►
From YouTube: Issue Discussion Call # 5 | Budget Modification Process
Description
▼Chapters▼
0:00 Introduction
1:18 Agenda
3:39 Current Budget Policy
6:54 Recent Budget Policy/Process Issues Discussed
9:24 How are Budget Issues being Addressed?
13:05 MIP40 Reform Proposal
24:08 Open Questions
1:08:25 Conclusion
▼Overview▼
GovComms Engagement Lead @thomas.flitter leads a discussion on the Core Unit Budget Modification Process.
As MakerDAO continues to grow and expand, each Core Unit is required to update and manage its budget. This issue discussion call provides an overview of the current challenges surrounding core unit budget modification and proposed solutions for improving the overall process. This call features the Strategic Finance Core Unit members, who will be putting out a MIP40 revision soon.
▼Tentative Agenda▼
- Welcome and Introductions
- What are the policies that currently drive the budget modification process?
- What are the biggest concerns with the existing budget modification process?
- How can we improve the budget proposal process?
- Open Discussion
▼Resources▼
Call Notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SUNGmTNFgUNgiyxv_I0KPWk9Sab9EtI3KSXGrPDdwKs/edit#heading=h.ta6asm29tei7
Relative Posts and Links:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/call-for-responsible-budget-and-process/13816
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/rfc-budget-request-mip-break-on-going-from-expansion-budget-requests-budget-polling-to-rcv/13877
https://youtu.be/cMLUkPq7RNo?t=2270
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/quarterly-strategy-review-q4-2021-public-call-on-friday-3-11-22-5-00pm-utc/13734
B
B
We've
got
a
lot
of
good
folks
here
on
board
and
want
to
go
through
really
a
couple
of
things.
In
particular,
we've
got
a
new
amendment,
that's
out
and
want
to
kind
of
walk
through
that
today,
but
so
again,
thank
you
all
as
we
continue
to
grow.
I
think
the
issue
discussion
calls
are
very
important
for
us
to
bring
topics
up
for
the
community
to
discuss.
B
B
Also,
what
are
some
of
the
issues
being
discussed
out
on
the
forum
we've
got.
You
know
a
lot
of
these
updates
to
budgets
for
core
units
being
made
and
there's
been
some
talk,
discussion
about
some
of
the
budget
policy
issues
and
the
processes,
so
we
want
to
go
through
those
also
how
how
are
some
of
these
issues
being
addressed
and,
in
particular,
I've
been.
We've
got
the
mip
40
amendment
proposal.
B
B
They
are,
the
ones
that
administer
the
coordinate
budgets
and
within
the
composition
of
a
budget
it
can
have
multiple
entries.
It
includes
both
a
breakdown
and
implementation,
and
also
that
is
interesting
because
having
multiple
entries
each
of
those
has
an
implementation
and
a
breakdown
and
enables
more
advanced
compensation
and
funding
structures
to
be
created
if
so
desired.
B
Once
the
budget
is
approved,
though,
the
core
unit
facilitators
began,
drawing
the
payments
to
fund
their
core
unit
according
to
their
budget
implementation
and
in
the
budget
breakdown.
The
core
units,
and-
and
I
do
quote
this
copy-
is
a
best
guess-
breakdown
of
spending
for
their
core
unit
during
the
budget
period.
B
B
There
are
certain
aspects
of
it
that
we
need
to
take
a
look
at,
so
we
can
improve
it
and
when
we
take
a
look
at
what
are
some
of
the
concerns,
or
at
least
the
recent
policy
issues
that
are
being
discussed
out
on
the
forum,
these
questions
have
been
asked,
in
particular
the
overwhelming
budget
review
process.
How
can
we
improve
that?
B
B
Another
another
question
that
has
been
posed
is:
how
can
expense
reporting
be
less
fragmented?
How
could
it
be
more
standardized
and
that's,
I
think,
one
of
the
key
aspects
of
the
mip
amendment.
The
new
proposal,
also
one
one
thing
that
came
up.
