►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 69
Description
## Governance Segment
- Richard Brown: General Q&A
- LongForWisdom: ‘Governance at a Glance’
- Mariano Conti: Maker Burn
## Risk Segment
- Cyrus Younesssi: Debt Ceilings
- Primoz Kordez: Migration Status
- Vishesh Choudry: State of the Pegs
- Derek Flossman: Current thinking about Tax
## General Q&A
We'll open the floor for any questions about Scientific Governance and Risk.
Please join us and help shape the future of the MakerDAO.
## Links
- [Video/Voice](https://zoom.us/j/697074715)
- [Dial-in](https://zoom.us/u/acRbIMDvK)
- [Calendar](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=makerdao.com_3efhm2ghipksegl009ktniomdk@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles)
A
Hello:
everyone
welcome
to
the
January
16th
edition
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting.
My
name
is
Richard
Brown
I
am
the
head
of
Community
Development
Group
Dowd.
Today
we
have
a
series
of
guests
in
presentations
we've.
We
talked
about
this
last
call
as
well
that
now
that
MCD
is
out
in
the
wild
and
the
dust
has
begun
to
settle,
there's
been
a
period
of
reflection
at
the
foundation
and
we've
been
thinking
about
what
the
future
holds
and
what
the
what
the
past
was
like
in.
A
What's
what's
most
important
to
the
success
of
this
protocol,
and
how
do
we
mean
sure
that
there's
sort
of
a
swift
and
efficient
handoff
to
the
ecosystem,
because
I
said
this
before
and
I'll
say
it
again,
a
gradual
decentralisation
is
not
a
catchphrase
or
a
logo.
It's
one
of
the
core
missions
of
our
organization
is
to
ensure
that
there's
an
ecosystem
that
we
can
hand
the
entirety
of
this
protocol
off
to
so
we
can
all
get
some
sleep,
I
think
his
the
plan.
A
So,
in
order
to
do
that,
we
need
to
have
a
very
strong
and
robust
governance
infrastructure,
and
that's
why
I've
taken
such
an
extreme
interest
in
this
ecosystem
or
in
this,
this
aspect
of
the
ecosystem
and
why
I've
been
so
so
actually
are.
Gonna
get
sappy
here
well,
I
feel
privileged
to
actually
have
watched.
What
we've
done
here
develop
over
the
last
year
or
two,
and
so
it's
a
typer
encouragin.
A
So
the
foundation
is,
is
at
the
same
spot
as
the
rest
of
us
were.
It
agrees
that
governance
is
now
that
one
of
the
primary
focuses
of
the
organization
and
we
need
to
add
view
processes,
get
the
deeper
insight,
bring
other
domain
experts
into
the
fold
and
begin
discussing
important
and
difficult
issues
today
is
going
to
be
a
great
example
of
that,
because
we
have
a
wide
range
of
topics
to
talk
about
from
some
new
faces,
which
makes
me
super
happy.
A
So
we're
going
to
talk
to
Mariano
for
a
bit
he's
going
to
give
us
an
update
on
how
to
make
our
Authority,
which
has
been
moved
towards
the
the
community.
I
would
effect
that
had
on
circulating
maker
and
some
other
interesting
mechanics
I'm,
assuming
Cyrus
will
talk
about
debt
ceilings
and
risk
promotion
will
be
given
as
this
troop
services
pretty
much
like
what
migration
status.
So
did
you
have
another
topic?
You.
A
Pretty
much
just
some
stuff
vishesh
was
going
to
talk
about
state
of
the
pegs
and
how
Derek
Lossman
is
here
as
well,
and
he's
going
to
talk
about
a
forum
post
that
he
made
recently,
which
was
a
recap
of
current
thinking
around
sed
stability
fees
and
shutdowns
and
and
how
all
those
things
interact
with
each
other
lock
for
wisdom.
I
almost
forgot,
you
again
is
here
as
well
he's
going
to
give
us
a
recap
on
governance
at
a
glance
and
potentially
actually
long.
A
A
D
Okay,
so,
as
you
all
know,
on
December
20th,
the
foundation
put
out
a
blog
post
detailing
what
was
gonna
happen.
So
one
of
the
things
about
the
NPR
token
is
that
it
was
still
owned
by
the
foundation
multisig.
So
there's
a
couple
of
protected
methods
in
the
token
basically
minting
and
burning
so
far,
the
foundation
has
never
actually
called
those
methods.
D
So
the
million
and
play
are
that
we're
systems
they
remain
so
to
the
foundation,
didn't
create
anything
in
Burnley
and
but
the
problem
is
that
nobody
else
could
either
right
and
the
maker
protocol
requires
being
able
to
call
those
methods,
particularly
during
auctions
right.
So
if
you
have
a
surplus
auction,
the
system
needs
to
burn
tokens,
and
if
you
have
a
death
option,
the
system
needs
to
mint
those
tokens
and
it
wasn't
able
to
do
so.
And
additionally,
all
the
nkr
gathered
from
stability
fees
from
single
collateral
died.
D
They
were
stuck
in
what
we
call
the
burner
contract,
as
he
most
of
you
know,
and
it
had
accumulated
over
10,000
and
Kay
are
now
practically
speaking
that
I'm
Claire
was
already
burned.
It's
not
unlike
sending
in
twelve
bursts
taro.
It's
like
there
was
no
way
to
remove
that,
so
they
were
essentially
out
of
circulation
right,
but
it
didn't
reflect
on
the
total
supply.
If
you
would
query
the
token
it
will
still
say
you
had
1
million.
So
what
did
we
do?
D
We
created
a
special
contract
called
the
MK,
our
authority
and
the
multi-sig
enabled
the
MK
our
token.
It
gave
authority
of
the
impaired
token
over
to
that
contract
and
that
created
a
couple
of
interesting
things.
First,
it
enables
calling
burn
for
everybody.
So
first
off
you
need
to
be
careful
about
that,
because
if
you
call
burn
on
your
own
and
KR,
then
you
will
be
able
to
burn
it
if
you
approve
a
third
contract,
a
third
party
contract
on
your
MPR
that
contract
can't
burn
it.
This
is
this
is
not
unlike
a
transfer
from
right.
D
D
If
everything
works
correctly,
then
the
only
times
that
mint
will
be
used
is
in
case
of
a
debt
auction,
and
if
everything
works
correctly,
then
we
will
never
leave
at
that
auction.
But
we
now
call
the
the
system
complete
and
the
next
step
after
that
is
going
to
be
right
now,
there's
a
joint
custody
of
the
entire
token,
so
the
multi-sig
still
has
access
to
those
functions
as
well
as
nkr
governance.
D
The
next
step
we
planned
it
for
a
couple
of
weeks
up
to
one
month
after
this
transition
is
for
the
multi-sig
to
remove
itself
as
an
owner
from
the
NPR
token,
and
when
that
happens,
governance
is
going
to
be
the
sole
owner
of
the
token
and
it
will
be
cause
for
a
huge
celebration
in
my
opinion,
and
that
is
pretty
much
dead.
That's
what
happened!
That's
the
state
of
the
token
right
now
and
I
will
take
any
questions
if
there
are
any
well.
D
It's
mostly
a
matter
of
coordination,
and,
as
always
since
this
is
a
big
step,
we
try
to
do
it.
You
know
not
rush
into
it
in
case
there
are
any
latent
bugs
or
that
this
is
actually
one
of
the
bigger
ones,
because
you
know
now,
governance
has
the
ability
to
if
it
wants
and
it
if
votes
for
it,
you
can
mint
infinite
maker.
You
know
so
it's
a
pretty
pretty
powerful
feature.
Yeah.
A
It's
a
powerful
feature,
but
it's
also
like
this
fundamental
shift.
You
know:
what's
crypto
governance
is
all
of
the
unaware
of
anybody
else
in
our
space
that
have
done
it,
but
even
if
we
just
didn't
look
outside
of
our
own
sandbox,
this
is
a
huge
deal
for
the
ecosystem.
