►
Description
*Decentralized Voter Committee*
March 8th, 2023
*Description*
_The Decentralized Voter Committee (DVC) call is an ongoing series of open meetings where various elements of the Pregame and Endgame phases, Maker Constitution, and future direction of the DAO are clarified and discussed._
*Disclaimer*
_This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services._
https://mips.makerdao.com
https://forum.makerdao.com
https://chat.makerdao.com
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
another
DVC
call.
I'm
really
excited
today
is
kind
of
going
to
be
the
skepticism
day.
So
we'll
be
talking
about
critiques
questions,
shortcomings,
gaps,
we
we
think
we
might
see
in
England
playing
in-game
plan
and
hopefully
I've
learned
to
provide
some
answers.
So
there's
some
perspective
to
put
down
those
Skeptics
so
without
further
Ado
I'll,
kick
it
over
to
you
room
and
we'll
see.
If
we
can
start
getting
some
questions.
B
But
first
I
just
want
to
hear
from
yeah
from
all
the
people
here
and
I.
Don't
know
I
mean
you
can
right.
You
know
if
there's
somebody
who
wants
to
to
speak
and
and
sort
of
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
dialogue,
and
that's
also
great,
but
otherwise
people
can
just
write
questions
in
the
chat,
I
think
yeah.
B
We
would
definitely
be
cool
if
there's
some
people
actually
want
to
to
kind
of
take
the
floor
a
little
bit
now
that
we
got
started
with
it
yesterday
for
the
first
time
really
yeah
I,
don't
know
I
mean,
maybe
just
you
long
would
be.
You
know
you
can
sort
of
warm
us
up.
I
think
that
would
be
great
unless
there
really
is
someone
who's.
D
D
Some
sort
of
thinking
around
that
is
that
well
I
think
initially
I
thought
that
the
DVC
calls
the
reason
for
sort
of
starting
them.
Early
was
the
sort
of,
or
at
least
one
of,
the
reasons
for
starting
them.
Early
was
the
sort
of
trial
like
the
formats
in
some
way,
right
sort
of
kind
of
get
experience
with
that
sort
of
meeting
and
that
sort
of
back
and
forth,
and
what
a
sort
of
committee
would
look
like
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we've
really
achieved
that
thus
far
like
I.
D
Don't
know
that
in
any
of
the
meetings
thus
far,
we've
really
proved
the
concept,
I
guess
so
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
like
have
you
thought
much
about
like
how
to
sort
of
incentive
incentivize
or
just
just
get
people
to
sort
of,
engage
and
discuss
like
as
you're
planning
them
to
in
like
cbcs
like
have
you
given
any
thoughts
like
agendas
or
to
like
you
know,
structures
of
how
they
meet
like
how
the
meters
will
be
structured
or
anything
like
that.
Thus
far,
I
guess.
E
B
Initially
was
to
kind
of
you
know
like
use
my
kind
of
room
radio
platform
right
whenever
I
do
something
like
call,
there's
always
going
to
be
some
people
showing
up
sort
of
from
you
know
the
depths
of
maker
right
and
and
I
was
hoping
that,
then
what
we
would
see
is
that
that
would
kind
of
attract
you
know
in
care
holders
more
in
the
periphery
to
then
have
a
a
place
to
kind
of
collaborate
in
a
sense
right.
But
then,
of
course,
what
turned
out
to
be
the
case?
B
Was
it
at
that
point
in
time
the
implant
itself
right
the
sort
of
the
very
basic
kind
of
tenets
of
the
plan?
We're
still
just
you
know,
constantly
being
reworked
based
right,
like
I
was
constantly
reworking,
and
then
there
was
also
just
a
lot
of
like
input,
I
guess
mostly
from
delegates
that
was
changing.
It
and
I
mean
from
other
people
as
well
right,
so
they
just
I
mean
in
the
end.
I
I
basically
try
to
get
away
from
calling
them
dvcs
right
because
it
wasn't
it
wasn't
bad
at
all.
B
It
just
didn't
really
materialize
right
and
then,
of
course,
again
mostly
just
because
fundamental
problem
of
kind
of
governance,
participation,
which
is
just
not
really
anyone
else.
Who's
kind
of
craziest
me
basically
and
they're,
going
to
be
willing
to
spend
all
of
that
time
to
try
to
work
something
like
this
through
right,
but
yeah
I
mean.
Then
the
great
thing
happened
that
we
got
the
that
acre
the
house
and
kianga
from
Acorn
list.
They
actually,
you
know,
announced
their
intention
to
participate
in
the
CVC
and-
and
so
we
had
that
call
yesterday.
B
So,
like
I
said,
that's
like
the
first
call
ever
that
wasn't
me
talking
well
95
of
98
of
the
time.
Maybe
it
was
more
like
50
I,
don't
know,
maybe
even
less
than
50
or
something
I
hope
so
and
that
like
because
we
now
have
that.
That's
like
a
new
era
in
a
sense
right,
because
now
we
have
something
tangible
to
work
with
in
terms
of,
and
this
kind
of
I
mean
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
at
the
end
of
that
call,
obviously
right,
which
is
this
like.
B
B
You
know
three
to
six
months
or
something
of
during
the
pregame
to
try
to
sort
of
cultivate
the
first
follower,
essentially
right
and
then
the
first
follow
would
be,
would
then
be
old.
It
would
really
take
from
there
because
it
once
like
once
someone
is
able
to
do
it,
then
they
could
run
the
whole
system
on
their
own.
B
Basically
right
it
only
takes
a
single
person
in
a
single
CBC
for
the
whole
system
to
be
functional,
and
then
that
person
just
becomes
almost
like
the
CEO
or
something
in
a
sense
right,
at
least
in
sort
of
in
terms
of
determining
kind
of
and
yeah.
This
sort
of
classic
question
of
like
what's
in
the
interest
of
MK
holders
and
what
isn't
in
a
sort
of
political
sense,.
D
B
Yeah,
it
looks
so
I
I
totally
agree,
but
it's
kind
of
I
mean
I.
Think
the
problem
comes
back
to
this
thing
is
like
what
is
it
you're
supposed
to
do
so?
I
agree
that,
like
that
is
that
should
be
the
objective
and
I
think
having
just
like
the
meetings
actually
occur.
So
there's
like
now,
there's
like
a
place
you
can
drop
in
and
you
can
join
the
meetings
and
then,
after
you've
joined
the
meetings
you
can
decide.
B
This
like
sort
of
kind
of
the
the
fine-tuning
of
the
CVC
Rewards
and
then
I
mean
there's
this
thing
like
in
terms
of
the
content
of
the
the
CVC
subcommittee
meetings
right
there
is
this,
like
calendar
schedule
right,
which
which
then
like
the
fact
that
it's
going
to
be
in
this
schedule
and
we
can
sort
of
prepare
in
advance.
I
think
that's
gonna
I
mean
once
we
get
ready
to
kind
of
like
okay,
it's
time
to
operationalize
it.
B
If
the
mips
pass
right,
then
the
fact
that
we've
got
that
structure
of
sort
of
the
calendar
and
then
on
top
of
that
we
have
this
I
mean
we
we
can
I
mean
initially.
It
can
just
be
me
and
kianga
if
I'm
lucky
also
doing
it,
then
you
know
I,
guess
once
it
starts
kind
of
recurring
and
you
know
in
advance
what
the
topics
are
and
so
on
then
I
think
there's
like
now.
B
D
Available
to
them
right,
I
have
a
comment.
That's
really
related
to
that
later.
That's
not
specifically
what
I'm
getting
at
with
this
I
I'm
worried
that
the
sort
of
like
that
we
need
to
intentionally
perform
it
to
be
something
that
people
will
will
want
to
take
part
in
as
opposed
to
something
you
know
more
like
the
roon
radius
things
right
like
like
it
needs
to
be
interactive
and
we
need
to
sort
of
like
yeah.
It
should
be
fine.
It's
just
something.
D
B
B
Case
scenario,
it
just
ends
up
being
just
me
having
to
do
everything
myself
and
nobody
votes,
and
nobody
does
anything
and
I'm.
Just
the
only
one
going
into
cbc's
I
mean
then
there's
gonna,
be
you
know
these
14
delegates
that
will
be
paid
even
more
than
delegates
are
paid
right
now
through
the
Constitution
and
then
I'm
just
you
know,
I'm
gonna
be
like
you
gotta
help.
You
gotta
find
some
CVC
members
and
and
bootstripes
and
cpcs
or
you're
going
to
lose.
You
I'm
at
some
point.
I'm
gonna
stop
showing
up
right.
B
A
B
Lists
need
to
feel
empowered
and
the
idea
is
that
that's
what
that's
going
to
be
the
role
of
the
delegates
right.
They
are
the
ones
whose
job
is
to
empower
their
galilders,
who
actually
bother
to
sort
of
have
the
the
spark
and
and
volunteer
and
and
I
mean
anonymously.
They
wish,
but
ultimately,
sort
of
take
responsibility
for
the
big
decisions
and
sort
of
the
big
yeah,
especially
the
big
kind
of
gray
area.
Questions
right
where
some
kind
of
decision
has
to
be
made.
B
C
B
B
Typical
maker
right,
but
it
could
end
up
being
just
me
and
long
and
and
paper
on
the
call
which
is
just
yeah
I
mean
it's
not
necessarily
that
surprising,
because
in
the
end
this
is
Major,
it's
crazy,
complicated
and
difficult,
and
so
on,
and
it's
a
it's
a
big
jump
for
someone
who's,
not
rich.
You
know
it's
not
used
to
governance.
Insanity
I
always
would
call
it.
You
know,
and
the
community
experience
as
we
sometimes
call
it.
F
I
mean
if
we
just
want
to
continue
along
the
lines
of
cvcs
I,
have
just
a
few
comments
that
are
kind
of
just
observations,
so
it
reading
through
everything
now
that
it's
in
in
the
the
form
that
we
we
know
will
be
voted
on
later
this
month.
It
it
seems
that
cbcs
do
a
lot
they're
tasked
with
a
lot
of
report,
writing
Unchained
transactions
and
and
like
internal.
They
have
a
lot
of
internal
affairs
and
and
bookkeeping.
F
But
it's
it's
not
clear
to
me
that
cvcs
do
anything
other
than
their
Internal
Affairs,
except
qualifying
delegates
for
pay.
So
it
seems
like
there's
not
much
point
to
them,
because
they
don't
have
any
special
proposal
Powers
they
don't.
They
don't
really
do
anything
like
if
their
recommendations
are
not
acted
upon.
Nothing
happens
right,
so
I,
don't
I
I.
My
prediction
is
that
we
will
see
a
proliferation
of
and
on
one
person,
cvcs
that
recognize.
F
B
Yeah,
that's
a
good
point
and
I
think
I
mean
I.
Think
there's
kind
of
two
there's
actually
two
points
I
would
say,
are
somewhat
unrelated
to
each
other,
but
the
so.
The
first
point
is
this
question
of
like
what
do
they
do
in
normal
conditions
and
then
the
second
thing
is
this
question
of
the
spam
attack,
basically,
which
is
like
the
the
kind
of
the
weak,
the
weakness
in
a
sense
or
the
the
attack
Vector
on
the
whole
CBC
mechanism
right
and
I.
Think
maybe
first,
let's
just
talk
about
the
no
okay.
B
Let's
talk,
okay,
so
let's
talk
about
the
the
first
part
of
the
question
right:
what
what
do
they
do
in
Normal
circumstances,
right
and
basically
what
they
do
is
they?
They
propose
these
position
documents
right
on
the
on
the
scope,
Frameworks.
So
in
the
end,
like
they're
the
ones
that
sort
of
like
the
sort
of
the
ordinary
course
of
business
when
things
are
just
running
along
in
in
sort
of
and
in
kind
of
the
standard
scenario,
they
basically
figure,
they
determine.