What
I
thought
was
interesting
is
should
make
a
downtime
performance
to
an
accountability
and
a
budget
update.
B
B
B
B
So
I
want
to
lead
this
into
allowing
some
time
for
and
having
strategic
finance
with
it
come
in
and
really
kind
of
take
a
look
at.
They
issued
a
draft
proposal
believe
us
on
march
27
and
that
the
mip
40
amendment
is
broken
down
into
into
several
of
the
sections.
If
you
look
at
mip
40,
it's,
I
believe
four
sections.
A
We,
we
had
a
chat
earlier
ahead
of
the
nip
being
published
and
we
have
some
pages
also
that
we
shared
with
art-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
quickly
put
them
on
the
screen
just
to
introduce
a
little
bit
of
context,
go
quickly
through
the
the
way
that
we
maybe
try
and
explain
the
way
that
we
thought
about
this
myth
process
and
then
open
the
floor
for
questions.
Okay,
because
I
think
that's
where
we
should
probably
spend
most
of
our
time
just
addressing
questions.
A
If,
on
the
next
slide,
yeah,
we
talked
about
how
the
key
risks
for
maker
were
basically
either
insolvency,
which
has
happened
once
and
probably
will
not
happen,
one
more
time
or
will
happen
one
more
time
for
the
last
time
or
flipping
which,
in
the
flip
scenario
of
a
super
bullish
market.
If
we
are
in
an
environment
where
we
don't
invest
enough
in
growth
and
we
fall
behind,
then
we
lose
our
incumbency
status
and-
and
this
is
a
big
deal
for
the
long
term,
profitability
of
the
protocol.
A
A
A
Here
we're
outlining
some
of
the
main
changes
and
some
of
the
main
changes
of
some
of
the
main
changes
that
we're
proposing
in
the
context
of
this
new
process.
The
first
one
and
most
important
one
is
to
is
to
ask
facilitators
who
are
requesting
a
budget
request
to
tie
their
core
unit
budget
more
closely
to
the
overall
objectives
of
the
dow,
and
here
we're
framing
it
as
token
holder
primacy,
and
then
everything
else
will
follow.
I
think
this
is
fairly.
A
This
is
this
is
something
that
that
facilitators
were
already
doing
because
it
was
implied
and
in
the
new
budget
request
proposal
there
is
a
there
is
an
ask
for
facilitators
to
make
this
explicit
so
that
we
can
shortcut.
Often
you
see
in
some
of
the
project
requests.
You
see
questions
about
like
how
does
this
benefit
the
proposal
like?
What's
the
point
of
this
line?
How
are
you
thinking
about
this?
Do
we
really
need
a
x
core
unit
if
we
clarify
that
the
core
unit
budget
serves
the
objectives
of
upfront?
A
So
one
aim
here
is
to
is
to
provide
a
recommendation
for
the
way
that
the
coordinate
budget
proposals
are
structured
so
that
it's
clear
and
transparent
for
for
token
holders
to
evaluate
where
the
commitments
are
to
spending
these
operating
expenses
and
for
12
months
afterwards
compare
and
contrast
and
review
the
where
they
actually
spent
where
they
were
going
where
they
said
that
we're
going
to
spend.
There
is
some
of
this
already
in
place,
but
we're
proposing,
particularly
in
the
expenses
side,
we'll
be
proposing
more
detailed,
more
detailed
charts
of
accounts
that
can.
A
A
There
was
a
question
on
what
we
would
do
if
the
core
unit
fails
to
return
funds,
so
there's
an
element
of
fund
return
at
the
end
of
the
three
at
the
end
of
the
three
months
budget
window,
and
here
the
only
thing
that
we
can
reasonably
do
as
a
core
unit
in
this
decentralized
sort
of
governance
structure
is
basically
flag
it
and
the
expense
reports
that
we
publish
on
a
regular
basis
and
then
let
the
community
decide.
So
this
should
leave
the
leave
it
open.
A
So
if,
for
example,
there's
a
bullet
payment
in
the
fourth
or
fifth
month
that
requires
the
budget
to
remain
in
the
wallet
this
can.