I
mean
for
the
protocol.
It's.
D
A
Yeah
I
think
it'll
be
one
of
those
things
where
it'll
take
a
while
for
it
to
sink
in
and
the
implications
to
be
felt,
but
yeah
I'm
quite
proud
of
those
high
for
tuning
it.
Thank
you
to
Mariano
for
putting
a
fire
under
that
I
think,
because
you're
instrumental
and
making
sure
that
that
happens
in
thanks
Mario.
Oh.
D
And
I
was
what's
the
whole
team.
I
was
was
just
pushing
for
it
for
so
long,
but
and
also
one
of
the
questions
is
that
why
didn't
we
do
this
sooner
so
in
single
collateral
die,
as
you
know,
and
ki
recently
used
to
face
the
Billy
piece.
It
doesn't
have
a
feature
of
participating
in
that
auctions.
In
fact,
and
this
never
happened
in
single
collateral
die,
but
if
there
was
the
need
to
save
on
underwater
CDP,
it
would
have
been
pulled
ether
that
had
been
minted.
D
A
C
Yeah
talk
about
everything,
cool,
so
actual
discussions
this
week,
but
all
of
chatter
on
the
forum
threads
relating
to
creating
a
Treasury
or
having
a
Treasury
and
for
my
Cadell
created
by
my
spit.
Oh
wait.
Oh
sorry,
so
basis
much
a
diversity
presented
a
list
of
reasons
why
we
go
to
Treasury
like
what
we
potentially
got
to
need
it
for
in
the
future,
and
that's
pretty
cool
yeah.
A
The
community
needs
to
have
access
to
a
source
of
funds
and
some
mechanisms
that
it
can
use
to
allocate
and
track
and
audit
and
create
accountability
and
vote
and
all
kinds
of
things
in
a
requires
sophisticated
and
some
coordination.
But
for
that
to
happen,
the
the
buffer
needs
to
get
full
MKR
needs
to
get
burned,
and
the
community
needs
to
self-organize
fairly
in
a
fairly
sophisticated
manner,
and
my
tote
has
done
a
fantastic
job
in
coming
up
with
some
thoughts
of
what
that
framework
might
look
like.
So
please
take
a
look
in
the
forums.
A
C
Cool
and
so
then
we
also
had
a
discussion
of
some
of
the
issues.
Around
global
settlement
of
single-clutch
will
die
created
by
Derek,
it's
in
the
core
just
discussing
the
a
well
the
mechanics
for
the
global
search,
maneuver
CDR
and
a
discussion
of
the
tax
parameter,
which
some
people
been
talking
about
in
rocket
chat
and
some
dates
and
other
discussion.
Sorts
of
interest.
Interesting
ties
a
little
bit
too
to
Aaron's,
so
I
welcome
to
those
a
little
bit.
C
C
As
a
bonus,
we
also
had
Joshua
creating
a
deploy,
a
prediction
poll
which
was
pretty
interesting,
I'm
just
asking
what
people
think
died.
Supply
will
be
I,
think
it
was
the
end
of
this
year
or
the
South
window.
Yeah,
you
ever
know
the
the
leading
leading
goat
was
was
302
million
died,
thirty
five
percent,
twenty
five
twenty
versions
so
anyone's
interested
or
has
their
own
opinions?
This
you
can.
So
you
know
on
that
cool,
then
itself,
interests
might
I,
say
also
create
a
testing,
the
wrists
relation
to
the
Treasury
stuff,
though
discussed
a
moment
ago.
C
So
then
we
have
the
so
not
much
to
go
on,
but
this
in
the
forums,
but
just
a
reminder
that
the
the
forum
poll
story,
the
unchained
poll
to
link
to
decide
whether
to
use
to
do
weekly,
DSL
polls
as
a
DSL
spreads
or
an
absolutist.
Our
value
is
now
on
chain,
and
so
you
can
currently
vote
in
that
guy's
on
for
another
three
or
four
days,
and
so
everyone
should
fight
on
chain
with
that.
C
C
C
So,
to
start
with,
only
appalled
discussing
what
so
asking
a
sort
of
general
a
general
way
where
they
shut
down
should
start
a
specific
dates
or
with
a
specific
supply
or
when
the
pec
deviates
by
a
certain
amount.
So
then
we
moved
on
to
sort
of
trying
to
narrow
it
down
a
little
bit
and
as
I
made
a
ton
supply
is
specific
dates
or
or
again
epic
stuff,
and
we
kind
of
finally
got
down
to
two
three
polls,
one
for
each
of
supply,
timeline
and
spec,
deviation
and
which
have
now
finished,
and
so
I
guess.
C
I'll
summarize
results
of
those,
so
the
highest
results
for
peck
deviation
was
if
the
peg
is
above
or
below
0.5
cents
so
gets
five
percent
away
from
pic
and
there's
no
sort
of
so
there's
no
there's
no
timeline
to
find
this.
So
whether
it's
like
five
percent
away
for
a
certain
matter,
if
the
biggest
permanently
5%
off
him
early
victorious
permanently
focus
on
topic,
then
we
probably
want
to
shut
down.
C
B
Actually,
pretty
much
has
some
interesting
data
to
share
on
that
shortly
about
the
like:
what's
a
potentially
reasonable
target
for
the
slice
of
pie
based
on
them
GDP
activity,
so
we
good,
then
one
interesting
question
is
how
we
can
kind
of
update
or
reflect
new
new
viewpoints
into
these
polls.
Yep.
A
No
I
don't
think
so.
We
have
like
a.
We
have
a
not
like.
We
have
a
literally,
very
busy
schedule
today,
but
I
think
that
what
I
would
like
to
begin
exploring
the
future,
those
that
we
devote
some
more
time
to
specifically
picking
one
of
these
issues
and
then
debating
them
a
bit
more
in
detail
as
though
that
was
a
fantastic.
A
My
other
thing
was
just
absorbing
we're
20
minutes
into
the
call,
and
we
have
more
to
absorb
afterwards,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
forum
where
we
could
actually
just
let's
pull
apart
the
concept
of
global
shut
down.
Let's
talk
about
what
those
requirements
are,
let's
talk
about
how
risk
contributes
to
you
know
providing
some
science
to
back
up
our
assumptions
or
the
community's
assumptions.
You
know.
That's,
oh,
if
there's
a
lot
of
things
to
unpack
there,
but
today
might
not
be
the
day.
A
C
A
Discussion,
we
can
add
right.
I,
don't
I,
be
surprised
to
learn
that
there's
some
way
that
we
can
manage
in
an
ecosystem
and
45
minutes
a
week
or
less
figuring
out
how
to
optimize
these
calls
would
be
good.
It
would
require
some
conversations
about
what
these
calls
are
actually
for
and
what
their
utility
should
be,
and
what
do
we
need
to
break
out
other
calls
and
what
the
risks
associated
with
you
know,
siloing
discussions
that
are
slightly
harder
to
discover.
There's
a
lot
of
discussions
to
be
had
that.
A
If
anybody
has
any
and
we
get
suggestions
about
ways
to
optimize
an
improvement
or
change,
these
calls.
Oh
wow,
that
would
be
a
good
time
to
pipe
up.
In
the
absence
of
that,
though,
like
there's
lots
of
side
shots
going
on,
you
know
David,
can
you
give
me
a
favor
and
then
just
keep
track
of
questions
that
might
need
to
be
asked?
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
losing
things
yeah.
E
I,
don't
think
Frank's
question
about
what
was
the
voter
breakdown
for
side
polling
at
9%,
I
think
that
was
addressed,
and
then
there
was
a
small
conversation
about
with
with
Adams
question.
That
said.
