►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 31
Description
The theme for this call will be 'Demand/Supply Imbalance' and as such we will primarily be focused on issues surrounding that. Steven will give a brief introduction. Rich will discuss the previous vote, then present some thoughts about how polling and voting interact. Cyrus will introduce two analysts who will walk us through some graphs. We'll then spend the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Thread: https://redd.it/behokt
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/governance-and-risk
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours) : https://github.com/makerdao/community/tree/master/governance/transcripts
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-38625f514101
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-fc8939f3d4e9
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-part-3-7a4c620f4077
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
Hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
April
18th
edition
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting.
This
is
our
31st
to
call
so
congratulations
to
everyone
for
surviving
this
long.
It's
a
bit
of
a
milestone!
It's
an
achievement
in
my
books.
It's
not
easy
to
keep
momentum
up
on
these
things,
and
so
I
am
very
encouraged
to
see
the
number
of
people
that
are
continuing
to
join.
These
calls
and
engage.
It's
it's
what's
happening
here
is
interesting.
A
It's
unique
and
we're
all
on
the
forefront
of
this
very
new
and
unusual
wave
of
online
or
on
chain
governance,
and
so
thanks
again
for
joining
keepeth
preamble
of
lights.
We
are
desperately
interested
in
getting
as
much
engagement
as
we
possibly
can
from
this
this
this
audience
today.
So
if
you
have
a
question,
please
type
it
in
the
chat
on
the
side,
we'll
ask
it:
if
you
don't
have
access
to
a
microphone
if
you
do
have
access
to
a
microphone,
please
jump
in
at
any
time
and
ask
your
questions.
A
Today's
meeting
agenda
looks
like
this:
we'll
have
a
brief
thought
of
the
week
from
Stephen
I'm
going
to
talk
about
some
of
the
issues
that
arise
from
the
way
that
we
have
polling
and
governance
or
voting
set
up,
and
then
we'll
hear
from
two
analysts
which
Cyrus
will
introduce
us
to
at
the
RISC
particle
I.
Think
that's
it
for
me.
Stephen
I
can
hand
it
off
to
you.
No.
B
Thanks
man,
well
to
reiterate
what
you're
saying
I'm
like:
firstly,
hello,
everybody
and
thank
you
for
actually
participating
on
these
calls.
I
must
admit
that
last
week
we
may
have
hit
a
record
turnout
and
I'm,
certainly
hoping
we
can
take
the
momentum
forward,
because
the
the
contributions
that
are
coming
in
the
work
that's
getting
done,
the
the
ability
to
facilitate
is
just
improving
from
week
to
week.
So
you
know
just
on
that
basis
now.
B
Thank
you
very
much,
but
you
know
one
thing
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
reiterate
every
single
week
exactly
what
the
themes
are,
that
we
cover
I
think
it's
crucial
to
know
these
things,
because
it
defines
very
clearly
the
spectrum
of
the
risk
that
is
considered
in
the
system.
I
mean
the
first
theme,
the
one
that
we've
been
you
know
really
entering
in.
B
These
discussions
is
about
the
demand
and
supply
imbalance
or
another
way
of
looking
at
it
is
the
demands
like
Librium
ii
clearly
covers
the
collateral
types
that
we
will
start
presenting
in
the
future,
the
collateral
portfolio
as
a
whole,
the
parameters
to
those
collateral
types
and
parameters
and
and
portfolio
and
the
adjustments
to
those
as
well
I
know,
there's
a
bit
of
a
mouthful,
but
really
it's
all
about
the
collateral
types.
And
then
the
last
theme
that
you
know
we'd
like
to
cover
in
these
calls
are
the
exhaustion
is
risk
to
the
system.
B
But
again,
you
know,
keep
in
mind.
This
is
decentralized
scientific
governance
and,
ultimately,
what
is
considered
here
is
being
facilitated
by
the
foundation
in
this
very
short
hour,
with
the
objective
of
helping
MKR
governance
to
to
make
decisions
and
needs
and
again
and
I
will
always
keep
reminding
everyone
that
this
is
a
continuous
function.
Governance
is
a
continuous
action,
so
please
be
involved
as
much
as
possible
all
that
third
turn
over
to
rich.
Again,
if
you
don't
mind
it
nope.
A
Maybe
the
the
the
the
theme
or
the
name
of
this
segment
should
be.
Who
would
have
guessed
that
governance
is
hard,
because
that's
one
thing
that
we've
figuring
out
there's
educators
here
that
need
to
be
dealt
with,
and
what
I
want
to
talk
about
today
is
the
intro
action
between
polling
and
voting
we've
seen
some
interesting
behaviors
arise
from
those
mechanisms.
A
Here's
where
that
leaves
us,
though,
so
we
have
this
cadence
on
paper.
It
looks
really
good
when
put
into
practice
like
anything
in
the
world
of
software.
You
start
identifying
edge
cases
and
one
of
those
edge
cases
is
what
I
want
to
talk
about
today,
because
it
internally
has
spawned
a
fantastic
number
of
conversations
and
also
in
the
rocket
chat
and
in
the
celebrated
of
potential
solutions.
And
so
we
have
no
end
of
solutions
for
this
problem,
but
we
don't
know
which
one
is
the
best
one.
A
So
that
was
a
mysterious
little
preamble
I'm
going
to
provide
some
detailed
context,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
I'm
literally
just
gonna
read
what
I
wrote,
what
I
posted
in
the
subreddit.
So
if
I
sound,
stilted
and
or
mechanical
for
a
while.
It's
because
I'm
literally
just
reading
things
that
might
I'm
posting
the
link
as
well
for
people
who
want
to
real
long
with
me.
So
here's
the
context
I,
would
just
kind
of
briefly
went
over
this
book.
I
know
we
have
a
governance,
cadence
Monday,
we
present
a
poll.
A
It
has
a
default
set
of
stability
options.
The
poll
collect
signals
for
three
days
on
Thursday
we
get
together
and
talk
about
how
the
poll
went
and
discuss
other
issues
on
Friday.
