►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 161
Description
Agenda: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-scientific-governance-and-risk-161-thursday-september-30-17-00-utc/10567
Introduction-
@Longforwisdom : Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
@Davidutro : Slides
Governance Round-Up-
Poll + Executive Status - @Longforwisdom
MIPs Update - @blimpa
Forum at a Glance - @gov-comms-core-unit
Selected Updates / Discussions-
Market Making for Maker - @Growth-Core-Unit
Legal Insurance Fund - @SES-Core-Unit
Other Discussions and General Q&A
A
My
name
is
long
for
wisdom.
I'm
one
of
the
government
facilitators
at
smackdown.
I'm
sharing
this
meeting
for
you
all
today,.
B
A
As
usual,
we've
got
a
little
bit
of
an
agenda
to
get
through.
We've
got
a
presentation
which
you
should
be
able
to
see
now
so
yeah
we're
gonna,
use
your
governance,
roundup.
We
have
a
couple
of
team
discussions.
A
C
A
A
general
sort
of
sort
of,
I
guess,
rules
for
the
cool.
The
team
discussion
will
be
sort
of
introduced
by
people
from
maker,
after
which
feel
free
to
to
chime
in
comment
and
sort
of
share
your
thoughts
and
then
in
the
open
discussion
I'll
invite
anyone
to
sort
of
extend
to
other
topics.
A
All
right,
let's,
let's
move
forward.
A
Cool
so
update
some
votes
first
yeah
so
paul's.
Last
week
we
had
of
offboard
usd
collateral
types
paul,
which
passed
very
successfully.
I
believe
this
wasn't
sort
of
super
stressful.
I
guess
because
the
control
type
in
question
only
had
720
die.
I
generated
from
it
so
that
one
also
worth
noting
is
that
we
passed
eight
ratification
polls.
A
They
finished
so
pablo
is
going
to
go
into
a
bit
more
detail
in
those
in
our
mid
section
and
then
we
still
have
two
green
light:
poles
active
which
end
on
monday
for
spddc
and
wraith
reif
drop.
So
yeah,
please
give
this
away
if
you
haven't
already
cool
in
terms
of
executives.
So
last
week
we
had
an
executive
adjusting
option,
parameters
and
testing
l2
components
that
was
passed
and
executed
last
week,
so
we
will
have
an
executive
tomorrow.
D
E
Yep,
hello,
everyone
pablo
here
so
ratification
polls
closed
on
monday,
27th
and
we'll
do
a
quick
review
of
the
results.
E
So
we
have
a
new
mip
mip
58
real
world
assets,
foundations,
and
we
are
welcoming
four
new
core
units.
We
have
the
strategic
happiness
per
units,
the
dax
car
in
it
the
start
net
engineering,
community
and
the
collateral
engineering
services
and
also
three
budgets
were
accepted,
one
for
ses,
one
for
risk
and
one
for
globe.
Alpha.
E
So
we
have
a
this
one's
we've
already
mentioned
last
week,
map60,
which
sets
the
processes
for
maker
data
to
determine
which
characters
manage
which
intangible
assets.
We
also
have
a
proposal
that
upgrades
the
map6
application
template
by
adding
new
real
world
asset
specific
questions.
E
Real
world
finance
community
has
added
two
budgets
of
proposals,
one
for
their
mkr
compensation
and
we
have
our
first
mip
55
c3s
proposal.
That
is
a
special
purpose
fund
in
this
case.
That
requires
funds
to
conduct
a
feasibility
study
of
singaporean
debt
security
frameworks.
E
Can
we
yes
so
frozen
proposals
likely
to
enter
over
formal
summation?
By
likely
here
I
mean
proposals
that
have
seen
recent
activity,
budgets
and
proposals
whose
authors
have
been
in
touch
with
me.
We
have
two
budgets,
one
for
growth
and
one
for
the
content,
production
coordinates
and
three
core
unit.
Super
proposal
sets
for
american
labs
data
insights
and
they
go
a
fixed
rate.
E
This
will
make
us
searching
through
the
results
of,
for
example,
the
sub
proposals
in
force
in
relation
to
a
specific
or
unit
much
much
easier
to
parse
than
it
is
now.
Currently
it
it's
a
bit
of
a
mess,
and
we
are
pretty
much
on
the
verge
of
entering
mountains
modes.
E
F
Pablo
I
have
a
quick
question
about
the
internationalization
piece,
so
I
remember
mariano.
Conti
at
one
point
started
a
project
for
like
this
internationalization,
like
getting
all
of
the
different,
defy
and
blockchain
terms,
crowdsourced
and
translated
into
these
different
standards.
Is
that
something
that's
on
your
radar.
E
Yes,
I
read
about
that
and
yes,
that's
something
that
could
be
used.
I
didn't
get
that
far.
But
yes,
that's
something
I'm
aware
of
and
yes
might
come
in
handy.
E
F
A
All
right
moving
on
from
lips,
then
all
right,
you
have
autumn
to
give
us
our
forum,
update.
G
All
right
just
posting
the
link
all
right
welcome
to
the
forum
at
a
glance,
a
weekly
review
of
what's
happened
on
the
forums
for
the
week
of
september
24th
to
september
30th.
Let's
begin
with
the
week's
top
announcements
we're
beginning
with
layer
0
from
ses
core
unit
who
introduces
ses
legal,
which
is
used
for
legal
and
regulatory
topics
and
initiatives.
G
He
also
announces
their
self-insurance
fund,
which
will
cover
legal
costs,
economic
damages
to
third
parties
and
can
be
used
as
a
legal
reserve
for
obtaining
a
legal
opinion
or
advice.
There's
a
lot
more
detail
which
can
be
found
in
the
post
so
check
that
out
next
up,
drizzling
josel
nick
from
risk
core
unit
follows
up
on
previous
three
volt
behaviors
the
analysis
which
were
posted
and
he
presents
a
methodology
for
assessing
the
vault
level
risks.
G
Next
up
the
plan
for
legal
entities
acting
as
a
conduit
for
real-world
assets,
is
to
diversify
the
jurisdictional
risk.
Therefore,
sebastian
from
real
world
finance
core
unit
announced
that
the
nebula
capital
vault
may
help
accelerate
their
schedule
to
the
country
of
jersey.
The
jersey
foundation
could
be
used
for
european
real
world
asset
investments,
which
is
cool.
