►
From YouTube: Open Decentralized Voter Committee | June 22, 2022
Description
The Voter Committee Calls are designed to invite MKR stakeholders to help the community agree on an overall top-down structure of categorizing the activities and strategic initiatives of the MakerDAOs decentralized workforce to create more specialized voter committees that cover each category.
More Information: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/decentralized-voter-committees-endgame-party-calls-everyone-welcome/15977
A
A
I
have
similar
sort
of
values
and
alignment
of
me
right,
but
of
course,
most
of
all.
This
is
about
the
end
game
plan,
which
I
think
is
very
important,
but
we
will
actually
not
be
really
talking
so
much
about
that
today,
we'll
be
talking
about
more
sort
of
the
immediate
short
term
stuff.
That's
that's
happening.
A
So
there's
like
a
few
a
few
kind
of
news
or
something
like
I
mean
these-
are
the
same
slides
I've
been
going
through,
but
there
made
some
small
changes
to
it.
I
just
want
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
and
then
just
basically
a
bunch
of
different
topics,
but
then
we'll
also
be
going
to
the
main
topic,
which
would
be
these
the
delegates
and
how
we
can
how
we
can
start
sort
of
organize
better
and
especially
how
voters
me
in
particular,
but
also
other
voters
in
the
future.
A
I
can
sort
of
leverage
delegates
that
that
we
delegate
to
to
basically
do
the
kind
of
stuff
we
want
them
to
do
right.
I
mean
I'm
not
just
talking
about
in
terms
of
voting
or
whatever,
like
telling
people
what
to
vote,
which
is
not
even
really
the
point
right,
because
there's
so
much
there's
so
many
proposals,
it's
not
really
possible
to
for
me,
for
instance,
to
to
having
a
you
know
to
know
what
to
vote
and
everything,
and
it's
more
like
you
almost
want
the
feedback
to
be
the
other
way
around
right.
A
The
delegates
should
be
sort
of
delegates
should
compete
to
sort
of
service
voters
with
the
information
they
want
and
also
like
the
the
sort
of
the
activity
that
that
the
voters
think
generates
value
for
them
right,
but
so
the
basic,
the
basic
idea
is
that
we
base
we
need
to
achieve
this
kind
of
high
level
organization
and
and
the
ability
to
basically
direct
the
the
the
entire
dial
right
and
and
like
one
of
the
immediate
goals
is,
is
voting
incentives
which
is
going
to
massively
empower
delegates.
And
then
you
want
this.
A
That's
that
that
is
actually
pushing
to
change
things
before
we
sort
of
even
implement
things
like
the
end
game
plan,
then
once
we
we
get
to
that
point
where
we
have,
inter
when
we
implement
the
end
game
plan,
and
the
ball
starts
rolling
on
that,
then
the
objective
is
the
opposite.
We
want
to
ossify,
we
want
to
stop.
You
know
things
from
changing
right.
A
We
basically
want
to
maximize
reliability
and
sort
of
certainty
around
the
outcomes
and
especially
prevent
the
scope
from
changing
right,
because
that's
one
of
the
that's
sort
of
the
definition
of
the
of
the
end
game
plan
and
this
end
game
concept,
which
is
where
we
got
this
hawk
party
and
dove
party,
and
I
think
it's
really.
I
didn't
even
expect
that,
but
I
think
it's
super
cool
that
basically
every
single
delegate
that
they
showed
interest
in
participating.
They
already
like.
A
A
And
then
so
right
now
I
mean
I
mean.
Obviously
this
whole
thing,
like
the
last
call
and
and
this
whole
the
subsequent
drama
and
the
forum
became
like
really
awkward,
because
people
just
I
mean-
and
I
I
basically
admit
it
was-
it
was
basically
miscommunication
for
me
right.
It
should
have
like
it
was
sort
of
a
last
minute
decision
for
me
to
roll
it
out
already
last
week,
which
was
accelerated
due
to
sort
of
internal
drama,
basically
in
maker.
A
That
makes
me
just
you
know
that
made
it
clear
that
that
that
we
need
to
sort
of
like
put
things
in
in
place
right
in
terms
of
finding
like
just
figuring
out
who's
aligned
right.
What's
the
and
and
get
more
clarity
around,
what's
the
what's
sort
of
the
amount
of
mkr,
what's
the
amount
of
people
that
are
that
are
on
you
know,
sort
of
aligned
in
the
dif
in
these
different?
A
Ultimately,
I
would
call
it
parties
essentially
right,
like
these
different
clusters
or
similar
values
and
then
similar
ideas
about
the
direction,
but
the
idea
of
the
whole
party
system
and
delegates,
as
I
see
it
in
the
long
run,
it's
very
important
that
delegates
they
don't
like
that
they
aren't
these
kind
of
like
they
have
to
actually
align
and
sort
of
be
beholden
all
or
nothing
way
that
not
necessarily
the
case
within
oh
by
the
way
someone.
This
is
this
one.
A
All
right,
let's
see
if
that
worked,
but
the
idea
is,
is
that
in
the
long
run
it
should
not
be
like
a
delegate
has
to
like
go
over
here
and
then
cut
off
the
ability
to
participate
over
there
and
and
suddenly
have
some
kind
of
you
know
like
be
sort
of
in
and
out
group
and
an
in
group
and
this,
and
that
delegates
should
be
all
over
the
place.
Because
delegates
are
not
really.
You
know
delegates
are
not
voters
right,
they're,
like
a
pass-through
for
voters,
basically
and
they're.
A
A
So
what
I
think
is
a
really
interesting
way
to
think
about
delegates
is
that
basically,
delegates
can
like
they're
sort
of
like.
Oh
tell
me
how
you
want
me
to
delegate
your
votes
and
I'll.
Do
it
that
way
right
and
I
could
do
it
with
multiple
votes,
because
I
get
paid
the
more
votes
I
get
right
and
delegates
are
competing
to
have
the
most
people
delegating
to
them
right.
A
So
there's
no
reason
why
they
shouldn't
be
able
to
both
delegate
on
behalf
of
somebody
who
is
a
hawk
and
and
beh
on
behalf
of
somebody
who's
a
dove
if
they
want
to
basically
and
then
the
extent
that
they,
you
know
they
attract.
Voters
from
each
of
these
different
camps
just
determines
how
much
they
sort
of
get
from
each
one
right,
but
the
perfect
delegate
actually
is
equally
able
to
vote
according
to
the
hawk
perspective
as
the
dove
perspective
right,
because
maker
is
not
supposed
to
be
this
sort
of
complicated.
A
A
So
this
is
actually
very
useful
in
sort
of
first
of
all,
like
giving
giving
like
making
sure
that,
like
we,
I
mean
this
is
a
common
theme
right
of
everything
that
I'm
pushing
towards
is
that
we
need
to
incentivize
building,
which
is
going
to
superpower
delegates,
and
then
we
need
to
put
it.
We
need
to
check
delegates
from
growing
sort
of
like
having
this
uncontrolled
growth
of
their
political
power
or
role
in
the
ecosystem.
A
Rather,
we
want
to
very
clearly
understand
what
exactly
is
that
the
delegates
would
do
right,
and
this
is
a
good
way
to
kind
of
create
that
expectation
right
as
delegate
with
delegates
is
this
kind
of
a
pass-through
right
so
anyway?
So
that's
the
point
right
that,
like
it
shouldn't
be
that
because
you're
participating
you're
supporting
the
in-game
party
and
you're
voting,
you
know
as
an
endgame
party
or
endgame
delegate
or
whatever
that
shouldn't
preclude
you
from
also
getting
people.
That
just
say
hey.
I
just
wanted
to
vote
independently
right.
A
Based
on
this
long
description,
you
wrote
right.
Oh
I
want
you
to
vote.
I
want
you
to
vote
no
to
every
like
I
wanted
to
vote.
No
on
all
budget
proposals,
or
something
right
like
a
delegate,
should
offer
that
possibility
as
long
as
there
is
this
pro.
This
is
party
process
behind
it
when
and
the
party
process
is
basically
like
continuity
of.
Oh,
no,
actually,
no,
sorry,
not
the
party
pro
like
the
the
voter
committee
process,
where,
like
a
party,
is
sort
of
like
multiple
congruent
voter
committees
that
ultimately
cover
everything.
A
Then
you
have
a
complete
party.
Essentially
right,
then
you
have
sort
of
like
a
perspective
that
can
that
is,
is
sort
of
has
this
holistic
way
of
trying
to
influence
the
dow
across
the
board
right
and
then
you
can
also
have
completely
independent
voter
committees
that
are
just
like
align
them
care
holders
that
don't
they
don't
care
about
stuff
other
than
specifically,
they
care
a
lot
about
getting
more
tokens
into
the
code
maker
or
whatever.
A
You
could
have
people
just
vote
through
an
incentivized
ui
and
then
anyone
that's
actually
thinking
they
would
never
vote
for
someone
who's
just
only
trying
to
increase
their
own
pay,
but
some
people
they
don't
give
a
they're.
Just
gonna
gonna
vote,
get
the
cash
delegate
to
some
random
delegate,
and
so
that's
the
that's
where
this
this
voter
committee
and
then
also
the
party
system,
has
this
kind
of
like
checking
role
right,
because
this
is
then
this
can
be
the
check
on
whether
you
even
get
compensation
at
all.
A
And
that
means
that,
ultimately,
while
we
can't
stop
people
from
delegating
to
a
particular
delegate,
you
can
basically
you
can
sort
of
identify
at
least
right,
like
really
obvious.
You
know
like,
like
examples
of
of
of
of
like
clearly
sort
of
selfish
and
and
and
bad
behavior
right
and
then.
Finally,
all
of
this
stuff
is
going
to
be.
A
You
know,
you
know
in
a
streamlined,
ui
right
where
you
get
paid
to
go
into
the
ui,
and
then
you
get
paid
to
delegate
and
then
what
I
think
is
so
important
is
when
you
have
like
is
that
people
are
not
going
to
be
thinking
they're
not
going
to
be
reading.
They
don't
they're,
not
going
to
read
a
wall
of
text
about
the
delegate
in
99
out
of
100
times
right.
The
best
we
could
possibly
expect
from
them
is
something
along
the
lines
of
like
a
ui.
A
If
you
imagine
this
is
like
a
ui
here
right,
like
here's,
the
guy,
here's,
the
strategy
that
he
will
you
can,
you
can
tell
him
to
do.
Do
you
want
him
to
be
a
hawk?
Well,
what
does
that
mean?
That
means
cut
budgets
and
raise
rates,
or
do
you
want
them
to
be
a
dove?
That
means
you
know
increased
budgets,
increased
growth,
cut
rates,
or
do
you
want
him
to
be
independent,
in
which
case
you
have
to
go
on
his
page
and
read
his
more.
A
You
know
more
specific
sort
of
perspective
right
to
understand
what
what
this
particular
person,
how
they
sort
of
sort
of
their
own
personal
views,
right,
yeah
and
then
basically
this
is
this
is
the
real.
This
is
a
realistic
way
to
get
some
kind
of
like
just
a
few
brain
cycles,
out
of
the
majority
of
people
that
are
going
to
be
going
into
an
incentivized
voting,
ui
right,
because
you're
gamifying
it
for
them
and
you're
sort
of
dumbing
it
down.
A
So
here's
the
really
simple,
like
here's,
the
overall
sort
of
strategy,
here's
the
person
you
want
to
run
that
strategy
and
then
that's
good
right
now
we
have
some
kind
of
input
around
like
about.
Basically,
you
know
what
like
what
people
in
general
think
about
something
along
the
lines
of,
should
budgets
go
up
or
down
something
like
that
right
and
we're
actually
gathering
that
we're
harvesting
that
information
out
of
the
crowd
trying
to
access
that
waste
of
the
crap
right?
