
metal.
All
the
way
to
a
charging
station
can
be
enormously
complex,
so,
with
with
sustainable
finance,
will
that
be
sort
of
a
waiting
mechanism?
That's
applied
to
propose
collateral
type.
C
Because
the
interesting
thing
is
that
this
entire
facet
of
the
sustainable
finance
person
is
actually
also
income
passed
in
the
the
principal
side
to
the
government
itself.
Right
because,
if
and
negative
externality
has
a
rational
impact
on
the
just
like
the
risk
of
an
acid,
then
that
should
be
included
inches.
Let
me
standard
models
like
this
is
sort
of
unbiased.
Therefore,
models
yeah.
A
And
and
the
way
that
these
these
frameworks
are
designed
or
the
way
that
we
add,
we
evaluate
potential
collateral
types.
It
is
I
think
that
the
the
phrase
that
you've
used
a
few
times
is,
unless
it's
an
outright
scam,
it's
probably
going
to
get
in.
There's
no
reason
to
exclude
something.
So
if
something
turned
out
to
have
significant
negative
externalities,
we're
going
to
come
up
with
a
better
term
than
that.
C
What
scientific
governance
is
myself
and
how
that's
gonna
work,
but
because
it
is
actually
in
some
sense
in
the
long
run,
our
risk
models
will
actually
not
like
they
are
they're
more
linear
than
you
think
in
the
sense
that,
like
you,
can
still
trade
stability
fee
for
liquidation
ratio
and
also
for
debt
ceiling
to
some
degree
or
I
mean
not
not
absent
a
bit
Singh
but
like
relative,
that's
in
a
sense
like
relative
exposure
of
low
level
portfolio.
So
it's
basically
just
I
mean
you
can
just
think
of
it
as
well.
C
I
mean
yeah,
look
at
like
when
you
do
a
complete
risk
assessment
of
an
asset.
You
need
to
take
everything
into
account,
including
it's
very
long,
run
negative,
negative
externalities
and
potentially-
and
this
is
actually
the
keep
on
right
like
it's
like.
It's
also
whether
we
have
to
take
into
into
account
not
just
what
the
assets
we
include
in
the
collateral
portfolio.
C
It
helps
us
hedge
against
other
types
of
risk,
but
also
have
their
own
risk
and
that's
sort
of
the
the
simplistic
and
sort
of
the
one
way
to
look
of
where
we
just
like
think
about
what
do
these
assets
do
to
us,
but
in
like
the
sustainable
finance
principle
to
sundries,
also
like
we
need
to
take
into
account.
What
do
we
like?
What
is
the
impact
we
have
on
these
assets
right?
C
So
when
we
include
an
oil
token
that
represents
actual
oil,
actual
like
palm
oil
in
Singapore
or
something,
and
we
give
it
a
really
like
we
give
it
a
little
atithi
or
something
and
has
some
salt
people.
They
buy
a
lot
of
this
oil,
so
they
can
generate
the
achieve
wing
and
so
on.
Then
we
actually
try
out
the
price
of
oil
and
result
in
like
more
oil
paints,
wizard
installed
in
that
location
and
then,
as
a
result,
there's
an
increased
risk
of
I.
C
Don't
like
an
oil
spill
that
could
then
somehow
ruin
some
other
asset.
We,
like
some
asset
tied
to
the
natural
resources
of
the
Singapore,
something
let's
say
a
beach
resort
right.
We
also
have
some
stocks
of
a
beach
resort
as
an
asset
right
and
then
like
we
and
and
we
actually
have
to
in
the
long
run
and
some
of
in
the
some
of
the
extreme
end
of
extreme
end
point
of
scientific
governance.
We
have
to
take
those
types
of
relationships
into
account
and
we
have
to
basically
think
about.
C
If
we,
you
know
if
we
say
if
we
lower,
if
we
lower
the
the
risk,
like
we
lower
the
stability
fee,
for
instance
for
this
asset,
that
that
means
that
you
know
like
we.
It
both
means
that
we
announcement
insured
for
less
right,
because
it's
given
a
lower
income
that
goes
to
us,
but
also
we
are
actually
benefiting
that
as
it
as
well,
and
it's
as
some
salt,
perhaps
creating
these.
Like
knock-on
effects
that
we
also
need
to
take
into
account,
it's.
B
C
You
have
to
do
anyway,
if
you
want
to
make
the
like
fully
rigorous
scientific
government,
so
the
other
component
of
the
sustainable
finance
principle
that
it's
not
a
pot
like
that,
it's
nothing
to
do
with
sense
of
ego.
It's
it's
just
basically
the
PR
and
like
the
branding
of
it
right
that
we
basically
want
to
be
able
to
credibly
and
much
say
and
also
like,
feel
anyone
involved
in
project,
and
then
this
maker
holders
and
so
on.
C
Writing
we
want
to
to
know
that
maker
is
actually
going
to
be,
if,
like
a
beneficial
force
in
the
world
right,
look
it's
not
just
about
making
stable
currents,
you're
more
efficient
system,
but
you
know,
creates
a
lot
well
for
something.
It's
also
just
like
changing
finance
into
something
that
actually
safeguards
the
interests
of
of
the
world
as
a
whole
enough.