G
G
Next
up
we
have
planet
x,
who
points
out
weaknesses
and
maker's
current
negotiation
methods.
He
proposes
a
sequence
of
solutions
by
splitting
up
incoming
proposals
to
help
prevent
binary
offerings
and
automate
the
function
of
negotiation,
ultimately
leaving
it
up
to
the
mkr
holders
on
how
badly
they
want
the
deal
to
happen.
G
G
We
have
an
active
signal
request
that
will
be
open
until
october
6th
in
response
to
the
proposed
delegate.
Compensation
chris
cameron
is
signal.
Questing,
a
one-time
lump
sum
of
50
000
die
outside
of
any
delegate
compensation
that
may
or
may
not
be
forthcoming
in
the
future,
when
both
chris
cameron
and
the
community
feel
that
he
has
delivered
value
to
the
dow.
G
A
Thank
you
autumn,
all
right,
so
that
close
out
our
governance,
roundup,
section
of
call
I'm
so
moving
into
team-led
discussions.
I
believe
we're
starting
with
market
making
nadia.
Are
you
happy
to
give
us
an
insurance
to
this.
H
Yes,
yes,
hello,
everyone!
Well,
today
I
invited
jonathan
from
wintermute
who,
which
who
I
have
been
talking
with,
because
when
we
were
at
the
foundation,
we
were
working
with
different
market
makers
to
like
neutral
market
makers,
to
increase
volume
in
different
markets
of
mkr
and
die.
Now
that
the
foundation
is
gone.
I
I
think
this
is
an
important
discussion
that
we
should
have
inside
the
community
to
to
like
understand.
H
First,
if
we
want
to
do
it
or
not
understand
why
we
should
do
it
or
why
we
shouldn't
and-
and
please
I
I
don't
have
the
answers
for
that.
Like
I
have
been
thinking
about
it,
I
have
been
reviewing
the
mkr
token
in
different
markets.
H
I
I
think
that
the
volume
is
not
the
optimal
volume
that
it
should
have,
and
it
could
be
a
problem
when,
for
example,
the
the
bonus
er
vested
for
all
the
car
units
and
if
someone
wants
to
sell
their
mkr,
I
hope
they're
not,
but
you
never
know
that
could
be
an
issue.
So
it's
just
like
it
important
to
discuss
this
topic
and
between
everyone
like
understand
what
we
should
do.
Of
course,
we
also
if
we
define
if
we
decide
that
wish
that
this
is
something
that
the
dao
should
should
do.
H
Then
next
step
will
be
to
think
about
how
we
are
going
to
manage
that,
because,
usually
how
market
makers
work
is
we
give
them
a
loan
of
mkr
or
die,
so
they
can
do
these
neutral
market
making
in
different
markets.
Of
course,
we
can
like
help
them
help
them
to
decide
in
which
markets
we
want
them
to
be
more
focused
in
and
also
listen
to
their
suggestions.
H
So,
although
wintermute
could
be
one-
and
I
I
choose
them
because
they
are
the
the
more
important
market
maker
for
a
crypto
in
the
market,
but
of
course
the
idea
will
be
to
have
this
opportunity
open
to
all
other
market
makers
who
could
be
interested
in
working
with
us.
So
if
we
decide
that
we
want
to
do
this,
we
should
like
think
about
a
new
type
of
proposal
to
give
them
this
type
of
loans
and
understand
what
are
their
conditions
to
help
us
with
this.
So
jonathan,
are
you
there.
I
Yes,
hello,
hello,
everyone,
I'm
jonathan
chan,
I
work
at
winter
mute.
I
also
have
yuri
our
head
of
defy
joining
us
as
well
on
the
call
first
off.
Thank
you
very
much
for
having
us
it's
quite
an
honor
to
be
on
the
call
first
off.
I
could
give
you
a
brief
introduction
about
winter
mute
and
what
we
do.
If
you
know
some
of
the
members
have
not
heard
about
it.
I
Winter
mutes,
the
core
of
the
business,
is
a
trading
firm
in
a
market
neutral
capacity,
and
currently
we
are
trading
across
60
different
venues.
At
this
point.
This
is
across
c5
and
d5.
If
you
haven't
heard
of
winter
mute,
you
know
we're
very
good
at
trading.
I
You
know
a
lot
of
assets
across
centralized
exchanges,
but
the
shine
and
allure
of
winter
mute
is
the
fact
that
we
do
trade,
a
very
good
amount
on
decentralized
exchanges
and
when
I
say
a
good
amount,
I
I
mean
you
know
probably
a
vast
majority
of
ethereum
chain
volumes
flow
through
our
bots,
and
I
think
that's
the
one
thing
that
we
could
really
help
out
with.
As
nadia
was
saying
is
we
can
never
guarantee
values?
I
We
can
never
also
guarantee
the
movements,
the
price
appreciation
of
any
asset
that
we
trade.
Again.
We
are
market
neutral,
where
we
layer
our
quotes
in
an
equal
manner
on
both
sides
across
the
bid
and
the
ask-
and
we
definitely
reduce
those
price
impacts
on
the
way
up
and
also
on
the
way
down,
also
because
winter
mute
is
so
defy,
focused
we're
able
to
trade
across
centralized
exchanges
and
decentralized
exchanges
very
efficiently.
I
On
top
of
that,
we
have
a
pretty
robust
otc
disc
at
this
point,
whether
that's
via
manual
telegram
chat
or
over
the
phone,
but
also
through
our
vr
api
as
well,
where,
if
we
were
to
add
a
sufficient
inventory
to
our
trading
vaults,
we're
able
to
ping
our
counterparties
that
we
trade
with
that
we're
able
to
provide
a
good
amount
of
inventory
and
very
good
best.
I
I
And
I'm
sorry,
I
guess
I
could
also
circle
back
with
yeah
generally.
How
we
operate
is
on
a
loan
basis
where
you
know
winter
mute
asks
for
a
certain
amount
of
a
loan
and
we
fund
the
complete
other
side
of
that
link.
So
the
ether
usdt
uscc,
the
btc
on
coinbase,
the
euro
gpp
we're
the
only
market
maker
that
funds
that
side
of
the
currency
league
and
there's
no
there's
no
fees
associated
with
us,
but
we
do
ask
for
a
call
option
attached
to
that
loan
amount
again.
I
The
call
option
is
to
protect
us
and
to
hopefully
reaping
the
benefits
of
the
project's
success,
but
we
are
market
neutral.
