MakerDAO Weekly Governance and Risk, 10 Sep 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 158

Description

Full Agenda: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-scientific-governance-and-risk-158-thursday-september-9-17-00-utc/10220

Introduction
@prose11 : Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
@Davidutro : Slides for presenters, meeting outline
Governance Round-Up
Poll + Executive Status - @prose11
MIPs Update - @blimpa
Forum at a Glance - @gov-comms-core-unit
Selected Updates/Discussions
Growth Update, Institutional Vaults Topic - @Growth-Core-Unit
Off-boarding Collaterals, costs and risk management - @Oracles-Core-Unit + @Risk-Core-Unit

A

B

All right, hello, everyone and welcome uh this is the maker scientific governance and risk meeting number 158 already forgotten. The date looks like today is the 9th of september in 2021, joined here by a bunch of awesome people from the maker community and just generally interested in what we got going on here for those regulars on the call.

B

You might notice we're doing something a little different uh this week uh in an effort to kind of spur more engagement, we're going to be changing up our format, but I won't take away david's thunder and let him introduce those changes here, but uh hi my name's peyton, I'm one of the two governance facilitators. I go by pros11 online uh I'll be hosting here and uh we got david over there uh manning the slideshow. So I'll kick it off to him. So he can tell you a little bit about this new format.

B

We're trying out today.

A

Yeah, uh hey everybody, I'm david, I'm the facilitator for the govcoms core unit here at makerdao, and we focus on making information a little bit more accessible, a little bit more digestible and uh and yeah, and so today is a great example of that. We actually partnered with uh gov alpha to do some brainstorming over the last couple of days on how to improve the governance and risk call, um and so there's kind of like one big major problem.

A

So the governance and risk call over like the last year has become kind of like this general town hall, for status updates and for sharing and for coordinating um and unfortunately, with more and more cus, there's just not um like it's impossible to scale. The format of the call in the you know, format that it is now, uh and so we are making some changes. uh So here I put together the slide about 37 seconds ago so currently, uh and by current I mean last week.

A

uh The call typically runs for about an hour and a half or more. uh We spend about 15 minutes 20 minutes on votes mips in the forum recap, and then we spend the majority of the call 45 minutes, uh plus on nine on average, around nine cu updates, um and then we typically leave the last like 30 minutes for presentations and discussion.

A

uh Now this isn't the problem, but if you can imagine an additional two or three or four or nine core units, uh you know becoming ratified at maker dial. Obviously we can't continue to include cu updates, like we tried thinking about.

A

Maybe we can do like dedicated slots for the most important updates, and then we have like the remaining like teams, kind of rotate bi-weekly tri-weekly, whatever it is, and honestly that also isn't really like uh the best solution and- and we kind of kept coming back to this idea of you know like really what is the governance and risk call at maker dow um because it evolved a lot over time.

A

It used to be kind of stephen becker, the president of the foundation laying the groundwork, for you know the scientific risk kind of underpinning of this governing body, and then it became rich taking over and trying to bootstrap the governance community, and so it became more about coordinating and status updating uh and then eventually, you know as rich, left and long and pros took over.

A

You know during this time the foundation is dissolving and all these independent core units are popping up, and so the call is now in this moment where it's like: okay, like it needs to continue to evolve um and something that we're going for in this evolution is number one a bit of a shorter call time.

A

So studies show like, after about 30 minutes, people's attention really dwindles, and it's a lot worse, even after the hour mark and we're not asking for this call to be 30 minutes, but we do want to make it not be an hour and a half. So that's one one goal that we had. We also were thinking to do smarter team updates, so cus should consider written versus spoken updates.

A

You know, written updates are really best for completeness for archivability for reference material for complex reports, anything that requires like precision and precise language, while spoken, updates, they're better for coordinating they're, better for communicating problems and blockers uh they're better for seeking feedback and engagement, sparking discussions, um and really we want to. We want cues to focus on the written, update. uh Sorry, the spoken update during this call, um and so yeah you can.

A

You can still achieve the same level of transparency by just you know, putting up the forum threads um and sharing with the community what your team is doing. While we should really be reserving our spoken updates and our um for the most pertinent topics and and the most pertinent kind of uh things that we should be discussing uh in a room together. You know because this thursday call is one of the um it's it's one of the most diverse, uh dow kind of like week-to-week, dow processes that we have.

A

We have a lot of de-siloing happening at this meeting, and so we really want to kind of capture that value and increase it, and so, with this new format, I know I've been ranting for a little bit.

A

Let me speed it up so with this new format, we're aiming to complete the call in an hour and 15 minutes tops are really going for the hour, uh we're still spending about 15, 20 minutes on votes, mips and forum, but now, instead of the cu updates section we're going to devote it to three cu update slots, but these should be seen more as like discussion, kind of slots, so each team, when they're up you know they really shouldn't be talking about their entire team update. um They should be talking more about.

A

You know what is the current event that their team is really focused on. What's the highest priority thing: what's the thing that needs engagement and that should be really the focus of those three cu update slots uh and then the remaining tail end of 30 to 40 of the of the call is going to be reserved for special presentations um and then for open-ended discussion at the end of the call, as it always has been um and yeah.

A

That's a brief uh with an asterisk uh note on the changing of the format of the call, and so I'm going to pause there and see if there's any like questions, I also haven't been reading the chat so.

C

David, I'm not sure if you mentioned what was the objective of the call or the scope.

A

Yeah, so the objective of this call governance risk right yeah. So the objective of this call is to get uh everybody like we're kind of like the internal stakeholders at maker dao, where the cus, where the teams that are really like working on on pushing the protocol forward and so the way like. I think the definition of this call still needs to be sharpened.

A

I don't want to say that I have a perfect one already drafted up, but it should be around the governance and risk of the protocol, so like yeah we're trying to keep it really like close to the title, um you know what I'm going to pause there, I'm going to come back with a better answer after I think through it a bit, uh but maybe like pros or long. You guys have uh some thoughts on how to answer that. A little bit better.

D

No, I was asking because you said that.

C

We should focus about. Does this fall within the scope of this call? But we, if we don't know what the scope is, then the answer is maybe or yes absolutely.

A

Yeah yeah. Well I mean the real. The real idea is like you know, this is a place where you should share, updates and discuss things that you know you feel need to be discussed with the other parts of the organization you know like. Maybe your team is, you know, maybe in p, like lsp as an example, maybe they're working on like a very specific module, um but they need.

A

You know kind of input from growth about whether you know business on the business side, if it's feasible right, if it's going to have users like so I don't know, I the way that I see it is it's more about de-siloing information and really kind of prioritizing this time that we have for the highest value highest priority things that we need to talk about as as a dao.

