►
From YouTube: Governance & Risk Meeting #227 | February 23th, 2023
Description
*Governance & Risk Meeting No. 227*
February 23rd, 2023
*Description*
_The Governance & Risk Meeting is an open, weekly MakerDAO forum for updates and discussions on the general operations and planned changes to the DAO._
*Agenda and Timestamps*
0:00 Intro, Guidelines & Agenda
3:37 Current Votes & MIPs – Overview
7:39 March Cycle RFC Budgets – Initiative Update
25:53 Seeking Consensus – Discussion
*Links*
Weekly MIPs Update No. 126 – https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-mips-update-126/19881
Polling – https://vote.makerdao.com/polling
Executive – https://vote.makerdao.com/executive
*Disclaimer*
_This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services._
https://mips.makerdao.com
https://forum.makerdao.com
https://chat.makerdao.com
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome,
really
happy
to
be
here
today
and
the
227th
governance
service
call
here
at
Maker
Now.
My
name
is
Peyton
I
go
by
Pros
11
online
and
I
am
one
of
your
governance.
Facilitators
joined
here
today
by
a
bunch
of
awesome
people
that
both
contribute
and
are
otherwise
interested
in
the
maker
protocol,
and
this
is
our
weekly
call
where
we
talk
about
all
things
going
on
with
governance
and
protocol
risk.
A
I've
been
here
before,
you've
heard
this
speech
many
times,
but
for
our
newcomers
and
anyone
watching
online,
who
maybe
wants
to
join
us,
live
next
time.
These
do
happen.
Every
Thursday
at
1700
UTC.
Our
rules
are
pretty
simple.
Let's
just
avoid
talking
to
each
other
cameras
on.
If
you
can
use
reactions,
particularly
that
race
hand,
feature
will.
Let
me
know
if
you'd
like
to
join
the
conversation
as
soon
as
someone
else
wraps
up
what
they're
saying
and,
of
course
like
this
is
a
truly
open,
Community
call.
A
That's
half
mips,
update
half
initiative
update
so
look
forward
to
that
in
about
two
minutes
here
and
we'll
be
tackling
a
a
bigger
theoretical
question:
I
guess
in
our
discussion
topic
on
what
exactly
consensus
is
and
particularly
how
consensus
decision
making
could
be
used
in
our
current
structure
and
future
structures
by
you
and
other
walks
of
your
life.
If
you
find
it
useful
cool,
well,
I
will
take
care
of
the
votes
section,
as
usual
was
a
fairly
quiet
week
on
the
voting
portal.
A
We
just
had
two
weekly
polls
wrap
up
both
of
those
came
from
PE
asking
about
resource
allocation
to
Phoenix.
Labs,
don't
want
to
get
too
in
the
weeds
there,
but
make
your
governance
nerds
will
know
that
we
do
have
other
governance
proposals
concerning
Phoenix
labs.
This
was
just
kind
of
a
preemptive
Poll
for
another
team
to
to
assess
exactly
what
work
they
needed
to
prepare
to
support.
Should
maker
voters
vote
in
Phoenix,
labs
and
and
sparkcritical
on
the
executive
front.
A
You
might
have
noticed
the
executive
has
passed,
but
it
has
not
executed
due
to
office
hours.
We're
looking
at
taking
place
on
Monday
when
that
goes
through
you'll
be
seeing
a
new
deployment
of
the
Ave
V2
d3m.
Some
changes
from
our
maker
Open
Market
Committee
parameter
some
parameter
changes
to
our
maker,
Open
Market
Committee
members
wow,
that's
a
pretty
big
fail
and
and
some
CU
mkr
vesting.
So
that
has
already
passed
and
we
are
not
expecting
an
executive
next
week,
but
do
look
for
an
execution
available
on
Monday
all
right.
A
A
A
A
All
right
so
coding
portal
I
should
definitely
check
it
out.
If
you
haven't
lots
of
fun
features
there
huge
shout
out
to
Ducks
who's
always
add
in
stuff.
For
us,
as
we
mentioned,
we
do
have
several
ratification
polls
that
end
on
Monday,
so
the
votes
for
those
are
going
to
be
wrapping
up
shortly.
Please
do
make
sure
you
submit
them
before
Monday.
If
you
want
them
to
count.
A
A
As
you
can
see,
we
have
nearly
unanimous
support
on
that
one
yeah.
Next
we're
looking
at
the
ratification
bowl
for
emitting
interim
facilitator
appointment
process.
As
you
may
recall,
this
was
used
quite
recently
in
the
case
of
CES
collateral,
Engineering
Services
that
resulted
in
our
inter
facilitated
retro.
Eventually
being
selected,
but
there
were
a
few
things
in
the
process
that
we
learned,
we
could
maybe
do
better
next
time,
so
that
proposal
is
here
again.
We
see
near
you
now
support
for
it.
A
Foreign
ification
poll
for
the
100
million
dollars
of
cogent
bank
loan
participations
we're
seeing
a
super
tight
vote
that
one
has
a
know.
Your
MIP
call,
if
you're
unfamiliar
with
the
proposal
at
its
sake,
I
suggest
you
hopping
over
to
YouTube
and
taking
a
look
at
that,
as
you
can
see.
Currently
we
are
winning
by
about
a
margin
of
10
000
mkr
on
the
poll
too,
on
board
100
million
to
cogent
Bank.
A
All
right,
I'll
do
it
for
my
impromptu
coverage
of
the
voting
portal.
I'll
start
sharing
these
slides
again,
and
what
we
did
want
to
highlight
today
were
the
budgets
for
the
different
core
units
that
are
eligible
for
RFC,
so
we'll
be
talking
about
those
here
today.
I
know
we
have
several
people
on
the
call.
That's
potentially
have
budgets
that
that
might
be
submitted
for
for
the
March
cycle.
If
those
people
want
to
chime
in
after
we
get
some
slides
and
a
brief
introduction
up.
That
would
be
most
welcome.
A
Okay!
Well,
this
will
be
a
fun
one
where
everyone
in
the
recording
wonders
why
Payton
suddenly
has
so
much
flops
left,
but
for
the
rest
of
us.
