►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Call #223 - January 26, 2023
Description
Weekly community call for MakerDAO! The agenda and discussion links for this recording can be found here:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-call-223-thursday-january-26-2023-17-00-utc/19532
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome-
really
excited
to
be
here
today
on
the
223rd
governance
service.
Call
here
at
Baker,
Dao
looks
like
today
is
you
grab
the
date
January
26th
2023
joining
you
for
another
weekly
call
here
at
maker,
where
we
go
over
all
things:
governance
and
risks,
whether
a
year
and
a
long
time,
contributor,
first
time,
Joiner
or
you're.
Just
checking
us
out
on
the
recording,
welcome
really
great
to
have
you
be
with
us
and
I'm
a
build
part
of
our
community.
A
So
before
we
get
into
the
call,
we
do
have
a
few
ground
rules.
This
is
just
some
stuff
that
will
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
for
us
to
participate.
You
have
some
good
discussions
today
and
cover
a
lot
of
ground.
First
and
foremost,
let's
avoid
talking
over
one
another
I
know
that
can
be
hard
on
some
calls.
But
if
you
noticed
you're
talking
over
to
someone
just
pause
for
a
moment,
we'll
get
it
sorted
out,
there
are
a
few
things
you
can
do.
A
A
The
Korean
speakers
done
talking
if
you're
unable
or
unwilling
to
use
the
mic,
you
can
always
drop
your
question
or
comment
in
chat
and
I'm
happy
to
work
it
in
when
conversationally
appropriate,
yeah
that'll
help
us
communicate
a
little
better
in
that
vein,
right
like
if
you
have
a
camera
and
you're
comfortable
to
turn
it
on,
we
always
love
to
see
who's
joining
us
today.
It's
really
great
to
see
the
people
that
are
participating
and
help
making
decentralized
governance
happen.
B
A
This
is
like
I,
said
an
open
call,
so
we
really
do
want
to
get
your
voice
to
your
opinion.
Any
clarifying
questions
on
the
record,
I
hope
everyone
learn
a
little
more.
The
only
last
rule
is,
if
you
do
hop
on
the
mic,
take
a
moment
to
introduce
yourself.
Let
people
know
who
you
are
and
where
you're
speaking
from
and
that'll
just
make
things
a
little
easier
both
for
those
here
on
the
call
and
for
the
recording
all
right.
We
try
not
to
be
too
rules
heavy.
A
A
A
That
should
give
us
plenty
of
time
to
get
some
background
for
us
to
really
talk
about
some
of
the
pain
points,
we're
feeling
in
regards
to
funding
in
the
transitioned
endgame
and
and
maybe
get
some
recommendations
for
for
this
map.
So
hoping
we
can
have
a
really
good
call,
looking
forward
to
seeing
what
we
come
up
with
and
yeah.
Just
a
reminder.
C
A
I
will
quickly
run
through
the
votes
for
us
and
then
I
will
stop
talking
for
at
least
a
little
bit.
We
had
two
weekly
polls
from
this
past
week.
One
was
for
off-roading,
some
of
the
Legacy
stable
coin
vaults.
Those
parameters
did
pass,
so
you'll
be
seeing
Communications
on
off-boarding
going
up
now
to
a
little
after
this
call,
if
you
haven't
already-
and
we
can
offer
those
14
days
after
those
Communications
go
off
so
to
be
looking
for
those
off-boardings
in
an
upcoming
executive.
B
Yes,
thanks
Peyton,
so
I'm
here
to
give
you
the
Maps,
update
the
15
ratification
polls
for
the
January
governance
cycle
closed
on
Monday.
Let's
take
a
look
at
the
results
for
our
top
level.
Mid
Smith
92
was
approved.
It
will
onboard
a
maximum
of
100
million
of
PSM
uscc
into
bespoke
non-custodial
year
involved
for
our
amendments
and
removals.
The
protocol
diet,
transfer,
cumulative
ceiling
of
250
000
die
has
been
removed.
B
Then
the
two
changes
to
the
recognized
delegate
participation
metrics
were
approved.
So
this
is
a
setting
a
minimum
threshold
of
non-abstaining
votes
for
compensation,
eligibility
and
increasing
the
participation
requirements.
In
the
case
of
executive
votes,
the
amendments
to
meet
63
were
approved
as
well.
The
way
payments
are
being
sent
was
defi
defined
and
the
buffers
reported
stream
durations
were
made
explicit.
So
we
used
to
have
an
implicit
six-month
duration,
and
now
it
is
possible
for
the
sequencer
to
set
custom
windows
per
Network
following
up
on
on
the
Amendments
on
removals.
B
B
B
B
B
B
Finally,
chain
link
has
been
onboarded
as
a
keeper
Network
and
a
declaration
of
intent
to
develop
a
comprehensive
on-chain
monitoring
solution
for
real
world
assets.
Both
has
been
ratified
and
is
now
active,
so
this
was
offer
our
notification
pulse.
Now,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
proposals
in
RFC.
As
you
may
know,
we
have
many
of
them.
Most
of
them
are
eligible
to
the
February
governance
cycle,
as
we
summarized
in
our
previous
DNR
calls.
We
have
proposals
to
onboard
real
world
asset
bolts,
introduce
a
Defender
contract
against
governance
attacks
start
utilizing.