C

A

That's pretty cool, it's pretty vague. No, I don't think.

C

That anyone will disagree with that. It's more about. uh I think that it's good, if we're all on the same page, and we have the this call to do whatever it is. If it's to update mkr holders, then we do that if it's for internal coordination, we do that yeah, but I think it would be nice if it was clear for everyone.

A

Yeah, the general move that we're making is we're stepping away from using this call as an update call, because, generally speaking, like we're, gonna have nine. We have nine teams right now, but we're gonna eventually have 15 20 teams uh and the idea is if you're a stakeholder- and you want to know a specific thing- that's happening. You should be able to find that through the written uh publications of the different teams, you don't need to go search in a video or a call.

A

You should be able to find like the precise information you're searching for, and then you really just join. These calls to talk about current events and, like you know, working through the issues that we're all working through, but but yeah. I I definitely hear the need for like a a better definition for the scope of this call, which we'll be working on.

E

Yeah, can I um I'll speak up for pe, but um there were a number of updates that uh we would give where we just kind of like highlight exactly what we were working on and um discuss that you know or whatever, just like kind of ravel off a list, but that's not gonna scale as we get more core units, um so it doesn't really matter like. um All we need to do is highlight the sort of like high thing.

E

High level um topics like hey we're, gonna be moving from kovan to gourley testnet, or something like that right. We don't need to like get into, and this is probably true for all of the core units you can put whatever in written updates. But for this call you should really focus on what needs to be discussed and and coordinated with other teams and with governance right. So so you guys don't need to know about every little line item that our team worked on.

E

You just need to know about the line items that are going to impact voting governance and cross team coordination, so.

C

Right and just for the record david, I'm not I'm not expecting you to to fix uh this. I think it's something that we should do uh between all. But uh as vada was saying in the chat, I think it would be nice if the the audience was more explicit if it's more us or the core units and contributors than the m care holders.

A

Yeah, absolutely and and just to note on that, like we were definitely mindful about thinking who is the audience of the current call, and it really is, you know core units contributors, perhaps a few mkr holders, uh but really like we're, not sharing all the information for the mkr holder here like that's, not the purpose of the call. The purpose of the call is to like you know, figure out if we're managing the protocol well figure out like how to move forward on things that we're stuck on.

A

uh You know it's it's valuable when we're all in a room together and yeah, it's definitely a work in progress and we're gonna sharpen it up.

A

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Swan.

B

Definitely, and uh to provide just a little bit of I guess.

B

Governance perspective like this is a very unique opportunity that we have this many makers, stakeholders active and engaged together in the week, so one of our goals was definitely to kind of change the format to encourage a little more discussion and and debate potentially as we, a lot of the accordions will will face judgment calls we'll face kind of situations where they really do need community guidance, and I think the the forum is great for for kind of like longer term taking time to hash things out, um but having the ability to get questions, answered, live and and discuss.

B

Different ideas is pretty unique and a valuable resource, um so yeah definitely uh open, and I do believe that this new format will help us take advantage of that. A little better.

A

Yeah, absolutely all right, so uh we can continue discussion about the format, chant change and and potential future changes and the definition of the call offline. uh I'm gonna no longer take up the time here and I'm gonna uh hand it off to uh back to peyton. I guess but here's the contents of the call and I'll give it to you here.

B

Awesome so uh we'll start with our general updates, uh more so on the governance side. Essentially uh what you need to know about maker governance, so that'll cover voting uh our current mips as well as a forum recap uh then we'll head into a few of our team live discussions.

B

We've got three picked out for us today and then with any remaining time in the meeting or if we need to expand on anything further any side questions get brought up, we'll save that to the end, but yeah that should take us straight into the votes update. I believe awesome still on the same page.

B

Wonderful uh next slide! If you don't mind, thank you. So uh as far as execs goes, we did have one that was put up uh last friday and almost immediately passed the next day on saturday.

B

So if you haven't got a chance to look at that, a few things it did, it decreased. The flashman toll uh increase the tax psm debt ceiling. We distributed some direct budgets manually to the core units as well as set up several dss fest streams both for die budgets and for mkr vesting purposes.

B

um So you can see that on our voting portal, it is linked in this slide, if you're on it afterwards, um but that is the update for last week's exec and then the other important update that we are not planning to have an exec tomorrow. uh So unless something radically changes in this call, uh voters and delegates will be able to to wait until uh the following week.

B

Awesome uh there are some polar things. We do not have any polls. That concludes sonopo results. This week, uh however, there are still two green light. Poles active. This would be for rare and rai. uh I believe the the voting ends a week for monday, so that's going to be september. 20Th so do make sure you get your votes in before that and as uh pablo is about to detail, we will have a ton of polls uh coming online on monday.

B

So do you pay attention from the governance side there and we'll have pablo walk through some of the things you'll be able to vote on.

B

And uh pablo, I think I saw you in the audience good to take it away.

B

Hello you're, coming in a little distorted for me.

F

Sorry is it better now.

A

Better but your mic is a little low volume.

F

Okay, it's maxed out still.

A

We I could still hear you, I don't know uh anybody else want to comment. You guys good.

F

It's a bit better.

C

There's I don't know if you could try, but I believe in the actual zoom settings you might actually be able to configure your output.

B

Wouldn't be a decentralized meeting without a little bit of tech issues. So take your time, no worries pablo and uh sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

A

Loving the discussion in the chat about um you know the the composition and the purpose of this call. I'm definitely like copy pasting this into my notes, file and digging through it later.

A

Oh, that's like a little too loud I'd, I'd turn it down like 10-15.

F

I hope this is okay,.

A

Yeah, I think I think that's about right. I.

F

Don't know: okay cool. I need to test my my input before starting these things. Sorry, so, hello, everyone, my name is fabio and welcome to a new midweekish meeps update next slide. Please thank you.

F

So yeah it's a formal submission week. The final submission will open on monday, the sixth and closed yesterday we're going to be doing a quick review of what's been formally submitted for this governance cycle.

F

For the cycle break up the following from our submissions, only one map, map58 real world assets, foundation, four core units, strategic cabinets, stagnate, engineering, ducks and collateral engineering services and three budgets for already existing core units. That is, the government, has parted for the fourth quarter of 2021 to the first quarter of 2022, an update to scs's rolling budget and the ncr compensation plan for risk next live place.

F

The ratification polls for these proposals will go right from monday, thirteenth gradually.

F

And now we're going to do a quick review of the proposals in rfc that need your feedback.