We
throw
up
an
executive
vote,
we
which
presents
a
new
picture
or
a
new
state
of
the
system
that
can
be
chosen
by
voters
that
contains
the
winning
poll
option
so
basically
in
the
mall
that
we've
been
playing
with
so
far,
it's
whatever
number
had.
A
The
most
signal
from
the
poll
is
the
number
that
shows
of
approach
the
ability,
feeding
the
executive
book,
and
then
we
all
determine
whether
it
wants
to
support
this
new
picture
of
the
system.
This
is
a
fairly
clean
way
of
doing
things,
and
but
it
carried
some
assumptions
with
it
and
we
might
be
spoiled
with
the
way
that
this
process
has
worked
in
the
past,
because
what
has
happened
up
until
just
very
recently
is
there's
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
other
engagements,
a
great
deal
of
interest.
A
A
Basically,
two
percent
is
23
percent
of
the
turnout
raise
it
by
three
percent
is
38,
raise
it
by
four
is
18,
so
it's
a
number
of
soups,
but
there
there's
no
clear
clear
winner
in
the
poll
that
we
have
this
week.
We
have
a
range
of
options.
The
expectation
was
of
the
hope
or
the
thesis
as
opposed
was
that
we
have
a
pole
with
a
wide
range
of
options.
It's
no
clear
winner.
A
As
the
clock
ticks
down,
people
will
begin
to
capitulate
towards
their
next
best
choices,
and
in
this
model
we
saw
that
activity,
but
very
little
of
it.
20100
maker
moved
from
3%
to
4%
since
last
night,
so
there
is
some
juggling,
but
not
much
so
we're
in
this
situation.
Right
now
where
we
have
sort
of
an
end,
video
is
poll
which.
C
A
Yeah
so
theorizing
how
the
system
works.
I
think
that
that's
been
a
fairly
common
assumption
that
people
will
go
okay,
well,
I'm,
not
gonna,
give
my
two
percent,
but
it
looks
like
3
percent
of
my
next
class
choice
and
that
one
already
has
the
winning
vote
so
I'm
just
gonna
dump
in
there,
but
that's
a
largely
uncoordinated,
an
organic
series
of
capitulations
and
negotiations
that
need
to
happen
offline.
So
I
can't
really
speculate
too
much
on
what
that
might
look
like,
but
to
get
into
or
to
pick
up
the
thread,
though.
A
So
we
have
a
situation.
We
have
sort
of
an
ambiguous
pole
and
that
creates
some
issues
where
we
need
to
decide.
Well,
if
we
have
four
options
and
a
pole,
five
options,
and
only
one
of
them
is
in
the
lead
by
whatever
10%.
Is
that
really
a
situation
where
we
need
to
go
through
through
the
rigmarole
of
having
an
executive
vote
so
I'm
gonna?
Leave
that
question
open
for
now
and
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
another
problem
that
we
saw
in
the
system
over
the
weekend
and
that's
the
problem
where
we
had.
A
There
was
no
clear
of
a
winner
as
well
and
on
Sunday
there
was
no
clear
winner
as
well,
and
that
was
problem
because
I
needed
to
tee
up
the
next
poll
border.
The
system
on
Sunday,
and
that
made
me
ask
a
very
uncomfortable
question.
So
if,
if
there
is
a
poll
coming
on
Sunday
or
on
Monday,
that
is
asking
for
which
of
these
range
of
options
do
we
want
to
see?
A
It
presupposes
that
there's
an
executive
vote
that
there's
a
clear
state
of
the
system
with
which
we're
basing
these
increases
on
and
if
there
is
no,
if
there
is
no
perception
of
a
clear
state
of
the
system
we
run
into
this
in
situations
we
don't
know
what
to
pull
on
on.
Friday
and
I'll
bring
some
clarity
around
that,
because
this
is
kind
of
a
hard
one
to
wrap
your
head
around.
We
have
an
executive,
a
continuous
approval,
voting
system.
A
That
is
not
a
safe
assumption
to
make
and
we
actually
have
three
states
in
the
system
that
I
can
sort
of
identify
where
we
have
a
single
vote
in
the
system.
That
has
the
vast
majority
of
the
stake
maker
and
that's
the
way
the
system
has
been
configured
right
now
we
have
an
incoming
vote
where
there
is
this
expectation
that
this
vote
is
an
improved
state
of
the
system
and
we're
all
waiting
for
people
to
move
from
old
to
new.
A
C
A
There
is
another
problem,
though,
where
we
might
run
into
a
situation
where
we
have
an
executive
vote
goes
up
and
it
doesn't
get
the
majority
of
the
maker
staked
into
it.
So
we
have
the
current
state
of
the
system.
Then
we
have
a
new
sort
of
weak
executive
poll
that
didn't
reach
it
didn't
get
ratified
and
then
a
week
afterwards,
we
might
end
up
with
another
sort
of
weak
executive
poll
which
no
one
will
ratify.
D
A
Yeah,
well,
that's
that's
a
good
question
so
that
that
puts
us
into
position
where
we
can
start
talking
about.
Are
we
voting
for
relative
improvements,
a
relative
increases
or
absolute
increases
so,
but
that
also
leaves
us
in
sort
of
this
in
this
gray
area,
because
if
it's
absolute
there's
an
executive
there's
a
poll
for
raise
the
stability
fee
to
11
percent
or
something
15
percent,
and
then
at
some
point
during
the
course
of
the
week
a
new
executive
was
ratified.
That
is
that's
things
like
the
stability
feat
of
15
percent.
D
So
if
we're
at
11
and
a
half
now,
the
vote
maybe
should
have
minus
2,
minus
1,
0,
1,
&
2,
and
that's
just
the
executive
vote
and
it
should
be
a
continuous
role
but
you're
really
not
voting
for
the
change.
We
really,
in
my
view,
should
really
be
voting
for
what
we
think
the
actual
end
stability
fee
would
be.
A
That's
so
that's
that's
good,
because
that
turns
over
a
rock
that
I've
been
considering
as
well,
because
we
have
this
polling
system
and
I
think
that
and
I
could
be
completely
wrong.
