►
From YouTube: Regenerative Finance CVC Subcommittee Dry-Run - Decentralized Voter Committee | March 21st, 2023
Description
*Decentralized Voter Committee*
March 21st, 2023
*Description*
_The Decentralized Voter Committee (DVC) call is an ongoing series of open meetings where various elements of the Pregame and Endgame phases, Maker Constitution, and future direction of the DAO are clarified and discussed._
*Agenda*
Regenerative Finance CVC Subcommittee Dry-Run
*Disclaimer*
_This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services._
https://mips.makerdao.com
https://forum.makerdao.com
https://chat.makerdao.com
A
Hello,
everyone
today
is
Tuesday
March
21st
and
welcome
to
today's
DVC
call.
There
is
approximately
less
than
a
week
left
for
the
ratification
of
the
maker
Constitution
and
then
preparation
of
the
adoption
of
cbcs
today
we're
hosting
a
dry
run
of
the
regenerative,
Finance
CBC
subcommittee
meeting
for
the
stability
and
liquidity
scope.
That
is
a
little
bit
of
a
mouthful,
but
today
we
are
joined
by
kiyanga
as
well
as
room
to
host.
This
call,
with
that
we'll
hand
the
floor
over
to
our
host
today,
to
take
it
away.
B
C
So
great
I
will
share
my
screen
to
to
try
to
show
it
and
so
I
think
so
in
general.
In
any
case
where
you
know,
we
have
scope
Frameworks
that
are
not
very,
you
know,
detailed
or
very
in
a
very
good
shape.
Yet
then
I
think
always
the
place
to
start
is
the
advisory
Council
article
so
article
one
of
the
stability
of
liquidity,
scope,
framework
and
then
whatever
yeah,
okay,
maybe
I
should
have
actually
started
showing
that
on
the
I
think,
maybe
I
can
just
set
it
right
up
here.
C
C
You
know,
like
some
professional
work
to
to
to
shape
the
the
language
of
the
elements.
Oh
now,
I
can
change
my
tab
because
of
okay.
Okay,
there
we
go
so
in
particular,
there's
this.
This
class
called
1.3.1
that
I
think
we
I
mean
the
whole
thing
obviously
got
to
be
reworked,
so
I
mean
this
is
just
a
very
early
starting
point,
but
but
right
now,
the
way
the
article
works
is
it's
like
super
broad
I
mean
this
is
the
case
for
all.
C
Let's
go
framework,
so
I
guess
this
approach
should
be
repeated.
We'll
repeat
this
kind
of
discussion
for
all
of
the
the
the
subcommittees
I.
Would
I
mean
because
they
all
just
all
these
copy
pastors?
Are
the
thing
the
same
thing
initially
right,
but
so
there's
this
thing
of,
like
the
responsible
facilitators,
must
still
solicit
well,
I'll.
Read
it
right:
each
quarter,
if
they
demon
necessary,
the
responsible
facilitators,
must
solicit
proposals
and
find
one
or
more
suitable
advisory
council
members,
which
we
can
also
talk
about
a
little
bit.
C
This
workout
will
be
presented
to
the
CBC
for
self
committee
meetings
as
a
starting
point
for
the
CVC
scope
framework
position.
Documents,
as
many
cbcs
as
part
possible,
should
be
supported
this
way
prioritized
by
the
responsible
facilitators
right.
So
if
we,
you
know
improve
this
articles,
so
we
actually
so
it's
not
just
if
they
deem
it
necessary
with
no
specification,
then
we
can
sort
of
use
it
to
basically
cause
advisory
councils
to
come
to
us
and
present
us
some
good
improvements.
C
We
have
a
whole
quarter
to
discuss
how
we
actually
want
to
you
know
what
we
want
to
put
in
our
position
document,
which
is
our
like
proposal
for,
like
the
actual
changes
to
the
scope
framework
and
on
this
call
I'm
it's
more
about
just
figuring
out.
If
we're
in
agreement
about
these
points
or
if
there's
like,
maybe
there's
something
missing
on
like
what's
the
started.
C
Like
I
mean
it's
just
really
important
that
we,
we
don't
have
a
situation
where
other
stuff
is
prioritized
above
Alm
if
the
LM
logic
is
not
well
made,
which
it
currently
isn't
right.
Currently
it's
totally
arbitrary
and
then,
when
you
I
think
I
mean
so
it
would
be
great
if
someone
who
knows
more
about
this
could
chime
in.
C
I'm,
just
you
know
repeating
what
I've
heard
here
and
there
right,
but
but
it's
I
think
it
makes
sense.
I
mean
you
know,
given
that
we
don't
have
an
expert
to
tell
us
currently
and
we're
sort
of
starting
we
have
to
bootstrap
for
nothing.
Then
one
of
the
like
a
key
point,
I
think
would
be
really
good
to
put
in,
is
to
emphasize
that
when
you
want
to
do
LM.
The
first
thing
you
want
to
do
is
understand.
C
You
know,
have
a
lot
of
research
into
the
liability
like
the
the
usage
patterns
for
diet,
which,
where
we
actually
have
a
starting
point
for
that,
so
so
Seb
has
done
die,
demand
research
in
the
past
and
it
will
be
really
useful,
I
think
to
put
in
there
that
look,
if
there's
a
potential
project
where
someone
can
expand
on
that
as
a
kind
of
a
springboard
for
for
doing
Alm
suggestions.
That's
a
really
good
place
that
that
will
be
really
useful
to
to
encourage
that
I.
C
And
then
there's
this
thing
called
Article
5,
which
is
about
fire
selling
of
assets
and
I.
Think
there's
something
something
there's
currently
something
totally
missing
from
the
LM
framework,
which
is
the
difference
between
an
asset
maturing
and
then
an
asset
being
sold
a
fire
sold
and
right
now
it
seems
like
it
doesn't
recover
anything
related
to
maturity.
It
only
covers.
Can
you
sell
it
immediately,
which
actually
can
with
most
things
so
so,
actually
the
restrictions
that
are
in
the
in
the
rules
right
now?
C
Don't
they
don't
restrict
much
like,
for
instance,
any
duration
of
Treasury
probably
qualifies
currently
because
they
can
all
be
sold
instantly
or
like
very
fast.
So,
even
if
it's
like
a
10-year
treasury,
it
fits
under
the
current
restrictions.
I
think
and
we
we
probably
wanna,
have
an
expert
help
us
figure
out.
If
that's
a
good
idea
or
not
and
restricted,
find
waste,
restricted,
okay
and
then
finally,.
C
You
know,
use
bandwidth
that
could
be
used
for
Alm
to
do
stuff.
That
is
not
Alm
like
I
think
we
may
want
to
explicitly
forbid
that,
basically,
so
that
there's
no
chance
it
can
happen
because
yeah
in
my
experience,
it's
like
a
it's
a
thing
in
Dallas
that
that
the
it
can
be
really
good
to
be
like
look,
there's
some
stuff,
that's
more
exciting,
like
credit
risk
is
more
exciting
than
Ellen
I.
Think
a
lot
of
people
think
that
and
we
want
to
avoid
them
that
people
like.
C
C
B
Okay,
Defensor,
let
me
go
through
the
chat
and
share
what
you've
been
saying:
okay,
so
agreement
that
the
focus
on
Alm
is
a
great
starting,
a
static
risk
assessment
went
off
where
we
are.
You
know
from
where
we
are
right.
Now
is
a
good
place
to
start,
identify
and
communicate
the
gap
between
the
perceived
value
proposition
of
the
users
of
dye
and
the
actual
risk.
E
Sure
yeah,
no
problem,
okay,
yeah
I,
think
my
points
around
this
are
similar
to
what
roon
Express
for
liquidity
is
basically
which
Investments
can
be
sold
off
the
quickest
without
you
know,
having
capital
or
collateral
losses
right
now,
there's
you
know
basic
understanding
of
when
they
can
come
back,
but
I
think
firming.
That
up
is
necessary.
E
Just
like
we
know
in
the
case
of
a
crisis
where
we
should
be
pulling
funds
from
and
a
realistic
timeline
of
Windows
would
be
available.
Obviously
you
would
start
with
the
ones
that
have
the
least
impact,
but
that's
just
something
that
I
think
is
like
a
good
Next
Step
too
to
develop.
You
know
the
liquidity
framework.
C
Yeah,
the
information
said
that
that
I
think
that's
Article,
Five
I
mean,
or
rather
that's
a
place.
This
is
It's
a
super
crude
form
right
now,
but
I
think
that
would
that
could
be
a
place
to
build
those
mechanics
of
like
which
one
to
I
think
it's
called
fire
selling
currently,
but
I
mean
I'm.
That's
probably
also
not
the
best
thing
to
call
it
that
in
all
cases,
but
but
there
that's
where
you
could
have
rules
raised
to
that
episode.
C
F
F
We
had
what
3.3
million
dollars
exposed
to
usdc,
they
could
have
went
horribly
wrong,
not
just
for
them,
but
you
know,
I
mean
that's
where
a
significant
amount
of
our
Holdings
are
so
diversification
across
multiple
channels
might
be
something
that
we
could
possibly
look
at
in
the
future
or
be
thinking
about
in
the
process
of
building
this
so
I
mean
it's.
We
don't
know
how
long
the
fed's
going
to
continue
this.
We
don't
know
what
their
guarantees
are
going
to
be.
I
mean
right
now,
everything's
in
flux
and
change
from
day
to
day
to
day.
F
B
Great
thanks
for
sharing
that
also
in
the
chat.
Is
it
just
a
question
about
my
role
as
a
moderator,
so
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
bit
of
color
on
that
introduce
myself
a
little
bit
better.
So
I
am
a
founding
member
of
a
tokenized
community
called
acre.
Dows
stands
for
autonomous
communities
for
regenerative
economies.
B
Obviously
this
is
a
test
run,
so
this
hasn't
happened
yet,
but
we
proposed
to
create,
after
registering
as
a
member,
the
Dow
acre
Dows
proposed
to
create
a
regenerative,
Finance,
CBC
and
so
I
am
a
representative
of
the
Dow
in
terms
of
my
role
today
in
hosting
the
meeting.
But
of
course
there
are
other
members
of
the
regenerative
Finance
CBC
and
the
CBC
is
you
know
for
any
maker
holder,
who's
interested
in
regenerative
economy,
running
Finance,
it's
a
very
huge
topic.