B
The
hots
protocol
introduce
new
Frameworks
to
broadcast
and
manage
requests
for
projects
and
Associated
funding
with
Pros
just
mentioned
will
be
part
of
our
discussion
today
and
very
recently,
mid
99
to
offer
die
to
C5
to
enable
real
world
use
cases,
as
mentioned
on
the
previous
GNR
call
as
well.
Maybe
94
is
going
to
transition
into
a
declaration
of
intent.
It
will
inherit
its
accumulated
feedback
period,
as
the
content
will
remain
the
same
for
the
Amendments
on
removals.
B
We
have
an
amendment
proposal
that
modifies
MIP
41
to
expedite
some
of
its
processes
and
increase
its
flexibility,
and
we
also
have
an
amendment
to
meet
62,
which
is
a
the
collateral
off-boarding
process
that
allows
changing
the
communication
possible
responsibilities
us
for
the
core
unit
framework
proposals.
We
have
a
core
unit
of
voting
for
CES,
a
budget
request
by
Tech
Ops
and
a
facilitator
onboarding
proposal
or
Nick
0
to
lead
CES.
B
Finally,
we
have
proposals
to
restart
the
mkr
burning
and
me
14
request
to
fund
the
development
of
an
informational
and
game
portal.
This
will
enter
the
weekly
cycle
next
Monday,
the
30th
as
a
short
ratification
poll
that
will
last
for
three
days
for
our
important
dates.
Please
remember
that
February
1st
next
Wednesday
end
of
day
is
the
last
day
to
introduce
modifications
to
eligible
proposals
for
the
February
governance
cycle.
A
Awesome
appreciate
it
obviously
a
ton
of
stuff
going
on
in
the
mips
land.
We
just
ended
a
big
vote
on
a
bunch
of
those
proposals,
but
there's
still
plenty
more
that
are
waiting
to
be
heard.
So
as
a
reminder,
let's
keep
those
conversations
going
in
the
Forum
there's.
Also
the
written
weekly
Maps
update,
where
you
can
get
linked
out
to
other
proposals,
Gala
mentioned
here
today
in
the
call
all
right
thanks
again,
gallifer,
wonderful
editing.
D
A
Informational
segment
today
so
we're
going
to
dive
straight
into
discussion
and
pretty
excited.
We
had
delayed
this
topic
from
last
week,
given
the
talk
that
we
had
on
on
the
Verdian
cluster.
So
once
again,
I'll
be
welcoming
back
retro
to
be
talking
this
time
about
some,
some
stuff
that
that
you're
proposing
for
for
changing
the
Dow
in
the
transition
period
to
end
game,
retro
I
see
your
face
there.
Let's
go
ahead
and
hand
the
mic
over
to
you.
E
Contributor
at
the
sustainable
ecosystem
scaling
core
unit,
and
today
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
potentially
a
new
funding
mechanism
that
the
Dow
can
take
advantage
of
to
address
some
of
the
shortcomings
of
the
core
unit
framework
and
to
more
better,
align
and
support
the
transition
of
the
Dow
to
end
game
ready
State.
If
we
could
hop
to
the
next
slide,
a
quick
tldr
touching
on
the
high
points
for
everybody.
E
This
again
is
just
introducing
the
foundation
or
the
preliminary
mips
for
work
based
or
project-based
funding
that
we
presented
on
back
in
August
I.
Think
there's
no
Force
changes
for
any
core
units.
It's
just
making
more
tools
available
both
for
governance
and
core
units
if
they
would
elect
to
use
those
operational
improvements
and
then
again,
this
is
ideally
the
foundation
for
laying
potentially
a
framework
or
other
tools
that
these
moves
can
evolve
into
alongside
and
in
into
end
game.
E
If
we
jump
to
the
next
slide,
then
I
think
it's
fair
to
note
that
three
months
were
introduced
in
total
during
the
the
last
RFC
cycle
to
touch
briefly
on
MIP
96,
which
isn't
the
focus
of
this
call.
That
MIP
is
intended
to
formalize
the
auditor
framework
that
SES
has
been
developing
and
operating
the
intent
behind.
E
That
is
in
response
to
the
CES
interim
situation,
to
again
just
give
governance
a
tool
and
have
some
confidence
around
if
something
is
audited
within
the
Dow
that
that
term
carries
some
weight.
But
the
majority
of
today's
conversation,
which
we're
looking
for
feedback
on
before
the
RFC
deadline
before
February
1st,
is
the
two
mips,
the
DLo
framework
and
the
work
proposal,
and
the
best
way
to
introduce
everyone
to
these
Concepts
is
the
the
mip97
DLo
down
level
objective
proposal.
E
E
This
then
gives
the
tool
to
develop
something
similar
to
like
a
functional
specification
document
or
like
a
project
request
that
at
the
MIP
98
work
proposal
would
then
respond
and
answer
to
enabling
that
funding
or
the
expansion
of
a
team
or
Direct
Delivery
of
value
based
on
the
work,
that's
defined
so
jump
into
the
next
slide,
just
to
recap,
some
of
the
goals
and
to
formally
introduce
these
Concepts
one
more
slide.