I
want
to
be
very
very.
I
want
to
emphasize
that,
where
we
can't
control
the
price
movements
on
each
asset
that
we
trade
and
we
have
standardized
our
commercials
on
the
projects
that
we've
partnered
with,
but
we
really
feel
that
this
this
case
is
more
strategic
and
it's
it's
it's
a
very
reputation.
I
You
know
where
we
want
to
build
and
help
make
her
out,
so
we've
moved
our
commercials
completely
on
the
other
end
where
we
just
want
to
work
together,
and
you
know
definitely
want
to
propose
that
to
the
community
to
see
you
know
put
up
for
a
vote
as
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
want
to
be
flexible
to
be
work
to
be
working
with,
and
we
want
to
promote
the
project.
H
I
So
after
that,
we're
able
to
whether
you
want
to
buy
or
sell
that
is
confidential
information
that
we
keep
to
winter
mutes.
We're
able
to
if
you're
looking
to
buy,
provide
those
counterparties
with
a
very
good
pricing.
If
we
don't
have
enough
inventory
and
if
we
don't
trade
the
asset,
we
can't
do
that
and
technically
most
likely
they
would
not
buy
because
it's
poor
pricing
right
on
the
flip
side,
if
they're
looking
to
sell
to
you
know,
take
in
some
of
their
gains.
I
We're
able
to
provide
a
very
good
price
to
protect
the
price
of
the
coin
and
reduce
slippage,
because
we
have
inventory
and
because
we're
able
to
hedge
out
that
risk
across
all
the
venues
that
we
trade
on.
So
that's
via
the
manual
process,
but
but
also
otc.
We
kind
of
group
it
together.
We're
able
to
stream
maker
through
the
counterparty's
institutional
counterparties
that
we
trade
with
and
their
internal
trading
desks
or
their
clients
can
use
their
discretion
and
how
to
trade
it.
If
they
don't
have
inventory,
they
generally
go
one
way.
F
I
H
Yes,
I
don't
know
andrew
you
if
you
are
here,
because
I
know
you
you're
always
worried
about
mkr
price
and
low
volume
scene,
the
exchanges-
maybe
if
you
can
jump
here
and
tell
us
yeah
yeah,.
E
I
call
it
regular
day.
You
know
I
was
kind
of
unaware
of
how
I
mean.
I
know
that
we've
been
rather
illiquid
for
quite
a
while.
So
you
know
one
person
selling
knocks
the
price
down
one
person
buying
that's
the
price.
So
so
you
know
greg
floated
some
ideas
of
having
a
market
maker.
E
I
mean
didn't
mention
you
guys
necessarily,
but
some
other
players
that
I
have
mixed
feelings
about
like
their
own
ethics,
but
I
don't
think
I've
ever
heard.
Anything
too
negative
about
winter
is
so
be
more
than
happy
to
see.
You
guys
be
our
market
makers.
I
I
want
to
be
clear:
we
are
again
we
are
market
neutral
trading
firm,
so
you
know
if,
if
our
quotes
get
hit
on
the
buy
side,
we're
doing
vice
versa,
to
hedge
out
our
risk
somewhere
else.
You
know
to
what
our
algorithms
and
the
marketing
conditions
are
at
that
point.
It's
I've
been
asked
this
many
many
times.
We
can't
influence
the
price
of
coin,
and
I
want
to
be
very
clear
on
that.
E
I
That
is
correct
and
the
good
thing
about
your
coin.
Is
it
already
trades
on
a
decent
amount
of
venues?
I
guess
not
specifically
for
maker,
but
for
some
other
assets
that
we
partner
with
we
try
to
help
it
help
those
tokens
get
listed
on
other
centralized
exchanges.
I
mean
this
isn't
necessarily
the
case
for
maker
right.
I
It's
ready
to
send
many
many
venues,
but
because
we
have
access
and
we're
integrated
with
so
many
different
venues
across
d5
and
d5,
we're
able
to
if
there's
one
large
seller
or
buyer
on
one
venue
able
to
you,
know
kind
of
reduce
that
impact
and
aid
in
price
discovery
across
all
the
different
venues
that
we
trade
on
and
and
again
one
big
thing
about:
wintermute,
I'm
not
saying
anything
bad
about
any
other
market,
making,
firm
or
trading
firm,
they're,
all
really
really
good
in
their
respect
window.
Mute
just
is
really
good
at
indexes
right.
I
E
E
Just
having
a
more
liquid
market,
I
think,
is
really
important
and
yeah
I
mean
I'd,
be
happy
to
see.
H
Yes,
usually
when
we
talk
with
an
exchange,
it's
a
super
important
part
to
have
a
market
maker
helping
us
because
one
of
the
requirements
like
it's
the
same
as
as
we
we
are
now
having
with
the
collaterals
like
like
if
we
have
a
collateral
that
is
not
profitable,
we
want
to
afford
that
collateral.
H
So
it's
something
similar
with
exchanges.
They
are
looking
for
listing
pairs
that
are
profitable
for
them,
so
if
they
have
a
low
liquidity
token
in
their
exchange,
like
it's,
it's
like
very
hard
to
maintain
that
one.
So
that's
why
usually,
when
we
talk
with
exchanges,
we
have
like
to
commit
on
on
on
providing
them
a
market
making
service
or
work
with
their
own
market
makers,
so
yeah
when
we
were
at
the
foundation.
H
Well,
we
we
used
to
do
that
in-house
with
lpl,
but
now
we
we
don't
have
lpl
and
we
don't
have
a
foundation.
So
it's
also
important
to
have,
like
other
participants
in
the
dao
doing
doing
that.
So
what
what
I'm
thinking
is
that
maybe
winter
mute
could
be
one
and
after
them
we
can
like
also
start
working
with
others.
F
So
is
is
the
goal
here
to
start
market
making
on
new
markets
where
we
want
dye
to
start
to
get
a
moat,
or
is
the
idea
also
to
market
make
on
existing
markets
for
more
depth,
and
I'm
also
curious
about
the
sizing
of
these
activities,
so
how
much
mkr
and
dye
is
a
recommendable
amount
to
give
per
market
maker?
I'm
curious
how
you
view
those.