B
What's
the
choice
like,
what's
the,
what
are
the
different
options
for
what
you
vote
on
when
and
you
know
every
every
quarter
when
you
change
the
skill
Frameworks
and
initially
it
won't
even
like
this?
They
won't
even
really
be
like
I
mean
there's
not
going
to
be
that
direct
connection
initially
right,
because
initially
we're
going
to
use
MIP
102
to
make
edits.
So
it
will
be
less
the
rating
that
anyone
can
still
make
edits
later
on.
B
It
would
be
you
have
to
actually
be
a
CBC
and
it's
going
to
be
some
kind
of
I
mean
I,
haven't
even
gone
to
think
about
how,
but
you
have
some
kind
of
process
of
you
know.
Instead
of
having
a
MIP
process
where
everything
is
kind
of
just
competing
with
each
other.
You
need
some
kind
of
mechanism
where
each
GBC
can
sort
of
lay
out
their
own
proposal,
and
then
they
can
also
connect
with
other
cbcs
and
try
to
make
compromises
to
defeat
some
third-party
CBC
that
they
disagree
even
more
with.
F
So
so
let
me
just
kind
of
push
back
a
little
on
how
I
don't
think,
that's
how
it
would
play
out.
So
if
I'm,
a
delegate-
and
you
know
I
I
lit
I,
will
I'm
really
beholden
to
listen
to
cbc's
for
one
of
two
reasons,
one
is
I
only
have
two
that
are
recognizing
me.
So
if
I
lose
one
I
lose
my
pay.
The
other
is
that
the
maker
is
being
delegated
to
me
through
those
cbcs.
F
Now,
if
I'm,
a
maker
holder,
though,
and
want
to
have
active
influence
over
a
delegate,
I'm
much
better
served
by
directly
delegating
to
them
rather
than
having
to
do
this,
you
know,
like
five
maker
holders
pull
their.
You
have
like
a
dowel
that
runs
a
pooled
set
of
maker
and
instructs
delegates
on
that
behalf.
So
I
don't
really
see
an
equilibrium
where
significant
amounts
of
maker
are
put
on
delegates
through
the
cvcs,
because,
if
you're
a
large
maker
holder,
why
would
you
want
to
share
your
Maker's
influence
with
other
people,
so
I
I
I?
F
Don't
think
this
system's
going
to
carry
you
to
like
the
distance
here,
but
it
because
it
seems
like
it
will
ultimately
devolve
back
into
the
system
we
have
now,
except
with
lots,
more
bureaucracy
and
paperwork,
because
people
have
to
make
up
these
plate
holders.
Cvcs
and
I.
Don't
know,
pay
someone
500
bucks
a
month
to
hold
meetings
and
take
the
notes
and
do
the
transactions
online
and
maintain
a
forum
or
whatever
I
mean
I.
Think
I.
B
B
They
can
like
I
mean
they
can
basically
do
whatever
they
want
right.
They
can
interact
direct
smart
contracts,
but
the
whole
system
I
mean
the
entire
endgame
plan.
Right
I
mean
the
reason
why
it's
called
in-game
is
because
it's
all
about
voter
incentives.
So
the
question
is,
you
know:
how
do
we
Implement
voter
incentives
and
then
how
do
we?
Basically?
What's
the
happy
path
for
someone
who's
just
coming
to
get
the
voter
incentives
and
that's
basically
what
the
CDC
is
all
about
right?
They
sort
of
regularly
control
this,
which
is
ultimately
I
mean.
B
B
B
You
know
just
like
vote
whatever
they
want
for
a
delegate
that
you
know
is
able
to
to
like
that
is
yeah.
Actually
another
thing
about
it
like
you
can
always
get
paid,
actually
I'm
kind
of
conflating
these
two
things
right.
So
it's
like
it's
more
like
if
you,
if
you
don't
have
CBC
support,
then
you
know
show
up
at
the
top
of
the
front
end
right,
but
you
can
actually
always
if
you
like,
and
and
then,
if
with
World
incentives.
B
In
the
end,
you,
this
family
tag
will
always
be
a
problem,
but
it's
like
it's
going
to
be
like
you
can't
really
get
money
out
of
doing
the
spam
attack
because
of
the
way
the
you
know,
it's
the
high
like
it's
not
like
it
doesn't
matter.
If
you
have
10
000
delegates
that
all
have
a
little
bit
of
NPR,
because
on
average
it's
always
your
delegate
yourself
at
the
top
of
the
of
the
list
right.
F
I
I
think
I
think
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
this
this
doesn't
seem
like,
because
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
how
much
maker
you've
got
that
influences
the
outcome
of
a
vote.
I
guess
my
point
is
that
this
adds
an
extra
layer
of
bureaucracy
and
Technical
friction
and
social
friction
that
I
mean.
So,
let's
look
at
the
existing
delegation
system.
That's
taken
us
nearly
two
years
to
get
this
far
right
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
F
There
are
I
think
four
institutions
that
that
have
managed
to
use
this
system.
There
used
to
be
a
fifth
a
long
time
ago
that
no
longer
uses
it,
but
like
this
is
like
almost
two
years
in
or
a
year,
let's
call
it
a
year
and
a
half
in,
and
so
now
we're
going
to
switch
it
up
and
have
there
require,
like
on-chain
transactions.
F
If
you
want
to
be
part
of
the
CVC,
if
you're
not
part
of
a
CVC,
nobody
who
gets
maker
from
a
CVC
is
allowed
to
talk
to
you,
because
constitutional
delegates
are
prohibited
from
talking
to
anyone,
except
for
cvcs,
because
they
can't
talk
to
counterparties
or
ecosystem
participants,
which
seems
like
it's
facilitators.
Other
delegates
so
like
you're,
you're,
fragmenting
the
the
communication
and
coordination
abilities
of
everyone
else,
so
yeah
I
like
this.
F
This
is
very
concerning
to
others
right,
because
right
now
you
can
put
together
a
combination
of
you
know:
five,
six,
seven
entities
that
want
something
different
from
you
personally
right,
but
that
becomes
much
harder
right.
Particularly
since
you
know
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
you
know,
most
most
large
maker
holders
that
have
a
chance
to
oppose
you
on
a
specific
vote.
You
know
they
have
other
obligations
right,
so
maybe
they're
registered
investment
advisors,
and
so
their
maker
has
to
stay
with
a
custodian.
F
So
it's
very
difficult
for
them
already
to
interact
with
governance,
or
maybe
they
have
their
legal
strategies
suggests
that
they
should
not
vote
directly
or
that
they
should
only
vote
directly
or
like
there's.
There's
a
wide
stakeholder
base
here,
not
everyone
can
just
move
around
their
maker
or
show
up
at
cvcs.
F
My
point
is
that
that
that
adding
all
this
extra
complexity
makes
it
much
more
likely
in
the
view
of
some
people,
that
you
will
be
able
to
personally
solidify
your
control
over
maker,
and
the
last
few
weeks
is
like
not
done
anything
to
dispel
that
that
worry
and
I
think
yeah
and
a
lot
of
it
comes
back
to
the
CVC
design,
and
my
original
point
was
I.
Don't
really
see
that
it's
necessary
because
it
doesn't
seem
like
it
does
much.
B
Yeah
I
mean
okay,
so,
first
of
all,
everything
like
everything
that
currently
Works
will
continue
to
work.
So
the
contracts
will
continue.
It's
the
same
contracts
right
and
you
don't
have
to
use
the
Sagittarius
engine
to
delegate
you
know
the
advanced
voting
front
end
will
still
exist
in
some
form
right.
If
you
want
to
like
build
directly,
you
can
do
that.
All
this
stuff
will
still
work.
B
B
You
know
politician
bureaucrat
to
basically
organize
to
get
something
done
right,
and
if
you
want
that,
then
you
have
to
do
it
in
public.
That's
basically
the
requirement
right
because,
of
course,
the
incentive
is
that
politician
bureaucrats
they
want
to
create
as
much
I
mean
if
you
just
let
them
you
know
like
maximize
for
their
own
incentives,
then
it's
you
know.
Well,
then
we
see
what
happens
right
and
and
that's.
F
Exactly
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
the
counter
to
that
would
be
that
your
own
representatives
are
going
to
be
subsidized
out
of
the
pockets
of
all
maker
holders,
but
other
maker
holders
are
not
allowed
an
even
playing
field
for
their
representatives
to
be
paid
by
the
protocol
right
and
so
that's
going
to
leave
them
with
people
that
either
can't
or
won't
represent
their
interests
or
do
the
work
of
like,
like
the
like.
Just
the
little
details.
F
Right,
like
you
know,
oh
suspicious
transaction
of
400,
000
dialogue,
that's
not
like
material
in
and
of
itself,
but
it
could
be.
You
know
some
thread
that
leads
to
bigger
problems
like
and
maker.
As
you
pointed
out
just
so
complex
it
it.
You
have
to
have
someone
watching
it,
or
else
some
piece
will
move
and
you're
you're
caught
offsides
I
mean-
and
you
know,
maker
has
become
a
bit
known
for
these
kind
of
whipsaw
things
like
the
gusd
vote.
F
F
The
problem
is
and
I
get
that
you
trust
yourself
to
get
all
this
stuff
done,
but
you
also
have
to
understand
that
just
like
you,
don't
trust
other
people,
they
don't
necessarily
trust
you
to
be
in
a
position
where
you
pull
up
the
ladder
behind
you
and
close
the
doors,
and
that's
that's
a
lot
of
the
concern
as
opposed
to
well.
We
don't
like
this
piece
or
this
piece.
So,
let's,
let's
like
try
to
amend
individual
pieces
and
like
I
I,
just
like
I,
can't
lay
it
out
any
plainer
than
that.
F
Is
that
the
the
overarching
theme
you
know
this
is
there's
a
diverse
set
of
interests
that
are
that
are
are
unhappy
about
this
and
they
all
have
individual
things,
they're,
not
all
mostly
mad
about
the
same
thing.
So
but
it
looks
from
the
outside
looking
in
like
this
is
Rune
taking
personal
control
of
the
Dao
by
creating
organizational
complexity
that
they
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
keep
up
with
and
and
adding
extra
friction
when
it's
already
hard
to
get
them
to
participate.
B
F
F
This
is
how
it's
going
to
be,
and
they
assume
not
without
reason
that,
because
that
eventually
it'll
come
up
for
a
vote
and
be
authorized,
but
that's
not
always
the
case,
and
sometimes
just
everyone's
caught
offsides
right
I,
so
I
I
feel
like
if,
if
your
concern
is
back
channeling
or
bad
delegates,
like
you
have
the
maker
like
this
was.
This
is
all
like
it's.
These
are
not
things
that
you
have
to
institutionalize
your
own
personal
control
by
changing
by
completely
deprecating
governance
and
setting
up
a
whole
new
thing
that
maybe
it'll
work.
F
B
You
keep
going
back
to
this
right
because
and
I
understand
that
in
your
world
it
should
be
the
delegates
to
run
the
thing
or
something
like
that
right
and
it's
all
about.
Oh,
we
just
got
to
find
the
right
Dillards
right,
but
again
it's
like
I
mean
it's
just
not
possible
for
me
to
like
pull
out
and
just
let
the
thing
Float
by
itself.
B
B
Basically,
but
it's
it's
really
I
mean
it's
like
the
the
only
sort
of
what
you
call
it
not
sort
of
directly
malicious
or
directly
I
mean
well,
not
malicious,
but
like
damaging
way
for
me
to
have
a
chance
to
to
step
out
of
the
project
right,
there's
simply
no
other
way
like
I
can't
leave
it.
We
can't
just
find
the
right
delegates
and
leave
it
to
the
delegates,
because
it
doesn't
work.
It's
a
complete
disaster
right
I
mean
there's.
B
So
many
examples
of
like
basic
stuff,
that
is,
that
simply
cannot
happen
by
itself
through
the
free
market
or
whatever,
through
picking
the
right
delegates
or
something
and
it,
and
it
also
makes
sense
why
that's
not
the
case
right,
because
the
system
is
so
complicated.
