►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 43
Description
The theme for this call will be 'Collateral Risk'
Governance Segment
Richard Brown:
- Workflows and emergent process: How calls, forums, version control, and portals complement each other.
Risk Segment
Cyrus Younessi: ‘Quantitative Modeling and the Stability Fee’ presentation
Vishesh Choudry: State of the Peg:
Matthew V Rabinowitz: Weekly Narrative
We'll then spend the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Thread: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/scientific-governance-and-risk-thursday-july-11-9am-pst-4-00-pm-utc/108
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/governance-and-risk
Summaries: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/summaries
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours) : https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/transcripts
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundation-proposal-v2-f10d8ee5fe8c
Governance and Risk Framework: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-framework/part-one
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
July
11th
edition
of
the
scientific
governs
and
risk
meeting.
My
name
is
Richard.
Brown
I
had
a
few
developments,
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
risk
and
governance,
and
in
this
call
today
we
have
a
special
presentation
from
Cyrus
he's
continuing
his
presentation
of
the
general
model
for
us.
A
I
want
to
end
a
shouldn't
just
give
people,
the
shesh
will
be
at
presenting
his
vishesha
lytx,
but
when
he
protects
us
about
the
state
of
the
peg
and
then
Matthew
Rabinowitz
will
be
giving
us
his
weekly
recap,
recap:
sorry
or
the
weekly
narrative
towards
the
end
of
the
hour,
possibly
afterwards.
I
want
to
keep
momentum
up,
though,
so
it
was
scramble
through
the
preamble
here.
So
if
you
have
something
to
say,
please
say
it
don't
be
shy
if
you
have
a
microphone.
A
Let's
leverage
that
capacity,
if
you
don't
have
a
microphone,
please
type
your
questions
in
the
chat
and
either
David
and
I
will
be
monitoring
that
and
we'll
ask
the
questions
for
you
when
we
get
a
chance
or
you
can
just
store
them
up
in
there
and
after
the
hour,
I've
been
hanging
around
for
another
30
minutes
to
just
do
a
general
Q&A.
You
might
everyone's
more
than
welcome
to
hang
around
for
that
I
think
that's
gonna
get
the
preambles
right
now,
I'm
gonna
jump
into
you.
A
A
There's
all
kinds
reasons
why
we
waited
a
bit
I
think
that
that
worked
out
well,
there's
a
there
was
a
critical
mass
of
content
that
was
ready
to
go,
and
so
we
have
people
jumping
into
the
forum
and
I
could
not
be
happier
with
how
well
it's
turned
out
the
content
in
there
is
amazing
the
the
the
way
that
people
are
coming
together
and
figuring
out
what
needs
to
be
done
and
how
we
should
be
doing.
It
is
extremely
impressive.
A
So
I,
if
anybody
in
this
call
hasn't
checked
it
out
yet
I
highly
recommend
that
you
do
I'm
typing
into
your
world
and
basically
discover
little
format
maker
down,
have
a
look
and
I
contribute
wherever
you
can
what
I
want
about
today,
though,
he
is
merchant
merchant
processes
and
workflows
and
communities,
and
those
are
three
different
things.
When
you
combine
them,
they
get
even
more
complicated.
Sorry
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
us
and
group
to
begin
to
think
about
is
how
do
we
surface
valuable
information?
How
do
we
collect
that
information?
A
Where
does
that
information
live
and
how
do
we
all
work
together?
These
are
all
super
hard
questions.
To
give
you
some
context,
though,
we're
solving
them
slowly
over
time
and
introducing
them
sort
of
one
by
one
and
now
it's
time
to
start
putting
those
pieces
together.
The
pieces
that
we
have
are
these
calls.
We
have
written
down
as
we
go,
so
we
have
these
calls.
These
calls
are
a
very
small
time
window,
but
they're
all
held
in
English
they're
in
North,
American,
friendly
time
zones.
A
I,
repeat
these
caveats
every
single
time:
that's
why
we
don't
make
decisions
in
these
calls.
We
home
set
governments
as
north
governors
happens
or
governance
decisions
happen.
This
is
where
governance
debates
in
the
education
and
community
building
and
some
of
the
social
consensus
occurs
what
we
all
kind
of
figure
out,
whether
we're
on
the
same
page
or
not,
that's
great
and
it's
required,
and
we
and
it's
super
valuable
and
so
valuable
that,
in
the
near
future,
I
hope
we're
going
to
be
expanding.
These
calls
to
let's
do
one
for
the
APEC
region.
A
Let's
have
another
one,
that's
going
weekly
for
the
Latin
American
region.
We
need
more
than
just
one
call
and
we
need
to
expand
these
things
because
they
are
so
valuable,
but
there's
all
kinds
of
downsides
too,
so
that
there's
no
opportunity
for
deep
debates
or
deep
discussion,
we're
not
going
to
start
pulling
apart
algorithms.
In
these
calls,
we
can't
have
given
everyone
an
opportunity.
You
can
have
it
back
and
forth,
because
there's
just
not
enough
time
there
very
temporal,
so
they
they
last
for
an
hour.
A
If
you
right
now
and
a
half,
if
you
missed
that
you're
out
of
luck,
you
have
to
watch
a
YouTube,
so
it
has
its
pros.
It
has
its
cons
and
the
pros
and
cons
for
each
one
of
these
things,
I'm
going
to
list
or
basically
the
same
there's
the
immediacy.
There's
sort
of
this
dynamic
interaction
aspect
and
those
are
always
traded
off
against
their
time
to
live.
Basically
so
calls
last
for
an
hour
they
last
for
a
week
or
potentially
I,
guess
they
could
last
forever.
A
Somebody
wants
to
go
back
into
the
archives
and
watch
49
straight
hours
of
community
college
they're.
More
than
welcome
to
go
that's
unlikely
to
happen.
So
in
order
to
allow
us
as
a
group
to
create
to
design
workflows
and
have
debates
and
figure
out
what
our
process
is,
we
have
these
other
forums
and
decided
form.
Our
venues
are
designed
to
allow
for
less
immediacy,
but
more
longtail
utility
and
discoverability
and
auditability
and
those
other
locations
are
the
chess.
A
A
That's
in
rocket
that
last
20
minutes
an
hour
at
a
time
and
then
they
kind
of
cycle
out
of
visibility
after
24
hours
or
so
so
that
gets
it's
good
for
rapid-fire
debates
getting
to
the
heart
of
an
issue
and
then
coming
up
with
an
answer
or
something
and
then
having
that
answer
slowly
disappeared
through
the
history
as
you
scroll.
So
it's
just
solve
that
problem.
We
have
a
forum,
and
this
forum,
like
I,
said
earlier,
is
turning
out
swimmingly.
A
So
in
this
forum
we
have
deeper
debates
these
debates
last
they
could
last
forever
if
you're
familiar
with
the
way
things
the
debates
happen
in
e3
search
and
some
other
venues
that
they
could
potentially
happen
for
months
and
once
at
a
time
and
then
go
quite
and
then
resurface
and
that's
what
we
need,
because
there's
a
lot
of
complicated
things
happening
a
maker
down
what
we're
doing
is
actually
serious
business.
