►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 22
Description
In this Governance and Risk meeting Steven Becker, President & COO of MakerDAO, was joined by special guests Rune Christensen. We spoke about the recent successful vote to change the Stability Fee.
Meeting Minutes: https://github.com/scottrepreneur/mak...
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
B
Okay,
so
here
we
are
again
so
I'll
start
off
with
them.
What
I
was
just
mentioning
I
think.
The
first
thing
we
need
to
have
a
look
at
is
the
the
increasing
the
stability
fee.
That's
passed
and
I
think
also
acknowledge
the
fact
that
rich
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
or
any
well
anyone
else
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
this
is
the
the
most
votes
that
we've
had
so
far
was
something
in
in
the
region
of
98
thousand
and.
B
Really
is,
and
I
really
kudos
to
everyone.
Thank
you
very
much
for
participating.
You
know
it's
starting
to
feel
like
it's
getting
the
momentum
it
needs.
I
know
that
there
are
folks
out
there
that
are
still
trying
to
get
their
custodianship
in
line
and
they're
trying
to
get
their
their
regulatory
perspective
in
line
and
and
once
they've
got
that
we
should
see
even
more
coming
to
the
the
governance
portal
very
soon.
So
on
that
basis
we
passed
the
stability
fee
and
we've
only
had
a
couple
of
days
of
data.
B
C
C
B
There's
anything
that
anyone
wants
to
bring
to
the
fore,
because
what
we've
seen
isn't
really
enough
evidence
to
actually
tell
us
anything,
conclusive,
yet
I
think.
Maybe
we
need
a
couple.
You
know
obviously
a
little
bit
more
time
to
see
how
this
sort
of
plays
out
and
we
can
come
back
to,
but
we
what
we
understand
and
put
forward
further
suggestions,
but
I
thought
this
would
be
an
opportunity
that
to
give
anyone
on
the
call
who
wishes
to
put
forward
any
metric
or
any
instant
change
that
they've
seen
to
to
maybe
acknowledge
it.
C
C
You
know
how,
like
it's
just
so
obvious
that
we
should
never
ever
see
like
us,
DC
on
assert
die,
sell
orders
below
$1
right,
like
sitting
as
a
sort
of
limit
orders,
which
look
maybe
see
that
people
are
willing
to
to
sort
of
in
market
makers,
actually
selling
type
a
little
$1
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
like
the
fact
that
that
that
display
that
imbalance
there,
so
it
just
really
looks
like
the
ice-
is
barely
below
$1.
D
Yeah
I'm,
you
know,
I
haven't
like
looked
super
closely,
but
something
that
I
thought
was
really
interesting.
A
few
days
ago
was
USD
see
in
real-time
trading
significantly
above
a
dollar
like
it
was
like
one
dollar
and
one
cent,
and
then
one
dollar
one.
You
know
one
one
dollar
and
one
point
five
cents,
and
it
seems
like
as
of
right
now
that
is
like
the
gold
standard
in
unstable
coins.
D
Right
now,
just
in
terms
of
what
liquidity
providers
are
interested
in
making
markets
on
you,
I
mean
you
can
probably
see
it
right
now,
like
in
on
coin
based
on,
like
eath
to
u.s.,
DC
and
and
Bitcoin
to
u.s.
DC,
you
probably
get
more
bang
for
your
buck
using
fiat
right
now
than
you
do
with
us
DC,
and
that's
just
really
interesting,
like
data
point
that
everyone
can
look
at
right
now
and
say:
what
are
they
doing
right
and
how
do
we
help
you
get
to
that
point?
You
know.
That's.
A
C
1
to
1,
but
that's
why
I
like
I
mean
that's.
Why
I
think
that
I
used
to
see
employment
right
I
mean
that
could
really
just
be
taking
this
like
your?
If,
if
theis,
probably
priced
here
or
whatever,
if
there's
good
McQueen
here,
you
will
always
be
able
to
staple
there,
you
can
hopper
trash
from
there
to
anywhere
else.
We
used
to
be
like
yeah.
C
That's
not
I
mean
it's
really
a
matter
of
the
total
like
aggregate
supply
and
demand
right,
I
mean
if
we
increase
like
I
mean
if
we
just
check
out
the
stability
we
now
don't
worry,
we'll
hit
a
point
where
so
I
becomes
overpriced,
but
but
yeah
the
question
it
like
I
mean
anyway,
so
definitely
I.
Think
everyone
there's
probably
no
one
who
doesn't
agree
that
it
still
looks
out
of
price
and
I
think
we
should
not
sort
of
be
like.
C
Let's
push
for
another
vote,
you
know
tomorrow
or
something
that
would
be
just
like
a
bad
precedent
right,
but
I
think
like
I,
think.
Definitely
we
like
this
just
a
strong
argument
for
making
sure
that
we
keep
we
keep
going
until
we
start
sort
of
feeling
out.
