►
From YouTube: Open Decentralized Voter Committee | July 27, 2022
Description
Topic: Continue the clustering and transition discussion that started last Thursday.
Hey everyone, it’s time for this week's Endgame DVC meetings.
This week's overall focus will be to continue the discussion about the practicalities of clustering the workforce and transitioning core units and other resources into the MetaDAOs if the Endgame Plan is approved and into its Pregame phase. We will discuss this both at today’s call and tomorrow’s call.
In addition, during today's Wednesday call, I will start by going through various replies and comments that have been made here on the forum that I haven’t had time to reply to yet, but that I think provide some useful perspectives to better describe the details of the Endgame Plan and its underlying principles.
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/thursday-9pm-cest-endgame-dvc-meeting-launch-clustering-and-transition/16761
A
B
Thanks
thanks
thomas
yeah
welcome
everyone
I
think
today
and
and
probably
the
next
couple
of
weeks.
Potentially
we
can.
We
can
sort
of
slow
down
a
little
bit
and
enter
kind
of
a
new
phase
of
talking
about
a
bit
more
about
sort
of
the
specifics
of
like
getting
to
the
point
where,
ultimately,
the
sort
of
the
the
first
decision
on
the
in-game
plan
would
have
to
be
taken
in
some
form
or
another,
but
before
we
can
get
to
that,
I
mean
we're
really
in
this
sort
of
now.
B
Pain
just
reminding
us
that
the
the
delegates
contracts
have
expired.
Yes,
I
plan,
as
I
wrote,
a
while
back
I
plan
to
to
delegate
to
redelegate
relatively
soon.
It's
just
you
know,
take
some
effort
to
to
actually
do,
but
I'm
paying
attention
to
which
of
the
delegates
are
joining.
So
that's
going
to
factor
in.
B
Oh,
but
they
sort
of
the
yeah
it's
like
one
of
the
most.
I
mean
there's
sort
of
multiple
versions
of
this.
This
sort
of
fundamental
question
right,
but
one
is:
why
does
the
tokenomics
have
to
be
so
weird
right
and
sort
of
crazy
and
then
another
is
like:
why
is
it
represented
as
this
sort
of
extreme
you
know,
sort
of
like
this
choice
between
symbol
die
or
the
metadata
house
and
all
that
stuff?
B
You
know
why
isn't
there
something
in
between
that's
sort
of
also
more
simple,
but
can
still
do
a
bunch
of
stuff
and
so
on
right,
and
it
really
comes-
I
mean
it's
a
this
is
such
a
fundamental
point.
Basically
right,
it
really
comes
down
to
the
name
actually
right,
it's
the
end
game
which
actually
derives
all
the
way
back
from
clean
money.
When
I
first
wrote
the
clean
money
post
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
wanted
to
achieve
with
that
was
this.
B
Was
that
you,
but
with
a
purpose
driven
down
you
have
this,
you
have
sort
of
a
reason
for
the
doubt
to
to
to
ossify
and
sort
of
slow
down
and
and
become
stable
in
a
sense,
because
you
want
to
protect
the
purpose
so
you're,
not
gonna,
you're,
not
gonna.
You
know
there's
sort
of
an
incentive
to
not
mess
around
with
random
things,
because
it
could
impact
the
overalls
or
purpose.
B
If
you
have
something
that
works,
you
don't
really
want
to
sort
of
mess
with
it
right
and
that's
sort
of
that's
one
of
the
really
big
problems
that
dallas
otherwise
are
dealing
with.
Is
that
there's
all
these
like
sort
of
attack
services
in
a
way
and
everyone's
in
theory,
in
sort
of
a
real
sort
of
crypto
economic
scenario?
Then
everyone's
just
constantly
trying
to
basically
attack
every
single
attack
surface
right
and
trying
to
extract
the
value
out
of
the
out
of
the
dow
right,
a
d5
protocol
or
whatever
system.
It
is
and
then.
B
I
mean,
what's
really
what's
really
been,
become
sort
of
the
obvious
threat
in
that
sense,
right
was
just
simply
the
the
complete
inability
for
governors
to
handle
the
budgets
right
and
sort
of
the
total
lack
of
kind
of
understanding.
What
was
going
on
with
the
with
the
budgets
right,
so
that
I
mean
and
that
sort
of
really
that's.
B
I
think
now
has
been
sort
of
a
broad
realization
for
for
almost
everyone,
but
but
that's
kind
of
used
to
be
a
major
concern
that
I
had
all
the
way
from
the
start.
Right
and-
and
I
think
basically
solution-
is
that
you
need.
You
need
ultimately
to
have
this
kind
of
fixed
immutable
sort
of
guaranteed
kind
of
way
that
that
the
dow
looks
like
so
you
have
a
chance
to
actually
understand
how
the
different
parts
work
and
then
figure
out
whether
they
they're
being
exploited
or
not,
right
and
actually
yeah.
B
You
know
like
just
holding
mkr
was
not
a
particularly
great
idea
if
it
simply
just
sort
of
spirals
out
of
control
right.
So
then
I
spent
all
this
effort
coming
up
with
the
end
game
right
and
being
like
okay.
How
do
we
actually
so
clean
money?
Didn't
work
that
wasn't
enough,
like
you
can't
just
throw
a
purpose
out
there
and
then
people
magically
organize
around
it.
I
mean
there
was
sort
of
a
lot
of
initial
momentum
for
it
right,
but
then
it
just
completely
disappeared.
B
Basically,
and
that's
because
there
was
nothing
to
sort
of
actually
operationalize
it
in
a
sense
right,
there's
no
sort
of
like
underlying,
and
it
was
actually
the
same
mistake.
I've
always
made
over
and
over
again
throughout
all
the
seven
years
I've
been
working
in
mega
right,
which
is
to
be
like.
Oh
it's
decentralized,
also,
figure
itself
out
right,
like
the
free
market,
will
will
take
care
of
it
right,
which
at
this
point
I've
learned
is
basically
it
just
never
works
right.
You
never
any
situation
where
you
think
the
free
market
will
take
care
of
it.
B
You'll
always
be
disappointed
right.
It
actually
has
to
all
be
sort
of
spelled
out
and
and
and
sort
of
game
theoretically
tested
in
a
way
right
or
sort
of
proven
that
that
there's
no
like
that
that,
even
if
you
apply
sort
of
the
worst
case
scenario
of
people
following
their
incentives-
and
there
should
be
no
sort
of
obvious
pitfalls-
that
you're
simply
counting
on
people
sort
of
the
moral
fabric
of
people
to
prevent
from
from
happening
or
something
like
that
right.
So
that's
why
you
want
again
sort
of.
B
I
mean
that's
fundamentally,
that's
why
you
need
a
very
immutable
sort
of
final
structure
right,
because
if
you
don't
even
have
an
immutable
and
final
structure,
then
sort
of
the
ability
to
change
the
frame
itself
becomes
the
battleground
right
and
then
you
simply
have
no
chance
of
ever
achieving
peace
in
a
sense
right.
You
always
just
have
like
you
know
the
sort
of
the
question
of
what
it
even
is
to
be
the
also
the
ultimate
attack
surface
right,
that
that
will
always
be
attempts
to
abuse.
B
B
You
can
openly
avoid
having
a
workforce
at
all
any
kind
of
sort
of
intermediary,
any
type
of
like
professional,
that
sort
of
participates
in
ensuring
the
day-to-day
operations
of
the
dao.
Actually,
you
know
function
well
right,
and
that
means
you
can.
You
can
eliminate
all
expenses
on
nearly
all
expensive.
B
Theoretically-
and
you
can,
you
can
definitely
sort
of
eliminate
all
recurring
expenses
and
you
really
and
you
barely
sort
of
need
any
governance
than
in
that
situation,
because
mostly
as
we
know,
governance
is
mostly
about
dealing
with
budgets
and
dealing
with
politics
and
power
struggles
right.
So
if
you
eliminate
all
of
that,
you
just
get
this
sort
of
super
simple
thing:
it
just
runs
itself
and
it
already
pretty
much
exists.
I
mean
we're.