There's
lots
of
super
smart
people
that
need
to
be
heard
and
there
needs
to
that
needs
to
happen
in
a
venue.
A
That's
there's
no
fear,
that's
like
chats,
or
these
calls
or
reddit
you
know,
which
cycles
out
after
24
hours
or
7
days.
We
have
this
location
where
we
can
all
get
together,
have
our
say,
compose
some
well-thought-out
arguments
and
then
get
feedback
from
everybody
else
in
the
community.
That's
amazing,
but
it's
also
temporal
and
it's
also
a
bit
messy
and
we
need
to
be
concerned
about
it's
getting
to
the
situation
where
we
start
devising
canonical
documents
in
the
forum
week.
A
A
At
that
point,
the
forum
should
be
there
to
arrive
at
a
decision
to
format
a
document
to
discover
a
process,
and
once
that
happens,
that
information
needs
to
move
out
of
the
form
and
it
needs
to
go
somewhere
even
more
canonical
than
the
forum
and
what
we
do
and
what
we
have
been
doing
for
the
last
year
or
so
maker
down
community
group,
which
has
been
working
out
very
well,
is
we
have
a
workflow
and
that
workflow?
Is
we
iterate
with
community
members
on
specific
projects
or
ideas?
A
What
happens
is
that
document
gets
taken
out
of
hack,
MD
or
copied
out
of
a
forum
or
out
of
a
chat
or
other
muriatic
post,
and
it
goes
into
github,
because
that's
the
world
that
we
live
in,
we
might
be
writing
documentation,
but
it's
it
has
all
kinds
of
pros
for
us
as
a
community.
It's
a
flat
file
content
database,
it's
easily
distributed
to
multiple
people
or
X
number
of
people.
It's
is
version
of
all.
It
has
public
audit
trail,
there's
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
reasons.
A
And
that's
it's
a
discussion
that
I
want
start
having
with
the
community
here
as
well
as
we
start
to
get
to
governance
and
risk
more
deeply.
Now
that
we
have
this
forum,
I'll
be
making
a
post
about
this
recapping
some
of
these
thoughts
and
then
putting
out
some
some
suggestions
about
what
these
emergent
workflows
could
look
like.
So
no
we
something
starts.
A
discussion
starts
in
rocket
it'd,
be
nice.
If
we
go
into
the
habit
saying
okay,
this
is
this
is
a
great
discussion.
A
That's
well
understood!
We
you
submit
an
issue
and
get
up
and
you
submit
a
PR
and
then
we
now
we
have
a
new
dock
where
it's
a
technical
business,
we're
in
full
of
technologists
I,
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
too
freaky
to
expect
that
kind
of
behavior,
but
I
would
like
to
explore
it,
and
that's
that
is
my
speechifying
for
the
week
so
there'll,
be
it
there'll,
be
a
forum
thread
soon
that
encapsulate
some
these
ideas,
that's
basically
looking
for
feedback
from
the
community
about
how.
How
are
we
going
to
capture
this
cool
work?
A
B
The
information
that
you
see
coming
out
of
the
forum
into
github
is
stuff
that
is
important
to
decision
making
from
Agra
holder
so
like
like
am
I
understanding
correctly?
The
types
of
docs
would
be
like
collateral,
onboarding
applications
due
diligence
stuff
things
of
that
nature.
Or
are
you
also
thinking
about
like
int
like
interesting
threads,
important
conversations,
important
debates.
A
A
What's
going
on
and
as
soon
as
they
see
a
wall
of
text,
they
they
don't
even
engage
at
all.
There's
not
even
enough
will
to
like
complain
about
things
and
I
wanted
to
get
around
that
problem.
So
in
the
forum's
we've
already
seen
deep
engagement,
but
the
second
part
of
the
heartbreak
was
having
a
stuff,
h,
outs
and
not
actually
go
anywhere
and
I
think
that's
making
sure
that
it
ends
up
in
a
place.
A
That's
that
discoverable
centrally
understood
like
this
is
the
repo
where
things
go
to,
and
this
is
how
we
update
those
things
goes
a
long
way
to
making
or
converting
some
of
these
documents
into
canonical
things.
But
there's
also
going
to
be
a
few
different
buckets
like
it.
Is
this
going
to
be
like
a
idea
idea
for
improvements
in
the
system?
Is
this
an
idea
for
some
kind
of
public
resource
or
how
to
engage
with
governance?
Is
this
going
to
be
like
tools
and
tips
or
collateral,
invest
supersleuths
whatever
they
call
them?
B
B
C
C
D
Get
one
screen
be
good:
okay,
okay!
So
just
a
reminder
where
we
are
in
the
process.
The
collateral
onboarding
guide
did
come
out
this
week,
but
I
don't
I,
don't
want
to
break
the
flow
of
what
we're
time
I
right
now
so
I'll
probably
come
back
to
that
in
I.
Think
one
or
maybe
two
weeks
today,
we're
gonna
mainly
finish
up
and
recap:
the
stability
fee
model
and
yeah.
D
D
Essentially
the
way
I'm
thinking
about
it.
I
think
others
are
as
well
is
that
we
know
that
borrowers
pay
stability
fee,
which
is
comprised
of
a
few
different
costs
that
are
associated
with
with
the
loan.
One
of
those
is
this
fee
associated
with
expanding
the
dye
supply
and
is
essentially
a
value
Trant
from
borrowers
to
the
counterparties
who
end
up
holding
the
die
right.
So
let's
say
someone
goes
out
and
borrows
100
million
died
and
then
they
want
to
just
flood
the
market
with
it.
D
There
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
a
compensation
to
the
counterparty
to
incentivize
them
to
to
hold
on
to
that
die.
Now
is
we
all
know,
and
we've
discussed
before
a
single
collateral
die
did
not
implement
this
optimally.
The
DSR
isn't
actually
live,
and
so
this,
this
value
transferred,
doesn't
doesn't
work
as
as
we
would
like
it
to,
and
this
has
led
to
potentially
a
higher
than
the
normal
stability
fee.
D
Well
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
it
was
actually
due
to
this
supply
expansion
right
as
a
community.
We've
never
really
even
talked
about
the
potential
collateral
risk
of
eath
die,
launched
with
half
a
percent
stability
fee,
and
it
only
started
to.
We
only
started
raising
the
stability
fee
as
the
dye
supply
grew
and
the
dye
peg
started
to
weaken.
D
D
Well
I'll.
Let
me
just
get
to
the
next
slide,
but
basically,
what
Matthew
was
was
talking
about
last
week
as
a
result
of
the
conversation
is
that
if
the,
if
the
risk
premiums
are
not
properly
set,
then
potentially
certain
collateral
types
impacting
the
DSR,
my
unfairly
impact
other
collaterals
and,
in
essence,
might
pricing
them.
