►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 26
Description
In this Scientific Governance and Risk meeting we proposed the idea of 'themes' for the calls.
The theme for this call was 'Demand/Supply Imbalance' and as such we primarily focused on issues surrounding that. Steven spoke a bit about what Continuous Voting means to MKR holders. Rich discussed the previous vote, talked about how the meeting, discussion, voting process may evolve. Cyrus reviewed the numbers since the Stability Fee raise and provided some analysis and suggestions for next steps to manage the peg. We then spent the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/mkrgov/comme...
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/...
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours) : https://github.com/makerdao/community...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
Hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
Thursday
March,
the
14th
episode
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
call
with
maker
down
I
I'll
do
the
preamble
again,
we
are
enormous,
ly
interested
in
getting
as
much
feedback
and
benefiting
from
the
insights
of
the
people
in
this
college.
We
possibly
can
so
if
you
have
a
question,
please
type
it
in
the
chat
at
the
side.
If
you
have
a
microphone,
do
not
feel
shy,
jumping
right
in
and
joining
the
discussion
he
is
welcome,
feel
free
to
interrupt
oh
I.
A
B
B
We
would
like
to
split
this
into
three
parts.
The
first
is
looking
at
the
demand
and
supply
and
balance
of
time,
which
obviously
means
you
know
stability
fee
decisions.
The
second
part
would
be
to
look
at
misses.
Something
will
iterate
into
into
the
future,
is
collateral
type
and
portfolio
considerations,
basically
the
consideration
of
new
collateral
types,
adjustments
and
the
ramifications
thereof.
The
third
is
to
look
at
what
I
would
like
to
call
sort
of
exogenous
risk,
like
the
consideration
of
the
protocols
that
we
are
like
for
now,
it's
it
was
key
cerium.
B
You
know
how
would
that
affect
us
all
the
way
through
to
things
like
Oracle's,
and
you
know
what
we
need
to
consider
as
well,
so
just
to
review
there
I
think
this
encapsulates
pretty
much
the
broad
spectrum
of
everything
we
need
to
do
to
keep
in
mind.
Firstly,
the
demand
and
supply
and
balance.
The
second
is
collateral
type
and
portfolio
considerations,
and
the
third
is
exogenous
risk
and
given
that
I
think
today,
we're
going
to
probably
focus
mostly
on
the
demand
but
demand
and
supply
imbalance.
B
So
we're
gonna
talk
about
the
results
and
the
next
steps
to
not
possible
stability,
P
changes,
but
the
one
thing
I'd
like
to
do
before
we
get
there
is
just
maybe
address,
or
rather
go
back
and
have
a
look
at
this
concept
of
continuous
approval
voting.
The
one
thing
that
we
have
found
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
folks
out
there
that
still
don't
quite
have
it
in
their
head,
yet
as
to
what
this
actually
means
and
the
the
use
of
it
and
I
think
there's
two
points
that
are
kind
of
confusing.
B
The
one
is
the
concepts
of
continuity
and
the
fact
that
you
actually
have
to
continuously
be
involved,
and
the
second
one
is
that
this
isn't
a
representative
democracy
construct
where
you,
you
look
at
a
vote
and
if
it's
going
your
way,
you
think
well,
why
do
I
need
to
vote
or
if
it's
not
going
your
way,
you
think
just
up.
Why
do
I
need
to
vote?
You
actually
have
through
your
mechanism
of
voting.
B
You
establish
value
for
yourself
and
if
you
don't
establish
value
for
yourself,
like
a
good
man,
David
Durban
says
you
are
then
just
proportionately
handing
it
out
to
everyone
else
and
you're
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
So
let's
go
back
and
have
a
look
at.
Firstly,
this
concept
of
continuity
and
continuous
approval
voting
and
the
way
I'd
like
to
start.
There
is
to
just
look
at
something
that
is
the
absolute
edge
case
in
the
most
ideal
world
with
no
friction
and
everything
works
perfectly.
B
B
Obviously,
you
know
pragmatically
speaking,
that's
not
possible
and
because
of
frictions
and
because
of
different
point
of
views,
you
start
moving
away
from
an
edge
case
very
quickly
and
if
you
think
about
it
carefully,
the
other
edge
case
is
that,
if
you
don't
have
all
1
million
MKR
in
in
the
voting,
then
you
should
have
all
your
value
in
die.
So
that
is
the
other
side
of
the
construct.
B
Now,
why
am
I
bringing
up
these
two
edge
cases,
because
it's
somewhere
in
between
where
we
get
the
balance
between
looking
after
the
system
from
a
continuous
point
of
view
having
enough
people
in
there
making
sure
that
there
is
sufficient
representation,
but
at
the
same
time,
being
very
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
this
doesn't
require
a
quorum?
So
let
me
take
another
step
back.
B
It
is
really
a
part
of
the
incentive
structure
of
the
MKR
token
holder
to
be
continuously
involved
and,
if
they're
not
continuously
involved
and
as
I
said
before,
they
give
up
some
of
that
value
to
other
folks
that
are
involved.
The
idea
here
is
to
be
cognizant
of
this
at
all
times
and
know
that
pragmatically
there
may
be
times
you
just
simply
cannot
vote
all
there's
just
something
that
is
hindering
you
from
voting.
B
At
the
same
time,
you
might
decide
that
the
burden
construct
is
not
the
safest
place
in
the
world,
for
you
right
now
to
keep
all
your
m-car
forever.
Your
royal
have
it
in
obviously
your
own
storage
facility.
These
frictions
come
in
in
it's
frictions,
start
playing
on
the
idea
of
what
you
consider
to
be
the
inherent
value
of
using
MKR
to
vote
with.