And
if
somebody
has
deeper
insight,
they
stop
you
before
it's
too
late,
but
the
polling
system
was
initially
designed
to
gather
signals
around
things
that
don't
actually
result
in
a
state
change,
so
the
maker
doubt
principles
or
we
should
do
X,
Y,
&
Z
in
the
real
world,
or
something
that
the
executive
votes
primarily
are
to
execute
a
new
state
of
the
system.
A
E
A
E
Cuz
I,
for
some
reason,
I
thought
that
each
individual
NPR
could
vote
on
up
to
five
slates,
so
you
wouldn't
have
to
presumably
like
if
you're
in
favor
of
a
3%
stability
fee
for
one
week
and
an
executive
vote,
you
could
still
vote
on
the
the
next
slate
while
still
locking
in
your
your
3%
from
you
know
week.
One.
A
Yes
will
need
to
dig
into
that
so
I've
I've
done,
hopefully,
I've
done
an
adequate
job
and
explaining
the
conundrum
that
we're
facing
here.
I.
Don't
expect
us
to
spend
the
rest
of
the
call
big
into
the
minutiae
of
this
I
just
wanted
to
put
it
in
people's
radars
and
encourage
them
to
come
into
that.
That's
a
thread
that
I
posted
in
the
chat
and
give
us
some
suggestions,
but
I'm
gonna
leave
some
I'm
gonna
make
the
water,
or
even
murk
here
by
adding
some
questions
that
are
outstanding.
A
So
we
also
ran
into
another
issue
where
there
potentially
could
be
a
disconnect
between
the
demographic,
that's
engaging
with
the
polls
versus
the
demographic.
That's
engaging
with
the
executive
I
think
that
it's
worth
considering
that
polling
seems
to
be
a
friendlier
option
for
smaller
maker
holders
to
create
a
signal,
but
executives
fall
prey
to
the
Commons
issue.
A
Why
should
I
bother
things?
Aren't
going
my
way,
I
can't
move
the
needle
and
other
way
all
the
rest
of
those.
Yes,
there
are
common
issues
that
are
common
to
every
voting
system.
Instead,
we're
going
to
create
it,
but
perhaps
people
that
are
willing
to
vote
in
the
poll
are
not
willing
to
vote
in
an
executive,
so
we
might
be
seeing
a
disconnect
between
signals
and,
what's
large
holders
actually
are
hoping
to
see
it
could
be
vice
versa.
Large
holders
have
to
deal
with
custodians.
A
A
One
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
get
some
clarity
on
is:
are
we
allowing
enough
time
to
pass
between
an
executive
and
a
poll,
and
this
is
something
that
we
didn't
get
into
today,
but
it's
something
we
need
to
think
about,
so
we
have
an
executive
on
Friday
and
then
the
following
Monday.
We
kick
off
another
poll,
so
if
the
intervening
weekend
is
that
enough
time
for
the
market
to
react,
is
that
enough
time
for
people
to
understand
that
the
state
of
the
system
is
there
any
breathing
room
here?
A
You
know,
and
is
it
just
a
fantastically
inconvenient
time
for
people
to
be
removing
their
their
tokens
out
of
cold
storage,
something
we
need
to
think
about,
and
this
is
a
bit
one
of
the
puzzlers.
For
me,
I
think,
is
how
do
we
know
whether
a
new
picture
of
the
system,
a
new
vote
has
been
placed
in
the
into
the
portal,
is
failed
or
not
or
has
a
lack
of
support?
We
have
an
existing
official
system
we
put
in
an
executive
and
after
two
days
three
days
five
days
it
doesn't
reach
a
majority.
A
Does
that
mean
we
can
all
assume
that
this
is
a
weak
proposal
and
is
there
any
utility
and
even
having
it
in
there?
Those
have
been
some
a
lot
of
options
thrown
around
where
we
can
essentially
started
thinking
about
threshold
enough.
This
amount
maker
needs
to
vote
in
order
to
have
an
executive
if
this
executive
needs
to
have
enough
maker
in
it
to
be
valid
and
if,
after
X
number
of
days,
there's
not
it's
like
5%
of
makers
in
the
new
executive.
A
A
E
A
Doesn't
hurt
so
I'm
not
going
to
blog
us
down
with
game
theoretical
conundrums
today,
that's
how
officially
on
everybody's
radar
and
I
posted
like
so,
let's,
let's
continue
the
discussion.
There's
been
some
interesting
solutions
presented
in
the
chats
already.
They
need
to
be
fleshed
out
a
bit
so
I'm
going
to
leave
that
there,
unless
somebody
has
a
link
to
how
to
fix
governance
that
we
can
all
enjoy,
or
they
have
a
magical
solution
for
us.
If
not
us
ours
did
you
just
be
RBS.
A
C
So
today
we're
gonna
hear
from
as
mentioned
two
members
of
our
risk
working
group.
The
shesh
has
spoken
in
the
past
and
he
will
be
kicking
off
the
state
of
the
peg
today.
We're
also
gonna
have
promotion
with
us
to
report
on
GDP
statistics
and
I
realized.
We've
never
really
had
them
give
proper
introductions
so
fish
and
Premo.
If
you
want
to
give
a
quick
bio,
please
feel
free
and
everyone
else
is,
you
all
know
we're
pushing
hard
on
this
decentralized
risk
governance
approach.
F
Thanks
Eris
yeah,
so
just
as
far
as
quick
introductions,
I'm,
not
sure
if
I've
ever
introduced
myself
properly
on
the
call,
but
I
am
computer.
Science
and
biology
by
education
worked
in.
You
know
the
academic
space
in
a
lot
of
hard
science
research
fields
and
then,
since
then
got
involved
with
a
few
tech
startups,
particularly
a
health
insurance
startup.
F
That
I
worked
at
for
a
couple
of
years
where
we
did
a
lot
of
kind
of
analytics
and
risk
modeling
and
financial
modeling
since
then
moved
on
to
a
crypto,
focused
research
firm
last
year
and
then
just
in
the
past
month
or
so
I've
kind
of
broken
off
and
started
doing
consulting
on
my
own
and
publishing.
You
know
graphs
and
tweets
and
posts
a
little
bit
more
publicly,
just
kind
of
trying
to
get
a
little
insight
and
analysis
out
there
and
into
the
space
and
into
community
calls
like
this.