F

So far, we've got three nips map 56 map 57, which have been in rfc for a while now and they recently added mip 59 dss charter.

F

We have four coordinates maker portfolio maker labs and two that were added recently: data insights from the people at tokenflow, which is to provide data for analytical purposes, a dig of exploit, which is to help integrate the deeper protocol and maintain that integration to implement fixed rate, false and two budgets, content production and growth.

F

And finally, we'll do a very quick review of important mip framework related dates.

F

Yesterday was the latest date for the start of the feedback period. Any proposals posted past that point we'll have to wait until october's governance cycle to be formally submitted.

F

As mentioned before, notification polls will go right from monday, 13th and run for two weeks, and the next final summation window opens on october. The 4th.

F

But authentically we still haven't received any feedback regarding the needs for them, but that's okay. So no news is good news. Thank you very much, oh, and that's pretty much all from me. Thank you.

B

Appreciate it pablo and uh thanks for working through us on the mic uh sure it felt a bit like an initiation, but uh so sorry, uh thank you. Awesome uh brings us to artem uh with a quick uh forum at a glance update.

C

Hey guys, hey everyone, so welcome to the forum at a glance, a weekly review of what's happened on the forums this week for the week of september 3rd to september. 9Th today's presentation will be a little shortened, as you know, in respect to the gnr call optimization. So I will begin with the top announcements.

C

First off aaron from tokenflow announced the incorporation and launch of tokenflow insights. They are incorporated in switzerland. Their company goal is to become the leading provider of contextualized analytics for the d5 ecosystem.

C

Next up, the multi-collateral divoting tracker shows different information compared to the official voting portal right now. So after some inspection, thomas from tokenflow insights and the dutch team worked together to help redefine and further clarify the voting algorithm along with its rules, and it's all posted on the forum.

C

Next, we have makerber who posted an update, mentioning changes that were made to the maker burn website. New features include: chart grouping, toggles for collateral charge, charts and extended menu, and more so check that out.

C

Moving into the top three discussions of the week, delicate compensation has been discussed since the launch of delegation following a set of informal polls that show the majority of the community agrees to compensate delegates. Joshua further ties, not by asking the community how to compensate the delegates.

C

Next up, we have a first-time poster leslie who is proposing to integrate footprint data analytics with maker. Dow footprint is a powerful and easy to use analytics tool that can uncover and visualize blockchain data.

C

And the third discussion from akiva from the open market committee presents a solution to use pairwise protocol for the.

A

Provision of fixed rate dialogues.

C

Of arbitrary terms on maker dow, which can also help solve the impossible trinity and we're going to move on to our three active signal, requests right now. One of them is actually closing. Tomorrow, nadi is signaling by asking the community whether we should launch the nexo institutional vault. The signal closes tomorrow.

C

It also contains a lot of continued discussion on the forum next up following discussions to off-board usdt token from the maker protocol, when it supply signals to the community asking whether we support the parameter changes he outlined in the signal request post on the forum.

C

And finally, shoopy is signaling to adjust this buffer to help prevent it from filling up. In the case of liquidation penalties collected during a significant market drop.

C

For more information on foreign glands.

G

C

Out the post that has a lot more discussion, some more information like the three-point summary ongoing initiatives and help wanted. That's it.

B

Awesome we appreciate it uh and I'll see if I can grab that link during the start of the next topic here. So we've moved on past our governance updates and now we're doing our more general discussion topics led by some of our core units. Here we had initially talked about starting off with growth nadia, if you're up for giving us a brief update.

H

Yes, yes, hey everyone well uh before starting the discussion around institutional goals.

H

I want to give a warm welcome to felipe mori who's here in the governance school is our new integrations leader who will be helping us with everything related to the technical questions that our partners have every time they want to integrate the maker protocol into their into their project, so say hello to him and bourbon again, and he will be contacting you for the happiness airdrop and now going to the institutional volts discussion, although I will be posting the weekly updates in the forum.

H

So, like uh any question regarding that I'll be checking the forum and answering any questions you have there. I also posted a question for the community because we are sponsoring the it's online hackathon and we are allowed to give a name on the prices. So, for example, we want to give a price to the team. Who can, I don't know like help us to develop the best keeper or help us to integrate the protocol with something any ideas are welcome.

H

So please post your ideas in in the uh in the weekly updates of this week and coming back to the institutional boats. Discussion, as someone said before, tomorrow is the last day to participate in the signal request, and I encourage you to go and vote because uh we depend on that results to start the polling, and then they execute execute executive vote to start offering the institutional votes not just for nexo but for others.

H

Our idea in growth is to, after we have this institutional nexo vault is to go through all other. These institutions that, as I explained in one of the posts for for us institutions, are uh crypto companies, crypto projects who which have a large, a crypto treasury, mainly in it and bitcoin, and we are going after them, because when we, when we reach out to the more traditional companies, it's a little bit harder to start to start a conversation uh regarding okay, just let's do you want an institutional vault?

H

You can use the maker protocol, but then it appears the kyc problem, the that that we are having with these more traditional companies. That is yes. We want to use the maker protocol, but we need to sign an agreement with an entity and uh who is that entity um that represents the maker protocol. So we are struggling with that with these more traditional companies.

H

But we are working with a legal team and the compliance team of these companies to try to find a solution for this big challenge that we have, because we are sure that, after we find a solution for this, we will be able to open this institutional, bold solution not just to these nexus that are around the world, but also to the more traditional companies who are told us that they want to interact with the maker protocol.

H

And I think that's that's also super valuable and it's good to know that these traditional and important companies and like in the financial industry are interested not just like experimenting with d5, but also starting like getting liquidity from the protocol. So that's also uh good to know so. I want to know everyone's opinion.

H

I thought that, after what, after the economical impact of the institutional votes that was posted by the real world finance team, uh the conversation that that that came from that post was super interesting and it gave us a lot of ideas of what else we could implement to improve the way. How we see the institutional bolts so that that was that was er.

H

That was awesome, but my main concern right now is that if we start changing um the way how the proposal is by now, we have to ask nexo if they agree on these new er on these new parameters, which it's okay, if it's what the community wants. But I think we all agree, including nexo, that this is the first iteration of the institutional votes and we are going to discover if this is good for us.

H

If this is good for him for them and improve this product with their help, which is also something that, for me, is very interesting when you create co-create a product with your users, because we are receiving a direct feedback from their side, so that that was just uh my my. What what I wanted to say about institutional votes now I want to hear your thoughts about that.

A

What are the main like things, that people have brought up against institutional vaults and also like um things that people are seeking to clarify before moving forward.