Where
is
this
equilibrium
point
right,
because
it
could
actually
be
that,
maybe
maybe
you
know
like
even
another
half
a
percent
increase
will
still
not
achieve
anything
and
we
would
actually
be
doing
a
lot
of
increases
over
the
next
problem.
C
B
Which
is
an
absolutely
fair
point
and,
to
the
extent
that
we
understand
what
that
exchange
rate
that
we
wish
to,
you
know
use
as
a
policy
instrument.
That's
also
something
I
would
like
to
get
more
clarity
on,
because
there's
there's
some
very
good
points
made
about
us
DC,
and
it's
also
no
really
good
points
made
about
looking
at
the
implied
dollar
exchange
rate
using
you
know,
for
instance,
if
to
die
versus
eat
the
u.s.
B
DC,
but
the
unlined
assumption
what
Chris
has
pointed
out
is
that
you
know
US
DC
should
be
sitting
at
one
flat,
but
it
doesn't
so
there's
that
premium
element
that
we
need
to
consider
as
well.
That
being
said,
it
really
boils
down
to
how
I'm
going
to
look
at
what
we
should
a
grenade
and
use
using
some
sort
of
weighting.
B
A
B
He
created
seminal
work
on
something
called
point
control,
so
you
had
a
time
point
of
control
and
a
boiling
point
of
control,
and
that
is
related
to
be
wet
and
the
thing
with
be
wet
to
start
off
with
is
it
actually
is
a
lagged
metric?
So
you've
got
the
problem
of
overcoming
that
lag
and
seeing
how
representative
it
is
for
a
specific
period.
Now,
that's
all
good
if
you've
got
a
policy
exchange
rate
that
is
commensurate
with
the
time
period
that
you
want
to.
You
know
have
a
that.
You
will
agree
with
as
well.
B
So
if
you
want
to
get
a
30-day
representation,
you
have
a
look
at
a
V
web
over
30
days.
Another
way
you
can
do
it
is
look
at
the
sort
of
volume
point
of
control
where
you
have
a
look
every
day
where
you
have
had
the
majority.
Theoretically,
speaking
of
your
trade
being
done
and
then
average
that
out
as
well,
so
you
come
out
to
more
or
less
the
sort
of
aggregate
points
that
give
you
a
representation
of
what
that
exchange
rate
could
be
anyway.
B
In
this
case
we
can
use
it
for
diet,
but
it
still
leaves
us
at
the
point
of
saying
well,
even
if
we
use
ease
to
die,
which
is
great,
how
much
weighting
should
we
give
to
it,
and
even
if
we
use
V
web,
that's
also
great,
but
how
much
weighting
do
we
give
to
do
we
give
it
the
full
weighting?
Do
we
need
to
combine
it
with
what
we
see
in
wine
base?
Do
we
need
to
combine
it
with
implied
exchanges
that
we
can
figure
out
elsewhere?
B
Now,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
permutations
we
can
use,
but
I,
think
for
us,
so
that
we
don't
get
strayed
by
the
the
view
that
we
see.
But
you
know
in
an
aggregate
view
that
we
can
agree
on
and
I
would
also
say
that
this
is
the
interesting
part
about
this.
Is
that
those
weightings
could
change
move
moving
forward?
B
We
need
to
figure
this
out.
We
need
to
be
able
to
bring
it
together
and
say:
okay.
Well,
this
is
the
part,
see
rate
that
we
should
use
and
when
we
see
it,
we
come
to
these
governance
meetings
and
we
can
start
discussing
the
metrics
around
it
and
I
do
understand
that
this
is
a
bootstrapping
mechanism
and
we
need
to
try
and
figure
out
how
to.
B
You
know
eventually
get
to
the
point
where
we
have
this
management
information,
but
I
do
what
I
would
like
to
press
that
question
to
the
community
and
see
what
we
can
come
up
with,
because
I'm
I've
got
my
own
once
again,
I
put
my
own
perspective.
That
being
the
foundation
has
its
own
perspective,
but
it
is
always
useful
to
get
a
more
sort
of
robust
argument
from
in
a
group
of
folks
as
as
smart
as
we
have
in
the
community,
but.
C
B
You
know
put
a
third
on
what
we
see
on
on
CMC
on
when
market
cap
combine
those
together
and
create
a
policy
instrument,
there's
so
much
room
for
error
in
that
I
completely
understand,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
starting
point
to
say:
well,
we
can
catch
leads
at
the
information
that
we've
seen
and
now
we
just
need
to
adjust
for
adjust
for
some
of
the
waiting's
in
terms
of
how
we
rely
on
on
each
of
these
component
parts.
So
the
first
one
is
an
implied
rates.
B
The
second
one
is
an
actual
one
that
we
sort
of
put
our
flag
in
the
ground
and
say
this
is
what
we
should
be
looking
at
and
then
the
third
one
is
just
trying
to
encapsulate
as
much
information,
because
there's
a
value
in
getting
a
lot
of
information.
That's
what
coin
market
cap
is
done,
but
we
also
know
that
coin
market
cap
has
certain
issues,
so
we
can
adjust
for
that
later.
On.
