►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 183
Description
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction and Agenda
1:56 Votes and Polls
4:00 MIPs Update
7:48 Forum Recap
12:36 Discussion: Tokenomics and Growth
Agenda:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-183-thursday-march-24-17-00-utc/14150/3
Governance Round-Up:
Votes
MIPs
Forum
Discussion Topics:
Tokenomics and Growth:
- Is using engineering resources on tokenomics vs. products worth it?
- What is the result of not having revamped tokenomics?
- What are the benefits for MakerDAO to revamp MKR tokenomics?
- Is having an aggressive growth focus at odds with a tokenomic model?
- What tokenomic model is right for MakerDAO?
Posts relevant to the discussion topic:
https://forum.makerdao.com/tag/a16z-tokenomics-series
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/stkmkr-maker-staking-and-tokenomics-revision/13890
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/aggressive-growth-strategy/13958
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.
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome
this:
is
the
183rd
scientific
governance
risk
meeting
for
make
it
out?
My
name
is
peyton.
I
go
by
pros
11
online
and
I'm
one
of
the
governance
facilitators
here
on
this
call.
I
have
a
bunch
of
awesome
people
who
both
work
for
making
protocol
and
are
interested
in
it's
going
on.
This
is
our
weekly
meeting
where
we
go
over
what
is
happening
on
the
government
side
and
I
usually
have
some
discussions
about
the
risks
the
protocol
is
facing.
A
We'll
start
with
a
couple
of
housekeeping
matters
just
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
there.
This
is
being
recorded,
as
you
might
have
noticed,
so
try
not
to
speak
over
one
another.
You
can
both
use
the
chat,
feature
version
or
the
raised
hand
function
if
you're
familiar
with
that.
Let
us
know
that
you
have
something
to
say
and
be
happy
to
incorporate
you
into
the
speaking
list
or
the
flow
conversation.
A
We
do
this
once
it's
to
be
an
open
meeting.
So
if
you
have
questions
concerns,
comments
like
please
feel
free
to
participate.
I'm
happy
to
speak
your
thoughts
for
you
if
you're
unable
or
unwilling
to
hop
on
the
mic
yourself
just
drop
it
in
the
chat
and
we'll
work
them
in
awesome.
So
I
mentioned
we
do
have
a
bit
of
an
agenda
to
get
through,
as
usual,
we'll
start
with
a
governance
roundup,
going
through
the
votes
mips
and
the
latest
on
the
maker
forum.
A
A
On
the
executive
proposal
side,
we
had
no
executive
last
week,
so
nothing
that's
been
recently
passed
or
executed,
and
tomorrow's
is
a
bit
of
a
light
one
as
well,
but
it
does
perform
some
important
functions,
so
you
have
a
chance
to
read
about
it.
I
linked
the
forum
topic
there.
Essentially,
we
need
to
be
making
some
changes
if
the
community
approves
that
will
allow
tusd
vault
users
to
interact
with
their
vault
again.
A
Essentially,
the
recent
upgrade
to
the
tusd
structure
caused
a
lock
from
from
our
perspective
as
a
safety
measure.
So
until
we
update
there,
what
is
it
called
the
implementation
address?
Yes,
the
implementation
address
until
we
update
that
users
would
not
be
able
to
wind
down
or
withdraw
their
collateral.
So
that
is
why
it
is
getting
inserted
into
the
executive,
even
though
it
hasn't
been
hold
on.
A
B
B
B
We
have
here
one
amendment
to
add
a
rapid
payment
mechanism
to
the
back
bounty
program
run
by
immune
file
security.
One
facilitator
affording
that
should
be
ignored
really
because
the
maker
dash
of
as
leaders
have
stepped
down
on
their
own
accord
and
one
maybe
maybe
61
dedicates
recognized
delegates
story
compensation.
B
B
B
B
B
We
have
a
two
amendments:
team,
black
gala
and
I
are
currently
working
on
the
coordinated
foreign
process
amendments
and
I
hope
to
have
it
ready
for
april.
Although
that's
that
may
be
a
bit
of
a
stretch
and
we
have
an
amendment
to
make
seven
mip
seven
easy
on
boarding
and
affording
collateral
domain
teams
map.
B
Next
slides,
finally,
we
have
two
mandate:
provisions
for
governance,
communications
and
for
data
insights.
The
addition
also
of
the
collateral
engineering
services
into
the
collateral,
onboarding
workflow,
a
modification
of
the
collateral
application
form
and
the
dissolution
of
the
content,
create
creation
multisig
by
the
way
underwriting.
This
one
will
indeed
be
entering
april
cycle
and
next
slide.
That's
pretty
much.
It
reminder
that
the
formal
submission
window
for
april
opens
on
monday
4th.
A
C
Approximately
132
million
of
stake,
deep
collateral
on
ave
and
41
million
of
stable
coin
loans
drawn
against
that
could
potentially
be
moved
over
to
maker.
If
there's
a
desire
to
do
so,
and
next
up,
we
have
gov
alpha
introducing
some
new
flowcharts
on
the
maker
operational
manual
for
governance
flows
and
governance
process
selector.
C
C
We
have
members
of
a16z,
including
luca
pro,
who
co-authored
a
four-part
proposal
on
innovating
maker
dao's
token
model.