D
D
D
B
Yeah
I
do
SARS
so
when
we
think
about
the
risk
premium
rate,
that's
going
to
apply
to
each
collateral
type,
correct
right
and
then
the
DSR
is
obviously
going
to
apply
apply
across
all
of
those
collateral
types.
So
it's
this
one
larger
figure,
that's
going
to
move
to,
hopefully
help
us
expand
and
contract
supply
round,
and
so
then
every
CDP
holder
will
have
a
stability
fee
based
on
their
collateral
and
that
that
DSR
per
century
right.
Okay,
that's
it
right.
B
No,
it's
really
to
just
comment
back,
and
you
know
vishesh
I
think
you're
on
the
line,
but
it's
to
kind
of
compliment
him
on
it's
common,
probably
two
or
three
weeks
ago,
when
it
said.
Basically,
if
we
just
set
the
risk
premium
rates
correctly,
that
really
should
adjust
it.
And
so,
in
my
mind,
I,
you
know
the
risk
premiums
are
just
purely
conditions
based
on
a
given
collateral,
whatever
those,
whatever
the
risk
associated
to
that
collateral,
would
be,
and
trying
to
segregate
risk
prop
risk
policy
and
monetary
policy.
D
Exactly
yeah
I
think
it's
it's
fairly
intuitive
to
segregate
the
monetary
policy
in
risk
policy
from
from
a
risk
perspective.
But
then,
if
the
community
wants
to
go
back
and
manually
override
certain
parameters
for
the
benefit
of
a
collateral
type,
then
that's
perfectly
doable
possible.
Maybe
even
recommend
it
in
some
cases,
but.
B
Just
want
to
highlight
that
that's
we
should
try
to
avoid
it,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that
can
also
turn
into
an
attack
vector,
which
is
vishesh,
is
point.
What
he
mentioned
was
if
we
just
set
them
correctly
in
the
first
place,
and
that
may
mean
that
the
DSR
should
be
elevated
and
some
of
the
risk
premiums
actually
should
be
significantly
increased,
even
if
it's
not
politically
appetizing,
if
there's
more
associated
risk
than
that,
the
consequence
of
risk
is
a
risk.
Premium
increase
right.
C
Yeah,
just
this
is
I-
think
the
the
place
like
this
is
this
subject
area.
The
reason
that,
like
I,
think
you
and
Matthew
are
both
kind
of
getting
involved
on
the
same
issue
is
because
this
is
kind
of
that
intersection
between
sort
of
the
risk
premiums,
the
risk
modeling
and
the
monetary
policy
going
forward
in
MCD,
because
yeah
Matthews
right
I
said
that
you
know
in
the
event
that
we
set
the
risk
premiums
properly.
C
You
wouldn't
have
this
sort
of
discriminatory
effect,
but
if
they
are
improperly
set,
there
needs
to
be
a
plan
in
place
for
how
could
you
correct
them
and
I
think
the
number
one
way
that
they
would
get
improperly
set
other
than
just
you
know,
people
not
doing
their
jobs
correctly,
and
you
know
anybody
doing
math,
etc.
This
is
something
that
can
happen,
but
also
you
know
a
lot
of
that
risk.
Modeling
is
going
to
be
based
on
certain
behavioral
patterns,
historical
data
assumptions,
if
be
like
state,
the
system
changes
significantly
mid-flight.
C
You
need
to
be
able
to
have
a
lever
to
make
adjustments
and
I
think
that
would
be
the
cases
like
if
you
model
risk
under
certain
assumptions
and
those
assumptions
change
you
need
a
you
know,
path
to
correcting
that,
and
the
DSR
won't
be.
That
path
was
kind
of
my
point,
because
the
DSR
is
a
broad
tool
right.
D
So
what
we're
gonna
need
to
develop
tools
to
evaluate
or
analyze
when
things
are
out
of
line,
and
for
example,
hopefully
we
can
converged
somewhat
quickly
on
what
the
correct
DSR
level
should
be,
so
that
if
we
see
large
deviations
in
the
DSR,
then
we
can
try
to
figure
out
if
something
that's
wrong.
On
the
other
side
of
the
equation,.
C
Yeah
and
I
think
the
like,
as
we
go
forward,
it's
gonna
be
really
easy
to
tell
if
something
is
wrong.
I
think
it's
gonna
become
really
hard
to
tell
which
thing
that
is
wrong
is
causing
the
overall
outcome
in
terms
of
like
multiple
different
assets
and
attributing
different
behaviors
to
you
know
the
the
CDP's
from
and
get
an
asset
I
think
that's
gonna
become
a
really
tricky
problem.
D
B
Also
will
be
just
a
progression
where
you
start
off
with
a
given
quote/unquote
collateral
package
and
you
you
intentionally
have
a
stability
fee
that
is
ridiculously
conservatively
high,
with
a
full
intent
over
the
period
of
say
six
months
to
release
an
identical
collateral
package
with
a
lower
stability
fee
and
drop
the
debt
ceiling
on
a
in
favor
of
B
and
slowly
roll
out.
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
just
slowly
introduce
a
very
conservative
approach
which
is
very
be
risk
and
hit,
and
and
naturally
progress,
downward.
C
Right
I'm
gonna
echo
that
I
think
like
design
principles,
are
going
to
become
really
important
hammer
down
here
and,
like
we
talked
about
scientific
governance,
well,
a
big
part
of
scientific
governance.
It's
like
experimentation
and
controlling
for
variables
and,
like
we
saw
this,
what's
the
stability
feed
change
too
much
too
quickly?
You
don't
know
what
the
effect
was.
B
E
C
And
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm
agreeing
or
disagreeing
with
you
here,
Alex,
but
like
a
classic
component
of
a
lot
of
uncertainty,
mapping
like
algorithms
in
AI
is
you
sort
of
up
your
confidence
interval
with
more
data
that
you've
seen
and
so
initially
you
should
actually
have
a
very
low
confidence
for
most
assets
like
each
might
be
a
slight
exception,
but
for
most
assets
you
should
have
a
very
low
confidence.
You
know
gain
dial,
and
then
you
know
increase
that
I.
E
D
D
D
Okay,
so
we
know
that
this
premium
rate
has
something
to
do
with
the
credit
risk
of
the
CEP.
In
the
credit
risk
and
by
credit
risk,
I
mean
the
potential
for
losses
and
uncertainties
for
M
care
holders,
and
so
we're
uniquely
concerned
with
what
these
losses
look
like
how
they
occur,
why
they
occur,
how
badly
they
are
simple
way
to
think
about.
Losses
for
CDP's
is
that
they
occur
when
collateral
prices
gapped
down
suddenly
or
when
their
the
the
options
don't
clear
due
to
liquidity
and
slippage
concerns.
D
D
And
so
this
is
how
we've
more
or
less
arrived
at
how
to
do
the
the
ether
backed
credit
risk
model.
So,
first
step.
Is
you
collect
your
inputs,
which
is
your
due
diligence
report,
your
risk
rating,
the
onboarding
application?
You
have
your
trading
history,
you
have
historical
CDP
stats
and
you
have
the
currents,
EDP
distribution.