I
Yeah,
so
this
at
first
would
be
for
maker,
and
again
I
have
yuri
on
the
on
the
call
as
well
who's
our
head
of
d5
we've
been
working
with
dai,
for
I
think
a
couple
years
now
and
I
think
he
could
get
to
some
technical
aspects
that
even
behind
the
scene
that
that
we're
doing
to
help
promote
it
before
this
call
has
happened
and
I'll
pass
it
to
him
in
one
second,
but
with
our
generally
with
our
market
making
agreements,
we
do,
we
have
standardized
it
to
a
certain
amount
and
it's,
I
don't
want
to
say
it's
it's
a
specific
equation,
but
it
is
given
market
cap
volumes,
venues
traded
as
well,
because
we
just
need
sufficient
supply
again,
if
you're
only
gonna.
I
If
the
treasury
only
has
ability
to
give
us,
you
know
five
million
dollars
equivalent
worth
of
maker.
It's
really
not
going
to
too
much
of
an
impact.
If,
if
someone
on
rotc
does
an
institution
on
our
otc
desk
after
10
million
dollars
worth
of
a
trade,
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
facilitate
that
trade
for
them
on
top
of
being
able
to
layer
all
the
quotes
on
all
the
different
venues
that
you
trade
on,
so
a
sufficient
supply
is
general.
Definitely
you
know
what
we
need
to
do
our
jobs
properly.
I
That's
that's
a
and
then
to
touch
base
on
the
call
option.
Generally,
we
ask
for
around
10
to
20
percent
higher
price
than
when
we
receive
assets
in
this
case,
we're
very
willing
to
work
with
your
team
so
with
the
team.
So
you
know
we're
willing
to
go
100
above
asset
price
when
we
get
delivery
of
maker,
which
I
don't
think
we've
ever
done
before
again.
This
is
more
strategic
sense
in
the
case
where
we
just
really
want
to
work
with
you
guys
at
the
end
of
the
day,.
B
All
right,
that's
a
question
for
for
jonathan.
It's
also
been
asked
in
the
in
the
chat
here.
That
is
the
the
target
amount
you're
asking
or
that
target
liquidity,
because
you
have
you
know.
Sometimes
you
have
a
coins
with
the
too
little
liquidity
and
it
it
can
also
be
argued
that
some
coins
have
too
much
liquidity.
I
Well,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
a
coin
is
has
can
have
too
much
liquidity
right,
like
coming
from
the
market
making
side
it's
it's
very,
very
advantageous
for
your
users
to
have
a
lot
of
liquid
a
lot
of
liquidity
right
because
when
they
enter
a
trade,
whether
it's
in
or
out
they're
more
confident
to
get
the
price
that
they
would
get
right.
So
I
I
don't.
I
tend
to
disagree
on
having
too
much
liquidity,
especially
in
cryptos.
I
I
guess
also
to
go
back
on
how
we've
standardized
our
market
making
agreements.
Generally
we
ask
for
around
one
to
two
percent
of
total
supply
and
again
the
call
option
is
pegged
to
around
10
to
20
percent
higher
value
of
when
we
receive
assets.
In
this
case
we
could
definitely
go
for
do
go
for
a
less
loan
amount
and,
as
I
mentioned
before,
I
we
really
want
to
work
with
you
guys,
so
we're
going
with
a
hundred
percent
higher
for
the
call
option
premium
than
when
we
receive
assets.
I
I
D
Okay,
the
reason
you
know
so
you
say
you
know,
lots
of
liquidity
is
good.
You
have
to
realize,
with
governance
with
maker,
that
a
certain
amount
of
maker
can
come
and
float
an
executive
right,
and
so
there's
an
inherent
concern
that
too
much
liquidity
groups
into
the
markets,
so
that
that
can
happen
too
quickly.
Right
now,
ukyc
your
clients,
so
we
kind
of
know
who
that
is
in
principle,
but
it
was
why
I
asked
the
question
and
then
what's
the
downside
on
that,
thank
you
for
the
answer.
By
the
way.
D
I
So
what
that
means
is
we're
taking
that
risk
where
you
know
if,
if
a
large
holder
maker
wants
to
sell
via
our
otc
desk,
we
will
give
them
a
price,
and
you
know,
theoretically
speaking,
because
we
have
sufficient
inventory,
we
give
them
a
pretty
good
price
and
then
we
hold
on
to
that
risk,
and
then
we,
hedge
out,
that
sell
order
across
all
the
venues,
our
algorithms
say
at
that
point
or
whatever
time
frame
that
it
needs
to
be
hedged
out
in
and
that's
our
risk.
I
D
I
I
In
that
sense,
where
you
know,
if
we
were
to
actually
own
and
not
borrow
a
coin,
the
price
goes
down,
we
lose
money.
Price
goes
up,
we
make
money,
we
don't
want
that
at
all.
Right.
We
just
want
to
make
money
trading.
The
coin
price
agnostic
is,
is
the
business
of
wintermute.
I
I
D
I
It's,
I
guess,
a
domino
effect
there.
There
isn't.
I
mean
I'm
not
trying
to
sell
you
anything
right.
It's
just
prov,
it's
a
liquidity
provision
service
that
we
provide
and
also
our
otc
desk
as
well,
where
you
know
your
users
can
have
a
sense
of
confidence
that
they're
able
to
execute
their
pricing,
whether
it's
a
buy
or
sell
order
at
a
certain
level.
A
So
if
you're
done,
I
actually
have
a
question
as
well,
so
yeah
hi,
jonathan.
A
You
mentioned
a
few
times
that
you
were
sort
of
excited
to
go
with
maker
and
was
sort
of
I
guess
going
past
what
you
would
usually
do
look.
So
my
question
is
like
why:
why
are
you
so
excited
to
work
with
mika,
as
opposed
to
other
things.
I
I'm
gonna
obviously
make
her
such
a
big
name
right,
but
I'm
gonna
pass
this
on
to
yuri
as
well
on
to
some
of
the
technical
side
that
we've
already
done
with
maker
and
dye.
B
Hello,
everyone,
a
good
question
about
why
we
want
to
work
with
maker.
We
are
one
of
very
not
many
market
makers.
Indeed,
in
general,
in
the
space
that
has
a
defy
team
on
board
and
maker,
is
a
protocol
that
was
live
in
d5
for
a
very
long
time
now,
it's
probably
one
of
the
biggest
and
one
of
the
most
trusted
protocols
out
there,
and
on
top
of
that
we
have
been
working
with
die
and
trading
die
and
maker
for
a
very
long
time
now
over
two
years.