The
team
explores
existing
mkr
tokenomics
model
and
introduced
a
three-pronged
approach
towards
innovating
it,
which
consists
of
adding
utility
functionality
to
the
mkr
token,
aligning
governance,
incentives
and
increasing
financial
resiliency
and
fostering
growth.
All
three
proposals,
including
the
overview,
are
summarized
in
the
forum
at
a
glance.
C
If
you're
looking
for
a
quick
tl,
dr
and
next
up,
we
have
gov
alpha,
providing
an
overview
about
how
they
engage
with
forum
management
in
response
to
inquiries
about
new
accounts,
suspected
sock,
puppets
and
forum
moderation
in
general.
The
post
also
includes
some
community
considerations
and
their
own
consideration
of
potentially
running
an
informal
poll
about
community
feelings
towards
moderation.
C
Over
the
last
week
there
was
only
there
is
only
currently
one
active
signal
going
on
sebastian
from
strategic
finance,
revisits
the
topic
and
attempts
to
push
pax
g
to
be
onboarded.
All
risk
assessments
for
it
have
been
submitted
during
2020
and
pakshi
was
previously
approved
for
onboarding
three
governance
poll.
C
Additionally,
both
market
cap
and
liquidity
for
pakisty
have
significantly
increased
since
then,
and
the
uni
v2
pool,
although
small,
was
recently
handling.
2
million
of
hourly
volume
and
50
million
on
the
daily
parameters
proposed
for
pack
g
are
a
depth
ceiling
of
5
million
liquidation
ratio
of
125
percent,
which
may
be
set
230
and
a
stability
fee
of
4.
That
may
also
be
altered
based
on
further
review.
Sebastian,
provides
pros
and
cons
of
onboarding
pax
g
and
asks
the
community
whether
they
want
to
onboard
it
as
a
collateral
type
in
the
mcd.
C
The
signal
will
run
until
april
5th,
and
at
the
moment
the
paul
is.
The
poll
is
looking
successful,
with
65
percent
of
votes,
supporting
the
signal
request
and
that's
it
for
the
gnr
version
check
out
the
forum
at
a
glance,
written
version
for
some
more
information
and
also
show
some
love
on
our
new
medium
account.
I'm
going
to
post
the
link
up
in
a
second.
A
Awesome
thanks,
arden.
Well,
I
was
just
realizing
that
the
medium
account
the
other
week
and
thought
that
was
pretty
neat
all
right.
So,
as
I
mentioned
initially
mentioned,
we
do
not
have
any
initiative
updates
today.
So
that'll
take
us
straight
into
our
discussion
segment
and
yeah.
It
is
a
bit
of
a
large
topic,
but
one
we
felt
would
be
good
to
talk
about
here
and
essentially
it's
the
tokenomics
and
growth
proposals.
A
If
you've
been
watching
the
forums
as
of
late
we've
had
a
couple
different
tokenomics
proposals,
one
submitted
by
monet
supply,
we
had
another
that
porter
posted
from
a16z
and
you
could
even
say
roon
kind
of
kicked
off
this.
This
recent
met
of
tokenomics
proposals
with
the
sagittarius
engine
a
few
months
back
in
the
midst
of
all
that
we
also
had
a
post
from
kind
of
a
cross-court
unit
group
of
of
of
actors
about
aggressive
growth
strategy
for
maker,
so
yeah.
A
This
is
essentially
our
our
discussion
segment
to
kind
of
collate.
All
all
these
different
ideas
talk
about
both
what
are
good
tokenomics
fundamentals,
to
have
how
we
should
be
evaluating
different
proposals
that
come
forth
and
in
general,
how
we
should
be
structuring
our
governance
decisions,
our
community
involvement
to
kind
of
shape,
the
growth
of
the
protocol.
A
I
know
there
are
a
few
people
on
this
call
who
proposed
whether
it
be
tokenomics
revisions
or
growth
plans,
so
definitely
invite
them
to
to
talk
about
their
framing
for
for
proposing
those
and
and
why
they
thought
that
was
necessary
cool
and
I
see
a
porter
raising
in
your
hand,
so
I'll
pass
it
to
you
before.
I
mumble
thanks.
D
D
D
The
I
guess,
the
prioritization
efforts
here
of
scarce
engineering,
resources
and
kind
of
our
take
on
that.
So
overall,
we
basically
came
forward
with
this
tokenomics
proposal
that
we've
been
working
on
for
actually
quite
a
while
it
just
takes
a
while
to
get
through
kind
of
the
regulatory
compliance
process
on
our
end
before
posting
something
publicly.
D
B
D
Me
that
needs
to
be
done
necessarily
in
in
the
next
week
or
anything
like
that,
but
it's
something
that
we
think
structurally
is
important,
long-term
and
we're
very
long-term
oriented,
which
is
why
we
proposed
it.
The
second
thing,
I'd
like
to
just
provide
more
context
on
is
a
little
bit
on
that
regulatory
side.
We
think
it's
important
if
a
token
has
utility
functionality,
that
it
adds
new
dynamics
to
how
it
might
be,
perhaps
analyzed
from
the
regulatory
perspective,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
you
can
do
that.