Well,
any
security
measures
be
taken
to
prevent
governance,
attack
that
mints,
unplanned
MKR,
then
Sam
wrote
the
GSM,
which
is
referencing
the
time
delay
on
governance
actions
should
protect
against
majority
governance,
majority
of
governance
attacks,
but
we
it's
still
at
zero.
E
G
I
can
throw
ya
hey,
hey
guys.
This
is
Kenton
here.
I
could
throw
an
idea,
but
it's
it's
fairly
an
unsophisticated
one,
although,
although
risk
and
governance
is
pretty
intertwined,
one
idea
could
be
to
break
up
the
risk
and
governance
chat
into
two
different
shots
risk
being
earlier
in
the
week
and
then
governance
being
later
in
the
week.
That
way,
if
there's
any
discussion
on
on
governance,
that
includes
risk
it
can
reference
the
discussion
earlier
earlier
in
the
week.
That's
just
one
idea:
you.
A
A
E
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
that,
if
we
do
additional
governance
calls
I
know,
we
are
right
now
working
on
creating
like
a
streamlined,
wait
so
like
accurately
and
quickly
get
summaries
done
as
quickly
as
possible
after
these
calls.
But
if
we
have
multiple
calls,
we're
gonna
need
some
more
contributors
to
do
some
summaries,
yeah.
A
That's
the
interesting
point
tomb
and
it's
somebody
mentioned
earlier,
a
operational
overhead.
That's
something
I've
been
thinking
about
a
lot
no
bill,
of
course,
still
has
six
months.
Yes,
my
operational
workload
becomes
an
increasingly
large,
but
we
there's
there's
the
operational
overhead
associated
with
maintaining
two
different
tags.
There,
ecosystems
and
I
think
that
we
have
world
sort
of
feeling
that
stress
the
other.
That
there's
different
forms
of
that,
though
there's
we
have
risk
teams
that
are
working
on
two
different
ecosystems.
We
have
developers
that
are
maintaining
or
keeping
an
eye
on
two
different
ecosystems.
A
Transcripts
forum
posts,
YouTube,
SoundCloud,
github
yeah,
actually,
that's
that's
just
for
the
broadcasting
of
the
information
that
comes
out
of
these
Compson
that
doesn't
include
just
getting
the
meetings
for
the
agenda
as
the
speakers,
the
there's
there's
a
lot
of
work
that
just
results
in
this
one
hour
and
a
half
surprisingly
large
metal
works,
and
so,
if
we
decided
to
have
two
calls,
you
know
things.
Maybe
there's
economy
of
scale
happening
here,
but
you
can
kind
of
assume
that
twice
as
much
time
and
if
we're
going
to
making
two
thousand.
A
A
E
A
Which
doesn't
surprise
me,
and
we
still
have
a
lot
to
get
here,
and
so
maybe
I'm
just
gonna
drop,
some
truth
palms
and
then
we
can
immediately
transition
to
somebody
else
and
then
we
can.
We
can
pick
it
up
at
the
end
of
the
call,
but
here's
the
problem
in
a
nutshell-
and
this
is
kind
of
one
of
the
fundamental
problems
with
human
nature
and
that
is
kind
of
summarized
in
a
reddit
post.
A
There,
communists
on
yesterday,
I
did
before
where
somebody
was
complaining
about
how
obviously
the
the
governance
infrastructure
for
maker
Doha
is
completely
corrupt
and
ruined,
and
the
reason
why
it's
completely
corrupt
and
ruined
is
because
the
only
people
that
vote
or
three
or
four
wheels,
and
so
there
was
an
entire
list
of
electrical
fallacies
and
rhetorical
and
consistencies
and
a
bunch
of
foolishness.
Basically,
but
let's
not
dig
into
the
reasons
why
that
person
was
fundamentally
wrong
about
everything.
Let's
talk
instead
about
what
the
actual
thought
process
was
behind
that
the
thought
process
was
they.
A
You
look
at
the
the
system
we
have
and
then
you
see,
okay,
two
or
three
people
voted
a
large
holders
voted
and
then
they
set
the
direction
of
the
eco
system
or
the
monetary
policy.
For
that
week.
That's
fundamentally
the
system
that
was
designed,
and
that's
it's
been
that
way,
since
the
very
beginning
has
been
that
way.
Since
the
whitepaper
like
there
was
there's
no
surprises
here.
It's
designed
to
have
the
system
maintained
by
people
have
skin
in
the
game,
but
here's
the
problem.
A
Anybody
who
has
less
than
you
know,
5000
maker,
laying
around,
will
look
at
that
system.
I
go
out.
What's
the
point,
I
don't
care,
and
so
they
don't
vote
and
then
they
don't
vote
and
young
people
who
are
left
voting
are
those
two
Wells
and
so
that
that
leads
to
this
progression
of
I
think
faulty
logic
where
people
come
into
the
system.
The
whole
indoor
review
the
system
they
go.
This
is
stupid.
You
know
what
people
that
matter
are
whales
and
that
that's
that's
circular
reasoning
is
happening.
A
You
the
reason
why
people
think
that
the
system
is
run
by
one
or
two
whales
is
because
they've
all
stopped
voting
and
the
only
people
left
other
one
into
Wales.
So
if
you
don't
like
that
system,
my
solution
is
that
people
should
start
voting,
because
you
can
run
the
numbers
and
I'd
be
happy
for
somebody
to
contradict
me,
but
there
and
it
would
take
whatever
ten
fifteen.
Actually
somebody
would
need
to
do
some
some
breakdowns
here,
but
midsize
holders
could
easily
swap
these
Wales
5%
of
just
general
holders.
A
A
Nobody
else
is
voting,
so
why
should
I?
And
so
that's-
that's-
that's
a
problem.
That's
I!
Don't
know
if
we're
going
to
be
able
to
fix
that
anytime
soon,
but
I'm
looking
for
obviously
suggestions
about
how
to
feel
I
see
you
type
in
there
nothing's
all
right.
This
is
something
we
need
to
figure
out.
So
how
do
we
fix
humans
and
how
do
we
incentivize
people
to
vote,
and
so
there's
that
we
have
mechanisms
we
can
talk
about?
A
So
we
have
delegation
brewing,
have
some
thoughts
about
voter
in
centralization
that
he's
going
to
be
sharing
with
you
go
system
and
thoughts
around
campaigning
and
lobbying
and
increased
community
interaction,
but
this
is
basically
the
world
that
we
live
in.
We
created
a
stakeholder
voting
system.
Stakeholders
are
voting,
so
we
need
to
solve
that
problem.
A
How
do
we
fix
humans?
Vishesh
asks?
My
solution
historically
has
been
replacing
with
Python
scripts,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
be
a
valid
solution.
That's
not
the
world
that
we're
building
right
now.
So
David
knows
me
too.
Well
all
right,
I'm,
gonna
promise
not
to
speechify
and
then
I
just
started
doing
it.
So
I
apologize
to
people
that
we're
looking
forward
to
me
not
talking
Derek.
Do
you
want
to
take
the
mic
and
talk
about
fees
and
shut
down
mechanism?
Sure.
F
Well,
there
all
right
so
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
gonna
try
and
be
quick
with
this,
but
I'm
going
to
give
a
minute
or
so
texe,
because
just
in
case
people
haven't
seen
the
post.
So
hopefully
this
will
kind
of
get
you
up
to
speed
real
quick.
So
there
was
a
forum
post
earlier
in
the
week
about
global
settlement
of
single
collateral
die
and
let
me
get
rid
of
this
window.
That's
better,
okay,
so
context.
Basically
what
was
it
all
about?
How
do
we
achieve
global
settlement
of
single
collateral
die?
What
does
that
mean?
F
It
means
closing
existing
CDP's
and
ideally
having
the
majority
or
or
all
of
the
outstanding
stability
fees
paid
back
through
a
tax
function.
Now
I
am
being
ambiguous
with
the
statement
of
ideally
because
there
has
been
a
bit
of
back
and
forth
about
that,
and
it's
still
a
discussion
that
we
have
to
have,
but
the
general
rationale
the
reason
for
this.