H
Yeah
yeah,
because
I
mean
it's
important
to
understand
that
they
are
providing
a
service
to
the
dao
so
like
that's
why
they
need
the
capital
to
start
deploying
that
capital
in
different
exchanges,
centralized
and
decentralized
and
the
way
they
are
going
to
like
earn
something
doing.
This
is
with
the
collapsion
after
12
months,.
I
Yeah
I'd
be
happy.
I
understand,
there's
a
time
constraint
on
everyone.
I'll
drop,
my
telegram,
handle
or
email
here
as
well.
I'd
be
happy
to
you
know,
jump
on
another
call
or
ask
me
any
questions
through
telegram
or
email
happy
to
assist
and
and
walk
through
the
process.
I
Understand
it's
it's
something
relatively
new
that
some
of
you
guys
might
be
hearing
from,
but
we
do
have
a
decent
amount
of
relationships
and
partnerships
with
other
dives
as
well
in
a
market
making
capacity-
and
you
know
don't
need
to
take
my
word
for
it-
I'll
shoot
them
here
and
see
how
their
relationship
is
with
us
and
also
what
their
experiences
are.
I,
I
guess.
A
Perfect
yeah,
thank
you.
Jonathan
cheers
for
coming
on
over
to
meet
all
right
david,
let's
move
forward.
So
that
brings
us
to
our
our
second
topic
of
the
day
of
the
week.
I
should
say
so.
We
have
this
new
system
scaling
at
least
zero.
Introducing
the
idea
of
a
self-insurance
fund.
There's
there.
C
Okay,
so
good
afternoon,
everybody,
my
name,
is
slayer
zero
from
ses.
I
want
to
talk
to
you
today
about
a
project
that
we
are
working
on
ses,
a
project
about
an
important
legal
issue.
We
have
in
ses
a
special
working
group
dealing
with
legal
and
regulatory
topics.
This
is
the
we
are
working
on
on
several
projects.
It's
the
first
one
that
we
want
to
share
with
the
community.
C
It's
about
creation
of
a
self-insurance
fund,
a
legal
self-insurance
fund
for
maker.
C
C
First
of
all,
after
the
dissolution
of
the
foundation,
dow
stakeholders,
thou
active
members,
will
be
exposed
to
new
layers
of
legal
and
regulatory
risk
and,
as
we
all
know,
as
the
as
maker
doubt
doesn't
doesn't
have
a
legal
entity
and
the
main
purpose
of
legal
entities
is
to
limit
the
liability
of
its
members.
So
we
don't
have
after
the
distribution
of
the
foundation.
We
don't
have
this
protective
bail
anymore.
C
Second,
we
think
that
the
risk
that
soon,
maybe
in
the
next
year,
somebody
of
the
maker,
dow
ecosystem,
is
target
of
a
lawsuit
or
a
regulatory
action.
I
think
that
is
likely
if
we
see
what
the
se
the
sec,
the
security
regulator
in
the
us
have
been
doing
in
the
last
weeks,
very
active
against
yeah,
very
well
known
names
of
the
d5
space.
C
C
Now
this
risk
has
been
transferred
to
all
of
us
to
individual
contributors
or
legal
entities
that
are
interacting
with
the
dow
they
are
providing
services
to
the
dao.
So
we
have
to
deal
with
that.
The
need
of
legal
advice
and
legal
defense
of
maker
dog
participants
is
evident.
That's
what
the
topic
of
of
the
call
last
week.
We
need
that
at
very
different
layers
and
we'd
also
need
a
strategy
for
meeting
the
legal
needs
of
the
dao
in
this
new
context.
C
Without
a
legal
counsel
without
a
centralized
entity,
so
that's
why
we
want
to
introduce
the
idea
of
a
self-insurance
fund
and
what
is
a
self-insurance
fund.
It
is
a
risk
management
technique
which
consists
in
funds
aside
for
compensating
a
possible
future
loss,
what
it's
called
contingent
liability
and
in
traditional
in
the
legacy
world.
Companies
use
that
for
covering
things
like
health
costs
for
employees
or
like
liability
claims,
and
this
kind
of
things
for
us
for
maker
dao.
I
think
we
could
use
such
a
fund
in
three
ways
in
three
different
layers.
First,.
E
C
We
could
use
the
fund
for
paying
the
legal
costs
of
defense
if
somebody
is
sued
or
somebody
is
targeted
of
a
regulatory
action,
so
this
first
layer
only
includes
the
reimbursement
of
the
cost
of
defense.
Yeah
is
that
reactive?
If
somebody
has
to
pay
a
lawyer
for
defending
himself
the
second
layer
which
is
more
complex,
it
is
much
larger
in
scope.
Is
this
fund
could
be
used
to
cover
the
cost?
C
If
somebody
loses
this
a
process
right
if
a
court
of
justice
determined
that
somebody
is
liable
and
all
cautionary
damage
to
a
third
party
has
to
pay
damage
to
a
third
party,
it
could
be
huge,
huge
sums,
so
the
fund
could
be
used
in
the
second
layer
to
cover
this
part
also,
it
could
be
used
to
cover
settlements.
As
you
know,
in
processes,
it
is
common
that
parties
make
negotiations
for
terminating
the
process,
and
sometimes
they
agree
on
a
settlement.
C
C
C
Last
week
the
topic
of
discussion
was
well.
We
we
have
this
need
of
having
a
legal
check,
some
type
of
legal
risk
analysis
of
of
new
meeps.
Well,
this
legal,
this
self-insurance
point
could
be
also
used
to
paying
for
this.
For
this
advice,
the
interesting
thing
is
that
this
self
insurance
fund
can
be
used
as
a
first
layer
for
other
insurances
products.
For
those
of
you
who
have
tried
to
get
a
dnaw
insurance,
you
know
how
hard
it
is
to
get
that
in
in
crypto,
so
how
it
works
is.
C
Let's
say
we
have
with
a
selfish
foreign
coverage
up
until
10
million
for
economic
damages,
and
then
you
can
go
into
insurance
market
and
and
for
the
excess
of
that
you
can
find
an
insurance
product,
an
insurance
product
that
is
now
unavailable.
It
will
become
available.
If
you
have
this
first
layer
covered
by
this
self
insurance
fund,.
C
So
who
will
be
covered,
so
that
is
probably
like
the
first
question
that
we
have
to
discuss
who
will
be
covered?