A
Okay,
anybody
want
to
discuss
this
a
little
bit
more,
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
I'll
describe
it
very
clearly
right,
but
basically
what
I'm
again
like
this.
You
should
think
of
this
as
like
the
ui
on
the
the
page
where
people
get
paid
to
vote
right
and
the
question
is:
how
do
we
deal
with
the
fact
that
nobody
actually
cares
right
and
if
they
care
it's
gonna,
be
for
a
half
a
second?
So
how
do
we
get
you
know?
How
do
we
make
it
as
randomness
of
how
they
actually
vote.
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
I
mean
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
sort
of
like-minded
people
discussing
general
principles,
so
something
like
the
end
game
right
I
mean
this
is
what
this
is.
What
I'll
talk
about
this
a
little
bit
later
right,
but
this
is
like,
like
I
can't
you
know
so
from
my
perspective,
something
like
the
end
game
plan
right
is
based
on
a
kind
of
you
know:
natural
law.
A
Almost
right,
like
I
mean
another
thing,
it's
the
natural
law
right,
but
it's
some
kind
of
like
coherent
perspective
or
sort
of
set
of
principles
around.
How
does
it
make
sense
to
do
stuff
right
and
and-
and
so
because
I
mean
in
the
long
run
you
can
come-
you
can
condense-
that
kind
of
stuff
down
to
these
like
frameworks
that
then,
ultimately,
are
like.
A
We
can
tell
you
everything
right
up
until
the
last
mile
of
like
was
this
malicious.
Was
this
an
accident
right?
Should
you
get
a
second
chance,
or
is
this
or
or
should
you
not
get
a
second
chance
right
and
and
then
I
mean
those
are
the
kind
of
decisions
that
we're
going
to
end
up
with
in
in
the
long
run
governance
system?
If
we
follow
the
endgame
principles,
at
least
right,
I
mean,
if
you
follow
some
other
principle
of
like
endless
expansion
of
scope.
A
A
How
do
we
think
about
this
stuff,
and
then
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
want
to
do
is
we
want
to
have
delegates
basically
say:
okay,
we're
identifying
some
votes
coming
up
some
proposals,
even
some
like
some
political
momentum,
for
something
that
we
either
think
aligns
with
what
we
you
know
with
with
our
own
values
or
that
are
against
our
own
values.
Right
and
then
we
want
to
discuss.
Is
there
something
here
that
we
want
to
like?
A
A
I
think
it
was
just
anyway.
So
so
this
is
like
the
list
of
like
you
know,
so
I
would
say
the
the
definition
of
like
I
mean
right
now:
it's
not
being
an
end
game
delegate,
which
is
like
a
bigger
commitment
than
it's
supposed
to
be
in
the
future,
because
in
the
future
supposed
to
be
just
one
one
of
several
strategies
that
you
can
you
can
let
people
do
right,
but
right
now
we
don't
have
the
technical
capacity
for
that.
A
You
completely
disagree
basically
and
you're
like
basically,
because
you
completely
disagree
this
sort
of
fundamental
alignment
isn't
there
right
and
and
and
you
basically
you're,
not
you're,
not
carrying
out
the
the
end
game
strategy
right,
in-game
voting
strategy,
and
if
you
don't
fundamentally
disagree,
then
it's
more
like
you
should
try
to
change
but
like,
but
rather
you
you.
You
just
have
some
extra
information
extra
knowledge.
That
should
mean
that
if
we
apply
the
principles-
and
we
take
this
knowledge-
and
we
put
the
two
things
together-
then
this
list
should
look
different
right.
A
So
then
you
should
be
trying
to
changing
the
list.
So
everyone
agrees
on.
What's
the
list
like
everyone
collaborates
on
the
list
and
ultimately,
if
it's
like
futile
to
attempt
to
collaborate
any
further,
then
you
sort
of
break
off
and
compete
in
a
sense
right,
even
though
in
the
future
you
should
still
be
able
to
then
collaborate
anyway
right.
But
so
that's
the
that's.
That's
this
question
of
of
you
know
this
like
what
I
think
are
like
critically
important
votes
right
and
and
like
I've
said
the
whole
time.
A
This
is
like
the
number.
This
is
the
thing.
I'm
most
interested
in
getting
input
on
right,
because
this
is
the
thing
that
has
to
be
very,
very
coherent
and
like
really
good
stuff
right,
because
you
know
if
it's
not,
then
then
that
sort
of
makes
the
whole
thing.
You
know
that
this
yeah
well,
then.
Basically,
it's
a
we're
in
big
trouble
right.
A
A
Well,
one
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
like
we've
only
just
gotten
started
on
this
process
of
how
do
we
create
a
kind
of
a
party
like
this
coherent
set
of
views
that
can
that
can
sort
of
exist
across
multiple
voter
committees
on
different
topics,
for
instance,
and
I'm
definitely
going
to
be
trying.
I
mean
this
is
one
of
the
things
I
really
want
to
do.
Right
is
this.
I
mean,
as
I've
said
before,
right.
A
My
whole
approach
is:
I'm
not
here
to
to
catch
a
fish,
I'm
here
to
teach
how
to
fish
right.
So
my
goal
is
that
I
want
these.
The
in-game
delegates.
I
see
you
guys
as
like
these
are
the
people.
I
can
try
to
really
train
on
this
whole,
like
approach
to
dowse,
that
I've
considered
to
be
sort
of
the
the
correct
one
based
on
the
many
years.
A
I've
been
a
maker
right-
and
this
is
I
mean,
and
now
I'm
reached
the
point
where
I
can
see
the
in-game
as
it
is
right
where,
like
this,
is
actually
there's.
Actually
a
holistic
and
coherent
way
to
approach
the
whole
question
of
governance
and
actually
make
the
logic
sort
of
go
full
circle
and
make
sense,
and
not
just
assume
some
magic
happens
somewhere
in
there
right,
but
it's
gonna
be
a
long
collaborative
process.
A
So
anyway,
right
it's
like
it's
not
that
I
want
yeah
like
just
set
a
bunch
of
requirements
about
no
votes
right,
I
mean
whatever,
but
anyway,
like
you,
you
yeah
last
thing,
but
this
thing
about
like
a
pre-vote
notice.
I
think
anyway,
still.
I
think
that,
like
it's
an
interesting
concept
to
have
delegates
to
basically
come
to
voter
committees
and
be
like
here's,
something
we
think
is
interesting
right.
Here's
an
upcoming
vote
that
we
think
is
is
in
the
you
know.
A
Maybe
it's
like,
maybe
it
maybe
it
conflicts
with
this
list
of
whatever
shut
off
the
burn
or
something
like
that
right
permanently,
disable
the
burn
or
something,
and
so
one
thing
is
maybe
like
one
thing
could
be
okay,
we
need
to
organize
against
that,
because
we
need.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
that
that
that
sort
of
conflicts
with
their
own
views
right,
but
another
one,
could
be
look.
A
The
thing
is
the
arguments
for
that
thing
is
just
so
sound
that
and
it
seems
to
be
in
alignment
with
our
views,
so
we
should
consider
changing
this
right.
We
should
consider
actually
aligning
with
that,
and
those
are
the
kind
of
discussions
we
should
be
having
right
of
like
how
to
basically
better
organize
around
all
this
stuff.
A
B
Oh
yeah,
I
was
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that.
I
I
saw
a
comment
that
someone
put
the
delegates
of
either
party
are
gonna,
be
pass-throughs,
and
I
kind
of
disagree
with
that,
because
latonya
list
is
something
that
you
know.
Some
of
us
have
been
supportive
already
in
the
past
as
an
example
right,
like
mips65
monitela's,
big
fan
of
that,
so
I
don't
see
it
as
pass-throughs.
B
A
You
know,
like
the
question
is
like
as
a
delegate:
are
you
getting
some
votes
and
then
free
to
do
whatever
you
want,
and
then
it
just
happens
to
be
that
you're
aligned
with
what
the
voter
wants
you
to
do,
or
are
you
getting
some
votes
and
then
you're
trying
to
do
what
the
voter
wants,
and
it
just
happens
to
be
that
what
the
voter
wants
is
the
same
as
what
you
want
right
and
I
think
it's.
The
second
is
well.
I
mean
I
would
say
that
that
would
be.
A
The
independent
option
is
basically
do
whatever
you
feel
like.
I
read
your
your
long
list
of
all
your
principles
and
I
think
it's
great
and
I'll.
Let
you
basically
go
to
town.
Do
whatever
you
want
right,
which
is
I
mean,
which
is
a
risky
thing
to
have
in
a
random
sticky
vote
situation
right
where
people
just
be
like,
oh
yeah,
whatever.
A
Well,
you
know
you
just
get
a
bunch
of
delegates
that
are
sort
of
there's,
no
there's
no
connection
between
the
interests
of
those
who
voted
to
them
to
you
voted
for
them
and
what
they
actually
think
because
nobody's
going
to
read
these
things
right,
they're
just
going
to
vote
randomly
and
and
in
many
cases.
Well,
that's
just
going
to
how
that's
just
how
it'll
be
anyway
and
there's
nothing.
We
can
do
about
it,
but
in
some
cases
we
can
capture
some
level
of
sort
of
knowledge
of
like
no.
A
A
A
Would
you
like
to
have
2
000
of
mkr
and
you
just
need
to
make
sure
you're
voting
according
to
whatever
the
hawk
perspective
of
less
budgets
and
and
also
you
would
listen
to
like
you-
would
listen
to
the
actual
empire
holders
in
the
hawk
party
that
are
basically
the
ones
that
are
trying
to
to
develop
this
sort
of
overarching
framework
and
a
holistic
sort
of
right,
like
sort
of
interconnected
pieces
of
logic
that
that
exists?
What
does
it?
What
does
it
mean
to
have
this
hawkish
perspective
right?
A
So
would
you
be
willing
to
sort
of
do
that
as
a
service
for
someone
who
is
basically
requesting
that
from
you
with
in?
Without
that
impact,
in
your
ability
to
just
get
votes
to
to,
you
know,
vote
according
to
the
way
that
you,
you
see
it
and
sort
of
your
own
party,
essentially
yeah
chris
blick,
because
he
just
said
I
wrote
base.
You
know
said
I
vote
based
on
my
principles
and
platforms.
Employee
holders
can
decide
whether
or
not
to
delegate
to
me.
B
I
don't
see
how
you
can
how
you
can
do
both
because
it
sounds
like
the
platform
is
going
to
be
codified
and
the
odds
of
every
delegates
principles
as
an
individual
matching
up
exactly
with
the
platform
are
slim
to
none.
Just
like
we
see
in
politics,
every
politician
has
their
own
take
on
the
platform
of
the
party
that
they
represent.
Sometimes
those
are
very
divergent,
so
the
answer
would
be
no.
B
A
Can
you
build
a
you
know,
whatever
specific,
a
crypto
wallet
or
something
right
and
like
assuming
you've
got
infinite
time
to
available
to
to
to
sort
of
do
work
for
both
clients?
Basically
that's
what
I'm
talking
about
here
right,
I'm
not
saying
that
you
have,
you
know
like,
even
if
you
don't
want
to
develop
a
crypto
wallet,
if
someone's
paying
you
to
do
it
like.
I
think
it's
very
reasonable.
To
still
I
mean
at
least
I
I
just.
A
As
I
see,
this
is
simply
a
matter
of
like
providing
a
service,
essentially
right
and
and
again,
this
goes
back
to
this
concept
of
delegates
as
like
things
that
make
it
more
convenient
to
be
a
voter,
not
as
like
political
figures
right,
although
again,
if
you
really,
although
like
it,
could
be
that
the
job
that
it
could
be
that
the
voter's
desire
is,
I
want
you
to
be
a
political
figure,
and
I
want
you
to
figure
it
out.