H

Well, I guess it's uh regarding the the risk parameters that we that we set on on this nexo vault in specific that, of course, uh the risk parameters that how they are now uh we can improve, improve it and makerman had like the greatest ideas around that uh the ones that I included in the in the signal request that that is posted in the forum um and and and it's more about how to renew the next cycle of this institutional vote.

H

So after six months, we have to renegotiate the terms of the of the loan, so makerman brought like a new idea on what would be fair when for both sides when uh renegotiating the the next cycle, um because as it is now, if the market changes drastically, maybe it's not it's not! We.

H

We won't have like uh a good position against the market against nexo, because uh if we are like, if we are giving them uh such a small stability fee, but we are, we have to increase it because of the market conditions to the regular balls. Maybe that could be seen as unfair uh for the community in general. So that's one of the biggest concerns there. I don't know if someone else in the call wants to jump in and add something yeah.

D

Yeah, I can, I can charming here so there's. Definitely one of these risks where um you know. If, if this exposure towards fixed rate walls is becoming too big, uh we might risk on the regular worlds. uh You know increasing stability fee to uh too high, and this is definitely not good because of these are still our core users.

D

But what we thought- and we also addressed it in the risk evaluation which we're working on- is that um the total exposure towards this kind of fixed rate worlds, either institutional or whatever uh needs to be somehow related to stable coin backing in the portfolio. um Because you can imagine now we have 3.5 billion of stable coins.

D

But if there's for some reason die demand shock- and this you know keeps decreasing, um you wouldn't want to risk it with having too high amount of portfolio being having fixed rate terms, because at some point you might be forced to increase rates, and this would be bad, so you're thinking thinking to set some kind of threshold.

D

When we say you know, fixed-rate volts could have at most x percent of the stable coin backing, and currently it's not an issue, because even if, if nexo, migrates and means additionally um there's about 700 million exposure for fixed terms and uh there's still 20 of the stable stable coin backing, so that's fine, uh but as soon as you know, this ratio starts increasing heavily. uh We should be cautious uh about this um there's one other risk that I can highlight here since we're on this discussion.

D

um There's this implementation of dss charter- that's being uh you know, mentioned a few times on this call for those who are not aware what dss charter is. It basically forbids the borrower to mint additional die or withdraw collateral below certain collateralization ratio threshold in nexus case. So in this institutional watts case, this would be 200 percent, and this just means it cannot mean more, but liquidation happens at 120 percent, and there is one potential issue that we also are addressing um in the risk evaluation.

D

So in case collateralization ratio really drops below 200. The borrower cannot make a certain unwriting procedure that some borrowers are, you know quite commonly used uh and this procedure, that's being used, is to withdraw collateral, convert it to die and then make repayment, and this wouldn't be possible uh unless borrower uses a flash loan and not everybody has this capacity.

D

The other option, of course, is to use top-ups of collateral or make repayments of uh from external capital. You know just debt repayments, but uh again, this is something borrower needs to be aware, because if he's relying on this, you know standard technique of unwinding. um This won't. uh This won't be possible because of the dss charter, so we're making sure to communicate this with uh with all the borrowers so that we don't cause any unexpected issues.

H

Yeah, I I also want to add, like one of the reasons we want. This institutional bulks in the maker protocol is because this is a way to increase the size of the volts.

H

So if you, if you see the current situation of the protocol like the the volts, the both sides is smaller than 200 million, that the biggest ball we have right now is nexus, and it's 400 million uh sort of less.

H

And with these institutional votes they will, they will commit to mean 200 extra millions, which means that one user will have 600 a million dimension and uh that's what we well, where the, where the dead er with the dust, how it is and with the gas piece how they are and like how we are seeing things by now. Until we have a layer, two solution uh for for the maker protocol, we think it will be good to attract these users that will be able to open these positions and also someone like nexo they.

H

They know what they are doing, so we know that they will do their best through certain tools to protect their position from liquidation. So that's also important for us.

B

A question come in from water there in the chat asking what interviews uh nexo would be using to manage their vault and if, if we knew that.

I

Might be yeah my my understanding there is that this will be done through fire blocks. They have recently set up a uh new 24 7 system to manage their vaults, which gives them really good coverage. uh We also had a call with them today, uh which was on the technical side and was really positive.

I

They they are looking to increase the vault size and uh we walk through what the migration would look like using the executive and what future automation practices would look like as well using fire blocks and also some other backup systems that they will manage internally, with potentially multiple different individuals to manage the event of a large market drop. So um we will be reviewing some of the the backup systems they have um so uh yeah. If anyone else wants to chime in it was a really good call positive.

I

um They were really keen looking forward to this passing so uh so yeah looking forward to get the rest of the governance process completed and getting it in.

E

So yeah um did you had asked if uh brian or I would chime in on adding some color philosophically. um First of all, I think nadia does a great job of like kind of covering the sort of trade-offs um of adding institutional vaults. You know so that the the philosophical risk is obviously like we're here to permission those systems that allow um anyone to participate um and by creating these sort of permission systems. We end up in a similar model to what the old financial system looks like right.

E

So you take something like uh like blackstone that owns blackrock. uh They get these sort of like close proximity, zero interest loans to central banks, and then they use that funding to go and purchase uh like single-family homes in the united states right and- uh and they can do this- to make an offer like 20 40 over asking price because they have a zero percent interest rate loan, whereas the rest of the people that want to buy this stuff are at a four percent. So it is a bit of um if we don't.

E

If we aren't aware of that risk, it's a bit of a giveaway to uh these large institutions and uh is sort of like antithetical to the sort of permissionless drive. um I I think the uh nadia brings up the trade-offs, though, which are important. um We we know that nexo can manage their vault better than let's say a normal user right, um they're much more professional about it, and so that actually does indicate that they probably deserve a better. You know risk um assessment or, let's say interest rate or whatever right.

E

um We need die supply desperately and- um and all of this uh doesn't really matter because l1 die generation is pretty much priced out.

E

The small guy anyway, at this point, so um hardly any like small users can even participate dust limits are way too high uh gas is way too expensive, and so I think that um we just want to pair whatever strategy that we used here for institutional vaults, with making sure that we um have the intention to deploy a multi-collateral die on a layer, 2 network, so that we can begin to offer what we used to offer during the bear market.

E

You know 20 or 20 die uh positions and stuff like that on l2, so that we can uh stick with the mission of being a decentralized censorship, resistant, permissionless uh protocol and um yeah. That's it so that's the philosophical side, um I'm also very excited about the institutional offering and looking forward to working with next soda. To do it so um yeah.