D
We
define
our
loss
event
as
when
the
collateralization
ratio
reaches
the
liquidation
ratio
and
our
next
step
is
to
identify
what
can
cause
this
collateralization
ratio
to
go
up
or
down,
and
collateralization
ratios
essentially
change
based
on
the
underlying
asset
price,
as
well
as
user
behavior,
and
so
when
we,
when
we
dive
into
these
risk
factors,
we
want
to
know
what
does
eath
do?
How
does
it
move
and
for
behavior?
D
D
These
are
pretty
important
to
understand
as
we
create
CDP's,
and
so
we
want
to
be
able
to
convert
these
risks
into
a
risk
rating,
which
will
then
somehow
make
its
way
into
the
actual
calculations,
and
so
once
you've
defined
and
analyzed
your
risk
factors.
You
essentially
want
to
simulate
them
to
see
how
they
intermixed
with
each
other
and
how
they
evolve
over
time.
And
so
what
we're
doing
is
we
start
with
the
currents,
EDP
distribution
and
at
every
time,
increment
forward.
D
Obviously,
we
know
that
that
liquidations
can
occur
slowly
or
can
gap
downwards.
We
also
apply
a
behavioral
function
that
increases
or
decreases
the
amount
of
die
drawn
or
the
amount
of
eath
locked
up,
and
this
is
a
whole
aspect
of
research
in
itself,
and
then
we
also
apply
a
slippage
function
to
deal
with
to
deal
with
liquidation.
D
You,
you
run
the
simulation
a
whole
bunch
of
times
and
for
each
one
of
those
paths
you
essentially
track
how
much
collateral
was
liquidated
and
you
record
how
much
loss
was
incurred
right.
So
let's
say
you
do
this
thousands
of
times
and
you
you
end
up
with
a
distribution
of
losses
and
some
of
these
paths
nothing
happens
right.
Eath
Bryce
just
goes
up
no
liquidations.
Fine.
D
Some
of
these
pads
you'll
have
liquidations,
but
well,
some
you'll
have
liquidations,
but
the
collateral
is
fine,
some
will
have
liquidations,
but
the
collateral
is
not
fine
because
of
liquidity
and
then
sometimes
you'll
just
see
the
asset
just
completely
collapse
downwards
right,
and
so,
with
this
simulation,
we've
more
or
less
achieved
what
we
were
trying
to
get
at,
which
is
a
pseudo
potential
distribution
of
losses,
and
we
can
I
mean
a
simple
characterization
of
this
distribution.
Is
the
expected
loss
or
the
average
of
those
losses?
D
D
D
D
Then
the
CDP
would
be
completely
riskless
right,
there'd
be
no
way
for
the
CDP
to
lose
money
because,
as
as
ether,
price
dips
below
200,
the
put
option
will
perfectly
offset
any
losses,
and
so
you
can
kind
of
you
can
kind
of
glean
that
a
CDP
that
hypothetically
has
this.
Has
this
put
option
embedded
into
it,
which
of
course
there
isn't?
D
But
if
it
was,
then
the
CDP
shouldn't
actually
command
any
sort
of
risk
premium,
because
there
is
no
risk
to
it,
and
so
now
that
we've
removed
this
hypothetical
put,
then
you
can
you
can
reason
about
what
that
risk
premium
should
be,
and
it's
essentially
it's
dependent
on
what
the
price
of
this?
What
this
put
is
in
the.
E
E
Would
is,
will
always
be
so.
The
value
on
the
other
side
for
the
seller
is
always
sorry
of
the
by
it's
always
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
value
of
a
book
right
because
in
it's
alright
witness
to
the
seller.
I
third
correction,
be
the
seller
can
get
back
at
least
that
value
or
they
can
get
more
if
they
can
exercise
and
keep
the
difference
right
insofar
as
you
believe
that
make
the
CBP
owner
has
properly
rebalance.
So
not
only
does
the
default
not
happen,
I
even
lost
in
materialized.
E
You
also
know
how
to
put
option.
So
it's
on
accurate
quality
to
greater
than
or
equal
to
relationship
right.
That's
that's!
That's
assuming
the
nkr
whole!
So
implicitly,
if
the
nkr
holder
is
selling
a
put
implicitly
you're
saying
the
CBP
owner
is
buying
that
right.
Some
somebody
has
to
buy
it
if
you're
selling
right.
D
E
This
you're,
assuming
here
that
there's
no
like
there's
no
rebalancing
happening
right,
I,
don't
write
to
my
CBP
and
quality
holds
strictly,
but
in
reality
people
do
Manitoba,
sometimes
well
or
sometimes
poorly
right,
because
is
just
basically
the
worst-case
scenario.
If
they
manage
it
quite
poorly,
like
it
up
perfectly
offsets
right
so.
D
Right
so
so
the
behavior
can
make
can
add
to
the
risk
as
well
right
so
I
think
oh
yeah,
that's
right,
that's
right
was
I
was
I.
Think
if
I'm
understanding
your
point
correctly.
I
think
me
and
vishesha
spoke
about
this
recently,
where,
if
the
ether
price
were
to
rally
a
bunch
and
then
a
user
would
either
and
a
user
would
withdraw
a
whole
bunch
of
collateral,
then
they
have
added
risk
to
their
CDP
right
right.
E
D
C
D
And
okay,
cool
so,
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
interesting
insights
from
looking
at
this
from
an
options
perspective
is
that
aspects
that
are
important
to
options.
Pricing
are
also
relevant
to
us
and,
in
particular
the
volatility,
and
so
when
we
talked
about
the
volatility
of
the
CDP
and
in
particular
the.
D
These
sudden
gaps
downward,
and
so
some
of
the
research
we've
been
doing
here
is
we've
been
going
back
and
collecting
data
on
all
of
the
major
losses
and
drawdowns
of
the
ether
price
over
the
past
couple
years
and
kind
of
classifying
them
by
what
caused
them
and
and
and
a
whole
bunch
of
different
metrics.
And-
and
this
is
where
we've
kind
of
gleaned-
that
the
main
source
of
drawdowns
can
are
typically
protocol,
related
exchange,
related
and
regulatory
related
and.
D
Using
these
metrics,
you
can
have
an
approximation
of
one
how
frequent
these
big
draw
downs
are
and
to
the
severity
of
these
losses,
and-
and
in
that
way
we
can
can
input
these.
These
metrics
into
our
simulation
to
help
create
more
realistic
tales
for
the
losses
and
I
would
say
that
this
is
kind
of
just
the
beginning
of
this
research.
D
But
essentially
the
goal
here
is
essentially
I
mean
the
ultimate
goal
is
we
want?
We
want
to
know
how
bad
these
losses
can
get
right,
and
so
our
our
estimation
for
losses
from
our
simulation
has
to
factor
in
somehow
that
these
events
do
occur
not
frequently,
but
they
do
occur
and
they
can
be
damaging
all
right.
This
may
seem
like
a
fairly
imprecise
manner
of
of
doing
so.