For
me,
sorry
yeah,
I
don't
know.
B
There's
there's
a
lot
of.
I
think
we
already
have
a
number
of
delegates
who
match
up.
Well,
you
know
with
the
platforms
as
we
know,
but
yeah,
that's
that's
just
you
know.
I
think
that
what
you're
talking
about
is
you
know
it's
a
job.
People
are
paid
to
do
a
job,
it's
a
service
like
you
just
said,
and
that's,
but
that's
not
the
reason
that
I
became
a
delegate.
B
You
know
I
became
a
delegate
because
I
want
to
apply
my
principles
and
then
I
I
want
to
give
people
that
agree
with
those
principles
a
way
to
to
coalesce
and
support
them
within
governance
and
on
a
deeper
level
yeah.
I
feel
like
so
far
from
what
I've
seen.
I
think
that
this
this
strategy
makes
a
lot
of
assumptions
that
people
that
are
getting
involved
with
it
fundamentally
agree
with
the
whole
party
system
and
the
way
that
it's
ultimately
going
to
turn
out.
B
You
know
so
like
I
have
fundamental
still
hesitation
about
the
whole
thing.
That
would
keep
me
just
from
now.
The
reason
I'm
here
by
the
way
is
and
know
the
reason
I'm
here
is
because
I
still
think
that
yeah
there
might
be
elements
of
this
that
I
support
you
know,
but
you
know
it's
like
it
seems
like
it's.
The
all-or-nothing
thing
is
really
tough
thing
to
buy
into.
A
Yeah,
but
let's
see
so,
I
think
if
you
miss,
I
guess
you
misunderstood
my
whole
whole
premise.
I
was
not
asking
hey:
do
you
want
to
support
the
in-game
party
and
be
it
the
hell?
I
was
talking
about
a
hypothetic,
I
mean
okay.
I
guess
I
guess
this
is
just
really
hard
to
so,
like
I
promise
all
of
you
like
once
you
understand
what
I'm
talking
about
here,
I
guess
what's
happening.
Is
people
are
not
really
it's
not
clicking
yet.
A
So
I
guess
I
think
we
should
just
keep
talking
about
this,
because
this
is
like
so
fundamental
to
understand
this.
Like
fundamental
question
of
I
mean
so
I
mean
well,
let's
just
keep
using
you
as
an
example
right.
Well,
let's
set
aside
the
end
game,
whatever
right,
something
completely
different
right,
but
basically
say
you're
in
a
situation
and
about
and
and
if
you,
in
the
end,
if
you
simply
don't
agree
with
it
so
like.
If
this
simply
isn't
something
that's
to
your
taste
right,
then
I
think
that's
completely
reasonable.
A
That's
like
it's
not
exactly
the
same
as
yours.
It's
another
end
game
or
whatever
right.
This
is,
let's
say
it's
a
it's.
They
want
to
do
decentralization
all
that
stuff,
but
they
also
want
to
do
insurance
or
whatever
right,
so
they
really
want
to
be
like
we
should
push
for.
We
would
like
to
see
a
fully
decentralized
insurance
thing
built
into
maker
or
something
like
that
right
and
then
they
go
to
you
and
say
like
hey.
A
If
we
give
you,
you
know
another,
whatever
give
you
twice
as
many
votes
as
you
have
then,
with
these
votes
and
not
with
your
other
votes
right.
So
like
we're
only
talking
about
the
votes,
I'm
giving
you
here
in
this
sort
of,
like
I
mean
specifically,
there
will
be
multiple
delegate
contracts
right,
so
you'd
have
multiple
delegate
contracts,
they
would
all
be
the
same
delegate,
but
they
would
be
used
for
different
purposes
right
and
then
so
one
of
them
could
be.
This
is
just
you
do
whatever
you
feel
like.
A
A
The
case
I
want
to
make
is
that,
if
you
did
something
like
that
right,
even
if
it
disagreed
with
the
insurance
thing,
because
what
happens
I
mean,
if
you
disagree
with
it,
then
those
of
us
are
just
going
to
go
to
someone
else
who's
willing
to
to
vote
in
that
in
that
way
right.
But
if
they,
if
they
go
with
you,
then
one
of
the
outcomes
is
now
you're
getting
more
compensation
as
a
delegate
right.
So
now
you
can.
A
You
can
spend
more
time
campaigning
to
get
more
people
to
vote
for
you
as
an
independent
right
and
also
you
can
sort
of.
I
mean
the
people
delegating
you
sort
of
the
strategy
they're
giving
you
is.
It
only
specifies
what
they
want
along
for
when
it
comes
to
product
like
insurance
right
all
the
other
blanks
you
can
sort
of
fill
out
yourself.
A
B
B
B
So
on
this
one
contract,
you're
a
politician
of
sorts
or
you're,
a
somebody,
who's
executing
their
own
values
and
looking
for
support
for
those
values
and
then
over
here
it's
like
a
split
personality
where
your
bureaucrat
who's
being
paid
to
execute
the
will
of
others.
So
and
so
for
me
personally.
That
would
I
would
not
do
that
because
I
don't
like
to
put
my
name
to
it's
just
me
personally,
I'm
very
principled
and
I'm
here.
B
For
that
reason,
but
that's
not
to
say
there
aren't
others
that
would
do
that
clearly,
because
people
are
signing
up
for
the
the
end
game
plan.
So
I
think
that's
pretty
clear.
I
hope
I
got
that
right
and
you
know
for
me
it's
just
that's
the
reason
I'm
not
in
it,
but
for
others
it
may
be
the
reason
they're
in
it.
A
B
Take
it
away
hi,
I'm
I'm
joe,
I'm
klaus,
klaus,
in
the
forum
yeah,
I
I
just
had
a
question
to
like
clarify
sort
of
what
the
experience
would
be
for
somebody
who
wanted
to
delegate
like.
Would
they
be
able
if
they
went
to
the
platform,
would
they
just
say
I
want
to
delegate
to
the
like
hawk
party
or
the
dove
party,
and
then
it
just
sort
of
gets
split
among
like
the
people
who
represent
the
the
hawks
or
the
doves
or
would
they
be?
B
Would
they
say
I
want
to
like
delegate
to
the
doves
and
then
they
pick
a
specific
person
from
the
doves
like?
Are
there?
Is
there
still
like
only
individual
delegation
going
on
or
is
there
can
you
delegate
just
to
a
party-
and
I
guess
specifically
just
because
if
somebody
is
like,
if
somebody's
getting
their
like
delegated
maker
through
the
party
and
then
someone
outside
decides
to
individually
delegate
to
them
and
they
can
sort
of
push
them
to
vote
against
the
party?
B
A
Yeah
great
so
I
mean
so
first
of
all
the
whole
question
of
how
to
do
the
user.
Experience
of
voting
is
insanely
important
right,
because
this
comes
back
to
this
problem
of
voters
like
voter
apathy
today,
which
needs
to
be
fixed
with
voter
incentives,
and
then,
once
you
put
voters
incentives
in
place,
it's
like
you
get
these
like
hordes
of
like
voters.
You
really
can't
count
on
to
to
to
do
much
more
than
like
really
follow
like
a
a
streamlined
experience
right.
So
I'm
I.
A
I
can't
possibly
sort
of
tell
you
like
the
solution
to
this,
because
it
really
really
needs
to
be
tested
like
it
could
really
be.
That
could
be
the
difference
between
life
or
death
to
like.
If
we
think
we
got
the
perfect
solution
and
then
it
turns
out
that
psychologically
it
sends
somehow
it
makes.
I
don't
know
right.
It
makes
us
ossify
into
some
weird
situation
or
whatever
it
is
right,
like
whatever
the
you
know.
A
We
need
to
like
test
this
stuff
and
really
sort
of
think
it
through
and
have
tons
of
discussion
about
this,
because
this
is
like
like
this
is
like
equivalent
to
you
know.
You
know
designing
like
first
past
the
post
in
the
u.s
political
system,
right
which
is
like
defines
everything
of
you
know
like
right.
It's
like
like
the
decision
to
do
first
past,
the
post
in
the
us
is
like
one
of
the
singular
decisions
in
sort
of
the
history
of
humanity.
A
That's
had
sort
of
the
greatest
ripple
effect
throughout
history
right
because
it's
like
something
that
can't
really
it
prevents
itself
from
being
reversed
and
it
impacts
all
sorts
of
stuff
all
over
the
place
right,
and
so
this
question
around.
How
do
you
present
the
voting?
Ui?
It's
just
it's
similar,
it's
actually
very
close
to
that
in
many
ways
right
but
anyway.
So
let
me
just
answer
anyway
right.
So
so
there's
this
point.
A
There
was
this
comment
from
a
maker
man
that
how
to
do
this
with
a
new
you
know,
should
we
do
does
this
need
a
new
smart
contract
right
and
actually,
as
with
everything,
with
sort
of
the
end
game
plan,
the
beginning
parts
of
the
in-game
plan?
All
this
is
like
super
low-hanging
fruit
like
so
we
can
do
it
crazy,
crazy
easily.
A
We
can
do
all
of
this
stuff
and
the
simplest
way
to
basically
imagine
us
doing
this
right
is
that
we
keep
everything
exactly
the
way
it
is
in
terms
of
the
ui
and
the
way
the
boating
works
today,
and
the
only
difference
is
that
some
delegates
start
to
basically
have
more
than
one
recognized
delegate
accounts
up
and
then
on
some
of
those
accounts.
Basically
the
ones
that
that
encode
like
that,
that
execute
party
strategy
there's
some
you
know
they
have
to
put
the
logo
of
the
party
and
something
else
right.
A
Their
delicate
compensation
counts
all
of
their.
You
know
like
from
the
perspective
of
delicate
conversation.
You
don't
count
the
individual
daily
contracts,
you
take
all
the
three
delegate
contracts
or
whatever
associated
with
one
person,
and
you
add
those
together
right.
So
then
you
could
already
actually
like.
So
then
the
ux.
Is
you
get
this
random
list,
some
of
the
people
on
the
list?
You
just
see
their
face.
A
They
see
their
their
own
logo
as
independents,
some
of
the
people
on
list,
they're
they're
a
bunch
of
these
parties
right
and
then
in
terms
of
like,
and
then
this
thing
about,
like
being
able
to
delegate
to
a
party
as
a
whole.
That's
definitely
that's
a
com,
that's
a
big
no-go
in
my
opinion,
right.
So
delegation
always
has
to
be
to
an
individual
and
that's
because
there's
going
to
be
all
these
edge
cases,
it's
going
to
be
this.
We
you
know
like
that.
You
know
the
pa.
A
The
parties
have
to
be
kind
of
decentralized
in
a
sense
right
where,
like
they
only
they
don't
they
don't
they
don't
sort
of
exist
in
the
they
exist
at
the
meta
level,
but
they
don't
exist
at
the
kind
of
the
governance
level
in
in
that
sense
of
like
having
real
impact
on
the
actual
sort
of
you
know,
they
they
impact
the
metagame.
They
don't
impact
the
specific
game
and
the
specific
decisions
in
governance
right
but
yeah,
like
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
that
is
that.
Does
that
make
sense?
Like
I
mean?
A
B
Makes
sense,
I
think,
if
it's
not
changing
the
way
that
people
are
like
if
people
aren't
delegating
to
a
platform
or
something
I'm
just
wondering
how
the
parties
would
be,
would
change
things
structurally
like?
Would
there
be
like
party
meetings
or
would
because,
if
I'm
imagining
the
parties,
I'm
imagining
like?