D
We
just
put
some
ideas
out
there
about
ways:
ways
that
could
be
interesting,
there's
certainly
pros
and
cons
to
those
ideas.
We
recognize
that
we're
not,
I
don't
think
we're
married
to
any
of
them.
That
was
just
kind
of
the
best
stuff
that
we
happened
to
come
up
with,
but
more
than
happened
more
than
happy
to
get.
D
D
We
just,
I
think,
bring
a
little
bit
of
a
unique
regulatory
look
at
things
and
so
a
lot
of
times
if
we
phrase
things
a
certain
way
or
do
things
a
certain
way
that
is
generally
what's
driving
it
just
for
context
on
that,
but
more
than
happy
to
discuss
further
with
anyone,
I
would
love
to
hear
everyone's
ideas
on
it.
We're
very
laid
back
with
this.
If
everyone
thinks
it's
terrible,
like
no
big
deal,
we
just
wanted
to
kind
of
put
it
out
there
and
generate
ideas,
and
that's
that's.
A
G
G
How
does
that
fall
into
the
whole
picture
of
what
you
just
talked
about
a
second
ago
and
kind
of
having
the
tokenomics
of
mkr
kind
of
fit
the
mold?
That
makes
sense
not
necessarily
for
everyone
in
the
world,
but
more
for
americans
like
myself
and
you
but
yeah
more
more
on
the
surplus
buffer.
Just
wanted
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
that.
D
D
That's
a
that's
a
great
way
to
be
able
to
kind
of
distribute
some
of
that
value
to
token
holders,
because
they're
actively
participating
in
enterprise
and
they
are
putting
their
own
assets
at
risk.
They're
not
relying
solely
on
the
efforts
of
others,
which
is
some
of
the
key
language.
I'm
sure
many
of
you
have
heard
before
so
that's
kind
of
the
idea
behind
the
secondary
surplus
buffer
just
attack
on
there
frank,
but
more
than
happy
to
go
further
and
definitely
anything
there.
That
might
be
helpful.
G
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
think,
there's
two
things
there.
The
first
piece
is
is
any
sort
of.
I
am
not
a
lawyer,
and
our
legal
folks
would
have
to
answer
this.
I
should
be
clear
about
that
up
front,
but
I
think
that
we
would
be
more
interested,
perhaps
in
the
cache
or
die
denominated
distributions
for
regulatory
reasons,
and
then
I
think
on
the
surplus
buffer
piece
in
general.
D
So
I've
talked
to
a
lot
of
folks.
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
are
kind
of
in
somewhat
of
the
same
boat.
I
know
that
makers
had
you
know
certain
policies
that
have
been
placed
for
a
while
that
have
made
sense,
and
perhaps
it
makes
sense
to
continue
them,
but
but
in
our
eyes,
kind
of
maintaining
a
larger
surplus
buffer
might
make
a
lot
of
sense.
D
D
Another
thing
that
we
kind
of
put
in
there
was
this
idea
of
creating
an
mkr
denominated,
vesting
pool
for
folks
that
are
delegates,
and
also
for
folks
that
are
just
active
voters
that
aren't
delegates
so
that
their
incentives
are
aligned
in
ways
similar
to
just
how
you
know.
Employees
would
be
at
any
other
startup,
because
web3
is
fundamentally
different,
because
everyone
is
kind
of
actively
participating
and,
in
some
respects
to
varying
degrees,
members
of
kind
of
an
active
startup,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
the
some
of
our
thoughts
there.
H
H
It
feels
like
this
conversation
around
changing
the
tokenomics,
maybe
correlated
with
an
uptick
in
the
mkr
price
the
other
week,
and
if,
if
there's
a
sense
that
addressing
this
issue
progressing,
the
tokenomics
could,
even
and
of
itself
be
positive
for
all
the
other
things
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
terms
of
attracting
counterparties
and
improving.
You
know
just
across
all
the
dimensions
that
we're
trying
to
grow.
I
It's
just,
though,
that
effort
needs
to
be
mapped
out
in
terms
of
requirements
and
understanding
what
the
impacts
are
going
to
be
and
then
how
it
plays
out
across
the
rest
of
the
ecosystem,
so
yeah
aligning
on
on
these
different
opportunities
and
documenting
them
as
a
concise
list
of
requirements.
I
think
would
be
very
useful,
but
that's
going
to
take
some
discussion
and
get
to,
but
certainly
it's
certainly
happy
to
play
a
role
and
be
involved
in
that.
E
So
yeah,
none
of
these
none
of
these
plans
are
free,
obviously,
and
some
of
them
involve
very
major,
like
fundamental
changes
to
the
the
core
system
and
maker
token
itself.
So
we
we
currently
have
mandates-
or
at
least
guidance
to
you,
know,
deploy
on
every
viable
l2
prepare
d3ms
for
everybody
that
we
can
work
to
streamline
the
rwa
process
from
a
technical
level
and
then
just
just
generally,
you
know
protocol
maintenance.
E
A
And
I
would
say
that's
certainly
like
a
a
governance
concern
as
well
right
like
we,
we
want
proposals
to
be
able
to
be
addressed
and
understood
before
we
make
the
changes
and
it's
like
an
unfortunate
situation.