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
as
its
as
its
listed
on
the
slide.
There's
the
this
is
work
that
will
be
iterated
on,
hopefully,
for
potentially
years
and
years
to
come
right
as
we
as
we
sharpen
up
our
data
and
our
models
for
now,
though,
as
we
as
we
get
near
to
MCD
launch
just
having
kind
of
a
rough
idea
of
you
know,
a
rough
awareness
that
these
types
of
big
draw
downs
occur
particulars
so
that
we
don't
under
price.
Our
tails,
which
is
a
particular
concern
with
standard
asset
pricing
models.
D
But
I
would
say
that
this
is
the
the
fun
part
of
risk
work.
It's
the
interesting
part
of
risk
work
for
sure
so
yet
again
pop
into
the
forums.
If
you
want
to
discuss
more
about
this
stuff
and
there's
actually
a
lot
of
other
aspects
of
the
model
as
well.
So
so
far,
we've
just
kind
of
hit
on
the
high
points,
but
you
know
we
can.
We
can
do
more
analysis
into
that's
a
typo
that
should
say
liquidation
penalties,
not
ratios.
D
So,
oh
no,
sorry,
that's
at
the
bottom,
yeah
higher
liquidation
ratios
do
result
in
different
amounts
of
expected
losses.
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
your
your
liquidation
ratio
at
200
percent,
then
losses
would
be
significantly
lower
and
stability
fees
would
also
be
lower.
I
will
talk
about
this
next
time
with
liquidity,
analysis,
Oh.
B
Quick
question
this
is
for
when
we're
basically
creating
and
needing
to
determine
a
risk
premium
completely.
You
know
vanilla
when
we
don't
have
any
any
background
behind
it.
How
would
we
compare
like
I?
Think
we've
mentioned
this
one,
so
it's
like
a
credit
default
swap
or
you
know,
a
bond
for
a
given
company
doesn't
matter,
that's
got
a
credit
rating
and
at
c.d.s
that's
a
known,
CD
f's.
How
much
of
our
risk
work
would
we
I
wouldn't
use
the
word
outsource,
but
you
know
get
guidance
from
inspiration
from
to
get
some
of
those
metrics
a.
D
Lot
as
much
as
as
much
as
possible
in
terms
of
guidance
and
out
sources,
of
course,
I
mean
I
would
I,
don't
see
why
we
wouldn't
borrow
as
much
efficient
public
market
information
as
possible.
I
mean
in
fact
the
only
reason
we
couldn't
do
that
right
now
is
because
I,
don't
trust
the
terabit
eath
the
options
market
for
or
anything,
and
certainly
no
CBS
market
on
CDP's,
so
that
public
market
information
just
isn't
available
for
our
particular
choice
of
collateral
backing
right
now,
completely.
B
Correct
more
commenting
like
just
you
know
if
we
took
JPMorgan
dead
and
somehow
whatever
legal
construct
would
allow
us
to
use
it
as
collateral,
and
then
we
were
to
decide
what
should
be
the
stability
fee
for
that,
where
it's
an
investment
grade
cash
flowing
asset
and
there's
a
known
CD
s
for
that
security
right.
How
much
of
that
would
that
I
wouldn't
say
directly?
We
wouldn't
want
to
just
cut
and
paste
it,
but
we
should
be
able
to
take
a
good
95
percent
of
the
work
has
already
been
done
on
a
debt
security.
D
D
Right,
as
rich
mentioned
earlier,
the
user
by
the
name
of
longed
for
wisdom
has
started
a
community
due
diligence
initiative
right
now,
going
through
the
collateral,
onboarding
guide
and
collecting
information
over
the
next
few
weeks,
we
will
start
releasing
further
frameworks
for
qualitative,
due
diligence
and
basically
getting
ready
for
collateral
evaluations
should
be
interesting
stuff,
and
that
is
it
any
questions
about
anything.
Hopefully,
like
made
things
a
little
bit
clearer
from
last
week,
you.
D
C
Okay,
so
hopefully
everyone
can
see
my
screen
all
right.
Fun
fact:
we've
crossed
360
million
loans
originated
from
maker,
so
yay
all
right,
so
the
eath
price
I
think
we
noticed
that
you
know.
For
about
a
week
there
was
going
down
a
bit
that
you
know
was
following
a
tale
of
a
huge
volume
of
eath
ford,
I
traded,
and
then
you
know
a
successively,
a
fair
amount
of
leveraging
behavior
with
the
price
coming
down
and
and
I.
Don't
think
there
was
a
lot
of
contention
around
that
explanation.
C
It
seemed
to
track
with
a
lot
of
what
we'd
seen
before.
Obviously
you
know
things
have
been
pretty
stable
or
around
the
16.5%
level,
because
there
had
not
been.
You
know
as
much
leveraging
all
at
once.
So
when
the
student
needs
a
little
bit
lower
and
you
have
a
lot
of
leveraging
all
at
once,
it
you
know
is
pretty
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
dye
price
would
take
a
little
bit
of
a
hit.
C
There
was
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
around
whether
this
should
be
resolved
on
its
own
or
whether
a
stability
fee
increase
was
necessary,
seems
you
know.
I
was
kind
of
in
Billund
on
that
it
could
have
recovered
and
so
on,
I
think,
but
the
community
I
think
chose
to
take
a
more
cautious
approach,
I
guess
and
increase
the
stability
fee
to
try
and
write
the
ship
relatively
manually,
so
that
civility
was
increases.
17.5%
things
were
pretty
stable.
C
It
was
increased
to
eighteen
point,
five
percent
again
so
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
if
sometimes
the
stability
fee
increases
are
timed
hilariously
poorly
with
eath
price
movements.
So
it's
hard
to
tell
which
had
an
effect,
but
it
will
be
interesting
to
get
more
data
points
to
see
if
this
actually
pushes
up
the
dye
price
level.
C
So
the
just
to
touch
on
what's
been
going
on
in
the
last
24
hours,
pretty
much
same
state
as
what
had
been
shown
in
that
graph,
roughly
hovering
around
the
0.98
level,
pretty
solid
spreads
that
we've
seen
recently
and
I
think
pretty
solid
volume.
So
when
you
have
kind
of
that
increased
amount
of
volume,
you
do
tend
to
see
a
more
smooth
or
less
discreet,
spread
continuous
to
sort
out
so
yeah,
as
I
mentioned
the
eath
price.
C
You
know
for
the
majority
of
June
if
it
could
have
been
running
up
a
bit
and
then
just
around
the
tail
end
of
June
started
to
take
a
hit.
Similarly,
the
dye
price
did
kind
of
a
similar
thing
where
it
was
holding
pretty
steady
and
then
took
kind
of
a
hit.
This
is
primarily
leveraged
in
this
area,
and
then
you
know,
as
eath
price
started,
to
recover
a
little
bit.
Dye
price
turned
to
recover
a
little
bit
and
then
eath
you
know
took
another
nosedive
and
even
the
most
recent
nosedive
is
cut
off.