Thank
you
for
your
patience,
so
yeah,
let's
dive
into
some
of
the
budgets
that
we
have
I,
guess
all
the
budgets
that
are
potentially
eligible
to
enter
the
March
cycle.
A
Remember
it
is
up
to
the
respective
proposals
if
they
want
to
submit
their
budget
or
not,
and
the
reason
we
thought
we'd
bring
this
as
an
initiative
update
today
on
the
genar
was
so
that
we
could
get
a
chance
to
talk
about
some
of
the
proposals
entering
March
cycle
that
are
maybe
not
in
game
related
or
so.
In-Game
Focus,
perhaps,
is
a
better
way
to
say
so.
A
Of
this
EU
budgets
we
have
the
tech
Ops
die
budget
with
the
start
date
of
April
1st
going
one
year,
and
there
will
be
two
options
for
voters
to
have
on,
as
you
can
see
the
new
base
in
new
Bayer.
This
is
something
that
a
number
of
core
units
have
done
as
we
look
over
to
the
risk
budget.
Here
again,
we
see
a
similar
start
date
or
a
similar
one
year
period,
but
I
will
note
the
different
start
date
in
that
risk
will
be
looking
to
have
this
stream
start
retroactively.
A
A
That
is,
risk
budgets
twice
so
now
we'll
go
over
to
I'm
guessing
maybe
one
of
those
is
supposed
to
be
in
care,
but
maybe
not
over.
Here
we
have
Alpha's
budget.
We
are
submitting
both
a
die
and
a
mkr
budget
for
consideration
happy
to
talk
more
about
those.
Should
anyone
wish
to
plenty
of
options
on
the
die
side
and
a
one
option
on
the
mkr.
A
Likewise,
on
the
mkr
side,
who
you
do
have
a
proposal
for
strategic
Finance
who
is
looking
to
redefine
their
plan
in
support
of
several
new
hires
and
and
the
expanded
mission,
and
we
have
a
budget
from
sidestream
auction
services
to
decrease
their
current
budget.
Daniel
came
on
to
the
delegate
office
hours
a
little
bit
earlier
and
we
had
a
nice
chat
with
the
delegates.
So
if
someone
wanted
to
give
a
summary
of
that
after
this,
that
might
be
welcomed.
A
And
then,
finally,
yes,
we
as
well
have
a
modified
core
unit
budget
for
Data
Insights
corn
units
you'll
notice.
Their
stream
dates
are
slightly
different
due
to
their
original
budget
passing
before
the
quarterly
requirement
was
in
place
and
again
we
see
a
existing
budget
proposal
and
a
reduced
budget
proposal.
A
I
found
a
reminder
on
your
important
dates
for
ratification
polls.
Those
end
this
Monday.
We
will
then
also
have
a
weekly
cycle,
ratification
bowl
that
will
go
on
chain
and
run
for
three
days
and
a
final
reminder,
if
you're
a
proposal
author,
that
you
have
until
the
end
of
day
UTC
on
Wednesday,
to
update
your
proposals
for
the
March
cycle,.
C
Yeah
I
can
start
for
the
classroom
bubble
Yeah.
So
basically
we
yeah.
So
our
history
is
that
yeah
we
were
very
much
focused
on
auctions
and
liquidations,
and
then
we
got
the
feedback
by
end
of
last
year
that
we
should
maybe
do
something
else
to
be
more
efficient
or
effective
for
the
End
Game
Plan.
So
we
in
the
past
months,
based
on
the
power
approval
we
pivoted
away
from
this,
and
now
we
are
we're
having
several
streams
that
all
should
contribute
to
end
game.
C
This
will
change
slightly
soon,
but
as
of
now,
the
traditional
budget
dive
budget
seems
to
be
the
way
to
go
and
yeah.
That's
where
we
made
this
request
to
retain
the
team
and
yeah
prepare
different
end
game
streams
and
whenever
possible,
as
was
this
ecosystem.
Api
thing
pick
up
projects
that
already
final
budgeted,
and
then
we
just
draw
much
less
from
the
from
this
requested
budget
and
concrete
terms
for
instances.
C
We
kind
of
expect
for
the
next
two
or
three
months
to
just
require
maybe
20
of
the
requested
budget
and
the
rest
will
be
coming
from
this
project
directly
and,
of
course,
our
sand
game
emerges.
We
hope
there
will
be
more
of
this
kind
of
opportunities,
that's
about
the
process
and
how
we,
how
we
think
about
it.
A
Daniel
and
yeah
I
feel
like
it's
worth
giving
a
word
here.
I
I
know:
I've
received
several
messages
as
a
governance
facility,
with
people
kind
of
wondering
how
they
should
be
approaching
both
on
the
CU
side
for
proposing
budgets
and
delegates
side
in
terms
of
processing
budgets
and
the
only
like
wisdom,
I
really
have
is
like
that
is
part
of
the
the
messiness
of
Dao's
right.
You
have
several
people
trying
to
accomplish
potentially
different
things
at
the
same
time.
A
I
hope
we'll
be
learning
some
tools
and
different
ways
to
to
maybe
achieve
that
at
the
later
part
of
the
call,
but
did
want
to
throw
it.
In
that
note
now
I
know
Patrick.
You
were
primarily
responsible
for
for
drafting
our
budgets,
which
was
greatly
appreciated.
I
wonder
if
you
wouldn't
mind
saying
a
few
words
basically
about
what
we've
put
up
and
kind
of
how
you
approach
the
process
of
proposing
in
in
the
middle
of
the
in-game
proposal
cycle.
I,
guess.
B
B
To
accomplish
this,
we've
put
together
three
different
budget
options,
so
the
base
plus
option
was
mainly
well.
The
base
option
is
essentially
stripping
back
a
lot
of
stuff
from
our
previous
budget,
so
it's
kind
of
got
reductions
in
the
travel
expenses.
We're
not
expecting.
We
we're
not
expecting
to
need
as
much
as
we
budgeted
last
year.
We
didn't
use.