We've
had
in
the
past
right
where
things
have
been
approved
by
governments
and
then
we
don't
really
have
a
timeline.
A
J
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
you
know
like
I,
I
just
don't
see
a
world
where
the
reason
maker
succeeds
or
fails
is
because
it
didn't
upgrade
its
tokenomics
to
be.
You
know
more
appealing
to
this
or
that
stakeholder
or
you
know,
have
a
little
more
a
little
less.
You
know
regulatory
component
in
some
particular
direction.
J
You
know
compared
to
scaling
and
security,
and
you
know
growing
business
efforts
like
real
assets,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
the
maker
token
still
retains
the
rights
to
all
future
cash
flows
and
present
assets
of
the
system,
and
you
know
that's
completely
sufficient
to
value.
You
know
a
financial
asset.
J
Sometimes
you
get
locked
into
it
because
then,
then,
in
the
future,
there's
not
time
to
go
back
and
redo
it,
and
you
know,
I
think
we
should
just
think
very
carefully
before
we,
you
know,
make
any
large
changes
to
the
tokenomics
in
the
short
term,
at
least,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
governance
sets
the
priorities
for
whatever
protocol
engineering
works
on.
So
you
know,
if
there's
a
disagreement
there,
however,
the
the
voting
weight
falls
is
what
we
do.
So
that's
that's
my
rant.
Sorry.
If
it
was
a
little
long
thanks.
K
Thank
you.
Peyton
apologize
in
advance,
my
voice
a
little
bit
under
the
weather
right
now.
I
must
largely
agree
with
the
last
few
speakers
on
cost
of
engineering
for
the
economics
model.
From
the
conversations
I've
been
having
with
different
core
units,
so
the
process
I've
been
seeing,
I
don't
see
tokenomics
itself
as
a
hindrance
to
growth.
K
Now
nobody
has
raised
that
as
an
issue
and
that's
a
problem,
so
I
think,
with
the
pretty
major
backlog
that
we
have
on
some
of
the
projects
right
now,
I
think
it's
prudent
to
at
least
push
these
kinds
of
proposals
further
down
the
timeline
to
capitalize
on
other
kinds
of
growth.
At
least
that's
my
take
on
it
at
current
time.
D
D
I
think
we
always
defer
generally
to
engineers
and
engineering
talent
on
perhaps
what
needs
to
be
done
on
that
side
of
the
house
and
as
far
as
strategy
goes,
I
think
we
look
at
this
as
much
more
of
just
a
long-term
thing
for
community
discussion
that
perhaps
once
we
get
past
some
of
these,
I
think
core
growth
initiatives
that
are
occurring
right
now
could
be
tackled
down
the
line.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
D
We're
not
we're
not
looking
to
do
anything
immediately,
we're
not
looking
to
displace
current
initiatives.
I
think
I
think
we
understand
that,
and
it
was
more
just
to
foster
some
general
discussion
around
some
of
these
ideas
for
things
that
hopefully
aren't
core
revamps
of
the
token,
but
perhaps
new
new
ways
to
use
it.
I
understand
like
installing
a
secondary
surplus
buffer
perhaps
might
involve
significant
engineering
work,
but
some
of
the
other
ideas
like
just
permanently
increasing
the
current
surplus
buffer,
etc.
L
Hey:
hey
porter
thanks,
I'm
a
bit
under
the
weather,
I'm
really
tired,
so
bear
with
me
for
a
little
bit.
So
I've
been
looking
at
the
history
a
little
bit
here.
You
know
and
we're
kind
of
talking
about
an
engine
right
maker
itself
is
an
engine
for
financial
achievement,
so
to
speak
right
and
I
was
kind
of
thinking
a
lot
about
growth,
and
then
I
see
the
proposals
for
like:
let's
increase
the
surplus
buffer,
so
we
can
do
100
million
deals
and
I'm,
like
you
know,
I'm
back
to
the
same
question.
L
L
L
We
need
to
be
doing
these
deals
in
the
1
to
10
billion
range,
not
the
100
million
range
right,
and
so
you
know
when
I
think
about
growth.
I
kind
of
want
to
segregate
and
focus
on
what
we
can
do
with
the
engine
now
with
maker
2o
and
make
a
core
group,
that's
nimble
and
think
about.
You
know,
look
at
the
competition
and
figure
out
how
to
raise
capital.
I
have
a
crazy
idea.
L
The
other
one
is
like
operational
being
able
to
opt
to
do,
deals
right
and
we're
struggling
kind
of
piecing
together
on
an
old
facility,
and
we
really
want
to
change
things
which
is
a
long-term
vision,
but
we
also
want
to
strategize
on
the
old
and
we're
having
difficulty
doing
that.
And
so
I
would
like
to
see
an
approach.
That's
a
little
more
forward-thinking
and
bigger
than
what's
being
proposed.
So
that's
kind
of
all.
I
got
thanks.
A
A
If
there
are
things
you
can
be
doing
to
to
make
your
token
safer
from
from
a
regulation
standpoint,
you
know
that
that
adds
some
value
or
some
pause
for
consideration
as
well,
so
definitely
trying
to
balance
a
multitude
of
factors
here,
even
just
moving
forward
with
with
the
discussion
and
yeah.