C
A
Used
the
dead
air
while
we're
waiting
Matthew
happily
reminded
us
that
there's
been
a
discussion
in
the
forums
recently
about
the
debt
ceiling.
We
should
talk
about
it
it's
today.
It's
called
because
it's
an
interesting,
probably
the
first
example
of
a
signal
being
raised
in
the
forum.
I
could
potentially
precede
a
poll
in
the
governance
system
and
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
what
that
mechanism
looks
like.
A
B
A
And
this
is
this
ties
back
to
my
emerging
process.
Emergent
behavior
kind
of
meme
that
I've
been
pushing
is
that
we
need
to
figure
out
what
that
actually
looks
like.
So
this
is
the
first
kick
at
the
can,
but
I
would
like
to
have
some
kind
of
a
standard,
so
here's
know
and
actually
I
think
that
long
for
wisdoms
already
yeah
going
down
that
road
that
there
need
to
be
some
kind
of
standards.
So
here's
an
official
title,
here's
an
official
set
of
options,
here's
how
we
do
public
or
non-public.
A
Here's
how
we
make
sure
that
there's
no
change
or
you
know
a
lack
of
confidence
in
the
poll.
There's
things
we
need
to
understand
and
that's
probably
a
good
example
of
one
of
those
sort
of
theoretical
github
documents
that
I
was
talking
about,
because
that
would
be
a
good
example,
though
an
official
talk
about
what
does
signal
generation
look
like
in
the
forums
and
then
people
can
do
this
reference.
A
B
B
A
A
Let
me
set
some
context
here,
and
this
should
probably
all
be
captured
in
the
forum,
so
I
promise
to
put
these
thoughts
in
there,
but
we're
we're
hobbled
right
now
and
that
we
are.
The
governance
is
completely
ruled
by
stability
fees,
because
we
have
severe
limitations
in
the
capacity
of
our
voting
mechanism.
That's
those
limitations
have
been
promised.
Well,
I
haven't
been
promised,
but
I'm
assuming
some
promise.
A
So
the
question,
in
my
mind,
is:
do
we
put
the
stability
fee
our
ability
to
to
alter
the
stability
fee
on
hold
while
we
think
about
debt
ceilings,
so
we
need
to
figure
out,
I
think
the
severity
of
the
requirements
for
this
change
look.
Do
we
need
to
fix
the
debt
ceiling
in
the
next
three
weeks
or
something
bad
gonna
happen?
A
If
we
don't,
then
yeah,
we
can
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
put
the
stability
on
hold
next
week
or
the
week
after,
but
as
I,
not
shy
to
point
out
I'm,
not
smart
enough
to
know
so
a
way
I
require
the
analysts
and
the
monetary
policy
experts
and
the
rich
teams
to
sort
of
meet
that
discussion,
I
guess
or
at
least
frame
that
discussion
and
interpret
the
value
of
the
arguments
that
showed
up
in
the
that
foreign
thread.
I.
C
A
B
Mean
yes
and
no
I
mean
I,
guess
the
part
I'm
trying
to
break
out
this,
that
we
have
so
much
to
try
and
gain
rough
consensus
around
on
I
guess:
I'll
be
presenting
some
of
it
here
in
the
next
three
minutes
or
five
minutes
fish
hasn't
come
back.
You
know
how
we're
gonna
go
from
A
to
B,
where
we're
gonna
be
in,
say
six.
B
Eight
ten
months
doesn't
matter
of
the
number
and
we
have
so
much
consensus
to
get
through
between
now
and
then
you
know
right
now
we're
seeing
the
price
degrade
a
little
bit
and
we
just
right.
We've
just
raised
the
stability
feat,
so
maybe
there's
a
wisdom
and
saying
we
need
to
have
another
week
between
the
two.
B
So
in
my
mind,
I
raising
the
debt
ceiling
doesn't
really
present
a
material
risk
unless
we
change
the
debt
ceiling
to
some
huge
number
which
we've
discussed
in
the
forums
but
for
me
personally,
I'd
love
to
see
at
least
the
poll
this
week.
Even
if
it's
an
executive
vote
but
a
poll
to
try
to
increase
that
number,
because
we've
got
so
many
items
that
we
have
to
get
rough
consensus
on
related
to
MCD.
B
A
A
A
Is
the
question
and
here's
from
my
neophyte
financial
analysis
I
thought
that
we
have.
We
have
a
debt
ceiling
because
of
liquidity
risk
right,
like
cyrus.
Correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
like
isn't
the
idea
here,
that
we
have
100
million,
because
somebody
did
mass
somewhere
that
said
that
that
over
a
24-hour
period
in
this
market,
we
can
comfortably
liquidate
x
amount
through
them
mechanisms
right.
I.
D
A
I
guess
that's!
The
question
in
my
mind.
Is
that
you're
right
it
is
arbitrary
and
I
was
those
kind
of
a
leading
question.
Cuz
I
knew
it
was
our
returns,
but
how
much
more
arbitrary
like?
How
do
you
measure
arbitrary
at
this
point
q
like
so
we
don't
know
for
sure
whether
100
million
was
good
or
not
so
do
we
know
for
sure
whether
150
is
gonna,
be
as
good
or
you
know,
I.
D
B
A
B
And
knowing
the
quantity
of
things
we
have
to
vote
on
and
the
community,
not
knowing
when
soon
is
I'm,
trying
to
take
the
more
conservative
approach
of,
let's
raids,
get
rid
of
the
headache,
get
rid
of
the
brain
damage
earlier
than
later,
or
at
least
push
it
off
for
enough
time
to
allow
us
to
get
through
the
rest
of
the
consensus
that
we
need
to
to
be
able
to
watch.
Yeah.
A
A
It's
what's
decided
in
these
calls
and
in
the
forums
and
in
the
governance
portal
is,
is
what
determines
when
MCD
launches.
We
have
a
significant
amount
of
work
that
needs
to
be
completed
and
I've
touched
on
this
in
the
blog
posts
that
have
gone
out
recently,
but
we
need
to
get
the
the
general
model
in.
We
need
to
evaluate
these
asset
classes.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
we
need
to
find
out
how
much
debate
is
going
to
be
kicked
off
by
these
things.
A
So
we
don't
know
how
long
it's
going
to
take
the
iterate
through
these
things,
so
that
that
was
sort
of
my
speech
about
the
soon
thing
and
I
probably
lost
the
threat
here
a
bit.
But
my
I
guess
my
question
still
remains
so
it.
Let's
assume
that
in
three
weeks
we
have
a
new
governance
of
portal
and
that
governance
portal
allows
us
to
put
up
one
two
or
a
thousand
polls
at
once.
B
A
And
yeah
it's
well
I
understand
I'm,
not
trying
to
create
leading
questions
because
I
literally
don't
know,
and
so
there's
obviously
risks
here
that
you
know
it's.
Maybe
a
couple
of
whales
to
show
up,
or
maybe
the
market
turns
on
us-
and
maybe
you
know
we
rapidly
approach
that
say
in
the
next
couple
weeks,
it's
impossible
to
guess,
but
there's
there's
those
those
concerns
and
the
other
concern
to.