If
you
are
holding
MKR
and
it's
not
in
the
the
person
construct,
then
it
really
is
a
case
of
you
are
of
the
opinion
that
proposals
are
going
to
be
coming
forward.
B
B
I
think
the
the
sort
of
game
theoretic
and
the
pinning
is
over
here
push
you
into
a
corner
that
is
obviously
unrealistic
and
not
really
pragmatic,
but
what
it
does
it
pushes
you
into
the
ideal
state,
and
if
you
cannot
reach
the
ideal
state
you
always
are
trying
to.
You
know
challenge
it
so,
given
that
it's
really
important
to
keep
in
mind
that
an
executive
vote
is
a
continuous
approval
vote,
it
always
requires
that
that
particular
vote
that
passes
to
always
be
there.
B
If
you
find
that
the
the
MTI
is
is
pulled
out
and
the
number
of
MP
are
holding
that
that
vote
in
starts
diminishing
all
that
means
is
that
you
are
creating
a
susceptibility
to
someone
else
voting
in
something
new
that
you
may
not
be
aware
of
I
mean
this
obviously
opens
up
so
many
possibilities
for
the
creative
types
out
there.
It
becomes
very
clear
that
wait
a
minute.
B
Why
not
have
you
know
a
messaging
service
that
every
time
a
new
proposal
comes
on
it
pings
you
on
your
computer
or
your
mobile,
or
you
know
something
that
basically
is
available
to
you.
That
always
gives
you
an
alert
in
terms
of
where
the
the
votes
is
and
where
they
can't
construct
sort
of
lies.
So,
given
that
little
monologue
that
I
just
put
out
right
now,
I
think
it's
important
to
you
to
keep
in
mind
that
the
incentive
is
for
you
to
constantly
be
involved
and
care
is
a
covenant
strokin.
B
B
B
D
I
was
just
saying:
I
was
just
wondering
like
Harold:
do
you
actually
incentivize
some
PR
holders
to
vote
like,
obviously,
you
know
the
way
that
the
stability
fees
work
they're
basically
used
to
buy
and
burn
MKR
which,
but
they
are
whole
equally
in
theory,
so
is
just
talking
of
incentives
and
why
someone
would
vote
with
their
mkr.
How
do
you
think
about
that?
Well,.
B
So
all
these
incentives
are
actually
very
much
aligned
with
MTR
token
holders
and
the
value
is
it.
Firstly,
it
is
an
eye
of
the
beholder
I
mean
even
ones.
Gonna
basically
see
their
own
in
a
potential
value
from
these
proposals,
but
it's
I
don't
think
it
can
be
denied
that
each
proposal
inherently
has
value.
You
might
find
that,
and
this
is
where
the
friction
comes
in.
This
is
where
you
know
the
creation
of
liquidity
comes
in
from
edge
case.
B
If
you
find
that
folks
don't
see
the
value
of
a
proposal,
they
may
change
from
the
NPR
to
die,
and
that
is
their.
You
know
they're,
basically
going
to
start
bursting
with
their
feet
as
soon
as
you
don't
see
the
value
in
the
proposals
or
the
future
poop
excuse
me
the
future
proposals
that
we
will
have
in
the
construct.
You
will
be
able
to
make
a
decision
wrong
on
the
basis
of
that
and
say
yes,
I
want
to
keep
my
MK
on
the
voting
contract
or
no
I,
don't
see
any
further.
B
A
In
seeing
some
kind
of
a
larger
discussion
around
potential
incentive
models,
because
I've
personally
deeply
deeply
suspicious
of
that
as
far
as
I'm
aware
and
I'd
love
to
be
corrected,
there's
there's
no
prior
art
for
a
successful
and
centralization
model
for
voting
that
didn't
almost
immediately
lead
to
the
collapse
of
whatever
that
system
was
especially
in
the
crypto
space.
You.
C
Me
jump
in
here
guys,
because
I
think
this
what's
what's
happening
here
is
that
people
are
is
like.
People
are
essentially
fixating
on
voter
participation
without
really
understanding
what
the
sort
of
what
the
fundamental
context
around
what
actually
matters
right,
which
is
security
of
the
system,
and
that
it's
governed
correctly
right
and
the
thing
is
that
it's
just
like
you,
don't
actually
have
to
have
like
a
voter
participation,
isn't
actually
just
like.
Essentially
a
linear
gauge.
C
Okay,
this
is
how
well
the
system
is
governor
is
how
secure
it
is
right,
because,
even
if
you
have
let's
say
30
percent
people
who
are
voting,
you
don't
really
know
how
many
of
them
are
potentially
malicious.
Voters
right
at
any
point
in
time
could
switch
over
the
vote
for
something
on
that
way,
and
in
general
you
just
can't
even
really
like
you
can
rely
on
that
as
the
security
assumption
in
the
first
place.
C
But
you
can't
just
be
like
okay,
we'll
just
assume
that
we'll
have
tons
of
voters
and
then
things
will
always
be
great
and
we'll
never
have
malicious.
Folks
right,
I
will
never
have
stupid
votes.
So
fundamentally,
there
is
I
mean,
and
this
is
how,
of
course,
the
system
is
designed
from
the
bottom
right.
Fundamentally,
we
cannot
assume
that
governance
will.
Actually,
you
know,
always
vote
correctly
and
always
behavior
it
right.
C
That
is
actually
what
drives
a
system,
and
that
is
actually
the
real
governance
model
for
Italy,
and
it
becomes
really
clear
once
you
look
at
you
know
like
once
you
once
you
think
about
the
actual
consequences
of
having
this
MP
arcs
for
your
government,
like
I'm,
naturally
shut
down
right.