Please
calling
back
again
to
that
August
post
that
got
some
good
Buzz
regarding
project-based
funding.
E
E
So
if
we
hop
over
to
the
next
slide,
we'll
start
diving
into
deals
a
little
bit.
Dlo
again
is
this
concept
of
defining
a
project
or
work.
It
requires
explicit
outcomes
versus
implicit
or
something
related
to
a
mandate
that
isn't
necessarily,
as
concrete
say,
a
business
plan
or
a
project
plan
and
again
it's
this
Dynamic
framework
that
can
support
your
routine
operations.
Your
opportunities
for
Innovation
time-sensitive
operations
as
well.
E
That's
been
a
tricky
part
to
try
to
develop
that
we'll
touch
on
a
little
bit
later
in
the
prepared
material,
but
then
also
talk
about
the
concept
of
skill
based
operations,
where
you
know
the
Dow
potentially
needs
these
experts
to
come
in
to
support
framework
development
or
some
other
complex
operations.
This
now
gives
the
Dao
some
tool
to
then
request
specific
skills
and
expertise
for
specific
work
and
then
again,
the
overall
intent
is
to
create
more
or
like
signaling
mechanisms.
E
E
E
Like
some
of
the
real
world
asset
work,
that's
been
going
on
the
reporting
requirements
tied
to
Milestones
and
deliveries
can
be
more
passive
versus
more
engaging
and
that
again
can
be
done
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
underneath
the
current
Frameworks
that
are
being
proposed,
and
then,
lastly,
again
this
resets,
the
Dows
and
governance's
relationship
to
the
work
and
not
necessarily
to
bespoke
individuals
or
contributors
or
teams
hopping
over
to
the
next
slide.
Then
we'll
start
to
merge
the
two
concepts
together.
E
So,
on
the
left
hand,
side
is
a
light
description
of
the
process
of
getting
a
DLo
suggested
and
approved
and
then,
on
the
right
hand,
side.
It's
focused
on
the
work
proposal
that
follows.
First,
a
DLo
is
proposed.
The
example
that
will
detail
on
later
in
the
slide
is
the
concept
of
enabling
funding
and
direction
for
core
units
to
form
ecosystem
actors
that
could
be
defined
as
a
single
DLo,
which
has
multiple
deliverables,
that
any
core
unit
or
team
that
submits
a
work
proposal
against
to
receive
funding
would
be
expected
to
perform.
So
immediately.
E
The
Glo
is
discussed
as
the
overall
objective
that
the
Dow
is
trying
to
promote
from
there
once
the
overall
objective
is
agreed
upon
and
voted
and
accepted.
It
clearly
defines
the
path
forward
of
if
you
receive
funding.
This
is
the
work
that's
expected
to
come
from
that
any
other
important
expectations,
as
well
as
flexibility
within
the
specific
objective.
Can
also
be
listed.
E
One
example
of
this
could
say
the
clo
you
know
has
a
close
scope
of
Milestones
like
we
only
want
these
four
delivered,
but
then
an
alternative
ELO
could
encourage
additional
Milestones
to
be
proposed
or
potentially
even
detail
out,
like
the
intent
of
using
either
available
funding
or
continuing
the
project
with
another
DLo
in
the
future.
But
once
all
that's
agreed
upon
and
voted
through,
the
doo
is
then
considered
active
and
opportunities
to
contribute
or
work
on
it
that
are
now
open.
E
E
The
DLo
could
Define
that
this
is
available
to
all
core
units,
so
17
teams
or
could
restrict
it
to
try
to
create
some
urgency
to
say,
like
the
first
10
are
guaranteed
funding.
Again,
it's
just
focusing
on
that
that
platform
concept
and
the
flexibility
to
to
not
make
every
project
into
a
lengthy
contract
negotiation
and
then
something
typical
of
the
traditional
world,
but
at
least
start
giving
the
tools
to
governance
then
right
size,
those
opportunities
so
to
quickly
run
through
the
right
side.
Then
the
the
work
proposal
is
submitted.
E
The
team's
ability
to
deliver
is
exports
separately
from
the
Dows
work,
that's
being
defined.
This
would
be
the
appropriate
time
to
look
at
a
team
if,
if
that's
applicable,
for
this
specific
DLo
funding,
reporting
and
Cadence
expectations
are
then
defined
within
the
doo
for
the
specific
objective
and
then
the
work
proposal
is
accepted
and
the
work
basically
begins
messages
in
chat.
E
So
Frank
asks:
are
there
any
guidelines
for
subdivs
in
order
to
identify
the
important
characteristics
of
a
work
proposal
and
how
of
our
objectives
chosen,
so
any
guidelines
for
sub-dos
to
identify
the
important
characteristics.
The
expectation
here
is
that
would
be
a
specific
section
within
the
work
proposal
that
says
this
is
going
to
be
our
approach
overall
to
delivering
the
project.
Some
teams
may
prefer
to
be
more
black
box,
and
maybe
they
have
their
reputation
that
can
carry
it
and
the
Dow's
comfortable
with
that.
E
E
There
could
be
a
DLo
to
draft
a
deal
which
I
think
is
getting
a
little
repetitious
and
and
governance
should
have
the
tools
available
to
do
some
of
that.