B
Basically,
we
have
most
of
the
pieces
already
and
then
basically
the
multi-chain
component
and
then
the
the
government
bond
arranger,
real
asset
sort
of
component
is
being
is
also.
You
know,
it's
also
being
developed
right,
and
so
that's
actually
what
I
think
it's
like.
That's
a
pretty
stable
and
so
reliable
sort
of
outcome
for
maker.
I
think
right
and
it's
something
where
I
would
actually
feel
I
mean.
I
simply
wouldn't,
if
you
know,
and
make.
B
State,
if
I
just
sort
of
solo,
my
piano,
I
wouldn't
feel
yeah.
I
feel
like
I'm
almost
I'll,
be
immoral,
because
I
don't
you
know
you
like
I'll,
be
selling
something
that
you
know.
I
mean
at
least
a
while
I
mean.
Obviously
things
are
different
all
right,
but
in
the
context
of
the
time
when
I
was
looking
at
this
from
perspective
of
purely.
A
B
Of
protecting
my
my
my
value,
basically,
you
know
like
you
for
it
to
really
be
something
that
you
can
sort
of
hand
off
right.
Then
then
there
has
to
be
this.
You
have
to
deal
with
this.
The
problem
of
the
complexity
spiral
and
that's
what
I
think,
like
symbol
die,
really
is
sort
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
and
and
sort
of
sensible
way
to
to
kind
of
a
de-risk
maker
right
and.
B
Symbolize
also,
really
it's
the
it's
sort
of
the
final
sort
of
the
realization
of
pretty
much
the
original
white
paper.
I
guess
it
was
conceived
so
there
is,
I
mean
so
there's
some
unique
details
of
symbol
die
that
that
actually
are
quite
interesting
right.
So
one
is
that
in
the
original
white
papers
on
the
original
mission.
C
B
So
there
was
this
major
focus
on
not
having
any
protocol
expenses
right
because
as
soon
as
you
get
expenses
and
you
get
politics
and
you
get
a
power
struggle
right
and
then
you
get
the
massive
governance
overhead
and
then
also
there
was
this
thing
about
major
would
just
use
whatever
some
oracles
out
there,
because
we
assume
there'll
just
be
some
morals
out
there.
Those
would
pop
up
and
then
what
actually
happened
was
that
there
were
no
oracles
that
popped
up
out
there
right.
B
B
B
B
B
Why
don't
you
also
do
staking?
Because
you
already
got
all
the
notes
right,
you
already
know
oracle's
staking.
Why
don't
you
also
do
a
roll
right
and
basically
so
on
right
if
you're
already
on
boarding
like
I
mean
one
type
of
real
lesson,
why
don't
you
also
onboard
some
other
type
or
or
you
know,
you're
already
doing
tokenomics?
B
You
define
a
sort
of
an
end
game
of
being
like
we're
doing
blah
blah
all
these
things,
but
we're
not
doing
a
rollup.
We
simply
we're
sort
of
defining
that
that's
something
we
aren't
doing
right
and
then
so.
The
problem
is
then
like
100
years
from
now,
when
you're
sitting
around
and
everything
is
done-
and
you
know
you
have
this
sort
of
you
have
all
this
capacity
in
your
your
you.
You
know
everything
is
everything
sort
of
works?
Well,
it's
just
there's
simply
no
possibility
that
you
would
then
be
like.
B
Oh,
you
agreed
we
weren't
going
to
do
a
roll
up
100
years
ago.
So,
let's
not
do
it
right
in
practice.
You
will
just
like
it's
sort
of
like
the
laws
of
gravity
right
that
sooner
or
later,
something
like
that
will
happen.
It's
it's
so
it's
sort
of
like
when
you
have
a
kind
of
a
complexity
spiral.
You
will
naturally
get
all
these
like.
You
know,
you'll
get
these
sort
of
in
a
sense
of
escalating
proposals
right
in
terms
of
how
these
are
deeply.
They
dig
into
the
governance
itself.
B
It'll
always
happen
right
and
that's
another
thing
to
also
realize
about
the
metadata
end
game
and
this
sort
of
the
the
endgame
products,
and
all
these
like
things
like
roll-ups
and
staking
network
and
decks,
and
all
this
stuff
is
like,
if,
like
again
it's
sort
of
designed
out
from
like
from
a
principle
it's
almost
like,
like
sort
of
like
I
don't
know
like
d5
gravity
or
something
like
that
right.
These
are
just
the
things
that
just
naturally
fit
together.
B
Basically,
and
it
could
be
that
again,
like
maybe
six
months
from
now
or
maybe
50
years
from
now,
there
basically
are
other
core
examples
of
some
kind
of
like
something.
Also
along
the
like
that
that
somehow
fits
in
right.
So
it's
almost
like
the
whole
time.
You
could
see
it's
its
contour
and
you
just
weren't,
you
know
so
sort
of
there
was
something
missing
and
then
once
you
see
the
thing
and
you
realize
oh
that's
the
thing
that
was
missing
over
there
right
like
if
something
like
that
is
discovered.
B
Eventually,
then
almost
certainly
you
know
I
mean
if
it's,
if
it's
an
obvious
enough
fit,
then
the
community
should
be
able
to
sort
of
integrate
that
and
build
that
in
right.
So
and
that's
actually
the
fact
that
you're
able
to
do
that
that's
actually
more
stable
and
sort
of
more
and
more
ossified
state
than
the
opposite
of
being
like
we're,
not
doing
a
roll
up,
and
that's
just
how
the
way
it
is
right,
because
the
problem
is
like
real
ossification,
you
can't
sort
of
enforce
it
so
truly
in
a
technical
sense
right.
B
You
can't
sort
of
like
program
it
or
ask
people
to
promise
that
they'll
totally,
not
change
stuff.
So
on
right,
it's
sort
of
I
mean
one
way
to
think
of.
It
is
just
like
a
political
dynamic
right.
It's
like
a
it's
like
a
social
reality
and
it
comes
from
people
actually
believing
it's
in
their
best
interest
to
maintain
the
status
quo
right.
So
that's.
Why,
like
a
status
quo,
that
basically
is
able
to
follow
common
sense
and
be
like
well,
we've
got
this
complete
no-brainer
opportunity.
B
B
B
You
know
like
where
the
the
kind
of
the
meta
framework
can
be
changed
right,
so
you
get
into
potentially
a
complexity
spiral
right
like
the
ability
to
basically
change
any
like
you
know,
once
you
open
up
and
be
like,
oh,
we
can
change
the.
We
can
sort
of
question
the
central
document
right
and
it's
sort
of
an
it's
an
easy
win
to
be
like
well.
Why
don't?
We
do
a
roll
up,
we
already
doing
all
the
other
stuff
and
then
once
you
open
up
for
saying,
oh,
we
can
do
other
things
I
mean.
C
B
There
there's
sort
of
so
many
unpredictable
things
that
start
happening
as
soon
as
you
have
this.
You
know
you
have
this
ability
for
for
group
or
person
or
several
groups
to
to.
Basically,
you
know,
like
change
the
kind
of
the
the
foundation
of
the
entire
status
quo
itself
right
and
that's
what
I
would
say
like
that's
I
mean
that's
a
lot
of
we.
You
know
I've
written
about
this
and-
and
I
think
it's
something
everyone
talks
about
and
agrees
with
this
concept
of
the
constitution
right,
and
so
it's
also
like.
B
A
B
Think
really
is,
very
importantly,
needs
to
be
impossible
right
because
not
being
able
to
change
sort
of
core
concepts
and
core
behavior
of
the
protocol
is
the
ultimate
promise
that
keeps
that
user
safe
right,
because
that
sort
of
sits
at
the
very
sort
of
central
call.
The
whole
thing
is
the
idea
of
we're
not
going
to
steal
the
diverse
collateral,
even.
A
B
I
think
I
mean
it's
theoretically
possible.
Well,
I
can
practice.
