►
From YouTube: Open Decentralized Voter Committee | Endgame v3
Description
Rune continues to present the Endgame Plan v3, which is the latest iteration with major tokenomics simplifications, new terminology and new details around aspects such as how to respond to government crackdowns in the Endgame with Phoenix Stance.
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/wednesday-and-thursday-endgame-dvc-meetings-presenting-endgame-v3/17144
A
Thank
you
all
for
joining
us
today,
just
as
a
reminder
to
let's
during
the
course,
the
presentation,
if
you
will
use
our
chat
feature
and
raise
hand
features
so
that
we
can
communicate
with
you
and
calling
you
during
the
course
of
the
presentation.
Roon
I'm
gonna
hand
it
off
to
you.
Thank
you
all
again
for
joining
us
and
look
forward
to
a
good
meeting.
A
Thank
you,
thomas
welcome
everyone
yeah.
So
let's
discuss
ebay
with
3.5
billion
on
what
it
is,
what
it
turned
into.
A
No,
I
mean,
let's,
let's
I
mean
I
wanted
to
basically
just
continue
where
we
left
off
yesterday
right.
I'm
just
asking
like
talking
about
different
stuff,
a
lot
of
really
good
questions,
but
then
I
guess
also
I
mean
I
think
it's
it's
worth
it
to
really
discuss
specifically
phoenix
stance
and
these
this
sort
of,
like
the
some
of
the
ideas
I
wrote
in
the
governance,
chat
that
basically
relates
to
how
to
pull
it
off.
A
Yes,
I
think
I
mean
I'll,
do
it
like
yesterday?
Basically
I'm
gonna
just
start
talking
and
then
somewhere
I
will
be
saying
I'll,
say
something
and
then
that's
gonna
activate
tons
of
questions
and
then
once
start
having
questions
then
I'll
just
talk
about
those
wait.
I
can't
see
it
yet.
A
A
Oh
so
there's
like
really
toxic
people
demanding
3.5
billion,
my
goodbyes.
A
It
got
a
little
heated,
but
it
didn't
go
too
far
off
the
rails
would
be
the
summary
yeah
I
mean
I
I
mean.
I
believe
that
that
the
format
is
like
it
isn't
going
to
work
in
the
long
run.
I
mean
that's
why
I
started
sort
of
trying
to
set
up
dvc's
right,
because
that
creates
a
situ
that
creates
a
format
where
it's
like,
really
clear
sort
of
who
can
censor
and
why
and
how
and
so
on,
and
what
you
do.
A
If
you
get
censored
right,
you
just
set
up
your
own
because
I
mean
yeah
right.
I
mean,
in
the
end
a
sort
of
unusual
space
for
people
to
to
debate.
It's
just
it's
very
hard
for
me
to
imagine
that
the
longer
time
goes
by
and
then
the
larger
the
project
gets
and
sort
of
economic
sort
of
impact.
It
will
just
degrade
further
and
further
towards
kind
of
like
un
pointless.
You
know,
like
polite
warfare
right.
A
A
Exercise
right
because
because
this
is
one
of
my
core
sort
of
ideas
that
basically
decentralization
and
this
sort
of
credible,
decentralization
well
perceived
perceived
credible
decentralization,
which
is
a
different
thing
than
actual
real
decentralization,
but
that
actually
gets
people
a
lot
more
like
that,
creates
intangible
value
for
people,
because
they
feel
more
empowered,
like
it's
more
interesting
to
be
a
part
of
a
community
that
is
sort
of
you
know,
self-sovereign
and
not
reliant
on
an
external
authority,
and
it's
simply
going
to
result
in
like
more
grassroots
community
engagement.
A
But
of
course,
at
the
same
time
I
mean
this.
I
think
in
the
end,
the
explanation
for
why
it
went
totally
bonkers
is
because
I
mean
I,
you
know
it's
like
people
trying
to
use
it
to
pump
eat,
I'm
guessing
right.
So
that's
the
explanation
where
like
why
it
was
totally
all
over
the
place,
because
we
were
getting
excited
about
eve
pumping
essentially
that's
my
guess.
A
And
yeah,
but
I
mean
so
basically,
I
want
to
like
I'll,
basically
try
to
explain
again
my
sort
of
my
thought
process
and
and
actually
so,
the
entire.
A
So
the
entire
engagement
I
mean
when
I
started
making
it
was
actually
it
was
really
already
kind
of
in
a
sense
trying
to
process
the
kind
of
of
you
know
the
reality
that
that
is
now
getting
more
clear
right,
which
is
that
I
mean
so
so
really
you
know
at
this
point
you
probably
know
my
world
view
is
like
really
rounded
in
the
climate
collapse
right
that
weird
there's
this
like
unstoppable.
A
You
know
inevitable
decline
of
society
right,
because
basically,
the
economic
system
is
fundamentally
like
a
giant
ponzi
scheme,
that's
dumping,
sort
of
dumping,
massive
losses
off
balance
sheet,
and
eventually
you
sort
of.
If
you
dump
enough
off
balance
sheet,
it
comes
back.
It
comes
back
to
to
take
you
down,
basically,
and
and
that's
it's
impossible
to
avoid
that,
there's
not
no!
A
It's
it's
like
locked.
It's
like
you
know
it's
locked
in
the
meta
right
and
like
physically.
You
can
do
something
about
it,
but
but
pragmatically,
and
so
politically
it's
totally
impossible
right
and
and
and
this
is
sort
of
the
confluence
of
regulatory
crackdown
and
sort
of
like
break
political
breakdown
that
results
in
some
sort
of
you
know
populist
crackdown
of
crypto
or
whatever.
It
is
a
perceived
attempt
to
avoid
capital
flight.
A
Whatever
reason,
I
think,
there's
like
good
evidence
that
once
the
chips
are
down
states,
they
really
turn
against
crypto
right
so,
like
there's
been
examples
of
like
countries
when
like
when
the
economic
situation
deteriorates,
they
like
to
to
basically
try
to
shut
down
crypto
because
they
think
somehow
that
that
that
will
help
them.
A
A
A
Yeah,
so
assad
yeah,
so
it's
not
so
hard
to
make
the
point.
It's
not
always!
Okay,
of
course,
it's
not!
You
can't
just
say
economics.
Go
down
you
bank
crypto.
So
I
totally
agree
with
that.
That.
A
That,
of
course
it's
not
you
can
just
generalize
and
say
all
states
will
clamp
down
on
crypto.
I
completely
agree,
and
I
think
I
mean
in
the
governor's
chat.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
making
this-
maybe
maybe
I
was
like
yes,
I
was
making
this
point
right
that
you
can
also
be
proactive
right,
so
you
don't
just
have
you
can?
Actually
you
know
if
you're
positioned
the
right
way,
then
it
doesn't
have
to
be
that
the
government
will
crack
down
and
crypto.
A
It
might
actually
be
that
they
will
realize
this
is
essential
to
the
survival
right
and
that's
the
cornerstone
of
clean.
Well,
that's
a
cornerstone
of
clean
money
right
that
this
is
a
way
to
convince
regulators
that
don't
mess
with
d5,
because
it's
what's
you
know
carrying
your
your
broken
financial
system
right.
It's
fixing
your
negative
externalities.
A
And
so
I
think,
that's
sort
of
also
a
part
of
of
the
in-game
plan
right
and
also
this
sort
of
phoenix
stance.
There's
a
bit
like
this
ability
to
sort
of
like
what
I
call
uproot
and
then
reroute
right,
where
you
can
actually
like
sort
of
move.
A
Your
your
real
asset,
exposure
or
temporarily
suspend
all
realized
exposure
at
the
cost
of
additional
risk,
because
it's
going
to
be
all
about.
First
of
all,
finding
the
countries
that
simply
that
will
be
like
look
we'll
turn
a
crypto
in
case
things
are
going
badly
and
well
and
then
also
simply
moving
to
the
places
that
will
actually
survive.
A
What's
coming
right
in
the
as
as
global
society,
sort
of
becomes
increasingly
contradictory
right
with
climate
science
pointing
one
way
and
and
the
financial
system
and
the
establishment
sort
of
you
know
following
a
different
narrative,
and
that
I
mean-
and
that's
actually
I
mean
that
is
really
also
sort
of
a
described
in
the
original
clean
money
post
right
that
there
actually
are.
These
so-called
notes
of
com.
A
Societies
that
can
maintain
advanced
you
know
can
maintain
advanced
civilization,
even
if
everything
else
falls
apart
that
are
not
so
exposed
to
sort
of
a
cascading
collapse
and
yeah
like
I
mean
it's
just
a
summer
like
well
so
then
you
know
so
that
particular
study,
which
is
called
persistent
complexity,
which
I
think
is
a
very
interesting
collapse,
related
study.
It
basically
posits
that
the
main
factor
is
going
to
be
immigration
right,
so
it's
not
so
much
individual
specific
disasters
that
will
determine
what
happens
to
a
particular
country.
A
Contrary.
I
mean
both
destabilizing
it
economically,
but
it
will
actually
even
worse
to
stabilize
it
politically.
So
you
get
like
fascist
kind
of
responses
right
and
so
these
resilient
nations,
basically
brazilian
countries
that
have
a
greater
likelihood
of
surviving
a
total
climate
disaster.
A
If
global
warming
goes
to
like
three
or
four
degrees,
or
something
like
that
are
basically
relatively
large
and
relatively
cold
island
nations,
because
being
an
island
is
just
a
massive
advantage
when
it
comes
to
being
insulated
from
this
cascading
effect
of
climate
migration
and
there's
an
it
for
some
reason
I
mean
this
is
horribly
unfair
and-
and
just
I
mean
it's
kind
of
a-
I
don't
know
right-
it's
sort
of
an
unfair
or
sort
of
a
crappy
coincidence,
but
it's
basically,
the
countries
are
the
best
position
for
climate
change
in
the
first
place
are
some
of
the
rich
countries
for
the
most
part
right.
A
So
the
geography
of
the
the
rich
countries
are
really
the
you
know
very,
like
they're,
the
ones
that
would
basically
be
the
least
impacted
by
climate
change
and
these
resilient
countries
they're.
All
like
you
know,
stable
western
economies
with
rule
of
law
and
actually
almost
all
of
them.
Also,
have
I
mean
a
sort
of
geopolitically
independent,
so
so,
for
instance,
like
a
a
country
in
the
eu
is
a
lot
less
sort
of
regulatory
stable.