This
is
a
perfectly
good
explanation
and
it's
just
a
matter
of
of
being
upfront
with
a
community.
In
our
view,
are
we
adding
a
lot
of
work
to
facilitators,
and
I
think
this
relates
also
slightly
to
a
question
walter
hud,
about
how
we
keep
the
barrier
to
entry
low
to
the
tao.
A
A
A
There's
a
question
I
think,
from
el
pro
on
how
to
combat
low
balling
and
overestimating
budget,
and
here
I
think
this
I
want
to
come
back
a
little
bit
to
speaking
about
how
budgets
should
be
serving.
The
value
should
be
serving
the
objectives
of
the
dow
and
driving
value
for
token
holders,
because
if
you
measure
it
by
that
metric,
then
this
concern
melts
and
as
long
as
token
holders
are
engaged
and
voting
for
the
benefit
of
the
power
and
for
the
protocol.
A
If
you
commit
to
returns
an
accountability,
then
the
size
of
the
request
doesn't
actually
matter
what
actually
matters
is
whether
that
capital
is
being
put
to
its
best
possible
views.
In
other
words,
if
you
ask
for
a
large
budget,
the
return-
that's
fine,
but
the
return
hurdle
will
be
higher.
So
the
onus.
A
If
the
expectations
on
the
other
side
are
are
labeled,
then
it
should
be
clear
from
the
proposal
that
the
money
would
be
better
spent
elsewhere,
maybe
in
another
core
unit
or
maybe
in
an
investment.
You
know,
if
you
think
of
it.
As
do
we
add
another
engineer:
do
we
buy
back
tokens?
Do
we
you
know,
invest
them
in
heath
or
do
we
invest
in
a
global
core
unit
budget?
A
If
you
measure
in
terms
of
the
token
holder
value,
then
this
these
concerns
should
dissipate
so
yeah,
basically,
tying
return
expectations
to
a
budget
and
keeping
facilitators
accountable
to
those
is
key
to
making
this
mip
process
work,
and
this
is
something
that
we
feel
was
implied
until
now.
I
think
facilitators
had
have
always
had
the
intention
of
delivering
value
to
the
protocol.
But
often
what
happened
in
is
that
by
not
making
the
the
direct
return
of
a
budget
clear
to
token
holders
it.
A
All
that
does
is
just
create
a
lot
of
discussion
that
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
happen.
So
what
we're
doing
we're
aiming
to
do
here
is
just
provide
a
framework
for
all
of
the
information
that
we
believe
is
already
there
just
to
organize
in
a
way
that's
more
easily
digestible
for
for
token,
and
then
someone
asked
about
pay
for
performance
which
is
tied.
You
know
similar
to
this
idea
of
investing
in
and
putting
capital
in
its
best
possible
use.
A
A
So
on
the
next
slide,
I
think
the
the
only
thing
that's
left
is
is
a
sort
of
diff
where
we've
taken
the
existing
mc40
and
the
new
mic
40
and
we've
we
have
an
overview
of
the
rationale,
benefits
we're
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
it.
Instead,
I
propose
that
we
open
the
floor
to
questions
and
if
a
question
pertains
to
a
specific
paragraph
or
section
of
the
map,
then
we
jump
to
that
slide
to
that
relevant
slide.
A
C
I
guess
my
question
is,
I
think,
one
of
the
goals
with
doing
the
budget
amendment
was
to
make
it
scalable
right
and
and
like
not
as
onerous
to
review,
but
it
sounds
like
this.
This
framework
basically
just
adds
a
whole
new
layer
of
analysis,
basically
around
the
performance
aspect
of
core
units.
Do
you
think
that
this
is
a
sort
of
a
necessary
component
or
if
it's
already
kind
of
implied
like
does
it
need
to
be
sort
of
explicitly
a
part
of
a
budget
yeah?
A
A
Here,
yes,
so,
okay,
there
are
two.
There
are
two
elements
to
this
to
this
question
that
I'd
like
to
address
the
first
one
is
the
the
cognitive
overhead
of
processing
these
budget
requests.