Preliminary
research
on
the
the
front
end,
but
I
I,
would
say
the
the
situation
where
an
overall
objective
is
approved
by
a
work
proposals,
preliminary
submission
of
how
the
work
is
going
to
get
done
by
unearthing.
E
Some
of
those
competitive
advantages
that
a
team
would
bring
I
think
that
does
touch
on
another
important
point
where
we
don't
want
to
get
to.
What's
the
word
I'm
looking
for
like
too
open
where
people's
like
trade
secrets
are
being
exposed,
but
it
it
it
it's
similar
to
that
sales
process.
Then,
where
it's
saying
you
know
we're
going
to
follow
these
steps.
This
is
how
our
team
operates.
This
is
what
we're
comfortable
sharing
and
if
there
does
need
to
be
nitty-gritty
discussions.
E
E
That
right
now
is
basically
something
similar
to
like,
say.
A
MIP
40
process
like
multiple
mid
40s
can
go
up
in
a
cycle.
How
we
choose
funding
for
those
is,
is
governance,
discussions
and
kind
of
lives
in
the
black
box
of
of
of
how
that
happens.
Right
now,
there
could
be
more
mature
mechanisms
to
your
point,
trying
to
relate
it
to
scope.
Frameworks
I
could
Envision
a
future
where
each
scope
framework
has
an
article.
An
article
two
is
more
about
the
routine
maintenance
functions
that
need
to
occur.
E
Article
2
could
have
a
permanent
DLo,
that's
associated
with
it,
to
support
the
concept
of
you
know:
spending
80
percent
of
the
Dow's
operational
Budget
on
primary
Scopes
and
20
on
support
Scopes.
That's
one
opportunity
to
start
laying
that
in
and
then
how
the
work
is
assigned
to
the
workforce
is
then
separate
to
how
the
Dow
wants
to
fund
and
and
grow
strategically
happy
to
answer
any
follow-up
questions
there
Frank.
If
that
isn't
clear,
yeah.
F
No,
it
is
I
mean
I,
was
kind
of
trying
to
get
an
idea
of.
How
do
you
you
know
kind
of
test?
How
do
you
get
the
validity
of
an
objective?
How
is
it
tested
the
validity
of
so
if,
if
a
DLo
is
proposed
right,
how
does
this
up
down
kind
of
validate
that
the
object
objective
fits
the
the
scope
framework
of
that's
about?
But
maybe
you
don't
have
an
answer
right
now
for
that
which
is
fine.
E
May
default
to
Payton
for
a
more
academic
answer,
but
I
would
see.
I
would
see
the
opportunity
for
that
to
happen.
If
that's
the
direction
we're
going
again,
it's
designed
to
be
this
Dynamic
framework,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
realistically
see
that
happening.
I
guess
I
see
decorations
of
intent.
You
know
evolving
into
those
Frameworks
and
then
that's
what's
getting
the
the
funding
more
closely
tied
to
it.
At
this
point,.
A
Yeah,
like
there's
potentially
an
advantage
to
still
being
able
to
pass
a
declaration
of
attempts.
That
is
a
dial
level
objective
right,
like
maybe
there's
something
that
you
as
a
dad
want
to
showcase
that
you
intend
to
do
without
attaching,
like
all
these
rigorous
stuff
expectations
and
rules
to
it
right.
A
So
you
could
have
a
reason
for
Provost
to
coexist,
but
I
think
in
a
lot
of
ways
like
this
is
kind
of
what
people
wished.
Our
Declaration
of
intents
were,
which
was
like
more
explicit
of
like
hey.
You
know
we're
not
just
intending
to
do
this,
we're
saying
hey
if
a
project
comes
along
that
fulfills,
X,
Y
and
Z,
here's
what
we're
gonna
do
for
it,
yeah
so
I
think
they're
slightly
different,
potentially,
but
but
our
angle
towards
the
same
thing,
foreign.
E
The
overall
concept
that
I
was
trying
to
flesh
out
with
this
is:
how
do
we
make
something
a
little
bit
more
Dynamic
than
a
bit
40?
Basically,
how
do
we
make
it?
Have
these
governance
checkpoints,
but
then
also
not
make
it
too
bureaucratic
too
much
overhead
for
governance
allowed
to
have
some
agility
to
respond
to
situations
that
do
require
some
more
project-based
work.
What
was
basically
come
up
proposed
right
now
and
the
the
mips
is
dlos
are
proposed
and
approved
basically
on
a
one-month
cycle.
E
E
E
The
strategy
again
with
that
is
there
may
be
more
Innovative
or
moonshot
type
work
that
the
Dow
was
to
see
done,
but
maybe
the
workforce
isn't
well
suited
for
it.
Maybe
it's
not
a
high
priority.
Maybe
the
environment
doesn't
require
immediate
action,
but
it's
this
golden
opportunity.
That's
always
sitting
out
there.
This
again
is
just
a
tool
to
say
you
know
we
want
to
fund
this.
We
want
somebody
to
work
on
this.
This
is
a
priority
for
us
of
the
direction
we
want
to
go
work.
E
E
That's
the
primary
focus
of
the
tool
today
and
then,
as
we
see,
volumes,
increase
and
potentially
more
desires,
so
push
more
funding
through
this
mechanism
we
can
support
support
it
with
the
appropriate
Workforce
teams.