I
don't
think
we've
seen
I
mean
we
haven't
seen
anything
like
that
or
even
sort
of
a
tense
of
that
right,
because
the
what
we
basically
run
into
is
the
problem
that
having
an
actual
decentralized
workforce
is
just
it's
a
massive
fixed
cost,
because
you
have
so
much
like
checks
and
balances
and
and
all
these
like
things
that
need
to
be
in
place
for
it
to
be
decentralized
and
not
just
being
sort
of
falling
back
on
centralization.
So
that's
kind
of
again.
B
But
if
you,
if
you
solve
a
problem,
that's
that
hard,
then
suddenly,
all
the
other
complexity
isn't
really
that
that
big
of
a
deal
in
a
sense
because
you
really
managed
to
solve
the
central
problem
and
it'd
be
foolish,
not
to
then
do
all
the
things
that
you've
now
sort
of
earned
the
right
to
do,
because
you've
managed
to
to
learn
how
to
handle
all
this
complexity.
In
first
place,
right,
okay
and
then
the
final
thing
I
want
to
say
about
this-
is
that
of
course
like
it's
not
like,
like.
B
There
could
be
additional
products
that
sort
of
a
missing
and
just
sort
of
like
left
out
for
for
no
good
reason
or
even
be
something
that
actually
doesn't
fit
in
on
very
close
analysis
right
and
some
that
would
always
be
possible
to
change.
I
mean
you
know,
because
ossification
also
isn't
something
that
happens
kind
of
like
this
right,
but
rather
it's
actually
the
gradual
process
and
again
it's
sort
of
a
it's
a
social
and
sort
of
shared
process
right.
So
so
it's
not
something
that
really
happens
until
people
are
ready
for
it
to
happen.
B
A
B
B
Need
to
like,
if
nothing
else,
you
basically
need
to
to
consider
like
we
like
it.
I
mean
unless
you
I
mean.
Let's
say
you
know
you
have
a.
We
have
this
plan
like
all
this,
like
this
product
roadmap,
that
I've
written
down
right
and
then
the
question
is
basically:
if
people
aren't
willing
to
sort
of
rule
out,
we
aren't
doing
roll-ups.
We
aren't
doing
staking
we're
like
we're
sort
of
cutting
off
all
these
possibilities.
Right
then
I
mean
you
then
basically
you
want
to.
B
I
think
that
that's
that's
really
this
question
of
like
what's
going
on
with
like
all
this
stuff
right,
like
that's,
that's
really
one
of
the
very
central
questions
I
think
and
yeah.
Ultimately
I
mean
it's
really.
It's
really
a
question.
You
know
it's
about
looking
at
it
from
this
ossification
end
game
and
then
also
this
future-proofing
perspective.
B
C
B
B
You
know
like
like,
hopefully
give
it
a
chance
to
basically
still
then
be
like
okay,
we
made
one
tiny
change
and
that's
it
no
more
changes
right
and-
and
I
think,
there's
also
like
some
interesting.
I
mean
this.
I've
thought
about
like
different
mechanics,
mechanics
and
sort
of
yeah
yeah
different
sort
of
tools
you
can
use
to
make
something
nearly
immutable,
but
still
sort
of
in
a
sense,
have
a
legitimate
process
to
deal
with
and
even
like
yeah,
like
I
mean,
there's
different,
there's
different
ways
to
do
this
right.
A
B
B
If
you
have
an
infinite
filibuster
possibility,
so
it's
like
basically
a
vote
could
always
theoretically
go
through,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
this
is
a
committed
group
that
every
single
time
chooses
to
delay
it
with
some
kind
of
you
know,
it
could
be
some
kind
of
fixed
quorum
right.
If
you
have
ten
percent
of
only
here,
you
can.
You
can
delay
a
proposal
by
a
year
right
and
then
they
have.
C
B
Come
back
next
year
and
then,
if
you
still
have
10,
then
you
can
say
you
can
send
them
off
again
all
right.
They
have
to
come
back
next
year
again
and
something
on
that
and
then
like.
I
think
you
know,
that's
really
something
we
need
to
to
look
into
over
time
right
and
figure
out
what
sort
of
the
right
way
to
to
try
to
really
nail
all
this
stuff,
right
and
and
sort
of
really
sort
of,
ossified
and
and
and
kind
of
yeah
right.
B
C
Have
to
migrate
to
the
new
version.
I
mean
that's
obviously
like
a
super
tall
barrier
to
to
scale,
but
maybe
it's
it's
like
it's
a
version
like
for
bitcoin.
This
is
how
it's
working
right
like
changes,
comment
and
miners
have
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
switch
to
the
new
version.
I
don't
know
if
that's
even
possible
for
maker
yeah.
B
But
you
simple
diet
has
a
completely
different
sort
of
like
you
can
do
exactly
that
right
and-
and
you
maybe
you'll
have
at
some
point-
will
have
a
bunch
of
simple
eye
type
systems
that
emerge
just
because
it's
sort
of
a
it's,
a
cool
and
elegant
design.
I
think
right,
but
it
and
it
also
sort
of
it.
Doesn't
it
can.
It
can
exist
at
a
tiny
scale.
I
think
right,
it's
really
just
a
smart
contract
and
then
it
kind
of
works.
B
Of
course
I
mean
there's
some
challenges
to
like
doing
arranges
and
whatnot
right,
but
then
you
can,
you
can
grow
until
you
reach
the
size
and
then
you
can
sort
of
do
those
yeah.
Of
course
I
mean
they're
they're,
the
most
complex
part
in
terms
of
this,
like,
oh,
it's
not
as
simple
to
just
hot
for
right.
The
ranges,
the
fact
that
you
still
need
the
ranges
to
really
make
simple
life
like
to
make
yourself
appealing
enough
in
in
terms
of
being
able
to
generate
income.
B
That's
that's
really
the
only
the
issue
there
right,
but
then,
on
the
other
hand,
it's
like
in
practice
like
users
are
never
gonna
they
just
don't.
I
mean
that's
not
a
thing
right.
Users
don't
like
migrate
to
something
new
like
you,
don't
have
like
bitcoin,
switching
to
bitcoin
cash
or
whatever
it
just
doesn't
happen
like
they
just
stick
with.
B
They
just
stick
with
what
they
know
and
in
fact
they
don't
even
know
about
bitcoin
cash
right,
like
very
few
people,
even
know
what
that
is
compared
to
bitcoin
right
and
then
with
the
metadata
end
game.
You
just
can't,
like
you,
can't
copy
that,
so
so
you
it's
not
about
like,
like
the
whole
thing
about
the
metadata
game,
is
it's
like
it
has
such
a
massive
amount
of
kind
of
fixed
costs
right.
It
has
a
huge
hurdle
of
like
building
up
so
much
critical
mass
that
it
starts
to
even
work.
B
Basically,
so
it's
like
a
very
unique
situation.
The
maker
is,
and
now
like,
we
are
exactly
at
that
sort
of
threshold.
Where
we
can,
we
can
actually
operate
something
like
the
metadata
end
game
without
sort
of
collapsing
in
on
ourselves
right,
because
we
actually
have
enough.
We
have
the
critical
mass
to
be
able
to
handle
it,
but
but
it
wouldn't
be,
it
wouldn't
really
be
possible
to
to
do
it
from
scratch.
B
I
think,
like
you,
would
need
so
some
very
significant
kind
of
solid
rocket
boosters
to
be
able
to
to
get
it
off
the
ground
yeah,
but
I
mean,
but
it
all
comes
back
to
this
thing
about
like
basically
the
constitution,
the
basic
principles
I
mean,
and
especially
also
clean
money
and
the
public
good
purpose
of
of
of
die
right
and
and
not
just
clean
money.
But
you
know
censorship,
resistance
and
financial
inclusion,
and
you
know
safety
of
user
safety.
B
Technical
safety
right
these
like
corporate,
like
because
those
corp
principles,
are
so
extremely
important
and
they're
sort
of
the
purpose
and
the
reason
why
people
care
and
why
they
work
and
why
they
hold
the
tokens
and
so
on.
Right.
I
mean,
of
course,
not
everyone,
but
a
lot
of
people
right
care
about
some
of
that
or
all
of
it,
and
then
that's
exactly
why
it's
like
you.