There
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
instruction
set.
Basically
right,
like
a
guidebook
of
how
to
do
it.
F
I
think
conceptually
it's
a
strong
point,
so
I
think
conceptually
that's
a
strong
point.
Unfortunately,
that's
not
that
doesn't
match
the
documentation.
That's
come
before
us,
which
is
you
pulling
out
specific
parameters
that
seem
like
they've,
not
received
much
input
from
other
people
like
you
know
so.
E
B
B
Well,
there's
maybe
102,
which
can
update
and
change
anything,
and
this
is
again
constantly
reiterate
right.
I
mean
I've
spent
a
year
describing
this
in
painstaking
detail
over
and
over
and
over
and
over
and
over
again
right
and
then
so.
What
you're
basically
saying
is:
there's
a
bunch
of
VCS
that
through
you,
because
of
course,
you're
telling
them
what
you
want
to
tell
them
have
misunderstood
whether
they
can
change
some
placeholder
parameters
in
these.
You
know
skeleton
drafts
right
as
a
constantly
described.
They
are
right,
which
I
mean
it's
it's
written.
B
F
So
so
these
are
not
placeholders,
though
they
have
real
effects
on
business
relationships,
as
well
as
the
health
of
the
protocol.
Right
so
like
is
it
a
placeholder
to
just
say
access
your
debts
feeling
is
now
zero?
Is
it?
Is
it
a
placeholder
to
say,
hey,
we're
going
to
fund
and
authorize
a
new,
a
fork
of
Ave
and
it's
gonna
get
this
much
funding
and
PE
is
going
to
direct
some
portion
of
its
resources
to
it
like
every
single
one
of
these
should
be
their
own
discussion.
F
F
Perhaps
you
tried
to
put
a
level
of
detail
into
most
of
these
documents
that
spook
a
lot
of
people
right
and
then
you
yeah
from
your
view,
they're
placed
holders
from
your
view,
they're
placeholders,
but
if
you
don't
have
confidence
that
you
can
go
in
and
change
some
of
these
things
and
some
of
them
if
they
are
enacted
like
okay,
well,
we'll
change
them
in
30
days
is
not
going
to
be
good
enough
right,
like
I
I
like
they're,
not
placeholders,
I,
guess
that's
my
point.
Yeah.
B
Yeah
I
mean
they
are
because
they
can
be
changed
right
and
it's
like
there's
a
process
to
change
them.
Something,
like
all
I
mean
well
every
single
one
of
the
ecosystem
actors
and
they
get
their
own
individual
vote
right
and
then
also
again,
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
just
like.
There
comes
a
point
where,
like
there's
just
like,
if.
F
There's
an
individual
vote:
can
you
can
you
can
you?
What
are
we
talking
about
here
because
it
looks
like
things
like
Viridian,
for
instance,
gets
a
bunch
of
money.
We
actually
just
had
a
vote
on
that
and
we
said
no,
but
it's
that
doesn't
look
like
it's
getting
a
separate
mode.
Are
there
other
ones.
B
F
B
B
B
Mean
when
you
have
examples
of
you
know,
any
of
these
immediate
payouts
are
all
dependent
on
this
governance.
Pull
individual
companies
pull
passing,
so
all
of
that
stuff
does
go
up
to
anybody
book,
but
then
I
mean
regardless.
It's
of
course,
I.
Think
it's
pretty
obvious
that
if
somebody
wants
to
like
it's,
it's
completely
sort
of
incoherent
that
you
know
there
will
be
people
who
are.
B
B
Haven't
been
able
to
really
kind
of
you
know,
and
you
know
so,
innovate
with
with
the
the
the
times
of
where
the
market
is
going
right
again
because
of
this
monolithic,
top-down
thing,
where
no
one's
actually
participating
so
ultimate
is
super
important
to
to
as
I
see
it
right
like
it's,
it
would
be
unsafe
to
like
lock
down
all
functionality.
I
mean
it's
still
more
safe
to
like
not
log
it
down,
because
then
you're
just
guaranteed
to
die
right.
B
We
have
a.
We
have
a
potential
to
to
have
like
to
to
develop
that
Talent
out
of
what
we've
got
in
the
core
units
now,
and
maybe
some
of
them
won't
work
out
right
and
and
initially
it
is
kind
of
a
political
decision
right,
there's
like
an
individual
vote
and
then
careless
get
to
micromanage
and
hopefully,
from
my
perspective,
MPS
will
just
approve
every
single
one.
B
In
sort
of
you
know,
shaving
the
plan,
but
then
try
to
micromanage
something
someone
something
along
the
lines
of
which,
which
thing
should
we
incubate
or
something
like
that
anyway,
but
but
like
in
the
end,
even
if
something
is
is
approved
through
the
ecosystem,
scope
and
you
have
these
sub-dial
focused
ecosystem
actors
that
are
incubated
to
eventually
get
adopted
by
by
sub-dials
right.
We're
still
not
really
putting
that
much
money
on
the
line,
because
the
point
is
to
transition
over
to
this
kpi
Focus.
B
You
know
project-based
funding,
which
is
where
all
of
the
Scopes
are
trying
to
go
right,
where
it
really
is
like
specify
kpis
rather
than
politically
a
point
company,
a
or
Company
B,
or
something
like
that
and
and
yeah
then
basically
figure
out
see
whether
the
the
the
kpis
are
met
right
and
then
see.
If
there's
someone
else
who
are
better
at
doing
it.
E
We've
been
repeating
this
forever
that
there's
like
the
rise
of
the
bureaucrats,
where
it's
just
people
that
are
that
are
yeah,
maintaining
the
the
their
their
position.
Instead
of
of
trying
to
make
things
better-
and
that's
of
course,
my
personal
opinion,
so
and
and
then
there's
a
lot
of
these
first
of
all,
there's
this
argument
that
I
hit
that
I
hate
that
it's
like.
Oh
there's,
a
the
other
people
are
doing
it
worse.
So
I'm
fine
and
you
kind
of
fall
into
this
slippery
slope
of
because
I'm
not
the
worst.
E
There
should
be
rules
and
then
there's
no
one
accountable
for
for
making
those
rules.
You
ask
a
delegate
what
the
responsibilities
are
and
they
they
can
barely
agree
among
themselves
and
who
are
you
going
to
blame?
Go
Alpha
for
not
setting
up
like
a
higher
bar
I.
Think
that
the
Assumption,
when
we
designed
this
system,
was
that
good
people
are
going
to
come,
take
over
start
building
rules
and
make
this
beautiful
thing
happen
and
that
never
happened.
We
got
the
opposite.
We
got
people
that
just
come.
E
D
E
Malicious
and
everyone's
just
trying
to
preserve
their
position
once
that
you
get
there.
You
get
this
other
side
that
it's
like
okay,
why
are
they
trying
to
stop
any
change?
It's
it's.
Maybe
because
they
just
want
to
preserve
their
position
and
of
course
you
would
try
to
block
it.
So
maybe
you're
not
and
and
your
intentions
are
good,
but
for
anyone
that's
too
tired
and
that
has
been
watching
maker
for
the
last
two
years,
maybe
a
little
bit
less.
That's
a
bit
the
feeling
it's
like.
E
Okay,
these
guys
are
still
stopping
any
type
of
change.
We
haven't
seen
any
real
alternative
and
and
yeah.
That's
that's
really
the
the
way
we're
seeing
it
and
just
to
close
on
that
I
I.
Think
that
end
game
in
a
way
it
is
relatively
hard
to
understand,
but
but
not
really
right,
like
when
I
first
learned
about
maker
I
was
like:
what's
you
over
characterize
and
you
get
liquidated
and
how
does
it
work?
E
We
are
trying
to
make
things
I,
don't
know
more
accessible,
but
the
premise
and
I
think
that's
also
key.
Is
that
not
everyone
needs
to
understand
everything
like
you,
don't
know
exactly
how
Google
works
and
you're
still
able
to
interact
with
that
company.
So
that's
a
bit
the
focus
now
right.
It's
like
okay,
if
you're
in
this
position-
or
you
would
like
to
get
this,
how
would
you
do
it
and
I
think?
E
E
The
answer
is
maybe
or
maybe
not,
but
right
now,
not
even
delegates,
which
are
not
that
many
can
agree
on
that,
let
alone
the
whole
community.
So
so
that's
a
bit
my
my
side
on
how
I
see
things
and
how
for
me,
if
we
don't
do
endgame
he's
like
what
is
it
we
just
slowly
watchmaker
die
and
and
that's
something
that
I
would
not
like
to
to
see
happening.
D
D
B
Yeah
so
there's
this
thing:
I'm
like
the
cbc's
and
honesty
and
and
corruption
is
unaware.
So
just
the
first
thing
I
want
to
say
is
like
it's,
so
we
always
end
up
in
like
like
and
I
especially
end
up
talking
a
lot
about
like
everyone's
corrupt,
everyone's
malicious
and,
of
course
it's
like
it's
really
the
wrong
way
to
frame
it
because,
first
of
all,
it's
not
true
and
and
secondly,
it's
also
going
to
be
like
a
self-fulfilling
prophecy,
if
we're
always
sort
of
talking
in
those
terms
right.
B
But
it's
more
like
that,
like
in
sort
of
with
the
in-game
mindset.
Right
with
this
is
the
permanent
thing
that
we
we
basically
cannot
change
at
all,
or
at
least
not
very
much,
and
then
we
want
it
to
last.
For
you
know,
potentially
thousands
of
years
we
have
to
assume,
just
like
you
do
with
blockchains
that
eventually
there
will
be
malicious
actors
right.
There
will
be
any
type
of
sort
of
weakness
that
exists
in
the
system
will
eventually
be
exploited,
just
like
a
smart
contract
right.
B
To
to
like
the
sooner
or
later
will
result
in
a
vulnerability
right
of
sort
of
attended
a
taxi
into
the
system
right
and
so
the
whole
point
is
to
kind
of
do
two
things
right.
So
the
first
thing
is
to
kind
of
pull
the
teeth
out
of
the
the
the
bad
incentives
right.
So
so,
basically
you
wanna.
We
wanna
try
to
make
it
so
that,
even
if
you
know
cogginess
or
ecosystem
actor
or
delegate
anyone
right,
even
if
they're
like
100
selfish,
absolutely
do
not
care
at
all
about
the
project.
B
The
only
thing
you
care
about
is
making
themselves
as
much
money
as
possible.
If
we
make
the
rules
good
enough,
basically
they're
well
designed
enough,
then
the
way
they're
going
to
be
able
to
make
the
most
money
will
be
by
just
like
following
the
rules
and
basically
participating
in
in
the
system
in
a
way
that's
going
to
generate
value
for
the
system
and
for
for
like
an
ecosystem
actor
like
the
best
example
of
this
is
like
kpis
right
and
like
self
like
yeah.
B
Well,
kbi
is
first
of
all,
and
you
know
really
like
having
just
basic
mechanism
of
like
this
is
what
needs
to
be
delivered,
so
you
get
paid.
If
you
don't
deliver
it,
you
don't
get
paid
and
then
we
really
meticulously
specifying
what
exactly
that
means
using.
You
know
AI,
to
generate
thousands
of
examples
and
filters
through
all
those
examples,
to
figure
out
exactly
what
are
the
ones
that
really
sort
of
determine.
B
So
that's
like
the
that's
on
the
kind
of
like
try
to
basically
make
the
the
misalignment
damage
potential
lower
right.
So
it's
a
lot
less
like
it's
a
lot
harder
and
near
impossible
to
go
onto
the
radar
with
them
when
someone's
misaligned
and
you
know
only
care
about
themselves,
only
care
about
making
money
and
really
don't
care
if
their
pursuit
of
money
is
going
to
damage
the
doubt
right
and
then
on.