A
I
think
compared
to
something
like
the
uk
post
brexit,
that
has
the
ability
to
sort
of
you
know,
has
more
independent
politics
and,
and
basically
so
those
resilient
countries
is
like
the
you
know:
it's
it's
great
britain,
it's
ireland,
it's
iceland,
it's
tasmania
and
new
zealand
and
then
sort
of
possibly
canada
and
the
us,
but
but
on
a
different
level.
A
Yeah.
So,
like
switzerland
is
I
mean
according
to
that
I
mean
this
is
just
one
paper
right,
but
there's
no,
there's
not
been
a
lot
of
science
done
in
this,
because
it's
kind
of
taboo
basically,
but
something
like
switzerland
is-
is
a
total
no-go
because
there's
simply
no
way
to
prevent.
A
Like
I
mean
the
problem
is
like:
if
you
want
to
prevent
mass
migration
to
switzerland,
you
have
to
turn
completely
fascist
right,
because
you
have
to
create
a
society
that
will
allow
soldiers
just
sitting
in
the
boulder
and
just
mass,
murdering
everyone
trying
to
enter
the
country.
If
you're
not
willing
to
do
that,
then
you're
going
to
get
overrun
by
migrants
and
then
your
economy
will
collapse.
And
then
you
know,
then
you
will
be
sending
out
migrants
yourself
right.
A
And
yeah
so,
but
so
that's
the
whole
point
was
that
not
all
countries
will
will
turn
against
crypto
if
things
start
to
go
bad
right,
and
so
that's
the
whole
idea
of
like
playing
money
is
that
these
countries,
not
only
are
they
you
know,
are
they
basically,
you
know
resilient
to
climate
change,
but
they
also
there's
a
rule
of
law.
They
also
like
many
of
them
are
english
speaking
and
many
of
them
have
actually
populations
that
are
very
like
that,
relatively
speaking,
are
very
sort
of
recipient
to
climate
change.
A
A
So
that's
exactly
where
clean
money
branding
will
will
have
a
much
greater
likelihood
of
actually
making
an
impact
in
terms
of
politics
and
regulation
right,
and
so
that
so
that's
basically
I
mean
so
that
was
sort
of
the
original
vision
of
clean
money
right.
The
idea
is,
we
should
really
try
to
embed
ourselves
in
these
resilient
nations
and
help
them
base.
I
mean
basically
they're
relatively
small
right
with
with
the
uk.
I
think,
being
the
real,
like
the
uk
is
kind
of
like
the
ground,
the
the
crown
jewel
to
some
extent.
A
I
think
right
because
it
has
a
it,
has
a
big
financial
system.
It's
like
a
financial
center,
but
it's
still
small
enough
that
you
know
it's
all
those
magnitude
easier
trying
to
impact
uk
policy
and
trying
to
not
get
shut
down
in
the
uk
compared
to
something
like
the
european
union
of
the
us
so
yeah.
So
I
mean
all
in
all.
A
That's
sort
of
my
I
mean
so
that's
this
point
around
like
when
things
like
when
when
once
things
start
to
go
really
badly,
and
we
start
to
see
these
like
authoritarian
forms
of
government
really
emerge,
then
we
basically
need,
like
both
a
plan
to
escape
from
from
just
like
complete
physical
threat
that
where
we
simply
have
no
safe
place
to
go
to,
but
also
plans
to
kind
of
like
migrate
to
to
these
resilient
nations
and
then,
what's
even
better
than
having
a
plan
to
to
sort
of
do
it.
A
If
you
need
to
is
to
already
you
don't
have
to
have
already
done
it
preemptively
at
least
partially
right.
So
so
it's
you're,
basically
gonna
have
an
easier
time
doing
it
right,
and
so
that
I
mean
so.
That's
also
why
I
was
talking
about
this
idea
of
what
I
call
the
partial
uprooting
right.
A
So,
okay,
so
let's
go
down
and
talk
about
you
know
there's
this
whole
thing
around
like
the
target
collateral
portfolio
and
right
how,
in
in
this
sort
of
steady
state,
we
we
target
a
kind
of
like
a
50
percent
and
actually
all
the
way
up
to
75,
but
in
particular
50
can
be
considered
the
target
of
eath
backing,
which
is
like
you
know,
like
50,
eats
backing
basically
represents.
A
I
mean
I
really
think
50
is
like
the
cut
off
where
you
know
if
something
if
everything
goes
really
really
badly
and-
and
you
have
these
like
sort
of
like
a
kind
of
a
surprise,
ben
hammer
and
dye
and
totals
and
situ
of
the
collateral
and
so
on,
and
I
think
if
you
end
up
with,
if
the
dust
settles
and
you
and
people
still
retain
something
like
what
to
them,
feels
like
around
50
of
the
purchasing
power,
then
I
think
like
then
we
actually
still
think
in
a
pretty
good
shape,
because
it's
all
about
damage
control
at
that
point
right.
A
So
so
they
could
have
lost
way
more
in
many
other
situations
and
not
not
like
having
to
be
sort
of
like
yeah,
you
take
a
hit,
but
you
you
survive
and
you're
not
like
financially
ruined.
You
know
compared
to
people
that,
maybe
I
don't
know
god
like
lost
everything
for
some
other
reason.
That's
pretty
I
mean
that's
why
I
think
50
percent
eath
is
a
very
a
is
a
very
significant
target
to
try
to
hit
and
yeah.
A
So
that
I
mean-
and
that's
that's
the
basic
idea
of
the
sort
of
the
standard
portfolio
right
because
then
the
other
thing
is,
if
you
then,
and
so
then
there's
the
phoenix
stance
right.
A
So
this
thing
of,
like
you,
activate
it
due
to
a
severe
physical
threat
or
legal
threat
right,
and
so
that's
where,
like
you
know,
somehow,
we
know
in
advance
that
of
sanctions
are
about
to
hit
us
and
then,
instead
of
just
getting
hit
by
it
and
and
you
know,
losing
50
of
our
collateral
so
and
then
what
we
do
is
we
basically
uproot
right.
A
So
we
sort
of
urgently
convert
all
our
real
assets
to
eth,
and
then
we
we
get
this
sort
of
insurance
payout
right
to
over
levelize
the
the
the
ether
we,
the
algorithmic
ease
like
that
rhythmic
collateral
that
we
now
hold,
which
means
we
also
have
algorithmic
debt,
which
means
that
we
suddenly
the
system
suddenly
became
a
lot
more
risky.
A
And
then
we
use
the
farming
right
and
the
metamagic
to
to
really
just
as
much
as
possible
incentivize
generation
of
dye
with
eath.
So
we
can
attempt
to
hold
the
peg
or
at
least
attempt
to
stabilize
die
in
this
moment
where
it
could
be
very,
very
volatile
in
immediately
following
this
kind
of
event,
and
then
also
basically
incentivize
self-collateralization
with
mkr
metadata
tokens
right,
which
is
also
part
of
the,
and
they
sort
of.
A
I
mean
it's
the
same
idea
that,
like
that
this
sort
of
unbiased
little
currency
stands
or
whatever
you
call
it,
you
want
to
call
it
is
the
standard.
The
standard
type
of
collateral
portfolio
is
all
about
sort
of
like
having
all
these
preparations
in
place
so
that
it
is
not
totally
impossible
to
go
from
business
as
usual
into
oh,
my
god.
A
We
just
need
to
try
to
survive
right
and
if
we
survive,
then
that's
a
big
deal
because
we're
in
a
situation
where
potentially
everything
that
people
are
depending
on
is
starting
to
fall
apart.
A
Yeah,
but
then
I
mean
so
then
the
reason
why
I
started
talking
about
we
should
consider
depending
now,
and
we
should
consider
uprooting
now
right.
It's
basically
that
I
had
actually
never
I'd,
never
thought
that
it
would
be
like
that.
A
Come
you
know
like
a
sanction
or
sort
of
a
like.
You
know.
Censorship
that
would
hit
innocent
people
would
come
with
no
warning
right.
I
thought
that
there'd
be
some
kind
of
you
know
like
that
that
there
would
just
be
sort
of
more
thought
into
what
are
the
collateral
damage
of
of
yeah
like
sort
of
barging
around
and
and
like
banning
crypto
and
this
kind
of
stuff
right
without
understanding
the
consequences
and
yeah,
okay,
so
yeah.
So
that's
a
good
point.
A
Assad
is
making
that
that
people
have
been
blacklisted
in
iran
and
so
on.
Right,
but
I
mean
the
thing
is
the
thing
that
is
completely
a
break
like
a
game
changer
with
the
tc
sanction
is
that
it's
a
completely
sort
of
neutral
infrastructure
that
has
been
synced
right.
A
So
it's
basically
the
same
as
saying
linux
is
now
sanctioned
right,
like
there's,
there's
basically
no
regard
for
for
a
sort
of
people
that
could
like
it's,
basically
just
if
you're,
if
you're
a
legal
user
of
this
thing,
it's
just
considered
invalid,
which
is
not
even
and
the
thing
is,
that's
not
even
like
a
legal
way
to
even
use
the
sanctions
right
because
they
specifically
are
about
sanctioning
entities
and
people.
A
So
you
can't
even
use
this
stuff
for
sanctioning
something,
that's
decentralized,
but
the
problem
is
that
doesn't
matter
it
still
works.
So
what
that
just
means
is
now
there's
an
erosion
of
rule
of
law.
Basically
that
that
you
really
like
there's
a
really
kind
of
unpredictable
pandora's
box.
That's
been
opened
with
this
right
and
so
yeah,
so
I
mean
so.
The
problem
is
phoenix
stands
and
all
this
stuff
doesn't
really
help.
A
So
much
with,
or
rather
well
I
mean
well
phoenix
says
it
doesn't
help
so
much
if
that's
the
actual
threat
right
that
that
sort
of
a
sudden,
random,
politically
motivated,
like
total
ban
and
seizure
of
collateral,
is
what
could
actually
happen
right
and
the
main
like
the
the
main
way
to
mitigate
something
like
that
is
to
basically
try
to
to
you
know
I
mean
again,
it
doesn't
have
to
like
it's
so
severe
and
so
crazy
if
they
would
actually
new
goal
of
crypto
that
just
so
hanging
on
by
a
threat
is
a
huge
victory
right
like
if,
if,
if
they
did
it
and
the
crypto
survived
and
came
out
on
the
other
side,
that
would
be
like
a
huge
game.
A
Changer
right,
because
that
was
sort
of
then
completely
changed
sort
of
the
they.
I
don't
know
what
to
call
it
like
the
geopolitical
meta
in
a
sense
of
crypto
versus
fiat
currency,
right
that
that,
in
this
situation
fiat
you
know,
the
governments
would
look
like
some
crumbling
failure
and
and
crypto
would
look
like
something
that
can't
even
you
know,
can
withstand
even
the
most
severe
and
sort
of
disastrous
and
and
what
you
call
as
a
wanton
attack
against
it
and
yeah.