B
Never
you
just
shouldn't
mess
with
any
of
this
stuff
right
like
there's
certain
things
you
just
you
don't
want
to
start
poking
around
in
things
that
could
put
the
the
the
foundations
itself
at
risk
right
and
everyone's
going
to
have
their
own
reason.
The
only
thing
they
care
about
that
this
is
the
thing
I
care
about,
so
that
I
won't
let
you
mess
around
over
there,
because
if
you
start
messing
around
over
there,
it's
sort
of
the
you
know.
B
So
that's
really
I
mean
in
the
end
that's
ossification
like
that's
when
everybody
or
the
vast
majority
of
people
believe
that's
the
case
right.
It
applies
to
them
that,
like
I
shouldn't
let
some
random
thing
mess
around
with.
Even
if
it's
something
I
don't
care
about,
I'm
against
change,
fundamentally
because
it
puts
everything
at
risk
right.
B
B
Why
does
it
have
to
be
so
sort
of
you
know,
like
I
guess,
I'm
like
over
engineer
right
so
top
down
like
there's,
meta,
dials
and
they're
like
this
and
they're
like
that,
and
they
do
this
stuff,
and
they
have
like
tokenomics
like
that,
and
also
let's
talk
about
this
overnight
in
a
second
but
like,
but
why
do
they
sort
of
have
to
look
certain
ways
and
so
on
right?
I
think
robert
in
particular.
B
So
the
idea
is,
you
could
think
of
the
metadata
paradigm
as
this
sort
of
interface,
in
a
sense
right
where
you
have
something
you
know
maker
core,
which
is
not
exactly
the
same
as
a
symbol,
dye
right.
But
it's
it's
something
very
similar
to
a
simple
dye
that
sits
at
the
center
of
the
the
metadata
paradigm.
A
B
B
Yeah
these
are
these
slides.
These
charts
aren't
just
exactly
the
greatest
ever
right,
but
like
this
is
like
an
old
one.
There's
a
bunch
of
nomenclature,
I'm
in
the
process
of
changing
for
the
decentralized
workforce
right,
but
there's
this
like
there's
something
like
so
there's
this
like
thing
called
a
classic
top-down
sort
of
budget
interface
right.
So
that's!
Basically,
when
maker
wants
to
go
and
spend
some
budget,
then
there's
like
a
certain
way:
it
does
it
and
then
the
idea
is
look.
B
Of
course
it
needs
to
be
defined
like
you,
we
expect
that
their
meta,
like
I
mean
maker,
basically
knows
that
there's
always
going
to
be
meta
metadose
available
to
interact
with,
but
what
we
really
want
is
just
a
free
market
right.
So
you
also,
if
you
want
metadata-
or
you
want
some
other
type
of
of
counterbodies
sort
of
entity,
whatever
dao
company
bounty
hunter
whatever
it
is,
that
can
basically
provide
the
same
type
of
sort
of
interaction
that
metadials
can
offer
right,
so
you
so
it
so
it
is.
B
B
B
There
is
this
one
caveat
kind
of
that:
governor
dials,
that
sort
of
run
the
actual
core
workforce
itself
right
runs.
The
coordinates
runs.
The
councils
run
some
of
the
the
all
the
the
official
infrastructure,
like
the
administrative
infrastructure.
These
are,
I
mean
they
fund
them.
They're
always
required
right,
because
their
maker
doesn't
even
have
that
itself.
So
maker
relies
on
the
government
to
ask
all
of
that,
but
the
creator,
the
house
and
the
reform
analysts
that
are
sort
of
doing
work.
B
They
should
be
interchangeable
with
with
like
sort
of
any
company
or
whatever
right,
and
the
same
goes
for
this
kind
of
I
mean
this
I
think
is
actually.
This
is
probably
the
what
I
think
is
the
most
important
like
way
to
sort
of
exit
like
work
and
make
her
in
the
long
run.
That's
gonna
overshadow
probably
any
other
type
of
work
and
also
make
all
the
other
budgets
and
all
the
other
work
that
happens
really
sort
of
diminish
the
necessity
for
that.
B
You
know
like
it's
a
new
collateral
type
and
you
can
use
it
on
optimism
or
something
here
you
go
right.
It's
ready
to
go,
then
all
maker
has
to
do
is
basically
review
the
the
integrity
of
the
code
right
and
make
sure
it's
it's.
It's
not
an
attack
or
a
buggy,
or
something
like
that.
But
then
it's
basically
like
it's
a
free
feature
that
you
adopted
and
then
just
automatic
and
just
works
right
and
and
that's
something
where
like
to
attract
like
then
you
can.
B
You
can
reward
that
with
a
very,
very
generous
revenue
share
right,
especially
if
it's
temporary,
so
you
basically
say
oh
you'll
get.
I
don't
know
like
half
of
all
the
money
word
for
that
or
some
whatever
something.
It
could
be.
Some
very
high
amount
right
because
in
the
end
maker,
doesn't
really
care
about
the
short
run
at
all
right.
A
B
Got
a
free
feature
for
free,
I
mean,
of
course,
depending
on
things
like
oracles.
I
mean
there's
also,
there's,
of
course,
situations
where
it's
not
literally
completely
for
free,
and
then
it
gets
a
little
bit
more
complicated
and
gets
becomes
a
little
bit
more
similar
to
the
classic
top-down,
but
it
even
works,
for
you
know
some
like
entire
synthetic
assets
and
even
like
I
mean
a
shot
at
vault
engines
like
these
massive
expansions
of
the
protocol,
can
follow
this.
B
This
basic
model
and
that's
again,
something
where,
like
like
maker,
knows
that
this
will
work,
because
the
metadatas
exist
and
they're
gonna
tap
into
it.
But
again
it.
You
know
you
really
want
the
the
most
efficient
possible
marketplace
right.
So
that's
like
there's,
no
reason
why
you
don't
open
up
that
opportunity
to
others
as
well
yeah,
and
then
I
mean
there's
also
a
whole
d3m
thing
right
where,
where
it's
also
like
I
mean
this
is
already.
B
This
is
already
shown
in
the
like
in
the
maker
core
right
that
the
idea
is
in
the
major
core.
Of
course,
you
also
d3m
out
to
like
maker
interacts
with
metadatas,
but
of
course
also
with
like
compound
and
and
some
of
these
other
sort
of
very
large
scale
stuff
where
you
it's
sort
of
the
same
thing
where,
like
you
can
you
may
agree
into
regular
and
interactive
compound
because
it's
on
it's
sort
of
on
terms
and
sort
of
in
conditions
that
are
similar
to
the
metadata
themselves
right.
A
Hey
hey
so,
and
I
made
this
point
in
the
forum-
and
I'm
just
I
want
to
bring
it
up
here
on
the
call,
because
there
are,
I
use
this
term
kind
of
interface
or
control
point
and
there's
so
much
innovation.
That's
happening,
I
think
at
a
dow
level,
and
you
had
the
two
levels
you
had
the
maker
level
and
the
ma
the
metadata
level
and
and
the
metadata
level
seems
to
be
a
reflection
of
the
maker
level,
and
my
question
was
more
on
on.
A
If
those
interfaces
were
defined
correctly
and
we
wouldn't
have
to
define
how
any
of
those
entities
look
and
each
of
those
entities
could
take
advantage
of,
for
example,
maybe
funding
through
the
d3m,
maybe
the
tokenomic
model
and
a
variety
of
other
factors.
So
I
just
I
still
question:
what's
the
need
to
drive
the
same
structure
into
the
metadows
and
if
there's
a
purpose,
that's
fine?
I
I'm
willing
to-
and
I
know
you've
been
trying
to
explain
that.
But
when
you
know
we,
we
had
a
exchange
on
the
forum.
It
was
like.
A
A
And
so,
if
the
innovation
happens
at
you
know,
there's
dow
theory
and
economics
and
tokenomics,
and
if
we
really
spend
the
energy
there
and
then
allow
you
know,
groups
like
mine,
like
ces,
to
to
look
at
all
the
goodness.
That's
been
created
and
leverage
all
of
that
and
then
figure
out
how
we
can
add
the
value.