Everyone-
and
this
is
like
this
ties
very
much
into
its
weight
percent
principle-
write
it
like
this
all
those
thoughts
about
how
we
need
to
do
more
than
just.
A
Alright,
that's
there's
yeah,
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
there
and
that's
that's
a
good
start.
I
noticed
that
david
has
shown,
which
is
great.
He
posted
a
great
article
in
a
medium
recently
about
the
20%
principal
and
kicked
off
at
an
enormous,
an
enormous
threat
of
people
back
and
forth
around
some
of
the
concepts
we
we
talked
about
there
or
you
presented
every
David.
A
D
C
Yeah
I
mean
so.
This
is
a
really
interesting
topic,
and
the
thing
about
like
a
thing
about
like
this,
like
this
universe,
like
global,
die
like
the
year
from
the
lower,
is
that
it
is
actually
still
something
that's
very
much
like
in
the
probably
the
the
longest
term,
part
of
the
call
maker
brooklet,
and
it
is
actually
because
these
kind
of
questions
are
not
really.
There
are
not
really
any
easy
answers
to
these
kind
of
questions,
and
whatever
it
means
is
that
yeah
that
actually
means
that
it's
not
just
going
to
be
involving
a
pianos.
C
This
question
could
be
if
our
goal
is
to
maximize
income
free,
you
know
maximize
the
price
of
MKR,
something,
then
what
is
it?
You
know.
What
is
it
then
we
want
to
achieve
and
then
what
is
like?
The
best
thing
we
should
usually-
or
maybe
it
is
our
goal-
is
to
maximize
stability
of
diet.
But
then
the
problem
is
like
what
does
that
even
mean
what
does,
and
that
could
be
something
like
maximize
utility
for
the
individuals.
I
mean.
C
There's
all
these
different
ways
like
a
process,
question
and
yeah
I
mean
the
good
news
is
that
we
basically
plan
to
the
you
know
like
entirely
outsource.
The
actual
decision
making
is,
or
at
least
I
mean
that
doesn't
mean
that
I'm,
for
instance,
and
other
people
in
the
foundation
I'm
not
gonna,
develop
strong
opinions
here,
but
right
now
we
don't
have
that
at
all
like
we
simply
you
know
it's
just
like.
C
A
C
C
Initially,
it's
just
going
to
be
multiple
that'll
die,
let's
pixel,
US,
dollar
and
backed
by
many
different
types
of
clever
and
second
step
is
the
synthetic
fiat
and
synthetic
estes
right.
So
that
means
we'll
have
euro
and
yen
and
all
the
different
theaters
and
all
of
those
ultimately
backed
by
the
USD,
which
is
then
back
like
back.
C
But
I
picked
a
news
to
you,
which
is
the
impact
by
the
diversified
plateau
portfolio,
and
this
thing
is
next,
like
there's
a
massive
advantage
to
have
all
the
synthetic
feeds
and
specifically
by
USC,
and
that
is
because
that's
how
Forex
current
it
works
right,
like
all
currency
transactions,
currently
go
through
the
u.s..
Almost
any
weird
like,
and
especially
in
terms
of
like
forex
trading
and
hedging,
most
of
all
right
so
and
the
hedging
POTUS
is
what's
very
crucial
because
it's
based
because,
unlike
the
the
best
pairs
to
hitch,
is
something
like
this.
C
A
that
you
like
their
the
dollar
against
hero,
is
like
one
of
the
most
liquid
markets
in
existence
and
it's
incredibly
like
efficient
and
incredibly
cheap
to,
for
instance,
prolong
euro
against
dollar
a
shorty
Rome
installer.
And
that
means
that
when
you
take
when
you
use
dollar
picked,
die
as
collateral
for
generating
gyro-stabilized
your
exposure,
that's
kind
of
like
that's
kind
of
like
using
Baker
to
show
a
Euro
against
the
dollar
and,
if
you're
a
Magan
maker-
and
you
want
to
do
that,
then
you
can
hedge.
Your
exposure
to
this.
To
this
four-week
exposure.
C
I
then
going
to
a
traditional
forex
broker
and
then
just
like
doing
the
opposite
trade.
There
right
so
then
go
along
you're
against
dollar,
and
this
will
be
extremely
cheap
and
extremely
efficient.
So
you
will
you'll
be
able
to
like
provide
very
tight
spreads
when
your
money,
making
and
and
making
the
euro
stable,
cart
available,
and
that's
actually
one
of
the
like.
That's
one
of
the
main
downsides
to
switching
to
a
diversified
basket.
C
Is
that
it's
still
possible
to
hit
blue
the
Versa
like
basket,
but
it's
just
more
expensive
and
more
difficult,
because
there's
not
this
like
standardized
markets
for
whatever
you
know
for
the
diversified
basket.
So
what
that
really
means
is
that
the
echo
system
must
be
a
lot
more
mature
before
we
can
really
do
this
and
I
mean,
and
it
means
that
also
it's
kind
of
like
it's
super
crucial
that
when
we
switch
to
the
diversified
basket,
we
must
actually
provide
very
solid
evidence
that
we're
not
shooting
ourselves
in
the
foot.