So
that's
I
mean
so
then.
A
Finally,
my
thinking
is
that,
like
there's,
you
know
over
the
next
like
we're
basically
now
in
this
very,
very
bad
situation
right
globally.
So
basically
there's
all
these
countries
collapsing
and
you
have.
A
You
know,
like
china,
looks
really
bad
right
and
and
of
course,
like
russia
and
so
on,
but
like
especially
china
looking
really
bad
economically
and
then
the
us,
I
think
the
us
probably
doesn't
isn't
in
a
bad
spot
economically,
but
I
think
it's
a
very
bad
spot
politically
and
there's
just
like
then
there's
a
number
I
mean
in
the
short
run,
there's
no
risk
to
make
or
getting
getting
somehow
like
hit
by
by
some
crazy
sort
of
nuke
sanctions,
nuke
right
or
ban
nuke,
or
something
like
that.
A
But
I
think
basically
that
the
way
I
mean
the
way
I
was
thinking
about
this
is
that
the
right
way
to
think
about
the
risk
of
you
know
like
the
the
sort
of
the
final
boss
and
the
the
the
global
authorities
or
whatever
the
us
or
like
random,
maybe
even
maybe
even
impossible
to
predict
who
exactly
would
be,
but
some
kind
of
like
severe
attack
against
crypto
would
be
to
basically
say
we'll
count
on
it
happening
after
like
after
x
years.
A
We
have
to
basically
assume
it'll
happen
and
we'll
have
to
be
like
we
have.
We
will.
We
will
be
fine
with
this
happening
in
in
this
situation.
Right
and
and
then,
if
this
timeline
is,
is
short
enough
right.
So
let's
say:
if
it's
something
like
two
years,
then
it
seems
very
likely
that
we
will
be
able
to
like
based
on
that,
based
on
the
way
the
plan
is
right.
Now
it
probably
would
not
like
we.
We
might.
A
We
may
not
be
at
an
acceptable
place
within
two
years
with
this
plan
right,
so
so
at
the
earliest
metathouse
and
metadata
yield
farming
for
for
for
incentivizing.
Each
generation
would
be
ready
sometime
in
like
the
spring
next
year,
right
late
spring
next
year,
if
we're
really
lucky
and
it
moves
really
fast
and
then
that
would
still
only
be
sort
of
at
half
speed
right,
because
we
know
we
still
only
have
three
metadata,
so
it
will
take
maybe
another
half
year
for
it
to
like
fully
ramp
up.
A
A
That's
really
what
I
think
is
like
yeah.
I
mean
I
think.
If,
if
it's
too
short
right,
I
mean
oh
yeah
right.
If
the
if
the
right
choice
is
to
say
this
has
to
be
a
relatively
short
period
of
not
too
many
years
right
and
let's
say
two
years,
for
instance,
right
then,
basically
we're
better
off
in
a
sense,
actually
scaring
away
users
right
first
of
all,
because
we
simply
like
the
likelihood
of
getting
hit
by
like
a
regular
crackdown.
A
It's
just
I
mean
if,
if,
if
sort
of
the
assumption
is
after
two
years,
then
there's
gonna
be
regular
crackdown
and
you're
gonna
lose
everything
in
that
situation.
We
actually
want
people
to
just
not
use
diet
all
right,
because
then,
if
less
people
use
it,
then
there's
actually
going
to
be
a
like
a
smaller
loss
to
those
that
do
keep
using
it
right
and
then
the
other
option
is
basically
to
to
sort
of
front
run.
A
I
mean
and
to
basically
sort
of
do
the
like,
do
preemptive,
uprooting
right
and
then
try
to
push
the
collateralization
of
of
diet
towards
at
least
50
eat
within
this
time
limit,
and
it's
like
a
very
the
problem
is.
A
This
is
like
a
very
complicated
strategy
right
because
there's
going
to
be
a
sort
of
a
mix
of
first
of
all,
simply
you
know
like
warning
uses
about
the
possibility
of
well,
I
mean
well,
and
so
I
mean
another
aspect-
is
that
basically,
once
you
assume
that
there's
going
to
be
this
major
regulatory
crackdown
and
you
plan
to
survive
it,
then
you
have
to
all-
and
this
is
also
something
I
wrote
in
the
chat
right.
A
You
have
to
actually
remove
the
mpr
backstop
as
something
that's
going
to
kick
in
in
all
situations,
because,
if
you
put
in
a
if
you
have
them
care
back
some
in
place
and
there's
a
regular,
correct
analysis,
half
of
the
collateral,
then
what
just
happens?
The
system
just
dies
right.
So
actually,
nobody
even
benefits
because,
what's
going
to
happen,
is
mqr
will
like
hybrid
inflate
and
go
to
zero
and
the
system
will
die
so
because
that
outcome
is
inevitable.
In
this
situation
there
will
not
really
be
any
value
recovered
from
the
mkr
operating
in
this.
A
A
So
that's
I
mean
so
basically
without
the
the
mkr
backstop
then,
instead
that
like
and
that
actually
allows
for
things
like
you
know,
mkr,
and
you
know
metadow
and
mkr
tokens
used
as
a
self-collateralization
to
then
further
kind
of
like
increase
the
percentage
of
of
of
like
decentralized
level.
That
remains
after
a
total
seizure
of
all
the
centralized
collateral,
yeah
and
that's
kind
of
the
idea.
Right
is
like
that.
All
of
these
factors
combined,
it's
kind
of
it's
like
a
trade-off
between.
A
Do
you
want
to
take
on
this
more
kind
basic
I
mean.
I
know
I
would
guess
one
way.
One
word
of
it
could
be
algorithmic
risk
right,
because
this
is
exactly
the
kind
of
risk
that
the
algo
stable
points
take
on
right,
and
so
it's
kind
of
like
algorithmic
risk.
I
mean
it's
not
the
perfect
word,
but
I
mean
all
self
self
co,
yeah
self
globalization.
A
Well,
that's
also
not
a
perfect
word
either,
but
some
kind
of
like
inbuilt
leverage
into
the
system
right,
you're,
taking
you're
taking
the
system
itself,
is
taking
a
risk
on
uneath
right
on
one
hand
versus
the
blacklisting
risk
on
the
other
hand,
and
there's
this
and
then
again
there's
this
kind
of,
like
theoretically,
a
sweet
spot
where
you
basically
sort
of
scare
away
all
the
uses
that
don't
that
that
simply
they
just
then
they'll
just
you
know,
go
back
to
the
bank
right
crypto
isn't
for
them
because
it
wasn't.
A
They
weren't
told
that
in
crypto
everything
could
get
blacklisted
right
and
once
that
becomes
apparent,
then
suddenly
we
doesn't.
We
don't
actually
have
the
amount
of
like
dye
demand.
That
really
is
there.
You
know
that
that,
basically,
you
know
are:
are
there
for
decentralization
right
and
don't
for
whatever
reason
feel
that
a
decentralized
option
is
safer
for
them
than
something
that's
centralized,
even
if
there's
a
at
risk
of
a
haircut,
and
so
that's
gonna
remove
some
demand.
So
then,
on
the
demand
side?
Suddenly
you
don't,
like
you,
have
less
demand.
A
You
have
to
fulfill
with
decentralized
collateral
and
then
that
that
means
that
you
can
sort
of
meet
somewhere
like
you
can.
A
Basically,
you
know
sort
of
extrapolate,
then
how
much
ease
does
the
protocol
have
to
like
how
much
rwa
or
how
much
ucc
does
the
program
to
uproot
right
and
sort
of
convert
from
from
real
assets
into
eth
in
order
to
at
the
two
year
mark
hit,
this
sort
of
you
know
sweet
spot
where
more
than
half
of
the
value
would
be
preserved
and
yeah
and
and-
and
we
were
I
mean-
and
we
could
basically
then
continue
to
to
exist
following
this
armageddon
like
scenario
of
a
total
crackdown
and
and
then
the
major
risk
that
I
think,
a
lot
of
people
then
react
to
rights.
A
The
obvious
problem
is,
if
you,
if
you,
if
you
mess
this
up
and
and
and
basically
you
go
too
aggressively
by
by
acquiring
too
much
ease
right,
so
you
basically
uproot
too
much
and
what
happens?
Is
you
misjudged?
How
many
die
users
actually
care
about
decentralization
right?
A
Then
you
suddenly
can
run
into
a
situation
where,
if
this
is
then
also
combined
with
a
huge
fall
in
the
price
of
each,
then
you
have
this
kind
of
like
algorithmic
risk
right
of
algorithmic.
Failure
where
there's
an
actual
like
die
suddenly
becomes
like
the
actual
backing
of
diet,
starts
swinging
at
the
like
the
same
alongside
the
price
of
each
and
and
die
holders.
A
Then
get
a
haircut
right
in
that
situation,
and
I
mean
I
don't
and
like
that's
why
I
want
to
discuss
it
because
I
don't
like
it's
a
very
tough
question
right.
It's
very
complicated
situation,
but
on
the
other
hand,
I
simply
also
I
mean.
I
also
think
that
that
it's
a
taking
like
a
ticking
time
bump
to
at
this
point
to
to
simply
assume
that
the
the
business
as
usual
can
discontinue,
because
the
problem
is
that
there's
already
you
know,
there's
already
die
moving
through
tornado
cache.
A
Now,
right,
like
you,
can
still,
you
can
use,
tornado
cash
would
die
and
it's
and
it's
sanctioned,
and
I
mean
that
that
shouldn't
matter
because
nobody's
holding
it
right,
it's
diet,
it's
decentralized,
there's
no
nobody's
custodying
it.
But
the
problem
is
this:
already:
it's
already
like
I
mean
if
they
don't
like,
if
they
simply
don't
like
the
infrastructure,
they'll
sanction
it
and-
and
you
know,
a
piece
of
infrastructure
facilitating
someone
else
doing
something,
a
sanction
that
by
itself
could
just
create
a
narrative
of
okay.
A
Yeah
yeah,
so
ref
is
saying
it
dies,
90
of
stable
coin
volume
on
tornado
but
like,
but
isn't
that
just
I
mean
does
anyone
has
like
the
absolute
number
of
how
much
size
being
used
on
tornado
cash
right
now
like?
I
think
that
I
think
the
absolute
number
is
not
my
understanding
is
it's
it's
not
really
much
and
in
reality
it's
it's.
It's
eth
right
and.