In
order
to
tackle
this,
what
we've
done
is
introduce
this
concept
of
a
submission
period
so
that
we
concentrate
all
of
the
budget
proposals
into
into
quarterly
windows.
A
Forcing
these
requests
into
these
windows
also
forces
the
facilitators
to
take
a
longer
term
view
for
the
planning
of
their
activities,
and
we
think
that
this
is
a
good
thing.
The
facilitators
are
taking
on
responsibility
on
behalf
of
the
token
holders
to
absorb
investment
and
to
conduct
activities
that
add
value
to
the
protocol
and
part
of
this
responsibility
involves
a
high
degree
of
long-term
planning,
hence
the
the
maker
investing
which
is
part
of
the
the
core
unit
compensation
so
yeah.
A
A
The
problem
today
is
that
this
element
is
implied
every
time
you
have
a
framework
or
structure,
that's
implied,
it
makes
things
worse
because
then
you
have
to
spend
time
explaining
the
rationale
when
it
should
be
clear
up
front
by
by
asking
facilitators
to
do
to
do
the
work.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
more
work.
It
just
means
organized
in
a
structured
manner
that
allows
maker
holders
to
evaluate
them
more
efficiently,
in
principle
should
actually
reduce
the
amount
of
time
that
people
spend
on
this
both
to
create
and
to
evaluate.
D
Yeah
just
to
quickly
add
on
to
that
these
these
questions,
while
more,
you
know
comprehensive
than
the
existing
commit
process
or
really
questions
that
any
business
owner
should
be
able
to
answer
quite
easily.
It
shouldn't
take
you
really
long
to
think
about
the
value
that
you're
creating
leading
a
team.
These
are
all
questions
that
are
routinely
asked
in
corporate
business
world.
D
So,
if,
if
someone
thinks
there's
a
certain
question
or
area,
that's
unclear
and
we're
happy
to
talk
through,
you
know
with
any
prospective
facilitators
or,
if
they're,
having
trouble
doing
a
variance
analysis
or
understanding.
You
know
what
changes
in
this
map.
You
know
we're
more
than
happy
to
help
facilitate
that
process
and
try
and
provide
some
more
detail
on
the
reasonings
and
how
you
could
answer
these
questions.
E
E
I
don't
see
how
it
would
make
the
life
of
facilitators
easier,
having
a
barrage
of
budget
requests
at
one
point,
so
it
might
actually
be
easier
for
them
to
do
a
few
budget
requests
every
month
rather
than
having
them
all
at
once.
At
the
at
the
end,
I
don't
know,
did
I
say
facilitator.
I
meant
delegates.
Yes,.
E
E
It
is
important
that
we
that
we
preserve
enough
independence
of
the
core
units
to
to
determine
within
their
area
of
expertise,
what
the
necessary
expenses
are.
What
you
sometimes
bump
into
is
is
the
problem
where,
for
example,
you
know
if
engineering
proposes
a
budget
and
then
there's
a
high
cost
in
security,
that
there
is
like
specific
commentary
on
that
line
item
and
that
we
are
basically
driven
towards
towards
cost
cutting
in
areas
where
we
really
shouldn't
cut
the
costs.
E
A
A
So
oh
yeah
I'll
jump
to
the
question.
So
it's
more
on
the
planning
side,
it's
up
to
the
facilitator,
to
make
sure
that
the
plans
are
executed
or
that
the
plans
are
done
within
the
time
frame
and
of
the
budget
term.
So
these
budgets
they're,
set
for
a
time
period
between
you,
know
3
to
12
months,
and
you
know
there
are
enough
submission
windows
that
it
should
allow.
A
It
should
allow
core
unit
facilitators
to
to
make
modifications
along
the
way
provided
that
they
do
the
job
correctly
upfront,
and
this
is
more
this
we're
trying
to
basically
backload
more
of
the
planning
work
and
in
the
ideal
we
would
have
fewer
new
budget
requests
short
of
like
a
major
change
in
in
the
macro
environment
for
the
yeah.