The
other
thing
to
call
out
from
the
slide,
though,
is
that
strategy
isn't
necessarily
in
scope
for
what
we're
talking
about
here.
It's
more
of
that
black
box
of
governance.
If
you
will,
this
is
really
a
focus
on
addressing
the
black
box
of
the
workforce
and
then
again
our
thinking
is
the
the
Frameworks
and
Scopes
and
end
game
plan.
E
Hop
into
the
next
slide,
this
is
again
just
like
a
quick
DLo
proposal
that
I
worked
up.
The
the
concept
here
would
be
getting
core
units,
a
pathway
to
become
ecosystem
actors.
The
deal
load
defines
four
deliverables
pretty
lightly
defined,
but
just
some
examples
would
be.
You
know,
writing
a
business
plan
producing
that
as
a
PDF
document
and
then
posting
it
to
the
Forum
that
that's
the
the
end
to
end
expectations
of
this
deliverable,
the
quality
and
sections
of
it
aren't
necessarily
defined.
E
If
the
Dow
wanted
to
see
more
detailed
and
consistency
in
the
business
plan,
this
would
be
the
opportunity
to
do
that
for
all
the
ecosystem
actors
or
it
could
be
defined
at
a
little
bit
more
higher
level,
to
see
what
sort
of
results
we
get
or
allow
a
little
bit
more
experimentation
there.
The
second
deliverable
would
be
confirming
the
legal
entity
is
set
up.
The
third
one
would
be
enabling
some
branding
and
marketing
and
defining
what
that
means
a
little
bit
better
like
developing
a
logo
and
having
a
Twitter.
E
There
could
also
be
optional
components
of
a
deliverable
so,
for
example,
in
marketing
it's
it's
optional,
to
submit
two
months
of
AD
campaign
data,
a
part
of
that
DLo,
the
thinking
there
being.
If
you're
requesting
a
marketing
budget.
You
don't
show
that
then
there's
a
way
to
highlight.
You
know
this.
E
C
E
It
available
or
not,
and
then
the
lower
part
of
the
parameters
talks
about
some
of
those
other
parameters
that
were
discussed.
So
the
clo
says
that
there's
only
17
work
proposals
that
could
be
accepted
against
the
steel
low
for
the
17
core
units.
It's
also
restricting
the
workforce
team
to
be
affiliated
with
the
Dow
currently
is
either
according
to
contributor
or
mandated
actor.
E
The
expiry
of
the
DLo
itself
is
four
months,
so
that's
saying
that
four
months
from
the
doo
being
accepted
the
the
window
for
work
proposals
to
be
accepted
or
apply
against
it
closes
and
that's
again
separate
from
the
the
delivery
timeline.
And
then
this
also
defines
the
overall
DLo
cap
is
2
million.
If
we
do
the
2
million
budget
cap
for
this
overall
objective,
divided
by
the
available
slots,
that's
roughly
I
think
like
112
000
per
team
that
could
be
made
available.
E
But
again,
if
a
team
wants
to
come
in
and
say
we
need,
you
know,
half
a
million
dollars
for
startup
the
the
the
Dow
could
potentially
provide
that.
That
would
then
restrict
the
budget
for
other
teams
to
apply
potentially
triggering
another
do
to
be
created
to
create
more
funding
if
it's
all
used
up,
but
it
goes
back
to
that
concept
of.
Do
we
want
a
couple
teams
working
on
a
project?
Do
we
want
one
team
working
on
a
project?
E
If
there's
more
transparency
required
by
the
Dow
up
front,
that
should
be
defined
in
the
the
DLo.
If
there's
less,
then
this
makes
it
a
competition
point
for
the
workforce
teams
to
to
Showcase
their
skills
to
the
Dow
and
then
in
the
Milestone
overview.
It's
a
simple
confirmation
that
the
deliverable
and
Publishing
requirements
are
acknowledged
and
will
be
facilitated
if
there's
any
issues
or
bespoke
negotiations
that
want
to
be
had.
E
This
would
be
an
opportunity
to
do
that
and
then
there's
also
a
section
to
call
out
any
challenges
that
may
pop
up
again.
The
thinking
here
being
an
arbitration
really
needs
to
be
defined.
I
think
a
lot
for
this
too.
That's
that's
another
like
shortcoming
of
this,
but
if
you
look
at
what
we
have
today,
there
isn't
a
ton
in
place.
So
was
it
too
concerned
with
that?
E
This
would
be
the
opportunity
for
the
workforce
to
volunteer
that
information
or
the
doo
could
requirement,
require
it
and
then
again
the
budget,
implementation,
logic
and
potential
distribution
schedule.
The
thinking
there
being
maybe
a
team
says
you
know
only
give
us
20
up
front
and
then
give
us
80
on
acceptance
to
get
their
foot
in
the
door
to
prove
their
worth.
It
reduces
the
risk
to
the
down
governance,
to
take
a
chance
on
an
unknown
team,
but
then
also
control
the
those
funds
a
little
bit
more
so
yeah.
E
Definitely
a
lot
to
unpack
about
the
end
of
the
finished
material
that
I've
prepared,
but
if
you
want
to
hop
to
one
more
slide,
this
hopefully
Paints
the
illustrative
example
of
dlos
being
stacked
and
shown
of
available
work.