A
That
is
used
the
most,
but
I
think
I
mean
I
would
think
it
could
basically
be
interesting
to
look
at
different
models
and
assumptions
of
like
how
the
indian
plane
would
play
out,
including
like
aggressive
models
of
like
very
rapidly
preparing
for
the
worst
case
scenario
and
doing
preemptive
uprooting
and
then
from
looking
at
all
that
stuff,
basically
figuring
out
then.
Okay,
what
are
the
actual
risks
like
in
terms
of
haircut
risk
to
die
holders
and
so
on
and
then
really
figuring
out?
What
do
people
actually
what's?
A
What's
kind
of
a
point
where
you
know
the
kind
of
the
the
yeah
like
it's
right,
because
it's
just
a
straight
up.
It's
like
blacklist
risk
regulatory
risk
versus
basically
a
crypto
exposure
risk.
A
Yeah
so
basically
there's
very
little
dye
being
used
compared
to
eth,
but,
as
I
said,
it
cannot
be
shut
down
right,
so
that
dies
that's
operational
and
that's
going
to
be
operation
forever
and
we
can't
even
can
actually
even
change
them.
A
A
Yeah,
as
I
mean
all
in
all,
I
think
like
so
I
actually.
I
actually
think
that
I
think
the
things
are
looking
so
grim,
basically
that
I'm
more
inclined
to
to
at
least
sort
of
understanding,
more
aggressive
scenarios,
but
either
way.
This
is
something
that
can
basically
I
mean
this
is
something
that
that
that
I
think
can
just
be
sort
of
considered
as
a
part
of
the
end
game
plan
right
in
terms
of
how
to
what
does
the
whole
sort
of
like
the
the
the
initial
face.
A
Look
like
yeah,
so
peyton's
asking.
Why
do
you
think
thanks
so
grim?
Nothing
changed
on
that
front
right!
I've
been
saying
I
mean,
I
think
the
big
difference
is
well.
A
I
and
I've
talked
about
this
the
other
day
right
that,
like
I
mean
a
year
ago,
that
I
you
know,
this
ipcc
report
came
out
which
actually
had
sort
of
the
mainstream
professional,
green
washers
that
are
these
sort
of
climate
scientists
that
all
have
to
like
follow
this
standard,
like
they
can't
be
alarmist
and
they
can't
blow
up
right
this
whole
sort
of
overturned
window
of
what
what
the
the
ipcc
can
actually
say
about
collapse,
risk
right
and
they
still
came
out
and
said.
A
Look
it's
basically
right
like
it's
looking
you
know,
and
and-
and
there
was
like
all
this
like
language
use
that
in
the
past
they
had
not
been
allowed
to
use
with.
It
had
to
sort
of
talk
about
doubt
and
uncertainty,
and
so
on,
and
this
time
like
and
so
the
last
I've
seen
report
was
sort
of
the
first
one.
That
said,
there
simply
is
no
doubt
right.
It's
absolutely.
A
The
physics
are
clear
and
right
now
it's
like
a
train
off
a
cliff
right,
and
I
mean
the
narrative
up
until
that
point
had
always
been
that
okay
yeah,
like
once
humanity,
really
gets
on
the
thread
and
becomes
a
serious
thing.
Then
finally,
we'll
sort
of
do
something
right,
but
it
just
absolutely.
A
You
know
it
didn't
happen
at
all
and
in
fact
it's
sort
of
regressing
right
with
you
know,
with
the
ukraine
war,
we're
starting
coal
in
europe
and
the
bible
climate
bill
getting
watered
down
right
and
china
and
the
us
suspending
climate
cooperation
and
then
just
so
sort
of
I
mean
just
continued
evidence
that
global
warming
is
a
lot
more
destructive
than
expected
right.
So
smaller
amounts
of
warming
has
way
worse
consequences
than
predict
it,
and
this
is
kind
of
a
trend
that
continuously
happens
where
it
just
keeps
getting
worse
and
worse
and
worse.
A
That's
like
I
mean
so
the
whole
thing
about
like
climate
change
and
partial
collapse,
and
all
that
that's
I
mean
I've
been
paying
the
drum
forever
at
this
point
right,
but
my
point
is
that
I
think
the
way
it
interacts
with
the
tornado
cache
thing
is
that
it
just
it
just
creates
like
a
very
light
like
it
certainly
creates
a
very
short
sort
of
set
of
connections
from
you
know,
like
social
breakdown,
to
you
know,
massive
collateral
damage
and,
and
basically
failure
of
the
maker
system
right
and,
from
my
perspective,
that's
the
most
important
like
that
should
be.
A
The
role
of
dice
like
die
needs
to.
You
know
not
die
right.
A
It
needs
to
be
the
thing
you
can
count
on
when
when
everything
else
starts
failing-
and
I
think
that
that's
really
like
yeah,
I'm
yeah-
I
just
I
just
honestly
didn't
think
that
it
was
a
real
possibility
that
you
would
see
these
kind
of
hidden.
A
You
know
like
know,
yeah,
like
this
sort
of
spray
and
pray
ban
like
what
they
call
it.
Like
sort
of
you
know,
aggressive
enforcement
right
of
of
banning
stuff.
They
don't
like
with
no
regard
for
collateral
damage
right.
A
I
really
thought
that,
if
something,
if,
if,
if
stable,
coins
and
die,
and
so
on,
we're
going
to
have
the
collateral
ceased,
it
would
be
a
kind
of
here's.
Our
you
know,
it'll
be
sort
of.
A
You
know,
that'd
be
sort
of
my
little
more
like
an
ultimatum
of
like
oh,
you
have
to
do
blah
blah
blah,
and
then,
if
you
don't
do
that,
then
we're
gonna,
seize
your
collateral
and
shut
you
down
and
so
on
right
and
the
fact
that
there's
not
that's
not
even
something
like
that
has
actually
never
happened,
but
now
what
has
happened
is
a
kind
of
you
know
a
surprise
attack
of
like
an
instant
decapitation
right.
So
again,
that's
why
I
mean
so.
Those
two
things
combined
for
me
means
that
I
think
it's
completely.
A
Like
I
mean
in
terms
of
personal
risk,
I
mean.
Obviously
I
hold
huge
amounts
of
diet
right
I
mean
that's
like
not
all
of
it,
but
some
of
it
I
would
like
to.
I
would
much
rather
accept
negative
rates
and
haircut
risk
if
I
knew
that
it
was
going
to
it
was
going
to
be
something
I
could
count
on
if
the
world
really
starts
going
badly
right.
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
really
see
questions.
Actually
I
see
more
like
discussion
around
so
I
mean
so.
I
think
I
said
a
little
bit
earlier
right,
but
I
clean
money
totally
agree
like
clean
money,
good
thing
and
I
think
it
needs
to
be
done
in
the
in
the
u.s
right
to
some
extent,
but
I
think
the
way
I
view
clean
money
in
the
u.s
right
now
is,
I
think
we
should.
A
We
should
consider
that
a
kind
of
sacrificial
lamb
so
like
it's
it's
something
that
we
count
on
getting
seized
basically,
but
we
think
that
getting
it
seized
is
like
good
for
a
meta,
essentially
right,
because
once
it's
sort
of
once
they
once
we
like,
if
there's
a
loss
related
to
getting
getting
these
sort
of
socially
beneficial
assets,
ceased
in
the
u.s,
then
I
mean
that
could
have
this
kind
of
common
enemy
type
of
effect
right,
where
that
would
actually
cause
more
support
for
maker.
A
But
but
then
again
that
brings
us
back
to
this
whole
thing
around
mkr
whole
is
not
I
mean
it
could
be
that
we
could
try
to
target
something
where,
if
yellows
could
simply
solve
it,
but
I
think
also
a
possibility
is
that
then
that
becomes
sort
of
that
would
be
the
kind
of
thing
that
would
then
be
the
event
that
causes
the
deepening
of
dye
right
and
then,
instead
of
like,
if
the,
if
it's
sort
of
done,
if
we're
clearly
in
the
right
right
so
like
we
basically
build
a
bunch
of
renewable
energy
infrastructure
in
the
u.s
and
we
improve
the
economy,
and
then
the
response
is
that
causing
financial
damage
to
all
the
innocent
people
that
we're
using
die
as
a
currency,
and
that
would
kind
of
I
mean
that
could
actually,
rather
than
cause
people
to
flee
away
from
die.
A
A
Some
kind
of
you
know
like
there'll,
be
some
kind
of
like
narrative
for
why
it's,
that
would
fault
basically
prevailing
right,
but
obviously,
if
we're
simply
doing
good
beneficial
investments
in
the
us
and
they
get
shut
down,
then
there's
simply
no
like
it
just
it
just
you
know
it
creates
a
kind
of
you
know
again
like
a
meta
or
a
shift
in
the
meta
that
could
be
very
beneficial
to
us
right
but,
like
I
said
earlier,
I
think
I
mean
and
more
to
to
large
extent
now
following
all
this,
I
think
really
what
the
like
the
real
opportunity
is
to
focus
on.
A
You
know
the
resilient
countries
and
in
particular
the
places
where
we
feel
like
there's
a
there's,
a
real
ability
to
connect
with
voters
actually
right,
because
that
would
be
the
holy
grail
of
ripple
essence.
Is
that
the
real
assets
and
the
brand
and
and
die
the
dive
stable
point
kind
of
like
permeates
a
democracy
that
has
a
real
that
has
real
rule
of
law
and
has
real
democratic
institutions
to
the
point
where
it's
like.
It's
not
the
choice
of
the
government,
whether
to
ban
the
collateral
right.
A
It's
the
choice
of
the
voters
and
they're
all
they
know
about
it,
and
some
of
them
use
it
and
some
of
them,
I
don't
know
like
farm,
better
dials
and
potatoes
about
rid
of
the
house
as
a
kind
of
game,
almost
right
as
a
sort
of
activity,
and
so
it's
like
very-
and
I
think
that
that
that
is,
I
think,
potentially
achievable
in
something
like
I
mean
the
uk,
or
maybe
something
like
new
zealand
right
where
which
is
an
even
smaller
country.
A
So
there's
this
like
ability
to
actually
get
a
a
sort
of
a
saturation
in
a
in
a
democracy
that
could
then
create
this
like
very
strong
bedrock
right,
where
you
can
then
start
really
unloading
collateral
into
right
and
simply
haven't
like
be
able
to
risk
almost
like
an
infinite
exposure
of
of
your
collateral
in
such
an
area,
which
then
has
these
all
these
positive,
clean
money
consequences
right,
because
that
would
then
create
a
climate
resilient
society
that
had
like
tons
of
clean
energy.