Given
our
experience
in
the
dao
and
who
knows,
maybe
some
do
go
to
more
of
a
traditional
dao
structure
and
maybe
others
gravitate
more
toward
a
centralized
organization
based
upon
their
their
learnings
or
backgrounds
or
experiences.
B
Yeah
look,
so
that's
a,
I
think.
That's
a
great
it's
a
great
point.
I
mean
that's
something
I
really.
I
didn't
really
talk
about.
I
think
like
that,
and
it
really
comes
down
to
like
the
basics
thing
of
like,
what's
going
on
with
metadatas
right
like
why
melodious
and
why
they
called
metadata
house
right
and-
and
why
is
it
so
specific
in
a
sense
designed
in
that
way?
Right
and
yeah?
B
I
mean
the,
I
think
so,
for
I
mean
the
first
first
one
thing
to
to
note
is
that
yeah,
like
I
mean
what
like
we're
talking
about
right
like
then-
and
I
just
went
through
this
like
these
multiple
interfaces
you
should
be
able
to
to-
I
mean
they're
like
something
like.
If
you
onboard
this
thing,
then
you
know,
then
there
you
can
have
a
revenue
share
right.
B
That's
a
kind
of
you
know,
an
interface
that
you
can
make
available
to
everyone
easily
right
and
there
should
be
there's
I
mean,
there's
some
caveats
to
it,
but
it
all
makes
sense
right,
but
but
they're
definitely
also
like
I
mean
there
are
certain
functions
that
simply
cannot
be
just
made
available
as
an
interface
right,
and
I
think
I
mean
obviously
the
most.
The
most
obvious
example
is
something
like
governor
dao
right,
like
that's.
A
B
That's
that's
so
kind
of
like
fundamental
to
how
maker
itself
functions
and
it's
it's
also
part
of
this
sort
of
the
irreversibility
of
the
metadata
in
game,
right
that
once
you
sort
of
implement
enough
of
it,
you
reach
a
point
where
you
can't,
even
you
can't
reverse
it,
because
you,
the
metadatas,
are
growing
together
with
what
maker
itself
is,
but
for
the
I
mean
for
for
most
of
the
stuff.
That's
that's
probably
not
the
case
right,
but
then.
B
B
It's,
not
a
big
problem
if
you've,
massively
overpaid,
actually
because
a
whole
bunch
of
that
money
is
going
to
flow
back
and
that's
this
concept
of
what
I
call
value
preservation.
So
I
think
I
mean
so
for
some
of
and
I'm
not,
I
think
it's
like,
like
I
mean,
there's,
there's
also
other
factors.
That
really
I
mean
I
haven't
even
got
to
the
whole
question
of
decentralization
right,
but
you
have
to
basically
there
there
might
be
situations
where
the
metadows
are.
B
Right,
like
a
metadata,
you
can
give
a
metadata
much
higher
front-end
revenue
share
because
the
money
is
kind
of
like
flowing
back
in,
like
you,
you're
still
practicing
value
preservation
right,
whereas
like
if
you
gave
oasis,
if
you
just
went
to
oasis
and
gave
them
like
a
super
high
revenue
share,
then
what
actually
you
could
accomplish
is
that
suddenly
they're,
just
getting
all
the
money
from
maker
from
the
captive
user
base
and
maker
doesn't
really
come
like
they
just
pocket.
The
profits
and
maker
doesn't
really
accomplish
anything
right,
because
I
mean,
of
course,
in
the.
B
In
the
end
I
mean-
and
this
is
sort
of
the
this
is
maybe
the
most
important
point
right,
but
that
is
that
metadatas
are
actually
an
exercise
in
creating
something
that
is
highly
decentralized
right
and
there
is
even
the
distribution
the
yield
farming
of
the
tokens
themselves.
It
sort
of
all
has
the
kind
of
circular
logic
to
it
in
a
way
right
of
sort
of
a
virtual
cycle
to
it
where,
ultimately,
what
what
we
also
I
mean.
B
That's
interesting
to
them,
which
just
makes
it
so
much
more
sort
of
you
know
it's
much
more
likely
that
you
he
hit
the
sweet
spot
where
you
can
yield
farmer
token
to
someone
and
then
they
keep
it
rather
than
they're.
Just
gonna
sell
it
right,
in
which
case
it's
sort
of
a
much
like
it's
a
much
sort
of
dumber
or
some
more
naive
type
of
incentive
right,
we're
just
making
things
cheaper
basically,
and
that
I
mean-
and
that's
really
like
that,
then
comes
back
to
like
the
core
of
the
entire
plan.
B
Right
of
the
whole
in
game
plan,
which
is
also,
I
mean
in
all
cases,
it's
about
making
dye
as
decentralized
and
stable
and
resilient
as
possible.
But
the
metadata
end
game
also
has
its
focus
on
trying
to
basically
maximize
the
amount
of
decentralized
collateral
right
and
that's
big,
that's
done
and
specifically
state
and
there's
this
whole
maximalism
piece
to
it
right
with
the
either
die,
and
you
know
our
own
synthetic
and
basically
having
all
the
tokens
also
target.
Specifically
this
sort
of
fundamental.
B
You
know
in
this
truly
decentralized
economy,
right
that
that
just
makes
them
more
like
it
makes
just
makes
them
way
more
valuable,
because
some
of
the
brazilians
of
dye
also
is
the
resilience
of
the
metadatas
and
if
you
make
them
sort
of
truly
theoretically
right.
If
you
could
really
get
to
the
point
where
you
get
like,
100
percent
eat
backing
and
true
decentralization
permanent.
B
You
know
is
what
allows
us,
to
put,
I
mean
to
basically
create
parallelized
specialized
decentralized
governance,
communities
right
that
can
then
sort
of
govern
all
this
complex
stuff,
because
that's
I
mean
because
that's
in
the
end
I
mean
that's
how
that's
where
it
comes
down
to
this
basic
question
of.
Do
we
want
to
have
you
know
simple
governance
like
today:
we've
got
simple
governance
and
complex
features,
right,
complex
decisions,
and
then
you
either.
B
The
decisions
really
simple,
so
that's
simple,
die,
simple
governance,
simple
decisions,
it
works
right
or
you
want
to
sort
of
significantly
up
level
like
how
the
governance
even
works,
right,
which
you
then
do
with
with
meta
dials,
basically
and
with
checks
and
balances
that
ultimately
all
tie
back
to
and
are
sort
of
enforced
by
the
metadatas
themselves.
Right
and
that's
I
mean,
and
that's
what
really
like
it's
the
it's.
B
The
fact
that
we
can
sort
of
we
can
you
know
like
like
maker,
can
basically
actively
create
this
and
do
so
safely
right
in
a
way
that
I
mean,
obviously,
the
metadata
can
fail
and
that's
a
part
of
the
design
that
some
of
them
will
fail,
and
then
you
just
create
new
ones,
but
on
in
aggregate
it's
a
very
sort
of
safe
approach.
I
mean
that's
my
opinion.
Obviously
right.
B
B
Basically,
right,
it's
like
the
most
powerful
thing
in
all
of
blockchain
right
and
that's
really
what
you
can
you
can
tap
into
as
the
one
or
maybe
maybe
not
the
only
one,
but
one
of
the
few
benefits
that
you
have
of
being
truly
decentralized
compared
to
the
massive
massive
downsides
that
you're
dealing
with
on
the
other
side.
Right,
on
the
other
hand,
yes,.
B
Sure,
if
that
really
I
mean
the
answer
is
from
you
from
your
perspective
right
robert,
like
do
you
want
to
be
an
ecosystem
actor,
or
do
you
want
to
work
in
a
metadata
right,
like
I
think,
first
of
all,
there's
no
need
to
commit
to
any
of
that
right,
because
a
big
sort
of
feature
of
the
whole
ecosystem
is
it
all
like.
Is
this
like
workforce
fluidity
right?
So
that's
a
big.
I
mean
that's
a
big
thing
of
like
maker.
B
Today
we
have
this
massive
full-time
workforce
and
they
can't
they're
full-time
they're
constantly
doing
stuff
and
then,
if
they
run
into
a
situation
where
there's
like
suddenly
there's
nothing
meaningful
to
do
then
they'll
just
do
something.