You
know
global
settlement,
of
course,
the
cognitive
overhead
that
Richard
spoke
about
the
effort
involved
in
maintaining
the
peg
and
the
focus
on
migration
and
growth.
F
So
all
the
the
work
that's
going
to
need
to
go
into
having
additional
collateral
parts
a
lot
of
overhead
load
in
that
space.
So
we
really
wanted
to
start
focusing
on
that
and
that's
a
big
driver
for
this
effort.
So
there
we
go
alright,
so
I
did
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
community
people
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion.
It's
been
really
awesome.
Some
of
the
topics
really
have
been
around.
You
know.
We
need
a
shutdown
date.
The
poll
has
showed
that
that's
looking
at
six
months,
so
there's
more
discussion.
F
We
can
have
in
that
space
understanding
the
tax
mechanics
I've
got
a
slide
later
on.
That
will
talk
to
that.
Do
we
pay
the
debt
or
do
we
be
so?
Do
we
ensure
that
the
debt
is
paid
or
are
we
lenient
about
it?
There's
been
some
back-and-forth
about
that
which
is
interesting,
this
more
sort
of
social
aspect
and
then
the
debt
ceiling
behavior.
At
what
rate
do
we
track,
and
we
can
talk
about
that?
F
Where
I
have
a
diagram
that
sort
of
shows,
you
know,
probably
shouldn't
be
a
linear,
but
but
we
can
talk
through
that
and
then
liquidity
as
well.
How
do
we
ensure
that
people
can
migrate
if
they
choose
to
so
yeah,
just
a
big
thanks
to
everyone
in
the
community
who
have
been
both
on
the
rocket
and
the
forums
adding
a
lot
of
variable
feedback?
So
thank
you.
F
Okay,
so
background
the
size
stability
see,
as
you
all
know,
that
accrues
throughout
the
life
of
the
CDP
and
it's
paid
at
the
end
when
a
user
repays
their
site
or
if
they
get
liquidated.
The
problem
with
this
is
that
when
global
settlement
occurs,
these
stability
fee
is
forgiven.
So
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
way
of
capturing
those
unpaid
stability
fees,
and
for
that
we
have
the
tax
parameter
or
tax
function.
F
That
kind
of
use
those
terms,
interchangeably
and
I,
captured
a
screen
grab
from
last
week,
where
the
risk
team
showed
the
fees
that
were
accrued.
So
these
are
obviously
going
to
increase
over
the
next
six
months.
So
something
to
take
into
account,
but
essentially
this
is
the
reason
for
the
tax
parameter
as
opposed
to
this
eye.
Stability
fee
and
we've
broken
this
down
in
a
lot
more
detail
in
some
of
the
posts
so
I
encourage.
F
F
If
we
chose
to
and
it
would
apply
this
tax
penalty
to
all,
CDP's
is
applied
uniformly,
and
an
interesting
thing
I
found
out
was
that
it
has
a
maximum
value
per
day
of
10%.
So
we
need
to
take
that
into
consideration
with
how
long
we
have
this
tax
penalty
window
open
for
and,
of
course,
I
make
reference
here
to
the
Penta
liquidation
penalty
that
it's
it's
important
for
CDP
holders
to
take
that
into
account,
because
if
the
tax
pushes
them
below
the
collateralization
ratio,
then
they're
hit
with
both
the
tax
and
the
liquidation
penalty.
F
So
really
the
there's
a
the
opportunity
in
a
or
I'll
come
to
the
phases
in
a
moment
that
talks
about
what's
optimal
and
suboptimal,
and
that
brings
me
to
the
timeline
piece
which
is
proposing
six
months
as
long
for
wisdom
mentioned
on
all
and
yes,
we
have
a
preference
for
a
shorter
tax
window
because
of
the
easier
communications
and
management
that
are
associated
with
that.
So,
but
this
all
sort
of
looks
like
in
a
in
an
image
is
essentially
this
where
we
have
a
six-month
optimal
repayment
time.
F
So
that's
how
our
warning
before
the
tax
kicks
in
and
I've
just
illustratively
put
here
four
days.
It
may
be
more
or
less
based
on
the
direction
that
we
get
from
the
risk
team,
but
essentially
yes
provide
the
CDP
holders
with
sufficient
notice
and
that's
the
optimum
repayment
phase
and
there's
a
sub
optimum
repayment
phase,
where
they
would
be
happy
with
it
with
attacks
and
I.
Yes,
I
this
debt
ceiling
in
a
linear
way,
I,
don't
think
so,
I'm,
sorry
I'll.
A
F
One
other
slide,
basically
just
as
a
summary,
as
in
yeah
winter,
we
plan.
Obviously
six
months,
we've
spoken
about
that.
Do
we
need
to
implement
attacks
in
formal
sentiment
is
yes,
we
haven't
had
a
poll
for
it.
Maybe
we
need
to.
We
can
discuss
that
and
then
how
should
the
tax
be
calculated
so
again,
risk
and
contract
teams?
You
guys
can
help,
give
some
guidance
there
and
yeah.
So
that
was
me.
I
tried
to
be
quick
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
hope
I
was
also.
A
Possibly
too
quick
because
there's
this
something
to
dig
into
you,
know
and
rounds
that
third
bullet
I
don't
want
your
last
slide.
There
is
how
I
guess
that
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
asking
how
and
so
looking
at
this
graph
here
I,
it
occurs
to
me
that
I
have
only
the
hey,
Zia
snow
ssin
of
what
this
mechanism
was
supposed
to
look
like,
and
maybe
some
other
people
do
based
on
what's
happening
in
the
chapter.
A
So
the
idea
was
yeah
I'm
having
a
lot
of
trouble
wrapping
my
head
around
it.
So
we
have
outstanding
stability
feed
debts.
If
the
community
just
shows
an
interest
in
recouping
that
stability
feed
debt
there's
no
mechanism,
that
just
simply
makes
that
happen
in
a
global
settlement
scenario.
So
we
need
another
parameter,
called
@
@
or
we
have
another
parameter
called
attacks
that
could
be
used,
but
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
how
arbitrary
and/or
accurate
that
tax
bill
would
be
at
the
end
of
those
four
days.
E
I
think
it's
important
to
realize
that
you
want
to
make
the
tax
the
you
you're,
trying
to
incentivize
people
to
pay
before
tax
actually
gets
implemented
and,
and
so
I
talked
with
Eric
about
this.
This
is
really
a
communication
problem
rather
than
an
engineering
problem,
and
it's
not
about
saying:
oh,
we
need
to
set
the
tax,
so
it
perfectly
aligns
with
the
amount
of
stability
fees
that
people
owe
or
whatever.
The
point
is
that
you
tell
them
look
by
this
date.
E
You
need
to
close
your
position
and
pay
your
stability
fees
or
we're
going
to
change
tacks
and
you're
going
to
get
screwed.
So
the
the
text
right
during
that
tax
period.
It
is
completely
suboptimal
for
anyone
to
pay
back
their
CDP's
right,
because
now
they
own
not
just
the
stability
fee
that
they've
accumulated,
but
also
the
tax
tree.
So
after
tax
is
implemented,
it's
it's
done
right.
Whoever
you've
incentivized
to
you
know
pay
back
before,
like
you
did,
whenever
you
didn't
they're,
not
going
to
they're
just
gonna,
let
things
globally
settle.
E
E
Be
well,
it
has
to
be
higher
right
because
otherwise,
there's
no
incentive
for
anyone
to
close
right,
and
so
it
can't
just
be
a
little
bit
higher.
It
needs
to
be,
like
you
know,
higher
enough
for,
like
someone
to
say
well,
there's
not
that
much
liquidity
from
chiaro
with
the
slippage.
Maybe
I
come
out
ahead.
E
G
That's
a
no
so
much
educates
there.