I
think
at
very
least
this
one
should
cover
the
permanent
contributors
and
facilitators
of
core
units.
It
should
cover
delegates
or
yeah
governors
of
the
system
that
have
a
high
stake
and
that
that
are
identifiable
such
as
delegates.
C
C
So
what
I
want
to
open
the
discussion.
There
are,
of
course,
a
lot,
a
lot
of
details
that
we
have
to
consider
and
decide,
but
I
would
like
to
discuss
like
more
like
strategic
general
idea.
First
of
all
gather
your
opinion.
C
If
this
idea
is,
is
a
good
idea
that
we
should
prioritize
and
and
second
there
are
three
like
three
main
questions
that
we
should
decide
on,
the
first
one
is
who
will
be
covered.
The
second
is
which
jurisdictions
right,
so
I
think
in
in
ideally
we
should
cover
all
the
jurisdictions
where
our
members
are
domiciled.
So
we
should
need
to
know
where,
where,
where
are
they
in
which
countries
in
the
world
and
then
decide
if
you
are
going
to
start
with,
arguably
the
most
important
one,
the
highest
risk.
C
One
is
in
the
us,
it's
the
more
complex
one,
but
it's
the
highest
risk
one
if
you
should
start
with
the
highest
risk
or
start
with
a
pilot
project
in
another
jurisdiction
and
third
of
all,
about
the
risk
layer
about
the
street
risk
layer
which
one
do
you
find
more
important
or
if
or
all
of
three
are
important,
are
important
in
your
opinion.
So
that's
that's.
That's
the
super
super
short
introduction
about
the
project
and
we
like
to
open
it
for
for
discussions
and
questions.
D
I
guess
I'll
launch
a
question,
so
it
was
a
curiosity
of
like
who
who
actually
insures
on
this
kind
of
stuff,
like
I
had
no
clue
like
who
would
insure
on
this
kind
of
stuff
and
what
the
insurance
agreements
would
look
like.
Do
you
have
any
idea
on
the
who
would
take
the
secondary
side
of
this
with
a
high
deductible
and
what
those
things
look
like.
C
I
think
reinsurances
companies
can
take
the
excess
of
laws
and
and
regarding
this
structure
on
the
front,
there
are
specialized
legal
advisors
in
the
insurance
industry
that
help
structure
this
this
funds.
I
think
we
should.
We
should
hire
one
of
this.
So
like
the
next
step,
if,
when
we
decide
what
are
our,
our
priorities
is
to
go
to
one
of
these
offices.
There
are
law
offices
that
are
specialized
in
in
insurance
and
structuring
these
funds,
and
the
first
step
is
to
structure
the
fund.
C
D
A
C
Yeah
it
it
if
it
will
work
like
like
a
like
sort
of
like
like
a
deductible
right
and
you
need
a
deductible
deductibles-
are
a
bit
like
like
a
way
of
self
insurance
right.
So
you
you
take
the
risk
up
to
a
certain
amount
and
it
shouldn't
cover
the
excess
of
this
amount.
So
that
would
be
like
something
similar
we
set
aside.
We
we
pay
for
this
first
layer
of
risk,
and
then
we
can
go
and
look
for
products
insurance
market
that
help
us
transfer
the
rest
of
the
risk.
C
So
there
is
a
way
of
trafficking,
the
rest
of
the
risk,
but
but
we
have
to
deal
with
it
now,
because
now
we
are
in
the
in
a
yeah
in
a
vulnerable
position.
If
somebody
sues
somebody
in
the
maker
ecosystem
or
regulator,
investigate
somebody,
so
we
have
this
risk
of
legal
costs
and
and
damages
and
fines
that
right
now
are
not
covered,
but
it
is
possible
to
cover
them,
but
first
the
first
layer
is
the
first
condition
is
to
have
one
of
these
yeah
self
self
insurance
fund
schemes
ready.
C
I
think
both
could
work.
I
think
we
had
the
the
the
important
thing.
So
these
type
of
things
are,
we
don't
know
which
frequency
they
will
come.
That's
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
decide.
C
Maybe
if
it's
enough,
if
we
have
the
possibility
of
getting
funds,
if
there
is
a
large
a
large
case,
that's
something
that
we
have
to
decide.
So
what
would
be
the
next,
the
the
best
structure,
to
do
it
if
we
use
this
special
purpose
fund
who
will
manage
the
multisig?
So
there
are
many
questions
if
we
need
a
trust
or
some
type
of
legal
structure
to
handle
this
intelligent
legal
world
yeah.
A
So
all
right
look
at
all
the
questions,
so
one
of
the
things
you
introducing
before
was
sort
of
settlements
and
things
right
and
paying
out.
Like
you
know,
the
kind
of
results
of
I
guess
these,
these
little
cases
right,
I
don't
know
the
technology
anyway,
so
I'm
kind
of
curious
about
do
you
worry
that
will
like
increase
risk
right
like
if
there's
a
big
money,
that's
that's
sort
of
there
to
pay
for
us
being.
If
we're
successfully
sued,
do
you
think
that
will
increase
the
frequency
or
likelihood
of
people
saving?
C
I
I
do
see
I
do
see
this
this
risk,
I
think
well,
in
the
traditional
world.
You
would
keep
all
of
these
things
very
confidential
right
and
we
have
to
wait.
So
if
I
we
all
know
that
that
transparency
is
in
the
dna
of
of
maker,
but
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
we
don't
have
to
publish
all
the
details
in
publicly.
C
What
part
of
this
question
should
be
held
publicly
if
we
promote-
and
it's
publicly
known,
that
we
have
a
fund
of
x
million
yeah
that
could
eventually
go
against
us,
so
I
would
keep.
I
would
try
to
make
keep
details
more
confidential
about
the
amounts
and
the
coverage,
or
at
least
like
permissions
only
for
down
members.
A
E
B
A
Immediately
makes
it
less
likely
that
people
are
going
to
sue
someone
because
there's
been
a
massive
fund.
That's
going
to
protect
them
yeah,
so
that
bit
being
sort
of
explicit
is
very
good.
But
maybe
the
settlement
part
is
something
that,
if
possible,
should
be
left
like
less
explicit
right.
J
Hey,
I'm
I'm
nathan
vandy.
It's
my
first
meeting
actually
really
great
to
join
this
governance
call.