So
if
we
could
name
you
a
trigger
an
emergency
shutdown
at
50k,
for
instance,
that
means
that
the
only
the
only
threshold
of
voter
participation
that
really
matters
is
50k
at
this
point,
because
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
have
someone
with.
C
Let's
say
half
of
the
entire
nuclear
supply
who
comes
and
tries
to
perform
some
sort
of
Governments
a
check
as
long
as
there's
50k
exit
voters
who
can
then
protect
and
do
an
emergency
shutdown
and
redeploy
without
the
attackers
MPs
take
right
and
also
on
the
flip
side.
It
doesn't
matter
you
can
have
50k
pot.
You
know
like
honest
motors
who
are
all
actively
voting
with
their
50k
in
PR.
You
can
still
have
an
attacker
come
and
trigger
an
a
troll
image.
It
shut
down
with
just
five
sorry.
I
mean
sorry.
C
You
have
like
good
moat,
like
honest
mortals,
will
fire
on
the
key
writer
on
his
board
with
half
of
the
entire
total
supply,
because
an
attacker
can
still
come
with
just
50k
and
trigger
troll
number
two
shut
down,
which
is
the
best
you'll
achieve
with
any
sort
of
attack
anyway
right.
So
in
the
end,
the
but
like
the
voting
itself
is
not
really.
The
important
voting
is
more
like
it's
almost
like
an
Oracle
for
the
governance
process
right.
C
It's
like
how
we
actually
indicate
to
the
system
crypto
economically,
that
this
is
what
we've
decided,
but
it's
not
the
actual
decision-making
process
right.
It's
not
like
just
I
mean
because
that
will
be
this
act
like
that
would
just
be
totally
useless
right.
If
all
that
matter
is
who
has
the
most
votes
like
who's,
who's
got
the
biggest
bags
of
some
coin
and
who's
got
the
most
I'm
carrots
like
accomplished,
hit
point.
It
would
be
a
total
disaster,
like
you,
wouldn't
to
have
any
sort
of
intelligent
that
governance
coming
out
of
that
on
the
country.
C
C
So
as
long
as
we
have
this
minority,
that's
ready
to
defend
against
the
government's
attack,
that's
all
we
need
in
terms
of
exponents.
Obviously
there
is
I
mean
it's
nice
to
have
go
beyond
that,
but
it's
not
really
like.
There's
no
trip
to
economic
risk
here,
there's
no,
like
fundamental
fall.
It's
really
all
a
question
of
nice-to-haves
beyond
that
yeah.
A
I
think
that
that
that's
a
decent
Submarine,
it
ties
into
something
that
Stephen
was
talking
about
earlier
and
it's
ultimately
a
tragedy
of
the
Commons
and
we've
seen
in
the
chat
that
as
I
think
that's
one
of
the
risks
that
we
assume
from
the
beginning
is
that
it's
it's
going
to
be
the
same.
Risks
that
are
inherent
in
any
voting
system
is,
will
my
vote
actually
matter?
Probably
not
so
why
bother,
or
it's
already
going
the
direction
I
like
so
there's
no
point.
C
A
It's
going
so
far
in
the
direction,
I,
don't
like,
there's
no
point
and
the
only
way
that
we
can
solve
those
problems
outside
of
you
know.
A
new
and
foolproof
and
centralization
mechanism
is
transparency
and
communication,
and
these
calls
and
getting
people
that
are
deeply
engaged
with
the
system
educated
on
boarded
and
interested
in
participating.
I'm,
not
I,
think
it's
far
too
early
for
us
to
be
overly
concerned
or
obsessed
with
the
numbers
that
we're
seeing
I'm
actually
kind
of
happy.
The
numbers
were
seeing
anything
as
long
as
they
improve
over
time.
A
A
I
want
to
talk
briefly
about
the
previous
mechanisms
that
we
just
put
into
place
for
the
goat
voting
system
talk
a
little
bit
about
numbers
and
then
I'm
gonna
hand
it
off
to
you
Cyrus
and
the
risk
team
to
give
us
some
deeper
insights.
Last
Friday
we
had
an
executive
votes
and
that
executive
votes
was
exciting
for
a
couple
reasons
and
you
know
not
as
good
as
it
could
have
been
for
a
few
other
ones.
Excuse
me,
the
vote
was
ratified
in
10
hours
in
27
minutes,
which
is
excellent.
A
I
think
that's
a
good
sign
for
for
the
voting
process
in
general,
but
make
her
at
swamps
and
show
us
that
we
have
some
some
agility
here
and
that's
that's
going
to
be
a
recurring
theme
as
we
have.
These
calls
philosophy
and
communications
are
going
to
be
significant
issues
that
we
need
to
optimize.
Where
is
it?
Oh,
there's
a
life
cycle
of
the
the
governance
process
that
starts
in
a
call
moves
to
Reddit
for
debates,
moves
into
various
chats
server
social
medias.
Then
it
hits
an
official
proposal
process.
A
Then
it
goes
into
potentially
a
governance
vote.
Then
it
goes
into
it
potentially
or
an
executive
vote
and
then
there's
a
cooling-off
period
and
there's
another
call
to
discuss
those
issues.
So
we
have
this
life
cycle
that
we
need
to
optimize
as
much
as
possible.
So
we
can
maintain
enough
agility
to
react
to
market
pressures.
As
they
arise
and
I
think
that
we've
seen
already
some
improvement,
there
I'm
excited
about
it.
There's
a
post
in
MKR
gov,
which
is
the
subreddit.