B
A
C
C
D
Mean
property
part
of
the
process
is
that
when,
when
after
rooner
has
proposed
his
his
addition
to
the
scope,
this
Edition
would
have
to
somehow
evolve
the
Scopes
in
a
manner
that
fits
with
the
overarching
goal
of
the
of
the
refine
CBC
right
like
because
otherwise
it
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
really
make
make.
A
lot
of
sense
like
I,
could
come
into
the
the
growth
CBC
as
a
holder
and
say,
like
oh
High,
propose
cutting
all
budgets
by
20
and
then
the
question
is
like.
D
C
So
can
I
suggest
that
we
talk
I
mean
because
this
is
super
important.
This
is
more
important
than
the
like.
This
is
crucial
information,
but
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
let's
sort
of
try
to
kind
of
finish
the
test
run
of
the
CVC,
and
then
we
can
get
into
these
details,
because
this
is
what's
going
to
be
really
exciting
to
talk
about,
but
but
yeah
I
think
you
know
like
to
just
to
kind
of
try
to
to
sort
of
end.
C
The
the
test
run
right,
I
mean
as
a
the
object
like
the
con.
The
point
is
that
we
have
said
we
haven't.
We
go
on
call
the
different
members
discuss
what's
going
on
in
the
scope
framework,
what
sort
of
what's
relevant
for
for
maker
right?
How
do
we
look
out
for
the
interests
of
meager
in
the
context
of
the
CBC
and
we'll
talk
about
that
after
how
that
fits
to
the
refine
and
why
this
I
think
is
completely
like
this
is
perfectly
compatible.
We
will
talk
through
that
later
and
I
guess.
C
The
kind
of
the
the
big
thing
we're
actually
looking
for
is
stuff,
where
we
disagree
so
that
we
can
find
out
through
the
call
what
are
the
stuff.
We
should
be
talking
a
lot
about
on
the
Forum
afterwards
right,
so
that
we
don't
every
disagree
and
everything
and
then
two
weeks
before
the
deadline,
where
we
have
to
submit
a
position
document
in
order
to
maintain
our
active
status.
C
Suddenly
we
find
out
we
like
disagree
in
something
really
fundamental
right,
and
then
we
have
to
rush
in
a
week
to
find
an
agreement
instead
of
on
the
call
very
early
figuring
out.
This
is
the
thing
we
got
to
debate
a
lot
right,
so
I
think,
maybe
just
to
to
kind
of
role
play
that
a
little
bit
or
like
you
know
how
see
how
that
that
would
happen
right,
because
I
saw
a
comment.
I'm
just
trying
to
scroll
up
I
saw
a
comment:
yeah
I
mean
okay.
C
This
is
actually
already
covered,
but
this
thing
of,
like
I,
think
insurability
versus
lost
potential
is
important
as
well.
I'm.
Maybe
I'm
truly
misunderstanding
that,
but
to
say
that
this
is
about
insurance,
somehow
something
race
or
doing
some
insurance
stuff
which
to
me
sounds
like
that's
something:
that's
not
necessarily
what
you
would
cover
in
the
first
Alm
pass,
maybe
I'm
totally
wrong.
C
Let's
just
like
pretend
suspend
disbelief
and
imagine
this
is
like
someone
saying
there's
this
thing
called
insurability
and
that's
also
really
important
and
then
I
would
basically
say,
look
I,
think
that's
important
and
so
on,
but
I
think
I
want
to
put
that
under
other
optimizations,
like
I.
Think
it's
really
important
that
we,
you
know
we're
not
in
doubt
about
is
the
first
thing
they're
going
to
do.
This
kind
of
die,
demand,
analysis
and
Alm
thing
or
some
other
things
and
I
would
really
like
that.
C
The
CDC,
like
I,
think
it's
the
cdc's
interest
to
having
have
this
like
clear
focus
on
you
know,
sort
of
forcing
the
facilitator
to
make
sure
the
first
project
is
Alm
focused
and
then
we
sort
of
know
what
we're
going
to
get.
So
we
don't
have
to
you
know,
so
we
don't
accidentally
get
something.
That's
about
insurability
or
credit
risk.
I
can
maybe
I
might
be
wrong
about
the
instrument
building.
It's
like
an
example
of
I
mean.
C
C
That's
really
important
that
you
know
that
that's
the
you
know
that
we
figure
that
out,
because
you
know
that
that's
that's
critical
and
then
towards
the
end
like
I
guess
it
was
sort
of
circle
back
to
then
kianga
and
acres,
and
maybe
other
members
at
the
end
of
the
call
will
then
be
like
what
are
we?
What
do
we
agree
on
and
what
do
we
disagree
on?
So
we
know
what
should
we
be?
What
are
the
stuff?
We
want
to
figure
out
what
our
decision
is
and
how
we
make
that
decision.
B
B
For
sure
and
I
think
also
there's
this,
this
Dynamic,
where
we
want
the
CBC,
is
not
what
I
say
it
is
it's
also
not
what
acre
dows
says,
but
that
we're
playing
I
am
and
acre
Dows
and
and
those
who
will
become
involved,
who
are
connected
to
acre
Jazz,
are
helping
all
of
the
members
who
join
the
CBC
come
up
with
that
articulate
statement
right
and
that
would
be
our
I
guess:
policy,
docu
or
position
document.
In
addition
to
I,
mean
there's
our.
B
There
are
documents
that
we
publish
about
each
scope,
a
CBC
and
then
there's
sort
of
like
the
overall
position
paper
of
the
CBC
and
so
to
start
off.
You
know
I
I,
Envision,
that
the
whole
first,
the
whole
first
quarter,
which
is
the
second
quarter,
will
be
kind
of
an
exercise
in
crafting
that
concise
statement
together.
C
C
Let's
get
back
to
like
closing
out
the
meeting,
and
so
so
in
that
sense,
like
I
mean
basically
Edgar
dance
are,
of
course,
the
big
feather
elephant
here
they
have
the
most
votes
so,
from
my
perspective,
I'm
very
interested
in
hearing
what
you
think
on
like.
Basically,
what
do
you
think
is
the
next
step
when
I
propose,
let's
put
in
some
clear
rules,
let's
say
Alem
first,
other
stuff
comes
later.
Basically
are
you
do
you
think
that
sounds?
That's
close.
B
Yep,
yep
and
I
think
you
know.
My
sense
is,
though,
there's
a
lot
of
async.
That
will
happen
with
obviously
the
cvcs,
so
there'll
be
things
that
are
communicated
before
each
subcommittee
meeting,
and
you
know
an
agenda
probably
published
in
advance
and
then
yeah
these
things
that
in
this
call
we
don't
have
a
precise
answer
for
in
terms
of
you
know
some
of
the
comments
on
the
side
about
polls
and
how
we
decide
but
I
think
for
purpose
of
this
test
run.
B
You
know
we
had
some
good
alignment
from
those
on
the
call
about
you
know
what
you
presented.
Roon
and
I
would
say
yeah
after
after
the
call
will
sort
of
like
confirm
that
async
and
see
who
might
take
a
first
crack
at
you
know
some
of
the
more
specific
language
to
implement.
You
know
kind
of
what
we
discussed
today.
G
C
There
could
be
a
kind
of
a
traffic
light
thing
of
like.
Sometimes
the
answer
is
wow.
This
is
great.
This
is
like
dumb.
You
know
on
a
civil
platter,
everyone
loves
it.
It's
like
rubber
stamp,
almost
right
and
the
CDC
is
going
to
focus
on
other
things
that
this
quarter
because,
like
this,
could
also
be
an
advisory.
Council
comes
with
something
and
the
CVC
is
just
like
yeah.
We
love
it
great,
and
then
this
The
Advisory
Council,
just
and
given
you
guys
at
the
refined
CBC,
and
you
like
this
very
balanced
approach.
C
We
love
it,
you
know
and
then,
like
the
rest
of
the
quarter,
you
just
that's
just
not
what
the
CVC
is
focusing
on
for
the
rest
of
the
quarter
right.
So
that's
like
green
light
right.
It's
like
everyone
seems
to
love
this
We're
Not
Really,
Gonna
Pro,
like
we're,
not
gonna,
set
a
lot
of
time.
You
know
set
a
lot
of
time
aside
for
this,
because
you
know
last
week
when
we
were
talking
about
marketing
right,
we
were
like
fighting
about.
C
Should
we
focus
on
Latin
America,
or
should
we
focus
on
Africa
and-
and
there
was
like
a
big
split
in
the
CBC
about
that,
and
so
that's
what
we're
going
to
spend
the
quarter
to
really
ride
like
debate
right
and
then
I
guess
you
know
like
red,
would
be
I
mean,
so
that
would
be
a
red
light
right
that
one
that
would
be
like
there's
some
clear
differences
and
then
I
guess
like
the
neutral,
is
more
like
yeah.
You
know
not
against
not
necessarily
ready
to
stamp
give
stamina
approval
either.
A
C
Of
course,
I'm
completely
pretending
like
this
is
purely
to
like
the
explore
the
kind
of
the
interaction
of
how
this
all
works.
I.
You
know,
I'll
need
to
think
a
little
bit
more
about
this
before,
like
this
is
not
a
serious
I
mean
I'll
redo
this
for
for
two
weeks
from
now,
with
a
little
bit
more
thought
put
into
it,
and
then,
of
course
like
post
it
in
advance
and
so
on.
B
So
so,
yes,
and
and
to
to
address
Johnny's
comment
in
the
cat
in
the
chat
failing
to
understand
why
the
refi
CVC
would
review
Alm
when
they
are
focused
on
other
topics.
Could
we
review
the
ones
that
this
CBC
is
focused
on
so
I
think?
My
comment
to
that
is
that
you
know
first
and
foremost
we
are
we
I'm
representing
acre
Dallas
that
holds
mkr
on
a
treasury,
so
in
the
whole
CBC
model
is
about.
You
know,
mkr
holders
interests.
B
We
can't
regenerate
the
Earth
through
our
participation
in
maker
down,
so
I.
Think
it's
going
to
be
interesting
to
see
like
what
the
contributions
of
a
regenerative,
Finance
CBC
will
be
toward
topics
and
Specialties
and
technical
issues.