That's
kind
of
pointless,
because
I
mean
they're
full
time
they
have
to
work.
They
have
to
do
something
right
and
then
this
sort
of
metadata
paradigm
of
workforce
fluidity
is
like
there's
opportunities
all
over
the
place.
Right,
you
can
work
for
metadata.
You
can
work
on
your
own
thing.
B
You
can
work
on
your
side
project,
you
can
work
directly
for
maker
and
you
just
start
chasing
the
the
the
best
opportunity
right,
because
that's
I
mean
that's.
I
guess
maybe
it's
not
kevin.
It's
free
markets
right,
like
you,
want
you
the
the
place
where
you
can
earn
the
most
money.
That's
where
you
create
the
most
value
right,
so.
B
Something
like
I
mean
if,
if
you
have,
let's
say
that,
there's
like
the
something
like
the
the
you
know,
the
bottom-up
revenue
share
collateral,
onboarding
thing
it
might
be.
That
maker
simply
puts
a
higher
value.
In,
like
I
mean
that
the
sort
of
the
difference
in
value
from
maker
and
providing
revenue
share
to
an
ex
you
know
to
an
ecosystem
actor
versus
a
metadow
somehow
just
makes
like
the
calculator
is
like.
Well,
you
want
to
do
this
work.
B
A
A
B
A
you
get
sort
of
a
you
know
like
a
fixed
income,
and
then
you
get
tokens
and
then
you
maybe
get
a
bit
of
sort
of
a
like.
A
revenue
share
yourself
right
and
if
you
do
it
as
a
company,
then
you
just
get
the
entire
revenue
share.
Whatever's
available
to
you
right,
but
no
I
mean
well,
I
guess
in
theory
you
could
do
some
weird
stuff
where
you
could
have
an
investor,
take
some
risk
and
buy
half
of
the
revenue
share
or
something
right,
but
that's
sort
of
built
into
the
metadata
right.
B
A
You
know
a
vision,
you
know,
and
then
sometimes
you
know
the
question
gets
asked:
okay,
exactly
which
vision
are
we
trying
to
execute
on
and
so
there's
also
a
you
know,
an
engagement
people
want
to
engage
in
their
work
and
it
can
be
really
challenging.
So,
for
for
me,
my
bias
just
I'm
practicing.
This
is
my
biases
toward
action
right.
So
when
I
take
a
look
at
we're
going
to
experiment
with
metadows,
I'm
scratching
my
head
a
little
bit
going
all
right.
A
A
One
of
the
challenges
that
we
face
right
now
is
that
there
is
a
lot
of
differing
opinions
on
rwas
the
history,
the
success
and
where
they
go,
and
what
we've
determined
very
recently
has
been
that
this
information,
whether
it's
in
discord
on
the
forums
in
documentations
on
slides,
is
leaking
out
into
the
industry,
and
there
are
partners
out
there
that
are
going
what's
going
on
here
maker.
What
are
you
doing
so
in
this
in
between
time?
We're
talking
about
about
trying
to
transition
to
a
future
state?
Meanwhile,
there's
current
work.
A
That
needs
to
be
done,
and
I
think
that
there's
maybe
a
varying
opinion
as
far
as
where
rwas
live,
but,
generally
speaking
as
I've
been
attending
all
of
these
discussions,
it
seems
as
if
we
want
to
do
them.
We
just
don't
want
them
to
be
inside
of
the
complexity
to
be
inside
of
the
core
right.
So
that's
kind
of
what
I
the
conclusion.
A
Ces
has
a
piece
of
our
work
in
rwas,
but
we
do
much
more
than
that,
but
it,
but
it
is
something
that
I
believe
is
is
part
of
our
future,
and
so
I'm
really
challenged
right
now
because
room
like,
for
example,
you
you
have
on
a
slide,
freeze
right
that
that
type
of
verbiage
and
I'm
really
asking
you
and
the
community
again.
This
is
entirely
up
to
each
one
of
you,
but
it's
like.
If
you
want
to
help,
let's
remove
those
things
that
impede
us
to
get
our
work
done
today
and
we
could.
A
A
Let's
do
everything
we
can
as
as
a
dow
to
help
that
success
flourish
out
there
with
the
people
that
in
the
future,
will
be
working
on
that,
but
right
now
it's
really
challenging
for
for
a
big
group
of
us,
because
you
can't
fill
the
pipeline
if
everyone's
out
there
going
well,
we
don't
know
if
rwas
are
even
going
to
be
around
inside
of
maker.
So
I
just
want
to
use
that
as
one
example
as
a
challenge
that
we're
facing
as
we
go
through
this
transition.
So
we
gotta
balance
the
two
right.
B
B
The
whole
yeah,
basically
the
whole
problem
right
like
so
the
problem
is
we
never
had
the
I
mean
it
doesn't
function
and
make
a
call
right.
So
we
have
this,
like
very
you,
know
bad
throughput,
but
even
bigger
sort
of
governance
issues
right
like
it's
not
even
safe.
What
we're
doing
in
a
way
right
like
there's,
no
there's
no
sort
of
real
kind
of
sense
to
it.
B
You
know
this
massive
workflows
and
massive
all
this
complexity
that
you
have
to
figure
out
without
it
it
makes
it
makes
no
sense
at
all
right
and
so
and
like
I
think
I
mean
we
should
and
I
we
are
right,
I
mean,
and
we
should
definitely
still
execute
on
real
assets
in
the
short
run
and
complex
miracle
assets.
But
the
thing
is
like
in
the
end
like
the
upside
of
complex
verbalize:
it's
quite
abstract
right,
so
it's
like
it
taps
into
yeah.
B
It
gets
a
lot
easier
if
you
can
provide
this
on
a
very
clear
framework
to
metadials,
but
also
to
like
real
asset
pools
or
something
like
that
right,
where
you
basically
say:
okay,
we're
willing
to
do
these
kind
of
illiquid
deals.
These,
like
non-traditional,
deals
that
you
actually
never
do
for
currency
normally,
but
we
can
do
it
in
this
particular
case,
because
we
have
a
way
to
actually
capture
the
value
right,
which
is
by
strengthening
our
governance
by
creating
a
purpose
and
then
also
through
stuff.
B
I
mean
basic
sort
of
pr
and
attention
right,
but
in
the
end,
like
yeah,
to
make
it
work,
we
have
to
make
the
the
metadata
and
then
the
politics
work
right.
So
that's
why
I
mean
what
I've,
what
I've
done
with
the
focus
objectives
is
I've.
Just
I
mean
I've
basically
tried
to
keep
a
list
of
what
I
think
are
like
the
the
ranges
that
have
actual
political
capital
right.
B
So
we
should
change
it
over
time,
of
course,
but
the
the
key
piece
is
that,
ultimately
anyone
that
we're
working
with
on
real
assets
now
we
can
only
do
it
in
the
context
of
like
clustering
them
to
metadata
and
trying
to
put
them
into
metadowns,
because
without
that,
it's
simply
like
there's
no
upside
for
us
to
do
it.
Basically.
B
B
To
like,
basically,
the
sort
of
the
tragedy
of
real
assets
is
that
we
just
ended
up
in
a
really
bad
place
and
there's
like
no
way
around
the
fact
that
it's
sort
of
we
got.
We
set
the
wrong
expectations.
We
have
like
hundreds
of
counterparties
that
are
hoping
for
something
from
us
and
we
we
can't
deliver
to
them
right,
but
at
least
now
there's
like
a
path
towards
trying
to
fix
a
so
we
can
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
actually
deliver
something
like
that
right.
A
We
enable
them
to
help
them
to
move
into
this
new
structure
to
really
capitalize
on
it
or
we
continue
doing
what
we're
doing
and
it's
it's
just
not
going
to
be
helpful.
At
least
it
hasn't
been
up
until
now
and
we're
really
we're
getting
challenged
because
we're
getting
pushed
back
by
by
companies
out
there
going.
We
don't
even
know
if
maker
wants
to
do
rwas.