J

Yeah is my mic working? Can you guys hear.

E

J

Cool um yeah, so uh just branching off of that um mooney hit the philosophical part right on red, like we want to be a permissionless system. I think ds's charter from a technical perspective can get us there, like we'd, be rolling it out for nexo to start with, but because we've got this two-tiered collateralization ratio where you can't draw a die beyond a certain point. But then the liquidation ratio is much lower.

J

That doesn't necessarily help the borrower as much, but it does give us some assurance that these vaults are going to be over collateralized within a certain range, and so we can reduce the rates and potentially attract uh larger participants on on on fees and and there's no reason why that couldn't be a permissionless offering going forward so think of think of nexo, as kind of just the beta test. For this.

K

Guys, since my name was mentioned here, can I chime in a little bit so I'm for institutional vaults, I'm for rwa they're for they're the big numbers right, and I think we can do some better terms. I like the idea of having a buffer generally. You know this uh difference between the liquidation ratio and what they need to maintain my biggest issue here. Is this impossible trinity thing and you don't get out of it? We have a permissionless protocol.

K

We can't do um we can't control liquidity moving around and then uh and then we have rates to basically deal with with the last situation.

K

I'm trying to think of the third one, but all we have left is rates at this point, and so as soon as we start locking rates down we're kind of stuck into the psm soaking up the rate difference until it gets exceeded, either by running out of stable coins to peg the thing or by running to the downside, and then we can, if we can't adjust rates, then we can't stop up liquidity.

K

Sure we have the dsr- I'm just I'm concerned here- that we think carefully about how we deal with fixed rates in the long term, because it's our last level to deal with the impossible trinity when I am for institutional vaults generally, I just wanted to do them in a general way, rather than making special cases for special people. I was thinking of a 200 to 200 2 billion vault. You know and then go from 2 billion to 20 billion whatever I don't want to deal with each case individually.

K

Let's just deal with them all out of the gate and then think about this interest rate issue and locking in terms and all that jazz generally against this impossible trinity issue. Otherwise we're going to get stuck here and the stick is going to be on the pay which is going to hurt everyone every stakeholder in the ecosystem, as if this peg flies high, because there's no more stable coins to fill the vaults.

L

Hey, can I just like hop in, I think you raised some good points, but I think, with regard to this particular proposal, I mean the real danger is that we, the interest rates, can't float up fast enough, in which case we're not going to be having a problem with the psm emptying.

L

um You know it would, and I doubt nexo would ever uh argue with us if we decided to lower rates uh faster than than uh we agreed to. So um those are some great points, but I'm not sure that this particular proposal is really gonna, like the pressure would not be in the direction of a downward pressure on our pig. I don't think I'll have to think more on it, but I don't think so.

J

Well, it's the the idea is to put downward pressure on the peg by by getting more dye issuance. um So we, since we've been above the peg for a year and a half um the the pe team specifically, is just entirely focused on new methods of generating dye to try and push that down.

J

um That does potentially create the issues that make a man alluded to on the other side of the peg, um which we would have to deal with there, particularly you know, raising rates where possible, and then you know the dsr as well to stop up that demand. But it's not a problem. We've had to deal with in in a while, so um we've kind of been focusing on if it's on on the other side of the peg.

J

F

Feels like, if we're having the other problem, then it's gonna be much rejoicing right.

A

Yeah, I was gonna say also like uh as a governing body. I feel like the maker protocol moved away from uh from a rate change policy that is guided by, like I guess, like the peg, because now we have the psm.

A

The rates are way more, guided more by like the competitive landscape that exists uh and so like, even though, like we have more fixed-rate die supply like we're, really not using that lever at all, we're really just trying to get more die supply and then, if we have too much die supply, we have the dsr. So those are like the two approaches, so I don't really see like the fixed rate thing like being much of an issue, but of course I'm just an amateur. I mean.

G

I think I think this is the risk primo laid out um earlier in this call where he said that you know if we got too much debt from these institutional, fixed rate vaults, you know we wouldn't be able to um well we'd, be in a position where we'd have to raise the rates too aggressively.

G

You know on non-fixed rate vaults and, if I recall correctly, the solution he proposed was to just relate the amount. You know establish a relationship between the amount of debt. We issue to the at a fixed rate to the stable coin reserves we have. So we have some. You know, accounting for that risk. Basically,.

A

Okay, so I get it so, the more fixed rate large vaults there are it actually, the the retail vaults, the permissionless vaults, end up subsidizing the rates, so their rate is more volatile with the more fixed rate vaults we allow, and so that's why there needs to be that relationship. Okay, cool got it yeah, yeah.

G

Just that, just imagine that you know that the peg deviates low and like 90 percent of our die is generated from fixed rate volts. um So now our only options are either raising rates on the 10 of vaults. That aren't fixed rate, um which is probably going to put you know at some point. They'll just close or the other option is to keep raising the dsr, um and if you keep doing that at some point you start running. You know a financial deficit and you burn through your surplus buffer right.

G

So it's you know it's the uh there. You could definitely see imagine scenarios where you got into into that situation and I think the idea is just to sort of intelligently limit the the debt ceilings up front um and the good news is. We have a ton of of uh stable coins in the psm, so I think we've got a lot of room to run on it.

L

J

I think we should also just.

L

Take a moment to step back and when we're we're talking about fixed rates. For us this seems like very novel and long maturity, but it's really very short dated and it's actually floating. It's just doesn't float very fast.

E

I'm going to add one additional point to every I mean a billion times will purchase that um as for the risks on the other side of this, um but I I just want everyone to realize that we're gonna run into the same situation with the real world assets, so real world assets have, like you know, they're constrained by in many cases like u3 laws and other stuff, and so our peg balancing mechanism, especially below the peg, isn't gonna work, because we can't raise rates on them too high, and so the only solution there, let's say, if you're, giving a three percent rate is going to be to um to gradually ratchet up the dsr and you're going to pinch out the profits, basically as you're trying to incentivize demand.

E

So we don't have that problem today, just uh just trying to get everyone to think like a few moves ahead. uh If we succeed on on adding enough supply so.

K

Yeah, I just had the last thing here, so it's basically peg is and capital controls they're the two pieces of the impossible. Trinity. What's left is rates and if rates do not match the outside environment, there will be capital flows, because you can't stop them that are going to move into or out of these psms and the psm is limited by the total, stable coins available to the high side right and the low side. Sure we just talked about that. I'm just saying it has potential unattended consequences.