I
think
for
the
for
water's
point
regarding
how
to
explain
the
different
line
items.
A
F
A
A
But
yeah
it's
ice
cube,
saying
the
expense
should
help
grow
revenues
or
improve
operations
and
in
the
case
of
your
example,
with
the
security
budget,
it's
clear
that
it
improves
operations
and
people
might
bulk
at
the
at
the
size.
But
then
the
facilitator
has
the
opportunity
to
show
no,
actually,
you
need
to
invest
these
die
here,
because
you'll
improve
the
operations
by
making
it
more
secure
and
avoiding
a
you
know.
D
D
This
also
ties
significantly
into
how
we
financially
plan
as
a
dial.
If
you
have,
you
know
different
periods
of
budgeting
and
things
changing
constantly
it's
very
difficult
to
plan
a
long-term
financial
strategy,
especially
for
allocating
capital.
So
one
of
the
benefits
of
planning
these
in
specific
periods
is.
We
have
a
much
better
sense
of
what
our
holistic
expenses
are
as
a
dao
and
how
we
can
allocate
capital
more
effectively.
D
So
I'm
seeing
some
questions
about
what
happens.
If
I
see
you
misses
its
budget
window,
but
is
mission
critical
or,
if
there's
an
unplanned
event.
So,
regarding
unplanned
events,
I
guess
most
core
units
have
a
contingency
buffer
that
should
be
sufficient
to
handle
most
unplanned
events.
If
there's
something
in
excess
of
that
or
if
there's
a
situation
where
korean
misses
a
budget
window,
we
could
certainly
add
a
modification,
for
you
know
an
emergency
proposal
essentially
to
ensure
that
those
are
funded.
A
C
I
guess
I'll
start
like
as
a
like.
Coming
from
the
facilitator's
perspective,
like,
for
instance,
one
of
the
things
that
gave
us
confidence
to
cement
like
a
year-long
budget.
Is
this
fact
that
like
well,
we
can
always
submit
a
budget
again.
If
there's
you
know
something
major
we
need
to
pivot
to,
and
I
think
the
like.
Really
strict
budget
windows
like
especially
for
only
twice
annually
for
a
cu
kind
of
underestimates
how
quickly
the
space
can
evolve
right,
how
quickly
things
can
change
and
yeah
so
that
that
is
one
part.
C
C
So
I
guess
the
crutch
of
of
my
question
that
I'd
like
to
ask
kind
of
comes
from
a
meeting
I
had
with
today
or
the
other
day
so
showing
you
how
to
give
you
credit
there.
But
he
raised
the
point
that
the
more
regulations,
the
more
restrictions
we
add
to
something
that
must
be
done
for
to
be
considered
a
legitimate
budget
like
the
larger
we're
going
to
have
to
make
every
every
team.
C
That
applies
as
a
cu
right,
because
currently,
core
units
are
our
only
real
way
to
to
reliably
distribute
funds
and,
and
perhaps
we
need,
we
need
to
work
on
on
having
other
ways.
But
the
non-intended
effect
of
this
could
be
basically
a
bloating
of
core
units
anytime.
They
they
come
to
apply
because
no
longer
will
be
financially
feasible
to
have
a
unit
of
two
or
three
people.
If
one
person
is
essentially
going
to
be
kind
of
wrapping
around
all
these
different
budget
requirements,
both
before
they
submit
during
and
afterwards.
E
E
Maybe
one
part
of
the
answer
might
be
to
to
add
some
expectations
around
the
finality
of
the
the
budget.
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
new
team,
maybe
the
budget
isn't
that
isn't
isn't
that?
That's
like
strongly
thought
through
as
as
like
a
very
experienced
team,
but
maybe
we
can
have
some
kind
of
trial
period
where
they
they
go
ahead,
but
then,
at
the
same
time
there
is
the
understanding
that
their
budget
allocation
is
less
final
than
one
that
so
it
might
be
more
easily
withdrawn
again.