B
So
we
can
convert
that
into
an
implied
value
that
we
can
benchmark
against.
That
will
be
great,
and
this
is
this-
is
you
know
we're
at
the
point
now
where
we
are?
Let's
be
honest:
we
sort
of
scrounging
for
representation
of
the
value
and
then
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
can
bring
it
together
to
create
a
policy
instruments.
I
mean
we
are
doing
effectively
what
every
major
kind
of.
Let's
put
this
very
federal.
B
Alright,
the
central
bank
struggles
with
how
do
you
get
collective
information
to
come
together
to
represent
the
value
that
you're
seeing
in
a
system?
It's
extraordinarily
complex,
but
it's
it's
helluva
gratifying
if
you've
sort
of
come
to
an
agreement
or
what
it
should
look
like,
and
then
we
move
forward
with
that.
So
rune
asked
me
what
the
the
initial
stab
at
it
could
look
like.
I
put
the
initial
stab
down
I've
already
seen
a
question
about
you
know
from
my
sin:
I
hope,
I
pronounced
that
property
or
Marcin.
C
I
mean
I,
agree,
I
agree.
We
should
serve
it.
I
agree.
We
shouldn't
look
into
us.
Tt
went
with
us,
DT
really
is
finely
manipulated
in
west
rated
and
but
they're
like
I
mean
and
upon
you're,
making
yourself
machine
learning
it's
about.
Looking
at
like
looking
at
what
is
the
real
rate
of
$1.00
to
a
real
dollar
and
USD,
see
I
mean
it's
just
like
it's.
C
The
most
legit
centralized
stable
right
and
on
the
very
side,
I
mean
on
Bass
Pro,
where
right
now,
USD
see,
or
rather
where
it
is
being
sold
in
sort
of
market
making
orders
below
$1.
You
can
just
directly
convert.
You
is
to
see
to
USD
like
it's
just
one
click.
It's
it's
exactly
the
same
thing
like
it's
like
you
know
like
us,
DCM
fanbase
is
like
your
CT
and
bid
for
next
Norway
right.
It's
just
really
point
based
dollars.
C
So
that's
just
why
I
think
I
mean
it's
even
though
it
has
it
barely
any
volume
its
own.
It's
like
the
one,
it's
one
of
those
places
where
we
just
know
that,
if
like,
if
that
one
is
out
of
sync,
it's
very
unlikely
that
things
are
in
sync
elsewhere,
because
people
would
then
be
honest.
Rushing
to
you
really
will
stall.
Oh
one.
G
Thing
to
consider
there
as
well
rune
is
like
I
think
that
pair
has
only
been
up
since
maybe
end
of
December.
The
dye
to
u.s.
DC
pair,
which,
which
would
be
one
that
would
be
great
to
look
at
I,
mean
I,
would
give
that
serious
weight,
especially
as
more
volume
goes
through
that
pair.
But
then
otherwise,
we
may
like
what's
different
here,
that
then
we
don't
have
to
deal
with
what
we're
doing
traditional
view
out
and
trying
to
think
about
prices
and
traditional
ways
where
we
go
out
with
dollars
and
buy
assets.
G
Is
that
very
often
kind
of
going
back
to
what
Chris
said
it's
more
of
a
craft
right,
so
I
can
go
from
dollars
to
BTC
BTC
to
eat,
to
die,
and
then
we
have
to
think
about
what
is
the
highest
cost
path?
What
is
the
lowest
cost
path,
with
the
average
cost
for
among
the
past
and
what
weights
we
should
give
to
each
of
those
cause
them
a
little
bit
of
a
different
exercise.
A
Up
as
well
actually
accelerates
timing,
so
thank
you
for
that.
Alex
there's
a
great
question
in
reddit
that
maybe
I'll
read
it
out
after
the
conversation
dies
out,
but
one
of
the
points
made
was
that
is,
is
die
simply
worth
ninety-eight
cents
according
to
the
market,
due
to
the
risk
inherent
with.
You
know
the
ecosystem,
disabled
coins
and
the
path
it
takes
to
actually
convert
that
into
Fiat
or
convert
that
into
another
currency.
A
C
What
sorry?
This
is
what
someone
also
just
mention
in
the
middle
right-
and
this
is
just
like-
like
they
answer
it,
no
I
mean
we
can
like
it's
a
it's.
The
rate
really
is
a
matter
of
the
stability
for
you
and
sort
of
the
supply
and
demand
of
God
right.
That's
what
sets
the
price
so
like
it's
there's
just
too
many
ATP's,
it's
pretty
much!
C
That's
I
mean
that's,
what's
causing
the
price
to
be
lower,
and
if
we
increase
the
stability,
nothing
it
should
have
an
impact,
but
I
mean
if
that
turns
out
to
not
be
true.
We
better
find
out
sooner
rather
than
later
right,
I
mean
if
we
keep
increasing
instability.
Now
at
the
dark
price
doesn't
go
up.
That
would
be
a
very
strange
situation.
We've
been
so
I,
I
think,
no
matter
what
I
think.