B
You
know
much
of
that
budget
at
all,
so
we
produce
that
we've
reduced
our
gas
expenses
again,
based
on
learning
of
how
much
gas
we
need
and
we've
also
stripped
out
Source
grid
that
was
budgeted
previously
and
was
accounted
for
about
a
quarter
of
our
spare
or
our
actual
spend
when
assessed.
So
that's
enabled
us
to
save
quite
a
significant
amount
on
the
base
amount.
B
So
it's
like
you
know,
28
saving
there,
the
base
plus
budget,
which
is
a
slightly
higher
budget
that
includes
for
taking
over
more
of
the
roles
that
gov
comms
were
previously
performing.
So
basically,
with
our
current
budget,
we
cannot
afford
to
to
take
over
and
everything
govcoms
was
doing,
and
even
you
know,
the
majority
of
what
gov
comps
was
doing
so.
We've
added
in
this
extra
budget
line
item
here,
which
is
essentially
funding
a
one
or
two
hires
to
assist
with
more
of
that
work.
B
It
strips
out
it's
the
the
proposal,
bounties
that
we've
been
offering,
so
we
wouldn't
be
offering
them
and
then
that
budget
was
passed,
but
it
represents
kind
of
like
a
42
saving
to
the
Dow.
So
we
wanted
to
give
people
as
much
options
as
possible
like
what
you
want
come
out
for
doing.
Do
you
want
us
to
pick
up
gov
Khan's
work
do
not
want
us
to
pick
up
comms
work,
because
we
tried
to
be
fair
to
everyone
and
try
and
like
give
you
all
different
options.
B
B
That
looked
at
how
much
each
contributor
and
facilitator
had
earned
and
multiplied
it
by
the
die,
the
maker
price
and
gave
you
a
value
for
how
much
MK
each
person
should
earn,
and
that
was
written
every
six
months.
We
got
feedback
that
people
didn't
want
to
be
putting
on
our
mgrp
six
months.
It
was
kind
of
governance,
overhead
people
didn't
want
to
do
it
and
also
in
in
the
event
the
the
NFL
price
crashed,
which
it
has
done
and
continued
to
do
so.
B
Over
the
past
few
months,
it
led
to
some
quite
significant
increases
in
the
amount
of
mkr
per
individual.
So
what
we've
done
is
we
have
switched
things
around
and
bear
in
mind
our
our
last
approved
mkl
budget
covered
the
period
from
February
22
to
August
22.,
so
this
budget
obliged
more
was
22
onwards,
so
we're
already
kind
of
five
months
or
six
months
into
the
period
that
we're
looking
to
cover
here.
B
B
So
yeah
that
should
be
a
that's
a
Latino
numerical
writing
there.
So
yeah,
that's
a
decimal
point
and
that's
a
maximum
amount.
So
we
don't
actually
expect
to
need
that
much
mkr
over
the
two
years
in
The
Proposal
itself,
we've
estimated
how
much
we
think
we'll
need
in
it
and
it's
actually
less
than
that
amount,
but
we've
also
removed
the
repricing
from
our
from
our
budget
as
well.
B
B
A
D
Yeah
hi
guys
Rhema
here
from
the
riskore
uni
team.
Basically,
the
story
with
our
community
is
that
pretty
much
the
current
facilitator
is
basically
going
to
stop
being
the
facilitator
and
we
are
proposing
two
new
facilitators
which
is
me
and
Monet
Supply
and
in
in
regards
to
the
Mandate.
We
will
basically
be
doing
everything
we
did
until
now
and
obviously
we
are
supporting
the
end
game
and
you
know
everything
which
comes
with
it.
D
The
the
the
first
option
is
basically
the
budget
we
which
we
had
in
the
previous
like
budget
and
other
option,
is
10
reduction
and
for
the
maker
part,
we
are
basically
proposing
to
have
the
same
as
we
did
until
now,
which
is
700
maker
tokens
per
year
and
yeah.
Basically
I
welcome
everyone
to
comment
and
give
feedback
to
The
Forum
posts.
We
basically
didn't
get
anything
until
now,
so
yeah
like
looking
forward.
If
anybody
has
some
comments
or
concerns,
and
so
on.
A
E
F
Thanks
Clayton,
sorry,
hey
today
from
Data
Insights
cameras
on
there
we
go
so
our
budget,
in
line
with
the
other
code
units,
is
to
support
the
transition.
So
we
model
we
largely
are
a
support
core
unit.
So
our
idea
is
to
in
terms
of
funding
to
transition
on
demand,
so
as
core
units
becoming
because
the
smackers
we
can
engage
with
them
on
bilateral
agreements
and
then
not
have
to
use
the
the
m840
budget
that
we're
requesting
right
now
and
there's
a
cost.
F
The
main
one
is
the
database
computational
usage
that
has
grown
in
the
last
period
20
percent
month
over
month,
which
is
quite
excessive,
which
is
kind
of
like
a
good
problem
to
have.
But
we
expect
that
to
curve
off
and
if
it
doesn't
we'll
find
ways
to
reduce
that
cost
will
hopefully
not
have
to
reduce
support
for
the
core
units,
but
mostly
be
about
maybe
coming
back
to
the
community
and
asking
whether
a
free
and
public
API,
something
that
would
be
necessary
and
we
can
adjust
further.
A
A
Cool
now
I'd
like
to
take
us
to
our
discussion
segment,
which
is
going
to
start
off
with
me
talking,
but
hopefully
end
with
more
of
you
talking.
So
a
plea
to
the
audience
to
help
me
out
there
after
the
start
to
the
call
I've
had
really
wanted
to
bring
this
subject
together
as
like
a
kind
of
different
way
of
moving
forward
with
decisions
with
planning.
A
Think
there's
some
very
legitimate
criticisms
there,
but
it
is
a
pretty
interesting
mechanism
when
you
have
a
small
enough
group
that
you
can
actually
work
through
potential
issues
and
find
compromise
so
yeah,
let's
dig
into
it.
What
is
consensus
and
consensus
decision
making?
Basically
it's
a
way
where
you're
not
just
trying
to
reach
like
a
plurality
right.
If
you
look
at
our
voting
system
today,
the
the
whole
goal
is
to
to
get
the
majority
of
Voters,
not
even
of
tokens
or
some
other
number.