That's
why
we
appreciate
a
wide
variety
of
impact
and
yeah
speaking
of
see
a
new
person
looking
to
join
the
conversation.
Go
forward.
Robert.
M
Hey
thanks,
peyton
and
hi
everyone.
I
just
want
to
jump
in
here
and
set
some
context
because
there's
a
there's,
I
hear
growth
and
and
there's
a
you
know:
I've
posted
in
the
forums
as
far
as
understanding
and
agreeing
of
where
we're
at
in
the
in
the
organizational
life
cycle
right,
I
think
we're
in
a
growth
phase,
and
I
agree
with
porter
in
some
of
the
the
comments
that
he's
made
and
from
from
the
beginning,
beginning
efforts
of
collateral
engineering
services.
M
I
had
always.
I
talked
about
productization
and
products,
and
and
I'm
hoping
this
is
becoming
a
little
bit
clearer
now,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
technology
and
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
is
is
that
we
sometimes
try
to
find
homes
for
these
this
technology
in
search
of
a
solution
and
and
when,
as
we
go
forward,
we
look
at
our
collateral.
M
It's
really
quite
the
opposite,
where
we'd
like
to
look
at
the
use
cases
and
understand
the
business
behind
what
we're
doing
with
the
dye.
How
it's
generated,
and
where
quite
frankly
is,
is
that
when
we
invest
our
time
and
money,
we're
the
best
places
to
put
that.
So
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
market
analysis
and
looking
at
the
quote:
unquote,
competition
and
other
things
and
don't
get
me
wrong.
M
I
know
a
lot
of
people
have
done
a
lot
of
work
there,
but
bringing
this
together
from
a
product
perspective
and
asking
ourselves
what
is
it
that
we
need
to
build
to
grow
the
protocol
and
a
lot
of
that's
focused
on
collateral
and
a
lot
of
that
is
focused
in
other
areas.
But
I
just
wanted
to
share
a
few
comments
there
to
give
you
my
perspective
of
how
at
ces
we're
looking
at
our
collateral
and
continuing
to
productize
that
so
thanks
very
much.
A
A
A
About
as
much
silence
as
I
can
take
say,
I'll
throw
a
few
more
things
out
there.
I
know
at
the
start
of
the
the
call
voucher
was
making
some
points
about
a
separated
operations
buffer.
If
I'm
not
butchering
that
the
terminology
behind
that,
I
don't
know
if
you'd
like
to
speak
to
that
matter
or
not,
but
that
is
certainly
a
concept
for
for
growth.
We
can
be
considering
right
like
currently
because
of
the
structure
of
the
sv
yeah.
I
don't
need
to
explain
this
too
much.
N
Make
a
plan
and
and
then
make
sure
that
the
necessary
resources
are
available,
some
a
plan
that
has
a
longer
term
outlook,
rather
than
just
month,
by
month,
from
a
very
practical
point
of
view.
The
problem
you
immediately
run
into
is
that,
right
now
we
can't
meaningfully
speak
about
our
runway,
because
everything
is
in
the
surface
buffer
and
it
it's
not
separated
by
these
different
purposes.
N
That's
almost
certainly
a
requirement
if,
if
we
want
to
become
better
at
long-term
planning-
and
this
is
a
team
that
I
noticed
throughout
all
of
these
discussions-
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
around
what
is
short-term.
What
is
long-term
and
yeah
to
structure
these
discussions?
I
think
it's
incredibly
important
to
separate
the
two
and
I
I
think
the
comment
made
by
porter
that
you
know
this
is
a
long-term
thing
it
when
we
see
the
discussion
that
it
doesn't
really
we're
not
really
taking
that
into
account
right
like
we.
A
F
I'm
using
pablo's
microphone
now
so
I
wanted
to
add
that
a
lot
of
core
units,
including
ours,
we're
asking
for
buffers
and
runways
and
and
whatnot
and
potentially
that
could
be
pulled
together
if
necessary,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
on
the
implementation
or
the
execution,
but
that
should
be
at
least
accounted
in
a
different
way
when
we're
thinking
about
what
the
operational
expenses
actually
are
and
and
what
the
cash
flow
is.
So
they're,
two
different
things.
F
Hopefully,
if
the
coordinator
is
running
into
their
buffer
very
often,
maybe
they
should
review
their
their
budget,
but
but
that
I
think
these
are
important
topics
to
be
separated,
because
it's
it's
very,
very
hard
to
make
decisions
or
to
have
a
clear
picture
of
what
our
finances
look
like
so
yeah.
We
should
definitely
look
into
that.
E
For
you
know,
overly
aggressive
spending
or
just
things
that
you
know
are
not
intended
right
now
and
there's
there's
not
any
real
limitation
on
how
that
can
be
used
in
the
future.
I
mean
even
even
an
exploit
could
just
drain
that
thing,
so
some
separations
of
where
that
debt
money
goes
maybe
to
a
separate
backstop
pool
or
something
like
that,
where
it's
it's
differentiated
from
from
the
pile
would
be
a
little
more
reassuring.
K
Thank
you
peyton.
I
just
want
to
expand
a
little
bit
on
what
what
michael
here
brought
up.