Maybe
one
person's
particularly
good
at
finance?
One
person
is
particularly
knowledgeable
about
like
the
development
side,
so
they
could
like
sort
of
spread
the
wealth
and
like
share
their
like
knowledge.
B
A
A
So
if
there
is
a
in-game
party,
voter
committee
and
then
one
day,
it'll
focus
on
you
know
the
the
upcoming
real
asset
decisions
and
then
another
day,
it'll
focus
another
time,
it'll
be
about
smart
contract,
feature
development,
prioritization
and
then
there's
different
people's
there's,
dif
yeah,
exciting
right,
there's
like
different
people
from
the
like
the
different
mca,
because
what
it?
What
did?
What
we
really
want
to
achieve
is
that
when
someone
goes
in
delegates
because
they're
getting
paid
and
they
delegate
to
whatever
the
hawk
party,
whatever
the
that
means,
it
sounds
cool
low.
A
You
know
low
expenses
sounds
great
to
me
right.
Then
you
want
to
ensure
that
if
that,
like
this
question
of
what
does
it
mean
to
be
a
hawk,
what
does
it
mean
to
want
low
expenses
that,
like
that
question,
has
to
be
answered
by
other
actual
mkr
holders?
This
is
what
I
mean.
This
is
the
whole
thing
that
sort
of
this
cost
this
whole.
You
know
like
our
problem.
A
In
the
first
place,
right
is
that
the
feedback
loop
between
them
holders
that
have
the
risk
and
that
have
the
incentive
and
so
on,
isn't
it
properly
in
place
right
because
they're
not
really
they're,
not
really
active,
and
this
is
like
a
way
is
it's
almost
like
a
second-order
delegation
right
of
saying,
here's
a
strategy
and
this
strategy
is
sort
of
being
curated
by
other
actual
voters.
Just
like
me,
who
are
basically
volunteering
the
time
like
I'm
not
going
to
be
volunteering.
A
You
know
really
great
outcome
of
if
you're
a
a
voter
and
you
just
want
to
be
a
volunteer-
and
you
just
want
to
be
active
in
governance
and
you're.
You'd
have
barely
any
care,
but
you
have
someone
care
and
you
want
to.
You
know
it's
significant
for
you
and
you
want
to
grow
its
value,
and
you
want
to
make
a
difference.
A
Then
you
can
have
this
huge
impact
because
you
become
this
very
valuable
sort
of
oracle
right.
That
is
actually
someone
who's
aligned
with
this
particular
party
of
voters,
and
that
means
you
can
have
a
really
big
impact
on
what
the
delegates
that
are
basically
executing
the
strategy
of
this
party.
What
they're
gonna
do
right,
because
they're
gonna
need
to
to
get
input
from
you,
because
that's
how
the
voter
committees
work?
A
B
A
Okay,
okay,
okay
and
now
again
yeah
and
let's
see
what
you
and
I
and
some,
and
so
it's
kind
of
like
it's
almost
from
like.
Why
is
it
isn't
that
inefficient
like
why
we're
making
so
many
you
know,
and-
and
the
answer
is
I
mean
this
is
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
first
things
I
said
right
is
because
the
you
know
for
me.
A
A
A
If
these
are
your
values,
then
probably
taking
these
actions
are
in
your
is
in
your
interest,
right
and
and
possibly
also
again
like
independent,
I
mean
and
also
the
independent
delegates
of
saying
yeah.
I
will
actually
take
the
highest
position
and
you
can
trust
me
I'll
I'll
I'll
know.
What's
best
just
delegate
to
me
and-
and
let
me
you
know
I'll,
make
it
work,
which
is,
I
think,
it's
fine,
but
I
think
it's
dangerous
if
that
becomes.
A
Like
the
reason
why
I
chose
the
word
party
is
because,
in
the
end
that
is
the
most
I
mean
first,
I
was
calling
it
there.
I
was
thinking
calling
team
endgame,
but
I
think
that
would
be
too
confusing
right.
So,
in
the
end,
like
party
is
like
the
closest
word,
I
mean
I'm
almost
like
now,
I'm
always
in
hindsight
being
like.
I
should
have
picked
some
taiwanese
right
made
up
a
completely
new
word
for
this
concept.
Right
because
what's
happening
is
that
people
are
they're
sort
of
ascribing
all
this.
A
A
I
mean,
of
course,
if
you
like
someone
like
chris
black,
if
he
suddenly
u-turns
on
his
like
personal
platform,
right
his
independent
delegate
strategy,
then
that
should
cost
him
right.
I
mean,
of
course,
that's
sort
of
betraying
his
his
his
voters
right
but
like
like,
if
he
simply,
if
he's
like,
oh
yeah,
I
was
doing
the.
I
was
doing
the
hawk
strategy
before
and
I
don't
want
to
do
it
anymore
and
because,
whatever
I
think
it's
complicated
to
figure
out
what
they
actually
want
or
something,
so
someone
else
should
do
it
like.
A
There
should
be
no
like
that.
That
should
not
be
like
controversial
at
all.
That
should
be
completely
standard
thing
and
just
be
like.
Oh
now
I
wanna
do,
or
maybe
you
just
want
to
try
something
new
now
I
want
to
try
to
do
some
other
new
strategy
that
I'll
offer
and
then,
of
course,
there's
this
like
how
on
earth
do
you
sort
of
wind
down
the
existing
votes?
And
I'm
not
that's
a.
I
guess,
that's
an
open
question
right.
A
I
guess
yeah
I
don't
know,
but
but
we
will
need
some
kind
of
solution
for
that
right.
Maybe
that
just
maybe
you
just
keep
doing
it
and
it
runs
out
by
itself
or
whatever,
whatever
the
solution
we
got
for
that
right.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
comment
right.
That
the
point
is
not
like
party
is
like
a
way
to
help
to
understand
you
know,
and
please
I
mean
I
hope
people
you
know
prove
that
the
maker
speak
isn't
the
right
way
like
because
of
course,
what
could
happen?
A
Is
people
simply
aren't
able
to
to
kind
of
like
think
independently
about
this
concept
and
can
only
think
of
it
as
if
broke
as
broken
political
parties
right,
in
which
case,
I
guess,
we'll
have
to
call
it
like
a
splub
or
something
like
that
right.
So
then
you
can
go
to
the
the
endgame,
the
decentralized
voter
committee
for
the
endgame
splub,
if
it's
simply
too
difficult
to
sort
of
develop
an
independent
content
for
this
right
anyway.
So
this
is
actually
the
thing
we're
just
talking
about
a
little
bit
before
right.
A
They
just
have
mkr
and
maybe
some
very
basic
in
sort
of
ideas
right.
So
that's
where
delegates
that's!
Where
parties?
That's
where
supporting
programs,
they
need
to
help
voters
again,
like
sort
of
life,
coach
voters
right
help
them
actually
think
the
way
they
want
to
think
right
like
help
them
be
like
well,
if
this
is,
if
you
like,
you
know
your
hawks,
so
you
like
low
expenses
but
dude,
you
know.
A
Do
you
realize
that
if
you
cut
expenses
over
here,
you
know,
then
that's
going
to
create
some
issue
wherever
later
on,
you'll
have
to
put
an
even
higher
expense
over
there.
So
actually,
even
though
you're
a
hawk
right,
then
maybe
you
don't,
you
know
you
need
to
be
strategic
about
really
getting
what
you
want
in
the
long
term
right
and
that
anyway,
right,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
makes
sense,
but
that's
that's
this
vision
I
have
of
like
this.
I
mean
again
this
this
total
this,
like
broader
alignment
between
all
these
different.
A
This
sort
of
the
way
high
level
decision
is
made
right.
The
voters
vote
and
make
this
I
mean
that's
how
maker
works
right
is
the
voters
that
decide,
but
the
voters
are
kind
of
stupid
and
they
need.
They
also
have
no
time
and
they're
volunteering
right.
They
need
sort
of
input
and
their
needs
this.
All
this
information
needs
to
be
as
public
and
as
easily
as.
A
I
think
that
was
yeah.
That
was
just
a
mistake
and
then
that's
where
okay
and
then
we
get
to
this
thing.
So
this
is
like
this
sort
of
list
of
focus
objectives
right.
That
is
like
my
like.
It
started
off
as
like
my
list
of
what
I
mean,
but
nowadays
it
looks
quite
white.
It
looks
it's
longer
and
different
right
and
there's
a
bunch
of
good
ideas
and
stuff.
A
But
I've
added
this
new,
I
think
it's
a
hedge
fund
called
block
tower
they've
actually
been
active
on
the
very
first
decentralized
voter
committee.
So
I
think
they're
like
they're,
like
a
really
like,
I
think,
they're,
just
like
a
really
really
interesting
counterparty.
Basically
that
could
like
and
what
these
counterparties
already
all
like.
What
I
mean,
I
would
call
them
a
rangers,
basically
right
what
they
all
have
going
for
them.
A
Is
that
they're
both
actual
real
companies
that
can
do
actual
you
know
like
they
can
set
up
real
estate
collateral
for
us,
but
they're
also
able
to
interact
in
governance,
and
that
means
that
when
you
take
all
of
them
together,
you
can
get
some
consensus
view
some
consensus
views
from
them.
Basically,
that
can
really
help
us
inform
how
to
fix
real-world
assets
going
forward.
A
So
I
just
want
to
call
out,
I
think,
they're
they're,
like
they're,
really
interesting,
and
I
basically
want
I
mean
there's
been
there-
were
multiple
people
that
were
mentioning
them
to
me,
and
then
I
had
a.
I
had
a
call
with
them
together
with
centrifuge,
and
I
just
think
that
they
really
they
have.
A
A
We
should
count
on
these
things
taking
a
lot
of
time
basically,
and
we
should
let
them
be
done
on
sort
of
their
own
timetable
and
and
at
the
same
time,
as
I
kept
saying
as
I'm
saying
again
and
again,
the
number
one
thing
is
really
voter
incentives,
which
is
my
and
my
proposal.
That
is
the
in-game
I
mean
that's
the
in-game
party
as
well
right.
A
Is
that
that's
it's
all
about
it's
like
a
it's
very
powerful
way
to
get
voter
incentives
in
place
quickly
and
then
getting
really
power,
one
in
the
long
run
and
and
then
the
rest
of
this
list
is
like
the
few
things
that
can
be
justified
to
do
before.
Just
dealing
with
this
existential
issue
of
voter
apathy.
A
Let
me
just
actually
just
read
them:
yeah,
the
ultimate
bureaucrat
should
be
a
bot,
and
it's
like
I
mean
right,
I
mean
the
ultimate
end
state
for
maker
is
that
it's
run
by
an
artificial
intelligence
that
that's
on
the
blockchain
right
I
mean
that
was
always
the
freaking
goal
right.
It's
a
stable
client,
it's
decentralized
and
no
human.
You
know
it's
like
bitcoin,
but
it's
stable
right
combines
the
best
of
of
traditional
finance
and
and
blockchain
right.
A
A
A
Yes,
another
is
this
in
order
or
priority,
or
if
cal
is
going
to
vote
on
this
list,
or
do
we
have
a
time
frame
for
each
so
I
mean
so
at
this
point.
It's
kind
of
clear
that
there's
this
sort
of
big
standoff
happening
in
a
sense
right
between,
like
I
mean
some
of
us
call
it
the
growth
pill
right,
but
the
I
mean
the
core
units
that
are
trying
to
organize
big
vcs,
to
sort
of
support,
kind
of
their
their
their
vision
and
and
like
and
basically
the
so.