C
C
C
If
that
actually
becomes
significant
enough,
then
at
some
point
I'm
on
the
set
policy
collection
starts
to
like
focus
on
that
aspect,
and
basically
will
work
is
essentially
the
way
that
central
bank's
think
about
their
economies
in
big
countries,
at
which
point
the
interest,
like
the
sorry,
the
the
exchange
rate
to
other
currencies
actually
becomes
this
like
secondary
matter.
Basically,
and
and
it's
not
the
thing
that
is
actually
trying
to
be
targeted.
C
So
at
that
point,
that
that
creates
all
the
truly
free-floating
external
exchange
rate
right,
because
we're
just
not
trying
to
target
a
particular
exchange
rate
in
this
pocket.
We're
trying
to
tie
in
the
same
particular
internal
inflation
rate
in
the
internal
dichotomy,
for
instance,
but
anyway.
So
that's
like
the
extreme
long
runway
that
could
be
like
50
years
or
hundred
years
in
the
future,
or
something
for
the
very
short
runs.
Like
literally
the
first
day.
It's
definitely
going
to
be
a
basket
of
currencies.
C
That's
the
only
thing
like
sense
for
the
very
short
run
and
I
think
actually
because
I
mean
I
mean
I
mean
consideration.
Is
this
whole
thing
about
like
how
we
wanted
a
real
or
you
want
a
stable
part
of
every
local
currency
yeah?
We
kind
of
believe
that
that's
what
people
want
they
want
their
own
currency.
They
don't
really
want
something.
C
You
know
new
right
and
blockchain.
Also,
the
adoption
of
blockchain
is
entirely
based
on
being
able
to
give
people
stuff.
That's
familiar,
so
it's
sort
of
right,
yeah
I
mean
so
it's
crucial
to
be
able
to
do
it
to
do.
Labor
people,
their
local,
say
like
that.
Local
currency
is
a
stable
point
seamlessly
and
that's
where
the
US
dollars
quite
useful,
but
also
that's
where
we
can
use
this.
Our
basket
approach
actually
to
do
some
interesting
stuff
here,
because,
for
instance,
we
can
we
can
look
at
the
composition.
C
We
can
also.
We
can
look
at
the
adoption
of
local
currency
like
synthetic
Fiat
right
like
so,
we
can
see,
we
could
look
at
something
we
can
see.
Maybe
it
turns
out
that
one
is
actually
their
most
popular,
maybe
the
second
most
popular
type
of
stable
point
we're
providing-
or
maybe
it's
like-
Japanese
yen,
one
and
US
dollar.
And
basically,
you
know
you
real
quick
since
right
and
even
that's
when
we
observing
then
we
can.
C
C
I
would
think
we
I
mean
I'm,
pretty
probably
we
gonna
have
some
thirty
for
you
next
year,
because
it
is
actually
a
period
like
in
my
opinion,
that
is
like
very
much
at
version.
One
type
thing
that
way:
you're,
not
it's
not
really
like
a
stable
coin,
isn't
really
serious
and
to
know
it's
in
your
local
currency
right.
Look
if
you're,
you
know
just
whatever
from
whatever
country
that
is
in
America.
It's
not
really
like
it's
not
that
cool
as
well
great.
C
You
can
make
us
Ellen,
but
not
like
you
know
that
still
means
I
have
like
it's.
It
still
creates
the
same
effect.
Yes,
I
mean
it's
not
as
severe
as
now.
You
have
to
think
in
bitcoins
right,
but
it's
still
kind
of
same
where
oh,
you
want
to
use
some
cool
new
blood
should
take
well.
First,
you
have
to
deal
with
the
fact
that
you
got
to
use
some
strange
foreign
currency
to
it
and,
of
course,
the
years
doll
is
like
of
all
of
our
currencies,
the
u.s.
D
A
Right,
that's
cool.
We
we,
sir,
went
down
a
rabbit
hole
here.
It
was
an
interesting
one
but
I'd
like
to
stay
on
the
foundation
proposal,
if
possible,
I
think
that
we've
we've
kind
of
covered
sustainable
finance
a
bit
but
I'd
like
to
talk
about
gradual,
decent
excuse
me
gradual,
decentralization,
a
bit
more.
Can
you
give
us
a
brief
minute
or
two
recap
right,
yeah.
C
It's
a
graduate
decentralization
really
is
it's
not
a
commitment
to
the
fact
that
maker
and
Aman
run
should
be
an
actually,
he
said
most
autonomous
organization,
which
means
it
should
be
completely
well.
First
of
all,
it
should
be
very
it's
like
what
maker
is
is
very
well
defined
and
very
specific
right.
It's
a
smart
country
infrastructure
and
it's
a
community
that
interacts
and
that's
my
country
infrastructure,
and
it's
not
like
it's,
not
a
company,
some
of
the
most
important
thing
right.
C
Then
everyone
places
you
know
that
and
where
the
governance
becomes,
choosing
the
leadership
and
then
sort
of
having
faith
that
they'll
run
it
and
then
potentially-
and
you
know
like
applying
like
a
fiduciary
duty
on
that
or
something
like
that
right
and
having
that
type
of
relationship
rather
than
that.