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
demands
going
to
the
surface
buffer.
It's
kind
of
started
out.
That's
this
essentially
as
a
security
thing,
and
then
it
kind
of
everybody
gets
the
hooks
into
it,
so
having
some
sort
of
separation
to
make
sure
that
we
maintain
that
security
bit
of
it
and
protect
that
one
from
ongoing
expenses
and
other
issues.
I
think
that's
a
thing
worth
following.
K
To
actually
make
this
work,
I
mean
we
have
to
cover
our
running
expenses.
We
have
to
make
sure
the
protocol
stays
safe.
We
even
want
to
spend
the
same
money
so
to
speak
on
growth
initiatives
and
that's
simply
not
possible
at
some
point.
There's
too
many
obligations
for
too
little
capital,
so
I
think
we,
the
most
immediate
concerns,
will
be
to
have
to
try
to
increase
the
rate
of
inflow
into
our
surplus
buffer.
K
G
One
of
them
is
obviously
the
stark
stark
net
bridge
and
also
the
the
other
two
bridges,
arbitron
optimism,
etc,
and
then
you
also
have
you
know
other
things
that
we're
going
to
be
doing,
hopefully
in
the
near
future,
which
I
know
I've
been
waiting
for
for
what
seems
forever,
such
as
onboarding
rwa
collateral
types.
So
you
know
yeah,
I
get
I
get
it
that
a
surplus
buffer
maybe
should
be
set
to
one
side
where
it's
maybe
protected
by
a
different
smart
contract.
G
But
if
we're
going
to
take
all
these
risks
right,
you
just
had
someone
solana
and
jump
trading
and
the
rest
of
the
folks
over
there
take
a
300
million
dollar
hit
and
it
was
covered
pretty
quickly
because
of
the
of
the
solana
wormhole.
So
I
think,
when
you
look
at
the
proposal,
you
really
need
to
kind
of
dig
in
and
see
what
exactly
the
authors
were.
Trying
to
point
out
to
the
community
is
that
we're
going
to
be
taking
on
a
lot
of
risks
coming
up
and
somehow
some
way.
G
I
personally
don't
want
to
relive
march
2020
that
was
not
fun
at
all,
so
yeah,
so
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
not
only
having
a
pretty
large
cushion
of
a
surplus
buffer,
but
whatever
you
guys
decide
to
do
as
far
as
you
know,
allocating
it
to
operational
growth
or
having
as
an
insurance
fund,
etc.
Whatever
you
guys
want
to
call
it
a
mold
for
that.
But
yeah
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
A
O
O
We
will
meet
with
the
maker
vault,
so
if
we
are
not
able
to
replace
that
amount
of
dion
polygon,
I
think
it
doesn't
make
that
much
sense
to
deploy
makerbots
in
polygon.
So
I
think
at
least
when
we
wrote
that
proposal
increasing
the
surplus
buffer
was
by
was
because
we
are
thinking
on
creating
new
products
and
services
around
the
maker.
O
But
I
I
really
think
that
we
have
to
be
more
strategic
on
on,
like
the
costs
associated
to
core
units
and
and
and
all
this
diet
that
we
will
have
in
the
in
the
new
and
higher
surplus
buffer.
It's
more
to
like
support
growth
of
the
protocol
by
new
collaterals
by
adding
new
domains
having
balls
in
in
different
side
chains
and
layer
twos
also
like
we
all
want
to
grow
the
real
world
assets
initiative,
because
that's
part
of
like
maker
strategy
to
do
that
again,
we
need
a
higher
surplus
buffer.
O
So
I
think
that
is
why
we
thought
about
increasing
the
surplus
buffer,
and
I
agree
with
what
adrian
wrote
in
the
chat
like
we
have
to
review
how
we
are
going
to
spend
the
data
a
surplus
buffer,
because
we
don't
want.
We
do.
I
mean
like
the
idea,
is
to
use
it
to
help
the
protocol
to
growth
in
the
services
that
we
are
providing,
but
we
have
to
be
careful
and
not
spending
it
on,
like,
I,
don't
know
a
million
of
new
car
units,
but
without
a
new
things
that
we
implement
in
the
protocol.
E
Yeah,
just
to
be
clear,
I
didn't
I
didn't
mean
we
shouldn't
have
a
higher
surplus
buffer
and
I
think
you
know
we
need
one
just
in
light
of
the
amount
of
collateral
we've
got
on
board.
But
the
concern
is
just
that
we
when
we
get
those
large
numbers,
we
probably
want
assurances
to
ourselves
that
they'll
actually
be
used
for
those
things
and
then
just
not
like
dipped
into
to
add
a
whole
bunch
of
new
people.
And
you
know
we
will
need
to
add
new
people.
E
A
And
I
think
you're
kind
of
touching
on
potential
criticism
of
our
current
tokenomics
model
right
brian,
is
that
you
know
essentially,
we
design
it
so
that
we
take
profits
and-
and
we
give
it
back
to
mkr
holders
by
by
method
of
buying
back
shares
and
burning
or
buying
back
tokens
and
burning.
However,
if
we
are
to
stop
profits
from
occurring,
then
that
value
goes
to
the
people
that
are
insiders
of
the
system
rather
than
to
the
token
holders
that
are
supporting
the
potential
risks
of
our
collateralization.