B
Watch
them
then,
of
course,
they're
not
going
to
work
right
eventually,
and
so
that's
the
CBC,
like
that's
the
cvcs
right,
that's
a
Sagittarius
engine
which
gives
all
these
incentives
for
being
locked
into
the
system
and
and
basically
really
getting
skin
in
the
game
in
a
way
that
goes
beyond
just
holding
the
token.
And
then
the
cbcs
is
like
I
mean
you
get
a
tiny
incentive
to
participate.
But,
more
importantly,
you
get
all
this
sort
of
the
resources
of
the
system
at
your
disposal,
in
particular
the
delegates
and
the
advisory
councils.
B
And
then
it's
the
the
purpose
system,
essentially
right
that
this
measure
itself
becomes
more
about
more
than
about
just
making
money
and
has
some
kind
of
public
good
purpose.
That
should
then
actually
I
mean.
Basically
you
you
have
you'd,
have
sort
of
altruists
be
willing
to,
even
if
they
don't
care
about
the
compensation
of
the
cvcs.
There
should
be
people
willing
to
protect
the
system
because
of
its
ability
to
do
good.
B
Basically,
when
it,
when
it's
able
to
generate
money
right
and
that's
kind
of
what
it's
all
about,
is
like
trying
to
align
the
kind
of
The
Selfish
desire
to
make
money
with
the
kind
of
selfless
desire
to
like
make
the
dial
work
for
everyone
and
then
also
more
broadly
and
they're,
just
basically
connected
right
that
you
have
to.
You
have
to
be
willing
to
make
the
dial
work
for
everyone,
not
just
yourself,
and
the
way
you
kind
of
create.
B
B
D
Yeah
I
mean
I,
think
the
other
points
I
haven't
gonna,
take
too
long
to
discuss
so
one
of
the
next
one's.
My
list
is
sort
of
sort
of
multi-pronged
concern,
I,
guess
around
sort
of
like
kind
of
just
like
volume
of
personnel
sort
of
tied
in
with,
like
reputed
like
the
reputation
of
like
the
Dao,
which
also
kind
of
ties
into
like
adoption
of
like
some
of
these
products,
we're
discussing
like
soft
articles,
Etc,
which
I
think
I
have
mentioned
before,
but
I'll
sort
of
get
through
it
again.
D
I,
guess
is
the
best
way
to
say
it
or
perhaps
like
it's,
maybe
it's
more
accurate
to
say,
like
it's
kind
of
divided
right,
there's
some
people,
you
think
make
is
sort
of
trash
and
others
that
sort
of
kind
of
well
I
did
in
my
eyes,
I
recognize
that
it's
you
know,
sort
of
super
valuable
and
things
right,
but
I
guess
I'm.
Just
like
you
know,
I'm,
not
sure.
D
We
should
be
confident
that
we're
going
to
get
like
skilled
applicants
to
like
do
all
these
things,
that
we
need
to
do
right
in
the
various
various
slots.
That
sort
of
end
game
defines
and
then,
like
turn
into
that,
like
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
should
be
confident
that
subdial
tokens
are
going
to
be
seen
as
like
valuable
right
like
if
yeah.
If
a
project
you
think
is
trash,
is
sort
of
releasing
a
new
token
like
which
is
essentially
what
subjects
are
like.
Do
you
care?
D
Maybe
you
can,
if
you
can
make
money,
but
like
you're,
probably
not
going
to
keep
it
so
like
I
mean
I,
know,
I
mean
Perhaps
Perhaps.
This
is
going
to
be
rectified
by,
like
the
you
know,
the
purpose
engine
stuff
right
and
sort
of
trying
to
attract
sort
of
more
altruistic
activists
right,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
anything
specifically,
we
should
be
doing
or,
like
start
doing,
to
sort
of
Rectify
those
things
explicitly
like
you
know
like.
Should
we
specifically
with
like
the
roles
like?
D
Should
we
sort
of
trying
to
Define
them
more
clearly
right
start
making
like
essentially
job
descriptions
for
these
things
that
are
going
to
happen
in
the
game
and
sort
of
start
like
making
clear
what
we
need
you
know,
should
we
sort
of
be
attempting
to
work
more
actively
with,
like
you
know,
other
protocols,
like
other
actors
in
the
ecosystem,
right
in
the
attempt
to
sort
of
improve
our
standing?
Some
like
I,
don't
know
yeah.
B
Yeah
I
mean
so
well
so
I
agree
on
sort
of
the
reputation.
Part
right
and
I
I'm
kind
of
I
mean
it
sort
of
trace
this
all
the
way
back
to
well
I
guess
actually
black
Thursday
right,
but
then
also
just
the
foundation
dissolving,
and
the
maker
kind
of
you
know
like,
unlike
other
dials,
that
just
hide
how
it
looks
right.
So
nobody
sees
how
the
sauce
is
just
made.
B
We
actually
put
it
on
full
display
just
how
like
hilariously
bad
sort
of
proto-dials
in
the
kind
of
the
the
the
the
kind
of
the
old
generation
right.
How
how
it
just
doesn't
work
currently-
and
it's
just
I
mean
the
thing-
is
every
there's,
no
one
else
ever
like
we're
still
the
best
right.
Everyone,
the
whole
industry
is
a
joke.
That's
basically
the
thing
right
and
then
the
big
difference
is
most
others
are
like
playing
under
the
assumption
that
it
really
is
just
a
joke
and
you
actually
cannot
really
create
real
value.
B
So
it
is
just
about
who
does
the
most
psyops
and
so
on
right
and
then,
of
course,
we
being
the
naive
idealists,
end
up
being
sort
of
a
get
there
like
sort
of
always
a
step
behind
that
right
and,
like
ultimately,
I
think
we
need
to
actually
Rebrand
and,
like
I,
think,
there's
a
bunch
of
other
like
fundamental
problems
with
our
brand.
That
really
ties
all
the
way
back
to
how
it
was
designed,
which
was
basically,
you
know,
wasn't
really
designed
at
all
and
just.
B
Randomly
ages
ago,
right,
but
then
I
think
actually
from
there
it's
like
much
less
about
like
there's
kind
of
branding
and
then
there's
like
Marketing
in
kind
of
the
the
I
mean
I,
guess
more,
the
classical
sense
of
how
you
would
normally
do
magazine
not
like
crypto
marketing
as
much
like
I,
think
I
think.
The
reason
why
you're
seeing
like
crypto
marketing
feels
different
than
how
marketing
is
usually
done
in
the
real
world.
B
B
But
anyway
my
point
is
beyond
that:
I
mean
it's
absolutely
important:
to
invest
a
lot
in
in
marketing,
I,
think
right
and
but
they
basically
I.
Think
beyond
that.
It's
a
matter
of
focusing
kind
of
on
the
on
the
fundamentals
of
like
you
know
ensuring
that
we
we
make
as
much
money
as
we
possibly
can.
Now,
while
the
you
know,
we
have
a
huge
potential
to
generate
yield
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
like
getting
people
to
do
the
work,
it's
a
lot
less
about
inspiring
people
to
do
the
work.
B
B
B
B
I
mean
we're
we're
dealing
with
it
right
now
with
like
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
like
equalize
mkr
for
all
the
different
people
sort
of
how
would
they?
How
would
it
fit
into
the
new
framework?
And
it's
like
it's
a
the
budgets
and
compensation
in
a
dial
is
an
unbelievable
disaster
like
how
it
currently
works.
It's
just
like
yeah,
it's
it's
kind
of
crazy.
How
how
difficult
and
and
impossible
to
make
to
make
work.
It
is
as
I
see
it
right.
B
F
So
now
that
we're
talking
about
economics
and
and
finances,
maybe
we
could
move
the
conversation
to
to
dilution
and
the
fact
that
and
that
the
not
in
the
Constitution,
but
in
other
in-game
documentations,
suggesting
that
devaluation
of
diet
should
occur.
I'll,
let
you
take
your
pick,
which
one
you
prefer
to
talk
about.
First.
B
Yeah
so
for
me,
first
I
just
want
to
talk
about
getting
the
I
mean,
because
what
you
were
also
talking
about
long
was
I
mean.
Basically,
how
do
we
get
people
to
I
guess
again,
like
CBC,
join,
cbcs,
right
and
and
basically
that
the
best
answer
currently
is
I
mean
security
and
the
purpose
system
and
people
who
you
know
say
regenerative
Finance
want
to
join
because
then,
if
they
can
make
a
system
work,
then
they
get
to
to.
B
If
the
tools
are
I
mean
very
well
made
and
they're
right
in
your
face
and
you've
got
AI
tools
and
all
that
stuff,
it
might
get
easier
to
make
the
jump
into
participating
in
the
CBC
right
and
then
very
well
is
we're
just
gonna
pay
pay
the
price.
Basically
yeah
I
mean
let's
talk
about
sometimes
because
then
we'll
also
get
into
the
whole
emissions
and
how
all
of
it
stuff
sort
of
ties
together
right
well,.
F
B
Yeah
we
I
mean,
and
that's
the
CBC
that
you're
just
talking
about
right.
So
this
is
basically
it's
basically
that
we
gotta
have
we.
We
have
to
maintain
sort
of
a
public
good
purpose
for
governance,
to
kind
of
function
right,
because
if
you
don't
have
that
then
like
you
basically
cannot
have
a
Dao
hold
itself
together
through
selfish
pursuit
of
self-enrichment.
B
B
B
You
know
we
could
everything
could
be
so
simple
early
on
with
maker
right,
and
then
we
had
to
kind
of
change
it
later
right.
Well,
okay,
so
there's
kind
of
two
there's,
there's
kind
of
two
things
to
it
right,
and
so
one
thing
of
course,
is
this
like
just
like
the
reality
that
you
can't
sort
of
you
know
you
can't
like
automate
like
well,
there's
no
like
there's
just
not
in
like
you
can't
get
people
to
to
collateralize
with
with
eth,
for
instance,
or
even
stake
teeth
right.
B
It
just
doesn't
work
right
and
so
the
whole
kind
of
decentralized
collateral
element
and
the
kind
of
this
like
self-running
thing
with
no
humans
involved
whatsoever.
It's
just
like
it.
It
like
it
just
turns
out
that
that's
not
possible
all
right.
It
looks
very
look.
It's
right,
it
looks
like
right
looks
like
Rife
if
they
use
sticky
and
that's
one
piece
to
it
right
and
then
I
guess.
B
The
other
thing
is
just
it's
kind
of
like
the
same:
it's
like
the
Bitcoin,
almost
I,
don't
have
to
call
it
like
the
the
libertarian
extremist
overconfidence
and
like
the
the
nature
of
of
the
free
market
and
human
kind,
or
something
right,
and
what
that
really
comes
back
to
in
the
end
is
like
emergency
shutdown.
Basically,
then,
the
mechanism
of
emergency
shutdown
was
this
like
ultimate
thing
that
we
had
like.
B
Oh,
this
is
going
to
be
the
thing
that's
going
to
prevent
the
system
from
going
bad
right,
because
I
mean
me
and
Nikolai
and
a
lot
of
the
other
ogs
right.
We
were
all
like
convinced
that
of
we're
so
ideologically
driven
we're
just
in
this
crypto
stuff.
Just
because
we
you
know,
we
just
want
to
help
the
world
right.
So,
of
course
we're
going
to
like
should
burn
the
burn.
The
thing
down
and
and
the
whole
Community
will
come
together
to
rebuild
it.
B
If
something
malicious
happens
right-
and
this
is
just
not
it's
just
not
true
right-
nobody
would
ever
use
emergency
shutdown
for
anything
other
than
like
a
complete
theft
of
all
the
funds.
So
it
would
never.
It
would
never
function
as
sort
of
a
political
tool
that
will
prevent
things
going
bad,
basically,
because
you
just
you
just
sell
and
and
wash
your
hands
from
it
and
and
I
mean
even
now,
I
mean
I
still,
wouldn't
even
if
it
ends
up
becoming
some
kind
of
evil
paper
clip
maximizing.