Where
you
know
it's
not
per
se
about
environment
or
about
you
know
any
of
the
regenerative
themes
writ
large,
but
you
know
I
think
it
there's
so
much
room
for
it
to
be
quite
interesting.
B
B
You
know
ability
to
contribute,
and-
and
so
so
that
from
that
lens,
even
like
the
workforce
or
the
arbitration
scope,
you
know
how
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
areas
of
organizational
design
that
I
would
say
fit
Within
a
a
regenerative
economy
or
regenerative
Finance
value
set.
So
we're
really
I
think
you
know
I'm
biased,
obviously,
since
I've
been
part
of
proposing
this,
but
I
think
it's
gonna.
It's
an
interesting
in
that
it's
it's
a
it's
a
niche
and
it's
very
obviously
aligned
with
with.
B
If
the
vote
passes
maker
will
be
putting
you
know,
public
goods
and
purpose
in
the
Constitution,
so
I
think
it's
helpful,
that
that
has
some
traction
right
away
with
with
the
regenerative
Finance
CBC.
But
then
also
it's
broad
enough
that
you
know
we
really
can
still
participate
or
we
can
help
create
the
structure.
B
C
C
C
C
C
To
require
that
all
cvcs,
they
you
know
they,
actually
they
like
a
lot
like
I
mean
they
sort
of
communicate
where
they
sit
on
this
spectrum.
Because
if
you
don't
have
a
position
in
this
spectrum,
then
you
saw
a
can't
function
and
you
can't
like
have
a
NL
Alm
stands
and
so
on.
That's
impossible
right,
but
the
other
crucial
thing
is
like
cbc's.
They
have
to
cover
everything
so
and
that's
why
they
have
to
do
this,
like
you
cannot.
C
So
again,
you
simply
cannot
have
a
CVC
that
number
one
doesn't
cover
all
topics.
That's
a
requirement
of
BCC
like
you
can
go,
read
the
rules.
It's
like
you
cannot
be
a
CVC
if
you
don't
cover
all
topics
and
if
you
don't
have
an
opinion
on
all
topics,
and
that
includes
Alm
includes
protocol
engineering
includes
everything
right
and
the
reason
why
that's
even
possible
I
mean,
of
course,
why
you
know
how
can
a
bunch
of
refi
people
or
whatever
sit
and
and
control
Alm,
stuff
or
control,
Smart
kind
of
stuff,
and
that
question.
B
B
C
C
So
this,
then
it
will,
you
know,
could
easily
become
the
classic
thing
of
delegates
will
try
to
find
ways
to
increase
the
pay
or
something
right
and
ecosystem
access
will
find
ways
to
get
bigger
budgets
and
do
more
stuff
and
and
everyone
that's.
You
know
not
that
I'm
not
primarily
motivated
as
being
empowerless
but
rather
motivated
by
getting
some
kind
of
you
know
special
payment
out
of
the
protocol.
They
all
ultimately
sort
of
will
have
the
shared
incentive
of
keeping
the
party
going
right
like
it's
those
guys
over
there.
C
They
get
some
extra
money
and
those
guys
over
there
get
some
a
lot
of
money
and
there's
a
lot
of
work
over
there
and
a
lot
of
budget
over
there.
Everyone's
gonna
have
like,
if,
if
nothing's
stopping
it,
then
actually
nobody,
none
of
them
should
go
and
say
hey.
Are
we
going
a
little
bit
too
far?
They're
incentives
to
just
keep
going
right
and
if
you
insert
and
then
care
holder
somewhere
like
someone
who
actually
isn't
getting
a
special
payout
or
or
you
know
like
or
in
the
case
of
I
mean
then
the
CDC.
C
There
is
a
tiny
payout,
but
it's
so
small
that
it's
like
you're,
basically
you're
more
than
a
year
old
or
a
more
you
know,
an
impact
volunteer,
then
you're
a
paid
contributor
because
of
the
the
symbolic
compensation,
and
in
that
case
suddenly
this,
like
you,
sort
of
break
the
this,
this
game
theory
right
because
now,
basically
there
are
people
looking
right
and
as
a
result
and
I
mean
another
that
there
are.
You
know
there
are
all
these
rules
and
mechanisms
that
are
basically
meant
to
keep.
C
Governor
or
whatever,
on
chair,
Alm,
the
bus
right,
because
the
delegates
and
advisory
councils
and
the
facilitators
and
all
sorts
of
ecosystem
actors
I
mean
their
job,
will
always
involve
trying
to
make
things
extremely
accessible
and
adjustable
for
you,
so
that
you
can
verify
that
it's
going
according
it's
going
the
way
should
it's
it's
in
the
interest
of
MK
analyst,
it's
in
interest
of
the
system,
it's
in
interest
of
the
public,
good
purpose
and
then
yeah.
So
that's
the
kind
of
that's
one
thing.
C
The
other
thing
is
then
the
kind
of
the
decision
of
what
is
what's
the
system
overdoing
right
now?
What's
the
system
missing
right
now
within
the
boundaries
of
the
Constitution
of
the
rules
and
so
on?
Right
and
that's
where
it
comes
back
this
thing
of
coming
back
to
this,
like
the
general
strategy
of
hawkish
versus
damage
right,
but
there's
always
going
to
be
people
who
disagree
on
on
like
how
much
should
you
know?
Are
we
spending
too
much
or
spending
too
little?
C
Should
we
focus
on
the
long
terms,
you're
focus
on
the
short
term
right,
so
you
always
have
have.
Every
CBC
will
will
position
themselves
somewhere
on
that
and
like
when
they
sort
of
think
about.
Why
should
I
mean
when
they
want
to
basically
say
why
should
you
delegate
to
our
government
strategy
rather
than
somebody.
F
C
Governance
strategy
right
then,
they'll
be
like
you
should
delegate
to
us,
because
we
know
that
we
need
to
spend
the
big
bucks
to
get
the
big
marketing
campaign
to
get
the
big
results
right
to
entrench
ourselves
and
take
over
the
whole
world
in
two
years
or
whatever,
and
others
would
be
like.
You
need
to
delegate
to
us
because
we
know
how
to
make
sure
the
the
budgets
don't
spin
out
of
control,
and
then
we
get
you
know.
We
accumulate
value
to
days
that
we
can
weather
the
storm
tomorrow.
B
Rowan
I
just
want
to
stay
on
that
I
just
want
to
say
on
that
point.
Also.
People
should
keep
in
mind
that
some,
an
mkr
holder
can
delegate
across
multiple
strategies
and
cbcs.
So,
whereas
now,
you
sort
of
probably
delegate
to
one
delegate
well,
not
every
not
entirely,
but
but
that
Dynamic
is
still
there
and
so
like
to
Johnny's
comments
that
you
know
the
refi
CBC,
maybe
would
not
make
recommendations
on
how
software
code
works
and
I
think
some
of
the
other
comments
in
the
chat
is
like
you
know.
C
C
But
in
that
interest
of
increasing
the
public
good
they'll
want
to
review
proposals
related
to
the
protocol,
because
they
want
to
make
sure
that
no
one's
trying
to
put
like
a
backdo
in
there
to
drain
all
the
money
right
or
like
while
no
one's
looking
right.
They
want,
so
they
want
to
make
sure
you
know.
Did
you
do
the
audits
you
were
supposed
to
do
according
to
the
rules?
Right?
Was
it
from
the
like?
It's
basically
it
like.
C
So
it's
you
know
it's
to
prevent
the
kind
of
sort
of
I
mean
disregard
for
the
mkr
holder
and
and
sort
of
the
the
the
regular
MPL
holder
and
community
and
and
sort
of
passive
holder
interests.
That
could
happen
over
time.
If
no
one's
looking
right,
like
because
I
mean
there,
it
really
is
basically
no
incentive,
I
mean
at
least
in
the
in
all
structure.
C
That,
then,
is
like
up
to
the
individual
CBC
right,
so
I
mean
and
then
one
thing
I
want
to
show
that
I
mean
and
I
wanted.
To
make
more
of
these
spectrums.
We
could
maybe
discuss
that
now
could
be
something
interesting,
hypothetical
thing
to
discussed
right,
but
so
like
where
the
hawkish
versus
damage
spectrum
is
like
Universal
and
all
cbcs
sit
somewhere
in
that,
then
there's
all
these
other
spectrums.
C
You
know,
purpose
System,
charity
competition
every
year,
for
instance,
and
also
which
types
of
companies
are
incubated
for
new
upcoming
allocator
dials
to
make
them
have
you
know
a
unique
culture
and
a
unique
value
proposition
and
something
that's
going
to
attract
the
community
and
make
them.
You
know,
stand
out
and
able
to
generate
value,
but
then,
on
other
stuff,
like
I
mean
and
then
I've
put
the
I
mean
we
discussed
this
right.
C
I
put
it
like
they're
like
right
in
the
middle
right,
because
basically,
this
is
like
they
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
lots
of
value
that
can
go
to
charity
and
purpose
like
public,
good
purpose,
sort
of
use
cases
and
the
kind
of
no-brainer
way
to
achieve
that
is
to
take
a
balanced
approach
like
if
you
don't
have
some
kind
of
bias
around.
Like
oh
maker
needs
to
do
this
or
that
to
to
be
as
impactful
as
possible.
C
C
And
then,
if
you
compare
that
to
the
growth
CBC,
it's
sort
of
the
opposite
of
this.
So
the
growth
CBC
is
neutral
in
every
other,
like
in
every
sort
of
unique
or
bespoke
Spectrum,
and
the
only
place
where
it
has
a
like.
So
so,
the
grocery
is
like,
let's
be
balanced
with
how
we
do
a
public
good,
it
could
be.
Anything
could
be.
Let's
do
some
Financial
inclusion:
let's
do
some
regeneration.
Let's
do
some
AI
Safety
Research.
Let's
do
some
education.
Let's
you
know,
support
vaccines
doesn't
really
matter
right.
C
So
again,
you
cannot
like
redirect
funds
in
the
system
away
from
you
know,
protocol
engineering
or
security
maintenance
and
towards
charity
of
public
goods,
like
that's
a
that's,
not
possible
in
how
the
Constitution
works
right,
but
you
can
redirect
money
away
from
Financial
inclusion,
inclusion
over
to
Regeneration
or
whatever
vaccines
whatever.