There
will
also
be
a
group
of
folks
that
never
want
to
that
have
the
intention
of
allowing
their
CDP
to
be
globally
settled
and
converted
in
the
maybe
not
a
huge
group,
but
there
is
a
population
of
folks
that
have
X
number
of
died
outstanding
that
truly
have
intentions
of
just
letting
it
be
a
conversion
mechanism.
A
Yeah,
that's
that's
getting
out
just
slippage
thing:
it's
like
it's
also
just
there's
convenience
factor.
There's
the
Hail
Mary
factor
where
there's.
If
there's
a
reasonable
expectation
that
you
know,
there's
might
be
some
escape
hatch,
then
it
makes
sense
for
people
to
presumably
hope
for
so
if
the
community
doesn't
want
that
expectation
to
linger.
I.
Think
that's
where
these
discussions
are
going
to
be
important.
F
A
A
A
C
G
A
E
G
Necessarily
I
mean:
let's
go
down
the
scenario
that
that
the
one
of
the
CDP
folks,
let's
imagine
you,
make
the
tax
window
six
months.
You
know
it's
X
percent,
but
if
you
know
it's
going
to
be
worse
tomorrow
than
it
is
today
and
worse
thereafter,
if
you
keep
pushing
it
all
the
way
to
the
point
nobody's
gonna
want
to
be
liquidated
on
top
of
being
taxed,
so
yeah.
A
G
A
another
argument
that
can
be
made-
let's
say
you
would
do
like
tax
a
for
one
week
and
then
tax
B
for
the
next
week
and
keep
rat
ratcheting
from
one
I'm
just
making
it
the
numbers.
Don't
quote
me
like
one
percent
a
week
and
then
ratcheted
all
the
way
up
to
ten
percent
and
let
it
just
sit
out
there
and
ding
people
until
people
on
Stu
get
liquid.
It
I'm
guess
my
point
at
some
point.
G
C
I
think
the
problem
is
that
if
they
get
liquidated,
they
don't
pay
the
tax
and
the
stability
fees,
they
only
pay
the
tax.
So
the
problem
is
that
as
soon
as
the
tax
period
starts,
if
they've
been
close
than
they
is
that
right,
they
only
play
like
the
tax
and
not
the
stability
for
you.
If
they
wait
to
get
liquidated,
they.
C
More
reason
again
to
have
a
longer
tax
period.
No,
no
because
as
soon
as
the
tanks
window
starts
right,
if
they
close
in
the
tax
window,
they
have
to
pay
the
tax
and
thus
WV.
If
they
then
wait
for
liquidation,
they
only
have
to
pay
the
stability
fee,
so
they're.
Well,
so
if
anyone
enters
the
tax
window,
they
will
automatically
wait
till
the
end
of
the
Texas
window.
Do
Liquidators.
C
E
C
F
A
G
A
All
right,
all
right
so
yeah
this
we
have
ten
minutes
left
and
there's
still
two
or
three
items
to
go
through
in
the
agenda
so
blitz.
It's
probably
great.
This
is
gonna,
be
a
recurring
theme
like
good
we're.
Gonna
need
to
talk
about
this
over
and
over
again,
there's
no
need
to
be
some
some
fairly
detailed
plans
and
the
community
needs
to
show
Mom
significant
amounts
of
initiative
to
to
get
proposals
in
place
for
us
to
look
at
something.
A
B
Yeah
I'll
try
to
be
soo
super
quick
with
my
portion,
so
we
get
to
promotion.
Vishesh
just
quickly
wanted
to
make
a
couple
points
around
debt
ceilings
for
SCD
right
now
the
size
supplies
around
35
million
and
the
ceiling
is
around
70
million.
This
leaves
an
enormous
gap
of
unused
debt
ceiling,
which
is
not
the
most
I
mean
just
from
a
risk
perspective.
We
don't
want
to
have
all
that
unused
space.
B
Just
probably
not
the
most
responsible
thing,
so
I
would
recommend
that
the
community
lower
that
to
something
more
reasonable
kind
of
in
line
with
the
previous
debt
ceiling.
Reductions.
We've
done
for
SCD
trying
to
leave
a
little
bit
of
space
for
kind
of
some
breathing
room
for
for
the
remaining
users,
but
I
also
wanted
to
stress
that
this
is
these
debt
ceiling
reductions
aren't
designed
to
stifle
or
just
eyeful
a
CD
to
try
to
kill
it
out,
but
just
from
a
safety
perspective.
B
If,
for
whatever
reason,
activity
picks
up
again,
it
could
always
be
a
always
be
increased
from
I'm
feeling
uneasy.
With
all
this
some
extra
space
and
then
regarding
MCD
debt
ceilings,
I
mean
the
market
activity.
The
last
few
weeks
has
kind
of
led
to
a
very
strong
increase
in
dye
supply
and
the
eath
collateral
is
getting
up
there
again.
I
think
it's
about
85
out
of
100
million,
so
there's
kind
of
two
two
separate
considerations
with
the
heath
debt
ceiling.
B
One
is
I'm
kind
of
the
short-term
hitting
the
cap
and
the
second
is
kind
of
the
long-term
theoretical
max
debt
ceiling
for
the
short-term
or
kind
of
the
practical
debt
ceiling.
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that
it's
also
not
wise
to
leave
a
whole
bunch
of
unused
debt
ceiling
space,
but
for
kind
of
a
different
reason
than
for
SCD.
In
MCD
we
have
the
Oracle
security
module,
which
is
that
one
hour
delay
before
price
changes
reflect
CDP
accounts.
B
B
Makes
sense
for
for
those
two
considerations:
if
there's
any
questions
speak
up
and
then
and
then
finally
kind
of
the
the
other
aspect
to
MCD
debt
ceiling
is
the
longer-term
theoretical
max?
That's
that's
a
whole.
Another
conversation
happy
to
chat
offline,
but
we'll
also
be
starting
to
approach
those
concepts
in
the
coming
weeks.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
it
for
pretty
stuff
about
debt
ceiling.
B
B
H
I
So
try
to
be
quick,
so
total
supply
20
needs
to
grow
dyes
up
another
6.5
million
last
week.
Size
supply,
keeping
it
pretty
steady.
In
fact
it
even
increased
until
recently
for
about
three
hundred
thousand
sigh.
Of
course,
all
the
meeting
activity
in
the
last
week
or
two
weeks
corresponds
to
bullish
sentiment
in
either
crypto
price.
In
general,
the
total
supply
actually
increased
for
about
twelve
million
since
in
the
beginning
of
the
year.
I
So
the
main
the
main
topic
today
is
about
the
less
interest
we're
seeing
from
sed
CBP
users
to
migrate
to
MCD.
This
is
revealed
by
cyanide
raishin
contract
not
really
being
drained
as
quickly
as
it
was
in
the
past.
I
think
it's
now
about
two
days,
since
more
than
2
million
sighs
actually
being
held
immigration
contracting
more
of
the
biggest
borrowers
can't
really
touched
it
or
migrated
migrated
it
in
some
significant
amount.
Currently
all
but
two
remaining
cases.
The
CD
piece
could
migrate
really
easily
by
by
using
this
liquidity.
I
I
You
can
see
that
there
was
quite
a
lot
of
mid
side
meeting
in
last
two
months,
so
this
table
shows
only
activity
for
the
last
two
months,
which
is
actually
since
migration
started,
which
is
roughly
two
months
we
can
see.
There
was
some
sign
meeting
in
that
period
from
current
still
remaining
CDP's
top
hundred
points,
but
only
one
is
actually
there's
only
one
who
actually
does
majority
of
it.
I
have
a
bit
of
break
down
here.
I
Think
this
metric
is
the
most
important
to
say
how
much
depth
those
CDP's
with
certain
type
of
this
type
of
behavior
represent
and
the
crude
fees
are
pretty
low
right
because
they
issued
most
of
psy
recently.