A
The
thing
is
like
nothing
really
matters
until
this
kind
of
of
big
major
sort
of
schism
is
basically
resolved
right,
because
you've
got
two
perspectives
that
are
just
fundamentally
incompatible
right,
because
I
mean
the
in-game
perspective
is
that
you
can't
even
have
core
units
do
strategic
politics,
politics
right
like
because
that's
that's
a
conflict
of
interest
and
so
on
right.
So,
like
any
proposal,
that's
coming
from
a
core
unit,
that's
about,
let's
rearrange
a
bunch
of
stuff
and
so
on.
A
You
can
assume
that
that's
basically,
let's
you
know
how
to
let's
do
things
that
are
good
for
me
right!
It's
not!
Let's
do
things
that
are
good
for
empty
hours
and
and
so
on
and
like
and
anyway.
So
the
point
is
the
reason
why
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
get
further
into
that
for
now.
That'll
be
that'll
happen
eventually,
when,
when
the
votes
really
start
to
cut
to
the
bone
kind
of,
but
the
point
is
that
so
right
now,
this
list
is
not
super
like
it's
not
really.
A
It's
not
something.
That's
gonna
be
enforced
immediately
right,
but
basically
the
idea
is
that
this
would
be
something
that
we
would
like.
Well,
I
mean
in
the
past
I
talked
about
this
like
synthetic
focused,
objective
list
right
where
you
would
actually
do
things
that
you
would
have
multiple
voter
like
multiple
parties.
A
A
The
question
is:
where
do
you
allocate
the
resources
and
basically
a
list
of
focus
objectives
like
this
is
there
to
to
to
enforce
that
resources
are
never
allocated
to
something
low
on
the
list
that
could
be
allocated
or
something
higher
on
the
list
right.
So
it
shouldn't
be,
like
the
you
know
like
getting
your
cc
into
government
bonds,
which
is
like
our
number
one
way
to
drive
revenue
right.
A
That
should
not
be
blocked
by
someone
trying
to
you
know
code,
the
compound
d3m
and
you
know,
and
so
they're
putting
the
resources
on
doing
the
combat
d3m
when
they
are,
they
have
the
resources
that
we
need
to
finish
up
the
bond
and
get
that
done
right
and
that
should
not
be
like,
and
that's
the
thing
that
you
want
to
really
clearly
signal
that
look.
We
want
the
free
if
you're,
the
one
that's
holding
up
the
government
bonds.
We
wanted
to
be
working
on
those
and
not
the
d3.
A
The
compound
d3m
and
I
mean
exactly
how
you
unfold,
I
mean
in
the
in
the
short
run.
You
can't,
of
course,
enforce
these
strictly.
In
the
long
run,
with
meta
dials,
then
there's
like
a
very
clear
weight,
then
metal
house
get
penalties
for
not
you
know
for
sort
of
like
wasting
resources
right
by
by
putting
resources
towards
something
that
is.
It
has
a
lower
priority,
yeah
trickle-down
priorities
here.
A
A
A
This
could
be
wrong
so
actually
like
this
is
I'm
very
open
to
too,
and
I
want-
and
I
guess
not
today
but
another
time,
I
would
want
the
input
from
the
specific
people
involved
in
this
right.
So
we
can.
I
mean
this
should
be
constantly
updated,
based
on
professional
input
from
the
people
in
the
trenches
right
and
the
delegates
right
and
and
everyone
that
has
actual
knowledge,
and
I
actually
can
spend
the
time
to
figure
this
stuff
out
right,
but
these
are
just
like
I
mean
these
are
these.
A
Are
I
think
the
resources
these
use
are?
Not,
I
don't
think,
would
well
I
mean
either
way
they
could
never
block
government
bonds.
They
could
block
something
like
make
or
teleport
and
shot
at
vault
engines,
but
I
actually
think
that's
fine,
because
at
least
like
small
small
wins
that
I
think
you
wanted
like
you,
it's
impossible
for
you
to.
Imagine
that
maker
would
not
want
to
have
the
ability
to
allocate
dive
to
to
come
out
in
the
long
run.
A
A
And
yeah,
whether
who's,
you
know
d,
you
know,
protocol
engineering
and
government
bonds
is
ces
and,
like
that's
a
even
you
know,
that's
a
question
that
shouldn't
even
be
right.
Like
that's
something
where
I
think
like
at
the
voter
committee
level.
You
just
make
this
list
and
then
at
the
at
the
the
delegates
and
the
supporters
and
the
court.
They
figure
out
all
that
stuff
right,
so
you
can
really
and
then
they
might
in
process
of
figuring
something
out.
They
might
come
back
and
be
like
hey.
A
B
A
Yeah
you
can
simplify
away
the
current
vaults
and
you
can
make
die
the
most
the
best
swap
on
on
against
ucc
and
you're
gonna,
swap
into
an
even
greater
degree
than
it
already
is,
and
there's
be
you
know.
Unit
swap
is
like
it's
foolproof.
It's
not
going
to
get
hacked
right.
We
would
probably
die
anyway
from
the
fallout.
If
it
did
so,
you
could
really
put
tons
of
resources
in
there.
I
think,
but
anyway,
that's
a
not
a
number.
We
should
discuss
more
now.
A
B
A
Something
that's
decentralized,
can't
keep
changing,
or
rather
something
that's
decentralized
cannot
change,
fundamentally,
because
the
power
to
change
something
is
the
power
to
well
change
the
power
structure
as
well
right,
so
something
that's,
really
decentralized,
can't
change
because
the
change
could
centralize
it
right.
So
that's
this
logic
of
like
the
end
game
of
like
the
only
secure
decentralized
state
for
die,
is
a
state
where
you're
in
this
endgame
it
doesn't
there's
minimal
change.
There's
maximal
certainty
right.
A
It's
sort
of
bitcoin
like
right
again,
that's
really
the
the
litmus
test,
and
then
I
see
two
possibilities
for
that.
I
see
one
where
you
have
maker
as
it
is
today,
is
kind
of
like
gets
smaller
and
smaller
and
smaller,
and
that's
the
right
plus.
So
you
finish
things
and
then,
as
a
finish,
you
sort
of
it's
done,
and
you
know
you
did
the
psm
it's
done
with
the
ucc.
You
did
the
government
bonds,
it's
done.
It
works
now.
A
It's
like
a
factory
to
mass-produce
it
or
whatever
right
you
did,
the
the
shot
of
all
the
engines
and
the
major
shots,
and
that's
pretty
much
done,
and
maybe
you
want
to
do
it
again,
but
but
it's
like
you
do
it
as
some
big
project
in
the
future.
It's
like
and
and
right.
So
it's
like
you,
don't
need
a
the
ry
plus
model.
You
don't
you
possibly
have
these
lean
core
units,
possibly
you
have
no
standing
workforce
at
all
and
the
process
to
get.
A
There
would
be
this
like
gradual
process
of
kind
of
like
the
foundation
right.
The
coordinates
do
the
thing
if
they
finish
up
the
things
they're
focusing
on
and
then
increasingly
they
basically
go
away
as
they
as
they
finish
their
work
right.
They
sort
of
you
know,
develop
the
shot
involving
the
done.
We
don't
need
the
engineers
anymore
to
build
it
because
they
finished
it
and
they
should
work,
and
you
know
now,
there's
nothing
else,
there's
nothing.
A
They
could
do
shadow
bald
engine,
some
crappy
useless,
blockchain
out
there,
but
we
don't
even
want
to
deal
with
the
risk
and
blah
blah,
and
this
is
like
a
very
lean
model.
So
you
really
want
very
few
very
powerful
things.
The
big
problem
with
the
write
plus
is
well.
We
basically
built
up
this
massive
workforce
of
insanely,
talented
people
and
all
this
crazy,
powerful
stuff
right
all
this,
just
ridiculous
value
that
we've
got
right.
A
This
complicated
governance
process
that
itself
has
like
insane
amounts
of
of
latent
potential
value
right,
and
so
that's
the
there's
also
an
end
game
that
goes
in
the
complete
other
direction
right,
and
so
that's
the
metadata
paradigm
of
like
and
what's
really
cool
about.
The
metadata
paradigm
is
the
core
is
actually
like.
A
Maker
itself
actually
gets
even
smaller
and
even
leaner
than
ry
plus,
and
then
you
just
have
the
all
these
like
meta,
dials
right
that
contain
massive
amounts
of
complexity,
but
it's
all
like
d-wrist,
it's
all
it's
all
sort
of
like
ring-fenced
and
yeah,
and
I
mean
I
think
in
in
the
end.
I
I
think
that
the
metadata
paradigm
is
actually
a
lot
more
stable
than
the
ry
plus
paradigm.
Like
I
think
the
right
plus
I
wouldn't
say
I
wouldn't
say
that
you
can
reach
sort
of
a
true,
true,
end
game.
A
That
is
completely
unchangeable
and
unstable,
and
I
think,
with
the
metadata
paradigm
you
can.
You
can
get
this
sort
of
like
what
I
call
like
complexity,
ossification,
where,
like
it
just
it's
like
it's
like
you
know,
it's
like
warhammer
40k
right
where
they
like
the
weapons
they
use
are
so
advanced
and
they
chant
these.
A
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
that
example
makes
any
sense
whatsoever
right,
but
well
like
once
you
get
something
that
is
like
if
it's
complicated
enough,
but
it
works
and
it
runs
a
certain
way.
Then
it'll
just
you
know,
it
can
also
find
a
way
where
it
can
just
it's
just
such
a
strong,
homeostatic
sort
of
equilibrium
right
anyway.
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
point
out
like
the
in-game
party
and
and
the
in-game
plan,
and
all
this
stuff
really
is
about
both
of
these,
because
the
fundamental
principle
is,
we
need
to
get
maker
to
a
state
where
it
stops
changing
and
it
stops
like
and
more
importantly,
that
we
need
to
very
quickly
get
it
on
a
trajectory
towards
that
right.
So
it
can
still
change,
but
it
should
change
in
the
direction
and
with
the
guarantee
and
was
sort
of
the
complete
focus
of
getting
into
this
point.
Where
then,
stop
changing.
A
This
is
another
call,
it's
one
of
these
like
really
cool
things
that
that
people,
basically,
we
sort
of
need
to
figure
out
in
order
to
start
classifying
stuff
and
start
to
to
simplify
and
get
an
overview.
So
this
is
like
a
list
of
all
the
things
that
I
think
we
need
decentralized
voter
committees
for
right,
and
so
the
definition
of
like
a
governance
party,
like
the
endgame
party
right,
is
aligned.
A
Voters
that
basically
vote
that
sort
of
have
voter
committees
and
consider
each
of
these
areas
and
then
like
delegates
that
sort
of
extrapolate
from
that
and
also
vote
accordingly
on
each
of
these
things
and
then
there's
even
the
you
know
the
possibility
of
specialization.
So
you
sort
of
have
yeah
right
you,
you
have
people
that
that
care
more
about
marketing
and
some
that
care
more
about
protocol
features
and
so
on
and
yeah
I'll
actually
so
actually
get
back
to
this
list
in
a
second.
A
A
So
you
sort
of
you
know
you
have
this
thing
at
the
top
kind
of
of
each
of
these
voter
committees,
delegates
and
supporting
core
units
and
initially
to
get
it
running,
and
I
yeah
I
won't
get
into.
But
this
whole
thing
about,
like
external
consultants
and
organizational
design
experts,
basically
that
try
to
help
get
this
whole
process
and
feedback
loop
and
pipeline
going.
A
But
then
the
point
is
you
have
the
supporting
core
units
they're
kind
of
like
like
so
they
also,
they
also
correspond
one
to
one
to
each
of
these
line
items
right.
So
each
of
the
voter
committees
for
each
of
these
line
items
in
the
world
map
have
a
kind
of
the
supporting
core
unit
which
is
like
the
well.