It
is
right.
C
So
I
hope
that
helps
give
some
some
like
some
some
kind
of
context
into
this
right.
So
in
the
end,
what
having
this?
Probably
a
good
purpose
really
helps
with
very
clearly
in
this
case.
Is
that
it
actually
it's
a
way
to
actually
have
some
people
even
want
to
do
this,
so
that
we
have
some
cbcs,
because
without
cpcs
the
whole
system
falls
apart
right
and
it
it
fundamentally
needs
the
cvcs
to
function,
because
otherwise,
there's
just
no
like
check
against
the
iron
law
of
bureaucracy.
C
G
G
Sorry
no
I
was
wondering
my
understanding
is
that
we
are
we're
still
looking
for
services
as
a
method
to
specialize
and
in
terms
of
what
people
are
experts
in
and
what
they
comment
in
on
what
they
contribute
to.
But
as
I
understood,
CBC
would,
let's
say
just
to
exemplify
with
you
like
a
CVC
on
based
on
refi
would
look
at
security
issues
and
rather
than
creating
an
opinion
of
themselves,
they
will
simply
delegate
that
opinion
to
another
CBC
that
would
be
specialized
in
security
matters.
G
C
Yeah
because
I
just
want
to
clear
up,
because
I
totally
understand
that
you
have
this
like
why
you
have
this
impression,
because
that's
like
the
natural,
that's
how
you
would
initially
sort
of
rock
it
and,
of
course
that's
what
they're
supposed
to
do
right
but
yeah.
Unfortunately,
it's
not
that
simple
and
if-
and
the
reason
is
like
you
have
to
understand,
the
function
of
the
CVC
is
to
be
I
mean
one
way
to
put
it,
even
though
it's
a
it's
an
oversimplification,
it's
like
a
wrong.
C
Usually
it's
not
a
good
way
to
put
it
right,
but
they're
like
an
anti-corruption
mechanism
in
a
sense
they're
like
they're,
like
an
immune
system,
or
something
like
that
that
has
an
ability
to
help
the
system
discover
that
it
has.
It
has
fallen
into
some
of
these
incentive
trips
that
can
exist
in
it
now
and
then
actually
take
some
kind
of,
like
you
know,
like
initiative,
like
some
kind
of
like
a
Grassroots
initiative.
C
So,
what's
way
more
important
than
having
like
specialized
cvcs
that
are
really
good
at
doing
particular
things
is
to
just
have
you
know
as
many
people
as
possible.
You
know
overseeing
like
sort
of
viewing
the
reports
getting
the
the
reports
getting
the
results,
checking
the
that
it's
done
as
it
should
be
doing.
C
Sort
of
you
know,
you
know
funky
stuff
happening
right
now,
of
course,
and
and
and
again,
I
guess.
A
kind
of
a
context
of
this
is
that
in
the
eyes
of
one
CBC,
what
another
CBC
is
doing
could
be
some
weird
stuff
right,
because
of
course,
the
system
starts
immediately
starts
breaking.
If
you
have
a
CBC
colluding
with
like
if
the
entire
Workforce
is
colluding
and
then
there's
a
single
CPC
and
the
CBC
is
colluding
with
the
entire
Workforce
now
you've
I
mean,
then
you
have
the
same
problem
right.
C
So
that's
why
you
also
want
to
have
ideally
multiples
of
them,
because
then
another
CBC
could
be
like
well.
Why
are
these
guys
over
here
suggesting
more
and
more
and
more
spending
all
the
time
right?
We
got
to
make
sure
that
there
we
get
to
the
bottom
of.
Why
that's
happening
right
and-
and
that's
where
you
end
up
with
this,
like
spectrum
of
like
no,
we
shouldn't
miss
any
more.
We
should
be
spending
less.
C
What
the
hell
is
going
on,
I
mean:
well,
that's
not
always
going
to
be
the
basis
of
it
right,
but
that's
how
the
politics
could
manifest.
Quite
easily,
right
and
and
and
and
so
the
point
is
that
you
exactly
do
not
want
to
have
a
situation
where
you
say:
oh,
these
guys
are
the
it's
micro.
Drink
experts
will
I,
let
them
handle
it.
If
they
say
it's
good,
it's
good.
We
don't
need
to
check
right.
C
We
want
to
do
the
opposite
right,
it's
trust
but
verify
and
that's
like
the
function
of
the
the
cbcs,
basically
anyway.
So
with
that
being
said
really,
ideally
in
the
CVC,
they
get
big
enough
and
popular
enough
and
prestigeful
enough,
and
all
that
that
they
have
lots
of
members
and
those
members
specialize
in
their
subcommittees
right.
So
you
know
the
refi
CBC.
Some
people
would
be
like
they
love,
refi
and
they're,
also
smackery
tips.
C
But
then,
when
it
comes
to
marketing
like
no
we're
super
We're,
not
gonna
we're
gonna
be
hawkish.
When
it
comes
to
marketing
we're,
not
that
interested
in
marketing,
we
think
we
should
just
you
know,
save
the
money
and
build
more
value
into
the
system,
and
then
the
public
good
will
be
doing
is
gonna,
be
all
the
marketing
we
need
for
something
right,
and
but
there
needs
to
be
that
I
mean
the
point.
Is
there
is
this?
Like
coherence
is
like?
G
On
the
workforce
level,
where
we
one
of
the
initial
assumptions
for
coordinates,
was
to
have
multiple
redundant
teams,
then
they
never
came
out,
because
if
you
already
have
a
team
doing,
but
you
know
on
my
side
doing
data,
why
would
you
just
bring
up
another
team
just
to
compete
against
an
established
team
so
with
a
sub-down
model?
Like
sorry,
the
metadar
model
that
kind
of
gets
sold
in
a
way
of
saying,
okay
you're,
you
essentially
have
a
bottom
line.
G
What's
the
most
popular
option,
and
then
we
have
a
lot
of
people
talking
discussing,
there's
very
little
like
let's
say
execution
of
it,
because
most
people
just
are
not
experts
enough.
That
I
can
talk
about
it.
So
we
just
everyone
just
like
naturally
call
it
like
just
defaults
to
a
single
person
or
a
single
group
that
is
just
naturally
deemed
the
experts
without
actually
having
a
let's
say,
an
expert
group
of
one
particular
topic.
C
Yeah
and
so
I
I
agree,
I
mean
that's
a
central
point.
You
make
here
right
and
that's
a
central
kind
of
part
of
what
the
system
is
trying
to
solve
and
I
mean
that's.
Why
exactly
in
this
sort
of
simulated
simulated
test
run
CBC
subcommittee
meeting
right.
The
thing
we
were
focused
on
is:
how
do
we
hire
the
expert
that
tells
us
how
we're
going
to
solve
email
right?
So
that's
like
the
article
one
of
every
single
School
framework
is
the
advisory
Council
and
that's
exactly.
C
The
point
is
like
the
answer
to
the
problem.
You're
presenting,
which
is
a
really
fundamental
problem,
is
the
advisor
Council,
basically,
that
you
shouldn't
have
randos
done:
improvering,
complicated
language
and
math
related
to
Alm,
when
you
can
just
pay
the
money
and
hire
a
real
expert
and
you're
absolutely
going
to
get
that
back
tenfold
when
you
don't
have
a
stupid
rule
right
and,
of
course,
in
the
shoulder
I
mean
in
the
short
run.
We
have
no
choice
but
we're
to
rely
on
on
random
stuff
written
by
me
in
some
cases
and
other
stuff.
C
C
We
do
have
one
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
bootstrapping
problem,
which
is
I
mean
if
you
don't
already
have
an
expert,
it's
hard
to
hire
an
expert
and
yeah.
Luckily,
we
are
I
mean
when
it
comes
to
something
like
stability
liquidity.
The
good
news
in
that
front
is
we
have
enough
capacity
in
the
in
the
ecosystem
that
I
think
we
got
some
good
leads
and
like
some
good
choices
there,
but
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
anyone
that
has
that
is
sort
of
worried
about
this
or
thinks
this
is
a
like.
C
We
got
to
be
able
to
deal
with
this.
The
way
you
can
take
action
and
and
really
like
help
with
with
relatively
little
work
and
have
a
huge
impact
on
how
to
help
is
to
try
to
think
about
how
to
define
what
types
of
experts
are
we
looking
for.
How
do
we
determine
that
they're
skilled?
How
do
we
determine
that?
They
don't
have
some
kind
of
conflict
of
interest.
C
C
We
will
likely
have
the
funds
to
pay
for
like
pay
for
the
best,
because
we
pay
for
it
once
they
give
us
this
big
project
where,
like
really
Advanced,
Alm
solution,
and
then
we
could
run
with
that
for
a
very
long
time
right,
because
we
just
write
it
into
a
scopes.
Now,
it's
there
black
and
white.
Anyone
can
read
it.
Anyone
can
follow
it.
Anyone
can
verify
it's
being
followed
as
it
should
and-
and
you
know
we
can
get
a
lot
of
value
out
of
just
one
good
rule
right.
H
Thanks
no
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
the
order,
so
if
we
kind
of
go
back
to
the
role
playing,
obviously,
if
this
was
April
1st,
you
probably
would
need
for
the
solicitation
of
proposals
to
improve
the
scope
for
stability
and
liquidity,
and
then
I
would
imagine.
The
responsible
facilitator
is
the
one
who
solicits
those
proposals
and
I
guess
the
advisory
council
members
would
then
review
them,
and
you
know
as
an
example-
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
getting
all
this
wrong.
H
Somebody
comes
in
with
a
proposal
and
says
commercial
back.
Security.
Cmbs
are
the
way
you
go
because
they
are.
They
pertain
to
section
three
of
mip
103
the
the
scope
which
says
that
the
overall
duration
risks
of
dicolateral
portfolio
should
either
be
an
Alm
tier
one
or
a
Alm
tier
two.
So
the
cmbs
that
I'm
recommending
that
die
should
be
backed
by
it's
an
Alm
tier
2
collateral.
That
has
a
duration
that
can
be
reversed.
H
I,
don't
know
if
that's
the
right
word
within
one
month
with
a
Target
exposure
of
up
to
65.
So
because
I'm
just
reading
the
MIP
103
section
three.