So
that's
what
we
absolutely
don't
want
to
have
them
right,
because
then
we
are
really
not
really
like.
It's
not
really
that
innovative,
because
it's
basically
just
a
bank
in
that
case
and
like
something
very
similar
to
thing.
C
Rather,
what
we
really
wanted
to
to
create
is
something
that
super
bare-bones
and
where
the
bulk
of
the
work
and
sort
of
all
the
effort
being
created
to
maintain
and
sort
of
steered
the
project
in
the
long
run,
comes
to
ready
from
their
calendars
and
from
the
community.
So
there's
like
there's
no
layer
between
the
community
and
the
core.
The
system
well
I
mean,
of
course,
there's
still.
C
There's
still
have
different
roles
for
different
people
in
the
community,
for
instance,
but
then
it's
kind
of
like
the
point
is
that
this
should
be
there's
still
like
this
direct
relationship
between
the
community
and
the
specific
roles
in
the
community,
and
then
the
the
core
smart
contracts
should
be
so
no
mess.
There
should
be
as
little
possible
else.
C
C
Not
just
you
know
like
run
it
in
good
times
would
actually
also
be
able
to
deal
with
when
the
Black
Swan
events
and
I
kind
of
stuff
and
sort
of
deal
with
like,
which
is
that
hot
part
of
running
system,
and
also
control
in
such
a
way
that
it
grows
properly
and
that
it
maintains
its
its
it's
like
image
and
brand
and
so
on,
and
this
some.
So
it's
on
track
to
the
global
adoption,
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
How.
A
You
perceive
the
the
architecture
that
working,
though,
is,
is
it's
the
primary
mechanism
through
voting
and
individual
maker
holders,
it's
having
their
say
own
specific
proposals,
or
is
it?
Do
you
envision
an
ecosystem
of
sort
of
highly
engaged
groups
of
stakeholders,
sort
of
picking
up
various
aspects
of
the
organization
and
sort
of
running
with
it
so
like
distributed,
risk
teams
are
distributed
of
business
development
teams,
or
maybe
a
large
fund
decides
to
devote
some
internal
resources
towards
R&D?
Is
that
the
kind
of
thing
that
you're
looking
at
imagining
yeah.
C
C
That's
sort
of
actually
set
up
for
for
being
permanent,
but
the
other
thing
like
something
like
business
development,
for
instance.
In
the
long
run,
like
I
mean
there
should
it's
again
like
there
has
to
be,
like
the
community,
probably
will
see
an
advantage
from
ensuring
that
there
are
some
just
fundamentals
that
will
look
like
sort
of
official
like
like
just
to
support
in
some
way
right,
which
could
be
whatever
it
is
like
I
think.
Actually,
the
most.
The
most
crucial
thing
is
in
terms
of
like
phases.
C
Development
sort
of
like
terms
of
helping
companies
on
board
is
actually
legal
and
regulatory
input,
rather
than
than
more
like
bread
and
butter
stuff
of
just
like
developing
products
that
integrate
dye
and
then
like
selling
them
to
customers,
because
that's
something
I
can
very
easily
be
monetized
and
definitely
the
goal
is
you
know
that
should
not
be
that,
like
the
maker
community
and
maker
itself
is
like
responsible
for
getting
companies
all
over
the
world
to
adopt
I
write,
it's
that
should
be.
It
should
be
competent,
just
regular
software
consultancies.
C
That
basically
blockchain
consultant
is
that
in
the
same
way
that
they
like,
when
they
recommend
some
block
change
your
customer
and
they're
like
well.
You
should
use
etherium
because
that's
the
most
widely
about
there
and
it
has
various
scalability
solutions
and,
as
the
same,
the
same
should
apply
to
make
it
right
like
it
should
be
died.
Is
this
like
useful
tools
that
we
use
whenever
we
need
a
stable
coin,
because
it's
the
best
and
everyone
else
uses
them,
and
that's
kind
of
like
that's?
What's
kind
of?
C
Let's,
that's
one
of
the
things
is
really
cool
about
a
blockchain
based
system.
Right
is
that
it
can
be
optimized
for
this
kind
of
stuff,
so,
rather
than
spending
a
ton
of
money
on
marketing
and
social
sales
in
the
long
run,
we
can
rather
just
like
make
the
best
possible
deal
right,
even
though
as
possible
for
you
lowest
possible
fees
in
the
system
right
and
like
the
best
quiddity
and
highest
ability
and
the
message
it
becomes
like
the
strongest
thing
to
use.
So
people
sort
of
organically
choose
to
adopt
it.
C
But
the
way
things
like
all
of
this
stuff
should
be
governed
is
basically
like,
and
this
is
well
I
think
it's
already
said
it
should
be
a
like.
It
should
be
governed
in
like
this
very,
very
open
and
sort
of
very
broad
consensus
seeking
process
right.
So
ultimately,
that's
kinda
gonna
be
like
it.
It's
gotta
be
an
inefficient
and
lovely
flexible
way
to
like
it's,
not
what
you
know.
It's
not
how
you
can.
You
can
really
run
a
business
like
that,
but
then
the
thing
is
that
we
don't
really
want
to
I.