A
All
right,
I
know
this
is
like
a
large
topic
and
it's
somewhat
nebulous
and
that
it
touches
on
just
about
all
areas
of
our
operation.
So
I
definitely
don't
want
to
cut
discussion
of
it
short,
but
with
that
said,
do
you
want
to
make
sure
if
there
are
other
things
we
want
to
talk
about?
We
have
a
chance
for
that
as
well.
A
All
right
feel
fairly
good
I'll
show
us
along.
Then
I've
seen
several
kind
of
good
potential
side
topics
come
up
in
the
chat.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
ones
that
we'd
like
to
fully
explore,
but
one
that
kind
of
keeps
coming
up.
I
saw
it
in
your
comment
there
josh
is
this
idea
of
recognized
delegates
and
and
what
their
role
is
within
the
system.
A
H
All
of
us
involved
in
the
space
have,
you
know,
experience
and
have
views
of
where
we'd
like
to
see
web
3go,
d5
maker
in
particular,
and
could
very
easily
have
a
point
of
view
that
we
tried
to
persuade
the
community
about
and
if
that's
kind
of
the
mode.
I've
definitely
heard
from
in
some
conversations.
H
A
sense
that,
like
the
delegates,
should
be
working
in
terms
of
like
proposing
things
and
advocating
for
things,
and
I'm
just
curious
to
hear
on
this
call
in
this
context,
if
that's
a
strong
sense
that
people
have
about
the
delegate
role-
and
I
think
I
kind
of
have
approached
this
work-
a
little
bit
from
I've
said
it's
called
a
judiciary
mode
where
it's
like.
Okay,
I
just
want
to
hear
both
sides
hear
all
sides
and
kind
of
be
that
disinterested
party
that
tries
to
help.
N
N
One
is
that
it
will
help
tremendously
with
this,
this
great
need
for
vision
and
strategy
so
that
we
can
align
our
our
efforts
towards
a
long-term
goal
and,
second,
on
the
other
side
of
the
equation.
It
will
also
reduce
the
tendency
to
micromanage
because
the
alternative,
if
delegates
are
not
outspoken
about
the
vision
and
the
strategy
that
they
want
to
follow,
then
the
alternative
is
that
if
things
go
wrong,
there
is
a
great
tendency
to
micromanage
and
definitely
now
we're
seeing
the
limits
of
the
of
the
budget.
N
This
is
one
of
the.
The
big
risks
is
that
we
we
flip
towards
micromanagement
and
we
need
to
learn
how
we
how
we
can
work
more
efficiently,
and
so
I
think
that's
all
very
important,
but
the
the
other
thing
that
is
important
is
that
core
units,
for
example,
retain
a
large
degree
of
independence,
because
in
a
decentralized
organization,
things
will
simply
not
work.
N
If,
if
we
try
to
combine
certain
certain
tools
from
the
centralized
world
and
if
we,
if
we're
not
careful,
we'll
end
up
with
the
worst
worst
of
both
worlds,
rather
than
leveraging
the
strengths
of
the
decentralized
organization,
and
so
when
there
is
a
need
for
correction,
the
question
is:
how
do
you
do
it,
and
I
think
today
this
may
be
one
of
the
missing
pieces?
Is
the.
N
So
I
personally
think
this
is
probably
the
the
most
important
thing
that
we
can
change
right
now
to
to
progress
on
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
we're
seeing
is
to
to
start
thinking
about
delegate
real
delegate
platforms
and
also
clear
differences
in
opinion
between
delegates.
I
think
delegates
sometimes
put
too
much
effort
in
agreeing
about
everything.
N
A
Thanks
vader,
I
appreciate
that
reflection.
I
was
just
wondering
like
structurally,
I
think
you
know
in
some
ways
we
kind
of
set
up
the
delegates
to
to
almost
search
for
for
that
consensus.
Right
for
those
of
you
that
remember
before
we
had
recognized
delegates.
Like
often
it
was
a
pain
to
to
get
executive
proposals
passed
right,
so
there'd
be
kind
of
more
than
a
week
where
we'd
be
left
waiting
to
see
our
equal.
N
The
executive
vote
really
is
just
it's
signing
the
deployment
of
the
the
functionality.
It's
it's
a
very
different.
It's
almost
a
technical
role,
and
I
think
it's
I
mean
there
is
like
a
like.
Is
a
safety
feature
there
that
that's
a
it's
a
measure
of
last
resort
to
to
stop
malicious,
malicious
changes
to
the
protocol?
Of
course,
why
do
you
think
it
needs
to
be
separated
from
yeah
from
the
political
disagreements,
because
it's
more
like
an
operational
role
of
of
signing
the
deployment
that
happens.
K
I'll
actually
remember
to
unmute
myself
this
time.
I
do
agree
that
I
think
delegates
has
a
rule
to
play
in
setting
a
strategic
plan.
I
do
not
think
they
should
do
it
alone.
However,
I
think
primarily,
this
should
actually
come
from
maker
holders
themselves
right.
The
delegates
are
barely
carrying
out
the
will
of
the
maker
holders
and,
and
the
big
strategic
picture
is,
is
essentially
what
is
maker
all
about.