What
teams
are
working
on
that
work?
How
the
budgeting
is
associated
to
it
when
we
can
potentially
expect
the
different
deliverables
for
that
work
and
and
just
unlock
I?
Think
some
of
the
insights
that
make
governance
fun
again.
E
F
A
F
F
I
guess
like
the
the
the
thing
that
I'm
having
a
little
bit
in
that,
because
that
was
a
lot-
that's
great
work,
they're
retro
that
you
did
but
I
guess
the.
How?
How
do
you
avoid
some
of
these
I
guess?
How
do
you
avoid
a
sub-dow
or
sub-dials
of
the
future
like
becoming
proposing
the
same
dlos
right
over
time
where
it
just
becomes
stale,
it's
kind
of
a
canonical
approach?
F
E
Definitely
so
similar
to
how
you
see
mid-40s
evolve,
as
objectives
are
accomplished
from
the
prior
year
and
there's
a
different
trajectory
moving
forward,
the
the
MIP
40,
those
is
being
proposed
by
a
team
that
had
it
last
year
to
renew
their
budgeting,
this
again
flips
the
script,
so
it's
work
based
so
as
work
gets
accomplished,
the
the
opportunity
for
that
Doo
to
be
resubmitted
isn't
available.
If
there's
more
of
a
routine
function,
that
would
be
different.
But
again
a
lot
of
that
refinement.
E
A
D
You
know
defining
what
we
do
and
who
we
are
and
how
we
operate
in
a
kind
of
very
subjective
way,
and
this
structure
is
beginning
to
transform
the
organization
into
kind
of
the
way
I
imagined
you
know.
Ford
was
creating
this
assembly
line
concept
of
how
to
build
a
car
that
that
sort
of
perfects,
the
end
product
and
so
I
feel
this
is
a
mechanism.
D
D
You
know
this
is
the
beginning
of
that
and
I
I
really
also
think
that
the
separation,
conceptually
of
like
the
work
from
producing
the
work,
is
very,
is
very
powerful
and
that
some
things
do
make
sense
to
have.
Maybe
multiple
teams
attacking
it
and
doing
it
at
the
same
time,
and
then
other
things
need
to
have
more
focused.
You
know,
effort
and
Leadership
and
maybe
more
exclusive
domain,
and
so
I
see
this
as
being.
E
I
think
the
a
lot
of
the
intention
put
into
this
the
high
points
that
you're,
hitting
on
and
like
I,
said
we're
just
a
highlight
again
we're
introducing
this
as
an
option
for
both
governance
and
and
team
CEUs.
So
we
can
evolve
this
to
what
it
can
be
and
needs
to
be
for
the
valve
as
quick
as
possible
and
then
start
tightening
down
some
of
the
structures,
because
you're
absolutely
right,
as
as
endgame
accomplishes
its
goal
of
ossifying
the
system.
E
What
are
CVC
is
going
to
be
talking
about
in
their
quarterly
meetings.
I
I
definitely
see
a
pivot
from
framework
improvements
to
operations
happening
more
on
the
like
10-year
Horizon,
to
like
Frank's
point:
how
do
we
get
there?
What
tools
do
we
need
and
ultimately,
what
improvements
can
be
made
in
the
short
term
to
help
navigate?
You
know
the
transition
as
well
appreciate
the
feedback.
A
Yeah
I
know
one
thing
that
got
me
kind
of
excited
about
thinking
about
these
was
just
in
game.
We
have
this
very
clear
kind
of
division
of
work
right
where
the
Scopes
are
saying,
here's
what
needs
to
be
done,
and
you
know
the
the
subnet
has
the
ecosystem
actors
are
saying
of
okay,
that's
something
we
can
do
and
then
that's
kind
of
how
it's
coming
together,
which
is
very
different
from
today's
Dao,
where
we
we
basically
package
a
team
to
say,
hey,
here's
all
the
stuff.
A
Our
team
wants
to
work
on
we're
a
really
qualified
team
like
give
us
some
money,
take
a
chance
on
us.
Let's,
let's
see
what
we
can
produce
for
the
town,
I
very
much
see.
Dealers
is
kind
of
that
like
bringing
that
division
of
in-game
to
to
pregame
right.
Where
now
we
have
the
actual
objectives
that
we're
defining,
saying:
hey,
here's,
here's
what
we
need
and
here's
how
it
has
to
be
scoped
out
versus
the
actual
people
willing
to
to
take
a
piece
of
that
so
yeah.
A
A
C
E
Half
kidding
when
I
responded
by
saying
it's
for
more
acronyms
but
I
would
say:
Nadia
is
hitting
it
a
little
bit
closer
on
the
head.
Rfps
are
you
know
really
just
that,
like
Soul
funding
mechanism,
Workforce
coordination,
not
including
a
lot
of
the
strategy-
and
we
wanted
this
to
be
a
little
bit
more
inclusive-
to
be
this
tool
that
the
Dow
can
use
for
both
internal
management
as
well
as
external
management,
so
that
branding
helps
sell
the
name
at
all
that
that
was
some
of
the
intent.