So
I
actually
work
for
a
non-profit
organization
in
belgium,
where
we
support
dows,
with
law
and
governance
and
on
both
operation
level
and
also
on
a
policy
level
as
well
and
as
part
of
this
fund.
J
So,
for
example,
in
most
jurisdictions,
developers
of
open
source
protocols
don't
have
any
liability
unless
they
actually
act
out
a
bad
faith
and
create
bad
code,
and
the
same
can
possibly
be
applied
for
contributors
in
open
source
protocols
such
as
maker
dao,
which
are
providing
services
for
this
open
post
call,
which
anyone
can
join
right.
And
I
was
wondering
if
part
of
the
self
insurance
fund
was
actually
put
aside
to
look
into
this
area
as
well,
to
make
sure
that
it's
less
of
a
reactive
measure
and
then
more
of
a
proactive
measure
as
well.
C
Yeah,
that's
perfectly
thinkable,
so
we
can
structure
it.
The
the
interesting
thing
is
that
we
can
structure
it
tailor-made
to
what
we
need,
and
I
think
developers
are
more
exposed
in
a
dial
context,
that
in
a
company
context
and
in
some
cases
developers
appear
as
as
pro
as
the
doubt
does
not
exist
as
a
legal
entity,
and
so
somebody
has
to
be
like
the
official
provider
of
a
service
that
appear
in
the
terms
and
conditions
right
and,
and
sometimes
that
needs
to
be.
You
know
the
developer
or
the
company
of
a
developer.
C
A
K
So
I'm
just
wondering,
like
I've,
seen
the
idea
that
personal
risk
is
something
that
we
compensate
people
more
highly
for
in
the
dow.
You
know.
Would
this
fund
then
take
away
that
premium,
and
is
that
something
that
contributors
even
want
like?
If
I
personally,
if
I
was
a
contributor
I'd,
rather
have
an
increased
compensation
personally,
so
I
feel
confident
that
I
don't
have
to
petition
the
dow
to
come
to
my
rescue
if
something
goes
wrong.
C
Yeah
exactly
so,
we
could
we
could.
We
could
struck
it
that
way
that
you
have.
If
somebody
has
to
pay
for
legal
defense,
then
which
is
different
for
ra
refunding.
C
You
don't
have
to
ask
somebody
in
the
doubt
to
to
defend
or
to
to
to
pay.
So
you
have
maybe
to
pay
upfront
and
solicit
reimbursement
for
the
legal
costs.
That's
what
you
mean
right.
K
I
mean
like
there's,
always
a
choice
for
somebody
for
the
dow
to
decide
not
to
reimburse
you
or
not
to
defend
you
out
of
this
fund.
So
if
you
just
have
a
higher
income
baked
into
your
salary,
then
you
know:
is
it?
Is
it
possible
to
do
it
that
way
or,
like
you
know
what
what
are
the
trade-offs
here
is
my
question
because
I'm
pretty
sure
that
there's
some
premium
baked
into
salaries
where
you're
compensating
that
risk
right
now.
C
Yeah
in
some
form-
yes,
yes
in
some
form,
yeah
that
probably
a
compensation
maker
above
the
the
market
average,
and
they
they
include
some
type
of
risk
premium.
I
agree
with
that,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
personal
liability
risk
for
ms,
the
most
important
legal
risk
that
we
have
at
the
tao
and
that
could
ruin
somebody
right
and
I
think
we
need
not
only
for
for
for
protecting
our
labor
force,
but
for
attracting
new
talent.
C
If
you
have
a
solid
risk
management
framework
for
for
limiting
this,
this
liability
risk,
because
these
damages
this
could
be
huge
and
it
could
ruin
a
business
or
win
a
person,
and
I
think
the
the
premium,
the
the
salaries
premium
that
we
may
have
fightmaker
does
not
compensate
all
the
hidden
liability
risks
that
could
arise
if
something
goes
rather
than
in
the
protocol
whom
they
go
after
so
there's
no
foundation
to
go
after
they
will
go
after
somebody
that
they
can
suit,
they
say
publicly
identifiable
and
and
the
the
risk
yeah.
C
So,
theoretically,
with
no
legal
entity,
theoretically
in
many
jurisdictions
of
the
world,
the
default
entities
are
general
partnerships
which
which
implies
that
theoretically,
anybody
could
be
liable
for
the
whole
liabilities
of
the
project,
and
that
is
more
like
a
theoretical
risk.
So
but
it
it
can
happen
yeah
and,
and
we
need
to
generate
so
we
don't
have
that.
C
Maybe
legislation
is
not
advanced
enough
to
to
generate
on
the
legal
side
on
the
law,
more
protection
for
liability
protection
for
the
workers
of
adal,
because
those
are
so
new
and
I
think
they
will
come,
but
we
still
we
have
to
have
some
something
until
we
have
new
legislation.
I
think
that
we
will
come
and
there
are
some
frameworks
in
wyoming
now
limited
liability
companies
now
limited
liability
wrappers
for
those
we
are
investigating
that
at
scs.
C
Some
of
this
hybrid
organizational
models,
but
those
are
experimental
topics,
and
I
think
we
need
something
practical
that
we
could
implement
in
the
next
three
to
six
months,
and
this
is
something
like
practical
and
that
has
been
used
in
the
legacy
world,
and
I
I
think
it's
a
it's.
It's
it's
a
condition
for
for.
K
E
F
Craig
is
there
like,
when
an
employee
leaves,
do
they
get
their
contribution
back
like
what's
like
the
the
standard
for
this
kind
of
thing,
this
is
also
the
first
I've
ever
heard
of
it.
E
I
have
a
question:
why
do
we
need
a
fund
a
what
what
happened
if
today,
someone
is
suing
anyone
from
the
from
mcadam?
C
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
not
a
like
a
sustainable
strategy.
I
think
if
we
ignore
regulatory
actions
or
enforcement
letters
and
so
on,
I
think
we
have
no.
C
We
have
to
we,
we
have
to
be
compliant
and
we
have
a
large
exposure
to
the
real
world
finance
and
they
can
get
us
in
in
many
places,
and
I
think,
like
not
acting
for
me
would
not
be
like
a
viable
strategy,
not
not
not
only
for
the
person
involved
but
like
for
the
project
itself,
because
we
want
to
to
go
to
to
to
the
real
world
to
to
to
serve
the
good
economy
of
the
real
world,
and
I
think
we
we
have
to
to
be
very
careful
with
that.