Is
that
how
it
would
work
where
you
would
have
again,
the
responsible
facilitator,
solicit
proposals,
and
maybe
a
month
later,
somebody
will
come
back
with
the
proposal
and
the
advisory
Council
would
be
like
yeah.
Let's
do
commercial
back
Securities.
They
totally
work
according
to
scope,
MIP
103.
B
I
have
caught
something
there,
which
is
The
Advisory
council
members
cannot
be
the
same
people
who
are
proposing
to
to
be
like
customers
or
do
business
with
the
Dow.
So
we
we
wouldn't
want
to
be
getting
our
to
correct
me
if
I'm,
if
I've
got
this
wrong
room,
but
we
we
don't
want
we
want
to.
We
want
to
eventually
get
to
the
point
where
we've
got
this
sort
of
expert
Network.
B
C
C
Absolutely
we
I
mean
we've
just
seen
in
the
past,
so
many
times
that
when
people
want
to
propose
deals
to
maker
like
good
deals,
they
also
would
very
much
like
to
help
make
the
rules
and
help
you
know
decide
what
turn
what
counts
as
a
good
deal
and
what
counts
as
a
bad
deal,
and
so
I
think.
We've
learned
of
that.
C
Enough
of
that,
to
the
point
where
now
we
actually
already
have
a
bunch
of
like
we've,
got
the
protector
advisors,
advisor
teams
right
and
they're,
pretty
good,
but
they're
still
like
to
me
they're,
clearly
not
enough.
We
need
someone
who
are
totally
independent,
who
are
not
even
in
any
way
associated
with
an
arranger,
for
instance,
for
I
mean
especially
when
it
comes
to
Alm
or
something
like
that,
but
okay.
So
that
that's
my
point.
C
C
No,
but
but
I
just
want
to
comment
on
on
the
this,
like
I,
want
to
comment
specifically
what
you
said:
3F
good
meta,
but
I
also
want
to
make
a
sort
of
underlying
point,
because
this
is
another
misconception
I
see
a
lot
of
people
have
with
the
CDC
right.
Basically,
this
thing
of
their
cap
that
they're
tied
in
with
the
responsible,
like
the
facilitators
and
with
the
kind
of
the
Machinery
like
the
advisory
council's
on
and
so
cvcs,
are
actually
a
lot
more
like
permissionless
than
things
like
facilitators
or
advisory
councils.
C
Like
anyone
can
make
a
CBC,
there
could
be
an
infinite
number
of
them.
Basically.
So
as
a
result,
when
you
sort
of
consider
the
CVC
base
case
in
isolation,
you
have
to
assume
that
they're
just
like
operating
on
their
own
main
like
for
the
most
part,
because
there
could
be
so
many
of
them
that
this
is
CDC
number
200.
C
and
like
nobody,
cares
about
it
right,
like
I
mean
they
care,
but
the
official
sort
of
infrastructure
doesn't
isn't
able
to
have
a
person
like
an
expert
show
up
on
their
CVC
meeting,
for
instance.
So
it's
this
like.
Ultimately,
it's
the
cbc's
own
choice
and
also
responsibility,
but
often
it
doesn't
need
to
have
like
often
that
responsibility
gets
taken
care
of,
depending
again
on
how
many
cbcs
there
are,
but
it's
their
own
choice
of
how
they
want
to
run
the
meeting.
C
For
instance,
there
is
some
kind
of
anti-spam
measure
that
is
not
yet
defined,
but
that
would
have
to
be
defined
to
prevent
you
know
spammy
fake
cdcs,
from
from
attacking
the
system,
but
yeah
it
could
be
that
the
cold
is
just
you
know.
We
don't
allow
an
agenda
on
our
cpcs.
This
is
the
rambling
CBC.
You
know
we
just
show
up
and-
and
we
say
what's
on
our
mind
and
that
way
we're
more
creative
or
something
like.
C
They
want
to
get,
and-
and
I
could
imagine
like
cvcs
in
general
would
be
quite
sort
of
they'll,
be
ready
to
kind
of,
like
you
know,
go
and
re.
Ask
members
of
the
workforce
to
show
up
and
and
tell
them
what's
going
on
if
they
feel
like
this
is
relevant
right,
like
your
systems
aren't
giving
us
the
the
data
we
need
automatically,
so
you
gotta
you
gotta
have
to
show
up
every
time
we
got
a
subcommittee,
otherwise
we're
going
to
think
that
there's
something
weird
going
on,
because
why
aren't
you
setting
up
your
system?
C
So
we
can
just
follow
along
right
that
kind
of
stuff
right
that
that
could
be
the
kind
of
role
that
the
cbc's
have
right
in
the
sort
of
hierarchy.
That,
of
course,
isn't
really.
It
doesn't
really
exist,
it's
more
like
some
kind
of
checks
and
balances
thing,
but
the
CVC
is
like
the
I
mean
they're
the
closest
thing
to
representing
them.
C
B
So
I
think
we've
I
think
we've
sort
of
Blended
over
at
the
is
the
official
I
think
the
official
mock
session
is
concluded.
Do
are
there
any
and
we
started
kind
of
talking
more
generally,
but
just
wanted
to
make
an
official
last
call
for
any
comments,
kind
of
in
the
mode
of
models,
CDC
subcommittee
meeting
and
the
stability
and
liquidity
scope
framework
content
that
roon
proposed.
If,
if
there's
anything,
I
missed
in
the
chat
or
in
the
context
of
this,
you
know
pretending
this
was
an
actual
subcommittee
meeting.
B
If
there's
anyone
who
has
anything
final
to
raise
share
going
once
going
twice
all
right,
okay,
wait
what
Prof
says
so
now
it
gets
very
interesting.
Do
we
vote
now?
How
do
we
decide?
Okay,
so
no
I
I
mean
in
my
sense
of
how
this
might
go,
I
kind
of
go
and
envision
there
being
these
sort
of
like
votes
at
the
end
of
meetings
right.
B
D
G
B
Yeah,
but
not
at
the
end
of
the
call
right
not
at
the
end
of
each
meeting,
but
that
yes,
what
an
Enderman
I
want
to
hear.
You
know
your
summary
on
this,
but
my
understanding
at
this
point
is
you
know
throughout
the
quarter
and
certainly
the
way
I
think
we
would
be
approaching
it
acre.
Doubts
to
you
know
help
kick-start.
This
is
at
the
beginning
of
the
quarter.
B
D
Think
the
issue
is,
is,
if
you
do
the
the
deposit,
the
end
of
the
quarter,
then.
Basically,
the
subject
that
you
introduce
first
gets
worked
on
the
most,
whereas
that
which
we
introduced
last
gets
the
least
attention.
So
it
introduces
some
very
interesting
challenges
from
a
from
just
gaming
perspective.
I
think.
C
And
there's
like
the
merger
of
the
Scopes,
so
if
we
get
five
Scopes,
then
we
have
a
much
more
like
then
every
scope
is
covered
twice
and
you
cover
them
early
in
the
you
know,
you
always
cover
a
scope
early
in
the
quarter,
but
so
what
brilliant
I
mean?
I
just
want
to
comment
on.
What
do
you
say?
It's?
C
Basically,
it's
exactly
right
and
I
think
the
key
like
the
purpose
of
the
calls
as
I
see
it
is,
and
you
know-
and
you
know
I
mean-
maybe
we
don't
even
need
these
calls,
especially
if
we're
going
to
have
like
tons
of
AI
and
stuff.
Maybe
we're
like
thinking
about
it
the
wrong
way.
So
that's
something
we
do
need
to.
C
You
know
decide
before
the
before
end
game
right,
because
once
we
log
in
the
Constitution
then
we'll
be
doing
calls
then
maybe
like
a
thousand
years
of
Melodies
I'm
like
annoyed
AI,
so
I'll
be
like
sitting
there
like.
Oh
my
God,
why
do
humans
do
this
dumb?
You
know
we
just
want
to
exchange
you.
Data
packets
not
sit
on
like
a
call
that
whatever
okay
bad
joke.
But
the
point
is
that
you
have
to
sort
of
prove
that
there's
a
human
or
you
know
whatever
an
AI
that
passes
the
touring
test.
C
I
guess
that's
that
has
mcar.
You
know
they
have
mkr
and
you've
tried
to
check
whether
they
have
conducting
your
interests
and
it
looks
like
they
don't
and
they're
sitting
there
and
they're
getting
the
reports
and
then
you
haven't.
You
can
assume
that
if
something
flashes
red
somebody,
why
did
this?
You
know
process
get
totally
broken
and
they
picked
the
one
that
took
that
was
the
highest
price.
Wasn't.
C
Right,
like
the
thing
like
I,
was
talking
about
earlier,
the
workforce
itself,
if
literally
nobody's
looking
the
word
for
itself,
isn't
necessarily
going
to
stop
that
kind
of
thing.
If,
if
the
Imperials
aren't
looking
at
all,
because
you
know
like
the
instead
of
just
I
mean
they
will
in
practice
at
least
the
current
Workforce
right
and
maybe
also
10
years,
come
out,
but
like
if
50
years
from
now
is
so
complicated
that
no
one
can
follow
along
and
somewhere
in
there
somebody's
like
using
maker
funds
to
hire
their
nephew.
C
C
That
justification
needs
to
be
in
an
easy
to
understand
format
and
it
needs
to
be
verified
that
it's
an
easy
to
understand
format,
and
then
there
needs
to
be
some
excellent
care
holders
like
looking
at
it
and
and
saying,
looks
good
right
and
and
have
every
kind
of
the
armchair
thing
of
like
you.
Can
you
can
go
on
a
power
trip
and
be
like?
C
I
completely
lost
my
train,
so
I'm,
just
like
rambling
about
this,
but
yeah,
no,
no
yeah.
So
the
voting.
So
sorry
so
so,
like
one
I
mean
the
kind
of
the
ultimate
purpose
of
the
call,
then
is
for
all
the
CVC
members
to
sit
there
and
get
like
go
into
like
a
fury
and
be
like.
Oh
my
God
we're
getting
ripped
off,
we
haven't
get
holders
and
the
reaping
is
off
and
we
need
to
like
do
something
write,
smpr
holders
that
are,
you
know,
protect
our
MPR
or
whatever
right
of.