Everybody
in
this
room
should
be
familiar
with
or
getting
familiar
with.
A
It's
where
we're
posting
summaries
of
the
debates.
Summaries
of
these
calls
I'm
sorry
live
ongoing
debate.
Summaries
of
these
calls
metrics
around
the
votes
that
we've
had
and
various
discussions
that
are
directly
related
to
governance,
and
this
is
the
core
group
that
appears
to
be
interested
in
government.
So
everybody
here
should
come
by
and
join
the
discussion.
A
Somebody
posts,
though
I,
want
to
talk
to
you
a
bit
a
bit
about
the
apathy
issue
and
the
concern
with
the
voters
and
the
turnout
that
we've
seen
so
far.
The
reasons
why
I'm
not
super
concerned
about
it
so
we're
we're
on
vote
number
five
I
think
over
the
course
of
the
year,
so
it
hasn't
sunk
in
to
the
general
background
of
unspoken
assumptions
of
what
it
means
to
be
involved
with
maker
and
I.
Think
that's
going
to
be
improving
over
time.
A
We're
rapidly
approaching
a
cap
of
number
of
people
that
can
find
room
in
these
calls,
and
so
obviously
things
are
happening
as
long
as
you
maintain
that
momentum
we're
in
a
good
spot
but
to
set
some
context
here.
We
have
a
total
of
8,000
ish
maker
holders
and
if
we
wanted
to
create
a
Venn
diagram
of
those
8,000
holders,
we
need
to.
We
have
a
smaller
circle
of
holders
that
are
interested
in
maker
Dow
itself.
The
ones
that
are
interested
make
her
down
and
governance.
A
A
Then
they
need
to
feel
that
their
vote
is
required
and
that
it's
that
last
step,
which
seems
to
be
a
blocker
for
a
lot
of
our
members
and
the
the
idea
that
we
need
to
keep
on
pushing
the
idea
that
even
if
you're,
not
the
biggest
holder
in
the
world
and
I,
can
assure
you
that
I
was
at
the
bottom
of
the
list
of
holders
that
voted
in
the
last
call.
I.
A
Last
a
book
it,
a
lot
of
small
maker
butters,
can
make
a
lot
of
large
impact
on
the
system
as
rune
was
alluding
to
previously.
So,
even
if
you
don't
think
you're
going
to
move
the
needle
yourself,
it's
extremely
important
that
you
signal
your
support
with
whatever
tiny
bags
you
might
have
or
signal
you
or
your
dissent
with
whatever
you
have
there's
a
huge
amount
of
value
there.
One.
C
Thing
I
would
like
that
is
the
whole
question
of
guests.
Around
voting
right,
we're
like
in
general
I,
really
think
that
for
the
executive
vote,
that's
more
where
you
had
like
wheels
and
and
funds
and
so
on,
having
a
big
impact.
But
the
thing
is
that
again,
like
I
was
just
talking
about
right
and
it's
sort
of
the
fundamental
dynamics
of
the
governance
is
that
the
executive
vote
has
to
vote
a
certain
way
and
that's
the
way
that
the
centum
governance
process
has
already
decided
right.
C
We
use
we
vote
in
a
different
way,
you're
performing
a
governance
attack
right
unless
I
mean
unless
there
is
a
legitimate,
like
governance,
split,
in
which
case
anyway,
you
need
some
sort
of
like
you
need.
There
will
be
an
emergency
shutdown
in
either
these
cases
and
there
will
either
be
a
new
system
or
two
new
systems.
C
Following
from
that
right,
and
as
a
result
like
they
say
to
vote
is
really
a
very
technical
thing,
and
it's
not
really
very
much
like
it's
not
so
much
about
decision
making
where
you
have
decision
making
is
in
the
things
like
the
governance,
poles,
for
instance,
and
what's
really
cool,
is
that
the
future
governance
bolts
will
not
even
require
gas
at
all.
So
as
a
small
holder,
even
if
you
just
want
to
cast
a
vote
of
one
in
care,
you'll
be
possible.
C
Reduce
like
it'll,
be
possible
to
do
that
with
just
like
signing
a
message
from
your
private
key
and
not
actually
having
to
like
pay
gas
for
an
unchanged
transaction,
and
that's
really
gonna
help
with
the
dynamics
of
this.
But
really,
most
importantly,
the
way
you
can
have
the
most
possible
impact
as
a
small
motor
is
to
join
the
governance.
C
A
Exactly
so
and
I
want
to
remain
cognizant
of
time,
so
I'm
gonna
cut
off
my
speechifying
there.
One
of
the
things
I
want
to
do
before
I
hand.
It
off
to
risk,
though,
is
point
out
the
factor
or
revisit
the
idea
that
we're
getting
super
popular
around
these
parts,
and
these
calls
are
getting
some
nerve
notice
in
the
media
and
with
influencers
on
the
Twittersphere.
A
So
it's
going
to
be
increasingly
important
that
we
treat
these
as
a
normal
meeting,
as
opposed
to
in
the
past,
where
we
had
the
luxury
of
just
chit,
chats
and
and
being
as
dramatic
as
we
felt
we
could
get
away
with
so
there's
last
week's
call
was
literally
there
were
reporters
and
then
in
the
call
which
we're
happy
to
have
with
us,
and
the
summary
of
the
call
went
up
less
than
an
hour
later.
So
there's
there's
an
enormous
amount
of
visibility
on
these
calls.
So
we
need
to
be
careful
about
a
few
different
things.
A
One
of
those
things
is
numbers,
so
we
need
to
be
careful
that,
if
we're
coming
up
with
a
Google,
Doc
or
a
spreadsheet,
that
has
best-guess
numbers
in
there.