A
It
could
export
clean
energy
and
even
if
you
know
other
places,
start
falling
apart,
you'll
have
these
resilient
nations
that
can
export
energy
and
and
and
be
a
sort
of
a
very
stabilizing
and
sort
of
a
resilience,
creating
factor
in
the
future.
A
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
don't
really
see
any
more
questions.
Maybe
I'm
gonna
scroll
up
again
and
see
if
there's
something.
A
Okay,
so
peyton
is
talking
about
cutting
off
mpr
like
this
thing
about
removing
them
backstop
yeah,
and
I
think
I
mean
I
basically
think
that
it's
actually
like
it's
a
real,
it's
a
big
problem
right
because
it
like,
and
the
reason
why
this
has
never
been.
For
I
mean
because
this
is
actually
something.
I've
always
thought
for
a
long
time
that,
like
the
backstop,
ultimately
isn't
like
it's
not.
A
You
know
it's
not
really
gonna
matter
so
much
right
and
and
and
then
there
is
this
whole
factor
of
like
having
the
backstop
is
really
good,
for
you
know
like
aligning
incentives,
basically
right,
some
kind
of
like
rational
economic
alignment
of
like
having
having
voters
govern
responsibly
and
not
go
sort
of
rogue
and
and
just
crash
the
system
into
the
ground.
But
basically
the
counter
argument
to
that
is
that
you
can't
actually
prevent
empty
hours
from
choosing
not
to
pay
for
the
backstop.
A
So
they
it's
actually
always
an
option.
That's
available,
and
I
mean
the
best
example
of
that
is
that
when
it
actually
happened,
we
changed
the
terms
of
it
right.
We
we
delayed
it
by
week,
because
if
we
hadn't
done
that
it
would
have
been
completely
disastrous
right
because
we
weren't,
even
like
I
mean
happened
due
to
options
failing
and
we
had
no
idea
how
the
new
auctions
would
work.
So
there
was
simply
no
choice.
A
It
had
to
be
delayed
because
you
couldn't
just
have
like
your
load
into
some
other
options
that
couldn't
fail
and
but
I
mean
worst
case
scenario
than
inflate
npr
and
to
infinite
right
yeah.
I
mean
I
think
I
mean
so
that's
of
course,
there's
a
bad
thing,
but
that's
sort
of
I
think
that
that
that
hit
like
that
means
that
the
value
of
the
delusion
in
terms
of
incentivizing,
good
governance,
isn't
as
high
as
you'd
think
and
really.
A
If,
if
you
know
it's
realistic
right
and
the
system
can
survive
and
they
can
protect
the
pig
and
it's
worth
it,
because
this
protects
the
peg
and
this
this
then
gives
them
the
you
know
their
upside
and
so
on.
A
You
know
that
that
there
wouldn't
be
enough
mkr
to
to
backstop
all
of
it.
Then
the
the
expectation
is
more,
you
know
is
that
all
these
reserves,
you
know
all
the
the
the
like
the
you
know,
the
alexia
reserves
and
the
surplus
buffer,
obviously,
and
and
all
these
other
sort
of,
like
all
the
actual
capital,
that's
available
that
that
doesn't
have
this
death
spiral
problem
that
mkr
has
right
once
you
start
using
it
once
once,
the
loss
is
big
enough
and
care
is
totally
useless.
A
That
is
guaranteed
and
I
mean
sort
of
where
the
the
meta
is
that
that's
the
stuff
that
is
guaranteed
to
to
backstop
diet,
and
I
think,
yeah
and
basically
I
think
that
that's
you
get
somewhat
the
same
dynamic
in
this
situation,
right
where
all
the
equity,
all
the
capital
is
used
in
a
very
severe
scenario,
and
then
whatever
is
beyond
that,
I
mean
what
loss
remains,
becomes
a
haircut
for
die
holders,
but
the
system
can
keep
running
and
it
will
actually
remain
stable
and
I
think
that's
like
I
mean
and
then
and
then,
if
there's
such
a
little
loss
remaining,
that
you
can
simply
plug
the
gap
with
mkr
without
completely
ruining
the
system,
then
you
would
do
that
because
you
want
to,
then
you
want
to
keep
system
going
because
you
want
them
careful
of
value,
but
on
the
other
hand,
if
there
is
a
scenario
such
as
something
like
the
you
know,
regulatory
correctness
or
regulators
right,
then
you
might
actually
like
the
meta
may
accept.
A
The
meta
may
allow
them
countless
pass
on
that
loss,
to
dialogues
and
simply
communicates
look.
This
is
the
risk
here.
A
You
have
to
take
that
risk
because
if
you
don't
take
that
risk,
then
the
problem
is
the
entire
system
collapses
in
this
situation
and
there's
no
stable
coin
at
all
on
the
other
side,
and
also
you
still
don't
get
any
value
of
mkr,
because
if
the
whole
system
collapses,
the
npr
goes
to
zero,
so
it's
not
like
having
the
npr
backstab
being
enforced
in
that
situation
is
actually
going
to
recover
more
funds
and
and
then
finally,
if
this
is
the
the
situation
right,
so
this
is
the
outcome
that,
like
mkr,
can
survive
even
a
very
severe.
A
You
know
regulatory
correctness
right
then
what
that
means
is
then
we
can
start
to
really
tap
into
self-collateralization
to
to
reduce
the
amount
of
centralized
collateral
that
can
even
be
seized
right
because
self-collateralization
is
a
you
know,
does
nothing
if
there's
an
mpr
backstop
anyway.
That
goes
to
zero
anyway,
but
if
mkr
doesn't
go
to
zero
and
mkl
actually
retains
some
sort
of
value.
A
In
this
scenario,
right
where
there's
a
huge
like
collateral
crackdown
and
seizure,
then
you,
like
you,
so
I
mean,
then
you
might
actually
end
up
in
a
situation
where
ultimately,
the
loss
is
lower.
So
even
though
you
remove
the
backstop
because
you
add
because
that
allows
you
to
add
self-collateralization,
then
you
could
have
a
situation
where
this
actually
protects
user
funds
better
and
yeah.
So
that's
that's.
A
This
whole
rationale
at
some
point
you
know
once
I
have
some
time
somehow
then
I'll
write
more
about
it,
but
I
mean
but
and
also
the
other
thing
is
in
general.
I
think
that,
like
then,
the
metadials
to
some
extent
in
their
game
plan
can
they
will
sort
of
be
taking
over
this
role
of
being
the
ones
with
the
backstops
right.
Because
then,
because
it's
different
like
you,
could
actually
nuke
all
that,
like
you,
could
have
a
complete,
catastrophic
meltdown
and
all
the
metadatas
that
that
that
you
know.
A
That
I
mean
that
have
severe
losses
in
that
scenario
they
could
all
be
like
diluted
to,
like
I
mean,
obviously
have
all
their
assets
taken,
but
then
also
diluted
to
zero,
to
try
to
squeeze
out
every
last
little
drop
of
value
out
of
them
and
and
and
that
would
not
I
mean
that
would
actually
be
fine,
because
the
sort
of
them
the
actual
cost
of
like
as
long
as
they
make
a
call
government
survives,
then
you
can
relaunch
metadata.
So
they
don't
have
the
same
problem
where
you
know.
A
If
they
go
to
zero,
then
suddenly
the
whole
thing
stops
functioning.
So
you
can
still
have
something
like
this
that
actually
works
better
with
the
metadose.
Of
course
it
doesn't.
The
one
thing
it
doesn't.
Support
like
and
it
doesn't
protect
against,
is
like
east
risk
in
the
in
the
main
evolves
right.
There's.
A
No,
there
would
be
no
like
sort
of
forced
backstop
in
those
you
know
beyond
the
the
capital
buffers
and
so
on,
but
the
nature
of
losses
from
like
primary
vault
engine
eath
bolts
right
is
that
they're
not
gonna,
be
like
a
total
insane
wipeout
in
one
go
right,
they'll
be
these
like
smaller
damages
that
will
happen,
so
they
will
almost
always
fall
under
the
situation
where
pianos
will
will
decide
to
actually
dilute
to
backstop
it
simply
because
it's
like
it's
like
a
small
loss.
A
So
the
you
know
you
get.
You
gain
more
like
you're,
actually
better
off
as
an
empty
holder
diluting
to
to
pluck
the
hole,
because
that's
going
to
preserve
your
future
upside
and,
as
a
result,
that's
going
to
prevent
the
mtr's
of
long-run
value
proposition
from
collapsing
from
falling
as
a
result,
right.
A
Okay,
I'll
get
to
take
this
other
question
from
okay,
some
so
raphael
asking.
How
do
we
create
good
matter
for
maker
and
metadouse
apart
from
turbonomics?
I
think
I
mean
I
think,
the
real,
the
only
real
tool
I
mean
yeah.
Well,
we
have
a
couple
tools,
but
I
think
the
most
important
number
one
is
that
they
need
to
be
small
right.
They
need
to
have
these
sort
of
small
aligned
groups.
Basically-
and
I
think
at
this
point
it's
become
kind
of
you
know
common
sense
or
something
like
broadly
held
wisdom
in
crypto.
A
Right,
yes,
I
mean,
but
then
also
that's
kind
of
a
given
with
metadata
they're
built
to
be
small,
but
but
then
I
think
the
other
is
that
they're
like
fully
decentralized
right,
and
this
is
kind
of
the
comment
I
made
in
the
beginning-
also
that
somehow
there's
some
kind
of
intangible
value
that
you
know
that,
like
there's
some
kind
of
good
meta
and
stuff,
that's
fully
centralized
gets
people
going
in
a
different
way
that
they
don't
have
with
like
something
where
ultimately,
the
whole
thing
rolls
up
to
some
sort
of
authority
outside
of
there.
A
You
know
they're,
not
they
don't
have
the
same
sense
of
sovereignty,
and
so
I
think
those
are
really
the
two.
A
You
know
core
pieces
that
I
think
and
allow
a
community
and
a
cluster
to
to
sort
of
cluster
together
and
create
this
very
aligned
metadata
with
with
a
positive
manner
right
it
like
increases
likelihood
of
that
basically,
and
then
there's
also
like-
and
I
think
this
it
means
this
whole
thing
about
decentralization
right
is
that
it
means
the
one
thing
is
that
that
the
metadata
bond
decentralized,
they
don't
have
a
founding
team.
They
they
have.
A
This
totally
standardized
fair
launch
distribution,
but
on
top
of
that,
I
think
also,
the
decentralization
of
dye
has
a
big
impact
on
this
right.