B
G
F
Does
this
need
a
public
good
thing,
though
I
I
I?
Just
just
so,
we
can
stay
on
on
that.
Like
makers,
a
piece
of
software
maker
Dao,
it's
supposed
to
be
a
group
of
people
that
work
on
that
upgrade
and
work
on
and
around
that
piece
of
software
like
I.
Don't
know
that
that
in
that
piece
of
software,
creates
dollar
proxies
for
people
that
don't
have
access
to
Dollars,
like
that's.
F
But
that's
not
like
that's
I
I,
think
that's
a
different
vision
of
maker
and
I
I.
Don't
think
it's
the
right
path!
I
think
I
mean
all
of
this
in-game
stuff,
very
little
of
it's
about
growing
dye.
Supply
right,
like
like
okay,
like
I,
think
we
can
all
agree
that
parking
access,
stable
coin
reserves
and
t-bills
is
conceptually
a
great
idea
but
like
making
you
know
these
things
like
a
primary
focus
that
doesn't
grow,
die
Supply
right
that
doesn't
you
know
that?
Doesn't
that
doesn't
get
back
to
that?
F
G
B
B
Loft
of
Dallas
is
a
million
right,
but
so
it
basically
is
that
if
you
have
a
couple
of
people
working
on
a
project
to
upgrade
it
and
whatever
that's
not
actually
what
they're
doing
like
do
you
have
people
working
to
make
money?
That's
what
like?
That's
what
you
do
when
you
work
work,
so
you
can
make
money
ultimately
right
and
then
you
can
sort
of.
B
When
you
work
right,
I
mean
on
average,
that's
just
human
nature
right,
then
you're
not
going
to
have
that
anymore
right,
I
mean
nobody's
gonna
you're,
not
gonna.
Have
some
person
feel
like
they're
they're,
contributing
to
to
Financial
inclusion
or
something,
if
they're
surrounded
by
people
that
are
just
figuring
out
how
they
can
make
the
most
money?
Maybe
that
turns
out
to
be
banking,
North,
Korea
or
something
right
and
then
right,
I
mean
you're,
not
gonna
get
the
good
people
that
that
actually
like
our
line
with
the
Dow
at
all.
B
If
you
have
that
approach
right
and
I
mean
the
same
kind
of
people
who
will
want
to
who
will
want
to
try
to
to
maximize
the
money
they
can
make
from
banking,
North
Korea
they're
also
going
to
take
all
the
collateral
if
they
can
get
away
with
it.
Right
like
it
would
be
the
exact
same
sort
of
approach,
which
is
maximize
value,
which
is
actually
the
most
sort
of
simple
and
logical
way
to
work
in.
B
You
know
that
and
the
reason
why
it's
called
crypto
economics
right
is
because
of
this:
how
human
behavior
changes
once
you
got
cryptography
right,
you
got
real
kind
of
impenetrable
privacy
right,
that's
basically
sort
of
the!
Why
it
all
it
gets
to
this
like
extreme
adversarial,
Game
Theory
right
so.
G
How
like
donating
maker,
would
stop
that,
like
most
companies
donate
money,
plenty
of
companies
donate
stock,
Amazon
Exxon
are
those
like
public
goods
companies
because
they
donate
to
Charities.
Is
that
why
do
they
attract
you
know?
Do
you
think
Exxon
Mobil
has
like
an
altruistic
Workforce,
because
they
might
donate
money
to
charity.
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
that.
B
G
B
Oh
well,
I
mean
look
if
some
public
company
came
out
and
gave
two
percent
of
their
stock
to
charity.
That
would
be
an
objectively
good
thing.
I
mean
I,
don't
see
how
you
could
possibly
argue,
that's
not
the
case,
but
they
don't
do
that.
Of
course,
right
I
mean
when,
like
I've,
actually
looked
this
up
to
sort
of
set
the
variables
right.
B
Don't
know
freaking
word,
then
that's
charity
and
I
mean
as
soon
as
you
do
something
on
that
right
as
soon
as
you're,
like
being
dishonest
about
you
know,
you're
transforming
it
from
we're
trying
to
do
something
positive
into
we're,
trying
to
produce
a
number
that
we
can
use
to
to
Market
ourselves.
Basically,
I
mean
that
like
yeah,
that's
that's
just
like
that's
bad
and
that's
basically
like
that's
what
I
would
call
misalignment.
Ultimately
right.
That's
exactly
the
same
thing:
that's
going
to
cost
you
to
like
Bank
North
Korea.
G
B
B
It
really
is
just
like
the
the
you
know:
it's
the
end
game
or
the
the
long-term
view
of
how
to
actually
maximize
profits
right,
so
that's
I
mean
when
Microsoft
they're,
like
scamming,
the
sort
of
I
mean
maybe
they're,
not
even
that
bad
compared
to
other
companies
are
way
worse
right,
but
in
the
end
it's
like
they're,
ultimately
not
like
absolutely
Microsoft.
Culture
would
be
better
if
they
weren't
I
mean
or
maybe-
or
maybe
it's
more
like
it's
a
it's.
B
A
it's
kind
of
you
know
is
an
expression
of
how
their
culture
is
bad,
that
they
sort
of
are
kind
of
scamming
and
inflating
the
amount
of
Charity
that
they
they
provide
right.
I!
Guess
it's!
Not
it's
not
such
a
bad
I
mean
it's
not
a
it's,
not
just
an
extreme
example,
but
it
I
mean
there's
so
many
greater
examples
of.
F
So
I
I
just
I
just
so
we
can
move
on
I,
I.
Think
I.
Think
this
the
the
lump
sum
20
000
like
it's,
it's
not
the
biggest
thing
in
the
world.
It's
I
think
it's
material,
but
two
points.
One
is
that
usually
donations
sizable
donations
are
made
after,
like
profitability
is
secure.
Second,
you
know,
there's
there's
a
a
lot
of
people
that
I
will
Express
their
views
for
them,
because
I
don't
feel
comfortable
expressing
it
themselves.
F
B
Know
we're
not
gonna
agree
on
it,
but
I
just
want
you
to
be
aware:
yeah,
yeah
and-
and
the
answer
is
why
don't
they
run
the
protocol
themselves
right?
Why
don't
they
because
I
mean
if
they
were
doing
that,
then
certainly
there
would
be
no
I
mean
they
could
probably
run
it
perfectly
and
they
could
make
it
super
profitable
and
prevent
all
corruption
from
occurring
in
the
workforce
and
they
wouldn't
have
to
donate
anything
to
charity.
B
I
mean
like
it's
yeah,
it's
I
mean
and-
and
it's
really
simple
to
put
it
like
the
way
it
could
actually
be
thought
of,
because
this
is
kind
of
the
whole
point
of
how
it
all
works
right.
It
really
does
in
some
sense
makes
sense
to
think
of
it
as
it's
my
piggy
bank
that
I
get
to
donate
or
something
like
that
right,
but.
F
I
mean
I,
think
people
are
tired
of
of
related
party
transactions
and
want
to
see
something.
That's
simpler,
like
I
said
like
get
back
to
the
core,
just
protocol
right
and
everything
else
around.
It
is
supporting
the
protocol
rather
than
like
driving
the
bus,
but
why
don't
we
move
on
to
like
the
the
60,
000
I?
Think
that's
the
number
you're
annually
now
for
for
sub-dial
admissions.
H
I
might
interrupt
you
just
because
I
really
don't
want
to
move
off
this
point
of
the
charity,
because
I
I
understand
kind
of
why
people
are
getting
stuck
on
that
debate
and
I
I
want
to
invite
a
broader
understanding
about
I've
interpreted
what's
there
and
what
the
opportunity
is.
That
I
think
is
really
exciting
and
I'll.
Try
and
organize
a
forum
post
about
this,
because
you
know
I
think
the
maker
Community,
especially
in
D5,
have
been
really
cut
off
from
some
of
the
most
dynamic
and
exciting
work.
H
That's
happening
in
crypto
period,
so
these
people
you're,
referring
to
paper
who
just
want
to
see
XYZ
I,
mean
I'm
not
yet
hearing
an
argument.
Why?
What
some
in
institutional
investors
personally
want
it
should
just
sort
of
carry
the
day
necessarily
especially
when
they
don't
articulate
their
views.
So
I'll
just
say
that,
but
but
on
the
point
of
Charity
and
public
good
I
invite
the
community
to
think
about
the
public
good
purpose
in
line
with
being
a
utility,
a
a
fundamental
infrastructure
that
everyone
can
benefit
by
right.
H
So
the
idea
of
a
public
goods
purpose
is
so
far
beyond
like
we're
just
gonna
donate
X
to
charity
like
if
that
were
the
only
thing
going
on.
This
would
be
uninteresting
and
you
know
really
shallow,
but
instead
you've
got
such
a
stack
of
beneficial
Dynamics
here,
but
I
won't
go
into
all
of
them.
We
talked
about
a
bunch
of
them
yesterday.
H
Can
do
it
a
gazillion
other
ways,
but
in
my
mind
the
real
money
is
going
to
be
when
maker,
Dow
and
a
maker
protocol
is
a
fundamental
and
die
as
a
byproduct
is
is,
is
just
considered
a
public
good
because
it's
used
everywhere,
it's
relied
upon
by
everyone,
and
that
means
that
what
a
couple
of
people
who
hold
a
bunch
of
mkr
as
an
investment
have
to
say
about
it,
is
really
limiting
the
potential
of
this
project
and
they're
limiting
their
own
profits.
Their
own
selfish
process
profits.
So
they
should
open
their
minds
to
I.
B
B
They
would
it
wouldn't
make
any
sense
to
have
it
there
because
yeah
it
would
be
way
more
effective
to
not
have
it
and
then
just
you
know,
have
mkr
be
way
more
valuable
and
then
just
donate
that
and
whatever
just
be
simpler
right,
but
again
it
goes
back
to
this
thing
of
like
well.
If
there's
no,
if
there's
no
charity
element
and
there's
no
fiduciary
duty
and
there's
no
actually
reason
for
anyone
to
participate
than
to
enrich
themselves,
then
it's
just
like,
like
there's
nothing
preventing
people
from
taking
bribes.
B
B
But
basically,
if
we
want
to
have
a
chance
of
like
building
up
this
ability
in
the
system,
in
particular
I
guess
through
the
sub-dials
right
for
for
people
to
actually
be
aligned
and
to
kind
of
like
have
this
spark,
that's
going
to
drive
them
to
do
something
more
than
just
try
to
extract
value
for
themselves
by
you
know,
maybe
in
the
best
case
scenario
like
optimizing,
Alm
or
something,
then
it's
going
to
be
needed
right
and
it
definitely
I
mean
again.
It's
like
there's
absolutely
again.
B
It's
like
there's
no
chance
that
that
I
would
work
on
the
project
if
I
thought
that
it
could
like
turn
bad
right.
If
I
didn't
think
that
I
had
put
in
the
necessary
mechanism
too.
Well,
first
of
all,
like
I,
don't
want
to
enrich
a
bunch
of
bureaucrats
and,
secondly,
I
don't
want
to
create
some
kind
of
bulwark
or
whatever
kind
of
you
know
so
exponentially
bad
Edge
case
you
can
have.
If
you
really
have
like
a
dial
turning
bad.
B
Like
often
doing,
charity
is
actually
like
a
sign
of
a
wrong
culture
right
because
your
core
product,
isn't,
you
know,
should
be
focusing
on
how
you
can
actually
make
a
difference
right,
but
again,
I'm
just
talking
about
why
that's
it's
different
when
you're
doing
currency,
which
is
a
little
bit,
not
your
average
startup
product
right
and
then
I'm,
I'm
sort
of
appealing
from
like
the
direct
sort
of
like
when
you
know,
corruption
is
a
kind
of
you
know.
Corruption
of
the
dial
is
legal
right
and
there's
no
fiduciary
duty.
F
B
Yeah
you're
someone
who
can
get
away
with
it
right,
you're,
someone,
anonymous
and
and
I
mean
that
changes.