That
were
clearly
explained
to
people
that
these
are
ideas,
and
maybe
not
facts
I
want
to
ensure
that
we
don't
fall
into
the
trap
of
creating
too
much
the
urgency
where
that
might
not
actually
exist.
A
So
it's
annex
an
environment
where
we
will
eventually
be
competing
to
have
our
ideas,
hurt
and
are
or
will
nets,
but
we
need
to
do
that
in
a
way:
that's
beholden
to
the
risk
team,
so
the
risk
team
would
come
up
with
data,
they
will
come
up
with
charts
and
they
will
come
up
with
recommendations,
and
then
we
can
debate
those.
But
we
need
to
shy
away
from
falling
into
the
trap
of
opinionated
and
speechifying
as
much
as
we
possibly
can
in.
These
calls.
I
think
that
yeah,
that's
it
for
today.
A
That's
it
for
the
via
the
great
beard,
wisdom
aspect
of
the
call.
So
as
long
as
we
keep
things
businesslike,
while
at
the
same
time
listening
to
continue
to
maintain
some
radical
transparencies,
that's
I
think
the
core
of
our
success
in
these
calls
is
that
we're
not
filtering
things
15
times
before
it
actually
makes
the
community
we're
talking
about
real
things,
as
they
happen
straight
from
the
people
that
are
actually
executing
some
of
these
tasks.
So
let's
maintain
that
transparency,
but,
let's
not
say
things
that
are
gonna
alarm
people
without
context.
A
E
E
You
know,
for
example,
the
governance
poll
that
we
held
two
weeks
ago,
where
we
had,
for
example,
two
options
that
may
not
be
the
way
that
it
continues
to
be
done,
we're
still
working
on
how
to
make
it
as
fair
and
unbiased
as
possible,
or
other
methodologies
or
statistics
that
we
pull
up.
You
know
this
isn't
just
the
final
way
that
we're
doing
things
were
very
much
working
on
how
to
be
transparent,
fair
decentralized
and
so
forth.
On
effect,.
A
Thanks
for
that
service,
it's
a
great
reminder
of
the
governance
process
that
we
have
at
Megiddo
is
evolving
over
time
and
if
you've
been
following
these
last
25
calls.
You'll
have
seen
that
in
very
slow
motion,
as
it
happened,
we're
balancing
two
different
things
where
we
were
very
cognizant
to
the
fact
that
what
we're
involved
in
is
a
very
serious
thing
and
that
we
can't
perform
experiments
in
the
governance
process,
and
we
can't
you
know,
expose
every
leaver
there
is,
but
we
want
to
do.
A
E
E
All
right
so,
first
up
we
have
the
dye
price.
This
is
weighted
average
of
several
different
exchanges
that
were
following
you
know:
the
the
government,
the
executive
vote
happened
around
week
ago,
March
8th
and
for
the
first
few
days
we
didn't
really
see
much
change,
but
eventually
we
saw
some
volume
hit
and
we
saw
a
bit
of
an
uptick
from
about
96
cents
up
to
about
98
and
a
half
cents.
I,
don't
think
these,
these
dollar
prices
really
traded
for
much
sighs.
E
The
dye
supply
also
continued
to
grow,
but
at
a
much
slower
pace
than
we've
seen
in
recent
weeks
and
months.
So
you
can
see
that
even
though
we're
still
growing
it's
still
tapering
off
a
bit,
we've
also
seen
an
uptick,
a
small
uptick
in
CDP
wipes
that
is
represented
by
the
pink
bars
here.
So
you
can
see
the
left
in
a
few
days
leading
up
to
the
executive
vote,
and
you
know
a
couple
days
leading
up
to
today's
call.
We
saw
some,
you
know.
Maybe
a
small
uptick
in
people
wiping
down
their
CDP's.
E
E
E
E
In
terms
of
statistical
data,
analysis
that
you
know
that's
about,
it,
I
think
that
it's
clear
that
dye
price
hasn't
quite
hit.
One
dollar,
it's
been
hovering
around
98
and
a
half
cents
for
the
past.
3-4
days
are
thinking
internally
was
to
just
observe
the
dye
price
seems
to
be
going
trending
in
the
general
right
direction.
We're
seeing
some
good
metrics
in
terms
of
CDP's
dye
supply
growth,
market
makers,
I
think
just
waiting
and
seeing
how
it
evolves
could
be
the
right
decision.
F
Question,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
you
mentioned
the
statistical
data
analysis?
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
degree
of
confidence
you
use
in
observing
the
linkages?
If
you
want
to
go
back
to
the
another
chart
with
the
pink
pink
bars
representing
the
collateral
wipes
yeah,
you
mentioned
that
there
was
like
you
know
you
could
see
leading
up
to.
You
know
the
stability
fee
increase
XY
and
Z,
but
at
what
point
are
you
considering
those
random
events
versus
linked
and
correlated
or
causal.
E
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
It
does
that's.
That's
part
of
the
reason
we're
we're
trying
to
take
our
time
and
do
it
right.
It
does
require
kind
of
evaluating
past
historical
data.
Going
back
to
stability.
Fee
increases
from
you
know,
last
August
and
you
know
trying
to
figure
out
which
variables
exactly
we
want
control,
for
we
do
have
a
somewhat
limited
sample
size
of
data
governance
process
is
fairly
new.
E
The
data
from
last
year
is
not
exactly
relevant
to
today's
environment
and
the
to
stability
fee
increases
we
had
in
February
we're
not
very
illustrative
in
terms
of
how
things
react
to
stability
fee
so
yeah.