A
All
right
cool,
so
we
talked
about
one
side
of
this
framework
right,
so
someone
besides
retro.
Do
you
think
you
could
tell
us
what
what
the
other
side
is?
The
actual
work
and
project-based
side
of
the
proposal
I
think
we
could
get
a
description
of
that
in
your
own
words
and
how
it
differs
from
from
the
DLo.
A
It's
like
the
clear
distinction,
at
least
in
my
head
is
like
the
dll
is,
is
what
the
work
is
going
to
be
in
the
workforce
proposals
like
who's
going
to
do
it
right.
So
that's
a
very
clear
division
of
like
one
is
that
I
was
saying
you
know
in
the
abstract.
This
is
the
work
we
wouldn't
have
done,
whereas
the
other
is
saying
hey,
we
read
your
proposal,
we
see
it
and
here's
how
the
work
we
want
to
do
fulfills
it
so
kind
of
like
a
a
con
response.
A
E
Your
summary
is
correct,
but
I
would
also
open
up
the
floor
for
any
feedback
both
from
the
workforce
or
the
delegate
governance
perspective.
Any
fears
or
concerns
that
we
could
address
in
the
coming
days
before
RFC
also
wanted
to
give
a
quick
shout
out
to
how
do
people
that
have
provided
feedback
and
apologize
for
not
being
super
on
top
of
incorporating
that
that's
exercise
I
have
planned
for
this
weekend,
but
yeah.
E
Just
thank
you
to
the
community
for
all
the
attention
this
has
been
getting
but
yeah
any
any
from
the
contributor
perspective.
A
facilitator
perspective
seems
like
more
overhead.
Do
you
see
the
advantages?
Governance
like?
Is
this
a
tool
that
you
guys
will
actually
use
any
any
sort
of
that
feedback
would
also
be
very
valuable
in
the
next
couple
days.
A
E
The
I
would
say
the
intent's
a
little
bit
higher
level
than
that.
So
it
would
be
more
of
getting
the
delegates
and
consensus
to
to
use
this
as
a
tool
to
lead
the
doubt
but
I,
don't
I
I
do
estimator
or
forecast
potentially
like
individual
contributors
that
are
struggling
to
navigate
endgame,
come
in
and
saying,
okay,
I!
Do
this
one
task
very
well:
I'd
love
some
funding
for
it.
This
is
what
I
deliver.
E
It
really
unlocks
the
decentralized
aspect,
then
of
getting
some
individuals
in
to
the
Dow
that
again
introduces
more
overhead.
So
it's
this
bouncing
Act
of
building
the
operational
infrastructure
to
support
the
volume
we're
seeing
but
again
from
my
current
estimates,
it's
more
of
replacing
the
current
workload
with
something
similar
and
maybe
even
a
little
bit
more
lightweight,
based
on
how
it's
structured
and
then
moving
on
to
the
iterative
improvements
from
there.
A
E
Yeah,
so
that
that
was
just
specifically
for
that
dolo,
so
I
would
say
the
intent
behind
budget
caps
right
now
is
to
basically
help
us
March
down
that
path
of
the
question
that
was
asked
back
in
August,
which
is
how
much
are
we
investing
in
the
protocol
and
the
product?
And
how
much
are
we
investing
in
the
Dow
and
the
management
of
the
product?
E
E
If
we
introduce
these
next
ones
in
RFC
that
could
bump
it
up
to
to
50
or
hey.
We
do
need
to
reduce
the
budget.
What
work
functions
now
are
we
looking
to
cut
and
how
can
we
realign
the
the
team's
degree
value
if
that
is
a
concern,
so
on
and
so
forth?
So,
overall,
not
I,
don't
think
I
have
a
suggested
one,
but
again
it's
creating
that
non-semi
binding
tool.
E
Almost
it's
not
100
binding
in
terms
of
like
being
fixed
for
the
year,
but
it's
just
creating
that
platform
then
to
to
say:
oh,
you
know
outside
of
core
unit
budgets,
which
has
a
lot
of
padding
and
and
contingency
buffers
and
returns.
This
is
a
way
to
start
honing
in
on
a
budget
for
the
strategy,
and
then
we
can
see
how
that
is
implemented
through
operations
and
delivery
against
the
objectives.
A
Like
I
might
have
misinterpreted
the
question
a
little
bit
as
well,
Richard
I
added
a
dollar
figure
in
there,
where
Tim
was
more
directly
wondering
like
just
in
terms
of
the
objectives
like
are.
Is
it
now
going
to
be
able
to
add
unlimited
dlos,
or
is
there
some
sort
of
way
to
keep
that
from
getting
to
to
uploaded.
E
I
I
think
it's
kind
of
like
the
board
of
directors
at
Google.
You
know
the
they
have
a
big
budget.
They
can
fund
some
moonshots.
They
can
probably
get
more
creative
by
going
into
debt,
so
they
could
have
quote
unquote.
No
limited
budget,
but
for
us
I
would
see
it
more
as
a
discipline
of
saying
what
do
we
want
to
get
done,
how
much
we're
already
committing
to?
How
can
some
of
those
levers
be
moved
if
that
makes
sense?
G
Me
yeah,
it
was
just
a
suggestion.