K

If you can't move rates with respect to this impossible trinity and the capital flows, that's it! I'm warning! You guys pay attention. We cannot have these rates locked and be for long periods. These rates must move with the markets to manage the capital flows. That's it I'm going to leave it alone. At this point,.

B

All right uh definitely appreciate all the discussion. uh It seems well, you heard from a lot of voices and that's really awesome. We do have a couple. Other topics planned though so I think I am gonna push this aside. If you do have other thoughts, we might have time for later, or perhaps it would be a good use to spin up a new forum thread and get some thoughts uh on on paper there and somewhere.

A

Also keep in mind this conversation is going to be posted in a semi-transcribed form by the summaries team in two to five days. So look out for that on the forum as well. If you want to read through this convo.

B

uh So gonna kick us off with our next topic, then I'm not sure if oracle's a risk once wants to lead the way, but we want to talk about uh off-boarding collaterals, specifically in terms of costs and and there is surrounding it, um if that's a good enough primer for for either one of you to jump in on.

D

Yeah, I can actually start I'll also uh make two short updates. uh What we are currently working on, that's that's kind of important is we are thinking of changing auction parameters, uh specifically for top tier volts. um As you may know now, the expected duration of auctions is 40 minutes.

D

This was said quite conservatively at the beginning because of potential network congestion issues and then on the other hand, we also know that longer auction duration presents more market risk, so we decided to propose a bit fast, faster execution also because the recent performance of auctions was was actually very good and promising uh even better than months ago. So this means we likely propose a set of parameters that will lower duration from 40. To 30.

D

Minutes may not be a meaningful difference, but uh actually does uh increase the auction throughput a lot uh by 25, especially uh if you're going also to increase one other parameter, which is the the whole parameter. um The pending auction uh amount, so yeah uh changes to follow next week. I'll write about uh pros and cons of this, but uh I'll also prepare a signal request and then uh one other quick updates to a risk.

D

Dashboard uh we've started creating this risk scoring methodology for all worlds, and basically, when you look at this liquidation curve at our dashboards, you know when it shows how much, how many volts and what amount of that gets liquidated at certain price. uh We started, uh including data from defy server. So basically we can see now you know if price drops by x percent, how much, uh how many volts get liquidated and which are protected by d5 server and default.

D

Server now protects more than 200 million of of uh of depth, which is which is really good, um and in addition to that, we also create another uh risk scoring so to keep it short, basically for every price drop, we'll have a really good estimation of you know which users are safe, which are not, and uh you know whether we need to change some of these parameters and then uh on to this topic. um I I can give a bit of description why I thought this topic matters, so you may know community voted to opport.

D

I think around eight wall types about two months ago, uh then growth proposed to first have discussion with these teams. Behind this tokens to see whether there is any potential you know to meet more die, so we don't need to overboard them.

D

The main reason why we wanted to overboard them was because of oracle costs, and I believe nick will talk about it later and of course, nadia, on the other hand, uh also suggest to keep some of the collaterals because she sees some some business development benefits.

D

So, from the risk point of view, this is really more about oracle cost versus business development benefits, but I can say that, looking from the risk perspective, I can't imagine this lower tier collaterals, such as zero x, looping, but mana, and so on can have high depth ceilings uh even now, although some of them are fully utilized.

D

So 0x is fuel utilized at 3 million mana at 5 million. We are a bit hesitant to propose increasing debt ceilings, because those numbers are pretty much in line with their models and just to give you one example why these collaterals are a bit risky from auction perspective. Is that launch liquidity is really low for some, so, for instance, if you want to sell 2 million dollars of 0x, you would incur 45 slippage. um If you do, if you we do it on chain.

D

So this is really a lot and this is dangerous and uh we have pretty much similar figures for loop ring, maybe a bit more promising figures than for bat and mana, but all in all, I don't see how we can offer more than 10 million debt ceiling for some of them. In best case- um and this is uh you know it's- this is uh this- is not good from oracle perspective, because earning from 10 million might not offset oracle costs directly um one one other thing I want to uh bring out.

D

Maybe this is more relevant and it's not really risk related, but yesterday it took some time. um I actually checked how these collaterals are utilized on other platforms, because this this basically gives you. You know a demand, estimate how much the mentor is, for you know this lower tier collaterals or lower market cap, and I found out that these collaterals are not really much used uh on compound to rubber.

D

If you would look at largest bat mana, 0x depositors on our like there's 10 to 15 million deposits in dollars, so it can't be borrowed more than few millions.

D

um So we're really talking about few millions like in overall, you know leveraged demand for these assets in defy, and even if I was able to identify some larger borrower or depositor borrowing, uh you know something it was more likely to be involved in some kind of recursive leverage. You know supplying 0x and then borrowing 0x and then claiming some some rewards.

D

So this is not organic demand at all, um and it's hard to you know expect suddenly to pick up and then the last point I want to make why maker is probably not very well positioned when it comes to this this kind of assets, um and this this is something I also confirmed when looking at the data. So just imagine, if you hold bat or 0x, it's likely, you also hold theta or some other altcoins, and if you wanted to leverage on it, you actually prefer cross collateralization right.

D

You don't want to be managing uh seeing every single world for every collateral, because we know how costly this can be, and this is something where unfortunately, av and compound are much better positioned um and it's it's hard to compete from maker's standpoint, uh but even even you know, even if we had that, as I said, the organic demand is is so low um that I I'm truly a bit pessimistic at this point on on keeping these collaterals.

D

So sorry, maybe I was a bit too long, but yeah. I I would like oracles to you know, provide an input because it's that it's all about oracle costs. I think.

M

Yeah, um so I think we've been we've been talking about this for quite a while right that with high gas costs, um come really high kind of associated oracle costs and that uh at least on layer one uh that this is really only sustainable for collateral types that bring in significant amounts of dye or at least have the potential to in the future, bring in significant amounts of dye.

M

And I I don't actually understand why this has taken us as long as it has. I think we need to have uh really simple internal processes for just being like. Oh, we want to off-board that, and a month later like having this thing, off-boarded- um and I think uh you know going through it the first couple times right, there's a lot of kind of pain, points and kind of edge cases that that we need to consider right with vault off boarding and all that. um But I don't think this should be that controversial right.

M

It's uh we did an experiment, we onboarded some tokens. uh They didn't get a lot of traction, the uh even the liquidity, a profile of those assets doesn't look like they can even support much traction. Even if we did get it, and so we off-board it- and so you know this is not really the uh the exception. This is rather the norm. Right like there are very few tokens that we've added in the past year or two right that have been very successful right.