E
E
I
think
we
might
define
like
a
default
procedure
that
applies
in
80
of
the
cases,
so
that
reduces
maybe
the
significant
hurdle
that
new
facilitators
might
face
to
you
know
they
don't
know
that
our
environment,
they
may
need
help,
as
you
mentioned,
you're
willing
to
provide
that
help,
but
simply
having
a
default
might
already
help
to
reduce
the
the
barrier
to
entry
there.
So
yeah
similar
sentiment.
A
This
mid-40
proposal
basically
should
stop
that
from
taking
place,
because
a
grant
or
or
an
expense
in
a
in
an
existing
core
unit
is
measured
against
as
well.
So
if
it's
increasing
the
size
of
the
expenses,
it
should
attract
accountability
to
that
expense.
Also,
so
I
think
the
the
intent
here
is
to
keep
things
really
simple
and
our
our
role,
our
mandate
as
a
strategic
finance
core
unit,
is
precisely
to
help
er
new
operators
new
facilitators
on
board.
A
A
We'll
spend
time
with
them
to
to
help
them,
explain
it
and
address
it,
and
should
they
fail,
but
they
continue
to
have
the
same
amount
of
energy
for
the
protocol,
the
same
amount
of
of
ambition
and
they
can
demonstrably
create
a
new
plan
that
adapts
and
learns
from
their
boston
states.
Token
holders
should
be
able
to
evaluate
these,
take
them
into
account
and
approve
it.
D
You
know,
given
all
the
you
know,
budgeting
and
activity
on
the
forums
continues
to
ramp
up.
I
think
we
really
need
to
have
some
of
these
baseline
questions
just
answered
up
front.
So
delegates
don't
have
to
go
through
every
single
budget
proposal
and
ask
for
almost
the
same
questions
like
there's.
Some
you
know
mips
that
come
through
with
a
very
you
know,
structured
process
and
some
that
just
do
something
different,
that's
kind
of
outside
the
existing
kind
of
standard.
I
would
say
so.
D
We
really
don't
think
this
adds
or
reduces
the
openness
the
protocol-
and
I
guess
when
it
comes
to
openness
and
accessibility.
I
still
think
this
dao
is,
you
know
if
not
the
most
open
and
accessible.
It's
got
to
be
one
of
the
top
ones.
I
mean
you
can
get
involved
in
a
team
by
volunteering.
You
can
get
part-time
work,
there's
full-time
opportunities
and,
for
you
know,
facilitators.
B
A
F
F
The
mip
as
it
stands,
as
from
my
reading
of
it,
doesn't
actually
account
for
them
being
able
to
come
back
and
resubmit,
and
they
would
have
to
wait
for.
The
next
submission.
Wouldn't
do
so
is.
Is
that
something
that
we're
going
to
look
to
address
and
kind
of
for
these
specific
situations
of
where
our
budgets
failed
to
pass
governance?
F
And
the
second
question-
which
again,
is
one
that
we've
talked
about
internally,
is
have
you
thought
about
separating
the
voting
for
die
and
mkr
budgets?
Because
previously,
what
tends
to
happen?
Is
a
dive
budget
and
an
mkr
budget
get
bundled
together
as
a
mips
set
under
mit
40.,
and
we
were
very
conscious
when
we
submitted
our
budgets
recently
that
we
put
them
up
separately
so
that
governance
could
assess
both
on
their
merits
rather
than
voting
through
an
mkl
budget,
because
they
wanted
to
support
or
die
budget.
A
D
A
D
We
we
do
have
ranked
choice
voting
in
here,
so
there's
basically
an
option
to
fund
an
expanded
budget,
continue
funding
the
existing
budget
or
reject
the
budget.
So
if
your
budget
is
flat
out
rejected,
then
yes
you'd
have
to
wait
for
the
new
submission
window,
but
you
would
think
that,
for
you
know
existing
core
units
where
you
know
the
current
team
is
providing
value
that
is
meeting
the
expectations
of
delegates
and
maker
holders
that,
at
the
very
least,
you
would
see
a
continuation
vote
rather
than
you
know,
pure
rejection.