A
Meanwhile,
we've
just
you
know
we're
completing
you
know.
Yes,
sock
gen,
that's
been
in
the
works,
but
that's
coming
to
completion,
and
then
you
know
we
learned
a
lot
and
then
hv
bank.
You
know
that's
right,
you
know
it's
like
we're.
We're
in
the
middle
of
the
thick
of
you
know
trying
to
get
dye
deployed
and
such
with
that.
So
again
it's
like.
A
We
have
some
momentum
right
now,
whether
we
can
consensusly
agree
with
whether
it's
been
successful
or
not,
but
if
we
can
just
get
aligned
to
say,
let's
give
the
individuals
that
have
a
skin
in
the
game
and
want
to
move
this
business
forward.
Let's
help
them.
So
that's
what
I'm
asking
this
community
to
do.
B
A
B
Dominoes
that
will
start
falling
right.
If
you
basically
see
me
giving
up
on
a
lot
of
the
more
wildly
ambitious
stuff
right
and
yeah,
like
I
mean,
I
think
I
mean,
of
course
that's
I
I
actually
guess
literally
because
we
are
now
in
the
discussion
around
things
like
clustering
and
sort
of
the
practicalities.
B
That's
I
guess
I
mean
that's
a
time
to
really
say.
Okay,
now
now
the
opportunity
is
there
right.
This
is
what
it
looks
like.
You
also
need
to
understand
the
risks
right,
we're
talking
about
like
doing
experimental
sub-dials
of
maker,
and
we
have
sort
of
fundamental
like
we
need
to
fundamentally
validate
the
experiment
before
we
can
even
commit
to
it
right.
B
B
C
Roon,
I
I
want
to
echo
robert
on
on
that
one
because,
like
I,
I
understand
that,
like
the
vision
is
like
creating
methadone
that
can
be
more
focused
on
onboarding,
real
real-world
assets
and
that's
great
but
like
we
haven't,
voted
this
proposal,
so
all
core
units.
We
are
just
like
doing
what
our
mandate
says.
C
So,
I'm
just
like
doing
growth
and
real
world
finance
should
be
on
boarding
more
real-world
assets,
and
we
are
all
like
doing
what
what
the
protocol
and
the
maker
holders
approved
when
we
propose
when
we
presented
a
proposal.
So
we
just
are
doing
that
and
while
doing
that,
we
are
like,
and
now
as
as
robert
said,
we
are
in
a
very
good
moment
because
we
are
about
to
onboard
such
an
hpv
and
we
have
two
amazing
use
cases
of
banks,
one
in
europe,
one
in
north
america
who
can
bring
us
more
deals.
C
And
if
I
want
like
to
continue
doing
my
work
well,
I
would
like
to
my
best
to
bring
more
deals
to
the
table,
more
banks
that
want
to
work
with
maker,
and
that
is
if
we
continue
doing
what
we
supposed
to
do.
But
now
you
are
working
on
the
end
game
plan
and
are
proposing
on
going
in
that
direction,
but
by
going
in
that
direction
it
it
is
like.
C
C
What
should
we
do
now
like,
because
we
have
like
new
proposals
in
the
forum
new,
like
assets
to
onboard,
but
if
the
priority
is
the
end
game
plan,
we
shouldn't
do
it,
but
we
haven't
voted
that
in
and
we
also
ask
our
units
have
a
mandate
to
to
respect.
So
it's
very
confusing
right
now
the
the
direction
that
that
that
we
should
have,
as
coordinates
as
the
community
and
how
to
like,
engage
with
the
end
game
plan.
C
And
if
it's
confusing
for
us,
I
can't
imagine
how
confusing
it
could
be
with
for
our
partners
and-
and
I
think
we
we
should
also
like-
have
to
have
an
answer
for
them
because,
like
they
are
the
ecosystem
that
will
the
community
that
you
are
talking
about
like
if
we
want
metadows
to
to
be
successful.
We
need
like
to
have
that
community
that
ecosystem
alive.
C
So
I
understand
that
yes,
we
should
like
keep
business
as
usual,
but
at
the
same
time,
walter
like
by
having
roone
saying
we
should
freeze
the
onboarding
of
new
real
world
assets,
it
makes
core
units
to
like
stop
doing
what
they're
doing.
I
suppose,
because
it's
confusing
I
I
maybe
for
you,
it's
it's
it's
normal,
but
for
some
of
us
it's
it's
really
confusing,
and
I
have.
I
don't
know
like
just
to
give
you
an
example.
I
have
two
five.
C
We
were
talking
with
them
about
the
onboarding,
but
now
they
don't
know
if
maker
wants
to
onboard
them,
because
it's
not
part
of
the
endgame
plan,
and
probably
we
understand
that
this
is
just
a
vision
and
we
have
to
build
and
go
towards
this.
But
that's
not
clear
for
people
outside
maker,
so
I
I
think
that-
and
maybe
this
is
something
to
work
with
with
delegates
on
how
to
like.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
mean
so
the
thing
is
that,
like
I
mean
first
of
all,
the
thing
is-
and
this
is
kind
of
I
mean
so
this
really
goes
back
to
this
fundamental
question
of
like
once
you
put
in
place,
I
mean
once
you
have
a
workforce,
then
suddenly
the
government,
like
the
the
challenge
of
a
workforce,
it's
just
it's
a
massive.
It's
it's,
not
a
simple
thing
right.
It's
an
insanely,
complicated
challenge
right
because
I
mean
exactly
this
thing.
B
B
This
is
a
really
good
example,
something
it's
just
not
that
simple,
because
I
mean
what
you're
actually
describing
of
like.
We
have
a
bunch
of
deals.
We've
got
all
these
like
real
asset
deals
right
like
that's
actually
like
it
shouldn't
it's
not
actually
safe
to
just
go
ahead
and
do
a
bunch
of
deals
right
like
you
need
to
have
some
kind
of
big
picture
strategy
for
for
getting
into
all
sorts
of
exposure
I
mean
otherwise.
B
B
You
still
there's
always
sort
of
I
mean
not
always,
but
there's
there's
these
many
layers
of
of
kind
of
like
the
risks
and
the
complexity
that
we
all
have
to
handle
right.
So
I
think
I
mean
I
think
the
best
answer
is
that
I
mean
first
of
all
right
when
I
talk
about
freeze
and
so
on,
I'm
just
talking
about
how
I'm
going
to
vote
right
in
terms
of
like
this
is
you
know
I
want
to
protect
my
my
my
value
right,
my
car.
B
B
A
B
Like
that's,
I
mean
so
so
you
know,
I
think,
and
that's
how
we
have
to
keep
that
in
mind
like
and
it
doesn't
matter.
I
mean,
or
rather
I
mean
it's
sort
of
my
job
as
an
girl
holder,
to
deal
with
the
risk
of
the
reality
that
we
didn't
know
that
we
had
no
like.
We
thought
you
know
when
I
was
first
really
sort
of
crusading
for
real
assets.
B
Many
many
years
ago,
right
I
was
I
mean
that
was
in
a
situation
where
there
wasn't
even
interest
rates
and
bonds
right.
There's
negative
interest
rates
right,
so
they
weren't
even
on
our
radar.
Just
because
that's
not
a
like,
we
didn't,
you
know
that
was
just
wasn't
exciting
back
then
right
it
was
a
different
time
and
and
as
a
result,
we
were
really
you
know.
B
I
mean
we
just
went
in
a
very
different
direction
in
a
sense,
and
then
we
ended
up
sort
of
going
pretty
peeking
down
every
single
sort
of
dead,
end
and
different
approaches.
To
this
I
mean
there's
also
obviously
tons
of
opportunity.
Although
I
mean
I
think
in
the
end,
there's
like
way
too
much
opportunity
right.
So
there's
like
100
trillion
billion
things
you
could
do
with
rebel
assets
and
we
can't.
C
C
I
don't
know
like
add
something
in
the
in
the
onboarding
meet
to
clarify
that
for
the
moment,
because
of
the
current
market
situation
like
the
criteria
to
onboard,
has
to
follow
this
and
this,
and
this
and
maker
holders
can
vote
on
that
on
that
change.