So
I
think,
if
dye
is
more
decentralized,
that's
going
to
create
the
same
effect
of
like
the
metadatas
will
be
more
will
have
better
matter,
if
they're,
more
sovereign,
essentially
right
and
and
ultimately
then
the
sovereignty
all
ties
back
to
how
resilient
dies
and
how
how
sort
of
self-sovereign
the
entire
ecosystem
is.
A
So
that's
also
that's
why
I
think
there
is
this
feedback
loop
possible
of
like
using
metadata
terms
to
incentivize
each
collateral
degenerate
die
with,
which
will
in
turn,
make
dye
more
decentralized,
which
in
turns,
improves
the
matter
of
the
metadose
and
and
then
actually
results
in.
A
In
you
know,
greater
value
of
the
yield
farming
like
both
in
like
both
a
higher
yield,
but
also
just
like
not
just
a
higher
fundamental
yield
right,
there's
a
higher
percentage
in
api
terms,
but
also
you
know
the
the
the
the
yield
necessary
to
get
someone
to
actually
go
in
there
and
farm
that
yield
will
be
lower
because
they
will
be
more
interested
like
they're,
more
interested,
because
the
meta
is
better
and
the
likelihood
of
someone
yeah
like
you
know
someone
farming,
I'm
talking
and
then
holding
it
rather
than
farming
it
and
selling
it
will
also
be,
and
then
it
just
becomes
this
virtual
circle
of
like
this
is
a
way
to
almost
like
bootstrap
decentralization
into
the
system
through
through
intangible
value
and
and
through
the
this.
A
This,
like,
I
think
it's
sort
of
observable
an
observable
fact
that
decentralization
creates
more
active
communities.
Basically,
with
with
the
more
better
meta
and
more
spark
okay,
so
patent
says
so,
given
the
increased
urgency
from
your
perspective
roon,
how
do
we
start
getting
to
work
on
these
issues?
A
Enjoy
the
clustering
talks
and
I
have
been
approached
by
several
people,
including
about
a
favorite
cluster
of
future
metadata,
but
global
alpha's
complexities
aside,
a
lot
of
these
chats
have
shared
the
same
thread
of
okay.
Now,
what
do
you
have
any
advice
for
what
these
cross-focus
groups
should
be
doing
say
for
the
rest
of
the
year?
A
Yes,
I
mean,
so
I
think
that,
like
so
right
now,
there
are
basically
like
three
clusters
that
I'm
aware
of
that
are
like
that.
I
saw
in
stealth
mode
still,
but
that
are
that
basically
are
clustering
to
the
three
proof
of
concept
metadatas,
and
I
think
like
of
course
it's
I
mean.
A
The
whole
point
is
that
you
can
have
multiple
clusters
clustering
to
the
same
matter
now
and
both
potentially
competing,
but
also
potentially
like
paralyzing
and
simply
having
like
multiple
clusters
in,
like
you
know,
sort
of
seeding
a
metadata
right,
getting
getting
onboarded
into
a
metadata
like
following
its
launch,
but
I
think
specifically
for
the
proof
of
content
metadata
we
want
to.
A
We
want
to
only
have
like
one
cluster,
each
and-
and
I
mean
so
so
what
that
means
is
you
know,
like
the
the
less
desirable
outcome,
I
think
is
that
there
will
be
competition,
which
I
mean
wouldn't
be
so
bad,
but
I
think
the
even
better
thing
would
be
to
be
able
to
work
together
with
with
these
existing
clusters.
A
The
only
problem
is
they're
still
in
like
everyone's
stealth
mode,
because
everyone's
like
is
it
actually
happening
and
what's
going
on,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
and
a
lot
of
kind
of
almost
like
political
hesitation
right.
But
I
think
basically,
once
we
see
like
at
some
point,
because
exactly
because
of
this
realization
that
in
the
end
you
can't
like
a
cluster,
can't
be
guaranteed
to
to
get
on
board
right
like
it's
gonna,
it's
going
to
be.
Who
can
convince
the
voters
to
actually
vote
for
them?
A
And
that's
gonna
mean
that
there
will
be
these
like
public.
You
know
like
clustering
announcements
or
something
like
that
right,
where
the
clusters
will
actually
try
to
to
brand
themselves
and
begin
to
like
try
to
gather
political
clout
and
and
build
up
a
brand,
so
they
can
sort
of
cluster
with
the
actual,
like
future
community
of
these
metadows,
which
would
be
people
that
have
ether
or
mpr,
and
then
that
that
you
know
trying
to
figure
out
which
one
of
these
do.
A
I
want
to
farm
right
and
be
active
in
and
and
then
once
that
starts
to
happen,
then
it
will
really
like
that'll.
Just
give
fur
make
this
more
further,
more
concrete
right
and
so
provide
a
place
for
someone
to
try
to
engage
with
an
existing
cluster
right
and
see
if
they
fit
with
it,
or
you
know,
maybe
decide
to
compete
with
with
an
existing
one
because
assembly
they
can.
A
You
know
they
can
create
a
better
proposal,
but
I
think
it
also
could
simply
like
provide
sort
of
like,
even
if
none
of
those
things
are
viable,
it
still
provides
people
a
way
to
see
okay.
This
is
a
this
is
then
how
what
something
you
can
prepare
for
for
future
metadatas
right
so
in
particular,
is
m3
right,
which
is
the
second
creator
now
that
will
not
be
a
part
of
these
proof
of
concept,
metadows
and
so
nobody's
clustering
for
that
right
now.
A
I
think
right
because
that's
obviously
way
too
abstract
and
far
right,
but
once
we
it
so
if
the
you
know
so,
my
plan
with
the
votes
and
gameplay
votes
are
that
if
the
endgame
plan
sort
of
the
preliminary
end
game
plan
vote
succeeds
in
october
right
then
immediately
following
that,
we
would
make
we
make.
A
You
know
we,
you
know,
set
up
the
meta
verses
for
all
six
launch
metadatas
right,
because
the
idea
is
there's
actually
going
to
be
six
that
we
launched
well
relatively
rapidly,
and
so
that
means
they
would
have
their
own
forums.
They
would
have
their
own
discord,
and
once
this
forum's
a
discord,
then
it
gets
even
more
concrete
of
how
you
can
cluster
right,
because
then
you
can
start
to
actually
talk
some
of
the
small
groups.
A
That's
going
that's
preparing
to
farm
this
token
and
prepare
to
engage,
and
I
think
then
that's
gonna
be
sort
of
like
that's.
Then
gonna
provide
a
very
tangible.
A
You
know
opportunity
for
people
that
aren't
that
that
don't
that
just
can't
find
like
a
a
an
easy
fit
in
the
current
clusters,
basically
like
and
what
they
what
ends
up
being
published
like
if
it
you
know
before
the
even
the
in-game
plan
book
right,
which
would
be
sort
of,
I
mean
that's,
not
even
real
clustering
right,
because
it's
not
even
guaranteed
that
gameplay
will
happen
and,
as
a
result,
it's
not
a
sort
of
hypothetical
clustering
right.
It
takes
a
lot
of
momentum
to
for
something
like
that
to
happen.
A
A
Is
people
sort
of
talking
behind
the
scenes
running
like
all
these,
like
it's
these
groups
that
already
know
and
trust
each
other,
because
there's
all
these,
like
I
mean
I
call
them
some
fault
lines
in
the
decentralized
workforce,
right
they're,
just
like
groups
that
basically
know
who
they
like
to
work
with
and
know
who
they
don't
like
to
work
with,
and
they
sort
of
naturally
already
work
together
and
whenever
they
can-
and
these
are
the
kind
of
of
so
constellations
that
are
naturally
clustering
right.
A
But
once
we
have
these
dedicated
forums
to
to
the
launch
metadatas,
then
you
can
also
just
go
out
and
publish
and
be
like:
hey,
I'm
whatever.
I
want
to
do
some
stuff
right,
here's
what
I
can
do
right
and-
and
so
so
it's
a
much
more
sort
of
open
process.
That's
a
lot
easier
to
like
a
lot
more
accessible
and
then
like
for
the
you
know.
The
part
of
the
part
of
the
plan
is
the
the
current
decentralized
workforce
right
they
would
everyone
that
basically
gets
sort
of.
A
I
guess
in
theories
like
everyone
that
gets
approved
by
the
facilitator
would
have
this
option
of
sort
of
entering
clustering
mode
right,
which
then
gives
you
a
two-year
runway
to
like
do
your
work,
but
then
also
attempt
to
cluster
to
a
metadow,
and
you
have
two
years
of
runway
right
and
only
if
you
get
like
rejected
from
all
metadows
and
and
there's
no
like
there's
no
sort
of
real
that
there
appears
to
be
no
sort
of
real.
A
You
know
possibility
of
getting
accepted
into
a
metadata.
Then
you
could
potentially
lose
those
benefits,
but
it,
but
otherwise
in
most
cases,
what
will
happen
is
either
you'll
cluster
within
two
years
or
you
will
then
run
out
of
funding
after
those
two
years
and
then,
even
if
that
happens,
but
like
you're
still
actually
serious,
and
you
actually
still
want
to
to
do
it.
Then,
what's
gonna
happen
in
the
in
the
actual,
like
once
we
have
before
these
two
years
run
out,
right
and
and
that's
within
the
time
frame.
A
I
mean
these
two
years.
It's
that
the
thinking
is
that
within
these
two
years,
that's
when
all
six
launch
metadata
will
launch
right
and
then
like.
Actually
let
me
try
to
draw
that
right.
So
so
you
basically
have
you
know
we
have
like
you
know
three
you'll
see
metadatas.
A
Like,
let's
call
it,
the
in-game
plan
launch
phase
right
and
it's
during
this
phase
like
it's
during
the
end
game
plan
launch
phase.
So
this
is
the
time
where,
like
since
this
is
where
this
like
clustering,
like
budget,
or
something
like
that
right
and
that's
where
this
is
available
and
then
there's
you
know,
and
then
the
in-game
plan
launch
phase.
Actually
I
should
move
this
a
little
bit,
but
this.
A
A
And
so
then
you
get
validation.
Then
you
get
the
other
three
launch
methods
and
this
all
happens
within
this
two-year
period
and
then
once
it
all
runs
out
and
we
enter
this
sort
of
steady
state.
Then
in
that
steady
state
there
is
something
called
the
ecosystem
scope
right.
So
that's
a
part
of
the
world
map
is
that
one
of
the
scopes
is
the
ecosystem,
scope
and
so
the
ecosystem
scope.
A
You
know
cluster,
to
launch
a
metadata
and
and
fulfill
some
kind.