So
we
begin
to
grow
a
lot
of
phase
so
those
those
type
of
scene
it
is
in
single
collateral
die.
I
You
could
argue
those
those
CDP's
are
not
very
likely
to
migrate
anytime
soon
because
they
are
minting
some
aside,
for
you
know
either
speculative
reason
or
just
have
some
other
incentive.
By
doing
that,
then
we
have
the
next
group.
This
were
the
ones
who
were
trying
to
repay
their
GDP
in
the
last
months.
They
did
repay
about
five
million
of
it.
They
still
have
5.7
million
of
depth,
it's
not
the
sound
of
them
and
about
four
hundred
thousandth
of
a
secret.
I
So
one-fifth
of
the
debt
is
represented
by
CBP's,
who
are
trying
to
either
the
leverage
or
perhaps
even
migrate,
but
they
weren't
able
to
do
so
because
sila
quiddity
was
kind
of
limited,
but
now
I'm
even
questioning
if
those
are
really
incentivized
to
to
migrate,
because
they've
seen
a
lot
of
solidity
in
last
two
days,
but
I
think
only
one
of
them
I
just
I.
Just
noticed
recently
migrated
we'll
see
what
happens
in
the
next
coming
days.
I
It
could
also
be
that
they
were
just
trying
to
protect
from
getting
liquidated
and
they
were
repaying
the
depth
to
increase
their
catalyzation
ratio,
and
then
we
have
city
peace,
as
I
said
the
ones
who
are
just
locking
additional
eater
in
the
collateral
19
of
them
10,000,
either
locked
inside
in
Greece.
In
two
months
they
don't
represent
a
lot
of
remaining
adept,
only
about
10%
of
it
or
3
million,
not
sure.
I
If
again,
this
CD
piece
would
like
to
migrate,
perhaps
they
just
wanted
to
stay
with
a
CD
and
just
wanted
to
protect
from
getting
liquidated
so
hard
to
judge
for
them
as
well,
and
then
we
have
just
to
CDP's
who
were
for
some
reason
withdrawing
Peter
from
the
collateral,
not
a
significant
amount
in
terms
of
that
represented
and
the
biggest
group.
Perhaps
the
most
important
thing
is
the
inactive
CD
case,
those
who
weren't
active
in
any
sense
right.
I
They
didn't
interact
with
their
silly
P
at
all,
it's
32
of
them
out
200,
but
the
depth
they
represent
in
total
measure
stuff
point
7
million,
which
is
41%
of
the
debt.
So
this
is
the
biggest
chunk
and
most
of
them
were
active,
I
think
more
than
six
months
ago,
which
is
which
is
revealed
by
by
this
fragment
below
you
can
see
that
the
ones
which
were
which
were
active.
Lastly,
out
of
the
negative
ones
during
the
migration,
they
were
active
more
than
six
months
ago.
I
This
was
obviously
the
first
first
half
of
219
219
when
they
were
mostly
minting
sigh
because
either
price
was
surging
and
they
were
leveraging.
So
the
main
conclusion
I
basically
covered
most
of
it.
But
the
main
conclusion,
my
opinion
is
that
you
sed
have
inactive
CDP's
and
those
who
are
still
drawing
sigh.
So
I
would
say
this.
These
two
groups
are
the
ones
for
which
it's
harder
to
say
how
we
centralize.
I
I
This
is
the
depth
it's
increasing,
so
the
one
still
maintains
eye
or
mas
8
million,
and
then
we
have
5.7
million
of
sy
represented
by
by
stiffies,
who
are
kind
of
trying
to
to
deleverage
to
either
to
migrate
or
just
point
out
their
position
and
then
three
million
those
who
are
just
the
poison
additional
eater
but
I
think
this.
This
information
monitoring.
This
should
help
us
when
we
start
discussing
about
shutdown
and
to
really
see
in
time
what's
happening,
how
active
they
are,
and
perhaps.
I
Probably
not
not
not
sure
what
their
intention
is:
I've
actually
checked
those
CDP's,
the
bigger
Winterson
they're,
not
it's
funny
they're,
not
even
some
sand,
it
even
deposit
the
converted
site
to
die,
and
today
the
department,
DSR
and
I'm
not
sure
what
their
motivation
actually
is.
They
might
be
just
speculating
on
some
sigh
liquidity
crunch
and
getting
some
premiums
there.
Well.
B
I
mean
whatever
well
that's
exactly.
What
I
want
to
bring
up
is
that,
if
they're
minting
side
to
migrate
over
and
lock
into
the
DSR,
then
that's
that's
never
going
away
right.
But
if
they're
using
side
for
just
normal
economic
activity,
then
we
should
kind
of
not
count
it
right.
So,
like
the
inactive
debt
plus,
the
portion
of
the
new
side
being
minted,
that's
going
into
DSR
together
should
be
the
lower
bound
for
a
target
for
global
settlement
right
yeah.
This
yeah.
I
A
This
seems
like
it's.
It's
critical
information.
Is
this
in
order
to
determine
the
shutdown
and
potential
tax
or
anti
tax
incentives
or
whatever
the
community
wants
to
do,
but
for
migration
in
general,
it's
gonna
come
down
to
this
spreadsheet.
When
people
are
attempting
to
figure
out
plans
of
action,
is
this
publicly
accessible?
Can
we
share
this
with
the
community
to
review
yeah.
I
I
This
is
three
days
old,
but
more
or
less
nothing
changed
in
the
last
two
days
for
this
yeah
another
notice.
This
is
only
four
hundred
stop,
as
is
the
CDP's
right.
I
would
like
to
have
it
for
all
the
city
based
I.
Imagine
this
is
good
enough
sample,
but
if
we
want
to
have
a
precise
data,
let's
let's
get
all
the
city
piece
remaining
in.
Do
we
see
yeah.
A
So
yeah,
if
we
could
give
some
thought
to
making
this
into
a
resource,
that's
updated
at
once,
every
month
or
something
I,
don't
know
whatever
you
guys
determined
but
and
maybe
share
it
in
the
forum.
So
there
are
people
that
are
there
coming
up
these
proposals
about
shut
down
or
the
future
of
the
events,
no
BCD
this.
This
is
like
probably
the
most
critical
information
they
need
to
make
an
informed
decision.
I
Another
thing
I
want
to
show
just
the
last
thing
is
we
were
talking
about
that
something
incentive
to
you
know
to
close
the
position
or
to
migrate.
I've
just
did
a
simple:
how
much
fees
is
out
there
for
depth
remaining
I'm
pretty
much
the
highest
value
is
about
eleven
percent.
So
that's
that's
the
the
current
fees
versus
tax,
four
hundred
biggest
city.
Please,
perhaps
that's
interesting.
A
A
H
H
Yeah,
so
just
real
quick
died
very,
very
slightly
okay,
pretty
much
they
they
sort
of
meant
to
light.
Carrying
going
to
must
requires
interesting
things
to
note
and
actually
hung
up
the
microstructure
stuff,
but
that
seems
on
the
moment,
saya
again
very
low
volume
as
expected,
but
it
seems
to
be
turning
around
paid
for
those
trades,
pretty
much
all
units
lock
the
Khyber,
interesting
things
up
so.
H
Here
is
seven
days,
so
this
was
just
basically
the
presenting
thing
over
a
seven
day.
Time
frame
for
died
so
again,
very,
very
slightly
worldly
much
at
a
pretty
decent
volume
in
for
a
seven-day
range
and
then
what's
interesting
to
note
is
dy/dx
has
also
picked
up
from
what
we've
seen
in
the
past
in
terms
of
amount
of
text
training
only
for
their
diet
and
then
Oasis
kind
of
sitting,
where
you
would
expect
and
then
being
swapped
representing
that
long
tail
spread
in
trades.
H
The
thing
is
so
also
everything
a
little
bit
pretty
lately.