C
A
C
That's
a
very
I
mean
it's
it.
That's
a
very
good
and
sort
of
useful
way
to
consider
governance
in
general.
Right,
like
decentralization,
general
and
I,
think
I
mean
the
most
basic
feedback.
Loop
is
just
the
NPR
price
right,
and
some
of
that
that
really
basic
relationship
and
most
people
to
really
get
right,
which
is
that,
if
the
government's
first
up,
then
everybody
loses
money
because
they
voted
with
NPR,
meaning
they're
holding
power
and
something
bad
happened,
and
they
have
to
bail
it
out
with
her
impair.
C
So
this,
like
natural
incentive
and
basically
direct
costs,
but
I,
think
I
mean
in
a
car
like
any
positive
like
them.
What
the
like,
in
terms
of
what
can
we
try
to
set
up
today
that
we
want
to
actually
last
and
so
hope
we
make
sure
that
the
long-run
governance
it
looks.
It
becomes
a
way
that
actually
makes
sense
and
works
and
doesn't
some
straight
down
a
path.
That's
unsustainable,
just
fundamentally
can't
work
and
also
meant
it
breaks
apart,
because
a
bit
that's
actually
where
that's
what
I
mean?
C
So
we're
like
just
like,
receive
positive
benefits
and
we're
someone
just
like
mentality
permeates
the
community
and
the
dial
to
the
point
where
it
just
like
it
becomes
the
natural
status
quo
and
sort
of
naturally
spreads
itself,
and
then
it
gives
us
this
benefit
like
all
these
various
benefits,
such
as
the
filtering
effect,
where
we
sort
of
naturally
become
under
siren
on
sorrel,
like
short-term
sort
of
selfish
profit,
seniors,
neck
and
stuff.
You
just
will
you
know
we'll
just
be
less
attracted
to
this
kind
of
system.
Well,
it's
kind
of
because
they
don't.
C
Good
because
they
will
also
be
the
same
kinds
of
people
who
would
sort
of
believe
that
others
in
governance
would
be,
would
be
building
like
doing
sort
of
a
selfish
vote
where
they,
just
they
don't.
They
use
the
power
of
governments
to
benefit
themselves
rather
than
to
follow
the
to
try
to
actually
achieve
scientific
consensus
and
look,
try
to
actually
reach
the
goals
and
system
in
terms
of
long
months
to
build
the
in
sustainability.
D
I
think
the
MKR
price
is
definitely
a
feedback
and
then
that's,
maybe
any
also
an
example
of
one
that
requires
low
coordination
between
different
members
because
they
can
sort
of
independently
see
those
they're
also
different,
other
kinds
of
feedbacks
and
require
high
levels
of
coordination
like
showing
up
at
a
meeting,
or
you
know,
committee
processes
or
any
number
of
different
ways
that
we've
already
kind
of
used
in
society
in
general.
So
but
the
question
was
really
a
whisk.
C
Yeah,
so
that's
pretty!
That's
that's
a
good
topic
right,
so,
basically
the
edges
that
we
want
to
use
everything
right.
So
we
want
to
utilize
sort
of
all
traditional
traditional
knowledge
on
the
topic
and
sort
of
also
recognize
that,
basically
there's
no
silver
bullet
right.
It's
not
possible
to
like
make
perfect
governance,
there's
always
problems
and
efficiencies
with
it.
So
at
the
same
time,
we
also
want
to
experiment
with
everything
new
but
again
not
trying
to
like
rely
so
naively
rely
on
any
one
method.
C
For
instance,
if
you
like
yeah,
what's
the
call
to
future
a
future
key
stuff
right
like
like
prediction:
market-based
governance,
it's
like
very
hype
and
like
very
exciting
for
technologists,
okay,
but
there's
like
so
just
this
is
like
fundamental
issues
with
it.
That
really
makes
it
a
lot
more
like
traditional,
that
really
introduces
sort
of
all
the
traditional
governance
problems
that
you
have
anyway
to
it
like,
such
as
manipulation,
for
instance,
writing
like
protection
of
incentives,
not
like
myself,
yeah.
A
I
think
that
these
these
are
a
lot
of
these
issues
are
what
we've
been
discussing
specifically
on
our
Thursday
meetings
about
scientific
governance
and
the
risk
framework,
or
we
touch
on
delegation
voter
apathy.
What
the
actual
mechanics
of
the
future
voting
is
going
to
look
like.
Okay,
if
you're
interested
in
that
kind
of
thing,
we'd
love
to
see
it's
more
as
well.
Yeah.
The
time.
C
C
What
is
the
right
way
to
do
stuff
right
like
what
is
the
right
way
to
set
the
risk
parameters,
and
once
we
have
an
idea
of
what
we
think
are
the
right
way
to
citrus
tremens,
then
we
can.
Then
we
can
safely
use
something
like
prediction
markets
and
help
us
get
an
extra
perspective,
because
we
don't
take
the
risk,
then
that
actually,
oh,
the
prediction
markets
turn
out
to
be
super.
Manipulated,
but
it's
like
totally
wrong
and
something
terrible
happens
because
we're
a
little
bit
too
naive
right.
B
C
A
I
think
that's
a
good
point.