If
major
is,
is
you
know
like
generating
public
good
right,
because
now
you're,
like
humming
the
world
and
you're
you're,
sort
of
you're
you're
doing
something:
that's
net
bad.
But
if,
like
there's,
no
difference
from
like
having
a
system,
that's
just
sort
of
maximally,
you
know
profit
Max
like
well
whatever
right.
B
It's
profit
maximizing
because
there's
a
bunch
of
people
sitting
there
making
a
bunch
of
money
and
you
can
go
where
you
can
take
some
of
that
money
from
them
and
like
this
really
I
mean
they
should
they
should
have
figured
that
out
right.
They
should
have
dealt
with
that.
They
should
have
prevented
you
from
taking
the
money.
I
mean
they
should
have
used
some
of
all
their
freaking
money,
to
figure
out
how
to
prevent
you
from
taking
it
from
them,
and
if
they
didn't
it's
their
own
fault
and,
of
course,
I
guess.
B
You
can
I
can't
really
think
of
an
example
of
like
how
you
could
compare
the
sort
of
the
charity
thing
in
a
smart
contract
that
has
a
charitable
smart
contract.
Something
weird,
but
but
certainly
that's
like
how
you
would
describe
a
smart
contract
right
that,
like
leads
the
door
open
for
somebody
to
come
and
take
the
money
and
then
it's
just
I,
guess
it
sucks,
but
I
mean
you
should
have,
should
have
prevented
them
from
taking
your
money
right,
especially
if
you
were,
you
were
purely
doing
it
to
to
make
money
in
the
first
place.
F
C
B
A
B
Yeah
and
so
just
to
read
right,
of
course,
if
you
like,
if
you
get
caught
right,
I
mean,
of
course,
if
you
get
you
get
apprehended
by
the
legal
system,
and
so
on
I
mean
then
that's
a
completely
different
thing
that
I'm
not
saying
that
laws
don't
apply,
but
certainly
in
the
Dow.
You
can
participate
in
such
a
way
that
realistically
you
can't
get
caught
by
the
law
right
and
then
it's
not,
then
you
know
it's
not
up
to
the
doubt
then
I
don't
know
appeals
is
some
kind.
B
E
B
Maybe
the
best
place
to
start
is
that
it's
always
been
known
that
well,
because
I
mean
make
because
the
eye
is
like
on,
you
know,
unblacklistable
and
it's
backed
by
decentralized
assets
and
so
on
you
can.
You
will
never
be
able
to
guarantee
that
it'll
always
be
worth
one
dollar
right,
it'll
always
be
possible
for
it
to
to
that's
why
it's
called
that
it's
not
called
something
with
UST,
even
though
the
original
name
was
eusd
right
like
e
dollar
and
then
yeah.
B
We
changed
that
because
well,
yeah
I
mean
it
wasn't,
wasn't
exactly
a
great
decision,
the
way
it
sort
of
ended
up
being
executed.
But
ultimately
the
idea
was
that
in
the
end
the
USD
may
have
like
a
finite
lifespan.
But
if
you
can
somehow
construct
a
Dao
and
the
smart
contracts
correctly,
they
may
be
able
to
exist
forever.
So
you
have
to
you,
don't
want
to
wanna,
contain
the
name
of
something
that
that
is
long,
dead,
yeah,
but
but
I
guess,
what's
sort
of
more
I
mean
more
specifically
relevant
thing.
B
Is
this
question
of
and
basically
like
using
MK
as
a
backstop
and
applying
a
haircraft
to
die
holders
right,
and
this
actually
comes
back
to
like
some
emergency
shutdowns
or
emergency
shutdown
is
like
the
most
complicated
part
of
maker
and
and
like
the
least
understood,
and
it's
something
that
actually
like
influences
sort
of
all
the
game?
Theory
in
really
strongly
it's
problematic
right,
because
nobody
understands
like
so
few
people
have
any
idea
of
like
the
end-to-end
emergency
shutdown,
Game
Theory,
but
then
it
sort
of
you
really
have
to
design
everything
around
that.
B
So
so
it's
a
big
yeah,
that's
a
big
challenge
to
overcome,
but
in
the
end
it's
just
there's
just
all
these
like
fundamental
complex
things
that
have
to
be
be
dealt
with
right,
but
so
you
know
so
there's
like
so
well.
So,
first
of
all
always
a
day,
it
is
just
not
possible
to
make
it
to
like
guarantee
that
in
care
of
backstops
die
right,
and
so
the
reason
for
that.
It's
not
like
it's
like.
Fundamentally,
you
can't
do
that.
You
can't
guarantee.
B
Well,
because
dye
is
a
multi
collateral
system,
so
you
can
always
like
you
can
print
diet
will,
because
you
can
always
add
new
collateral
so
basically-
and
it's
impossible
to
take
this
away
right.
So
it's
always
going
to
be
that,
no
matter
what
they
kind
of
you
know,
the
mkr
holders
will
always
have
the
power
to
you
know:
steal
a
collateral
from
the
system.
Basically,
you
can
never
avoid
that.
B
B
And
then
the
other
thing
is
emergency
shutdown,
and
so
really
emergency
shutdown
is
also
something
like
where,
but
but
like
it
comes
back
to
basically
dominance,
participation
and
sort
of
governance,
failure
right,
and
so
that's,
basically
the
the
kind
of
the
logic
of
you
have
to
be
like,
like
the
risk.
Is
there
always
that,
in
the
event
of
governance
failure
all
the
collateral
can
get
stolen,
basically,
and
and
and
then
you
can
do
an
emergency
shutdown
and
then
sort
of
the
original
thinking
was
that
then
you
recover
from
an
emergency
shutdown.
B
Somehow
the
reality
shows
have
to
be
like
emergency
shutdown.
If
it
kind
of
works,
it's
just
like
it's
horrifically
bad
right
like
you
get.
The
system
can
never
recover
from
it.
First
of
all
and
then.
Secondly,
it
will
be
a
nightmare
for
users
to
go
through
right.
It
would
be
disasters
for
users
and
and
there's
this
sort
of
Ribble
effect
sort
of
this
level.
I
guess
you
could
almost
call
it
death
flower
effect.
B
B
Then,
if
you
do
an
emergency
shutdown,
you
can
like
you'll
tank,
the
eighth
price
right
it'll,
like
disastrous
for
the
ethereum
economy
and
you're
still
in
love
with
like
a
haircut
right
in
this
scenario.
So
basically,
this
idea
that
emergency
shutdown
is
the
thing
that
prevents
maker
governance
and
and
governance
politics
from
going
out
of
hand
and
sort
of
failing
and
becoming
inept
or
corrupt,
and
so
on
it
just
it
doesn't.
It
just
doesn't
work
like
that.
B
B
But
of
course,
in
the
end
like
the
way
it's
kind
of
the
Sagittarius
Union
is
designed.
Is
that
it's
there's
always
going
to
be
like
a
small
exposure.
That's
going
to
be
kind
of
connected
to
the
the
the
the
the
the
kind
of
the
what
they
call
the
Assets
in
the
system
anyway
right.
So
that's
actually
less
of
like
an
argument
and
it's
really
more
about
motor
incentives
like
ultimately,
that's
the
I
think.
B
B
I
guess
you
can
actually
sort
of
collate
it
together
right
to
keep
it
really
simple.
It's
like
so
the
big
problem
with
endgame
and
making
put
all
these
things
in
place
to
protect
against
the
iron
law
of
the
house
right.
We
have
to
lock
down
the
call
completely
because
of
the
error
law
of
that.
So
now
we
lock
down
the
call
complete,
but
then
the
problem
is
like
this:
competition
there's
like
a
changing
environment
and
so
on
right,
so
we
still
need
to
be
able
to
grow.
B
I
mean
that's
just
as
important
like
like
we
need
to
be
able
to
both
stabilize
and
and
survive
while
growing
and
scaling,
and
so
the
sub
likes
of
the
sort
of
the
the
Constitution
and
the
scope
Frameworks,
and
all
these
like
checks
and
balances,
that's
sort
of
the
surviving
and
and
stabilizing
and
then
growing
and
scaling.
That's,
basically
what
the
stuff
does
and
the
tokenomics
of
full
right
and
they'll
they're
built
around
this
video.
B
That's
all
you
know
it's
marketing,
it's
gamification
right,
so
you
have
the
the
subtle
tokens
being
flammable
by
die
holders
right,
that's
directly,
a
way
to
to
I
mean
to
basically
gamify
and
incentivize
people
use
diet
like,
even
though
it's
sort
of
microeconomically
or
whatever
yeah,
economically
or
sort
of
theoretically
the
yield
that
you
would
get
from
farming.
Sub-Out
tokens
would
just
equilibrate
with
the
dye
savings
rate
in
theory
and
of
course
that's
not
gonna.
B
What's
gonna
happen
in
practice,
but
then,
even
if
that
was
the
case,
right
I
mean
that's
just
how
gamification
works
right
that
like
even
if
it's
a
case
that
it's
just
kind
of
you
get
the
same
yield
it's
just.
What
color
do
you
want
the
yield
to
be?
Basically,
that
is
actually
still
I
mean
that's
gamification
right,
that's
still
actually
gonna
draw
in
people
who
wouldn't
be
drawn
in,
but
just
like
a
yield
in
the
color
black
right
things
that
get
if
they
can
get
the
same
yield,
but
in
the
color
yellow.
B
These,
like
marketing,
Vehicles,
almost
right
so
they're
called
function,
is
to
you
know,
operate
front
ends,
which
both
has
this
kind
of
I
mean
well,
I,
guess
primarily
right.
It's
like
a
marketing
function
like
this
sort
of
classical
marketing
like
user
acquisition
by
spreading
the
product
and
getting
more
users
in
and
by
getting
more
users.
B
If
we
design
the
gamification
correctly
and
the
tools
correctly
right
and
support
and
the
culture
and
The
Branding,
and
all
that
correctly,
then
some
of
them
will
convert
it
into
then
actually
trying
to
like
I
mean
do
what
most
crypto
communities
do
right,
which
is
to
sort
of
spread.
The
crypto,
which.
B
That's
to
sort
of
achieve
these
actual
results
that
we
want
in
specific,
Target
demographics
right
then
we'll
have
a
chance
they're
going
to
reset
all
that
and
create
these
kind
of
communities
that
don't
have
to
be
I
mean
it.
All
ties
back
to
the
original
culture
of
maker
is
so
focused,
and
it's
like
seriousness
of
like
the
emergency
shutdown
and
when,
when
governance
goes,
goes
off
the
rails
and
it's
probably
decentralized
and
there's
a
power
vacuum
and
all
this
stuff
right
and
that
that
doesn't
apply
to
sub
Downs.
B
And
so
that's
really
like
it's
a
way
to
kind
of
like
tap
into
like
there's
so
many
incredibly
many
drawbacks
to
being
decentralized.
But
this
ability
to
to
instantly
tokenize
and
instantly
distribute
ownership
of
like
a
complete
business
and
that's
kind
of
that's
the
the
major
upside
and
so
playing
game
plan
is
basically
betting,
essentially
that
this
is
a.
B
This
is
a
a
tool
that
is
so
powerful
that
you
have
to
use
it
to
like
be
relevant
in
the
end
game
of
crypto,
right
that
that
anyone
that
don't
figure
out
Advanced
ergonomics
like
this
and
and
tap
into
it
they'll,
just
not
there's
just
gonna,
be
you
know,
that's
the
one.
It's
the
one
upside
you
have
for
being
in
crypto
and
without
it
you're
just
like
you're
you're
going
to
be
irrelevant
again,
you
will
not
be
able
to
function
as
a
decentralized
community.
B
Is
this
like
the
flow
of
the
the
governance
tokens
right
that
there
is
this
idea
that
we
want
to
generally,
like
I
mean
what
we
discovered
with
a
classic
buying
burn
is
what
it
ends
up
doing.