M

You know we we had some successful ones like uh like wi-fi and and maybe the link token right, but for the most part onboarding most of these defy tokens did not uh yield very good results, and so I don't think it's quite controversial to uh to afford that um now I don't think we should um on the topic of like bd. I think I I want to let nadia kind of get the last word in here, but if the point of not offboarding, these assets is to carry some kind of favor with these teams.

M

I don't know if that's really a tangible benefit, because we're basically just paying out of pocket to maybe get something from them in the future. um I think the discussion about monetizing treasuries is kind of like a separate discussion entirely.

M

um I don't think the dao is necessarily decided, whether that's something that we're diving head first into or if that's something that we're going to be more cautious about, but I don't think you should kind of keep these assets onboarded because maybe we're talking those teams to monetize their treasuries. I think those are kind of two completely different things, and so you off-board them, and then you talk to them on the side about uh maybe reinstating a new vault with new risk parameters right to to monetize their treasuries, but other than that.

M

I'm I'm kind of uh very bearish on on most of these tokens, and I think we should kind of on board a little liberally but off board liberally.

H

I I I think it's it's uh that what you said about monetizing treasuries is something we should start thinking about. um Maybe it's like a a parallel conversation for a little discussion that we should have, because I I I think, that's a very interesting product for maker. If we decide to do it because there are a lot of well, we we saw it with with polygon uh they they were interested in instead of having the thematic bulk.

H

uh Actually, they were interested on monetizing their treasury, and I think that's the that's this the situation of most of these uh tokens and after what uh pretty much said that these tokens, they are not that much used in other protocols. Well, uh so I think the the only user for these vaults will be the treasury of these vaults. So I think we should. We shall have a conversation about if we want or not, money provide a solution to monetize treasuries, but also regarding offboarding tokens.

H

It's um it's it's! It's not because they are going to give us something in return in the future, something that we don't know or because they will use it to monetize their treasuries. Actually, when we talk with blueprint, uh they want it to have the blueprint token in in maker, because uh they want lick to help us er.

H

They will launch this a tool that I don't remember the name that will uh that will provide a service to the to people who will be using the loopring network to interact with layer, one solutions. So you know in the layer two loop ring. You will be able to open a maker vault using this tool. They are creating and that will be launched on um at the end of the year.

H

So I think we can work with them together to create a like campaigns around that and to attract more blueprint, uh token holders to use this new tool that they are creating to open, uh open positions in maker using that bridge that will allow them to use the a layer. One solution, that's something that I find interesting and I think we can take advantage because it will. It won't be just uh it won't, be just for blueprint token holders, but it will be for other tokens as well.

H

So I think, that's interesting for us to like uh open new opportunities for people who can who can open a bolt on layer one to use that that tool. Of course, we could decide to offer the blueprint token and whatever, but I think that, instead of and that's the vision we have in growth, instead of just like putting a a proposal in the forum and accepting a collateral, we should create partnerships, and that is what we are doing with the psm.

H

Instead of just like yeah, we we we think we should have packs usd and gemini usd and finance usd and psm. I think what we have to do is like have a conversation with them and set agreements with these protocols and that's what we are trying to do with these uh other tokens that we want to offer and it's interesting, because uh we have the example of kyber that they are not interested in being part of, I mean they don't care, it's not that they are not interested, they don't care.

H

So it's not worth it, and maybe, if we just abort them it's okay for their their community and for them and and that doesn't move the needle, but for the other protocols. I think there are things that we can do and there are things that we can get in return of having them in in the protocol.

H

So uh I think it's important for now on not just like on board collateral just because but have like agreements with these uh projects and try to like establish long-term relationships with them.

H

uh Although I agree with you nick I I think it doesn't make any sense to have like any token in the protocol, but but I also think it's important to have a conversation with them and if they want to be in the protocol well, we we can take advantage of that and try to like do do more things with them, and I I found interesting that as soon as we talked with them, they started using the protocol so that also like it's it's it's important to know for all of us, like we have to have these open channels with these protocols.

M

So so I think you made a lot of good points, um especially with right when it comes to onboarding right, really having it be partnerships with projects right and getting concessions from them and guarantees of of what they're going to do. um But we've also seen you know like, as is the case with polygon right where we did on board them, and then they did absolutely nothing and followed through on none of their commitments.

M

um So I'm in terms of like trust I'd, say I have very little trust for any of these projects, and so when they say oh at the end of the year, we might be releasing something and uh it's gonna. You know support maker and um I have very low trust when it comes to that.

M

What I do have very high trust in is watching us just screw away 250k uh on oracle fees uh on some project that may or may not pan out at some point in the future, and so I, what I would suggest is that we kind of segregate those two and we just kind of say uh the same- is kind of what I suggested earlier.

M

With respect to monetizing treasuries uh versus uh you know, off-board and collateral is that we just say they're two independent things and right, and so we will uh off board bloopering, because it doesn't bring us anything right now and it's not seeing any usage and then, when your product is ready and you want to launch like we can onboard you again with a new deal with new parameters with new guarantees from you um and that way we actually have leverage as well right like if you're already on board in the protocol, like we have very little leverage versus if you're off-boarded and we're willing to onboard you again now we actually have leverage again, but would be.

M

I I forget the feeling you may disagree. So I want to let you have the uh the last word on here.

H

Oh, uh I mean I I disagree because my work is to like go with these partners and having conversations and of course, I'm I'm all about the partners and the relationships and helping make her to go out and- and I like growth, uh so yes like I uh for me, it's is is good that they are in the protocol and interact with the maker protocol and and also because it's hard for us not just for me, but for my team when they have to have these conversations.

H

If we don't have like a a clear framework or of okay, if you don't do this, then you will go through this opportunity process and like clear rules. That's all that we need like for now. We just told them. Okay, if you open uh a vault and take the remaining debt, then the community will understand that you want to be on board in the in the protocol. So if they do that and then we afford them.

H

That's like a weird message we are sending, so I think we have to work on like establishing a clear framework or or of what we want and actually, when we were discussing this, it's not just about affording collaterals, but also about onboarding collaterals.

H

I think we need like a clear framework to do both uh and to communicate that, because, if not it, it generates like a lot of confusion and frustration uh from our partners like we, we don't communicate this to the community, but when, when we go to some of these partners that they were going to be off-boarded, they didn't take it like a good, a good news. So for them, it's like why. Why me? But what did I do?

H

Why you didn't told me that I had to have like certain amount of debt in maker to be there, so it's just like we need to improve uh on the on these processes.