I
think
that
we,
we
all
have
this
pretty
clear
understanding
that
governance
is
not
a
solved
problem
yet
and
that
it
needs
to
be
addressed
patiently
and
cautiously
I
think
over
time.
I
think!
That's
why
gradual
decentralisation
is
is
a
term
that
we
keep
on
coming
back
to
over
and
over
again
I
think
Brunei
had
there's
two
questions
from
the
community.
One
of
them
is
kind
of
a
hardball
buying
that
know
throwing
away
anyways
under
under
the
heading
of
gradual
decentralization.
A
C
It's
like
a
team
or
trusted.
You
know
central
party
or
something
like
that
right.
So
that
means
there's
no
black
box
right,
there's
no
inside
of
knowledge,
or
rather
Outsiders
on
the
inside,
is
innocence
right,
like
everyone
s,
the
full
knowledge
and
that's
just
I
mean
if
you're
a
big
corporate
company,
and
you
want
to
use
some
new
financial
tool.
C
Probably
one
of
the
main
things
that
you're
really
happy
about
is,
if
you
can
actually
just
like
you
know,
if
you
you
know
it's
like
about
like
how
stable
or
how
like
reliable
this
thing,
gonna
be,
and
if
you
know
that
you
have
full
access
to
all
information,
that's
gonna
be
something
that
you
know
really
makes.
You
feel
better
right
like
it's
just.
A
C
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
to
some
degrees,
that's
higher
of
like
stakeholder
engagement
to
monetary
policy
and
like
risk
assessments
on
it,
does
sort
of
exist
in
the
current
financial
system
right.
But
it's
just
like
it's
just
not
really
something.
That's
like
there's!
No
like
it's
not
like
something
that
it's
promoted.
I
guess
you
can
say
right,
I
like
encouraged,
but
they
right
I
mean
anyone
can,
for
instance,
like
participate
in
the
scientific
discussion
on
monetary
policy,
for
instance,
right
I
mean
it
a
scientific
field,
and
also
you
know
you
can
vote.
C
You
know.
Governments
set
the
you
know,
set
the
financial
rules
and
change
the
laws,
and
so
on.
So
there's
like
those
types
of
engagement
already
exists
right
and
it's.
It
is
how
we've
been
able
to
to
survive
so
far
like
how
find
out
something
works
of
ours,
because
actually
there
has
been
this
like
anti
fragile
crowd-sourced
process
of
slowly
figuring
out.
How
can
you
live
like?
What
can
you?
What
can
you
do
financially
and
what's
too
risky?
C
You
know
that
when
they,
when
they
coded
this,
they
sort
of
knew
that
this
is
a
very
dangerous
and,
like
very
you
know,
potentially
dangerous
thing
to
do
because
taking
money
from
the
system
right
from
the
fees
it's
just
like
it's
kinda
mean
it's
just
like
it's.
You
know
it's
like
it's
something
potentially
very
controversial,
it's
kind
of
akin
to
something
like
inflating
the
supply
of
a
coin
or
something.
Oh,
that's
right.
So
it's
kind
of
like
the
kimete.
C
You
know
like
it's,
like
the
majority
of
the
community,
deciding
for
the
entire
community
to
do
something
with
the
money
and
there's
attentional
flip
views
here,
and
all
these
like
considerations
so
but
anyways.
The
point
is
this:
that's
why
it's
called
stock,
because
it's
like
something
that
needs
to
be
taken
very
seriously:
it's
like
a
very
powerful
tool
that
also
can
be
very
risky
to
use,
but
ultimately
that
will
be
multiple
I
will
die
and
will
allow
and
will
I
mean
in
the
moment
that
exist.
That's
what
that's!
C
Basically,
when
the
community
becomes
like
well,
I
mean
theoretically
or
at
least
technically
that's
when
the
community
becomes
the
real
foundation
in
a
sense
right,
because
that's
the
point
where
the
community
can
decide
to
fund
whatever
he
wants
to
do
anything.
It
wants
right.
He
can
just
like
as
long
as
his
income
in
a
system.
Parts
of
that
income
can
be
reinvested
and
used
in
various
things.
C
A
D
Yeah,
the
most
the
objections
for
points
I
realized
that
a
lot
of
the
objections
were
had
were
kind
of
really
easy
to
count
there,
but
the
poor
ones
that
I
thought
were
the
most
interesting
were
number
one.
People
seem
to
get
tripped
up
over
the
word
charity
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
clarity
surrounding
what
initiatives
were
going
to
give
to
and
then
the
thread
I
responded
by.
D
You
know
those
things,
my
examples
from
the
article
and
asking
them
to
see
so
to
point
out,
which
ones
are
the
most
contentious,
but
I
think
that
makers
should
probably
come
out
with
some
document
listing
like
the
contentiousness
or
like
how
politically
divisive
some
an
issue
if
some
of
the
shooters
are
versus
others
and
then
categorically
exclude
the
ones
that
are
like
not
politically
polarizing
or
contentious.
That.
D
And
then
the
second
thing
is
the
broken
focus
argument
or
people
say:
oh,
why
is
maker
focusing
on
charity
when
they
should
be
focusing
on
development
good
at
and
you
know,
that's
also
answered
by
the
fact
that
maker
is
not
ten
people.