C
E
Remember
also,
then,
we're
not
dealing
with
like
a
fixed
trade
where
you
can
buy
a
million
dollars
worth
of
dye
or
USD,
see
and
there's
no
Commission
I
mean
right
now
with
one
third
of
1%
as
a
taker,
if
you
assume
that
on
both
directions.
Right
so
that's
point
whatever
a
sixth
of
1%,
so
I
mean
by
until
they
structure
where
you
pay
two
dollars
and
it
doesn't
matter
how
much
you
buy
or
sell
implicitly
just
because
they
have
a
commission
to
get
in
and
out.
E
Even
if
the
world
was
perfect,
you
had
stabilized
the
supply
and
demand
of
died,
and
it
was
perfectly
harmonized.
You
can
imagine
a
scenario
where
there
should
be.
It
should
be
slightly
lower
until
such
time
as
it's
just
a
fixed
rate
Commission
to
get
in
and
out
so
I
mean
right
now,
if
you
take
like
one
minus
the
Commission
rate
times
two,
because
you
have
to
get
in
and
out
in
theory
time
and
you
subtract
what
I
just
outlined,
minus
the
current
traded
prices,
it's
a
little
bit
less
than
1%
off
whatever.
C
Point:
zero,
zero,
eight
yeah-
this
is
I
mean
this
is
evolutions,
absolutes,
true
and
I.
Think
in
a
way,
the
key
takeaway
is
just
always
that
things
are
more
complicated
than
just
a
price
right.
It's
really
a
lot
more
comfortable
but
I
mean,
but
but
the
but
the
counterpoint
to
what
you're
saying
is
that
I
think
when
you
look
at
something
like
the
USD
see
against
I
ordered
right,
then
it's
fruit
like
then
the
take
a
fee
which
is
I,
think
0.3%.
C
It's
true
that
that
means
that
you
can
you'll
never
be
able
to
buy
that
I.
Can't
all
of
it
right,
but
what's
important
is
the
midpoint
should
still
be
pretty
much
exciting
one
dollar
in
a
particular
just
like
it's
just
definitely
something
is
wrong
when
you
have
people
sort
of
placing
you
know
like
limit
order
sitting
on
the
order
books
for
the
one
dollar
right
that
really.
C
It's
also
just
to
kind
of
not
just
get
the
general
gist
kind
of
the
market
in
a
way,
so
we
don't
actually
need
to
to
be
too
sighs
because
we
don't
need
to
like.
We
don't
need
to
conclude
how
much
how
big
they
balances.
We
just
need
to
complete
conclude
whether
it's
currently
below
or
above
right
like
it
doesn't
like
you
know,
we
don't
need
to
know
if
we
have
to
do
an
increase
of
2%
to
get
into
balance
or
if
we'd
only
need
to
do
an
increase
of
half
a
percent.
C
You
get
into
balance
because
if
we
just
say
we
do,
you
know
how
to
send
it
changes
every
time,
then
all
we
need
to
know
is
whether
you
know
do
we
do
we
increase
it
or
decrease
it,
or
do
we
do
nothing
and
then
a
way,
I
think
that
we
can
look
at
that
is
to
rather
than
think
of
it.
As
of
compiling
all
the
data
points
and
sort
of
making
a
virtual
average
well
I
mean,
and
that
well
I
mean
that
is
super
useful
and
I
think
we
should
like.
C
We
should
do
that
as
soon
as
possible,
and
it's
just
always
gonna
be
really
incredible
use
of
the
head
that
and
sooner
we
get
started
with
it.
The
you
know
the
more
involved
it'll
be
over
time
right,
so
it's
better
to
get
to
get
that
going
as
quick
as
possible.
But
another
way
to
look
is
just
to
see
how
many
of
kind
of,
like
the
different
signals
pushing
like
I
sort
of
like
sharing
our
selves
in
agreement
right
so
like
so
it
could
also
be
instead
of
saying
that
you
know
so
it
could
be
like.
C
B
The
put
this
way,
what
we've
done
now
is
we've
kind
of
made
arguments
with
all
other
things
remaining
equal
and
what
we
really
need
to
do
is
we.
We
need
to
try
and
get
the
information
that
tells
us
how
diversified
the
supply
of
diets
and,
at
the
same
time,
how
diversified
the
demand
for
food
is.
That
is
ultimately
what
we
really
need
to
do.
B
That's
going
to
inform
us,
because
if
we
get
a
sense
that
that
is
generally
well
balanced,
then
anything
that
goes
out
of
kilter
can
be,
to
the
most
part
rebalanced
again
using
a
stability
fee,
but
because
we
bootstrapping,
we
have
to
ask
ourselves
a
question
of
now.
What
does
this
information
look
like
and
what
does
it
say
in
terms
of
the
effects
in
the
service
stability
theory
right
now?