A
It's
just
the
majority
of
Voters
to
support
a
particular
proposal.
Sometimes
people
call
this
first
past
the
post
voting
winner.
Take
all
there's,
there's
a
few
different
names
depending
on
how
exactly
you
want
to
implement
it.
But
the
basic
idea
is
that
whoever
gets
the
most
votes
wins
and
it
really
doesn't
matter
what
the
implications
are
for
for
the
sizes
that
lose
that's
a
pretty
drastic
difference
to
consists
decision
making,
where
it's
all
about
trying
to
agree
to
move
forward.
A
So
some
kind
of
like
features
some
some
things
that
contents
is
making
is
there's
a
link
on
the
slide
too
long
for
wisdom's
post,
as
well
as
the
call
agenda.
If
you
wanted
to
look
into
some
of
this
stuff
later,
that
consensus
decision
making
is
agreement
seeking
it's
collaborative,
it's
Cooperative,
it's
egalitarian,
it's
inclusive
and
it's
participatory.
A
So
the
quickest
way
to
like
run
through
that
and
see
what
those
actually
mean.
Is
it
compared
to
the
current
system
right
and
the
current
system?
You're,
not
so
much
seeking
agreement
as
approval
and
that's
a
pretty
different
threshold.
You
could
say
that
we
are
collaborative
and
Cooperative
certainly,
but
you
might
be
able
to
argue
that
our
voting
system
is
not
right
to
the.
The
voting
system
is
not
designed
to
have
you
advance
things
without
a
collaboration
or
egalitarianism
and
yeah
in
terms
of
being
inclusive
being
egalitarian.
A
So
that
means
like
we
talked
about
in
plurality
system
where
you're
just
looking
for
the
majority
of
people
that
participate
in
that
it's
not
a
hard
and
fast
rule.
But
you
typically
see
like
superiorities,
like
two-thirds,
three-fourths,
Other
Extreme
requirements
to
guarantee
that
consensus
has
actually
been
reached
and
there
has
been
an
attempt
to
to
get
in
to
the
community.
A
There's
often
a
high
degree
of
trust,
or
at
least
alignment
right
like
it's,
not
that
all
your
actors
need
to
have
a
high
degree
of
trust
for
consensus
systems
to
work
out.
But
if
you
don't
have
trust,
you
need
to
be
highly
aligned,
and
you
know,
there's
there's
kind
of
a
trade-off
there.
There
has
to
be
clear
rules
for,
for
what
makes
you
part
of
the
community
right
since
being
inclusive
and
and
and
having
a
stake
is,
is
so
important.
A
It
needs
to
be
very
clear
who
those
people
are,
and
you
also
need
a
really
well
established
mediation
and
compromise
procedure,
because
a
lot
of
times
as
you
can
suspect,
the
super
majority
of
people
will
not
agree
on
all
aspects
of
a
proposal.
Even
if
it's
a
small
one
like
what
to
get
for
lunch
and
then
the
last
aspect
is
they
do
tend
to
be
governed
by
smaller
groups.
A
A
A
Intensive
right,
like
just
the
simple
fact
that
you
have
to
make
sure
that
all
people
consent,
if
that
happens
at
a
regular
basis,
great
that's,
probably
a
little
easier,
but
imagine
like
there's
a
market
emergency
and
we
need
to
change
rates.
Trying
to
get
consent
of
mkr
holders
is,
is
probably
not
something
that
you
want
to
have
to
do
in.
A
In
that
moment,
there's
also
a
stronger
pressure
to
agree
with
the
prevailing
side,
and
that's
just
because
in
our
systems
right,
you
can
vote
for
the
losing
side
and
The
Winning
Side
wins,
there's
not
much
else
to
talk
about
right,
but
in
a
consensus
system
you
don't
actually
move
on
until
people
start
to
agree,
so
you
can
feel
like
you're
blocking
the
group
unnecessarily
or
taking
up
too
much
space.
If
you
do
have
a
legitimate
objection,
you
might
feel
like.
Maybe
it's
not
your
place
to
to
voice
it?
A
Consensus
mechanisms
are
easier
to
break
right
like
it's
much
easier
to
end
up
in
a
state
where
you
can
no
longer
go
forward.
If
you
have
much
higher
requirements
for
coming
together,
and
it's
also
often
harder
to
explain
the
results
right
like
maybe
you
still
have
a
vote,
you
can
point
to
that
says:
hey
enough
consensus
was
reached,
but
the
results
of
your
vote
is
like
the
whole
history
of
of
how
the
proposal
changed
from
the
time.
It
first
surfaced
until
the
time
the
community
agrees
to
go,
go
through
it
yeah.
A
That's
we
we
think
of
like
how
votes
are
hard
to
explain
and
make
a
right
now
and
like
all
that
matters
is,
is
the
outcome
of
mkr.
You
know
we
can't
actually
just
link
someone
and
that's
the
whole
story,
so
that's
a
potential
Pitfall
to
be
aware
of
so
why
am
I
trying
to
talk
about
this
on
the
GNR?
It's
a
fair
question.
A
A
But
what
we
do
have
is
a
ton
of
varying
groups
within
the
down
right,
there's
core
units,
there's
delegates,
there's,
maybe
you're
an
in-game
and
talking
about
clusters
and
sub-dials
and
all
this
stuff.
Regardless
of
your
persuasion
of
what
you
want
to
see
the
Dow,
do
it
probably
involves
smaller
groups
of
people
coming
together
to
focus
on
things
a
little
more.
A
Obviously,
the
golden
game
is
breaking
into
smaller
structures,
so
it
seems
relevant
to
mention
to
in-game
proponents
there,
but
it
also
seems
relevant
to
a
bonus
as
well
right
when
we
have
core
units
that
have
internal
decision
making
processes.
We
have
at
least
one
proposal
parameter
group
that
meets
together
every
month
to
recommend
something
we
have
all
sorts
of
ad
hoc
working
groups
and
collaborations
that
have
to
spin
up
to
keep
the
Dows
in
operation
and
yeah.
Maybe
it
could
form
a
new
governance
model.