A

And the way I see it is anytime, like we have a very good business, logical reason why these vaults should be off-boarded right, like as much as like you would love to continue a partnership and not hurt people's feelings. Like you know, it's not like getting off-board means. You can't be on-boarded again in the future, um so I don't know I I think, sticking to like really the the logic and the fact that we're spending 250k a year on oracle fees on you know per vault or whatever it is um yeah.

A

It's relationship management right, but uh these collaterals need to fundamentally fulfill. You know the things that they have to fill to be useful to maker and to be a working and profitable product that maker. So.

A

Like I like what kurt said a lot in the chat- and I think a lot of people also like what he said because he said my aside here- is that we shouldn't be focusing on the next I'm sorry, we should be focusing on the next 10x die. Are we really going to get 10x from from this or even 1x or 2x, um like what's our floor for our interest rate like? Is it 30 million dollars coming out of a vault? Is it 100 million.

H

Yes, I I agree with that and that's why the institutional balls came to light, because we need to be focused on these large bolts, but uh again, if, if we just focus on this, like these tokens that can bring large falls to the maker protocol, we are talking about bitcoin and ether, I guess um or monetizing treasuries.

H

That's the other option that will be like a different institutional ball, because it will be like a uh a vault just for for these project treasuries.

A

I'm also curious about what peyton asked like. Can we make like smaller people that want to be part of maker like subsidize themselves to be here, you know, can we have them pay for their own oracle costs.

K

Look I've been talking about this for a while, and I posted the laser focus to get to 1 trillion right. This isn't just about like communities right that are important. It's about the protocol growing and growing in a way, that's substantial and can be done in a way that people can handle. We literally cannot do 100, 100 million deals, even if we could find them.

K

We need to do one billion dollar deals and focus on those and then focus on putting things in line to do that, and so a year ago I was saying oh mcd everybody's, like oh, it's great, we can add every collateral. I'm like. Are you crazy, you're, going to add every collateral? That's 500, 000 100 000 die and what are we gonna get for it, and here we are today asking the same question and getting rid of stuff that I was like.

K

Let's not even bother with it, I'm back to one thing: we need to compete with the rest of the protocols, the way they're playing. We need to issue a reward token, and we can bring that 10 wbtc over at compound over to maker or to get some bigger collateral types in here that want to play and just focus on the big players. I really wanted to figure out what happened with polygon. I don't understand they could have been a next player here and nexio.

K

We want you know, I'm saying like we need to focus on the big players, because we don't have a lot of people and a lot of time to mess around and we're spending a lot of money on oracle's and other stuff, and so I'm just like. Let's get the laser focus and figure out how we're going to grow this thing, the next 10 billion and not do it 10 million. At a time I mean we're, bringing our rwa players in like that, because we kind of have to but these rwa players.

K

I know at least one of them very well he's looking at the one billion mark, but it's going to take him a while to get there, and I think we need to think about it from this perspective because we can't grow this way.

G

I I want to expand on the comment I made there um about focusing on the next 10x. um It's you know also the time and energy we spend like here arguing about. Should we off board these things or not over what 250 000 a year, an oracle cost or something or is that a month? um What what I heard that number?

G

um I I don't know whether that's a year, okay, a year um think about the revenue that would be brought in by a 10x of die supply like maybe we should just be working on that and we should just eat the cost of you know some of these smaller things and say: okay, that's a legacy thing, but you know we need to grow. We need to focus on that. um You know like I.

G

I think we just are spending too much time on minutia without really properly sizing the you know how important is the thing we're arguing about.

J

Yeah it's a kurt's point like off-boarding is additional overhead for vertical engineering. However, um there will come a time in the future where we do have to off-board things for for very real reasons, and um I think we can streamline that process. It's just you know in the short term, there's some growing pains as we as we build the tools to to solve that.

M

Look but we're gonna need to build up those internal processes anyway, so may is, and it's gonna be painful, the first time or two but may as well. Just do that now uh we can't put off offboarding just because we don't want to deal with that front. Loaded kind of overhead.

F

I think we are proceeding right, like there's a signal up for like knc, which is the one we're definitely off-roading, because they migrated the token. So, like we'll do the thing we said for k and c right and then see how well it works.

M

I don't think this this. Let's see, we've been talking about offboarding for months now it shouldn't take this long. It should literally be like from one month to the next like we, we decided as a community off board of kayla softboard um like I. I don't understand why we're wasting so much mental operations and just time overhead on off-boarding all this stuff, when it should just be so much simpler.

G

Yeah, that's kind of my point. There should not be as much discussion about we like shed it enough on it right like either. Do it or just say we're eating that that thing you know, cost to scale one or the other, but let's not, let's have people spending their time on more productive things.

H

Well, just just to give you an idea about like clear processes, and we received it the other day, a message from finance that they want to release the pair mkr bnb from finance, because it doesn't have enough liquidity.

H

uh So they ask for a fund to increase increase liquidity on that pair to keep it on on the binance platform. Maybe that's something we could do uh with the collaterals we want to afford, or it is important to have like a clear framework of when we are going to afford a collateral and what are the next steps for the other part and for us.

K

Doesn't this just come back to a framework for onboarding that is related to off-boarding? I mean if you can't meet a minimum requirement, you're slated to be off-boarded at some point and if you meet the minimum requirement to come on, then we'll consider you right. I mean it's the same thing.

B

So, while I'm noting the time here and uh appreciate all the discussion and different voices, um we talked and we will be pushing the next topic we originally had until next week. So for those of you here, you can have like a little one. Week's head start uh it'll, be on the topic of migrating away from rocket chat, um given the the posts that were made, I guess about a week or two ago now uh in the forum and in chat.

B

F

There's any last.

B

uh Questions or just discussion topics, I think we're probably looking to close out here.

A

uh And you, if you have recommendations or requests for discussion topics, uh don't hesitate to reach out to like payton long myself, uh yeah.

F

Yeah also, if you have feedback on the call formats, I guess uh I'd leave it in the forum on the culprit.

A

A huge huge thank you to all the people that wrote in the chat like the way that they see the call and how they experience the call and what they think the audience and what the call is about. uh All of those notes uh go a long way uh and so yeah we're gonna we're gonna continue, tightening the scope here and yeah. I really also enjoyed the way more level of discussion today, chris right on board with you, man.

B

Yeah, so we might be playing with it a little bit more as we like find her footing here, but I really appreciate everyone participating the great discussion today. uh Jerry posted a reminder in the chat that, in about uh 30 minutes, we do have a technical dive into centrifuge and tin lake. um So do be a look on the lookout for that call. If you're watching this on youtube, it might be the next video online. uh Take a look uh so thank you, everybody for coming out today.

B

I really appreciate all all the input and we'll see you in the forums and in chat have a good one.