So
one
interesting
thing
is
just
for
diet
versus
sigh
liquidity
in
some
units,
lock,
I
only
really
twice
as
much
died,
the
pony
come
in
the
pool
versus
size,
so
there's
still
a
decent
on
their
side
through
the
onions
block
and
again
about
half
the
trading
volume
there
as
well.
H
So
yeah
other
thing
was
just
circling
back
to
you
looking
at
some
of
these
bolts
or
MGD,
so
you
can
look
to
it.
Looked
at
this
last
couple
weeks.
This
hasn't
really
changed
much
in
terms
of
like
the
top
twenty
bolts
holding
it
decent
chop
about
44
million
of
the
playful
milling
of
the
Yetta
outstanding
MCD
sub
I,
and
then
that
collateralization
ratio
on
average
for
those
has
slightly
actually
good,
not
really
change.
Much.
H
F
H
Again,
this
is
that
with
collateral
relative
collateralization
graph
for
games,
he
bolts
the
chunk
it's
at
this
now,
two
hundred
seventy
five
percent
or
lower
range
was
gone
out.
So
that's
kind
of
interesting
to
know
that
if
anything,
the
connotation
is
okay,
okay,
I,
don't
want
to
give
the
too
much
this.
We
already
go
through
a
lot
of
stuff
that
you
know,
but
I
will
just
pop
off
that
thing,
and
then
people
have
questions.
F
B
H
Changed
into
being
yeah,
so
what's
interesting
is
just
like
the
particular
range
cutoff
I
think
we
were
looking
at
300
last
time
now.
This
sort
of
similar
path
is
around
275,
but
some
up
I
think
it
was
around
44
or
46
last
week
to
just
about
48.
So
basically
like
the
amount
of
debt,
that's
living
at
that
like
mid
to
low
tier
risk
level,
has
not
really
changed
much,
but
maybe
a
slight
increase,
though
the
particular
cutoff
of
like
what
the
collateralization
ratios
are,
has
slightly
depressed.
I.
Think.
H
It's
very
easy
to
explain
so
you
can
see
here
like
this-
has
not
really
changed
much.
We
calibrate
the
last
four
weeks,
but
you'll
notice
like
there
are
a
couple
of
positions
where,
like
the
collateralization
ratio,
is
dropped
to
like
this
is
the
150
to
200
bucket
so
point
is:
there
are
a
couple
of
volts
where
the
collateralization
is
dip
slightly,
but
as
a
whole
is
more
or
less
very
similar
yeah.
I
I
A
F
A
B
B
All
right,
the
I
was
thinking
the
because
we
don't
normally
talk
about
the
the
results
of
the
governance,
pull
in
the
call.
We
have
that
new
maker
gov
done
science
website
might
be
interesting
kind
of
go
through
the
breakdown
of
some
of
the
polls.
Lunker
was
in
posted
a
link
to
the
size
stability
poll
earlier
kind
of
interesting
to
see
how
the
votes
shape
out.
But
another
thing
warren
discusses
at
the
poll
was
voted
for
a
nine
percent
for
the
size
stability
fee,
which
is
kind
of
a
big
jump.
A
Without
like
forcing
you
to
endorse
any
strategy
over,
the
other,
is
that
you
feel
like
that's
an
effective
strategy
like
it
was
unlikely
to
have
little
assumed
that
whoever
did
that
because
they
wanted
to
increase
the
pressure
on
su
D.
Like
do
you
think,
that's
the
result
of
a
9%
stability
will
get
people
a
migraine.
Yeah.
B
Now,
though,
if
if,
if,
if
the,
if
it
seems
like
the
migration
is
slowing
down
and
the
remaining
CDP
owners
aren't
constrained
by
migration
liquidity,
but
rather
they
are
opting
not
to
migrate
voluntarily,
then,
potentially
right,
it's
almost
gone
from
carrot
to
stick.
You
think,
they're,
no
good,
yeah,.
A
But
that
that
goes
back
to
the
the
slight,
the
spreadsheet
that
pretty
much
just
showed
us
them,
because
if
we
start
breaking
down
those
cohorts,
maybe
I
misunderstood
or
I've
missed
some
new
ones,
but
it
seems,
like
those
people
are
just
embedded
at
this
point
that
we're
just
rolling
the
dice
right
like
if
you
already
own
10%,
on
two
million
six
or
nine
percent.
At
this
point,
who
cares
me?
Do
we
feel
like
that?
I?
A
B
F
B
A
E
Think
it
also
brings
into
question
one
more
thing:
it's
that
okay,
so
in
a
monetary
policy
based
like
executive
vote,
what
if
one
of
the
parameters
is,
was
kind
of
controversial
II
selected
like
this
nine
percent
that
was
selected
in
the
last
three
hours
right?
Does
that
mean
that
is
it
a
form
of
governance
attack
to
vote
in
and
on
an
undesirable
parameter
in
order
to
just
delay
the
rest
of
the
parameters
even
getting
past
right?
That's
what
I'm
thinking
about
a
little
bit.
A
A
Yeah
yeah
so
they're
trying
to
determine
what
behavior
qualifies
as
malicious
and
or
an
attack
versus
just
normal
activity.
Voting
is
a
question
that
needs
to
be
determinated,
there's
gray
areas
here.
This
is
the
same.
It
belongs
in
the
same
category
as
the
questions
we
were
discussing
last
week
when
we're
trying
to
wrap
our
heads
around
why
the
GSM
vote
didn't
go
through
and
whether
there's
some
external
group
of
stakeholders
that
can
make
a
determination
that
says
the
home.
The
reason
that
book
didn't
get
through
was
for
confounding
factors,
extenuating
circumstances,
XY
and
Z.
A
Therefore,
we
need
to
keep
on
having
this
vote
until
people
make
the
right
decision
now.
That's
a
very,
very
complex
thing
to
do
and
I
think
that
making
decisions
based
on
the
results
of
activities
of
voters,
sort
of
passing
judgment
on
those
activities
is
going
to
be
a
very
interesting
set
of
discussions
to
have
in
the
future.
B
Right
I
mean
kind
of
I
think
we
should
put
up
a
thread
and
I
mean
I.
Think
just
a
couple
of
the
smart
contract,
devs
chiming
in
just
I,
mean
they
I'm
already
fairly
sure
that
it's
it's
totally
it's
it's
not
a
risk
at
all,
but
just
to
get
somebody
else's
statement
on
the
record
instead
of
mine,
I
would
be,
would
be
good.
B
A
A
Well,
that's
an
interesting
questions
here,
but
that
basically
invalidates
the
whole
concept
of
continuous
approval
voting,
which
is
something
that
we
need
to
I.
Think
that's
a
discussion
that
the
community
is
going
to
have
because
a
lot
of
the
primary
issues
that
we're
discussing
so
technical
votes
versus
monetary
policy
votes,
which
ones
taste
of
all
it
takes
precedent.
Can
we
do
both
at
once?
A
What
happens
if
there's
sort
of
a
poison
pill
embedded
in
an
executive
vote
is
that
the
government's
attack
as
a
delaying
tactics,
is
that
just
somebody
expressing
your
the
people
expressing
their
will?
What
happens
if
we
get
a
series
of
weak
executives?
What
happens
if
we
ask
the
community
and
like,
in
their
case
in
the
GSM,
to
rally
aggressively
to
secure
the
existing
executive?
So
we
can
prepare
the
GSM
and
once
the
GSM
arise,
we
find
out
that
we
can.
A
We
can't
rally
the
same
level
of
interest
off
of
that
securing
executive,
and
so
the
GSM
doesn't
pass
so
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
growing
things
that
we're
seeing
yeah
as
the
system
gets
more
and
more
complex,
a
weekly
roll-up
becomes
sort
of
this
visible
pain.
Point
that
we
keep
on
putting
up
against
from
different
directions.
It
needs
to
be
addressed
is.