B
To
that
end,
I
think
the
stability
feed
does
have
a
contributing
factor,
but
to
what
extent
not
terribly
sure
if
you
have,
if
you
have
a
look
at
a
simple
case
of
what
is
it
now
there's
about
1.9
percent
of
eat,
that's
in
in
CDP's
and
if
it
starts
going
on
a
little
bit
of
a
bull
run.
Everyone's
gonna
have
more
value
in
their
CDP's,
so
what
is
the
option
available
to
them?
B
Optional
available
to
them
is
either
do
nothing
or
extract
more
dye
from
their
CDP's
I
mean
that
alone
gives
you
a
supply
route
and
that's
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
stability
fee
unless,
of
course,
the
increase
in
the
value
is
somehow
commensurate
with
a
Billiken
increase.
Now
that
is
a
completely
different
kettle
of
fish,
but
essentially,
if
you're
sitting
at
1%
and
folks
are
saying
well
now,
I'm
now
got
40
50
percent
more
available
to
to
use
at
1%.
B
Maybe
I
shall
go,
do
it,
maybe
even
a
two
and
a
half
percent
people
will
still
think
maybe
to
go
and
do
it
so
there's
an
element
there,
where
you
can
immediately
see
just
from
eath
increasing
you've,
got
this
cost-benefit
analysis
of
saying
well.
How
much
does
that
stability
theory
effect?
Just
those
people
would
CDP's
right
now
from
actually
extracting
more
dye,
and
that
is
one
small
argument.
B
So
that's
where
the
demand
function
really
needs
to
be
explored
a
lot
as
well,
but
to
the
end
that
we
don't
have
that
information,
we
need
to
really
look
internally
and
assume
that
we
are
at
a
specific
level
of
development
where
we
still
trying
to
get
more
information
about
what
the
TP
is
going
to
be
doing
for
us.
So.
E
Here's
here's
a
question
and
then
kind
of
dovetails
into
what
you
were
just
saying:
I
think
the
supply-demand
imbalance
that
we're
all
talking
about
exactly
your
point.
If
the
theorem
and
it's
a
single
collateral
world,
if,
if
they're
mean,
were
to
rally
up
double
triple
its
price,
do
something
crazy
people
would
borrow
more.
C
E
Do
whatever
they
want
to
do
with
it?
The
question
is
not
whether
or
not
they'd
borrow
more
per
se.
It's
really.
What
would
they
do
with
it?
Would
it
stay
in
blockchain,
world
or
outside
of
blockchain,
well,
that
they
decide
to
go,
buy
a
car
with
it
and
they
send
it
over
to
coinbase
Pro
and
sell
it
immediately
and
drive
the
price
lower
I
mean
the
real
question.
E
Is
there
a
way
we
can
aggregate
our
data,
and
this
is
not
me
saying
with
authority,
it's
just
a
question
like
aggregate
our
data
literally
than
on
ramps
and
off
ramps,
the
the
aggregate
in
and
out,
because
that's
really
in
my
mind's
eye,
the
real
supply
demand
imbalances,
whether
or
not
we
have
a
net
in
or
net
out
of
dying.
That's
more
money
coming
in
the
system
around.
Let.
A
Me
make
sure
that
I
understand
that
points.
That's
very
interesting,
isn't
also
a
function
of
the
utility
of
died
within
the
ecosystem.
Right
people
are
locking
us
up,
they're
buying
Nifty's
they're,
doing
playing
games,
wouldn't
that
serve
the
same
purpose.
What
why
is
there
an
emphasis
on
leaving
the
Lacroix
chamber.
B
B
So,
but
what
I
think
that
the
general
point
that
Matthew
is
trying
to
make
is
that
if
we
do
find
a
world
there
is
a
an
ability
to
get
some
sort
of
metric
from
on
ramps
and
off
ramps,
where
we
are
right,
because,
let's
be
honest,
I
think
I
think
it's
the
pas
de
mano
just
mentioned
about
no
lending
desks
and
what
they
think
about
die.
You
know
you
sort
of
going
into
the
world
of
Fiat
backs
table
coins
and
you
saying
well,
let's
pretend
we're
one
of
them,
because
gee
whiz
they're
so
good.
B
Now
it's
your
choice,
your
option
as
to
which
type
of
stable
coin
you
wish
to
choose
and
for
what
reason,
if
you
believe
no
centralized
stable
coins
are
the
way
forward,
then
by
all
means
go
for
it
because
it
suits
you.
It
suits
you
now
and
it
suits
your
understanding
of
it
now.
But
as
soon
as
you
develop
into
this
world,
where
it
becomes
very
clear,
decentralized,
stable
coin
that
is
very
transparent
on
on
blockchain,
you
want
to
keep
your
stable
coin
on
blockchain.
You
don't
want
to.
B
You
won't
want
to
use
it
as
just
a
mechanism
to
go
from
dollars
two
dollars,
because
the
effects
of
me
that's
what
the
the
feedback
stable
coins
are
pretty
much
saying
right
now
and
to
the
extent
you
wish
to
have
them
on
chain,
you
think
you
don't
care.