K
What
are
we
trying
to
achieve
and,
and
that
should
actually
in
many
way,
cases
be
sourced
from
the
maker
holders
or
from
the
community,
so
providing
such
a
plan
should
at
least
have
some
sort
of
input
from
outside
of
the
delegates
themselves.
I
think,
and
it
should
probably
be
a
collaboration
effort.
Maybe
delegates
are
the
ones
most
best
position
to
actually
start
that
work
that
that
might
very
well
be
the
case
and
also
I'm
also
a
little
bit
wary
about
the
whole
separation
of
powers
issue
here.
N
Yeah
apologies
for
taking
up
a
lot
of
speaking
time
here,
but
I
think
these
are
extremely
important
points.
So,
first
of
all,
I'm
I'm
in
total
agreement
about
that.
It
should
not
happen
in
a
vacuum
right
and
yes,
delegates
ultimately
are
supposed
to
work
for
npr
holders
and
it's
cmtr
holders.
Ultimately,
who
should
make
the
decision
which
vision
and
strategy
is
followed?
N
N
N
If
the
plan
is
clearly
articulated,
then
mkr
holders
do
have
a
choice,
whereas
if
the
plan
is
not
not
articulated
mdr
holders
they're
voting
blindly-
and
they
need
to
spend
a
lot
more
time
and
and
the
time
that
they
don't
have
to
maybe
come
up
with
something
themselves.
But
that's
that's
not
their
role
like
they
don't
have
the
time
for
that
they're,
not
full-time
working
for
maker
now.
N
N
N
There
definitely
is
the
possibility
of
of
corruption
right,
and
this
is
something
that
yes,
we
need
to
carefully
think
about,
but
I
I
do
think
there
are
yeah.
There
are
mechanisms
that
we
can
devise.
That
would
would
make
that
not
impossible,
because
there
could
be
certain
like
alarm
procedures
or
safety
mechanisms.
That
would
prevent
that,
and
the
next
question
that
will
come
up
is:
maybe
there
are.
N
N
Maybe
there
are
a
number
of
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
that,
because
delegates
are
conflicted,
this
is
that
it's
something
that
mtr
holders
should
vote
directly
on
or
something
like
that,
or
that
at
least
delegates
can't
change
it
without
creating
enough
visibility
so
that
if
they
try
to
change
it
and
it's
against
the
wishes
of
the
empty
are
holders
that
there's
enough
time
to
to
remove
their
voting
power.
Something
like
that.
So
I
I
think
yeah.
N
If
we
look
at
political
structures
there
are,
there
are
solutions
to
these,
but
I
do
agree.
It's
definitely
something
to
be
careful
about
and
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
necessary
checks
and
balances
are
in
place.
I
personally
don't
think
that
delegates,
indeed
not
in
a
vacuum
but
delegates
developing
their
own
vision
and
strategy
and
trying
to
be
elected
on
that
platform.
I
don't
think
that's
a
contradiction
to
that.
I
think
it.
Actually.
It
would
help
a
lot.
A
And
it's
bringing
up
a
good
point
there.
This
came
up
as
a
panel
discussion.
Youth
number
one
I
was
sitting
on
was
the
fact
that
a
governance
attack
often
can
look
quite
similar
to
like
a
legitimate
government's
action
right
like
if
we
normalize
delegates
proposing
things
and
then
voting
on
them
right,
there's
not
too
much
of
a
difference
between
like
something
that
a
delegate
earnestly
believes
it's
good
for
the
protocol
versus
something
that's
quote
unquote.
Taking
advantage
of
the
protocol.
N
Yeah
and
just
to
clarify
again
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
misunderstood,
so
the
proposal
that
a
delegate
would
make
is
exactly
what
the
mtr
holders
would
vote
on
right,
because
they
propose
their
visions,
vision,
strategy,
the
npr
holders
they
vote
on
the
vision
and
strategy.
It's
not
the
delegates.
Voting
on
that,
because
the
vote
there
is
is
the
act
of
delegating
mtr
to
the
delegate
that
you
believe
in
or
the
platform
that
you
believe
in
the
mips
that
the
delegates
voted
on.
That
is
an
entirely
different
matter
and
yeah.
A
And
that's
a
good
point
too,
that
the
more
the
more
information
right,
the
more
close
to
to
a
vision
that
is
conveyed
in
a
delegate
platform
like
the
closer
we
are
to
when
mkr
voters
delegate
to
them
right.
We
we
have
this
assumption
that
okay,
well
they've,
clearly
laid
out
what
they're
going
to
be
using
that
mkr
for
and
then
got
mkr
delegated
to
them.
Because
of
that
all
right.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
stronger
signal
than
perhaps
the
groundwork
we've
laid
out
so
far.
N
N
N
I
think,
like
every
maker,
there
discord
user
and
the
the
next
step,
so
I've
outlined
the
number
of
bullet
points.
The
way
that
I
would
like
to
to
work
on
this
as
facilitator
of
the
coordination
process
I'll
be
reaching
out
to
individual
delegates
to
to
have
individual
conversations,
because
we
can't
have
one
big
group
of
people
that
do
everything
together.
That's
that's
not
efficient.