On
the
mip,
I
think
I
mean
we
need
solutions
for
the
present
not
just
like
to
like
create
the
end
game
plan
and
and-
and
this
is
something
that
we
can
do,
and
it's
the
same
as
with
crypto
collaterals.
We
have
no.
We
are
not
like.
C
We
have
a
lot
of
cheat
coins
around
and
we
are
not
on
boarding
that,
because
we
have
a
clear
criteria
of
what
we
want
in
maker.
We
can
do
the
same
for
crypto
for
real-world
assets,
but
instead
of
just
like,
like
like
presenting
it
that,
in
a
way
that
we
are
pressing
the
onboarding
of
real
world
assets,
and
then
we
have
to
talk
with
you
roon.
C
C
In
general,
we
will
like
talk
about
these
type
of
assets
that
the
protocol
wants
to
onboard
so
yeah.
This
will
help
all
the
doubt
to
coordinate
and
work
on
that
direction
instead
of
like
just
like
doing
it
like
this,
I
think
there's
a
way
on
the
current
governance
system
that
we
have.
That,
I
know,
is
not
perfect
and
it
has
a
lot
of
problems,
but
we
have
to
work
with
what
we
have
now
and
at
the
same
time
like
try
to
fix
it.
B
B
We've
ever
done
was
hpb
right,
and
I
think
that
took
two
months
so
for
that
that
means
we
can
basically
do
six
deals
per
year
right
and
so
right
now
we
have.
I
think
we,
basically
you
know
we
have
we
have
these
very
you
know
we
got.
We
have
basically
the
mips
65,
which
is
a
bond
deal.
That's
very,
very
important
right.
B
And
so
I
I
mean
it's
like.
I
think
I
guess
actually
what
maybe,
what
like
what
you're
talking
about
here
right.
It's
like
set
some
kind
of
criteria
so
that
people
understand
when
should
they
bother
and
when
when
shouldn't
they
right,
but
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
there's
like
basically
that's
like
yeah
there's
like
two
possibilities
right
so
one
is
that
we're
just
not
going
to
do
complex
real
license.
C
B
Basically,
help
people
understand
that
reality
right,
I
just
I
mean
the
only
like
the
problem
or
whatever
the
the
challenge
is
basically,
as
I
was
talking
about
earlier
right,
I
mean
so
we're
getting
to
the
point
where
we
need
to
have
like
a
vote
right.
We
need
to
have
some
kind
of
decision
to
deal
with
this
uncertainty
and
sort
of
paralysis
that
we're
now
entering,
so
we
can't,
and
but
basically
we
wouldn't
like.
We
can't
do
something
like
instructions
or
real
assets
that
have
some
something
specific
to
metadata.
B
B
Like
I
mean
primarily
right,
I
mean
it
would
be
seen
as
sort
of
a
common
proxy
for
sort
of
acceptance
or
rejection
of
the
early
in-game
vote
right.
So
I
think
in
practice
we
have
to
do
like,
like
once
we
do
a
vote.
We
have
to
do
like
a
proper
vote
on
not
on
like
approving
the
endgame,
because
that
would
require.
B
B
A
B
If,
if
we're
not
doing
complex
real-world
assets
without
metadows,
does
that
mean
we're
not
doing
them
until
we
get
metadails?
Is
that
what
we
should
tell
the
partners
who
are
like
looking
on
board
that
you
have
to
wait
for
metadails
and
then
we'll
do
your
asset,
or
I
mean
what
I
really
think
is
like.
So,
first
of
all
right
we
need
to
think
about.
B
You
need
to
think
about
both
like
partners
and
arrangers
right.
So
a
good
example
is
that
hvb
is
like
a
part
like
they're.
You
know,
they're
a
real
asset
provider,
but
they're
not
actually
in
a
ranger.
It's
a
real
asset
code.
That's
the
arranger
right,
like
they're.
The
people
that
have
the
skill
set
that
allows
them
to
interact
with
with
the
decentralized
governance
process
like
hbb,
simply
doesn't
right
and
and
actually
suck.
B
C
B
Like
once,
we
have
the
like
a
real
framework
for
complex
variable
assets,
that
sort
of
properly
ex
sort
of
you
know
like
explores
what
are
their
actual
value
to
us
and
and
the
die
stable
point
right
then
we
can
start
to
really
point
to
like.
Where
are
the
touch
points?
Where
are
the
opportunities
and
for
the
vast
majority
of
banks
or
whatever
right?
B
But
then
the
other
thing
I
also
want
to,
I
think,
is
so
important
that
we
establish
right
is
like
we
really
need,
like
some
very
simple
model,
for
how
we
do
real
assets.
In
the
meta
I
mean
just
I
mean
how
do
we
do
complex
vehicle
assets
in
the
metadata
paradigm
right
where,
at
this
point
I
mean,
I
think,
a
sort
of
a
golden
standard
has.
Has
I
mean
it's
not
really
right?
It's
not
been
full,
it's
not
been
enforced,
it's
not
like.
It's
obviously
not
been.
B
B
That,
with
with
in
with
hvb
right
where
we
don't
have
junior
capital,
we
just
have
participation
and
then
also
like
pando.
That
has
a
kind
of
that
has
like
losses,
absorption
but
doesn't
have
like
true
like
junior
capital
either,
and,
of
course
we
can
like
we
can
make
exceptions
and
we
can
still
make
things
work
so
to
to
move
forward
and
get
going.
B
But
I
think
that's
like
that's
another
key
piece
of
where
we
want
to
get
to
is
to
be
able
to
say
look
if
you
want
to
do
real
assets
of
maker.
Here's
the
opportunity
like
talk
to
these
things,
to
talk
to
these
companies
they're
set
up.
They
have,
they
can
access
governance,
you
know
in
their
in
their
metadata
and
it's
a
metadata
cluster
with
so
they've
got
healthy.
You
know,
they've
got
a
functional
political
dynamic
there.
B
You
know
I
mean
if,
as
long
as
they
know,
we
got
hundreds
of
millions
right,
then
we
can
just
go
around
and
everyone's
going
to
want
to
work
with
us
right
if
we
play
if
we,
if
we
have
the
arrangers
and
they're
professionals
and
the
pricing
is
right,
we're
never
going
to
have
a
problem.
Finding
counterparties
I
mean
like
I
just
personally,
even
though
I
don't
like
I
just
get
flooded
with
all
these,
like
you
know,
constant
little
pitches
right
for
like
people
that
want
to
bo.
B
I
mean
I
literally
get
messages
on
twitter
from
like
random,
like
twitter,
startup,
gurus
and
and
like
weird
people
that
want
to
that.
Somehow
I've
heard
about
making,
I
want
to
borrow
money
and
think
they
have
to
send
me
a
dm
on
twitter
right,
which
I
mean
you
know,
and
that's
just
like
that's
when
we
don't
even
have
any
like
it's
just
a
rumor
that
you
can
borrow
money
from
maker
right
like
when
you
actually
have
a
real
sort
of
actionable
like
here's.
The
way
it
works.
B
You
check
all
these
boxes
go
over
here.
It's
gonna
become
real
right.
That's
where
we
need
that's
what
we
need
to
focus
on
right
like.
I
also
think
we
need
to
do.
Obviously
we
need
to
keep
the
momentum
going,
but
we
need
to
keep
the
momentum
going.
What
that
means
is
it's
working
us
towards
the
point
we
want
to
get
to
right
like
it
doesn't
matter.
B
If
we
do
one
more
and
one
less
200
million
dollar
deal
in
in
the
short
run
like
I
mean
it,
sort
of
it's
less
than
useful,
actually
in
a
sense
because
we
should
be
doing
bonds
instead,
so
we
should
only
be
doing
complex
realized
deals
in
the
short
run
entirely
to
for
the
sake
of
building
bridges
to
the
ranges,
because
the
rangers
are
really
the
bottleneck.
Again
I
mean
that's
yeah,
that's
my
opinion
right
and
that's
there's
gonna.
We
need
a
lot
more
conversation
about
this
and
that's
kind
of
I
mean
yeah.