I
mean
basically
it's
just
to
to
be
valuable
and
have
them
you
know
be
in
the
right
situation.
A
Do
that
they
would
then
still
continue
to
be
able
to
get
funding
to
basically
attempt
to
join
a
metadata,
and
then,
of
course,
if
you
have
someone
that,
like
literally
just
can't
forever
and
it
just
never
works
out,
then
at
some
point
this
would
be-
I
mean
there'll,
be
you
know
an
ecosystem
council,
essentially
right
there'll,
be
someone
who
sort
of
creates
the
framework
for
this.
They
would
have
some
kind
of
you
know
attempt
to
quantify
at
what
point
is
someone
like?
A
Do
we
basically
give
up
on
the
on
paying
someone
money
to
attempt
to
cluster
the
metadata
right,
because,
of
course,
you
can
still
get
people
that
are
trying
to
attempt
to
cluster
their
innocence
like
they
could
be
doing
all
sorts
of
work,
but
also
they
could
simply
be
doing
some
research
work
related
to
to
you
know,
sort
of
metadata
or
theory,
or
something
like
that
right,
just
sort
of
like
how
to
how
to
actually
make
it
work.
A
And
but
of
course,
it's
not
a
totally
efficient
state
to
have
someone
in
so
in
the
long
run,
you
can't
have
someone
like
that
forever
like
either
it
it
works,
or
I
mean
they're
basically
never
going
to
cluster,
and
also
you
have
them
in
a
in
a
working
mode
that
that
is
not
fully
efficient,
right
and
they're,
better
off
working
somewhere
else
on
something
else.
Somehow.
A
A
Like
someone
says,
usc
is
52
tbl
yeah,
it's
52
percent
of
tvl,
but
unfortunately
it's
like,
I
think,
it's
way
more
in
terms
of
real
die.
Collateralization,
unfortunately,
which
is
very
unfortunate.
A
A
Anyone
knows
if
we
switch
3.5
million
of
using
the
psn
ethereum.
How
does
it
affect
yeah
we're?
Not?
We
cannot
do
that,
but
in
theory
I
mean
uprooting
would
actually
involve
like
mid-65
is
actually
designed
so
that
the
bonds
in
myth,
65
could
actually
be
used
for
this,
and
that
I
mean-
and
that's
something
that's
the
real
way
we
should.
A
All
the
assets
they've
got
and
then
swap
at
otc
to
eth
to
prevent
this
problem
of
oh
maker
is
going
to
you
know,
ape
3.5
billion
and
then
the
price
pumps
and
we
get
hit
by
massive
slippage
right,
but
so
having
a
rangers
do
it.
Otc
is
obviously
a
lot
better
and
they're
the
ones
who
hold
the
real
assets
in
the
first
place.
A
Anyway,
right
so
that
so
what's
amazing,
the
answer
is
that
mips
65
is
actually
something
that
could
very
easily
be
used
to
do
this
kind
of
emergency
purchase
of
if
it
became
necessary
as
a
part
of
the
you
know,
activating
phoenix
stance
or
something
like
that.
A
A
Most
of
this
stuff
is
not
really
good
to
share
because
it
already
has
outdated
stuff
in
it
and
I'm
writing
as
I'm
writing
a
forum
post.
That
covers
all
of
this.
That's
kind
of
like
this
box,
but
with
all
the
few
there's
a
few
missing
details
that
are
not
in
these
boxes
and
then,
of
course,
like
expands
on
it
and
like
tries
to
sort
of
fully
expand
in
all
details,
but
also
tries
to
be
short
enough
that
it
could
be
a
single
wall
of
text
instead
of
like
10
walls,
walls
of
text
right.
A
Yeah
so
peyton,
okay,
so
I'm
painting
this
gravel
finds
a
weird
spot,
as
we
are
likely
to
be
left
behind,
have
to
remain
neutral
and
thus
will
not
be
organizing
for
endgame
until
there's
been
a
vote.
Current
thinking,
spurred
on
by
juan
and
dennis,
is
that
in
the
meantime,
building
more
cross
cu
collaborations
will
allow
for
smooth
transition
to
metadata.
A
If
approved
and
you'll
have
plenty
of
value
in
interim
before
the
vote
yeah
I
mean
so
I
mean
so
I
so
I
have
a
very
specific
kind
of
thinking
around
the
governance
core
unit
in
the
in-game
right,
because
I
mean
it's
really
central,
I
mean,
like
the
whole
thing
is
possible
because
of
you
know,
meta
engineering
and
meta,
magic
and
basically
mips
and
governance
facilitators
and
this
whole
concept
that
we
sort
of
invented
randomly
without
really
knowing
what
we
were
doing.
But
suddenly
we
were
just
sitting
with
it
on
our
hands
right.
A
That's
such
a
central
thing
that
makes
this
stuff
possible,
and
so
my
my
thinking
around,
like
so
first
of
all
the
way
like
so
so
the
thing
about,
like
the
the
real
like
the
the
core
units,
the
facilitators
that
sort
of
the
very
high
level
of
the
the
the
decentralized
workforce,
would
actually
be
impacted
quite
little
by
then
game
plan
right
because,
like
they
would
cluster
to
the
governor's
house
right,
but
it
would
be
very
much
like
it
wouldn't
be
the
same
kind
of
clustering
as
like
the
way
the
arrangers
have
done
it,
for
instance,
where
they
sort
of
they're
very
kind
of
opinionated
about
who
they
work
with
and
where
they
go
and
so
on
and-
and
you
can't
have
the
same
thing
with
facilitators
right
because,
basically
as
pain
in
this
world
right,
they
have
to
be
neutral.
A
A
Just
not
even
you
know,
like
they're
disqualified
as
facilitators,
right
like
you,
need
very
specific
types
of
people
be
acting
as
facilitators
that
are
able
to
stay
above
the
politics
so
that
just
like
that
big
means
that,
in
a
sense
from
that
perspective,
the
whole
clustering
of
facilitators
to
meta
to
the
government
of
the
house
is
a
lot
similar,
because
you
sort
of
you
can
assume,
there's
no
drama
basically,
and
if
there
is
then
well,
they
shouldn't
keep
them
away
from
the
governor's
house
right
and
so
that's
kind
of
what.
So.
A
That
means
it's
a
lot
more
like
it's
a
lot
more
like
flip
a
coin
almost
right
and,
of
course,
people
that,
like
to
work
together,
can
still
sort
of
work
together,
but
like
it's,
it's
there
might
be
situations
where
maker
will
simply
say.
A
No,
we
don't
want
you
in
that,
like
it'll,
be
a
lot
more
like
it'll,
be
from
from
major
governments
right
we
will
have
to,
we
will
just
require
it
has
to
be
like
a
50,
50,
split
and,
and
maybe
some
kind
of
preference
in
terms
of
of
how
the
governor
dials
organized
itself.
Right,
I
mean
there's
a
much
closer
relationship
between
maker
dominance
and
then
the
government
on
metadata
than
major
dominance.
A
You
know
meddling
in
the
creator
and
and
protected
apps,
and
so
that's
one
thing
that,
like
the
clustering,
is
going
to
be
a
very
automatic
in
that
sense
right
that
it's
not
really
like
it'll,
just
kind
of
almost
like
happen
in
a
way
right
if
like.
If
we
have
successful,
in-game
plan
launch
and
then
we
have
successful
in-game
plan
validation,
then
at
some
point
there
will
simply
be
a
like.
A
There
will
be
some
kind
of
like
I
mean
I
guess
like
ability
to
cluster
with
a
metadata
and,
and
that
would
then
just
like,
be
very
attractive.
Basically
right,
so
be
a
big
incentive
to
to
to
do
it
and
then,
and
also
again
like
there
will
be
like
it
should
be
kind
of
not
a
big
deal
which
government
now
you're
clustered
to
anyways.
A
And
the
other
point
I
want
to
make
was
about
cobalt
specifically
like
governance,
facilitators
and
mips,
and
you
know
meta,
engineering
and
metamagic
and
and
the
crib,
like
sort
of
the
critical
importance
of
this
stable
meta
that
we've
already
managed
to
create
around
the
mips
right,
and
so
I
think
that
I
mean
I've
always
wanted
this.
But
I
think
now
it's
like
this
is
like
the
the
end
game
plan
is
going
to
be
the
time
to
like
absolutely
enforce
it
and
basically
penalize
the
government
house
if
they
don't
enforce
it
right.
A
But
that
is
that
I
think
the
the
governance
scope
is
should
be
purely
about
this,
like
high
level
escalation
of
dispute
and
tie
breaking
and
stuff
right,
so
it
shouldn't
there
should
be
no
kind
of
operational
work
at
all
right
that
should
all
fall
under
other
stuff,
like
I
think,
like
ecosystem,
for
instance,
could
be
like
that
could
be
a
like
a
scope
that
covers
anything
of
like
doing
stuff
and
helping
stuff,
and
so
so.
Well
I
mean,
and
so
in
the
short
run.
A
This
is
how
it
works
today
that,
like
the
gov
alpha,
does
operational
stuff
and
and
does
kind
of
like
decentralize
management
and
all
this
stuff
right,
but
I
think
it
would
also
be
like
increasingly,
I
think,
working
on
a
kind
of
like
core
research.
Almost
I
think,
would
be
very
valuable
right
like
trying
to
really
sort
of
dig
into
what
are
all
these.
Like
hypothetical.
A
A
Basically,
attempts
to
to
like
deal
with
like
tries
to
sort
of
deal
with
all
the
unknowns
as
much
as
possible,
and
then
that's,
what's
being
what
actually
is
used
when
something
sort
of
escalates
all
the
way
to
the
governance,
facilitators
right
and
that
could
both
be
like
internal
makeup
stuff,
but
it
could
also
be
in
the
in
some
very
extreme
scenarios
like
the
actual
metadata
stuff
that
somehow
gets
all
the
way
up
to
to
baker's
governance
coin
right,
so
it'll
be
a
lot
more
in
my
vision,
right
governance
facilitators
really
become
like
real
kind
of
judges
in
in
that
sense,
right,
like
also
like,
I
was
said
earlier
right,
I
don't
think
the
government's
risk
call
and
this
whole
sort
of,
like
you
know,
like
moderation-
function
in
a
sense
right
of
of
the
governance
facilities
actually
as
they
exist
today,
of
like
holding
calls
and
so
on.
A
That's
also
something,
I
don't
think
that's
like.
I
don't
think
governance
facilitators
should
actively
moderate.
I
think
they
should
completely
stay
out
of
that,
and
then
they
should
be
available
to
basically
settle
disputes
related
to
moderation
right
so
that
you
have
this
again.