A
We
don't
have
to
go
off
of
my
questions
and
would
greatly
prefer
if
I
didn't
have
to
read
my
own
questions
out
to
myself,
but
these
are
kind
of
like
the
levels
I'd
like
to
start
with
just
kind
of
basic
comprehension
and
make
sure
that
everyone
who
wants
to
participate
in
this
succession
feels
like
they
have
a
good
understanding
of
what
we
just
talked
about
so
questions
like
do
we
understand
the
basics?
Can
we
explain
the
difference
between
a
couple
of
these
mechanisms,
maybe
past
and
present
those
sort
of
questions?
A
A
G
G
Or
you
have
these
kind
of
circles
that
that
kind
of
have
complete
autonomy
over
what
they
do
and
then
they
they
do
it
more
or
less,
with
just
feedback
and
and
kind
of
like
a
emergency
brake
button
for
the
for
the
wider
governance
or
something
for
to
to
to
to
remain
safe
in
some
way.
But
I
think
what
what
bureaucracy
does
and
what
I
think
is
excellent.
G
I,
don't
know
if
this
system
scales
well
like
from
what
I've
read,
for
instance,
the
medium.com
this.
This
online
blog,
they
use
holocracy
a
lot
and
dropped
it
at
some
point
in
their
scaling
or
moved
like
they
still
use
it
in
Parts,
but
moved
ahead
like
out
out
of
it,
because
it
just
didn't
scale
well
enough.
A
And
thanks
ref:
oh
it's,
exciting
holistic
voting
makes
appearance.
So
it's
been
a
fun
topic
a
little
bit
old
now,
but
it's
in
the
Forum.
If
you
want
a
necromancer
long,
I
see
a
hand
from
you
simply
largely
plagiarize,
with
you
presented
to
the
community
yeah.
It
makes
sense
to
give
you
a
platform
here.
H
H
H
H
H
I
think
just
like
I
mean
the
sort
of
scenario
it
doesn't
really
matter
too
much
right,
but
for
a
sort
of
competitive
system
or
like
that,
we've
sort
of
used
in
the
past,
like
on
the
Forum
and
on
on
Sunday
right,
we've
had
sort
of
you
know.
Maybe
I
had
a
signal
request.
That
sort
of
asks
for
for
something
and
to
be
fast
in
the
request,
is
moving
a
little
bit
towards
consensus,
but
generally
we'd
have
sort
of
a
vote
in
the
signal
requests.
H
It
would
have
like
a
number
of
options.
You
know
if
that
sort
of
went
well
if
something
got
over
50
and
we'd
then
move
the
sort
of
same
Photon
chain
in
some
form,
which
would
then
be
voted
on
again
in
sort
of
majority
right.
So
I
guess
like
in
a
you
know,
say
it's
something
simple
like
you
know,
judging
stores
UV,
not
that
we
put
on
that
anymore.
But
you
know
what
like
what
would
like
a
consensus
process
for
that
look
like
right.
A
I
think
that's
probably
perfect,
because
there
might
be
a
lot
of
motivations
behind
changing
the
stability.
If
you
like,
you
know
we
typically
at
least
when
I
think
about
things.
I
tend
to
approach
it
with
with
my
mentality
rate
of
like
oh
here's,
why
I
might
want
to
change
the
stability
fee,
but
like
acknowledging
that
there
are
a
lot
of
reasons,
it's
a
good
starting
point
for
for
why
this
method
is,
is
important,
right
and
and
I
will
say
in
in
the
old
post.
I
I
LinkedIn
in
today's
thread.
A
Long
does
have
a
cool
diagram
of
like
a
simple
proposed
mechanism
for
for
going
back
and
forth,
but
essentially
the
the
main
difference
is
this
idea
of
you?
You
need
to
yeah
three
years
ago
forever,
four
years,
I
guess
you
basically
need
to
kind
of
shift
your
your
thinking
right,
because
in
the
current
system
the
the
setup
is
all
about
getting
the
thing
on
chain
and
then
do
you
have
enough
votes
to
pass
it
through,
but
in
a
consensus-based
system.
A
Your
your
your
first
step
is
just
introducing
the
idea
right
is
trying
to
let
the
group
know
that
this
thing
is
coming.
I.
Think
for
these
reasons,
that
a
change
should
be
made
and
I'm
seeking
input
for
for
if,
if
this
changes
is
supported
by
our
community
and
kind
of
the
idea,
is
that
well,
yes,
the
initial
part
might
look
awful
similar
to
what
we
have
today
right.
A
A
But,
generally
speaking,
if
a
proposer
thinks
that
their
thing
can
pass,
they
want
to
get
it
on
chain
as
as
quickly
as
possible
and
have
the
vote
done,
whereas
in
consensus
making
mechanism
after
receiving
the
initial
feedback,
your
your
next
goal
is
to
say:
okay,
how
can
we
take
what
we
have?
What
we
have
here
and
and
make
a
proposal
that
encompasses
more
points
of
view
from
our
community,
so
there's
this
almost
reconciliation
process
before
you
even
get
to
the
vote
that
says:
okay,
how?
A
How
do
we
make
this
better
and
then
the
you
still
get
to
the
point
of
having
to
have
a
vote,
which
probably
looks
like
very
similar
to
to
what
we
have
today,
but
maybe
with
hey
a
higher
super
majority
threshold
to
to
indicate
to
whether
or
not
consensus
has
been
reached
and
then
again,
another
big
difference
is
in
today's
system.
The
if
a
vote
failed
that
that
would
be
it
right.
A
If
a
vote
fails
and
in
some
cases,
even
if
it
passes
so
like
the
stability,
if
you
vote
right
there,
there
might
be
some
people
who
want
lower
rates
because
they're
they're
users
there
might
be
people
who
prefer
a
profitable
protocol
who
are
offering
higher
rates.
There
might
be
others
who
are
advocating
for
for
more
more
Market
rates
right.
A
So
you
could
have
all
these
different
influences
that
may
not
be
congruent
with
each
other,
but
may
help
you
realize
that,
like
oh,
the
the
sentiment
of
the
community
is
actually
like
quite
broad
here.