Maybe
I
mean
it's
exciting
to
use
new
Frameworks,
especially
ones
that
make
things
so
explicit,
but
the
worry
is
just
okay.
Cool
dlos
are
a
tool
now
there's
50
of
them,
which
is
just
the
same
problem
in
a
different
framework.
So
maybe
it's
just
like
a
cultural
standard
that
we
are
a
little
bit
more
clear
when
we're
evaluating
these
to
say
that
we
really
want
the
first
few
of
these
to
be
setting
the
example
so
that
when
they
are
utilized
as
this
tool,
they're
serving
their
purpose,
foreign.
E
I'm
sandboxing
the
idea
of
like
the
the
expiries
and
and
right
now
like
they
all,
must
have
an
expiration
and
I'd
say
it's
more
on
the
other
end
of
like
how
long
could
that
expiration
be
so,
instead
of
like
having
a
default
of
just
like
a
year
arbitrarily
like
how?
How
Dynamic
is
the
work
within
the
Dow
and
I
would
say
it's
more
yeah,
probably
picking
a
year
I
think
authors
will
default
to
a
shorter
time
frame,
because
that
in
theory
was
for
Action
sooner
but
yeah.
E
A
E
The
combination
of
what's
been
observed
in
the
Dao
and
and
some
of
the
traditional
like
border
director
tools-
maybe
that
would
be
available
but
yeah,
it's
lipstick
on
a
pig,
it's
rfps,
you
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
to
learn
from
the
traditional
world,
but
I
think
the
real
value
of
this
is
is
trying
to
tap
into
more
of
the
software
architecture,
advantages
that
are
available
and
design
it
closer
to
a
platform.
So
it's
kind
of
taking
some
lessons
learned
from
software
and
like
government
rfps,
basically.
A
A
G
F
Yeah
actually
I
didn't
think
about
that
spinning
up
another
BBC
or
DVC,
not
sure.
What's
what's
the
right
acronym
anymore
yeah,
you
know,
I
wrote
back
there
in
the
chat
that
I
was
under
the
impression
that
delegates,
favorite
or
chosen
CBC
or
DVC
would
be
the
one
that
would
put
together
a
DLo
that
an
individual
platform
but
I
could
be
wrong.
Maybe
I'm
misinterpreting
the
end
game
Constitution
or
that's
going
to
be
in
the
Constitution
I'm,
not
sure,
but
I
would
think
that
it
would
be.
F
A
I
guess
I
might
just
cut
in
there
and
say
that,
like
obviously
in
the
fully
fledged
in-game
plan,
right,
like
a
delegate,
is
playing
a
very
separate
role
from
a
DVC.
So,
while
I'd
agree
with
your
interpretation
right
that
and
once
once
in
games
in
full
swing
like
this,
this
would
be
much
more
appropriate
for
like
a
DVC
than
a
delegate.
A
A
Obviously
some
delegates
disagree
with
that,
and
some
other
voters
would
disagree
with
that
as
well,
but
the
point
being
that
it's
much
less
defined
so
right
now
during
this
transition
period,
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
for
delegates
to
be
looking
at
this
and
then
thinking
okay.
Well,
where
am
I
trying
to
position
myself
for
in-game?
Is
this
something
I
you
know
I
can
use
to
to
spit
out
to
to
a
new
field
or
or
what
have
you
like?
A
Do
you
not
best
job
on
that
and
and
they
don't
have
edits
right,
we're
not
inserting
music
or
Cuts,
or
you
know
any
of
the
kind
of
branding
that
that
had
been
done
before
us,
because
we
are
just
kind
of
inheriting
this,
the
student
right,
but
if
I
had
a
yellow
right,
if
I
could
say
hey
the
Dow
cares
about.
You
know
having
high
quality
recorded
content,
then
maybe
we
get
some
funding.
A
Likewise,
you
you
could
do
it
strategy,
based
where
you
say,
hey
growth,
Ending
game
is
really
important.
So
we've
got
this
like
really
big
damage.
I
can
remember
it's
like
opposite
of
August
stance
that
we
want
to
build.
So
here's
a
DLo
for
all
the
different
ways
you
can
get
funding
to
expand
metrics
right,
so
it
really
depends
on
on
kind
of
the
motivation
of
the
people,
putting
it
up
for
vote
and
what
they
want
to
accomplish.
A
C
A
E
A
A
All
right
looks
like
people
have
had
enough
time
to
drop
any
less
lots
of
questions,
not
seeing
any
so
I
think
I'll
take
us
to
our
wind
down
really
great
call
today.
Folks,
thanks
for
so
much
for
participation
on
this
new
idea
from
retro.
Obviously
well
I'll
have
more
discuss.
Look
forward
to
those
know.
Your
book
calls
coming
up
on
them.
A
One
last
reminder
that
if
you
have
proposals
in
RFC
you're
looking
to
submit
for
the
February
cycle,
please
do
make
sure
you
get
those
edits
in
by
end
of
day
on
Wednesday,
so
they
can
be
eligible.
Likewise,
if
you
have
something
you
would
like
to
see
voted
on
in
the
March
cycle,
so
the
not
the
upcoming
cycle,
but
the
one
after
that
it
does
need
to
be
an
RFC
by
February
8th,
which
is
a
week
from
Wednesday.