Well,
what's
your
exposure,
your
exposure
is
to
this
central
dark
place
that
you
don't
know
what's
going
to
happen
tomorrow
and
if
you
know
anything
will
inform
us
on
that
fact.
B
Most
I'd
say
most
of
the
crypto
space
has
been
developed
of
the
back
of
the
inherent
disbelief
that
central
parties
can
actually
look
after
us
in
the
long
haul.
So
I
think
there
is
something
to
be
said
about.
You
know
trying
to
figure
out
unchain,
while
we
bootstrapping
to
find
out
where
we
can
get
these
sources
of
value
to
inform
us
as
to
where
dye
is
and
what
we
gonna
find
is
that
organically
it's
going
to
produce
it.
So
it's
going
to
produce
a
mechanism.
B
That's
gonna
become
very
clear
as
to
how
that's
gonna
inform
us
about
the
supply
and
demand,
something
that
also
is
will
be
extraordinarily
transparent,
and
you
know
to
the
end
that
it
serves
the
purpose
of
being
the
de-facto
store
of
value
on
on
the
blockchain.
Again,
it's
going
to
be
part
and
parcel
of
the
development
of
this
economy
on
the
blockchain
as
well.
So.
C
Just
like
the
you
know,
the
price
evolution
of
eath
and
other
collateral
and
so
on,
and
then
just
the
thing,
that's
so
important
I
mean
that
everyone,
like
I,
mean
that
I
hope
everyone
understands
already
and
that
just
really
is
kind
of
like
the
fundamental
thing
that
they'll
be
working
with.
Is
that
the
only
thing
we
have
to
like
when
we
see
whatever
data
we
see
about
what's
happening
with
each
price?
What's
happening
with
unlock
ramp?
What's
happening
with
our
utility?
C
It's
happening
all
over
the
place
and
house
it
be
flicking
itself
in
the
ability
of
someone
to
to
trade
large
amounts
of
God
in
it,
like
you
know,
in
and
out
of
US
dollar,
rather
large
amount
of
your
scholar.
You
know
every
want
to
see
it
the
only
fit
like
the
only
way.
We
kind
of
change
that
we
can.
C
You
can
sort
of
affect
this
in
any
way,
is
by
right
now
adjusting
stability,
P
and
then
later
by
adjusting
the
savings
rate,
and
then
it's
I
mean
that's
also,
why
I
think
and
because
there
are
so
many
factors
right
and
especially
in
shorter
on
these
factors
are
gonna
have
a
huge
impact
compared
to
like,
let's
say,
small
stability
fee
adjustments,
that's
like
I
mean
that's.
Why
I
think?
Basically,
we
need
to
do
like
the
mole
off.
C
Would
you
adjustments
the
better
and
sort
of
the
better
we
get
at
doing
very
granular,
small-scale
adjustments
and
just
doing
a
more
often
based
on
real-time
data.
The
better
stability
you'll
end
up
with
right,
because
we'll
be
better
able
to
continuously
and
instantaneously
react
to
the
market
conditions,
changing.
F
C
F
It
really
flexes
makers,
muscles
say
to
be
very
adaptive,
but
then
sort
of
from
a
market
confidence,
and-
and
this
really
depends
on
who's-
going
to
be
using
die.
It
can
appear
erratic
right
and
so
there's,
there's
kind
of
this.
This
balance
between
what
we
can
do
and
what
we're
capable
of,
which
is
always
superior
to
the
existing
systems
versus
how
that
influences
the
overall
psychology
of
the
market.
So
just
keeping
those
two.
A
Christian
question
that
keeps
coming
up,
and
so
maybe
you
can
provide
some
insight.
Whether
is
it
a
matter
of
us
just
presenting
the
fact
that
CDP's
have
a
variable
rates
and
that's
just
simply
the
way
things
are
and
that's
what
people
should
expect
and
that
handles
the
perception
issue
is,
or
you
feel
that
this
actually
creates
a
roadblock
for
a
certain
segment
of
our
users.
Were
you
know
it
just
becomes
untenable
to
not
understand
what
the
CD,
but
stability
will
be
in
the
future.
C
I
think
I
mean
I
totally
agree
right,
but
I
think
there's
only
one
with
the
allusion
to
this,
and
that
is
to
create
a
market
for
interest
rate
swaps
right,
that's
like
because
that's
what
like
what
regular
people
want
is
they
want?
They
want
an
actual
guarantee
and,
and
they
really
like
I
mean
if
you
want
the
absolute
most
efficient.
You
know
sci-fi
interest
rate.
F
Okay,
that
makes
sense
where
the
protocol
layer
I
mean.
Ultimately,
the
protocol
layer
will
be
buried
beneath
different
application
layers
that
strip
out
the
volatility
for
different
users,
so
that
that
makes
sense
to
me.
I
think
that
you
know
when
I
was
hearing,
you
guys
go
back
and
forth
on
the
price
being
set
through
the
on
and
off
ramps
versus,
say
kind
of
the
people
who
derive
core
utility
from
dive.
For
example,
I
mean
we're
seeing
dye
increasingly
and
I.