The
short
answer
is
we
don't
have
statistical
statistical
confidence
today,
but
it
is
something
that
we're
actively
researching
and.
F
Just
one
quick
follow-up:
do
you
have
in
place
a
system
to
check
basically
the
power
of
those
statistical
correlations,
or
you
know,
having
an
a
priori
set
up
to
think
through
what
the
data
might
show
and
then
be
thus
more
confident
in
the
power
of
what
the
data
are
showing
and
also
is
that
public
somewhere
like
is
there?
Are
those
data
available
publicly?
Can
we
take
a
look
at
that
somewhere
or
is
it
just?
You
know
in
your
system,
somewhere
yeah.
E
D
A
No
a
bit
the
goal
there
short-term
mid-term
goal
is
that
we
will
eventually
have
sort
of
a
go-to
location
for
risk
at
maker
Dow,
which
will
be
public.
So
the
idea
is
that
anyone
can
dig
into
the
data
themselves
grab.
The
data
sets
themselves
run
their
own
models
and
attempt
to.
We
can
have
some
debates
about
which
data
sets.
A
D
Just
one
one
quick
note:
as
far
as
web
scraps
ago,
I
heard
a
couple
of
links
in
the
chat.
I
also
pulled
very
similar
data
in
terms
of
the
traits
that
were
happening
on
centralized
exchanges,
I
mean
I,
think
we
can
sort
of
confirm
a
little
bit
with
looking
at
trading
volume.
What
our
level
of
confidence
is,
at
least
in
the
price
that
we're
getting
so
that
was
one
question
I
had
was.
E
E
C
G
I
feel
like
the
market
has
moved
up,
but
I'm
like
volume.
It
has
a
little
bit
of
effect,
but
I
feel
like
my
feeling
is
eventually
we
should.
If
we
don't
get
mirth
further
press
on,
we
should
try
to
do
one
more
one.
More
increase,
maybe
see
you
see
how
it
goes
till
Monday
to
Tuesday.
But
probably
the
next
government
means
talk
about
doing
another
increase
because
I've
not
seen
the
the
push
forward,
at
least
to
really
trades
of
both
any
really
any
good
trades
above
1
or
even
close,
the
really
one.
G
G
C
Well,
I,
don't
think
this
is
a
real
I
mean
I.
Think
this
kind
of
data
is
super
important
and
I.
Think
also,
of
course,
a
critical
piece
is
that
whenever
we
talk
about
buying
and
selling
that
we
have
to
think
of
it
in
terms
of
buying
and
selling
assuming
the
peg
is
correct
right
so
like
even
if
a
trading
desk
is
selling
died
below
$1.
C
That
doesn't
actually
canvas
them
being
able
to
sell
back
right,
because
then,
what
that
means
is
now
they're
taking
in
loss
for
essentially
having
having
believed
in
the
stability
of
diet
right
so
I'm
wondering
if
this
anyone
else
who
had
the
same
impression
that
they're
they're
they're
still
unable
to
sell,
died
around
$1
and
and
even
though
the
stability
fee
has
had
this
superficial
effect
on
the
hue.
Centralized
exchanges
I
wonder
what
how
it
actually
feels
like
in
the
deeper
markets.
Louis.
D
Would
say
things
are
definitely
the
same
on
our
end.
You
know
the
spot.
Prices
have
moved
off
a
bit,
but
you
know
we're
not
clearing
at
any
of
these
prices.
Yeah
I'd
say
like
it's
a
pretty
important.
We
don't
sort
of
get
lured
into
a
false
sense
of
security.
Here
you
know
the
eath
price
went
down
a
little
bit.
I
think
that
has
helped
died
out,
but
how
he
betrays
is
still
the
same.
We're
still
overweight
and
need
to
clear
Salaam.
C
H
That
I
think
the
last
couple
of
a
couple
of
people
were
spot
on
to
bring
up
the
volume.
So
this
run
up,
you
know,
even
without
even
without
asking
people
stuff
like
this,
like
you
can
see
just
from
from
the
training
history
on
on
Texas,
for
example,
that
the
the
trading
volume
during
the
run-up
was
was
pretty
low,
that
there
hasn't
actually
been
a
lot
of
dye
traded
near
one
dollar.
H
So
if
you
sum
up
all
the
trades
that
have
been
near
one
dollar
on
the
charts,
you'll
see
it's
like
a
couple
hundred
K:
it's
not
it's,
not
it's
not
really
meaningful
amounts.
So
I
think
the
fact
that
there's
been
like
volume
like
last
couple
days
means
that
the
move
is
less
the
spot
prices
you're
seeing
are
less
unless
meaningful.
So
I'm
not
surprised
to
hear
everyone
ever
I'm
saying
this,
since
we're
on
the
topic
of
discussing
inventory,
I
thought
something
that
become
quite
interesting
too.
To
keep
in
mind
is
that
we
can.
H
It
would
actually
be
surprisingly
straightforward
to
come
up
with
the
system
where
participants
in
the
governance
discussion
can
can
actually
provide
proof
of
of
their
holdings.
In
his
zero-knowledge
way,
if
they
weren't
comfortable,
you
know
giving
to
the
public
details
about
their
their
their
accounts
or
their
balances,
but
they
still
wanted
to
be
able
to
substantiate
their
claims
with
real
data
to
make
sure
that
people
believe
them
and
that
they're
not
just
like
pumping
their
their
their
book.
H
I
think
you
know
I,
don't
want
to
derail
this
into
technical
discussion
now,
but
actually
this
is
a.
This
is
not
a
huge
engineering
challenge.