This,
like
very
strong
ability
to
like
you,
have
the
ability
to
basically
do
very
complex
stuff
and
and
have
a
kind
of
credibility
around
how
all
these
things
are
done
in
this
huge
ecosystem.
A
Right
of
all
the
metadata
and
all
the
and
and
then-
and
you
know,
the
exponential
size
of
maker
that
make
it
would
eventually
reach.
A
Yeah
again
like
this,
I
won't
make
this
a
skeletal
draw
available
right
now
I
mean
I
made
this
box,
it's
on
the
forum
and
the
thread
for
today
and
also
made
the
clustering
diagram
here
available,
but
like,
for
instance,
this
thing
a
lot
of
the
language
in
like
this
stuff
here,
for
instance,
is
already
updated.
I'm
rather
than
fix
that
or
release
it,
and
then
confuse
people
with
stuff.
That's
gonna
be
different
from
what
I'm
putting
the
forum
post
I'd,
rather
just
try
to
get
the
forum
post
finished.
A
Raf
asks:
how
can
we
make
sure
the
clustering
metadatas
after
the
initial
ones
pursue
worthy
methods
and
not
permanent
or
financialization
schemes
like
so
that
way
I
mean
so
so
we
would
actually
need
some,
I
mean
so.
The
ecosystem
scope
right
that
are
sort
of
in
charge
of
incubating
new
metadatas,
like
they
would
actually
in
their
scope
map,
would
probably
regulate
this
right,
so
there
would
be
some
like,
so
they
would,
they
would
be
the
ones
they're,
also
the
ones
that
sort
of
deal
with
like
for
other.
A
A
Basically,
there
should
basically
be
you
know
so
so-called
a
council,
actually
not
even
council,
but
a
couple
of
new
words
but
tribunal
yeah,
but
like
basically
like
someone
who
are
kind
of
like
very
that
highest
level
of
like
working
directly
with
the
decentralized
voter
committees
and
so
tribunal,
like
so
the
these
five
ones
at
the
bottoms.
A
At
the
bottom
they
have
tribunals
and
the
reason
why
they're
called
tribunals
is
because
they're
combination
of
council
and
co-unit,
so
they
both
create
the
scope
map
and
enforce
the
scope
map
and
then
on
the
top
five.
They
have
counselling
core
units
because
they
have
a
lot
more
than
a
lot
more
meat
to
them.
A
These
top
five
ones,
and
so
the
ecosystem
tribunal
will
would
basically
like
identify
ponzi
scheme
attempts
at
clustering
or
something
like
that,
and
then
they
would
basically
say
like
first
of
all,
they
would
just
say:
look
we
consider
that
a
you
know
that
goes
against
the
scope
map
you
can
read
here.
Yada
yada
looks
very
bad
right
and
we're
gonna
we're
gonna.
A
You
know
basically
alert
mega
governance
about
this
as
we
have
to,
and
then,
if
it
happens,
then,
basically,
though,
like
probably
the
the
solution
would
be,
that
maker
would
start
to
penalize
the
metadata
for
for,
like
pursuing
a
pump
and
dump
scheme
or
doing
something
else.
That's
that's
damaging
to
the
ecosystem
and
then
just
like
would
just
die.
A
But
then,
of
course,
because
that's
a
possibility,
then
the
game
theory
says
that.
Then
it
would
never
happen
like
such
a
cluster
would
never
succeed,
because,
like
even
in
if
in
theory,
it
would
be
difficult
to
enforce
just
the
possibility
of
that
kind
of
enforcement
like
that
means
means
that
the
the
meta
like
the
the
you
know
that
kind
of
meta
to
emerge
would
be
like
impossible
right.
Nobody
would
want
to
spend
time
or
effort
on
that
to
put
their
their
heart
and
soul
into
it
right
if
they
don't
even
think
it's
possible.
A
Okay,
so
frank
s
should
recognize
delegates
push
for
an
implementation
of
psn
fees.
In
your
opinion,
no,
I
think
it's
totally
pointless,
but
I
think
I
mean
I
yeah
I
mean
I'm
just
like
I
I
don't.
A
I
don't
even
want
to
talk
about
that
now,
but
but
I
could
I
could
talk
about
psm
for
ages,
but
like
I
really
think
that,
like
either
you
you,
you
know
you
pick
to
the
dollar
or
you
you
depict
for
real
and
I
think,
like
psm,
yeah
they're,
just
the
sort
of
the
wrong
way
to
to
think
about
it.
I
think
I
mean
okay,
so
the
one
exception
I
guess
would
be.
A
If
we're
preparing
to
depict,
maybe
that
it's
an
interesting
like
a
useful
preparation
for
that
or
something,
but
I
don't,
I
don't
think
like,
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
way
to
get
usdc
to
to
get
out
of
the
system
at
all.
So
I
don't
think
it
helps
with
that
at
all,
like
I
mean
beyond
sort
of
demand,
destruction
right.
A
And
also,
I
don't
think
it's
like
a
good
source
of
income.
That's
my
thing
like
and
and
yeah.
I
think
it's
much
better
to
hold
the
usd
like
hold
the
tight
peg
and
then
be
like
once
you
stop
holding
the
thai
pig.
Well,
then
you're
serious
about
de-pegging
and
you're
not
sort
of
playing
around
with
debating.
A
So
justin
case
asks:
how
do
we
avoid
facilitators,
engage
in
yeah?
I
mean
look,
that's
that's
the
trillion
dollar
question
and
the
best
answer
I
have
is
basically
to
have
decentralized
voter
committees,
right
that
are
sort
of
on
top
of
this
kind
of
stuff,
in
a
sense
right
that
that.
A
You
know
that
actually
oversee
and
deal
with
with
with
co
units
right
and
and
are
able
to
take
action
against
stuff,
that's
wrong
right
and
then
there
needs
to
be
a
strong
enough
meta
in
maker
itself.
So
something
like
clean
money
and
and
the
financial
public,
good
and
financial
inclusion
and
social
impact
so
stuff.
That's
gonna
want
the
dvcs
to
actually
voluntarily.
A
You
know,
take
tough
decisions
and
do
sort
of
hard
things,
basically
without
a
financial
motive,
but
you
know
so
that
they
will
want
to
to
to
to
go
up
against
like
a
badly
a
misbehaving
facilitator,
and
then
there
is
also
yeah.
It
would
also
be
the
ecosystem,
like
the
ecosystem
scope.
A
That
would
would
also
be
like,
like
the
the
ecosystem
tribunal,
would
kind
of
a
part
of
their
thing
would
be
to
like
you
know
like
monitor,
behavior
and
code
of
conduct
and
so
on.
A
In
addition
to
like
I
mean
every
single,
like
every
single
council
and
tribunal
dealing
with
their
own
thing
like
dealing
with
their
own
area,
of
course
right
because
I
mean
there's
actually
like,
like
generally,
the
the
facilitators
would
be
kept
in
check
by
the
councils
right
where
the
councils
make
the
framework,
and
so
they
just
follow
the
framework.
A
And
then,
if
they're
playing
politics
instead
of
following
the
framework,
then
the
council
immediately,
you
know
shuts
them
down
recently
and
then
the
way
you
kind
of
take
action
against
this
is
that
you
simply
hold
the
governor
responsible
right.
So
it
would
be
so.
The
council
is
made
up
of
all
the
active
governments
and
then
each
facilitator
on
coin.
It
belongs
to
a
single
government,
so
it
would
be
sort
of
the
other
governance
would
basically
say:
hey
you're,
you're,
actually
sort
of
sponsoring
this
person
here
and
they're
doing
a
bunch
of
stuff.
A
We
think,
is
bad
behavior
and
we're
going
to
take
that
to
the
empty
hours
and
then
that
the
governor
that
allowed
that
to
happen
in
the
first
place
and
didn't
preemptively
deal
with
it.
They're
they're
going
to
get
hit
with
penalties
for
that,
so
then,
of
course,
they're
going
to
try
to
prevent
that
from
happening
in
the
first
place
right.
A
So
the
governance
of
these,
like
anti-drama,
anti-politics,
anti-corruption,
metadatas,
right
and
they're
they're
obsessed
with
then
also
like
creating
an
internal
manner
that
you
know
you
know,
provides
for
good
civil
servants
right
that
that
won't
get
them
get
them
hurt
for
for
for
sort
of
guaranteeing
their
their
performance.
A
Okay,
so
we
have
current
maps
for
governance.
It
seems
like
one
way
to
get
this
going
is
to
start
to
find
in-game
mips.
Yes,
robert,
that's
exactly
like
I
said,
but
the
thing
is
like
the
in-game
mips
would
only
really
be
required
for
the
actual
metadow
in
game
plan.
Launch
right.
So
right
now,
what's
needed
is
to
define
the
the
preliminary.
The
sort
of
the
symbol
dive
myth.
A
I
still
know
don't
know
exactly,
it
might
actually
be
that
it
would
be
an
immediate
zero
amendment
or
something
else
like
I'm,
not
sure
exactly
the
the
best
way
yet,
because
I
still
have
some
time
to
to
dive
into
it
before
I
have
to
post
the
first
rfc
right,
but
basically
there's
one
myth
to
get
the
whole
process
going
right,
which
sets
in
play,
which
sets
in
motion
sort
of
symbol,
die
and,
and
then
the
preparation
sort
of
the
pre-game
phase
right
of
preparing
for
for
the
metadata
endgame
plan
launch
and
then
in
that
period
of
time,
which
would
then
be
like
a
period
of
six
months
or
longer
six
months
to
a
year.
A
Maybe
that's
when
all
of
these
mips
have
to
be
defined
and
of
course
they
can
also
be
like
any
getting.
Any
work
done
on
them
in
advance
is
a
good
thing,
but
like
that's
like
real
work,
right
building
those
mips,
so
it
might
be.
You
know,
just
like
you
know,
not
building
too
much
code
until
we
really
know
that
there
actually
is
a
majority
for
it.
You
know
it
would
be.
It
would
be
a
lot
of.
A
All
right
I
got
to
the
bottom
of
the
chat.
I
don't
know.
If
there's
anything
else,
then
I
think,
let's
just
let's
is
called
a
day.
Like
I
said
I
will.
I
will
I'm
working
on
on
the
forum
post.
That's
going
to
be
one
of
the
next
steps
as
well.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
wren
and
thank
you
all
for
joining
us.
We'll
have
the
recording
out
by
tomorrow
and
again
have
a
great
rest
of
your
day
and
evening.
Thanks
for
joining
us
thanks,
everyone.