A
Is
it
loops
back
to
my
initial
thing
to
invest
at
the
top
of
the
hour
where
we
have
these
emergent
processes
and
we
need
to
achieve
consensus,
we
need
to
surface
signals,
we
need
to
have
debates
and
we're
just
now
taking
the
first
baby
steps,
but
what
that
process?
Actually
it
looks
like,
and
this
forum
posts
that
I
put
in
the
link.
There
is
a
great
first
step,
but
maybe
I'm
being
too
being
overcautious,
but
I
still
don't
I'm
still
unclear.
But
at
what
point?
Do
we
decide?
Okay,
something
has
happened
here
this.
A
This
is
where
it's
hard
right.
Like
we
have
the
poll
we
have.
You
know
here's
an
example:
I'm
not
calling
art.
Ivanka
Steve
is
one
of
my
favorite
people,
but
the
the
framing
of
this
poll
is
says
based
on
various
amounts
of
suggestion
in
our
chat
and
forum.
I,
look
at
that
and
I
go
well.
What
suggestions
and
what
which,
which
sub
reddits
and
what
were
those
suggestions
and
were
they
good
or.
B
A
The
logical
or
not
so
in
my
mind,
this
is
just
a
popularity
poll.
It's
not
exactly
scientific
governance.
What
I
would
love
to
see
would
be
somebody
coming
into
the
forum
saying
that
okay,
we
have
a
situation
with
with
the
debt
ceiling
because
of
X
Y
&
Z.
Look
at
this
graph,
here's
my
arguments
for
and
then
somebody
can
say,
here's
my
arguments
against
and
then
after
people
digest
this
stuff,
they
go
okay,
I'm
going
to
vote
for
this
number.
A
That
would
be
the
ideal
situation,
but
we
haven't
seen
that
in
this
thread
and
I'm
sure
that's
coming
very
soon,
but
there
is
that
question
like
how
considered
are
these
these
options?
Do
they
need
to
be
considered
like
this
or
like
a
certain
bar
that
needs
to
be
met
and
at
what
points?
Oh
yeah
sorry
I
was
gonna
say
we
don't
know
when
it
closes,
but
I
stand
corrected.
It
just
says
it
says
it
it
closed
five
hours
ago,
so
I
guess
we
do
have
time
limits
on
these
things.
A
I
guess
what
I?
Let
me
wrap
this
up.
So
when
is
vishesh
coming
back?
Oh
my
god.
So
let
me
wrap
this
up.
We
need
to
figure
out
what
this
process
looks
like
and
I'm,
not
going
to
tell
people
what
this
process
looks
like.
So
we
need
to
figure
it
up
in
the
forum.
So
there's
another
there's
another
thread,
that's
like
how
do
we?
How
do
we
achieve
signal
and
how
do
we
determine
that?
A
The
signal
has
started
and
the
signal
has
ended
and
that
we're
all
comfortable
with
the
quality
of
that
signal,
and
once
we
figure
that
out,
that's
gonna
be
the
pipeline
where-
and
this
is
there's
actually
in
another,
for
my
part,
talks
about.
Okay,
we
have
loose
chests
here,
they're
read
at
Twitter
or
whatever
it
goes
into
a
forum
thread.
It
goes
into
discussion
at
some
point
that
discussion
ends
or
all
ends.
We
review
it
in
a
governance,
College
saying
like
well.
This
is
actually
we're
doing
right
now,
so
this
is
more
said.
A
Well,
we
in
the
government's
call,
we
say:
hey
look!
If
this
signal
request,
we
have
a
little
chitchat
and
then
at
some
point
that
just
turns
into
a
poll
know
that
turning
into
a
poll
thing
is
a
significant
event.
Right
now,
because
we
can
only
have
one
poll
at
a
time
in
three
weeks,
it
will
not
be
a
significant
event
because
we
can
have
arbitrary
numbers
of
poles.
A
A
D
B
C
C
Okay,
so
yeah,
so
roughly
I'd
I
was
just
mentioning
supply
head
run
up,
you
know
fairly
significantly.
In
that
time
period
there
was
some
nation'
of
you
know,
big
chunky.
You
know,
1
million
died
transactions
in
the
last
couple
days,
but
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
that's
really
not
very
huge,
I
mean
really
at
the
end
of
June.
We
saw
you
know
a
4.3
million
die
minted
in
one
day,
so
that
significantly,
you
know,
puts
things
in
perspective.
We
saw
that
supply
kind
of
increasing,
despite
the
increase
the
increase
in
the
stability
fee.
C
Although
there
was
a
slight
dip
after
the
17.5%
increase,
which
does
make
sense
when
you
increase
the
stability
fee,
you
do
tend
to
see
it
a
little
bit
more
of
a
refinancing
over
to
secondary
lending
platforms,
but
you
know
even
through
the
18.5%
increase.
Overall,
the
supply
did
continue
dangers.
It's
kind
of
leveled
out
around
that
ninety
1.3
million
level.
So
you
know
some
of
this
is
also
explained
potentially
by
some
of
this
is
also
potentially
explained
by
what's
been
going
on
with
secondary
lending
platforms,
but
overall
it
has
been
increasing
on
debt
circulation.
C
C
Although
there
was
a
slight
decrease
through
the
most
recent
stability
fee
increases,
you
know
more
dies
being
drawn
from
new
CDP's
than
old
over
the
course
of
the
month,
which
you
know
kind
of
does
make
sense
with
a
lot
of
new
diving
minted,
and
some
of
this
may
be
due
to
the
fact
that
you
know
the
same.
Potential
owners
at
the
end
of
the
day
have
opened
new
CDs
because
they
previously
closed
all
blondes.
C
So
again,
as
the
collateralization
shoots
up
due
to
eath
price
in
the
short
term,
people
do
tend
to
pull
collateral
out
commensurately,
and
so
you
saw
sort
of
this
increase
in
leverage
right
at
the
end
of
June,
beginning
of
July,
which
corresponded
with
some
of
the
quote.
Unquote
damage
to
the
dye
price,
so
I
had
already
gone
through
the
spread,
but
essentially
that
same
volume,
weighted
average
has
kind
of
held
steady,
even
though
there's
been
a
more
dramatic
drop
in
the
eath
price
in
that
same
time
frame.
C
C
So,
what's
interesting
is
over
the
month
of
June,
the
May
was
kind
of
an
explosion
for
the
secondary
lending
platform.
June
has
kind
of
been
a
steady
increase
in
borrow
volume
and
supply
volume
as
well
hard
to
see
from
these
graphs,
but
the
supply
willingness
kind
of
outpaced,
the
borrow
volume
a
little
bit
more
so
that
you
see
in
this
excess
supply
graph.
This
is
the
amount
of
supply
that
is
not
being
borrowed
on
these
secondary
lending
platforms,
and
so
this
does
tend
a
pretty
closely
correspond
with
those
rates.