I
think
that,
basically,
if
a
couple
of
people
wanted
to
work
together
for
a
little
bit
to
make
this
happen,
then
it'll
be
pretty
straightforward
and
I
think
it'll
give
us
a
really.
It
will
formalize
this.
A
That
idea
and
I
don't
want
to
lose
that
because
it
was
raised
in
our
last
discussion
as
well
and
that
there's
there's
ways
that
we
can
come
together
or
the
OTC
desks
come
together
for
the
benefit
of
everybody.
So
anybody
in
this
call
who
has
a
desk,
wants
to
be
involved.
Please
email,
Cyrus,
it's
maker.com
and
he
can
spearhead
that
initiative.
A
D
Sounds
like,
were
we
came
up
close
to
a
dollar
on
low
volume,
we're
still
trading
below
a
dollar
and
market
maker
inventories
are
flat
and
nobody's
been
able
to
sell
anything
off.
Those
are
the
kinds
of
things
where
historically,
we've
said
would
justify
an
increase
in
the
stability
fee.
A
number
of
people
have
brought
this
up
on
the
chat
of.
If
all
that
is
true,
why
are
we
waiting
here?
Why
would
we
wait
an
extra
week,
we're
still
below
a
dollar
nobody's
been
able
to
sell
any
tie.
D
C
C
That
is
that
then
reefs.
One
of
the
main
reasons
why
we
are
in
this
situation
in
the
first
place
is
because
there
were
so
many
complaints
about
basically
doing
doing
stability
view
changes
that
we
went
back
to
that.
Let's
do
50
basis
points,
because
then
people
don't
get
us
upset
right
and
then
turn
out
that
well,
I
don't
get
as
I've
said,
but
they
still
don't
react
at
all
in
the
market
right,
but
I
think
I.
Think
what
we
have
right
now
is
a
system.
I
feel
will
be
effective
enough
to
deal
with
with.
C
Will
you
know
the
current
equation
we're
facing,
regardless
of
what
sort
of
the
underlying
magnitude
ultimately
is
right
on
how
how
significant
the
change
ultimately
has
to
be.
We've
definitely
seen
that
at
like
2%
changes
have
an
effect
right.
So
if
we
keep
doing
that
like
we
guarantee
that'll
work
out
eventually
right
and
we
don't
there's
muddled
uncertainty
that
it
could
all
become
a
big.
You
know
that
you
could
all
spiral
out
of
it's
all
running.
C
A
Like
to
recap,
make
sure
that
we
have
action
items
and
also
still
want
to
give
people
a
chance
to
ask
some
questions.
So
it
sounds
to
me
like
we.
We
have
kind
of
an
idea
here
where
risk
is
because
their
their
job
is
brisk
they're,
taking
a
cautious
stance.
So
there's
there's
an
option
to
wait
and
see
what
happens
until
over
the
next
week.
Then
there's
there's
more
options
out
there,
potentially
to
or
potentially
for
so.
We
should
consider
possibly
a
governance
vote
to
determine.
Do
we
wait
and
see?
A
C
D
A
A
C
Mean
it
we
still
have
a
very
elaborate
until
the
evidence-based
range
of
options
right,
but
it's
just
more
important
of
yeah
like
you're,
saying
rich,
it's
not
like
choose-your-own-adventure.
What
you
want
stability
here
in
here,
I
think
I.
Think
in
I
think
we
should
try
to
get
that
done.
I
mean
that
is
a
great
thing,
but
I,
don't
think
that
we
should
like
I,
think
it
would
be
risky
to
basically
say:
let's
block
you
know,
trying
to
fix
the
pick
on.
D
General,
yes,
and
when
you
said
zero
or
two
I
mean
I
think
at
least
or
at
least
from
my
perspective,
I.
Don't
think
anybody
disputes
that
we
should
keep
it
at
zero
I.
Think
it's
more
of!
Do
we
make
it
one
or
two
or
half
or
one
and
a
half
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
dispute
that
people
think
we
should
change
it
well.
F
Really
quick
on
that
note.
I
brought
this
up
to
David
you
drove
in
last
week
after
the
call,
which
is
there's
definitely
some
improvements.
I
think
that
could
probably
be
made
to
the
reporting
of
the
decentralized
exchanges
with
respect
to
the
bid
and
ask
prices
and
where
the
last
executions
fall
between
them
and
where
those
actually
fall
with
respect
to
volume
being
proposed.
F
But
if
you
also
look
at
the
prices
where
people
are
putting
out
bids
and
offers
with
various
volumes,
you
could
get
a
sense
for
what
is
what
the
market
will
bear
at
different
rates
and
that
can
help
inform
and
provide
more
data
and
less
time
may
be
necessary
to
observe
between
stability,
fee
votes
or
other
votes.
Yeah.
C
So
the
thing
is
I
mean
because
we
don't
have
tight
like
there
are
so
many
dimensions
to
this
right,
so
I
think
there's
certainly
no
way
that
we
would
be
able
to
come
up
with
like
get
consensus
around
the
solution.
Right
now
are
in
the
very
short
you
know
in
the
very
short
term,
so
I
think
what
will
happen
like
if
we
created
a
governance
vote
for
either
we
want
to
do
immediately
as
seriously
you
want
to
keep
it
steady,
whether
we
want
to
do
a
two
percent
increase
in.
C
Maybe
you
can
vote
for
not
making
a
change
if
you
think
we
need
you
know
like,
because
what
you're
essentially
doing
is
just
angles
wait.
You
know
like
obviously,
no
one
thinks
that
we
should
just
keep
well
at
least
I
assume
the
very
few
people
think
if
you
keep
interest
rates
at
their
current
levels,
but
in
terms
of
do
you
want
it,
do
we
want
to
just
press
ahead
with
the
2%
increase?