F
Ok,
you
can
see
these
gray,
so
here
was
the
price
peg.
So
essentially
the
previous
in
stability
fee
increase
was
around
March
22nd
and
the
most
recent
one
was
April
14th.
So
what
we
saw
was
basically
the
price
peg
had
been
kind
of
declining
for
a
while
and
I
think
that
rate
of
decline
had
kind
of
slowed
or
come
to
a
head
with
a
bit
of
a
valley
just
before
the
most
recent
increase,
but
that
was
following
a
huge
spike
in
transaction
volume.
F
F
We
have
sort
of
seen
a
few
points
dip
in
the
eath
price
now,
I
think
the
overall
view
is
somewhat
lukewarm
in
the
sense
that
it
looks
like
we're,
starting
to
get
a
little
bit
more
healthy
stability
back
into
the
system,
but
again
with
lower
trading
volumes
and
with
eath
price.
Having
come
down
in
the
last
few
days,
we
should
probably
discount
like
how
much
we
can
attribute
that
purely
to
the
stability,
if
you
increase
versus
other
independent
variables
outside
of
the
maker
ecosystem.
F
So
and
and
just
like
I
think
it's
a
continued
trend.
That's
been
observed
a
bit
of
an
inverse
relationship
into
in
terms
of
what's
going
on
with
eath
and
what
happens
with
dye
on
the
supply
side,
so
I
think
positive,
again
indicator,
but
want
to
keep
things
tempered
is
since
the
few
days
before
the
most
recent
relief
he
increased.
There
was
a
bit
of
a
ramp
up
in
the
outstanding
supply,
but
I
think
that
tends
to
happen
just
before
an
increase,
and
then,
after
that
increase
that
supply
has
come
down.
F
F
There
were
a
few
big
transactions
where
people
were
borrowing
dye
on
secondary
platforms
like
compound
and
Dharma,
and
then
going
ahead
and
using
that
to
pay
down
their
CDP's,
which
I
think
was
kind
of
the
behavior
that
we
try
to
incentivize
with
increasing
the
stability
fee
is
to
just
kind
of
make
it
a
little
bit
more
expensive
so
that
people
consider
wiping
down
their
debt
and
they
are
in
what
I'm,
seeing
taking
advantage
of
some
of
those
secondary
platforms
as
a
lever
or
an
alternative
pathway
to
obtaining
dye.
Suresh.
A
A
F
And
there
have
been
a
few
offline
conversations
on
that
topic
in
terms
of
just
how
are
we
looking
as
timing
and
and
frequency
is
a
variable
in
a
lot
of
the
research
that
we're
doing
here?
I
do
think
it's
a
little
bit
premature
for
us
to
start
to
say
that
we
have
trends
and
historical
data
I
think
we're
sort
of
at
that
stage.
F
Where
we're
seeing
some
motifs
and
patterns
that
you
know,
we
can
maybe
start
to
make
some
very
light
predictions
on
and
then
kind
of
test
the
quality
of
those
trends
by
how
well
they
hold
up
to
what
we
see
in
the
next
couple
of
iterations,
I
would
say,
but
I
think
we
certainly
probably
need
a
at
least
a
few
more
weeks
before
we
can
start
to
say
anything
for
sure,
because
I
think
the
the
real
trick
is.
We
want
to
see
a
variety
of
independent
environmental
conditions
right,
so
we
want
to
see
stable,
eath
price.
A
F
F
A
F
So
just
as
mentioned
before,
the
transaction
volume,
big
spikes
just
post
the
previous
increase-
and
then
this
was
actually
something
that
we
had
mentioned
last
week
was
the
transaction
volume
was
healthy.
It
has
been
dropping
since
then,
but
I
think
that
is
a
little
bit
natural
in
terms
of
what's
been
going
on
with
the
outstanding
supply,
I
think
it's
primarily
been
people
wiping
down
debt,
which
is
the
healthy
behavior
that
we're
looking
for.
F
So
I
think
this
is
a
healthier
shift,
but
there's
probably
a
lot
of
debate
about
that.
So
in
terms
of
the
volume
as
I
had
mentioned
last
week,
there
had
been
this
kind
of
continual
uptick
of
the
supply
and
borrow
volume
on
these
platforms.
Slight
dip
just
post
the
stability
fee
increase
in
terms
of
the
amount
being
supplied
that
has
recovered
a
little
bit.
I
think
that
was
a
lot
of
people.
Essentially,
trying
to
reclaim
access
to
some
of
their
dye
to
try
and
wipe
down
debts.
F
One
new
addition,
which
apologies,
it
does
seem
a
little
bit
messy,
but
what
is
human
it'll
be
a
little
bit
cleaner?
This
is
something
that
was
discussed
a
little
bit
last
week
that
I
wanted
to
just
show
to
answer
a
couple
questions.
The
questions
that
we'd
gotten
were
like
when
people
are
drawing
out
dye
are:
is
it
new
CDP's
that
are
drying
out
died
or
is
it
existing
CDP's
that
are
kind
of
levering
up
their
amount
of
debt,
and
so
what
I,
just
kind
of
done
was
looked
at
okay
at
a
daily
level?
F
How
much
of
the
dye
being
drawn
is
being
drawn
with
CDP's
that
were
created,
let's
say
within
24
hours
or
CDP's
that
have
already
been
existing.
You
know
more
than
24
hours
ago,
and
so
essentially,
what
we
see
is,
and
then
I
did
just
a
nine-day,
simple
moving
average
and
then
graph
the
the
ratio
of
the
two
as
well.
F
So
I
think
this
is
a
potentially
healthy
indicator,
but
also
given,
what's
been
going
on
with
each
price.
I
always
want
to
kind
of
qualify,
because
when
eath
price
is
going
up,
we
tend
to
see
people
want
to
lever
hard
and
die
and
then
lever
hard
on
eath
and
use
dye
as
a
pathway
for
doing
so
and
the
when
that
eath
price
starts
to
fall
a
little
bit.
We
do
tend
to
see.
We
did
see
some
liquidations
as
well
a
little
light
compared
to
in
the
past.