It
couldn't
even
have
multiple
supporting
coordinates,
but
the
point
is
that
you
define
there's
a
decentralized
collateral,
supporting,
coordinate
and
there's
a
real
asset
collateral
supporting
coin
as
their
infrastructure
and
security.
A
A
The
you
know
the
scope
map
right
they
sort
of
and
and
then
what
this
drawing
is
trying
to
show
is
that
they,
the
supporting
core
units,
are
the
ones
that
really
they
are
the
highest
level
link
of
sort
of
the
the
decentralized
workforce
that
then
basically
tries
to
sort
of,
learn
and
monitor
and
then
also
feedback
and
sort
of
develop
best
practice
for
the
entire
field
right.
So
the
supporting
coordinates
creates
the
frameworks,
the
administrative
core
units.
A
They
then
sort
of
interpret
the
frameworks
and
have
all
these
powers
like
they've
got
budget
they've,
got
governance,
privileges
and
then
contributing
coin
is
do
the
actual
work
in
this
relationship?
Where
you
have
the
administrative
co-units,
you
know,
take
the
you
know
interpret
the
prioritization
framework.
Decide
to
take
the
initiative.
Allocate
the
budget.
Ask
you
know,
get
quotes
from
different
contributing
co-units
make
the
decision
to
go
with
core
unit
b.
They
get
the
work
done.
A
It
goes
back
to
the
administrative
core
unit
and
then
the
minister
coordinator
can
then
propose
the
work
to
to
governance
right
and
then
there's
this
very
you
know,
and
then
it
all
happens
according
to
the
framework
developed
by
the
supporting
core
unit,
and
it
all
ultimately
happens
at
the
you
know,
with
the
with
the
complete
buy-in
of
of
of
the
highest
level
right
of
mkr
holders,
but
in
a
way
where,
like
they
didn't,
have
to
be
involved
in
the
day-to-day
thing
at
all.
Rather
they
had
to.
A
You
know
basically
be
part
of
the
process
of
developing
this.
This
the
whole
framework
that,
like
making
the
big
decisions
of
this
framework,
that,
with
the
context
of
the
professional
supporting
co-units
and
then
have
disappointed,
coordinates
and
the
delegates
extrapolate
all
the
you
know
all
the
details
right.
A
A
You
have
a
single
decentralized
collateral,
supporting
coordinate,
but
then
below
that
you
may
have
a
engineering,
administrative
core
unit
that
handles
the
engineering
resources
and
and
engineering
stuff,
and
then
a
risk
administrative
core
unit
and
below
that
you
can
have
even
more
different
contributing
coordinators,
all
shapes
and
sizes
right
and
you
can
even
have
contrib.
You
know
you
could
have
an
engineering
contributing
core
unit,
that's
working
for
the
that's!
A
That's
that's
getting
work
and
getting
budget
from
you
know
from
a
engineering
administrative
core
unit
that
falls
under
the
decentralized
collateral
supporting
co
unit,
but
the
contributing
coordinate
they
don't
only
do
collateral
stuff.
They
also
build
protocol
features.
So
they
can.
You
know,
so
you
get
this
flexibility
of
like,
for
instance,
like
the
protocol
engineering
team
today
right
their
perfect
example
of
they're
building
shadow
vault
engines,
they're
also
doing
some
collateral,
onboarding,
they're
sort
of
you
know
and
collateral
engineering
services.
That's
an
engineering
team.
A
That's
only
doing
collateral,
onboarding
related
engineering
right.
So
some
may
specialize
only
in
one
scope
map,
others
may
work
across
them
and
there
can
be
a
lot
of
flexibility
in
like
putting
you
know,
getting
the
right
resources
to
come
together
because
of
course
it's
a
very
it's
supposed
to
be
a
decentralized
ecosystem
right.
So
you
really
need
that
flexibility
in
there.
A
Then
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
crap
yeah.
It
always
ended
up
being
a
proper
room,
radio,
this
stuff,
but
you
know
so
we
had
this
long
conversation
about.
You
know
conversation,
that's
maybe
putting
it
nicely
on,
but
this
debate
about
transparency
right
and
basically
there's
a
lot
of
right.
There's
a
lot
of
like
pushback
from
the
coordinates
that
transparency
is
difficult
and-
and
you
know
and
and
one
hand,
they're
getting
told,
get,
do,
give
us
more
results
and
then
they
also
get
until
it
give
us
more
transparency.
A
A
Right,
like
so
actually
being
transparent,
should
be
the
easiest
thing
right
like,
and
I
think
a
good
example
is
that,
like
nowadays,
the
way
that
all
open
source
development
works
is
it
works
the
way
that
it
works
in
github
right,
which
is
actually
a
specific
implementation
of
how
you
could
do
it
in
thousands
of
different
ways.
But
everyone
only
does
it
in
one
way
and
that's
the
way
it
works
in
github
right,
and
so,
if
you,
if
we
make
it
a
similar
system,
that's
like
the
github
for
getting
work
done
in
maker.
We
can.
A
We
can
basically
code
into
that.
Oh
the
way.
It's
easy!
You
know
the
way
you
collaborate
maker
isn't
with
a
system
that
automatically
does
all
this
like
disclosure
and
transparency
and
exactly
in
the
way
that
the
mkl
holes
they
they
want
right-
or
rather
you
know,
and
again
this
wouldn't
be
sort
of
top
down
archaically
imposed,
but
rather
that's
one
of
the
key
jobs
of
the
supporting
core
units.
Right
is
also
figuring
out.
A
What's
the
stuff
that's
important
to
even
disclose
so
we
can
monitor
in
the
first
place
right
because
there
is
this
separate,
I
mean
I
call
separation
powers,
I'm
starting
to
get
a
lot
of
pushback.
So
maybe
we
need
another
word
for
that
right,
but
there's
this
the
supporting
core
units
that
are
basically
interacting
with
and
monitoring
the
administrative
core
units
and
the
contributing
coordinates,
and
so
on
with
the
scope.
You
know
with
the
scope
map.
They
don't
do
that
through
back
channeling
right.
A
A
A
A
So
the
last
thing
I
want
to
talk
more
about
is
this.
I
mean
this
whole
thing
of
like
deeper
collaboration
and
specialization,
and
you
know,
but
also
drawing
in
the
delegates
and
getting
more
organized
around.
You
know
like
there's
the
end
game
plan.
This
is
like
in
game
reach,
this
sort
of
final
unchangeable,
state
vision
and
then
a
whole
bunch
of
like
very
specific
stuff
and
even
like
a
lot
of
our
clothes
are
idiosyncratic
drama,
related
important
decisions.
A
A
If
we
can't
do
meta
if
metadata's
fail,
why
should
we
not
be
doing
any
complicated
verbal
assets
or
why
should
we
only
be
doing
us
government
bonds
if
we
want
to
reach
a
finalized,
endgame
state
right
and
so
matt
that
maybe
not
maybe,
for
some
of
you-
that's
like,
of
course,
that's
totally
logic
for
others.
That
may
not
be
make
perfect
sense
there
right
and
it's
just
gonna
be
a
matter
of
spending
more
time
on
it
and,
as
I've
said
before,
I'm
basically,
you
know
this
is
my.
A
This
is
my
last
attempt
and
trying
to
to
make
maker
something-
and
I
can
just
I
can
just
run
itself
and
I
can
just
go
away
right,
which
has
always
been
my
dream.
I
mean
that's
the
appeal
of
it
down
in
the
first
place
right,
but
so
I'm
I'm
willing
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
and
basically
engage
even
more
in
this
than
than
what
I've
done
already
right.
Okay,
so
the
first
thing
is,
I
I've
I've
actually
just
created.
A
I've
created
a
discord
right,
so
that's
gonna
be
the
in-game
discord
and
so
basically
like,
and
the
point
is
basically
just
to
have
like
a
more
you
know,
it's
a
place
to
interact
with
me
right
and
have
very
deep
whatever,
like
very
detailed
stuff.
That's
gonna
stay
in
the
easy
to
find
in
the
chat
right,
but
I
guess
more
importantly,
what
I
really
want
to
see
is:
we
can
get
some
more.
A
You
know
like
we
can
get
other
mbr
holders
that
are
aligned
with
me
and
delegates
as
well
and
get
some
more
broader.
You
know
discussion
about
these
concepts
because
that's
when
that's
when
the
real
magic
happens
right
because
that's
what
I
want
to
see
is
that
I
don't
even
need
to
be
involved.
Right
like
I
need
to
be
like
need
to
be
able
to
teach
these
principles,
and
then
they
can
sort
of
run
themselves
just
because
the
principles
make
sense.
Fundamentally,.
A
A
A
So
powerful
is
we
want
to
have
more
discords
and
we
want
to
have
more
forums
that,
like
specialize
right
along
the
lines
of
the
the
metadatas
right,
so
so
that
I
mean
I
think
I
made
a
comment
that
last
last
thursday
right
that
just
like
just
imagine
like
these
concepts
of
m
m0,
m1
and
m2
become
a
little
bit
more
tangible
and
you
have
these
tokens
and
you
can
yiel
farm
them
and
they're
doing
cool
stuff
right.
One
of
them
is
doing
decentralized
front
end.
A
A
It
creates
a
kind
of
momentum,
that's
quite
powerful
and
anyway.
So,
in
addition
to
to
kind
of
like
the
the
the
the
forums
and
discords
for
the
metadatas
and
how
they
can
help
coalesce
and
crystallize
new
communities
right,
they
can
develop
sort
of
their
own
ideas,
their
own
culture
of
innovation
and
so
on.
A
A
If
we
move
forward
with
the
end
game
plan
right
and
and
and
start
off
with
this
proof
of
concept,
metadata
launch
right
in
the
in
gameplay
launch,
then
what
we
need
to
do
is
we
need
to
do
a
lot
of
stuff
called
clustering
right,
which
is
basically
like
people
trying
to
come
together
to
to
cluster
around
meaningful
constellations
of
synergy
with
the
metadows
right
and
and
then
so
so
the
idea
is
actually.
This
is
not
just
like
an
in-game
party
discord.
A
It
will
also
be
a
a
place
for
what
I
call
it
sort
of
the
maker
ecosystem
community,
which
is
relates
to
this.
You
know
the
token
for
the
the
maker
shard
and
the
maker
node
network
and
yeah
that's
going
to
be.
We
we're
going
to
be
talking
more
about
that
tomorrow
and
then
it
will
be.
This
whole
thing
will
be
explained
more
in
in
part
five
of
the
indian
plan.
I
guess
sometime
next
week,
but
also
on
the
call
tomorrow
yeah.
A
A
Yeah
I
mean,
and
then
like
I
think,
maybe
also
to
you
know
it's
possible-
that
to
make
a
similar
deck
should
still
be
a
channel
on
the
on
the
official
maker
discord.
But
then
there
I
mean
then
either
way,
though
I
think
the
way
it
makes
sense
to
have
it
is
you
have
a
channel
in
the
official
make
a
discord
and
then
you
have
a
like
and
that's
a
general
channel
and
that's
sort
of
the
really
easy
access
point.
A
But
then
you
still
have
an
entire
discord
for
all
these,
like
specialized
channels
right
for
all
the
different,
basically
all
the
different
voter
committees
right,
which
we
can
use
to
to
well
anyways
and
well.
The
last
thing
I
want
to
say
is
like
is
that
the
point
is
the
end
game
party
is
like
I
mean.
Obviously
it's
like
this.
A
A
So
chris
is
asking:
why
would
you
gate
this,
so
I
don't
understand
what
you
mean.