Do
we
want
to
try
something
more
elaborate,
essentially
then
like
building
to
not
do
anything
in
short,
run
can
from
there.
C
What
we
can
then
go
from
there
is
okay,
let's
do
absolutely
nothing
or
let's
try
something
more
leopard-like,
because
otherwise,
if
we,
if
we
decide
right
now
that
we
want
to
do
something
more
elaborate,
essentially
what
we're
deciding
is.
We
want
to
wait
right
because
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
have
something
ready
to
actually
do
an
executive
mode
next
week
and
I
definitely
think
there
should
be
an
option
to
let's
try
to
see
if
we
can
get
an
executive
boat
through
next
week,
because
there's
no
significant
imbalance.
We.
A
Ran
out
of
time
and
I
wanted
to
actually
get
into
that
towards
the
end
of
the
call,
but
when
I
talked
earlier
about
the
life
cycle
and
how
we're
trying
to
tighten
up
this
process,
I
think
that
this
might
be
a
good
opportunity
to
do
that.
So
this
take
we're.
Gonna
have
transcription
video,
no
idea
of
this
call
and
I'm
going
to
make
a
post
that's
devoted
to
this
call
in
maker
code,
and
then
we
can
the
subject
of
that.
That
host
will
be.
A
What
does
the
next
governess
pole?
Look
like
zero
to
one
percent
will
get
risk
teams
to
come
in
with
some
suggestions
and
then
we'll
start
thinking
about
timing.
So
perhaps
it's
24
hours
for
that
post
to
digest,
then
we
have
will
determine
what's
the
good
life
span
of
a
governance
vote
is
so
perhaps
it's
two
days
and
if
we
get
enough
activity
there
and
then
we
can
start
tightening
up
this
cycle,
so
we
can
ensure
that
we
have
an
entire
iteration
of
governance,
executive,
cooling
off
and
then
evaluation
between
each
one
of
these
columns.
A
A
C
I'd
like
to
read
like
to
talk
a
bit
more
about
the
actual
process.
Right
I
mean
because
I
still
think
I
feel
like
we
like.
We
need.
We
need
to
really
try
to
de-risk
this
whole
pig
process,
and
one
thing
we
did
last
time
right
was:
we
made
this
post
on
NPR
gov,
asking
for
arguments
for,
like
anything
other
than
the
2%
change
right
and
then
because
the
thing
is,
we
can
like
I,
think
a
governance
poll
that
has
a
bunch
of
different
options
with
each
option.
C
Being
sort
of
very
obvious,
like
this
option
is
here
because
of
this
data,
and
this
is
what
I'm
seeing
and
like
do
you
is
this
the
data
you
agree
with
right
alike.
So
so
we
really
asked
people
to
actually
provide
like
an
informed
like
at
least
be
kind
of
like
an
Oracle
almost
for
the
kind
of
data
that
they
think
is
for
the
kind
of
reality
that
they
are
seeing
right.
So
it's
very
important.
It's
not
like
what
do
you
feel
like
right,
but
it's
something
like
what
are
you
and
you
help
us
like?
C
Can
you
help
us
figure
out?
What's
actually
going
on
and
I
think
I
think
we
could
do
that
again
right
and
but
also
again,
we
can
maintain
that
they're
like
ultimately
there
there
should
be
an
option
to
do
an
increase
ASAP,
so
an
executive
both
next
week
and
I
would
I
would
say
that,
like
out
of
like
they're
kind
of
like
like
a
2%
is
the
most
obvious,
because
this
is
what
we've
already
done.
A
It
needs
to
be
scientifically
based
and
I
think
that
we're
transitioning
right
now
between,
obviously
because
we
don't
have
the
historical
data
to
give
us
a
very
clear
signal,
but
the
impact
of
these
things
that
we're
relying
on
sort
of
the
wisdom
of
the
crowd
but
we're
slowly
transitioning
away
from
that
and
I'm
hoping
that
week
or
two
from
now.
We'll
have
enough
signal
to
not
need
to
ask
people
what
their
opinions
are
or
how
they
feel
about
things.
A
But
in
this
discussion
that
we're
about
to
post
we're
gonna
recap
from
risk
that
talks
about
exactly
what
the
situation
was,
that
they're
seeing
and
then
we
can
get
more
of
the
more
analytical
people
in
this
call.
Hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
chip
in
with
their
own
graphs
and
with
their
own
thinking,
and
maybe
some
OTC
justices
welcome
pitch
in
and
then
from
there
hopefully
fairly
quickly.
We
can
iterate
into
a
very
valid
range
for
a
government's.
We
can
start
kicking
off
as
soon
as
possible.
A
Right,
unfortunately,
we
didn't
get
to
a
lot
of
questions,
so
we're
gonna
do
the
same
thing
that
we
did
last
week
where
we're
going
to
take
the
questions
that
were
asked
in
the
chat
and
then
we're
going
to
format
those
and
add
them
to
the
debate.
For
this.
This
call
as
well.
So
you
look
at
people
an
opportunity
to
either
react.
C
A
To
have
other
people
engage
with
the
questions
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
answer.
Okay,
that
was
it.
That
was
actually
a
quite
good
call.
I'm
happy
with
that.
We're
tightening
things
up,
things
got
decided
and
we
have
next
steps,
and
that's
always
good,
so
we
can
iterate
on
this
for
next
week
as
well,
but
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
joining
us
once
again.
Lots
of
great
questions,
lots
of
great
data
and
I'm.
Looking
forward
to
seeing
how
the
debate
shakes
thanks,
everybody
thanks.