A
And
then
on
on
payton's
point,
I
think
we
maybe
didn't
get
to
this
point
in
his
and
his
question
about
the
larger
cus
again.
The
point
is
that
it's
not
necessarily
about
the
amount
of
expense
itself,
but
it's
about
whether
this
capital
is
being
put
to
its
best
possible
use.
So
if
a
core
unit
wants
to
inflate
to
account
for
larger
submission
windows,
for
longer
submission
windows,
for
instance,
or
for
whatever
reason
and
they're
going
to
have
to
be
accountable
to
the
associated
increase
in
results,
expectations
to
it
and
we
believe
they
should.
B
D
It's
something
I
think
the
community
has
probably
gone
back
and
forth
on
and
in
my
mind
I
would
like
to
see
them
separate,
but
I
know
you
know,
there's
people
that
feel
strongly
about
having
it
one
way
or
the
other.
So
it's
definitely
something
we
would
like
community
feedback
on
to
see,
especially
what
the
delegates
and
maker
holders
believe
is
the
appropriate
path,
because
I
think,
there's
somewhat
reasonable
arguments
on
both
sides.
B
C
Yeah
sure
so,
basically,
my
the
point
I
was
trying
to
get
out
was
that
if
we
require
a
lot
more
work
like
up
front
for
submitting
a
budget
and
also
you
know
like
reporting
and
transparency
after
it's
approved,
then
all
of
a
sudden
you're
kind
of
creating
a
role
that
mostly
has
to
focus
on
that.
That
is
kind
of
the
facilitator
role
by
default.
But
for
smaller
core
units,
where
the
facilitator
is
trying
to
wear
many
hats
that
may
no
longer
be
viable.
D
Yeah,
so
I
guess
I
would
say,
like
these
questions
are
really,
I
think,
the
bare
minimum
that
any
core
unit
should
really
be
able
to
answer.
I
think
most
coordinates
are
already
thinking
of
these
things.
Answering
these
questions
when
they
go
through
the
incubation
program
with
svs.
So
I
think
it's
really
about
just
being
forthright
and
transparent.
So
delegates
don't
have
to
you
know,
read
through
every
single
proposal
really
line
by
line
to
get
the
key
information
they
need
to
make
a
minimum
decision.
D
And
honestly,
I
think
you
know
the
mips
a
little
long
and
we're
happy
to
do
educational
sessions
for
how
we
populate
that's
kind
of
why
we
did
this.
You
know
example
template
with
the
you
know,
high
frequency
trading
core
unit,
but
but
in
reality
you
know
answering
these
questions
I
think,
should
really
not
take
longer
than
an
hour
like
maximum
so
and
if
coordinates,
aren't
thinking
of
all
these
things
and
need
some
guidance
in
terms
of
how
they
should
be
asking
for
more
budget
in
certain
areas.
A
D
A
C
C
So,
for
instance,
like
think
about
the
requests,
for
instance,
that
that
information
is
included
to
how
they
would
cut
back
their
budget
or
spending
within
a
bear
market,
or
some
stretch,
goals
that
that
they
might
achieve
like
a
simple
question
on
its
face.
But
when
you
really
think
about
it,
it's
like
okay.
Well
now
I
have
to
think
about
what
are
the
market
scenarios
that
that
might
cause
this
to
happen?
C
How
does
this
affect
my
core
unit,
particularly,
like
you
know,
with
respect
like
I
think,
if
you're
only
spending
an
hour
additional
to
answer
that
question?
You're,
probably
not
answering
it
very
well,
and
then
you
have
transparency
as
well
as
returning
requirements
which
I'm
all
for
and
then
very
much
support.
A
So
here
I
think
I
want
to
dispel
this
idea
that
this
mip
is
asking
for
extra
work,
because
what
the
intention
is,
that's
not
at
all
the
intention.
The
intention
is
to
take
work
that
is
already
taking
place
to
put
together
these
budget
proposals
and
slide
it
into
a
structure
that
makes
it
easier
to
digest
so
like
for,
like
a
budget
request
that
has
been
written
in
the
current
unstructured
way.