F
Obviously,
because
it
was
a
very
small
drop
in
price,
but
in
the
past
month
or
so,
we
have
not
really
seen
very
many
liquidations
so
again
that
drop
in
ink
price
does
tend
to
be
a
healthy
moving.
The
sludge
through
the
pipelines,
kind
of
factor
for
maker.
In
my
opinion,
it's
right
I,
don't
want
to
take
up
too
much
time.
So
I
think
that
was
the
the
gist
of
what
I
wanted
to
show
today.
D
F
D
F
D
D
No
though
it
is
you're
paying
your
dad
is
it's
lower
than
your
collateral
by
value,
so
one
of
them
is
maybe
earning
a
lower
interest
rate
or
of
it
potentially
could
even
be
higher,
depending
on
what
the
rate
so
I'm
going
to
supply
rate
for
each
bids
or
whatever
equivalent
on
on
top
right
now,
like
yeah
I'd,
also
be
curious.
Now,
we've
seen
a
lot
going
on
and
potentially
looking
at
those
rates
here
are
more
seriously
as
a
thing,
though,
that
we
have
in
the
past,
discuss
the
issue
of
subsidy
and
looking
at
other.
D
E
C
H
Hi
guys,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
okay
cool,
so
just
a
really
short
introduction
of
myself
and
my
team,
because
I
have
a
lot
to
show
it
to
the
end.
We
don't
have
much
time.
So
my
background
is
in
financial
risk
management.
I
currently
run
company
called
block
analytical,
which
focuses
on
crypto
fundamentals,
research
and
investing
we're
a
team
of
three
Andrew
based
in
Slovenia
in
Europe
before
I
start
sharing
my
screen.
Let
screen!
H
H
Further
we're
also
working
on
addressing
dyon
chain
transactions
and
white
listing
certain
addresses
to
get
familiar
with
dye
demand
because
I
believe
currently
dye
demand
is
mostly
unknown
and
the
most
important
yeah
variable
when
dressing
supply
and
demand
imbalance.
Okay,
so
let
me
start
sharing
my
screen.
H
Okay,
I
hope
you
can
see
this
so
yeah,
basically
notice
CDP,
that's
pretty
concentrated
around
few
hundred
CDP's,
although
there's
more
than
I
think
two
thousand
active
CDP's
out
there.
My
goal
was
to
see
what
amount
of
CDP's
have
some
sort
of
impact
when
it
comes
to
debt
issuance
and
the
repayments
on
daily
basis.
Tonight
sorry.
H
A
H
H
Okay,
so
we
can
see
here
that
2250
largest
city
piece,
they
already
represent
90%
of
whole
depth.
Nevertheless,
for
the
research
we
used
thousand
City
piece
the
whole
history
of
them,
which
corresponds
to
98
percent
of
whole
depth.
Here
we
can
see
historical
data,
but
obviously
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
the
variables
here.
So
this
is
one
of
the
first
interesting
things
we
focused
on
last
ten
days
because
there
was
a
lot
of
pipe
activity
in
this
period.
H
This
graph
is
pretty
much
similar
but
to
be
used
to
look
at
maker
tools,
but
I
converted
everything
to
die.
So
it's
easier
to
compare
as
expect
that
there
was
a
lot
of
flock
and
through
activity
in
the
first
half
of
the
period
when
each
price
was
rising,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
free
and
wipe
activity
in
the
second
half
of
the
period
when
each
price
was
falling
and
also
stability
fee
was
announced
to
get
increased
at
that
point.
What
we
wanted
to
do
next
sorry
yeah.
H
So
here,
specifically
these
for
only
two
CDP's,
so
I
think
it's
in
this
huge
concentration
of
activity
per
GDP
is
something
that's
probably
going
away
with
time,
but
on
the
other
hand,
it's
kind
of
a
good
news
from
research
perspective,
because
it's
easier
to
analyze,
if
vibes
actually
affect
affected
the
pack,
because
we
can
make
more
detailed
on
gene
analysis
of
this
CD
piece
and
look
if
they
really
behave
as
it
was
intended
by
policy
setting.
So
this
is
this
was
exactly
what
we
wanted
to
do.
H
Next
perform
some
kind
of
function,
analysis
or
to
see
if
this
CD
piece
on
this
particular
day,
if
they
actually
freed
either
from
collateral,
used
it
to
buy,
died
on
the
market
and
actually
helped
to
restore
the
pack,
because
this
was
the
point
of
increasing
the
stability
fee
right.
So
usually
the
the
the
usual
pattern
you
can
see
on
chain.
H
H
So
on
those
two
days
there
was
four
million
of
dye
being
repaid.
There
was
four
million
of
of
vibes
and
four
million
0.4
of
ether
in
dollar
value
being
created
and
80
percent
up
to
86
were
just
from
from
these
two
CD
piece.
So
you
could
you
could
just
look
at
own
chain
of
the
CD
piece
and
see
if
how
they
behave.
H
So
the
first
CD
team
we
found
out
that
it
was
actually
free
from
the
collateral
and
it
was
used
to
buy
died,
but
this
CDP
used
hit
BTC
to
do
that,
which
was
which
was
interesting
to
me,
so
he
actually
yeah
deposited
like
in
many
chunks
here,
eager
to
hit
BTC,
converted
it
to
die
and
repeat
his
death.
Now.
H
Why
did
he
do
it?
Obviously,
because
of
higher
stability
fee
and
also
because
hit
the
price
was
falling?
At
that
point,
I
wouldn't
say
score
at
organizational
ratio
was
slowed
that
he
needed
to
do
this
so
I,
guess
that's
that's
the
good
news.
He
actually
did
it,
but
perhaps
not
so
good
thing
is
that
he
actually
used
hit
BTC.
So
that's
why
we
can't
really
see
these
trades
here
if
we
would
include
in
this
day
the
hit
BTC.
H
Obviously,
on
these
two
days,
price
of
dye
should
be
a
bit
higher,
so
it
would
look
much
better
to
say
it.
In
other
words,
and
also
one
interesting
fact
was
that
I
was
actually
amazed.