Is
it
sort
of
consolidates
the
holders
right?
So
you
get
a
few
massive
whales
and
like
that's?
Actually,
everyone
is
actually
worse
off
in
that
case,
because
you're
just
like-
and
this
is
the
same
reason
why
the
subtitles
makes
sense
right,
because
atom
is
more
valuable
like
that.
B
A
governance
token
is
also
a
product,
and,
and
so
as
a
result,
you
it's
beneficial
if
the
governance
serving
is
is
distributed
basically
and
you
have
more
people
participating
right.
The
problem
is
just
like
how
excited
to
how
to
distribute
it
right
and
that's
all
like
classic,
like
farming
like
or
like
send
half
of
the
supply
to
vitalik
or
something
stupid
right,
which
then
just
doesn't
work
just
because
so
people
being
stupid
about
it
right
and
the
ideal
way
you
want
people
to
you
want
to
get
this
broad
distribution.
B
Is
you
want
people
to
buy
it
ultimately
right?
That's
the
best
like
somebody,
who's
actually
bought.
It
then,
of
course,
they're
like
the
perfect
like
if
everyone's
just
like,
bought
a
little
bit
on
their
own,
then
that's
like
the
ideal
way
to
get
a
super
distributed
sort
of
a
base
of
holders
right,
but
in
practice
that's
just
very.
B
Is
they
get
a
lot
of
liquidity
against
them
here,
like
the
subnet
is
incredibly
liquid
against
MPR.
So
it's
like
by
gaining
the
subject.
You
actually
do
get
like
the
currency
in
a
sense
to
buy
and
Dr
with
so
some
of
the
subdial
token
holders
they
will
convert
to
MPL
holders
because
they'll
have
that
will
be
sort
of
a
like
an
like
an
obvious
thing
to
do
with
it.
It
would
be
sort
of
a
convenient
way
to
to
to
exchange
this,
the
subnaut
you're
getting.
B
Then,
in
addition,
there's
this
whole
thing
of
like
the
sub-dial
tokens.
Basically,
Drive
like
the
emissions,
simplified
Drive
die
Demand
right,
so
you
get
a
huge
amount
of
die
holders
that
are
like
it's
like
pay.
This
massive
gigantic
die
savings
rate
in
all
sorts
of
shapes
and
colors.
So
it
attracts
a
bunch
of
different
tiger
demographics
and
they
all,
then
you
know
can't
get
the
die
savings
rate
right.
So
that's
the
deal
that
you
can
get.
It
I.
Think
it's
right!
You
can.
B
You
can
find
some
items
so
by
not
getting
that
savings
rate.
We
now
have
locked
in
demand
that
we
can
simplistically
put
in
Money
Market
funds
or
something
like
that.
So
we're
actually
still
we're
like
we're
in
some
I
mean
we're
directly
generating
income
from
Distributing
them
yeah
right.
So
we're
directly
like
in
some
sense,
exchanging
the
mkr
for
cash.
Well,
indirectly,
I
guess
you
could
say
right,
but
indirectly
we're
exchanging
them
cash
and
the
cash
we're
taking
we're.
B
B
C
B
Cap
price
is
crazy
high
and
it's
just
like
throwing
away
money
right
and
actually
the
same
thing
in
terms
of
like
when
is
it
because
a
bunch
of
like
mechanisms
like
this
throughout
the
tokenomics
that
sort
of
the
the
net
effect
is
that
if
all
these,
like
bells
and
whistles
and
gamification
and
and
circular
flow
of
tokens
results
in
in
maker,
basically
getting
this
kind
of
what
are
sometimes
refer
to
as
the
casino
effect
right.
That
there's
like
this
thing
of
like
crypto
and
buying
and
selling
crypto
itself,
is
like
a
product
right.
B
That
people
do
is
like
a
entertainment
or
like
going
to
the
casino
almost
right
and
that
results
in
some
kind
of
monetary
premium,
and
if
that
is
contained
in
like,
if
that
occurs
in
the
maker
ecosystem,
and
then
it
will
just
keep
expanding
the
amount
of
tokens
there,
because
they're
sort
of
driving
the
whole
thing.
And
it's
just
ultimately
like
a
good
thing
that,
if
you,
if
you're
like
because
what's
what
what
this
represents,
is
a
form
of
intangible
value
right
like
it's,
not
it
really,
it's
not
real
value
in
the
system.
B
It's
not
like
real
hardcore
value
being
generated
that
that
you
know,
can
be
exchanged
for
like
food
or
shelter
or
something,
and
as
long
as
that,
the
case
like
as
long
as
you're
selling,
something
that
isn't
real.
In
that
sense,
you
wanna!
You
know
you
want
to
sell
as
much
of
it
as
possible,
especially
because
kind
of
doing
the
opposite.
Just
means
you
can
create.
You
know
very
nasty
bubbles
right.
That
can
then
be
very
dangerous
if
you,
if
you
cannot
really
start
burning
when
you
already
think
it's
not
economically
resilient
to
do
so,.
B
Okay,
then
final
final
Final
point
on
this
is
the
economic
alignment
of
sub-dials
and
and
MPR
right,
because
actually
the
thing
is
this
idea
of
something
else
is
like
the
oldest
idea
maker.
So
it's
actually
like
the
first
thing.
Just
like
everyone
was
like
scrap
the
you
know,
scrap
the
the
charity.
Right
was
the
first
reaction
people
had
to
to
the
in-game
plan,
like
the
the
version
of
that
back
in
like
2015
and
2016.
B
Was
this
like
all
the
tokens
and
have
them
do
the
collateral
onboarding,
because
that
seems
super
complicated
and
and
yeah
I
mean
like
turns
out.
They
were
right
and
that's
part
of
the
subtitles
is
have
other
tokens
and
then
do
the
collateral
onboard
right.
But
the
reason
why
we
always
rejected
that
back
in
the
day
was
because
of
this
fundamental
idea
that
it's
impossible
to
align
to
like.
B
If
you
have
two
tokens
you're
going
to
have
two
things
that
disagree
and
they're
gonna
like
there,
it's
not
possible
to
align
them,
and
this
is
always
going
to
be
like
conflict
and
and
it
will
always
be
a
disaster
right
and
I.
Guess
like
in
some
like
extreme
sense,
that's
true
in
a
way,
but
then
at
the
same
time
you
know
what
we
basically
learned
is
well,
it's
the
same
for
like
turns
out.
B
It's
the
same
for
every
single
company
that
supports
making
right
every
core
unit,
every
anything
and
even
token
holders
unless
they
truly
are
like
pure
MPL
holders
and
then
also
have
like
the
same
state
of
mind
and
everything
right
in
all
the
cases
you
you're
never
going
to
have
this
like
perfect
alignment,
but
you
can
build
all
these.
Like
I
mean
what
I
sort
of
called
alignment
engineering
or
you
can
have
this
kind
of
ecosystem
intelligence
of
like.
B
B
So
it's
like
illegal
jurisdiction
or
something
where
the
sub
does
existed,
so
the
subtitles
need
to
like
behave
and
follow
the
rules
or
whatever
and
not
like
you,
know,
fight
against
the
kind
of
the
jurisdiction
that
they
exist
in,
but
the
jurisdiction
needs
to
kind
of
like
prove
that
it's
a
good
place
to
do
business
I'm
not
like
screw
yourself
up.
Just
like
you
shouldn't,
like
attempt
to
steal
the
collateral
die
or
something
like
that,
but
but
this
this
basic
mechanism
is,
is
not
enough
right.
B
The
problem
is
what
you
really
need
to
solve
is
like
the
slippery
slope
gray
area
thing
that
sort
of
starts
the
the
the
kind
of
the
fracturing
that
then
ends
up
in
and
when
you
get
these
like
extreme
edge
cases,
which
you
really
want
to
avoid.
Obviously-
and
the
basic
answer
is
like
the
token
like-
that's
why
the
tokenomics
seems
so
complex.
B
Basically,
it's
because,
like
you,
have
the
subdial
tokens
containing
Elixir
right
so
MPR
and
die
LP
tokens,
which
really
is
less
like
I
mean
it's
purely
to
Makers,
benefit
that
it's
MPR
die
obtos.
It
could
really
be
thought
of
as
like
a
version
of
mkr
that
just
happens
to
benefit
maker
even
more,
and
so
that's
that
contained
inside
the
sub-out
terms,
so
like
like
the
a
lot
of
the
value
of
a
subdial
token,
is
just
that.
It's
wrapped
in
essence,
and.
B
B
That's
kind
of
how
it
like
I
mean
that's
how
it
realizes
the
value
that
it's
creating
and
and
that's
one
of
the
key
things
that
Mega
regulates
and
like
subtitles,
can't
return
value
to
the
tongue
holders
any
other
way
than
buying
Elixir
and
playing
the
Alexia
Wars,
which
is
like
the
gamified
thing
that
aligns
the
incentives
in
this
way
right.
But
then
the
the
the
the
the
two
really
big
kind
of
factors
is,
then
that
maker
is
constantly
emitting
MPR
and
then
like
providing
that
to
the
sub
balance.
B
Based
on
these,
like
rules
that
are
yeah
like
advance
to
this
point,
but
then
finely
tuned
to
sort
of
deal
with
old
edge
cases
and
also
not
be
reflexive.
So
you
don't
want
this
kind
of
advanced
ergonomics
to
work
in
a
way
where
the
price
of
everything
starts
going
up
and
then
it
sort
of
locks
down
and
makes
it
go
even
more.
You.
B
B
You
want
to
take
that
intangible
value
and
you
want
to
turn
it
into
fundamental
value
in
the
form
of
of
cash
or
liquidity
for
MPR
or
something
and
then
yeah.
You
have
the
subdials
Distributing
their
their
tokens
directly
to
to
die
holders
also
in
careless,
but
in
particular
to
dial
this
and
okay.
The
last
comment
on
this
like:
why
is
it
that
the
API
tokens
in
this
weird
way?
Why
do
they
go
like
inside
the
subdials?
And
then
it's
like
the
subdial
total?
B
B
Yeah,
like
somehow
you
just
don't
see
that
effect
anymore
right
once
you
once
you're,
once
you're
sort
of
reaching
kind
of
the
equilibrium
of
the
eel
farming,
but
when
you're
trying
to
bootstrap
an
entirely
new
project
from
stretch,
it
works
right,
and
you
have
examples
like
Nigerian
and
uni,
Swap
and
Sushi,
and
all
these
things
where
you
had
this
like
explosion
of
of
participation
through
the
the
kind
of
the
initial
farming
and
initial
distribution
of
the
token
and
one
thing
is
so
exciting
and
promising
about.
That
is
how
it's
like
every
single
time.
B
B
B
Trying
to
to
make
a
lot
of
money
very
quickly
and
and
sort
of
exit
and
whatever,
even
if
that
might
be
the
kind
of
selfish,
short-term
approach
and
but
I'm,
definitely
being
like
long-term
selfish
right.
That's
the
entire
kind
of
yeah,
like
motivation
for
me,
especially
I,
mean
at
least
when
it
comes
to
the
the
design
of
the
ergonomics
and
why
it's
been
designed
in
exactly
the
way
it
has
been,
and
then
pain
makes
this
point
that.
B
B
Oh
okay,
actually
I,
couldn't
believe
I.
Think
I
misunderstood
that
point
actually
I
think
it's
more
like
Peyton
is
saying
that
the
workforce
is
also
motivated
to
not
let
the
project
die,
which
I
agree
with,
but
I
think
it's
a
big
like,
like
I
still
I.
Think,
and
this
is
what
I
would
call
like.
The
iron
loft
dolls
is
like
the
absolute
best
case
for
a
Workforce
that
is
like
fully
selfish
is
to
you
know,
maintain
a
protocol
that
there's
some
kind
of
of
well.