Let's
say
by
someone
inexperienced
in
writing
budgets,
so
they
don't
necessarily
know
how
to
frame
it
or
how
to
structure
it
beyond
the
template.
A
That's
in
the
in
the
github
and
a
framework
that
tells
them
what
to
put
and
where,
ideally,
they
should
be
spending
less
time,
the
task
of,
and
then
regarding
the
task
of
preparing
for
a
bear
market
or
for
bull
market.
This,
I
think,
comes
it's
the
nature
of
the
beast.
We
need
to
be
able
to
adapt
to
volatile
market
environments,
it's
not
necessarily
something
that
needs
to
be
maintained
or
updated,
or
even
done
in
such
a
detailed
way
as
the
core
budget.
A
E
A
A
We
were
familiar
with
how
to
put
together
budgets,
we
put
together
budgets
ourselves,
and
so
this
is
definitely
something
that
we
can
help
with
people
who
who
need
it
and
who
ask
for
it
and-
and
that's
a
very
good
point
taken
and
we'll
think
of
a
way
to
to
frame
within
the
structure
of
this
map.
The
fact
that
this
help
is
available
and
that
it's
not
just
a
you
know,
sink
or
swim
situation.
I
mean
kind
of
a
sim
card,
but
you
know
we'll
help.
People
float
yeah.
B
B
B
B
Really
appreciated
yeah,
and-
and
thank
you
david,
I
also
want
to
encourage
everyone
with
these
great
ideas
and
thoughts.
Is
that
what
is
marketing?
What
was
the
window
for
this
april
4?
I
believe
it
was
or
I'm
sorry
is,
that
correct
to
have
some
feedback,
don't
forget
to
visit
the
forum.
We've
got
the
link
out
there
to
made
some
comments,
but
what
was
the
window?
Was
it
april
4
before
this
goes?
C
A
E
Yeah
two
last
points
to
illustrate
what
so,
what
payton
is
saying,
for
example,
already
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
on
the
budget
without
considering
market
conditions
and
how
it's
how
it
relates
to
like
the
mandatory
or
optional
nature
of
this
one
default
might
be
to
say.
Well,
if
you
know,
if,
if
it's
really
like
a
critical
core
unit,
there
really
might
not
be
like
this
might
already
be
my
minimum
viable
operations
and
these
to
the
the
two
scenarios.
E
E
E
E
A
I
guess
the
the
most
important,
hard
rule
that
we
wanted
to
introduce
was
the
concept
of
serving
the
token
holder
of
growing
the
revenues
of
the
protocol
and
of
improving
the
operations,
and
then
everything
else
should
follow.
This
is
the
thinking
behind
this
proposal
and
so
yeah
to
the
extent
that
nico
might
need
a
different
chart
of
accounts
to
explain
their
budget.
A
Doubt
everybody's
doing
their
best,
and
this
structure
should
help
them
communicate
that
clearly
and
show
that
this
value,
how
this
value
has
been
created
for
the
token
holder
and
then
everything
else
is,
is
more
about
the
implementation
and
the
detail
and
then
a
structure
to
hopefully
alleviate
a
lot
of
the
work
that
some
people
have
raised.
As
potential
issues.
B
Yeah
all
right,
well
that
that's
great
and
thank
you
for
offering
offline
further
discussion.
I
really
really
want
to
appreciate
it.
I
really
appreciate
everybody
being
here
having
a
great
great
number
of
questions
and
great
discussion
today,
again,
don't
forget
that
what
are
did
you
have
your
hand
raised
again.
B
All
right,
but
again,
thank
you
all
for
being
here
today.
I'm
sure
there
will
be
much
more
conversation
about
this
issue
and
thank
you
all
and
for
joining
us
here
today,
and
we
appreciate
it.
Please
stay
tuned
for
the
next
issue.
Discussion
call
next
month
again,
I'm
thomas
flitter
engagement
lead
for
governors
communications
and
thank
you
for
all
of
your
time.
Today
we
appreciate
it.