Hill
BTC
has
ten
million
of
dye
deposited
there,
so
obviously
some
people
are
actually
using
his
BTC
to
trade,
dyed
or
I'm,
not
sure
I
mean
I.
I,
know
they're
they're
rumors
about
worse
trading,
but
just
one
interesting
think
about
it.
H
The
other
thing
is
the
second
CDP,
so
we
believe
wipes
off
of
this
GDP
were
associated
with
low
collateralization
ratio
because
it
almost
fell
to
160
and
I.
Guess
the
owner
needed
to
lower
the
kiss
leverage,
and
he
actually
made
these
iterations
that
we
usually
see
when
people
build
up
leverage
and
we
followed
it
again
on
chain,
why?
Why
did
he?
How
did
he
perform
the
the?
H
H
It
could
be
that
there
were
some
spell
died
somewhere,
although
I
don't
believe
it
or
it
could
be
that
it
was
poor
out
on
some
secondary
lending
platforms
and
I'm,
pretty
I'm,
really
not
sure
it's
hard
to
say,
but
we're
we're
really
certain
that
none
of
these
vibes
on
these
two
days
where
we
fought
or
key
this
is
helping
with
the
back.
It
didn't
actually
this
this
trace
that
we
see
here,
I
guess
they
were
mostly
associated
with
with
some
guys
going
catching
their
positions
and
buying
died
because
heater
was
was
falling
at
that
point.
H
I
guess
it's
related
with
that.
So
that's
that
I
would
say
is
the
main
conclusion
about
it.
Just
the
last
thing,
and
then
I
finish,
this
is
something
that
we
played
a
bit
recently.
It
doesn't
have
to
do
with
with
what
I
just
present
it
is
just.
We
try
to
estimate
it.
Leverage
of
AB,
CD,
piece,
I,
think
that's!
That's
one
metric
that
then
I'm
kind
of
missing.
C
H
C
Cool
so
my
first
takeaway
or
my
immediate
takeaway
from
this
was
that
you
know
earlier
this
week
when
we
saw
like
three
four
million
died
being
reduced.
You
know
wasn't,
it
was
just
from
literally
just
a
couple
people
and
they
were
just
going
to
hit
BTC
and
to
me
that
doesn't
really
seem
like
the
kind
of
response
we're
hoping
for.
Is
anybody
else,
agree
I
mean,
do
you
guys
go
what
I'm
trying
to
say
then
we're
not
not
triggering
any
sort
of
mass
closures
or
a
big
supply
reduction
and
any
meaningful
percentage
of
the
community?
C
B
A
It's
not
the
assumption
we
should
make.
Is
I've
been
trying
to
wrestle
with
this
myself
and
do
we
have
a
distributed
demographic
of
at
the
top
end.
We
have
people
with
a
high
or
very
risky
for
profile
and
or
potentially
smart
money
behaving
in
a
vastly
different
manner
than
the
majority
of
the
other
CDP
holders.
And
if
that's
the
case,
is
it
possible
for
us
there's
a
community
to
try
and
find
actions
that
would
move
them
without
moving
everybody
else
at
the
same
time,
if
that
makes
sense
well,.
A
Paper
that
cannot
be
game.
Just
though,
obviously,
like
you
look
at
like
here's,
a
large
positions,
what
if
we
have
some
kind
of
magical
stability
fee
that
just
applies
to
like
whales
or
something
obviously
stupid
idea,
but
all
these
kinds
of
new
fixes
our
game
evolve
in
the
extreme.
So
it's
it's
a
tricky
one.
G
Guys,
thank
you
very
much
for
all
the
data
points.
It's
super
interesting,
I,
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
data
points
are
sort
of
these
very
noisy
kind
of
it
feels
like
they're,
very
noisy
when
you
break
it
down
everything
that,
like
everything,
comes
back
to
trying
to
determine
how
risky
the
system
is
relative
to
the
underlying
asset
and
how
is
that
underlying
asset
performed
performing
in
the
market
and
so
basically
the
biggest
indicator
that
I
can
see.
G
That
gives
you
the
most
amount
of
you
know,
data
from
that
which
is
going
to
be
wipes.
Drawers
dies
like
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
It
all
comes
from
the
collateral
ratio
and
the
collateral
ratio.
I
posted
about
and
I've
gone
about,
it
put
a
post
in
mkr
guards,
subreddit
and
then
I
talked
to
a
lot
of
people
on
rocket
chat
about
it,
but
I
think
all
these
things
considered.
You
need
to
really
really
emphasize
that
being
the
indicator
of,
you
know
how
you
determine
the
stability
fee.
G
You
know
for
the
stability
fees,
gone
really,
I
mean
sorry,
the
the
price
and
the
peg
has
gone
really
wonky
over
the
past.
Let's
call
it
six
weeks
and
in
that
six
weeks
you
know
looking
at
that
spreadsheet.
That
I
just
put
the
first
time
that
we've
actually
had
any
kind
of
recovery
is
when
we've
actually
been
within
those
upper
and
lower
bounds
in
you
know
like
when
the
stability
phase
actually
fit
those
upper
and
lower
bounds.
I
mean
it's
not
I
haven't
been
super
diligent
on
it.
G
A
Michael,
those
are
fascinating
topics
of
discussion,
we're
at
the
top
of
the
arrows
I.
Don't
want
silence
you,
so
if
people
want
to
hang
out
and
talk
about
whether
the
funnel
collateralization
ratio
is
the
magic
number
that
we
haven't
been
paying
attention
to,
let's
continue
the
call
afterwards,
but
it's
late
in
a
lot
of
places
in
the
world
and
people
have
meetings
so
Stephen.
Did
you
still
want
to
give
us
a
thought
before
we
we
shut
things
down
well,.
B
Yeah
bowl
means
basically
to
vitiation
pretty
much.
That
was
brilliant.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
participation
and
obviously
Michael
I
do
not
wish
to
cut
your
ever
so
I'm
gonna
keep
this
short
and
obviously,
if
folks
want
to
keep
on
so
be
it
and
also
leave
it
up
to
rich.
But
again,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
participation.
Folks,
really
appreciate
it.
A
Yes,
everyone
for
joining
I'm,
not
sure
what
we
do
in
this
situation,
because
we've
had
a
couple
of
really
interesting
conversations.