C
A
C
F
F
Could
show
them
yes,
I
think
the
Solicitor
we
removed
them
from
that
executive
page,
but
definitely
I,
think
there's
room
for
redesign
here
to
include
our
spells,
but
yeah
we'll
we'll
need
to
discuss
that
to
show
how
much
because
you
could
imagine
the
complexity
and,
of
course
the
security
of
the
system
is
with
the
amount
of
maker
on
that
current
hat.
So
you
sort
of
start
dispersing
that
and
potentially
introducing
issues
I.
A
Yes,
so
so
what
is
the
trade-off
here?
One
is
that
we
don't
want
to
display
so
just
to
reframe.
This
thing
that
now
do
you
keep
using
is
that
the
protocol
is
a
software
package
and
the
executive
votes
are
a
configuration
snapshot
that
we
apply
to
that
sophomore
packaging.
As
those
configurations
Nationals
get
older,
the
possibility
of
them
being
able
to
be
applied
to
the
software
becomes
reduced.
A
So
obviously
you
don't
want
to
have
an
executive
vote
that
was
six
months
old
from
SCT
getting
lifted
and
then
being
attempting
to
apply
that
to
this
new
world
that
we
live
in.
That
would
be
a
disaster,
and
so
the
idea
is
that
we
have
a
current
executive
and
then
we
have
an
incumbent
executive
and
then,
whichever
one
wins
becomes
a
new
state
of
the
system,
so
I
something
has
always
been
that
because
we
base
we
have
like
new
and
current
challengers
to
to
the
new
and
current
configurations
available
to
voters.
A
That's
why
only
two
ever
show
up
on
that
on
the
portal,
because
you
can't
go
back
in
time
to
pass
the
new
challenger,
but
it
does
raise
some
questions
about
visibility.
So
we've
seen
how
much
scale
potentially
abandoned
and
or
this
possibly
part
maker,
we
have
in
old
executives
where
people
that
actually
could
possibly
put
those
somewhere
in
order
to
just
raise
the
part
of
what
it
takes
to
pass.
A
A
After
whatever
we
come
with
arbitrary
threshold
six
months,
if
you
maker
doesn't
move,
it
just
goes
back
to
your
wall
or
the
maker
only
is
active
if
it's
on
the
current
executive
or
the
incumbent,
executive
or
stale
maker
can
basically
sit
wherever
it
sits
and
then
maybe
there's
a
poking
mechanism
which
somebody
can
go
hold
on.
I
just
found
a
pilot
maker
and
the
second
stability
fee.
A
G
So
like
four,
for
example,
the
vhe,
the
chi,
the
GSM
spell
can
be
casted
if
it's
given
the
hat
at
this
point.
But
what,
if,
before
it's
it's
even
entered
into
that
deity,
as
chief
is
in
hark,
there's
a
hard-coded
deadline
that
that
that
the
spell
must
be
casted
by
and
so
that
way.
If
it's,
if
the
spell
expires,
then
they're
a
new
executive
vote
would
would
need
a
new
spell
that
would
basically
reset
that
expiration
date.
That's.
F
G
G
If
I
wanted
to
make
like
a
proposal,
what
format
could
I
use
and
either
in
the
forums
or
on
this
on
this
on
this
discussion
every
week
to
like
push
the
ball
forward
and
and
and
they
basically
push
up
I'm
sorry
push
put
a
proposal
that
can
then
be
either
accepted
or
rejected
by
the
community
and
and
further
discussed
like
I
know
that
there's
a
forum
but
like
what
template
should
I
use.
That's.
A
Actually,
that's
a
good
discussion,
because
sometimes
we
just
assume
that
everybody
else
has
been
staring
at
this
thing
for
the
last
year
like
to
all
of
us,
and
so
some
of
these
basic
stuff,
the
basic
processes
haven't
been
Oh,
Lucy,
I
didn't
know
so
long
for
wisdom.
There
you
go,
take
it
away.
How
do
people
make
something
happen
in
governance
and.
C
A
Make
it
slightly
easier,
so
there's
there's
two
forum
posts
that
I'm
aware
of
one
is
a
guideline
for
how
to
create
a
signal
post,
there's
another
one,
this
sort
of
another
an
updated
version
of
what
those
guidelines
are.
So
ultimately,
it
means
review
those
two
forum
posts
it'll,
give
you
some
guidance
of
what
the
format
of
the
polls
in
a
forum
plus
you
look
like
and
what
the
hemming
of
the
question
works
and
how
long
that
forum
post
should
exist
and
what
the
next
steps
are.
G
A
No
because
we
haven't
had
to
bite
that
off
yet
so,
if
the
existing
proposals
or
other
policy
or
using
the
existing
mechanisms
that
are
already
in
place,
but
that
doesn't
preclude
us
having
to
reach
out
to
dev
or
integrations
or
whoever
else
is
required
to
make
things
happen.
So
don't
let
that
be
a
blocker
we
just
we
haven't
explored
the
mechanisms
for
that,
potentially,
depending
on
how
quickly
Charles
and
Derek
do
no
work.
A
E
G
E
The
MIPS
framework
is
still
in
development
lesson
from
last
week,
but
in
short,
it
has
different
process
for
different
types
of
proposals
from
the
community,
and
it
includes
all
the
way
like
it
will
highlight
through
diagrams
the
process
from
its
inception
in
the
forum
to
discussions
to
polling
all
the
governance
processes
that
it
needs
all
the
way
to
the
implementation
of
it.
So
I
guess
be
patient
with
us.
We're
gonna
try
to
come
it
up
as
soon
as
possible
and
start
talking
about
it
with
everyone.
Charles.
E
G
E
A
G
H
A
So
somebody
from
the
foundation
using
the
MIPS
process
to
influence
governance,
I
think,
is
a
super,
healthy
path
forward
and
I.
Think
that
that's
Bob
I
think
that's.
That
is
the
way
things
are
going
to
look
in
the
future.
Right
like
there
is
no
clear
distinction
between
us
and
them
here
we're
all
parts
of
the
community
when
it
comes
to
governance,
and
so
making
things
happen.
Even
if
your
foundation
member
is,
we
use
the
process,
and
so
that's
also
sort
of
like
a
call
to
arms
to
so.
A
If
there's
people
in
the
foundation,
employees
that
are
looking
to
improve
their
make
changes,
then
there's
there's
the
forums,
there's
the
encore,
isms
guidelines
and
then
there's
the
emerging
bits
process
that
I
encourage
everybody
to
follow
along
closely
we're
all
able
to
alter
the
shape
of
this
ecosystem.
As
long
as
we
use
the
same
process
who
new
process
could
be
so
much
fun,
I
did
all
right.
A
Thirty-Eight
great
minutes
past
the
half
hour
on
our
Q&A
sessions,
I
would
like
to
put
a
bow
in
this
thing.
They're
doing
any
last-minute
questions.
People
are
burning
questions
people
want
to
ask
before
the
end
of
the
call
speak
now
no
pressure
but
speak
now.
Okay,
oh,
maybe
not
all
right
thanks!
Everyone
for
joining
this
was
a
I
always
say
this,
but
I
keep
on
saying
it
was
an
interesting
call,
they're,
always
interesting,
but
it's
most
interesting
as
well.
A
For
taking
notes,
those
notes
will
show
up
in
the
forums
presently
and
Cerf
you'll
actually
check
those
out
to
you,
because
the
quality
of
those
summaries
has
skyrocketed
recently.
The
last
one
is
an
epic
tale
of
governance
and
at
risk
for
the
agents,
and
it's
worth
reviewing
yeah,
let's,
let's
leave
it
there.
So
thank
somebody
for
coming,
checked
out
forum.
Threads,
get
engaged
and
start
voting,
because
if
you're
voting
somebody
else's
son
there,
you
go
there's
the
human
condition
for
you.
I.
Thank
somebody
watching
this
week.