C
With
what
happens
with
with
actions
of
regulators.
C
Yeah,
maybe
we
need
yeah,
we
probably
need
some
type
of
legal
agreement
or
trust
or
some
type
of
structural
structure.
C
E
Yeah,
I
just
put
my
comment
in
chat.
I
think
there's
a
second
order
effect
where,
yes,
it
may
impact
salaries,
but
it
wouldn't
be
by
having
people
pay
out
of
their
salaries.
It
would
be
by
creating
some
competitive
pressure
as
the
risk
perception
or
for
risk
perception
of
working
for
the
dow.
E
If
that
improves,
then
one
would
assume
that
more
new
joiners
would
be
willing
to
work
for
more
market
competitive
rates,
and
I
think
that's
that
should
be
the
the
mechanism
that
we
we
aim
for.
I
I
don't
think
taking
it
from
people's
compensation
is
a
good
idea.
J
When
it
comes
to
liability
issues
that
cover
work
in
an
adele
at
waseo,
we
did
a
coverage
on
organizations
such
as
make
a
dao
and
under
majority
of
jurisdictions,
they're
going
to
be
considered
as
joint
unincorporated
partnerships,
which
means
that
it's
not
an
individual
that
will
be
taken
on
just
their
individual
risk.
An
individual
might
be
taken
on
the
whole
risk
for
multiple
parties
and
that's
the
main
issue
as
well.
On
top
of
the
attitude
and
orientation
that
that
is
needed.
Regarding
this,
I
think
definitely
a
few
options
that
might
need
to
be
considered.
J
A
We're
going
to
take
a
brief
pause.
Does
anyone
have
anything
beyond
the
discussion
topics
they
want
to
bring
up
in
this
meeting?
Maybe
we've
got
10
minutes
left,
so
if
anybody
does
anything
else
feel
free
to
chime
in
otherwise
we
can
continue
to
talk
about
this
till
the
end
of
the
time.
E
Well,
it's
a
slightly
different
topic,
but
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
in
our
incubation
program
we
are
working
with
the
different
teams
explaining
the
liability,
risks
and
encouraging
people
to
incorporate
and
have
limited
liability
shield.
In
case
something
happens,
so
there
is
some.
There
are
some
education
efforts
on
that
front
going
on.
They
should
definitely
be
expanded
and
yeah
and
improved
further
still.
But
that's
that's
ongoing.
C
C
We
believe,
I
believe
personally,
that
that
legal
entity
should
be
more
at
the
periphery
of
the
doubt
and
more
at
the
center,
and
but
but
that's
not
enough,
because
that
limits
at
certain
extent
the
liability
risk.
But
that
is
not
enough
if,
if
a
very
important
core
unit
is
targeted
of
a
lawsuit
and
gross
insolvent
because
has
to
pay
a
huge
amount
of
damages,
that
could
be
not
a
plan
of
the
core
unit.
C
That
could
be
a
problem
for
for
the
protocol
itself,
so
that
that
covers
part
of
the
risk
and
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
to
analyze,
which
part
is
already
covered,
that
a
core
unit,
level
or
individual
level,
and
what
risk
is
left
out
and
and
use
this
self
insurance
fund
to
to
cover
the
risk
that
right
now
is,
is
not
covered.
A
J
D
If
you
think
the
jury,
the
the
painful
jurisdiction
is
maybe
u.s.
Okay,
I'm
just
going
to
throw
that
out
there
that
you
could
have
the
like
protocol
engineering
break
into
a
unit-
that's
us-based
and
non-us
based
right.
So
if
one
part
of
a
core
unit
comes
under
attack,
the
other
core
part
of
the
core
unit
can
continue
to
still
operate
right.
And
so
I
don't
know
it's
something
to
think
about.
I'm
not
saying
this
is
a
solution,
but
but
it's
something
to
think
about
in
terms
of
how
we
continue
to
operate.
C
Leave
exactly
exactly
redundancy
and
parallel
work
is
part
of
the
the
strategy
if,
if
a
unit
gets
gets
impacted,
if
he
is
involved
in
in
some
legal
trouble,
then
we
have
to
isolate
this
risk
and
not
permit
this
risk
like
spread
through
through
the
down,
and
one
way
to
do
it
is,
is
having
like
parallel
teams
working
on
the
same
topic.
D
D
Certain
people
who
are
kind
of
on
front
on
this-
you
know
publicly,
you
don't
do
that,
but
but
it
kind
of
brings
me
back
to
that
kind
of
model.
I
mean
I
harken
back
to
the
old
days
when
bitcoin
was
considered
dark
web
right
and
smart
people
were
putting
up
all
kinds
of
barriers
between
them
being
found,
starting
with
satoshi
nakamoto
right,
whoever
that
person
was
right,
and
so
it
kind
of
harkens
back
to
the
old
days
of.
C
J
Yeah
just
to
wrap
up
there
as
zero
said
it
is
a
very
slow
process,
getting
legal
clarity
regarding
a
lot
of
these
matters.
But
there
definitely
are
lawyers
and
academics
who
are
actually
involved
into
actually
working
alongside
policymakers
and
regulators,
to
to
attempt
to
do
this
because
it
is
unnecessary,
moving
forward
to
facilitate
the
necessity
for
people
to
move
into
the
space
without
having
to
worry
about
things
that
people
in
the
traditional
finance
industry
don't
have
to
worry
about.
J
C
Absolutely
absolutely
legislation
has
to
evolve,
and
that
is
that
would
be
part
of
a
totally
different
call,
and
that
is
part
also
of
our
advocacy
and
public
policy
efforts.
And,
yes,
that's
someplace-
that
we
want
to
go,
but
it
would
exceed
the
scope
of
this
call
to
discuss
all
of
this.
A
I
think
that's
a
good
summary,
so
maybe
that's
a
good
place
to
wrap
up
we're
approaching
quarterback
anyway.
So.
C
So,
thank
you
very
much.
The
discussion
will
be
open
in
in
the
forum
and
thank
you
for
your
feedback,
and
any
of
your
ideas
will
be
welcome
as
we
progress
with
this
project.
A
All
right,
yeah
thanks
nice
zarya,
and
thank
you
to
for
that
presentation
earlier
as
well
all
right!
Thanks
ron,
I
will
talk
to
you
all
next
week,
if
not
before,
thanks
for
coming.