B
B
Like
project-based
funding
of
like
it's
companies
that
don't
only
work
for
a
single
dial
right
so
like
sub-dials,
should
be
served
by
like
multiple
companies,
and
then
one
of
them
goes
under
the
company.
That
was
doing
word
for
that's
about
they're
they'll,
just
that's!
What's
just
one
of
the
clients
and
now
they're
just
going
to
switch
to
another
one
same
for
anyone
like
working
for
make
a
call
like
if,
like
if
major.
C
B
Doesn't
have
any
more
work,
then
they
go
they
just
already
working
with
other
subtitles
and
then
we'll
just
switch
to
working
for
another
stuff.
Now
or
even
another
downtime
like
it's
completely
outside
the
ecosystem,
like
the
most
important
thing
is
just
that
that
it's
like
that.
There
really
is
this
like,
like
the
the
like.
Unfortunately,
there
has
to
be
sort
of
depersonalized
that
there
really
can
be
this
like
sort
of
sense
of
family
or
something
like
that,
because
it's
just
so
it
just
doesn't
work
in
a
decentralized
world
like
it.
B
It
can
be
done
in
companies
because
in
the
end
you
got
to
have
some
kind
of
like
tough
CEO,
like
sort
of
then
sort
of
you
know
figuring
out
what
you
know.
When
do
we
have
to
make
hard
decisions,
but
in
like
a
down
like
nobody
wants
or
should
be
made
to
ever,
make
like
the
hot
decision
right
like
the
hard
decisions
should
be
embedded
in
the
rules.
B
B
You
have
this
concept
of
like
employees
and
then
you're
you're,
referring
now
to
some
kind
of
like
I,
mean
social
construct,
which
then
actually
should,
in
many
cases
be
like,
be
considered.
A
legal
construct
depending
on
on
jurisdiction
and
zone
right,
so
it's
just
that
you
have
to
go
in
the
opposite
direction
of
like
saying
it's.
B
Yeah,
okay
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
point
like
about
ens
full-time
contributors
working
exclusively
for
them,
so
I
mean
I,
think
the
and
the
kind
of
the
the
maybe
the
the
sort
of
the
possibilities
there.
That
ens
is
a
project
with
such
a
high
I
mean
what
I
call
it
like
such
a
great
like
such
a
so
much
alignment
right
that
you
actually
can't
just
like
give
people
free
money
kind
of
and
then
they
will
simply
do
the
work
right
and
they
will
contribute
to
it.
B
You
should
be
doing
when
you're
you're,
you're
already
doing
big
governance,
and
this
is
sort
of
a
variant
of
the
all
roads
lead
to
frags
kind
of
analogy
right
now,
as
we
used
to
say
in
the
old
days
of
like.
Oh,
everyone
should
be
doing
a
stable
coin
right.
That
was
also
how
we
always
thought
about
maker
from
the
very
beginning.
B
B
Basically
some
person
hired
them
any
of
this,
but
anyway
well,
I
think
like
so
I'm,
not
like
so
I
think
it
could
totally.
But
it
could
totally
happen
that
you
could
have
ens
as
a
dow
hire
people
full-time
and
I
could
see
that
working
and
it
can
also
like
work
in
I
mean
there's
the
delegates,
there's
the
and
the
the
coordinates
and
the
well.
B
Your
meat
must
have
around
these
types
of
like
embedded
roles
and
then
crucially,
the
the
anonymity
requirement,
which
I
think
is
like
an
absolute
must
because
of
like
how
the
moment
you
get
this
sort
of
the
moment,
it's
personalized,
it's
like
I,
would
never
it's
unable,
like
I'm,
completely
unable
to
think
how
you
could
possibly
contain
that
like
it
would
require,
like
freaking
like
AGI,
to
be
able
to
deal
with
it.
I
think,
okay,.
B
B
If
the,
if
the,
if
the
maps
are
rejected
right
so
as
I
said
originally,
it
was
conceived
as
like
a
plan
to
save
maker,
basically
and
I
was
like
looking
at
sort
of
from
the
perspective
of
of
of
like
how
do
we
fix
like
this
super
strange
problems
that
we're
seeing
in
maker,
because
makers
now
actually
bootstrapped
itself.
It
become
like
a
real
Dao
in
one
way,
but
then
it's
gonna
be
slammed
into
this,
like
wall
of
seems
almost
like
impossible
challenge.
B
That's
where
the
whole
that's,
where
something
like
clean
money
and
the
whole
Indian
flame
Zone
develop
from,
but
then
I
guess
at
this
point,
I've
kind
of
basically
I
mean
made
me
sort
of
discover
this
thing,
which
is
what
I
call
like
the
big
governance
Dao
and
from
there
it's
led
me
in
the
direction
of
actually
what
it
is.
It's
like
a
I
mean
it
really
ends
up
in
you
know,
being
around
ecosystem
intelligence
and
artificial
intelligence
and
sort
of
applying
AI
tools
to
to
you
know,
scalable
business.
B
Yeah
to
the
point
where
I
like
the
way
I
see
it
is.
This
is
just
something
that
that,
like
it's
not
really
about
maker,
actually
it's
about
like
the
world,
and
it's
about
you
know
this.
This
thing
must
exist
because
it's
like
someone
would
eventually
build
something
like
it
and
once
it
once
it
happens,
it
will
have
some
pretty
unbelievable
consequences
right
and
it's
very
important
that
it's
it's
good.
It's
it's
aligned
right!
B
B
Then,
in
that
case,
it's
clear
to
me
that
it's
just
not
the
like
it
wouldn't
be.
It
would
be
the
wrong
choice
to
try
to
to
to
action.
I
mean
to
essentially
in
some
in
some
sense
right
like
like
force
it
on
all
these
whales
and
all
these
species,
and
so
who
else
really
was
supposed
to
I
mean
Brazilian.
They
have
the
tokens,
because
their
role
is
also
in
some
sense
to
protect
the
community
right.
So
then,
I
will
simply
like
I
said
before.
B
I
think
the
thing
that
really
like
got
me
there
to
the
point
where
you
could
really
like
you
could
just
launch
this,
and
it
would
just
bootstrap
itself
from
nothing
trivially,
basically
with
all
the
tokens
and
all
that
the
mechanics
and
but
it
really
is
actually
the
the
AI
tools
that
sort
of
makes
that
possible,
because
I
used
to
think
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
this.
Unless
you
already
had
relatively
large
and
relatively
capable,
bootstrap,
community
and
but
I
think
with
AI.
It's
actually
you
can.
B
B
So
basically,
if
the
you
know
so
I'm
encouraging
the
people
who
want
to
vote
against
it,
they
should
come
out
like
this
would
be
the
time
to
to
vote
against
it
right
and
even
if
they
don't
actually
succeed
in
defeating
the
votes,
then
I
will
just
I
mean
I,
guess
I
would
well
I,
wouldn't
abandon
the
project
because
I
want
to
be.
You
know,
I
want
to
make
MK
available,
so
I
can
I
can
basically
you
know
slowly
and
and
gracefully
exit.
B
My
position
right,
maybe
not
all
of
it,
but
then
but
then
I
mean
I
could
basically
use
that
as
seed
funding
for
like
a
new
project
and
then
do
this
and
it
will
be,
everyone
would
be
better
off.
In
that
case,
right
and
and
then
I
would
I
somehow
I
mean
I
would
use
some
kind
of
of
spell
basically
to
Rick
to
force
the
the
the
VC
is
basically
the
the
opponents
to
then
force
them
to
take
over
governance
security
right
because
that's
my
problem
right
now
is
I.
B
Can't
I
can't
stop
voting
currently
or
there's
going
to
be
some
serious
security
risk
to
the
project
right.
So
cams
all
get
out
in
a
sense
which
is
also
what
led
me
down
the
path
I'm
like
okay,
instead
of
figuring
out
how
to
get
out
how
about
I
just
fix
the
thing
right,
but
I
think
all
in
all
I.
Just
that
means
that
I
mean
there's.
B
B
You
could
have
the
mips
alongside
the
constitutional
Scopes
or
something
and
the
Scopes
could
be
used
for
whatever,
and
maybe
they
some
of
the
logic
and
ideas
could
be
implanted
into
the
the
mips
or
whatever
people
want
to
do
and
then,
alongside
as
I,
developed
the
sort
of
the
real
in-game.
Whatever
thing
big
governance,
AI
powered
exponential
ecosystem
thing,
then
I
mean
the
all
the
kind
of
r
d
and
the
breakthroughs
and
innovation
of
that
could
be
applied
to
to
make
our
right.
B
B
If
the
VCS
I
mean,
from
my
perspective,
they
essentially
cease.
Control
of
the
protocol
at
this
point
and
and
I
would
actually
be.
It's
completely
my
interest
to
try
to
help
them
out
if
they
decide
to
do
that,
because
I
still
need
mkr
to
be
valuable
right,
so
I
definitely
wouldn't
try
to
like
cause
damage
or
be
upset
or
anything
like
that,
because
in
the
end
yeah,
because
I
can
launch
it
on
its
own,
then
there's
not
this
sense
of
like
all
the
work.
B
B
Yeah,
but
so
I
don't
like,
but
I,
don't
I,
really
don't
intend
to,
like
you
know,
come
like
I
mean
I
tend
to
incorporate
all
ideas
that
I
think
are
valuable
and
will
increase
the
price
of
appearance
on,
but
I'm
not
going
to
like
try
to
pass
it
a
second
time.
If
it
fails
the
first
time
or
something
like
I
still
extremely
I
mean,
then
the
community
is
better
off.
B
Then
it's
better
that
the
community
looks
at
the
ideas
and
they
figure
out
what
they
want
to
compromise
and
what
they
want
to
do
or
whatever,
and
then
they
just
do
it
on
their
own
and
then
so,
instead
of
me
sort
of
trying
to
be
a
part
of
it,
because
that's
what
I
wanted
to
get
away
from
the
whole
time
right,
I
really
actually
just
want
to
have
something.
I
can
step
away
from.
B
B
The
the
simplest
would
be
just
to
let
me
get
a
sense
of
like
how
could
I
safely
stop
voting
right
and
we'll
be
pretty
simple.
I
will
look
at
how
many
people
would
vote
know
to
the
the
in-game
mips
right.
Is
it?
Does
it
reach
a
point
where
I
think?
Basically
it's
it's
not
like.
It's
not
worth
trying
to
pull
it
off.
It
maker
is
going
to
be
like
it's
going
to
be
easier
to
actually
reach
escape
velocity
starting
from
fresh
and
then
I
would
like.
B
G
B
If
that
happened
at
that
point,
then
maybe
if
that
actually
had
happened,
then
I
would
have
to
try
to
just
I
mean
that
might
make
them
realize
that
they're,
not
you
know,
able
to
to
run
the
protocol
right
and-
and
it
might
be
make
sense
to
revisit
like
doing
it
doing
it
my
way,
basically,
in
the
way
that
I
think
is
possible,
but
yeah
otherwise
I
mean
or
I'm
For
Hire,
I'm
I'm.
You
know
I'm
willing
to
secure
governance.
B
For
a
you
know,
a
humble
fee
of
10
million
dollars
a
month
or
something
and
I'll.
Okay.
Okay,
that's
ridiculous,
but
whatever
some
kind
of
like
I
mean
something
that
basically
is
like
it's
not
going
to
be
disastrous
if
they
don't
immediately
react,
but
it's
it's
gonna
make
them
wake
up
and
realize
that
they
have
to
protect
the
protocol
if
they
want
to
like
they
want
to
control
goblins.
B
They
have
to
also
protect
the
sort
of
physical
government
security,
which
I
think
will
I
mean
really
will
benefit
everyone
yeah,
especially
if
there's
also
false
it
like
sort
of
makes
them
realize
that
there
has
to
be.
You
know
there
has
to
be
some
non-us
control
points
right,
like
delegates
and
so
on
and
at
the
minimum
that
are,
you
know,
so
it's
not
all
based
in
the
US,
so
it
could
be
done
in
a
way.
That's
secure.