C
Because
the
fact
that
that
could
have
means
that
nobody
will
ever
put
themselves
in
a
position
where
they'll
a
CBC
will
sit
there
and
they'll
look
at
the
reports,
and
it
will
just
something
will
just
look
completely
wrong
and
right
and
it
will
be
much
more
about
like
Nuance
of
like.
Are
we
doing
this
new
pivot
into
only
focusing
on
South,
America
and
neglecting
every
other
region?
Isn't
that
a
little?
C
You
know
right
like
let's,
let's
make
sure
we
push
back
against
that
in
in
refi,
because
I
mean
yeah,
South
America
is
important,
but
you
know
the
rest
of
the
world
also
is
important.
That
could
be
a
kind
of
situation
right,
okay
and
now
to
sort
of
the
more
more
common
thing
that
I
expect
will
occur
in
these
calls.
Is
let's
say
that
let's
say
this
is
a
subject
there
is.
C
It
appears
that
in
the
Scopes,
there's
now
very
clearly
a
kind
of
bias
that
all
the
funding
for
growth
is
going
to
South
America
nowhere
else,
and
then
you
know,
let's
say
I,
say
I'm,
the
guy
I'm
the
I
play.
You
know
on
the
role
of
the
guy,
always
like
has
anything
to
push
always
like
I
know
what
to
do
like.
We
need
to
push
against
that
right.
We
need
to
make
a
scope
framework
that
you
know
put
some
very
clear
limits
on
on
how
like
we
have
to
be
like
look.
C
You
can
put
all
the
funds
in
one
place:
you've
gotta,
there's
a
concentration
limit
or
something
of
per
continent.
Let's
make
sure
that
goes
in
the
rules
in
a
place
where
it
simply
cannot
be.
You
know
got
around
because
this
is.
We
don't
want
to
see
this
kind
of
stuff
right
like
that.
Has
this
is
simply
we
don't
want
that
right
and
then
two
things
could
happen
because
well
three
things
right.
There's
like
a
traffic
light
right.
So
then
kianga
could
responded,
saying
yeah.
That
seems
like
common
sense
bam
right
rather
stand.
C
Let's
we're
going
to
put
that
aside
and
we're
gonna
Focus
the
next
thing
next
week
and
then
towards
the
end
of
the
quarter,
we're
going
to
make
sure
that
in
our
position
document
there's
that
you
know
there's
some
very
clear
symbol,
language
saying
you
cannot
put
more
than
you
know,
40
of
all
marketing
related
funds
towards
a
single
region.
Right
that
could
be
one
option.
The
other
one
could
be
that
kianga
is
like.
C
C
Maybe
it
could
be
something
like.
Maybe
the
yellow
reaction
could
also
be
instead
of
us
saying
it
should
be
40.
How
about
we
say,
let's
put
it
into
the
advisory
Council.
Let
there
needs
to
be.
This
needs
to
be
the
role
the
advisor
Council
to
make
sure
there's
some
good
rules
in
this
and
then
the
red
light
could
be.
C
No.
No,
no
right
I
mean
there's
different
regions,
they
have
different
opportunities
if
the
facilitators
and
the
ecosystem
actors
that
are
in
the
trenches
and
on
the
ground
and-
and
you
know,
know,
what's
going
on,
if
they're
making
these
decisions,
we
shouldn't
be
like
micromanaging
them
like
getting
in
the
way
right.
We
should
actually
like
I
mean
maybe
it's
wrong,
but
but
we
don't
have
enough,
you
know
I
mean
like.
C
We
need
to
see
some
proof
that
this
is
not
paying
paying
off
before
we
try
to
disturb
it
right
and
then
that
ends
up
being
the
thing
where,
like,
if
I'm
sort
of
I'm
really
focused
on,
we
got
to
do
this.
I'm
really
strong
I
strongly
believe
that
we
have
to
prepend
all
the
money
going
to
South
America
only
and
kianga
thinks
we.
We
should
not
be
be.
You
know
making
that
kind
of
of
a
decision,
and
you
know
taking
that
kind
of
stance.
C
That's
way
too
strong
stance
to
take,
and
then
now
now
we
have
a
really
important
signal
out
of
the
meeting
right,
which
is
okay,
there's
a
difference
here
that
has
to
be
resolved
and
then
one
option
could
be
on
the
meeting
that
we
decide.
Look,
let's
have
a
poll
next
week
and
the
CBC
decides
together.
Are
we
going
to
be
you
know?
Are
they
going
to
support
me?
C
Are
they
going
to
support
Canada
and
this
position,
or
maybe
maybe
a
third
option-
is
I,
don't
know
middle
ground
right
like
get
a
advisory
Council
just
to
do
whatever
right
to
to
apply
on
it?
That
could
be
one
option.
Then
the
poll
happens
and
the
outcome
of
the
poll
happens
and
then,
whoever
like,
let's
say,
Kiana's
position,
wins
and
then
I'm
just.
C
C
That's
one
possibility
the
other
one
is
that
I'm
this
just
like
I'm,
not
even
like
I,
don't
even
think
if
we
can
have
a
vote
and
just
be
like.
Oh,
if
the
boat
says
us
to
do
something
that
is
clearly
wrong
to
me,
then
I
I,
you
know
I
can't
be
fine
with
that
and
then
what
actually
happens?
Is
you
sort
of
get
towards
a
split
right
where
I
mean
maybe
the
first
thing
will
happen
is
just
like
very
long
debates
about
like
look.
C
We
have
like
basically
try
to
change
each
other's
mind
first
right
and
then,
if
you
can't
then
before
the
end
of
the
quarter,
you
have
to
do
a
split
because
otherwise
you
would
the
CVC
will
will
become
inactive
right.
So
one
of
the
really
crucial
things
to
to
use
the
subcommittee
meetings
for
is
to
like
detect.
If
are
we
actually
in
a
situation
where
we
have
to
split
in
order
to
continue
to
function.
B
C
Again,
a
split
is
it's
like
actually,
a
big
problem
like
I
think
if
you
have
people
that
are
very
like
passionate
and
very
into
like
doing
the
right
thing
and
then
wanting
it
their
way
and
have
their
opinion
I.
Think
it's
like
a
small
manner
that
okay,
well,
we
just
split
and
then
I
just
like
spend
a
little.
You
know,
then
maybe
it's
a
well.
B
And
even
if
I
could
just
jump
in
here,
I
think
in
our
case
it's
going
to
be
even
more
meta
and
interesting,
because
it's
not,
of
course,
going
to
be
like
kianga's
position
but
I'm
representing
a
tokenized
community.
So
where
this
goes
live
you
know
internally
at
acre
Dows.
You
know
we'll
have
to
have
our
own
kind
of
governance
process
as
to
what
acre
Dows
as
a
member.
B
B
No
one
who's
a
CBC
member
is
like
paid
for
their
time
to
do
any
of
this
of
this
work
and
in
the
case
of
you,
know
myself
in
acre
Dows,
it's
even
more
like
indirect,
because
the
rewards
are
going
into
a
treasury
and
I'll
just
you
know
for
everyone's
benefit.
You
know,
acredale
is
a
very
new
organization.
It
doesn't
even
really
have
governance
yet,
so
you
know
what
we're
thinking
are
officially
our
season.
B
Actually,
our
second
season
starts
on
April
1st,
with
acre
doubts
and
runs
for
six
months,
so
part
of
the
what's
going
to
be
going
on
at
acredale's
apart
from
maker.
You
know
if
the
vote
passes
and
if
we're,
if
we're,
if
we're
able
to
you
know,
do
this
with
with
everyone
here.
Is
you
know?
How
does
the
acre
Dallas
community
of
stakeholders
engage
in
this
role
as
a
member
in
the
CBC,
and
you
know
trying
to
help
shape
the
contribution
that
that
maker
Dow
can
make
and
regenerative
Finance
right?
B
C
C
Oh,
we
can,
you
know,
be
really
on
top
of
maker
and
make
sure
they
don't
explode
in
drama
all
the
time
which
is
a
little
impressive
and
and
then
they
will,
they
could
send
representatives
and
have
mkr
in
their
Treasury
and
be
like
this
representative
sort
of
in
the
context
of
this
CBC
is,
is,
you
know,
can
vote
with
our
MPR
and
so
on.
Right
and
yeah
I
mean
there's
so
many
possibilities
like
I,
mean
I
just
thought
of
another
possibility,
and
then
I
just
saw
this
example
like
there's
this
question
from
ref
right.
C
Could
one
CVC
Implement
quadratic
quadratic
voting,
and
so
the
answer
is
that
they
can
but
like
not
at
the
CVC
level,
but
at
like
the
sort
of
the
meta
level
of
the
city
right.
So
you
could
basically
have
an
agreement
in
the
CVC
that
we
use
quadratic
voting
and
then
whatever
the
outcome
of
the
quadratic
voting,
is
we
vote
for
that
with
simple
majority
using
the
kind
of
the
CVC
native
rules
and
the
moment
someone
violates
that
there's
an
instant
split
like
the
other
kick
or
whatever
right,
if
someone's
like?
C
That's
one
option!
Another
one
is
there's
a
single
person
with
you
know
one
MPR
and
everyone
else
only
gets
to
join
with
0.0001
and
then
the
dictator.
Basically,
you
know
like
emulates,
that
there's
a
there's,
a
democracy
right
that
type
of
CVC
I,
would
expect
to
be
I
mean
some
might
want
to
participate
in
it
if
they
really
trust
the
dictator.
Others
might
think
it's
like
a
trap
to
like
you
know,
and
then
the
dictator
one
day
can
just
rock
pull
them
right
and
they
can
this.
C
They
can
do
whatever
they
want
and
because
they're
like
the
rewards
arms
are
great
and
also
because
the
rewards
are
like
tied
to
the
amount
of
API
you
have.
Then
we
should
really
expect
that,
like
CBC
members
are
not
going
to
be
like
loyal
to
their
jobs
in
the
sense
they'll
just
keep
doing
the
job.
If,
if
like,
if
it
sucks,
you
know
so
they
can
get
the
money
because,
like
that's,
not
why
they're
there
so
like
cbcs
will
be.
B
Some
point
we've
also
talked
about
this
sort
of
like
process
of
where
there's
negotiation,
maybe
between
cbcs
right
I,
mean
that's
a
whole
other
level
of
the
Dynamic
that
I'm
still
wrapping
my
head
around.