It's
70
people
and
you
know
there
are
people
that
could
be
hired
focus
on
that,
so
it
doesn't
take
away
from
the
technical
talent
ability
or
the.
D
Ability
to
complete
well
enough
in
excitement
that
then
there
is
the
fractured
community
argument
where
you
know
there
was
concerns
about
the
fact
that
there
is
a
portion
of
people
that
are
against
the
20%
principle
and
that
fracture
the
community
might
be
bad,
pretty
good
for
our
system
and
in
the
last
part,
which
is
actually
something
that
Milner
and
Robert
Smith
he
well.
He
asked
me:
how
can
we
just
my
as
capitalistic
system?
That
is
more
prompted?
D
How
can
we
just
I
instead
of
taking
this
squadron,
a
MKR
and
aggressively
funding
even
more
with
development
or
like
specifically
and
option?
Why
make
a
charity
rather
than
you
or
aggressively
the
growth
for
the
company,
and
it's
like
cost
button
right,
yeah
boss,
giving
with
charity,
then
you're
losing
you
know,
spending
that
on
your
belt
spending
that
money
at
more
advertising,
so
chaos
so.
D
C
Yes,
I
think
the
likes
of
the
political
contentiousness
of
charity
and
some
of
my
same
charities.
Politics
he's
amazing
I
mean
it's
like
well.
So
my
answer
to
that
right
or
something
like
well
financing
is
all
just
in
the
same
thing
right
like
there's
like
you,
can't
politicize
finance
and
happens
all
the
time
and,
like
you're,
saying
David,
it's
basically
a
matter
of
yelling.
Of
course.
C
The
point
is
that
the
kind
of
charity
that
should
be
funded
with
the
20%
principle-
it's
not
supposed
to
be
something
expensive,
yeah,
it's
kind
of
supposed
to
be
like
neutral
stuff.
That
makes
sense
right
and
it's
actually
like
I
mean
initially
we
were
considering
just
saying
this
is
not
for
charity.
This
is
for
basic
income.
This
is
really
just
about
giving
guides
of
people
and
potentially
I
mean
and.
D
In
regards
to
that,
so
I
actually
missed
that
direct,
giving
schemes.
The
the
main
problem
was
lack
in
structure,
so
you
can
get
people
died,
but
if
they
have
nowhere
to
spend
it
or
in
a
sandbox,
no
all
the
merchants
and
all
the
basic
necessities
by
yeah.
That
would
make
sense
but
to
get
died
out.
So
there's
people
like
there
was
that
issue
as
well.
Yeah.
C
And
that's
actually
what
I
mean
and
that's
kind
of
why
that
initially
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
say
this
is
just
gonna,
be
basic
income,
but
nothing
else
right,
because
initially
there
is
actually
there's
like
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
necessary
before
you
can
just
start
giving
handing
out
lines
or
create.
This
is
a
you
know,
get
adoption
by
giving
people
died,
I
think
right,
but.
C
I
guess
like
I
guess,
you'd
say
our
end
goal
is
just
so
neutral,
unbiased,
universal
basic
income
SSE
anyway
right,
that's
what
I
think
would
be
the
most
natural
thing
to
use
the
20%
principle
for
in
the
long
run,
but
then,
in
the
short
run,
and
initially
there
has
to
be
done.
A
lot
of
groundwork
does
not
build
up
the
necessary
infrastructure
on
that
stuff
to
make
sense,
and
that's
where
I
think
in
particular,
focusing
on
specific
regions
is
what's
going
to
have.
C
A
lot
of
cost
benefit
like
very
high
cost
benefit
impact,
because
we
can
so
find
these
areas.
Where,
let's
say
we,
you
know
we
bought
we
initially.
What
we
do
is
we
hand
out
smartphones,
and
then
we
set
up
all
the
local
shops
like
the
merchants,
with
what
smartphones
and
they
build
and
like
some
of
access
to
convert
and
die
into
into
other
forms
of
local
currency,
and
then
once
we
have
that
in
place,
then
we
can
start
handing
out
basic
income
to
the
people
and
then
actually
like
and.
C
B
C
Want
to
create
this
like
close
around,
like
self
sustainable
economy,
where
these
people
just
switch
to
using
diet,
because
it's
just
like
it's
what
they
already
have
cuz
the
cosmic
getting
it
from
the
charity
scheme
and
it's
just
better
than
what
they
were
using
before.
So
it's
just
seems
so
natural
for
them,
right
and
and
like
I,
think
what
makes
it
really
make
sense.
C
Is
it
basically
creating
a
number
of
these
hubs
and
like
fine,
fine,
like
that
moves
all
of
the
unbanked
hotspots,
where
there's
both
there's
both
like
low
levels
of
financial
infrastructure,
but
also
high
potential
for
actual
growth?
If
there's
system
catalysts
that
can
you
know
get
in
there
and
actually
help
people
just
scared
like
the
initial
escape
velocity,
they
need
for
things
to
go
on
a
on
a
constant
growth
track
and
that's
the
kind
of
stuff
I
think
it's
really
like.