C
It's
a
lot
of
these
platforms,
actually
just
algorithmically
set
their
rates
based
on
what
this
quote-unquote
cash
float
is.
So
that
rate
is
that
excess,
if
I
kind
of
been
increasing
through
the
month
of
June
and
into
early
July,
with
a
bit
of
a
dip
around
that
same
June,
25th
time
period,
where
the
e
price
it
kind
of
peaked.
C
So
this
is
interesting
because
you
see
the
excess
supply
has
increased
recently,
even
though
the
overall
dye
supply
has
increased
and
the
stability
fee
is
increased,
although
a
little
bit
of
dip
now
recently,
as
people
heard,
that
18.5%
was
coming
around
the
bend,
so
the
excess
has
decreased
as
dye
got
more
expensive,
which
made
sense,
but
initially
it
was
running
up
with
that
dye
supply,
so
that
was
that
was
interesting.
Potentially
people
purchasing
dye
from
others
who
were
selling
it
for
leverage
and
then
real,
ending
it
on
secondary
lending,
but
it
was
just
to
get.
C
You
know
a
little
bit
extra
interest,
so
this
last
graph
just
basically
makes
this
one
around
the
utilization
rates,
so
I
had
kind
of
looked
at
this
initially
see
if
there's
a
relationship
between
the
stability
fee
and
the
utilization
rates
on
the
secondary
lending
platforms
to
basically
circle
back
to
an
old
conversation
that
we
have
with
rich
around.
To
what
extent
can
use
secondary
lending
platforms
to
learn
what
to
do
with
the
stability
fee
or
other
monetary
policy
things
on
maker,
but
you
know
I
think
we
tend
to
see.
C
What's
were
roughly
expected,
which
there
is
a
relationship
when
the
stability
fee
is
decreased
or
increased
to
what
happens
to
these
utilization
rates,
but
during
the
time
period,
when
the
stability
fee
is
flat,
you
also
do
see
some
pretty
solid
fluctuation
in
these
rates.
So
when
what
I'm
basically
saying
is
when
the
stability
has
been
changed
or
other
significant
monetary
policy
components
being
changed
from
maker,
you
need
to
wait.
I
think
for
some
of
these
metrics
to
settle
on
the
secondary
lending
platforms.
C
C
To
what
extent
is
this
supply
people
who've,
leveraged
out
of
dye
and
sold
it
and
other
people
who
are
just
purchasing
it
and
lending
versus
people
were
actually
drawing
dye
out
and
then
holding
on
to
of
it
and,
in
the
meantime,
actually
lending
it
out
of
the
secondary
lending
platforms?
One
of
the
data
points
that
I
think
will
be
helpful
to
luminate,
that
which
sorry
I
was
looking
for
tab
that
I'd
recently
closed.
C
In
a
second
but
I'll,
just
verbally
describe
so
the
transaction
volume
on
the
SEC
on
dye
has
actually
been
pretty
huge
lately.
So
over
the
course
of
the
last
month,
or
so
here,
the
transaction
volume
has
been
actually
since
May.
Really
the
transaction
volume
has
been
significantly
higher
than
it
had
been
pretty
much
through
the
end
of
2018
in
the
beginning,
2019,
with
the
exception
of
around
that
you
know
and
November
December
time
period
for
2018,
but
that
was
kind
of
an
atypical
point
for
everything
in
maker.
C
So
since
then,
you've
kind
of
seen
a
pretty
significant
increase
in
that
transaction
volume,
which
is
I,
think
a
positive
indicator
for
people
who
are,
and
in
you
know
it's
significantly
outpaced
the
increase
in
trading
volume
during
that
time.
So
it's
not
just
attributable
to
trading
one
so
I
think
that's
a
pretty
positive
indicator
for
people
who
are
wanting
to
look
at
you
know
to
what
extent
has
died
being
used
and
transacted
on
outside
of
just
being
traded
for
leverage.
C
C
The
eath
price
has,
you
know,
drop
significantly
recently,
but
I
think
also
attributable
to
the
fact
that
there
was
a
higher
overall
collateralization
ratio
recently
than
there
had
been
in
the
past
and
I
think
you
know
potential
more
efficiency
in
how
these
liquidations
are
being
carried
out.
So
you
see.
B
C
So
the
one
caveat
I
will
say
is
there
are
sometimes
transactions,
and
this
is
what
makes
liquidations
hard
in
the
same
block
and
there's
sometimes
changes
to
the
collateralization
ratio
and
liquidations
either
same
block
in
the
same
transaction
hat
and
so
ordering
those
events
properly
is
sometimes
a
little
bit
tricky
and
ordering
them
also
with
the
in
the
same
block
price
tick,
because
there
tends
to
be
liquidation
in
the
block
that
there
is
a
price
tick.
So
getting
that
level
of
precision
and
being
a
hundred
percent
confident
is
hard.
C
But
that
being
said,
I
think
there
are
some
rounding
errors
where,
once
in
a
blue
moon
you'll
see
a
collateralization
ratio
around
like
154,
which
is
you
know,
not
possible,
but
pretty
much.
Every
data
set
there's
just
one
liquidation,
I've
kept
my
eyes
on
happened
early
on
and
it
happened
at
154
%
cauterization,
but
pretty
much.
Every
data
set
I've
seen
round
maker
shows
that
same
clip.
A
A
B
And
I've
been
talking
about
it's
the
process
of
going
through,
rather
than
after
an
hour
and
a
half,
it's
probably
best
if
we
just
put
a
link
in
the
chat
group
or
going
to
discuss
the
points
from
the
forum,
but
it's
going
through
the
consensus
and
the
logical
sequence
about
how
we
can
float
basically
died
when
we
reinvented
or
relaunch
it.
It's
you
know
absolutely
not
a
statement
that
we
have
to
do
it
that
way,
but
just
let's
beat
the
crap
out
of
it
and
make
it
better.
C
D
C
Earlier
so
obviously
did
that
and
then
yeah
I
answered
18.5
again
I
would
have
waited
from
the
17.5%
increase
to
see
what
would
happen
before
even
doing
the
18.5%
increase.
Does
that
happen
rather
quickly?
In
my
opinion,
further
potential
increase
I
think
is
a
little
bit
premature.
So
I
am
generally
going
to
recommend
more
wait
and
see
in
collection
of
data
kind
of
mentality
before
making
potentially
rash
decisions,
because
I
think
some
of
the
effects
of
these
changes
to
take
time
to
realize.
A
All
right,
I
think
that,
well
maybe
we
were
running
understand
a
bit.
It
was
a
great
call,
though
we
got
through
a
lot.
So
thank
you.
The
shank,
you
Matthew
for
your
input
and
your
gracious
willingness
to
move
things
to
the
forum
after
this
long
call
Cyrus,
and
thank
you
to
me
from
my
deepest
wisdom
in
insights.
All
right.
This
post
will
go
up
I'm,
moving
the
conversation
away
from
reddit
and
into
the
forum,
so
the
reddit
summaries
for
these
agendas
have
been
loved
and
direct
people
perform.