Post
call
I've
been
in
the
habit
of
stopping
the
recording
and
but
essentially
people
might
be
missing
some
interesting
things,
so
maybe
today,
as
an
experiment,
will
continue
to
record
if
people
have
questions,
they
want
to
ask
and
see
how
that
shakes
out.
So
something
like
I'd
be
interesting
interested
in
hearing
a
bit
more
because,
in
my
mind,
that
collateralization
ratio
is
sort
of
this.
A
This
following
indicator
and
I'm
not
sure
whether
I'm,
using
that
term
correctly
of
overall
health
of
the
system.
The
recent
changes
in
the
the
price
of
ether
and
it's
sort
of
knock-on
effects
on
how
healthy
or
unhealthy
positions
are
using
that
as
an
indicator
that
that
shows
an
immediate,
well
I.
Think
system
is
what
freaks
me
out
of
it:
go
ahead.
C
I
mean
I
mean
the
the
cloud
ization
ratio
is
a
function
of
the
eath
price.
Right
is
the
ether
price
rallies
people
have
basically
higher
risk
reference
and
it
just
it
really
ramps
up
the
dye
creation.
But
if
they're
you
know,
this
is
obviously
the
problem
we
keep
coming
back
to,
and
you
know
if
we
don't
have
in
an
accompanying
increase
in
the
demand
for
that
dye,
that's
being
created,
then
we're
gonna
see
the
dye
price
suffers.
So
I
mean
creation
is
two
parts.
A
G
G
A
Okay,
yeah,
that's
interesting
and
I'm,
hoping
that's
people
that
understand
the
system
or
is
the
interplay
between
the
market
and
make
it
back
and
can
chime
in
with
some
deeper
insight.
It
just
still
feels
like
this
is
the
collateralization
ratio
is
a
blending
of
a
few
other.
The
risk
appetite
the
recent
prices
in
these.
C
So
hope
Michael
can
you
distinguish
between?
Do
you
think
people
are
borrowing
because
they
have
a
lot
of.
They
have
a
lot
of
room
to
work
with
like
they
have
a
lot
in
in
assets
and
they
can
borrow
against
it
or
because
they
think
eath
is
going
to
keep
going
up.
So
if,
let's
say
eath
was
worth
ten
times
as
much,
it
is
today.
So
the
demand
for
levering
up
on
East
specifically
is
going
to
be
much
lower,
but
you'll
have
a
lot
higher
collateralization
ratio.
So
would
that
necessarily
lead
to
a
weak
tie
price.
G
It
wouldn't
lead
to
a
weak
die
price
if
there
is
not
any.
If
there's
no
debt
like
if
there's
a
better
on
like
if
there's
a
better
discovery
of
the
pricing
mechanism,
so
basically
liquidity
being
sourced.
You
know
that's
because
that's
going
to
you
could
have
a
five
thousand
percent
collateral
ratio
and
if
it's
a
you
know
one
to
one
peg
between
the
environment
in
which
people
trade
and
exist,
which
is
going
to
be
the
on
chain
markets
versus
the
off
chain.
Oracle's
that
Delta
there's
no
Delta
between
those.
G
G
The
collateral
ratio
is
a
very
organic
indicator
of
the
environment
itself
and
if
we
look
at
on
chain
trading,
where
we're
saying
die
to
a,
if
should
be
same
as
USD
to
eat,
it's
sort
of
like
these
markets
that
every
market
is
different,
so
government
restrictions
in
China
means
China
might
be
trading
at
a
premium.
Krw
is
trading
at
a
premium
in
2017
because
of
these
capital
outflows
it
doesn't
mean.
Basically,
there
is
different.
Every
single
country
or
region
has
different,
whether
it's
through
put
restrictions
regulatory
restrictions.
G
G
The
price
should
be
this
and
it's
like
look
whatever
dude,
that's
America
in
you
know
in
KRW
or
South
Korea
we
have
regulatory
restrictions
and
capital
outflow
restrictions,
so
we're
gonna
pay
a
thirty
percent
premium,
and
so,
when
you
look
at
on
chain
discovery
price
activity,
you
need
to
be
very
conscious
of
that
and
and
that's
what
this
model
basically
takes,
that
into
account,
because
otherwise
you're
Fighting
Gravity.
Basically
it's
you
can't.
G
G
C
I
mean
it's
it's
it's
clear
that
at
least
to
me
I
think
that
you
know
the
solution
is
still
the
same,
which
is
still
having
to
make
borrowing
more
expensive,
but
so
I
mean.
Do
you
have
thoughts
on
how
we
could
use
this
like?
Let's
assume
we
were
at
a
dollar
right
now
and
then
we
were
to
see
a
you
know:
a
sharp
eath
move.
C
You
know,
how
can
we,
where
mean
we'd,
have
to
create
a
model
that
would
you
you
know
input
so
I
mean.
But
this
isn't
this
going
back
to
just
inputting
the
eath
price
as
a
is
a
factor
in
to
determining
what
the
stability
fee
and
everything
should
be,
I
mean
if
the
collateral
ratio
is
just
derivative
of
not
right.
My.
D
Realization
also
implies
the
constant,
basically
more
or
less
a
constant.
What
you're
mentioning
earlier
Michael
about
having
the
number
right
I
mean
right
now,
it's
kind
of
somewhat
tapered
out
or
on
2.1
million,
and
it
hasn't
really
launched
higher,
so
extract
what
you
want
from
that.
Maybe
there
are
98
million
either/or
holders
that
don't
feel
comfortable,
walking
there
either
and
it
down.
But
if
you
end
up
having
significantly
more
collateral
accessible,
but
just
not
locked
in,
doesn't
that
spur
with
the
numbers
so.
F
One
I
think
that's
broadly
the
right
instinct
Matthew.
The
one
thing
that
I
would
say
is
volatility
versus
just
absolute
level
is
an
important
thing.
So
what
what
I
think
is
a
big
driver
of
collateralization
ratio,
a
yes,
the
absolute
eath
price,
but
also
the
volatility
of
eath,
and
so
essentially,
when
we
see
eath
being
very
volatile,
we
tend
to
see
a
corresponding
relative
increase
in
collateralization
ratio.