Maybe
instead
we
should
be
proposing
having
different
offerings
like
different
branches
of
of
of
of
stability
fees
for
for
collateralizations
kind
of,
like
we
ended
up
here
with
our
our
original
eth
B
vault.
A
I
Hi
there
yes
kianga
davrington,
working
with
acre
and
best
recognized
delegate.
That
was
that
was
that
was
great
Peyton,
because
what
it
made
me
think
about
also
is
the
education
process
that
happens
in
more
of
the
consensus
mode
right
and
and
in
the
time
I've
been
active
in
the
community
since
about
December
of
2021.
I
My
sense
is:
there's
been
a
shift
and
I'd
love
to
hear
from
more
of
the
ogs.
That
they're
was
more
of
this
Dynamic
of
let
you
know
someone
who
was
interested
in
proposing
something
eventually
to
go
on
chain,
starting
with
a
conversation
right
and
that
there
was
discussion,
but
that
over
the
past
say
14
months,
it's
changed
quite
radically,
where
we
really
only
see
these
fully
baked
proposals
as
you've
described.
They
just
want
to
go
right
to
action
and
then
that
that
makes
the
dynamic
quite.
I
It
has
maybe
more
of
a
sense
of
of
buy-in
and
if
that's
deteriorated,
you
know.
Why
did
that
happen?
And
when
did
that
take
place?
And
what
do
people
think
about
the
education?
That's
lost
because
it's
quite
hard
to
just
come
to
a
proposal
that's
already
baked,
and
then
we
miss
having
that
debate.
That
happens
where
you
can
kind
of
inform
how
you
would
want
to
vote
or
even
provide
additional
comments.
A
Well,
let
me
see
if
I
can
summarize
the
ass
basically
asking
some
people
who
have
been
here
for
for
longer,
perhaps
maybe
through
a
shift
in
governance
themselves,
has
the
consensus
building
deteriorated
App
Maker.
Do
we
talk
about
proposals,
lesson
yeah?
If
so,
when
did
you
first
start?
Seeing
that
happen.
H
I
mean
I
feel
like
there
was
always
a
mix
of
like
the
sort
of
straight
to
proposal
things
and
the
consensus
building
like
it's
not
like.
It
was
perfect
like
in
the
past
right
and
there
was
like
no
proposals
straight
to
vote
and
everything
was
consistent.
Voting
that
said,
like
I,
think
there
probably
has
been
less
recently
for,
like
reasons
I
imagine,
everyone
here
is
familiar
with
so
yeah.
That's
a
thing.
G
Yeah
I
think
so
there
was
there
was
a
tweet
a
couple
of
of
weeks
ago,
I
think
by
Mark
and
reason
who
basically
said
that
because
people
say
like
yeah,
Society
is
divided
and
so
on,
and
he
said
the
that's
actually
not
the
case,
but
just
the
marketplace
of
ideas
is
strengthening.
You
know,
I
think
that
was
really
powerful,
because
I
think
coming
to
consensus
doesn't
have
to
be
peaceful
and
I.
G
A
It's
f,
I
know.
One
question
I've
been
asking
of.
Some
people
that
have
been
here
longer
was
like
what
their
experience
was
when,
when
the
maker
Foundation
started
to
decentralize
and
I've
admittedly
mostly
been
asking
that
out
of
my
own
curiosity,
because
when
I
first
started
was
was
kind
of
at
that
Peak
moment
right
before
the
foundation
had
announced
that
it
was
fully
dissolving.
A
So
I
was
kind
of
like
brand
new
at
the
time,
and
it
was
just
like
this
crazy,
I
kind
of
like
a
feel-good
story
right.
You
know
like
in
the
industry.
A
lot
of
people
want
decentralization
so
make
her
decentralizing
equals
good.
You
know
it
feels
like
okay,
you
know
we're
about
to
be
a
part
of
something
and
due
to
my
like
low
level
of
access
at
the
at
the
community
at
that
time,
right,
because
I
was
just
some
guy
on
the
Forum
asking
questions
and
giving
unsolicited
opinions.
A
I
didn't
have
much
insight
into
what
was
actually
going
going
on
outside
of,
like
maybe
my
comdev
grants
experience.
So
if
it
was
a
certainly
very
different
for
me
and
in
terms
of
your
original
question,
giangon
on
how
consensus
has
changed
over
that
time,
it's
a
hard
question
to
answer,
because
one
big
difference
was
the
community
was
so
much
smaller
and
it
just
felt
like
it
was
like.
You
know.
A
But
my
experience
as
a
as
a
Governor's
facilitator
is
basically
when,
when
really
big
controversial
proposals
happen,
that
is
when,
when
your
consensus
has
is
at
risk
right,
because
the
system
isn't
tested
too
much
when
the
stakes
are
low,
even
if
you
disagree
with
something
if
if
it
gets
voted
on
and
the
stakes
aren't
too
high,
it
probably
doesn't
change
your
your
opinion
about
the
organization
or
the
future
prospects
much.
However,
you
start
introducing
a
lot
of
changes
in
people's
personal
feelings.
A
So
I've
I've
certainly
felt
it
get
a
little
worse
right
in
the
past
six
months,
which
is
stressful
as
as
a
governance
facilitator,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
I
do
wonder
how
much
of
it
kind
of
comes
with
the
the
territory
of
people
wanting
to
make
change.
That
tends
to
be
the
time
when,
when
consensus
is
at
its
lowest
and
only
after
you
really
start
talking
and
and
trying
to
understand,
each
other's
point
of
view
can
can
you
get
closer
on
that
foreign.
A
Obviously,
other
people-
maybe
even
if
you
don't
consider
yourself
an
OG,
there's
probably
plenty
of
people
in
this-
call
that
that
might
consider
you
on
so
you've
been
around
for
some
things,
do
feel
free
to
chime
in
but
I'm.
Seeing
like
an
interesting
chat
here
from
from
ragnard
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
a
mic,
but
if,
if
you
wanted
to
come
on
and
ask
that
I'm
also
happy
to
read
it
off
from
you.