C
There's
nothing
I
mean
this
kind
of
stuff
registers
like
it,
because
these
considerations
ultimately
will
be
based
on
not
something
like
not
political
thought,
like
not
political
stuff,
like
you
know.
Who
do
we
want
to
help?
You
know?
Well,
you
know
how
do
we?
How
do
we
define
making
the
world
a
better
place
and
so
on?
Actually,
what
we're
thinking
about
here
is
just
how
to
maximize
the
adoption
right
like
how
do
we
use
that?
C
B
A
C
We
so
first
I
just
want
to
say:
I
mean
unfortunate.
I
couldn't
deal
okay,
you
can
get
to
all
these
points
by
a
David,
but
I.
Think
the
one
about
like
the
fraction
community
is
actually
the
most
serious
of
the
points
and
basically
I
think
one
of
the
consequences
of
that
I
mean
which,
because
it
makes
perfect
sense.
C
What
is
that
you
know
if
the
foundation
proposal
gets
and
very
you
know
if
there
is
significant
resistance
to
it
in
the
end,
the
vote,
you
know,
I'm,
not
sure
it
can
be
justified
to
actually
say
unless
implement.
That's
when
it's
in
principle,
if
we
end
up
like
with
sort
of
a
tight
race
right
where
it's
like
51%
vote,
Yes
and
49ers
in
Bognor
right
I
mean,
then
that
would
be.
C
You
know
that
could
actually
costs
just
like
people
are
saying
right
that
could
that
could
cause
some
serious
damage
to
the
community
where
that's
just
like
people
basically
feel
like
okay.
So,
even
though
we
are
almost
half
of
the
entire
community,
we
actually
you
know
we
were
you
know
like
were
some
of
the
victims
of
majority
tyranny
or
whatever
it's
called
so
I.
Think
that's
like
something
to
take
very
seriously
right
and
I
actually
am
a
little
like,
ultimately,
I
think
they
can.
The
main
concerns
of
people
are
not
really
like
I.
C
Think
they're,
you
know
it's
it's
it's
a
lot
of
is
like
trust
base,
it's
kind
of
that
they
you
know
it's
like
I
mean
it's
it's
like
kind
of
you
know.
If
you
know
they
just
have
this
natural
reaction.
Oh
you
know.
Oh
no,
this
tech
crossing
everything's
going
well
and
now
suddenly
they're
going
nuts,
like
you
know,
like
charity
and
whatever-
and
you
know
it's
not
like
they
see
this
on,
like
a
sign
off
just
like,
like
us,
losing
our
minds.
C
You
know
like
it's
based
on
some
rational
thought,
right,
I'm
like
it's
just
like
sort
of
creating
an
exhibition
but
anyway,
so
let
me
just
get
to
this
last.
This
last
comment:
right:
there
should
be
a
separation
between
the
Deaf
team,
arlynn
Foundation
and
the
20%
funds,
and
that
is
actually
I
mean
that's
exactly
the
point
right
I
mean
the
point
is
in
fact
also
the
20
principle
funds,
which
one
is
in
front
right.
C
You
know
if,
like
do
better
than
current
finance,
rather
we're
trying
to
like
you
know
we're
just
like
looking
for
people
in
need
of
help
like
looking
for
pitiful
places
where
it
makes
sense
to
hand
out
that
and
then
executing
on
that
and
that's
kind
of
something
where
you
know
like
it
takes
it.
It's
it's
less
about
like
being
an
expert,
and
you
know
dealing
with
a
hot
question
and
more
about,
like
manpower,
basically
unlikely
doing
a
lot
of
like
research
and
looking
over
a
lot
of
different
places
and
and
some
of
potential
initiatives.
A
It's
worth
reinforcing,
though,
that
it's,
the
the
charitable
recipients
won't
be
dictated
by
the
the
development
team.
It's
as
a
part
of
the
governance
process.
The
proposals
will
be
written
by
potentially
the
the
risk
teams
or
outside
experts
in
the
humanitarian
agencies
could
write
their
own
proposals.
It'll
be
a
community
effort
to
determine
who
the
recipients
could
possibly
be.
C
And
I
think
I
mean
we
did
say
that
initially
we
want
to
be
kind
of
wanted
to
make
sure
that
things
actually
work
well
initially
soon.
The
idea
is
that
at
first
they
would
it
would
be
the
foundations
from
leading
the
process
and
basically
creating
the
first
proposals
for
them.
It's
highly
B,
so
that
the
community
isn't
just
left
like
with
no
idea
what
to
do
right
them.
Well,
the
foundation
would
so
guide
the
process
along
initially
and
then
as
quickly
as
possible.
C
A
Okay,
great
we're
five
minutes
after
the
hour,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
wrap
it
up
for
today.
Thanks
everyone
for
your
questions,
those
were
amazing,
thanks,
rune
for
for
doing
this
again
and
Jess
thanks,
we'll
be
posting
this
to
YouTube
in
the
boat
an
hour.
If
people
want
to
view-
and
if
you
have
any
additional
questions
you
like
asked
for
the
next
meeting
that
you
didn't
did
it
we
didn't
get
to
today,
please
add
it
to
the
threat
that
will
be
a
linked
at
the
bottom
of
the
video
all.