Why
would
you
get
this,
or
maybe
that's
not
a
question
for
me,
but
of
course
the
this
stuff
would
of
course
be
open
to
discords
and
forums
for
like
everything
else,
with
metadatas
and
and
end
game
should
be
like
maximally,
permissionless
and
accessible.
A
So,
actually,
let
me
just
because
we
can
actually
just
keep
the
conversation
going
and
then
what
I
want.
So
I
want
the
people
that
I
mean.
I
don't
know
how
many
delegates
are
still
around
of
the
delegates
that
sort
of
responded
in
the
forum
thread
and
and
so
on,
right,
but
then
we
can
on
this
discord,
that's
where
we
can
coordinate
actual
like
I
can.
A
Actually
you
know
I
can
begin
this
process
of
delegating
and
then
discuss
what
can
like
you
know
what
can
what
is
productive
stuff
that
can
be
done
on
like
getting
feedback
on
the
in-game
plan
and
and
sort
of
contributing
to
that,
and
in
return
for
that,
basically,
how
that
makes
you
know
how
I
will
delegate
my
mkr
based
on
that
okay
question
from
nadia
rooney.
You
said
core
units
shouldn't
be
working
on
strategy,
but
on
taxes.
A
I
think
we
need
some
of
this
to
pass
through
a
governance
voting
cycle
to
help
us
reorganize
tactics
and
create
plans
and
proposals
for
executing
any
of
these.
If
not,
we
will
have
to
work
on
the
things
that
appear
and
avoid
it
in
like
rocket
eath
and
create
strategies
to
go
through
the
bear
market.
Instead
of
prioritizing
all
of
these
initiatives
you
mentioned
so
yeah
I
mean
you,
I
mean
you're
right
not,
but
also
by
the
way
like
right
now,
there's
nothing
that
I
well.
A
Maybe
there
is,
but
nobody
cares
right,
there's
nothing
that
prevents
coordinates
from
working
on
strategy
rather
than
tactics,
and
you
exactly
have
this
like
you
know
I
mean
so,
and
this
is
what
I
I
think
literally,
I
think
it
was
in
response
to
a
post
by
chris
blick
right.
I
basically
predicted
that
if
I
go
out
with
some
big
plan
and
like
here's,
the
bunch
of
stuff,
here's
a
perspective,
then
sooner
or
later,
some
kind
of
of
you
know
counterfalls
is
going
to
emerge
and
then
what
I
had
a
bunch
of
you
know.
A
Originally
I
thought
it
was
going
to
be.
You
know
nikolai
mushikiyan
right
who
was
like
gonna
depict
die
from
the
dollar
or
whatever.
Well
I
don't
know
he
hasn't
even
noticed.
This
is
happening
apparently,
and
I
don't
know
what
happened,
but
now
it's
really
clear
that
it's
basically
this
I
mean
I
would
again
I
was
I
mean,
like
I
think
it's
fitting,
like
I
consider
like
a
fitting
opponent
right
that
it's
just
like
the
movement
to
sort
of,
I
would
basically
say,
centralize
the
core
units
further
right.
A
So
that's
like
I
mean
we're
just
like
I
mean
and
and
and
it
makes
sense
right
because
I'm
basically
trying
to
say
look.
This
is
a
huge
challenge
and
and
so
on,
but
we
can
do
it
and
we
can
remain
decentralized,
but
we
have
to
make
all
these
changes
and
you
know
like
follow
a
particular.
You
know
strong
principles
and
on
stuff,
like
transparency
and
so
on,
and
then
there
is
a
a
competing
kind
of
proposal
and
sort
of
momentum
saying.
A
A
In
a
sense
right,
because
then
that
brings
us
back
so
basically
they
quit
like
either
either
I
lose
and
whoever
I
get
to
to
whoever
get
to
support
me
right,
which
I'll
definitely
try
to
convince
the
the
big
vcs
and
so
on
right.
I
had
a
call
within
reason.
Recently
they
were
not.
They
were
very
they're
skeptical
and
I
think
they've
been.
I
think,
they've
been
having
a
lot
of
conversations
with
some
of
the
coordinates
that
are
that
are
pushing
for
this
and
are
quite
sort
of
yeah.
A
The
vote
could
even
be
then
be
as
simple
as
should
call
units
be
running
the
overall
politics
and
strategy,
or
should
like,
should
the
voters,
or
rather
should
some
kind
of
endgame
state
that
that
is
just
like
a
as
close
as
possible
to
kind
of
a
algorithmic
equilibrium,
or
that
should
that
be
running
the
overall
strategy
and
politics
and
then,
once
once
it's
clear
which
side
has
more
votes,
then.
Basically
we
can
sort
of
focus
on
the
on
the
future
right.
A
But
there's
there's
no
rush
to
get
this
figure.
This
out,
you
know
rush
to
to
get
it
done,
because
it's
like
a
this
is
gonna
determine
everything
right.
So
this
is
like
this
is
sort
of
a
kind
of
as
a
formative
moment
right.
This
is
like
this
is
the
constitution
of
the
future.
That's
gonna
like,
and
there
will
never
be
a
moment
like
this
ever
again,
like
I'm
convinced
of
it.
Like
I
mean
the
case,
I'll
make
is
like
if
so
we
follow
the
in-game
plan.
A
Well,
it's
already
really
clear
how
then
we
go
down
the
path
of
the
the
end
game
plan
right
and
nothing
like
this
would
ever
happen
again.
You
can't
you
can't
reverse
it
effectively
and
if
we
take
the
that
centralized
accordion
small,
then
I
think
well,
basically
the
like
once
enough
momentum
is
on
that
you
can't
stop
it
either
and
then
I
think
basically
the
project
dies
right.
A
Then
then
you
get
this
sort
of
spiral
of
centralization
and
either
get
shut
down
by
regulators
or
die
from
corruption
right
and
if
and
not
it
wouldn't
have
to
happen,
super
fast
or
anything,
but
it's
very
unlikely.
It's
just
like
once.
You've
had
like
a
moment
like
this
ever
having
anything
like
it
ever
again.
If
you
already
have
you
know,
I
mean,
because
I
would
obviously
give
up
right.
I
mean
I'm
really,
I'm
fighting.
A
You
know
a
fight
at
the
end
now,
but
once
we
reach
the
end,
then
you
know
at
some
point
I
want.
I
won't
be
able
to
fight
anymore
right
and
then
from
then
on.
In
practice
it's
over
like
it's
and
whatever
the
outcome
is
that's
going
to
determine
that
it's
really
going
to
sort
of
you
know
it's
going
to
be
like
first
past
the
post
in
the
american
system
right,
so
that's
why
we
shouldn't
rush
this.
B
So
I
guess
in
simple
words,
you're
saying:
if
the
end
game
doesn't
get
voted
in
you're
pretty
much
out
and
it
becomes
a
totally
different
game
where
you're
seeing
a
path
of
centralization
and
obviously
that
could
be
shut
down
by
regulators
et
cetera.
But
am
I
understanding
that
correct
that
you
would
be
out.
A
Yeah
I
mean,
and-
and
I
mean
that's
what
I
mean
you
should
you
know
you
should
consider
the
fact
that
I'm
like
anyone
that
says
something
like
this
and
is
offering
some.
You
know
you
need
to
be
a
skeptic
of
course,
of
what
I'm
saying
right.
So
so,
but
ultimately
I
mean
the
reason
why
I'm
even
doing
all
this
in
the
first
place
is
because
I'm
trying
to
you
know
I'm
trying
to
avoid
having
to
sell
all
my
mpr
right,
because
I
think
the
status
quo
is
sort
of
I
mean
that's
the
like.
A
I
don't
know
it
was
it
was
today
we're
talking
about.
Like
I
mean
there,
is
this
like
like
this
ancient
this
wisdom
in
maker.
That
goes
all
the
way
back
to
like
the
very
very
beginning
of
mega
right,
which
is
that
like
voters,
never
care
or
immobilize
or
take
any
action
whatsoever
unless
they're
presented
with
like
a
really
really
obvious
threat.
A
I
mean
you
know
what
the
the
the
the
you
know,
the
ideas
I've
got
like
the
vision
I've
got
is
so
insanely
crazy,
powerful
that
the
it's
like
you
know,
it's
worth
it
to
really
spend
a
lot
of
effort
trying
to
make
that
to
to
come
to
pass,
but
it's
like
there's
a
possibility.
We've
already
I
mean
that's
towards
it.
Right.
We've
already
succumbed
basically
to
a
kind
of
capture
by
vcs
and
core
units,
and
and
if
that's
the
case,
nothing
can
stop.
That
and
also
nothing
can
reverse
it.
A
What
they
think
is
is
best
for
them
and
and
think
independently
right,
but,
as
I
wrote
on
the
forum
right
that
in
the
end
like
I
would
probably
well
I
mean
I
would
I
would
you
know
I
wouldn't
like
sell
all
my
mkr
and
like
completely
not
be
involved
with
mkr
anymore.
If,
if
this
is
sort
of
pushed
towards
more
centralization
of
the
core
units,
what
I
would
do
is
like
I
would
be
like
significant.
I
mean
I
would.
A
I
would
then
just
fight
at
to
a
lesser
extent,
for
just
like
trying
to
aim
for
this
right
plus
thing
of
just
like
cutting
down
complexity
right
and
and
seeing
this
if
there's
still
a
path
towards
that
yeah
and
then,
of
course
I
mean
I
could
change
my
mind
and
if
I
get
different
information
later,
that
could
always
change
my
mind
right,
but
but
yeah
I
mean
again
it
all
comes.
I
mean
you
can
really
think
of
the
starting
point
for
all
this
of.
Like
me,
realizing
I
should.
A
I
should
sell
most
of
it
like
what
the
hell
am
I
doing
right.
I
mean,
after
that
I
basically
I
was
not
working
on
the
project
anymore.
I
was
not.
I
was
just
watching
it
from
the
sidelines
and
not
you
know
not
liking
sort
of
the
like
the
momentum
that
I'm
seeing
right,
that
sort
of
straying
from
the
string
from
the
core
principles.
As
I
see
it,.
A
A
A
You
know
a
relatively
huge
amount
of
voting
power
right,
because
we've
got
voter
incentives,
so
the
delegates
are
actually
the
ones
that
that
have
the
you
know.
You
know,
I
think
I
mean
you
know
so
I
in
the
forum
post
I
made
on
part
four,
the
nba
playing
right.
I
set
out
these,
like
validation,
results
right.
A
That
is
like
some
minimum
things
that
we
should
expect
from
from
executing
the
very
early
stages
like
the
really
easy
parts
of
the
end
game
plan,
and
for
that
I
think
we
should
see
at
least
25
percent
voter
participation
right.
So
that
would
already
put
me
at
like
significantly
outnumbered
compared
to
the
total
amount
of
active
voting
right
and
in
practice.
A
I
would
expect
to
be
much
more
because
I
mean
you're
leaving
money
on
the
table
if
you're
not
delegating
right,
if
once
there's
voter
incentives,
so
I
think
we,
you
know,
I
think
you
could
see
50
right
and
then
you're
really
starting
to
get
to
the
point
where,
like
I'm,
you
know,
I
just
can't
have
that
big
of
an
influence,
and
then
you
can
do
other
things
I
mean
which
is
like
the
endgame
is
all
about.
You
want
to
lock
things
down.
You
want
to.
A
You
want
to
again
like
create
as
much
certainty
as
possible
how
things
work
and
there's
a
whole
process.
I
mean
the
mips
system
was
actually
built
around
this
idea
right.
So
so
there
is
this
whole
concept
in
the
mips
that
over
time,
you
want
to
increase
the
the
time
it
takes
to
to
make
proposals
right.