J
Cool
this
is
actually
Sarah,
I'll,
explain,
ragnard,
later
okay,
but
my
primary
question
was
just
whether
so
kianga
said
that
loss
of
signals
meant
that
there
were
fewer
opportunities
for
people
to
basically
gather
what
everyone
thinks
on
a
subject.
So
my
question
was
basically:
is
it
a
lack
of
a
specific
centralized
place
because
being
new
to
the
maker
landscape?
That's
what
it
seems
like
to
me.
A
I
Yeah
and
I'll
just
I'll,
just
chime
in
to
give
context
on
what
I
was
saying
in
the
chat
with
respect
to
signals
and
the
idea
of
consensus
building
before
we
had
the
sit
when
we
had
the
signal
you
could
benefit
from
people
weighing
in
without
there
being
like
the
consequence
of
the
vote.
So
it
was
it's
both
kind
of
an
observation
about
opportune,
structured
opportunities
for
feedback,
which
is
a
little
bit
different
from
the,
where
Sarah
that
you're
pointing
to
and
whether
or
not
the
conversation's
fragmented,
which
I
think
are
different
observations.
I
There's
so
much
that's
proposed
that
I
learn
a
lot
just
from
people
giving
their
opinions
and
so
to
have
less
opportunity
for
people
to
weigh
in,
in
a
very
prompted
way
that
the
signal
requests
really
prompt.
You
I
have
found
to
be.
You
know,
kind
of
a
negative
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
consensus
building
or
even
just
making
good
decisions,
because
you're
benefiting
from
lots
of
people
saying
what
they
think
foreign.
A
So
the
thread
that
I'm
kind
of
seeing
there
is
it's
probably
not
that
conversations
aren't
happening
right
like
it's
not
like
one
person
is,
is
able
to
make
all
these
decisions.
It's
just
now
that
the
formal
process
for
Gathering
consensus
for
announcing
to
the
community
that
you
intend
to
do
XYZ
now
that
that
formal
process
is
gone.
A
I
can
tell
you
from
govalvo.
We
have
a
very
interesting
perspective
because
internally
right,
we
were
in
charge
managing
the
the
source
code
program.
It
was
in
our
budget
and
last
year
we
made
the
kind
of
difficult
decision
to
stop
supporting
it,
and
what
we
immediately
saw
was
was
a
lot
of
accounts.
Stop
posting
entirely
right
to
the
people
who
are
no
longer
getting
paid
to
get
likes
on.
The
Forum
aren't
participating
in
that.
A
A
You
feel,
like
you,
have
a
stronger
chance
of
politicking
right
behind
closed
doors
than
participating
in
the
Forum,
and
on
top
of
that,
there's
no
incentive
for
outside
voices
to
come
in
and
raise
issues
for
you
to
respond
to
that's
like
a
negative
lightning
in
general.
I
I
do
think
we
made
the
right
call
there,
but
that
is
like
a
fear
of
mind
that
that
maybe
we
should
re-examine
too,
which
is
did
some
of
our
soft
soft
decisions
also
have
an
effect
on
on
the
ability
to
find
consensus.
B
B
Very
often,
their
contributions
were
particularly,
you
know,
rigorous,
they
weren't
very
well
articulated
and
often
were
just
like
things
like.
Oh
great
proposal
can't
wait
to
see
it
in
action.
You
know
things
that
don't
actually
you
know
that
doesn't
help
discourse,
you
know.
So
you
know.
Did
that
comment
not
being
on
a
thread?
Doesn't
doesn't
you
know
or
being
on
a
threat?
Doesn't
it
doesn't
provide
the
the
thread
author
with
any
feedback?
B
B
But
a
number
of
these
accounts
that
we
we
felt
were
farming
saw
spread.
Essentially
some
of
them
were
getting
paid,
hundreds
of
die
a
month.
A
number
of
them
haven't
posted
since
October
and
October
was
the
last
month
of
Saw
Squad.
So
there's
been
a
very
I
think
of
the
top
10
in
the
last
last
Source
payout
I
think
six
or
seven
of
them
haven't
posted
since
October.
B
You
know:
we'd
stopped
Source
Credit
payments
to
call
unit
members
because
they
were
in
theory,
you
know
already
being
paid
by
the
Dow
to
do
that
work,
and
that
includes
you
know
discussing
dowel
proposes
on
the
Forum.
So
is
there
an
argument
that
that
kind
of
tipped,
the
balance
to
enable
these
farming
accounts
a
greater
representation
and
Source
grade
payout
than
it's
possible?
E
B
It
it,
but
it's
also
an
expense.
You
know
when
we're
in
a
situation
here
where
core
units
are
being
or
forwarded.
You
know
several
core
units
in
the
past.
Six
months
have
been
off-boarded,
and
is
it
really
we
were
spending
25
000
die
a
month
on
Source
Credit
at
one
point,
so
that's
what
it's
300K
a
year,
I'm
sure
stratfile
crap,
my
math
is
wrong,
so
you
know
that's
that's
not
an
insignificant
dispense.
B
So
is
that
or
is
that
worthwhile
for
the
Dow
in
terms
of
you
know,
enhancing
participation
in
and
will
it
will
it
be?
Will
the
value
of
that
participation
outweigh
the
cost
and
also
the
opportunity
cost
of
not
spending
that
300
000
die
on?
You
know
a
new
Dev
or
someone
else
who's
going
to
maybe
provide
more
value
for
the
Dow.
So
my
view
is
that
we
did
make
the
right
call.
B
A
A
H
I
mean
I
still
hope
for
the
can
in
some
way
right.
I
think
it's
maybe
less
compatible
with
some
of
the
Scopes
stuff
and
and
getting
things
that
are
installing
yeah
I.
Don't
know,
I
think
that
sort
of
big
sort
of
I
mean
the
big,
maybe
fixable
floor.
Consensus
decision
making
is
that
it
doesn't
work
well
with
large
groups,
but
I
think
that's
probably
some
like
something
you
can
alleviate
with
good
tools
and
processes.
H
I'm.
Just
like
you
know,
developing
those
I
think
is
quite
is
a
bit
of
a
task
and
kind
of
requires
a
lot
of
buy-in
from
everyone
to
sort
of
move
in
that
direction.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
there's
some
something
about
leap
of
faith
required
there.