When
we
see
eath
prices
are
high,
just
based
on
simple
math.
We
see
an
absolute
increase
in
collateralization
ratio
and
one
of.
G
The
ducks
but
yeah
and
that's
because
the
underlying
asset
hasn't
changed
as
aggressively.
So
if
you've
got
a
one
or
two
percent,
you
know
deposit
or
withdraw
into
the
pet
pool.
That's
that's
the
system
effectively
and
if
that's
not
changing
and
that's
constant
as
like
a
count
of
assets
in
the
pool
that
each
can
run
up
a
thousand
percent
and
the
pool
is
gonna,
keep
blowing
up
exactly
in
line
with
the
price.
G
But
if
the
deposits
of
eath
are,
you
know
running
parallel,
so
the
actual
count
if
it
goes
up
a
thousand
percent
or
yeah,
it
goes
up
a
thousand
percent
in
price.
Then,
if
you
have
a
thousand
percent
increase
in
deposits
into
the
pet
pool,
then
they
should
be
almost
one-to-one
I.
Just
again
on
the
top
of
my
head.
G
Also
I
also
yeah,
I
I
know
it's
a
bit
wacky
or
whatever,
but
it's
going
to
be
very,
very
challenging
when,
when
there's
not
sort
of
consistent
defined
parameters
of
what
quantify,
what
quality,
what
qualifies
as
a
trading
venue,
that
is
acceptable
for
an
Oracle
price
or
a
price
feed
in
general
and
what
does
not
qualify
for
it
and
the
reason.
Why
is
because
you
know
if
the
Oracle
feeds
are
coming
in
from
all
these
places,
some
places
have
washed
trading.
G
G
It's
very
hard
to
test,
or
you
know,
use
data
if
we
can't
find
any
sort
of
statistical
significance
and
it's
really
hard
to
find
statistical
significance
when
we
don't
have
anything,
you
know
a
lot
of
consistency
or
continuity
between
what's
being
measured,
yeah
but
I
mean
look.
This
is
all
in
like
a
really
not
by
the
way.
Please
don't
take
this
as
criticism.
G
C
A
D
A
A
great
question
so
then
this
is
something
that
we've
been
tossing
back
before
us
and
I.
Think
that
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
risk.
If
we
just
kind
of
go
okay.
Well,
we
have
this
governance
system,
everybody's
kind
of
agreed
to
it,
we've
committed
to
it.
We've
talked
about
it
endlessly,
but
this
time
we
just
don't
like
the
way
it's
going
to
turn
out.
So
we're
not
going
to
do
it
I
think
that's
gonna
be
the
blowback
would
be
fantastic,
so
we're
committed
to
the
system
the
community
has
designed
it.
A
The
community
has
voted
for
it,
and
so
the
next
steps
are.
We
go
ahead
with
the
executive
tomorrow
with
whatever
happened,
to
have
shaken
out
in
the
last
hour,
which
I
haven't
looked
at
yet,
but
I
think
that
we're
going
to
do
a
three
percent
increase
executive
pull
vote
tomorrow
at
9:00
a.m.
PST,
and
then
we
see
how
it
goes,
and
the
next
steps
I'm
guessing
are
is
that
we
still
run
into
this
situation.
Where
there's
ambiguity,
we
have
weak
executive
boat
of
votes.
We
have
polls
that
don't
quit
show
any
clear
direction.
A
Then
we
start
wrapping
up.
Some
of
the
options
that
I
want
to
keep
one
exploring
in
the
maker
cup
like
do
we
have
threshold
things
so
for
the
poll
that
is
20%
of
all
maker
need
to
show
up
before
that
poll
is
valid
or
there's
one
of
the
poll
options
need
to
be
25%
higher
than
all
the
second-best
option.
Adam
Jake,
I
cut
I,
don't
know
whether
I'm
pronouncing
his
name
correctly
presented
a
very
interesting
idea
in
the
chat
as
well,
which
I
haven't
had
time
to
completely
digest.
A
A
A
I
think,
because
that
this
these
are
the
risks
that
I
was
discussing
at
the
top
of
the
hour
were
or
the
last
hour
where
we
could
potentially
have
four
or
five,
maybe
I'm
exaggerating,
but
we
could
have
a
lot
of
really
weak
proposals
in
the
executive
poll
or
in
the
executive
part
of
the
portal,
and
nobody
has
a
very
clear
understanding
of
what
the
picture
of
the
system
is.
We're
no
longer
providing
forward.
A
Guidance
like
this
is
the
way
things
are
going
because
there's
just
the
indecision
at
that
point,
so
we
need
to
figure
out.
Do
we
expire
executives
that
no
engagement
zuy?
Do
we
need
to
organize
more
campaigning
in
the
community,
we're
like
get
out
to
vote
kind
of
stickers
or
something
where
people
actually
signal
I'm,
not
sure,
there's
a
lot
of
things.
We
need
to
decide.
A
A
Yeah
I
think
that
Christopher
you
signaled
some
support
are
there,
unfortunately,
I
lost
track
of
the
portions
in
the
sidebar,
so
I'm
wondering
if
things
got
missed
there,
but
that
I
think
that
also
loops
back
into
this
idea
that
I'm
very,
very,
very
hesitant
to
allow
these
meetings
to
become
a
decision-making
forum.
I,
don't
once
we've
already
seen
this
misunderstanding
in
the
community
where
people
have
referenced.
These
calls
as
the
Governance
Committee
and
that's
kind
of
antithetical
to
the
entire
thing
that
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
this.
This
isn't
where.
A
A
A
All
right,
I
think
that
it's
been
a
long
week.
People
have
things
to
do
so.
Let's
stick
a
fork
in
it.
There
thanks
everybody
like
this
I'll
say
it
five
times
continue
the
discussion
in
the
posting
a
summary
there
I'll
be
posting
a
bunch
of
links,
I'll
be
posting
links
to
promotions,
spreadsheets
and
vishesh
is
graphs
and
video
audio
and
transcripts
as
well.
So
let's
continue
the
discussion
thanks
for
waiting.