So
you
want
to
basically
increase
rfc
periods
for
for
new
standalone
mips.
A
A
A
I'm
curious
what
you
think
about
the
stake
game
rewards
pros
like
before
and
a
half
years
ago,
main
part
was
mkr's.
Stated
governance
got
a
percentage
of
revenue;
the
time
represented
what
was
being
directed
to
the
burner
yeah
good.
So
I
I
think,
that's
great.
I
mean
that's
basically,
one
of
the
like
that's
sort
of
the
starting
point
for
the
singularity
engine,
which
is
this
crazy,
crazy,
crazy
overpowered,
staking
system.
A
A
I
think
right,
so
I
think
in
the
right
plus
model
you're,
actually
better
off
trusting
whales,
and
so,
but
in
the
I
mean
in
the
in
the
metadata
paradigm,
basically
you
could
say
the
singularity
engine
is
just
adding
on
top
of
this
basic
idea
like
so
you
don't
pay
out
in
in
die.
You
pay
out
in
these
like
multiplayer
metadata
tokens
and
you
pay
out.
A
This
thing
called
singularity
elixir
that
I
won't
be
talking
about
that
tomorrow,
but
next
thursday
next
week,
which
is
just
basically
like
it's
like
taking
the
fundamental
value
of
these
payouts
and
adding
a
bunch
of
intentional
value
and
then
adding
a
bunch
of
sort
of
you
know
like
what
I
call
the
called
the
casino
effect.
I
also
call
it
the
it's
like,
like
the
sort
of
the
velocity
effect
where,
like
you
just
you
have
the
you.
A
So
I've
even
figured
out
how
you
can
do
this
and
actually
make
it
tax
efficient,
like
in
a
way
that
I
think
is
quite
sort
of
it's
not.
I
mean
it's
not
just
a
text.
It's
like
it's
like
a
funky
feature,
that's
yeah!
Well,
I
can't
possibly
explain
it
right
now,
but
it'll
be
in
the
document,
but
basically
it's
like
a
feature
that
has
some
extra
extra
risk
to
how
you
receive
the
yield.
A
A
Okay
and
then
now
this
is,
as
these
calls
are
more
about
the
short
term.
Is
it
possible
to
see
a
slide
with
the
next
steps
and
owners?
Maybe
it's
me,
but
I
need
something
more
concrete.
I'm
afraid
that
the
in-game
plan
creates
an
execution
freeze
from
coordinates
and
delegates
rejecting
things
shown
in
participation
settlement
vote,
something
like
rwa
is
no
longer
treated
as
a
party
yeah.
First
of
all
I
mean
I
don't.
I
totally
reject
the
I
mean.
A
A
A
A
A
And
that
that
should
really
help
with
sort
of
like
what
were
the
concrete
steps
of
like
what
do
you
do
before
the
yeah
like
before
the
in-game
plane
launch
and
then
what
happens
immediately
after?
Basically,
you
can
also
see
like,
in
the
in
part
four
right
there's
this
like
the
list
of
like
the
first
six
metadatas
and
how
you
rank
them
up
with
togenomics.
So.
A
And
then
plus
one,
it
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
chaos
and
paralysis.
Waiting
for
what's
gonna
happen.
This
call
was
actually
landing
on
how
things
will
start
moving
forward
would
be
useful
to
have
more
of
that
and
next
steps
or
expected
next
steps
would
be
useful.
Yeah,
I
mean
look
so,
but
the
most
important
thing
is
to
understand
that,
like
the
big
like,
the
big
thing
is
what's
gonna
happen
is
I'll
kind
of.
I
will
keep
to
elaborate.
A
My
plan
right,
which
I'll
still
need
is
like
eight
entire
parts
and
then
once
I've
done
all
those
eight
parts,
then
I
will
start
producing
the
simplified
stuff.
So
right
now,
I'm
just
pumping
out
this
ultra
detailed
end-to-end
stuff
right
that
actually
shares,
like
literally
the
entire,
like
the
entirety
of
like
my
opinions,
about,
like
my
best
guesses
of
you
know,
what
can?
How
could
you
construct
a
realistic
and
you
know,
and
and
maximally
powerful
in
game
with
metadata
in
the
whole
whole
nine
yards
right
and
it's
kind
of
meant
as
like?
A
I
guess,
like
a
proof,
in
a
sense
of
showing
look,
it's
actually
possible
to
map
out
the
whole
thing
and
explain
the
whole
thing
right.
So
so
that's
like
the
actual
plan
right
and
then
what's
coming.
Next
is
kind
of
like
the
more
the
the
east,
like
the
the
marketing
material,
almost
right
and
then
once
that's
in
place.
A
Then
the
same
thing
will
happen
from
this
like
the
the
core
unit
group
right
and
then
eventually
the
question
becomes:
will
all
you
know?
Will
the
vcs,
I
guess
primarily
right?
I
mean,
as
I've
seen
right.
That's
sort
of
there's
been
this.
There's
been
this
like
active,
reaching
out
to
the
vcs
right
and
also
I'll
also
try
to
do
the
same
and
and
it's
unknown
to
what
extent
they
they
support.
A
That's
the
next
step
like
before.
We
there
will
be
complete
and
other
paralysis
before
we
have
that
knowledge,
because
I
think
anything
we're
trying
like
things
will
absolutely
change
completely.
If
you
have
a
bunch
of
core
units
that
suddenly
have
this
sort
of,
like
full
support
of
you
know
like
like
that,
like
you
know,
the
way
everything
will
run
in
that
situation
will
also
be
totally
different
from
how
it
works
now
anyway.
A
So
I
basically
think
that,
like
there's,
you
couldn't
possibly
have
clarity
in
this
situation,
because
you
have
these
two
completely
diverging
fundamental
views
on
on
how
maker
can
can
thrive
and
and
survive
even
right,
so
yeah
this
I
mean,
but
I
mean
I
would
still
say
so
I'll
still
say
that
the
focus
objectives
as
that
I've
listed
right.
That's
just
my
I
mean
I
think
the
top
parts
of
those
are.
A
B
A
So
mark
phillips
asking
what
role
do
you
envision
yourself
planning
if
the
in-game
plan
is
ratified?
Well,
basically,
I
would
probably
not
sell
any.
I
mean
or
probably
not,
sell
too
much
on
my
mkr
or
maybe
not
sell
any
of
my
pr
and
I
would
just
stake,
and
I
would
just
I
mean
well
what
I
actually
want
to
do
is
I
want
to
really
be
involved
in,
like
the
the
sort
of
the
metaverse
aspect
of
the
melodious.
A
So
I
really
you
know
like
I
have
I
mean
and
that's
something
you
know
I
would.
I
would
try
to
to
experiment
with
how
to
do
things
like
you
know,
virtual
competition
between
metathouse
or
something
like
that,
and
then
I'm
I
mean
I'm
I'm
I'm.
You
know
my
full-time
job
is
to
I'm
building
a
game
company,
so
I'm
eventually
I
would.
I
would
even
build
like
an
entire
platform.
A
That's
sort
of
one
of
the
I
mean
it's
not
exactly
is
well
it's
not
at
all
the
focus
right,
but
one
of
the
sort
of
interesting
things
that
it
does
is
it
really
allows
this
kind
of
metaverse
interaction
where
you
could
have
exactly
this
thing
of
like
how
can
I,
how
can
a
tao
sort
of
express
itself
in
the
metaverse
and
have
these
interesting
interactions
right,
not
not
as
an
individual
but
as
a
dao?
Basically,.
A
B
B
A
Yeah,
so
I
would,
I
would
really
focus
on
interacting
with
delegates
and
supporting
core
units,
but
especially
delegates,
because
I
think
that's
really
like
the
interaction
between
delegates
and
and
voters.
That's
sort
of
the
key
to
all
this
so
so
like
if
we
can't
so
so.
Like
I
mean
the
whole
like
like,
I
guess.
One
of
these,
like
validation,
results
for
something
something
as
complex
as
the
metadata
paradigm
would
basically
require
that.
A
A
A
A
Basically,
and
then
they
can
sort
of
upgrade
to
a
what's
called
a
metadata
operated
maker
core
unit
when
they
want
to
when
they
feel
like
it.
But
the
thing
is
if
they
do
that
they
get
a
big
race.
So
it's
like
a
big
I
mean.
So
it's
that's
a
pa.
You
know.
That's
a
part
of
the
the
metadata
paradigm
is
that
the
maker
core
units,
the
they
sort
of,
become
a
lot
more.
A
It's
carrot,
not
a
stick
right,
so
you
can
actually
not
do
that
at
all
you're,
just
missing
out
on
on
tokens
and
you're
sort
of
missing
out
on
being
a
part
of
the
the
the
new
frontier
and
so
on.
But
not
everybody
will
want
to
do
that
right,
so
so
so
that
would
not
be
forced,
but
then,
at
the
same
time
like
there's
likely
a
lot
of
the
the
budget
in
general.
That
is
simply
like
that.
A
Isn't
even
you
know
in
either
end
game
state,
whether
it's
rye
plus
or
it
is
the
metadata
paradigm.
There's
a
lot
of
the
existing
budget
that
isn't
necessary
in
the
coal.
So
there
would
also
be
like
a
lot
of
budget.
That
would
basically
be
like
the
way
I
envisioned
we
would
handle.
That
is
that
you
racially
you'd,
like
there'd,
be
a
lot
of
of
of
work
that
would
like
you
either
stop
relatively
quickly
or
it
would
basically
be
like
this
is
simply
not
something
we
should
be
doing
in
the
call
right.
A
We
should
not
be
doing
it
at
all
or,
if
you're
doing
it
in
the
metadata
and
then
for
like
and
exactly
how
we
handle
that
I
mean
that's
like
well,
I
get,
I
think
it
would
actually
be
just.
It
would
be
something
along
the
lines
of
like
overall
some
kind
of
overall
split
of
budgets.
That
coin
it's
then
held
internally
and
then
so
part
of
the
the
of
these
resources
would
basically
like
they.
You
know
they
would
go
towards
core
unit
contributors
that
you
know
they
can
like.
A
They
can,
overall,
they
can
create
value,
but
they
can't
they
don't
fit
into
the
call
of
maker.
So
eventually
they
would
have
to
like
either
they
would
have
to
transition
to
metadata,
or
they
would
simply
you
know
like
they
wouldn't
have
a
job,
because
they
would
have
nothing
to
do,
and
then
that
should
have
to
be
a
very
long
smooth
transition
process.
A
But
then,
if
you
can
smoothly
and
gracefully
transition
it
into
a
self-contained
metadata
and
you
can
give
it
the
right
resources,
the
right
support,
the
right
business
model,
the
right
community,
all
these
things,
then
suddenly
you
can,
you
know
you.
Can
everyone
can
generate
so
much
more
value
out
of
it?.
A
But
again,
that's
something
I
mean
that
will
come
in
part,
seven,
so
that'll
be
that's
several
weeks
from
now,
and
I
will
I
will
have
more
content
related
to
that,
but
also
we
can
talk.
I
mean
all
we
can
talk
about
in
the
discord.
Oh
and
the
last
thing.
Now
I'm
really
gonna
go
and
I
can
tell
people
starting
to
drop.
A
Basically
work
with
me
to
actually
prepare
for
this
call,
so
that
there
is
a
more
kind
of
you
know,
because
I
want
that's
really
what
I
want
to
start
to
try
to
go
in
the
direction
of
having
this
more
have
delegates
actually
play
a
bigger
role
in
actually
running
a
voter
committee.
Right,
that's
still
going
to
require,
like
I
mean
with
also
that
also
means
we
need
to
have
some
actual
voters
join
right.
I
mean
we
have
a
few
here
right
now.