Right
like
you,
need
to
kind
of
commit
to
making
what
you're
trying
to
make
the
consensus
process,
work
and
sort
of
maybe
fight
through
the
sort
of
first
few
iterations,
which
aren't
super
efficient
and
I
hope
you
can
kind
of
land
on
something
that
works.
H
A
Let's
say
like
the
the
reason
I
wanted
to
bring
it
up
was
because
you
know
particularly
it's
it's
evident
in
an
end
game,
but
I
think
it's
also
evident
in
a
lot
of
Legacy
structures,
which
is
like
a
common
way
to
deal
with.
A
big
problem
is
to
you
know,
delegate
is
to
break
it
down
into
smaller
groups,
make
it
a
small
subset
of
groups
of
responsibility
that
way,
only
the
the
bigger
issues
get
get
bubbled
up
to
the
top.
A
So
that's
you
know
whether
it's
an
in-game
or
it's
through
US
forming
you
know
smaller
core
units
or
what
have
you
like?
It
seems
like
there
seems
to
be
some
some
consensus
building
around
the
idea
that
we
can
get
more
done
and
and
smaller,
more
connected
groups,
which
is
where
this
governance
model
thrives.
A
All
right,
I
am
noting
the
time
here
and
that
we
are
running
out
did
I
have
one
more
slide
here
to
do
a
documentation
and
follow-up
I
know
one
criticism
we
often
get
for
for
GNR
calls
and
kind
of
community
calls
in
general.
Is
that
it's
great
that
we
can
bring
the
community
together?
We
can
talk
about
stuff,
maybe
even
educate
a
few
of
us
in
an
area
we
we
weren't
as
familiar
with,
but
then
a
lot
of
times.
The
momentum
just
stops
and
that's
because
we
we
all
have
roles.
A
We
all
have
jobs.
We
all
have.
You
know
XYZ
that
that
we
have
to
attend
to
and
without
some
sort
of
commitment
and
and
group
support
or
producing
something
or
for
following
up
on
on
what
we
discuss.
It's
just
not
going
to
get
done
so
kind
of
just
wanted
to
pose
these
questions
on
the
screen
to
people
here
today.
Ask
folks
like
hey:
is
there
anyone
who's,
considering
taking
some
of
these
principles
and
applying
them
to
a
small
group?
I
Hey
Peyton
I'd
just
be
curious
how
these
different
mechanisms
connect
to
other
aspects
of
successful
organizations
like
morale
trust.
So
it's
one
thing
to
think
about:
what's
the
ultimate
path
to
making
a
decision,
but
then
I
just
wonder
what
are
the
the
knock-on
effects
or
what
are
sort
of
the
positive
or
negative
externalities
of
different
ways
that
people
can
arrive
at
decisions
and
if
there's
research
there,
that
we
could
look
at.
A
Yeah
I
suspect
there
is
research,
I,
don't
have
any
on
me
at
the
moment,
but
I
can
tell
you
just
like
in
terms
of
basic
political
science
theory.
What
a
lot
of
this
stuff
does.
It
creates
a
sense
of
buying
and
a
sense
of
importance
right
things
like
inclusivity.
One
person,
one
vote
means
that,
regardless
of
your
background
or
what
you
feel
you
are
particularly
good
at
your
voice
is
just
as
strong
as
should
you
choose
to
use
it
as
as
someone
else's
in
the
group.
A
So
a
lot
of
these
mechanisms
are
are
really
great
for
for
building
higher
trust
environments
for
basically
yeah
really
really
aligned
play.
Basically,
the
their
problem
is,
if
you
can't
get
to
the
point
where
you
can
make
consensus
right,
though
we're
just
gonna
fall
apart,
because
everything's
bricked,
so
there
is
kind
of
like
a
potentially
higher
risks
to
these
situations
and
that
they're,
potentially
less
likely
to
to
have
longevity
I.
A
Don't
know
why
my
brain
can
get
the
right
article
in
there,
but
basically
because
they
need
people
to
come
together
and
continue
making
decisions
as
soon
as
people
lose
alignment
or
they
lose
the
trust.
The
the
group
kind
of
ceases
to
function
as
an
organization
which
you
could
argue
right
for
a
lot
of
things
is,
is
good
means
it's
fulfilling
its
purpose
and
stopping
once
it's
done,
but
potentially
not
as
good
for
for
something
like
a
unbiased
world
currency
for,
for
instance,
thank
you.
G
G
That's
quite
unusual
and
and
sometimes
leads
to
really
surprising
insights,
and
it
leads
to
a
certain
kind
of
alignment
over
them
when
you
do
it
over
time.
That's
that's
not
fast
or
agreed
on
it,
just
kind
of
happens.
So
let's
see
it's
a
little
magical,
but
it's
it's
it's
fun
and
it's
interesting,
it's
quite
intense,
actually
but
yeah.
If
anybody
wants
to
do
that,
I
I
could
do
that.
We
just
have
to
like
find
three
four
weeks
and
then
everybody
can
present
their
case
and
I
can
facilitate
it's
I.
G
Just
there's
some
some
rules,
it's
like
70
minutes
but
I
think
yeah
I'll
just
offer
that
I'll
throw
up
a
sheet
and
then
people
can
fill
in
their
names.
And
if
we
get
a
large
enough
group
we'll
do
we
can
do
it.
If
we,
if
we
don't
do
it,
I'm,
not
mad
or
anything
I,
just
something
I
I
did
a
couple
of
times.
A
Yeah,
no
I'll
call
that
one
out
too
okay
I'm
guessing.
She
loves
the
idea
of
makerdale
contributors,
doing
workshops
where
issues
are
not
maker
topics
and
yeah
I
will
say
like
the
global
governance
Gathering
and
in
Amsterdam
last
year.
That
was
one
of
the
coolest
things
about
it,
because
we
just
for
the
little
small
Workshop
got
a
bunch
of
governance.
Nerds
together
and
we
didn't
talk
about
our
own
protocol.
We
talked
about
like
General
problems
that
that
needed
solving
and
like
just
got
a
bunch
of
fun.