F
Think
there's
just
going
to
become
more
and
more
the
case,
be
used
as
collateral
within
defy
and
that
that
I
feel
like
is
the
one
of
the
most
exciting
core
drivers
of
utility
of
aside
from
you
know,
traders
using
it
and
how
it's
priced
and
so
I
don't
know
how
to
wait.
Those
two
because
you
know
if
you
increase
the
savings
rate
or
the
interest
rate
of
die
I
mean
how
does
that
then
affect
how
people
are
using
it
on
compound
and
I
feel
like
we
wouldn't
want
to
leave
out.
F
G
Other
thing
there
is
I
think
so:
we've
seen
how
dye
works
in
bear
market
right,
so
we've
seen
how
dye
works
when
e
price
is
really
being
drawn
down
and
contracting
the
big
way
and
now
we're
starting
to
think
about
how
we
quantify
our
reactions
to
those
types
of
events
as
well
as
external,
that's
in
the
broader
environment.
Well,
we
really
haven't
seen
and
and
and-
and
this
goes
to
Steve's
point
earlier-
like
we
haven't
seen
what
happens
in
an
expansion
of
each
place.
G
In
particular,
we
haven't
seen
that,
where
potentially
die
isn't
just
in
its
current
form,
but
also
serves
as
collateral
for
other
applications
that
could
provide
additional
leverage
or
additional
financial
complexity
within
the
system
right.
So
let's,
let's
go
back
to
see
in
the
example
earlier,
let's
say,
each
price
increases
substantially.
Cdp
holders
draw
more
dye
and
potentially
use
that
guy
to
collateralize
other
contracts
that
make
more
sophisticated
bets
on
each
price
and
create
more
so.
G
Those
kinds
of
things
are
things
where
potentially,
we
could
have
an
idea
of
dye
price
that
maybe
that's
our
true
north,
but
maybe
sometimes
that's
really
causing
us
to
lose
focus
on
what's
actually
happening
in
the
underlying,
and
so
the
I
guess.
The
thing
it's
a
long-winded
way
of
saying
we
could
maybe
find
ways
to
think
about
how
to
measure
how
to
measure
dye
value
today,
based
on
what
we've
seen
in
the
dye
economy
over
the
last
year.
G
A
C
C
But
it's
literally
relates
what
you
said,
but
Patino
also
what
Chris
you
were
just
talking
about
right
and
really
it's
the
fundamental
question
of
like
what
is
really
the
point
like
what
is
the
point
of
kind
of
like
we're
messing
around
with
the
dye
savings
free?
What
are
we
trying
to
achieve
with
it
right
in
a
way
you
would
always
put
ours
argue
that
when
you
do
some
governance
over
a
product,
the
goal
you're
trying
to
achieve
is
kind
of
like
maximum,
and
then
you
try
to
make
things
good
for
your
users
right.
C
So,
in
a
way,
it's
like
in
a
way
that
ideal
question
for
how
to
change
the
savings
rate
is
kind
of
like
asking
everyone
being
like,
what's
best
for
you
and
then
figuring
out
some
sort
of
the
utility
composite
thing
and
like
make
the
optimal
choice,
however,
I
mean
that's
impossible
first
of
all
right,
but
the
second
thing
is
also
that
really
I
mean
the
way
you
sort
of
even
the
point
of
especially
when
you
log
into
conjugates
stability
right
so
on.
The
point
is
really,
you
know,
certainty
and
kind
of
like
stability.
C
C
You
know
as
close
to
one
dollar
per
diet
possible
right
at
least
I
mean
I,
think
I
mean,
and
then,
of
course,
it's
also
like
this
has
to
be
geographically
distributed
and
they're
sort
of
like
it
means
something
different
to
every
person
and
so
on.
But
I
just
think
that
it's
very
important
that
we're
very
clear
about
that.
Basically,
our
goal
is
to
stabilize
died,
one
dollar
and
you
know-
and
that's
how
we
set
our
interest
rates
and
an
alternative
that
we
then
need
to
consider
for
the
future.
It's
like
all
these
other
options.
C
There
are
four:
how
do
we
decide
what
our
goal
is
for
the
governance
right
and
one
like
easy
examples
to
go
for
the
synthetic
assets
right
I
mean
we
also
want
to
stabilize
around
euro.
We
also
want
to
stabilize
around
synthetic
assets,
gold
and
so
on
and
in
the
future
one
day
we
could
even
have
something
where
we
actually
do,
how
many
central
banks
said
their
Center
problems,
which
is
a
little
bit
more.
You
know
it's
actually
more
I
guess
in
a
way,
you
could
say
personal
innocence
right
because
you
really
what
you
really
do.
C
Is
you?
Don't
you
don't
just
like
try
to
target
an
exchange
rate?
You
actually
like
try
to
like
fulfill
your
dual
mandate,
right
of
like
improving
the
economy
and
by
which
doesn't
necessarily
always
mean
that
you
exactly
want
to
target
some
particular
exchange
rate.
Are
you
exactly
one
o'clock?