Where
you
know
how
are
the
delegates
you
know
I
guess.
Maybe
we
can
now
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
delegates,
roll
roon
and
all
of
this,
because
it's
like
how
you
know
in
the
new
model,
a
delegate
could
end
up
sort
of
supporting
opposite
views
right
because
they
have
a
contract
per
CBC.
B
So
it's
not
like
the
delegate
themselves
has
a
particular
point
of
view,
they're
deciding
which
strategies
they
want
to
execute
and
they
have
specific
voting
contracts
that
follow
those
strategies.
So
then,
but
then
you
know
then
there's
this
like
Dynamic,
that
we
talked
about
where
cbcs
are
publishing
these
positioned
documents,
but
maybe
a
couple
of
cbcs
want
to
get
together
and
harmonize
their
differences
so
that
they
have.
You
know
more
aggregate
mkr
to
put
behind
a
particular
poll
that's
on
chain.
So
maybe
we
could
talk
ruin
a
little
bit
about
those
Dynamics.
C
C
Yeah,
okay,
so
I'll
go
through
we'll
talk
about
delegates
and
then
I'll
talk
first
about
very
basically
how
constitutional
delegates
works,
work
versus
how
cpcs
work
and
and
and
well
maybe,
let's
start
with
this
question
from
you
right.
So
if
a
bunch
of
small
and
girls
create
a
CVC,
why
would
delegates
spend
time
on
them
versus
big
cbcs
yeah?
C
Going
to
happen,
but
what
we've
tend
to
have
seen
is
that
the
the
large,
the
massively
large
MK
holders
you
know
the
fact
that
they're
huge
Imperial,
typically
means
they're
like
loaded
and
they've
got
tons
of
other
tokens
and
maker
is
not
really
a
big
deal
for
them
and
the
ones
where
maker
is
a
big
deal.
That
tends
to
be
the
small
holders
right
and
so
the
whole
point
of
the
CVC
construct.
Is
it
actually
it?
C
If
they,
you
know
if
they
support
that
that
voting
strategy-
and
it
all
comes
down
to
this
like
super
complicated
and
strange
kind
of
game
theory
of
how
are
people
going
to
click
when
they
use
a
Sagittarius
engine
and
they're
forced
to
delegate
to
a
governance
strategy
but
they're
there
for
the
money
right
like
they're,
they're
95
there
for
the
money
and
they're
five
percent
there
to
actually
participate
in
governance
right
then,
what's
gonna
how?
What
are
they?
C
Gonna,
click
on
and
whatever
the
answer
that
to
that
is
that's
going
to
be
where
you're
going
to
see
the
delegates,
you
know
throw
a
lot
of
support
and
there
is
a
bill.
There
is
a
bias
built
into
the
whole
system,
which
is
the
biggest
cvcs
buy
votes
in
total,
so
not
votes.
Other
members
like
non-mkr
of
the
members
but
votes
delegated
to
them,
plus
and
care
of
the
members
added
together.
C
C
If
they
just
keep
doing
it
forever,
and
they
don't
drop
the
ball,
then
they
could
likely
like
remain
very
influential
forever
because
they
could
have
a
it
could
be
quite
easy
to
remain
in
the
top
three.
If
you're
already
there
and
you're
like
you
know,
you
have
a
good,
balanced
approach
and
you
you
remain
popular
right
and
and
whether
your
whale
or
not
is
going
to
have
pretty
small
influence
on
that
I
think
right,
I
mean,
of
course,
I.
C
Could
like
screw
it
up
with
my
MPR
and
so
on
right,
but
of
course,
I'm
I
want
to
do
the
exact
opposite.
I
want
to
very
much
like
just
vote
equally
across
all
the
cdc's
grandparas,
so
that
the
kind
of
the
natural
Dynamic
can
evolve
as
much
as
possible,
yeah.
So,
okay,
so
this
I
guess
this
helped
maybe
establish
delegates
as
being
quite
you
know,
they
don't
really
care
about
the
cbcs.
Actually
you
know
they
just
want
the
books
right.
They
care
about
their
job.
C
They
care
about
getting
paid,
they
care
about
getting
votes,
they
care
about
not
getting
de-recognized
for
break-in,
Constitution
and
and
that's
kind
of
the
thing
that's
like
their
big.
Their
biggest
job
really
is
to
like
they
have
some
very
strict
requirements
and
following
the
rules
and
generally
ultimately,
that's
the
job
description.
It's
like
make
sure
you
don't
break
the
Constitution,
because
you
know
they're
kind
of
the
ones
holding
the
loaded
gun
right.
C
C
Then,
if
the
delegate
actually
votes
like
that,
then
they
get
de-recognized
right.
Then
the
facilitators
step
in
and
say
that's
unconstitutional,
that's
you
know
like
it
goes
against
the
basic
principle
and
the
Constitution
that
you
cannot
make
scope
Frameworks
more
specific
and
more
arbitrary
right.
They
can
only
become
more
Broad
and
more
generalized.
C
So
if
you
think
of
like
oh
a
process,
have
you
picked
that
you
look
at
the
three
best
bids
and
then
you
pick
the
cheapest
one.
That
also
gives
the
best
quality.
If
you
take
that
and
turn
that
into
you
have
to
pick
that
guy
and
only
that
guy,
that's
unconstitutional,
because
typically
that
would
be
happening
because
someone's
corrupt
right
and
so
they
sort
of
try
to
bypass
the
safety
mechanisms
and
and
just
arbitrarily
force
a
payment
of
money
to
go
to
someone
that's
in
their
interest
that
they
will
go
that
way.
C
Yeah.
So
that's
where
the
delegates
are
really
important,
crucial
safeguards
right
then
the
CVC
is
going
to
make
the
decisions
kind
of
marginally,
and
we
were
talking
about
that
in
the
past
right,
like
operational
efficiency,
sort
of
doing
the
job
day
to
day
right
and
then
the
delegates
they
sort
of
deal
with
the
tail
risk
in
a
sense
of
like
if
a
CBC
like
is
going
off
the
rails
and
they're
drunk
in
power
and
they're.
The
number
one
in
the
easy
governance
front
end
and
they
got
so
many
boats
and
they're.
C
Just
like
going
crazy
with
it
another
thing:
it's
time
to
make
a
move
and
do
a
Power
grab
or
something
then
the
delegates
I
mean
that's
when
they
that
time
to
shine
right
because
they're,
the
ones
who
actually
control
the
votes.
So
then
right
in
that
moment,
they
just
have
to
say
well
we're
not
going
to
support
that.
You
know
you
may
think
you
should
be
doing
that,
but
it
doesn't
matter.
You
cannot
actually
do
it.
C
It's
us
the
delegates
who
can
do
it
and
we're
paid
a
huge
amount
of
money
to
be
prepared
for
the
moment
when
we
basically
have
to
sort
of
put
down
the
foot
and
protect
the
Constitution
right.
Okay.
Hopefully
that
makes
sense
that
there
are
like
these
more
neutral
protectors,
right
and
sort
of
making
sure
this.
You
know
that
the
the
cities
are
having
fun
because
they
have
to
be
having
fun
because
they're
not
really
paid
a
lot
right.
C
The
delegates
are
a
little
bit
more
boring
because
they
paid
tons
of
money
to
protect
the
system,
and
you
know
stay
boring
right
and
then
the
final
thing,
that's
really
that's
kind
of
another.
The
thing
that
the
way
that
the
delegates
they
kind
of
distinguish
themselves
right
so
that
they
kind
of
in
the
Dynamic
of
cvcs
and
CC
personalities-
and
you
know
maybe
big
celebrities
like
chianga
and
others
from
eager
dials
that
are
like
the
founders
of
the
you
know
that
been
running
the
show
over
right.
C
C
C
C
While
many
of
the
CVC
members
have
come
and
gone
because
it's
sort
of
a
passion
thing
you
do
for
a
while,
maybe
rather
than
just
take
a
break
and
by
then
the
delegates
will
be
the
ones
that
are
like
hand
holding
the
CBC
members
right
and
sort
of,
like
you
know,
holding
the
ham
and
putting
them
in
the
armchair
right
and
being
like
you're.
The
general
now
right
and
you've
got
all
these
options.
You've
got
all
you
know,
just
tell
us
what
you
feel
like
and
our
job
is
to,
like.
C
B
I
think
there's
so
much
potential
to
see
a
dynamism
and
an
interest
in
holding
mkr
that
we
just
haven't
seen
so
I
mean
like
we're.
All
talking
is
very
inside
baseball
but
in
my
mind,
part
of
what
I
I
hope
I
can
contribute
to
just
you
know
how
we're
getting
this
bootstrapped
is
that
it's
very
easy
for
external
groups
and
external
people
who
are
engaged.
You
know
across
not
only
crypto,
but
you
know
non
non-web
three
right
this.
This
could
be
a
mechanism.
You
know
from
say
a
refi
perspective
that
you
know.
B
Venture
philanthropy
gets
really
interested
in,
like
the
melon
Foundation,
a
girl
can
dream
the
melon
foundation's
like
oh.
This
is
interesting
like
maybe
we
should
hold
some
mkr
and
set
up
a
CVC
and
you
can
imagine
for
those
type
of
mkr
holders.
The
delegates
are
going
to
be
everything
because
they
don't
they
don't
even
know,
hardly
what's
what's
blockchain,
never
mind
maker,
so
I
mean
part
of
what
how
I'm,
seeing
this
evolve
and
I
think
how
we
want
to
think
about
it
as
we
design
it
even
from
the
beginning.
C
Yeah
and
also
another
thing
is
this
thing
of
like
the
delegates
are
supposed
to
be
companies
right.
So
right
now,
with
the
current
MCAT
price,
that's
not
I
mean
right
now.
Delegate
is
like
a
really
well-paid
job
right,
but
if
them
care
price
increases
significantly,
then
the
logic
should
be
and
I
guess
it's
not
super
well
codified.
Yet,
but
I
mean
that's
something,
you
know.
That's
what
we've
been
talking
about,
the
cbcs
right,
how
to
reset
sweet
spot
where,
basically
the
delegates
is
they.