You
actually
go
and
measure
it
like.
What
are
your
effects
on
the
on
and
greater,
so
I,
just
think
I
mean
really.
A
C
Lord
alot,
but
for
that
like
for
now
in
the
short
run
for
die,
there
is,
you
know,
there's
not
really
a
discussion
about
what
the
goal
is
right.
The
goal
is
to
pay
get
to
$1
right
and
we
can.
We
can
discuss
what
that
means,
but
one
thing
is
for
sure
for
me,
and
that
is
at
least
that
$1
means
like
one
u.s.
C
E
Now
do
you
on
at
the
time
if
it
still
had
whatever
X
capital
X
peg.
It's
not
one-to-one
that
doesn't
matter.
We
could
five-to-one
the
point
ultimately
that
the
Chinese
central
bank
came
to
the
conclusion
was
this
was
causing
a
value
transfer
that,
even
though
the
currency
wasn't
leaving
the
ecosystem,
the
value
was
and
that
that's
the
point
I'm
trying
to
get
at
why
the
on
and
off
ramps
are
so
critical,
because,
while
the.
E
When
you've
gotten
a
flood
of
capital
than
exits,
if
we
have
a
huge
price
increase,
when
multiple
collateral
dies
shows
up
and
all
of
a
sudden
there's,
an
entire
capital
base
collateral
base
that
never
had
and
a
liquidity
source
now
does
and
a
bunch
of
guys
who
own
I
don't
care
whatever
it
is,
augur
decide
they
want
to
buy
a
car
and
they're,
not
gonna.
Do
it
with
dime
they're
going
to
exit
that
which
is
going
to
put
these
it's
going
to
directly
put
pressure
on
what
we're
talking
about.
E
E
C
C
Think
you
SEC
particulars
it's
quite
important
for
us,
because
it's
really
what
we
have
available
to
us
to
us
in
the
short
term
to
actually
try
to
create
this.
Like
true
strong,
like
I,
mean
it's
always
gonna,
be
a
soft
pick,
but
like
a
strong
soft
pick
right
where
it's
like,
you
can't
actually
take
millions
of
dollars
a
die
and
you
can
convert
it
out
into
real
dollars
in
the
bank
account.
And
even
if
you
do,
let's
say
10
million
or
100
million
in
one
go.
C
C
Then
that's
just
I
mean
that's
just
a
good
starting
point
for
a
future
where
we
actually
use
like
many
different
center,
lasting
ones
right
and
we
sort
of
use
them
as
the
closest
the
closest
proxy
we
can
get
into
real
dollars
in
real
bank
account
right
as
long
as
we
can
measure
and
verify
that
they
do
have
that
very
strong
convertibility
right.
So
Branson
Gemini
is
a
funny
example
of
how
recently
there
was
some
controversy
where,
even
when
they
say
they're
totally
fungible
and
it's
totally
one
dollar,
it's
not
even
completely
clear.
A
All
right:
well,
we
have
one
minute
left
so
I
don't
know
if
we
have
time
for
any
more
questions,
there's
a
lot
to
absorb
for
this
called
it.
So
that
was
good.
I.
Think
I'm
gonna
take
a
rewatch
of
this
one.
Bruner
Steven
did
you
have
any
last
thoughts?
Do
you
wanted
to
leave
us
with,
or
can
we
wrap
it
up?
I.
B
Think
the
one
thing
that's
become
particularly
obvious
in
all
our
discussions
is
that
we're
actually
talking
implicitly
about
the
best
way
to
bootstrap,
make
it
out
into
critical
mass
and
with
the
sort
of
momentum
that
helps
build
this
unchain
economy
that
we're
looking
for
there's
an
implicit
idea
from
looking
at
the
use
of
dyes,
collateral
and
other
systems.
As
a
very
good
point
of
argument,
as
that
may
be
sort
of
your
initial
use
case,
which
allows
you
to
get
the
critical
mass
that
you
require.
B
The
other
is
to
also
consider
the
simple
notion
of
looking
at
merchants
and
vendors,
goods
and
services
that
accept
and
transacting
in
died.
So
that
broader
aspect
will
then
inform
us
what
the
demand
function
will
look
like,
and
it
will
further
inform
us
as
to
what
sort
of
stability
fee
and
what
died
savings
rate
we
need
to
use
and
when
we
need
to
use
it
so
now,
keep
in
mind
that
what
you
guys
have
seen.
B
A
That's
a
great
that's
a
great
point
to
leave
us
on
on
so
yeah.
Thank
you,
Chris,
Matthew
and
Alex
for
the
excellent
questions
very
insightful.
Thank
you.
Rune
Thank,
You
Stephen
for
for
shepherding
us
through
this.
This
progress
process
I'll
be
posting
this
to
Reddit,
soon
it'll
be
going
up
on
YouTube
and
look
for
a
link
on
Twitter
to
our
SoundCloud.
If
you
wanna,
listen
to
in
transit
all
right
thanks,
everyone
talk
to
me
next
week.
Thank.