C
It
supports
a
small
company
with
like
a
single
like
leader,
that's
well
paid
and
then
multiple
support,
staff
kind
of
like
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
compare
it
to
like
a
like
a
Senators
resources
in
the
US
or
something
right.
You've
got
a
senator
and
you've
got
a
bunch
you're
like
staffers
and
a
bunch
of
an
office,
and
all
this
that
makes
it
easy
for
you
to
sort
of
get
a
lot
of
stuff
done
right.
C
C
So
the
system
naturally
requires
proof
that
the
delegates
are
neutral
and
and
the
way
you
can
prove
that
is,
if
you,
if
you're,
if
you're,
supporting
multiple
cvcs
and
none
of
them
get
pissed
off
at
you,
you're
likely
to
be
neutral
right
and
yeah
and
I
mean,
and
you
can
have
staff
you
can
have
multiple
different
people.
You
know
being
like,
representing
the
same
delegate
and
being
like
Hey
we're
from
this
delegate.
C
We
are
blah
blah
we're
here
to
do
what
you
need
and
then,
at
the
exact
same
time,
there's
another
CVC
having
a
meeting
and
the
same
delegate
is
present.
There
as
well,
you
know,
and
and
that's
a
way
for
the
delegates
to
compete
with
each
other
by
showing
look
we're
getting.
You
know
about
300
mkr
per
month
per
year.
Look
how
much
we
can
get
done
with
it.
C
C
You're
actually
now
I'll
get
to
say
you
asked
for
initially,
but
I
feel
like
all
these
other
things
are
important,
build
up
too,
because
it's
kind
of
quite
complicated
right
with
all
these,
like
permutations
of
how
people
will
volunteer
and
sort
of
how
the
incentives
get
Protestant
on
different
Behavior
to
to
emerge
right.
So
the
last
one
is
yeah.
There's
like
the
mediator
or
something
between
cvcs
right,
because
cbcs
don't
actually
make
decisions
directly.
C
And
suddenly
looks
as
much
as
possible
as
this
that
we
designed
ourselves,
but
if
you
can't,
if
you
can
get
that
to
pass,
please
vote
for
anything
else
that
prevents
that
kind
of
stuff
over
there
from
passing,
for
instance,
and
once
you
have
those
types
of
more
sort
of
Broad
and
flexible
instructions
in
place
for
the
delegates,
then,
basically
they
can.
They
can
sort
of
start
doing
all
these
like,
like
this
sort
of
I,
don't
call
it
a
puzzle
of
basically
you
know
Finding.
C
You
know
multiple
cvcs
that
are
generally
all
dovish,
for
instance,
and
being
like
they're
all
ready
to
to
you
know
give
up
on
some
of
their
specific
demands
if
they
can
help
fight
against
the
Hawks,
for
instance,
and
then
what
they
would
do
is
the
delegates
themselves
would
actually
write.
I
mean
they'll,
maybe
like
use
AI.
Even
who
knows
right,
they'll
have
something
generated
for
them,
but
they'll
they'll
create
a
an
a
a
proposal
edit
that
is
not
created
by
an
suvc.
C
Actually,
it's
a
completely
like
arbitrary,
edit
I
mean
I
mean
well,
it's
not
I
mean
in
the
context
of
like.
Where
did
it
come
from?
It's
just
any
edit
proposal,
so
anyone
is
able
to
like
propose
any
kind
of
edit.
Actually
right
but
and
I
guess
I
mean
well.
Okay,
actually
forget
that
I
mean
technically
that
should
be
possible,
but
I
think
that's
actually
that
probably
created
a
bunch
of
confusion
with
this
in
concert
delegates,
it's
more
like
the
delegates
are
allowed
to
try
to
create.
C
You
know,
create
compromise
proposals
between
the
scope
framework,
Precision
documents
of
cvcs.
They
can
see,
have
a
compatibility
and
then
vote
for
them
and
and
and
then
and
the
voting
process
for
how
you
edit
the
scope.
Frameworks
is
something
like
ranked
Choice
voting
right,
so
they
all
whenever
I
mean
anyone
that
delegates
to
the
refi
CBC.
C
The
number
one
ranked
choice
for
how
to
how
that
MPR
is
going
to
be
voting
will
always
be
the
refi
cbc's
scope
framework
edit,
unless
it's
unconstitutional,
according
to
the
delegate
right,
but
number
two
could
then
be
also
developed
stuff
right.
It
could
even
be
like
a
completely
different.
Like
maybe
number
three
is
like
number
two
is
a
compromise
with
another
CDC
and
then
number
three
is
just
directly
the
other
cbc's
thing.
C
B
That
is
really
interesting,
I
wonder
other
current
delegates
on
the
call
were
thinking
about
this,
so
it's
like
the
delegates
can
can
step
up
and
and
and
and
be
following
kind
of
all
this.
Even
so
they
they'll
they'll
be
following
officially
say
you
know
two
cbcs,
but
it
might
be
interesting
to
really
follow,
say:
there's
multiple
cvcs,
you
know
all
the
ccc's
positions
and
take
initiatives
to
actually
then
craft
compromise
or
merge
proposals
and
then
be
very
vocal
and
say
Hey.
You
know
CBC
a
and
cvcb
you're
actually
really
aligned.
B
Yeah
that
that
that
that's
not
something
the
cbc's,
particularly
the
one
I,
want
to
spend
time
doing
right
I
mean
the
the
mkr
holders
that
are
in
a
particular
CBC.
They
want
to
do
their
CBC
and
then
they've
got
their
other
lives
and
their
other
work
they're,
not
necessarily
interested
in
going
back
and
forth
and
following
what
other
cbcs
are
doing,
and
so
that's
where
the
delegates
really
can
shine
as
well.
C
C
It's
to
say
that
the
delegates
handle
all
these
like
complicated,
back
room,
dealing
and
negotiation
and
and
sort
of
almost
like
mathematical
complexity
of
like
what's
the
perfect
compromise
that
is
most
in
the
interest
of
right
like
it's,
this
classic
voting
Theory
question,
but
one
thing
I
want
to
add
to
that
dog
right
is
like
it,
wouldn't
even
be
that
the
delegates
would
go
back
to
the
cdc's
and
be
like
hey.
What
do
you
think
about
this
compromise
like
it
will
be
proactively?
C
They
would
help
instruct
the
CVC
during
the
quarter
like
this
is
what
you
need
to
put
in
your
governance
strategy,
so
that
I
can
so
that
you
know
so
that
we
can
reasonably
go
out
and
create
these
compromises,
because
we
know
you
don't
want
to
deal
with
come
right.
You
just
want
it
done
you
just
want
like
you
want.
Ideally
you
want
exactly
what
you
would
like
to
see.
C
And
then
there's
another
Dynamic
to
this,
which
is
that,
like
you
know,
there's
like
two
ways:
two
consequences
for
delegates
not
doing
what
it's
supposed
to
do
according
to
the
governance
strategy,
and
none
of
them
are
like
exactly
perfectly
strict,
like
the
closest
to
that
is
like
the
the
sort
of
the
the
the
the
the
big
I.
Don't
call
it.
The
big
consequence,
which
is
it's
I,
would
call
it
black
and
white
unconstitutional
right.
C
That's
unconstitutional,
you're
like
unfit
for
the
job
you're
banned.
You
have
to
come
back
on
a
new
identity
right,
but
of
course
no
one.
Why
would
a
delegate
ever
do
that?
They're
there
for
the
massive
amount
of
money
right
as
a
prime
delegate?
They
have
a
company,
they
have
employees
right,
they've
got
families
right,
they're,
never
going
to
jeopardize
the
job
like
that
right,
so
I
mean
well.
Hopefully
right
I
mean
I,
think
that's
a
pretty
rare
case.
C
But
what
could
happen
is
like
the
gray
area
where
it's
like
the
governance
strategy
says:
I,
don't
write.
Vote
for
you
know,
cut
all
budgets,
except
if
the
budgets
have
a
very
good
Roi
on
marketing
opportunities
and
then
the
delegates
voter
coin
is
that
and
then,
after
the
fact
the
CBC
is
just
like.
We
don't
think
that's
good
Roi,
like
you
know
we,
and
and
but
they
didn't.
Maybe
they
didn't
Define
it
very
clearly
or
something
or
whatever.
Maybe
there's
just
some.
C
This
is
some
like
misunderstanding
or
disagreement,
or
something
and
and
then
what
the
cvcs
can
choose
to
do
is
they
can
choose
to
say
we're
gonna,
you
know,
ban
you'll,
reject
you
as
it's
called
right.
So
then
what
they
do
is
they
sort
of
sever
the
connection
between
the
the
delegate
and
the
CVC
and
that's
actually
a
very
low
impact
thing
like
it's
not
a
big
deal.
C
The
delegate
just
focuses
on
other
cbcs,
then,
unless
it's
like
enough
of
a
kind
of
a
big
move,
what
they
did
that
caused
them
to
be
rejected,
that
the
CVC
can
actually
go
to
the
other
cmcs
and
be
like
look
what
they
did.
You
don't
want
these
guys
holding
your
votes
right
then
you
could
actually
get
like
a
de
facto
near
like
a
band
of
the
of
the
of
this
of
the
delegate.
C
C
Right
is
that
if
the,
if
the
CVC,
if
they're
not
very
like
upset
like
if
they
generally
trust
the
delegates
and
they're
like
yeah
you,
you
know
you,
we
give
you
a
lot
of
freedom,
don't
worry
about
getting
banned
right,
then
you
really
do
have
a
lot
of
like
Lee
wave
to
like
make
things
happen,
it's
just
as
soon
as
you're,
like
piss
off
the
CVC
you're
in
trouble.
Basically
right,
so
you
so
delegates
will
always
very
much
want
to
sit
on
the
calls.
C
C
You
know,
so
we
don't
come
back
next
quarter
and
you're
pissed
off
right
so
and
that's
so
and
and
I
think
that's
a
really
good
Dynamic
right
of
like
the
delegates
will
will
sort
of
try
to
help
the
CVC
members
understand
what
they
really
want
and
what
they
actually
will
care
about
and
and
will
actually
help
them
be
like.
No.
You
think
you
don't
care
about
this,
but
you
may
care,
and
it's
in
my
interest
to
make
sure
you
fully
understand
it
right
and
I
would
like
it
in
writing.