►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 160
Description
Agenda: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-scientific-governance-and-risk-160-thursday-september-23-17-00-utc/10431
Introduction:
@prose11 : Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
@Davidutro : Slides
Governance Round-Up:
Poll + Executive Status - @prose11
MIPs Update - @blimpa
Forum at a Glance - @gov-comms-core-unit
Selected Updates/Discussions
DssVest Considerations (Minting MKR vs Using Protocol Treasury) - @SES-Core-Unit
Maker ~ Nation State Government Relations - @gov-comms-core-unit, @Recognised-Delegates
A
Hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
160th
scientific
governance
and
risk
feeding
for
maker
doubt
my
name
is
peyton
rose.
I
go
by
pros11
on
the
forums
and
in
the
chat
and
I'm
joined
here
by
a
bunch
of
awesome
maker
folks
who
want
to
talk
about
the
governance
and
risk
happenings
going
on.
Our
community
got
a
nice
little
call
agenda
for
today
be
going
through
a
few
things.
As
always
our
governance
update.
A
Then
we've
got
a
couple
team-led
discussions
for
your
consideration
on
dss
vest,
that
is
our
new
kind
of
distribution
model
for
budgets
and
mkr,
investing
as
well
as
a
topic
on
governmental
relations,
and
then
we've
got
time
marked
out
for
some
open
discussion
and
one
proposed
additional
topic.
If
we
have
time
to
get
around
to
it,
though,
we
are
happy
to
take
anyone's
questions
and
suggestions
for
topics
during
that
time.
First,
so
a
couple
I
guess
kind
of
ground
rules
housekeeping
matters
to
attend.
A
This
is
like
open
meetings,
so
we
do
encourage
people
asking
questions
getting
engaged,
try
not
to
speak
over
one
another.
However,
if
there
is
a
lull
or
we
ask
for
questions,
feel
free
to
un
mute
your
mic
and
give
it
a
go
I'll
also
be
watching
the
chat
in
the
side.
So
if
you
don't
have
a
mic
or
aren't
comfortable
asking
it
to,
everyone
feel
free
to
leave
a
question
there
and
we'll
get
around
to
it.
A
Just
as
soon
as
we
can
yeah,
we
said
we're
trying
to
target
about
an
hour
hour
15
for
for
these
meetings,
so
I
will
be
keeping
an
eye
on
time
and
letting
us
know
if
we
should
be
moving
on
yeah.
I
think
that
more
or
less
does
it
for
housekeeping.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
the
governance
roundup.
Here
all
right
so
got
some
votes.
I'm
going
to
be
going
over.
We
pretty
active
week,
I
would
say,
and
some
interesting
things
to
come
out
as
far
as
polls
go.
A
People
can
put
up
other
signals
if
they
wish
to
get
that
or
a
different
parameter
up
on
for
vote.
Again,
however,
that'll
be
the
end
of
its
governance
journey.
For
now,
don't
want
to
steal
our
mip
editors
thunder,
but
we
do
have
eight
ratification
polls
that
will
be
ending
on
monday,
so
do
check
out
the
voting
portal.
A
A
Or
any
of
the
other
cool
ui's
people
are
working
on.
You
can
see
where,
where
the
levels
are
at
for
that,
as
well
as
interact
with
a
contract
yourself,
we
will
be
having
kind
of
a
string
of
executives
in
a
row
here,
which
is
perhaps
unusual
the
last
last
few
months
we
have
been
kind
of
going
every
other
week.
However,
we
got
a
lot
of
stuff
to
get
through
in
the
oncoming
weeks.
So
tomorrow's
will
feature
those
auction
parameter.
A
Adjustments
I
mentioned
as
well
as
some
testing
for
our
l2
bridges,
both
for
optimism
and
arbitrary
on
those
basically
we're
looking
to
make
sure
that
we're
good
to
revoke
the
deployer
key
for
for
the
protocol
engineering
core
unit
and
and
still
be
set
up
to
go
excellent.
So
that'll
do
it
for
me,
and
the
governance
vote
update
I'm
going
to
pass
it
over
to
blimpa
his
name's
pablo
he's
our
mip
editor.
To
give
you
a
mips
general
update,
sure.
D
Hello:
everyone,
here's,
the
general
mips
update
for
this
week
has
paid
on
just
set
september.
Certification
polls
will
close
on
monday
27th,
so
we'll
do
a
very
quick
passing
given
review
of
the
vote
so
far
as
there's
been
not
much
change
since
last
week.
All
proposals
are
passing
without
penny
discomfort.
There's
map
58
with
that
kind
of
weird
ratio
of
stains
we
also
have
moving
on
yeah,
seems
like
we'll
be
welcoming
four
new
core
units
into
maker
dow.
D
So
that's
pretty
cool,
no
changes
also
here
and
it's
pretty
much
this
same
case
with
budgets,
no
appreciable
change
in
the
budget
either.
So,
let's
move
on
to
stuff
in
rfc
we've
had
three
recent
additions.
I
forgot
to
mention
map
16
in
the
cold
last
week,
so
we
have
mip
60
in
tangible
assets
assignment
it
sets
processes
for
maker
dial
to
determine
which
actors
manage
which
intangible
assets
we've
also
have
a
supplement
to
collateral
onboarding
application.
D
D
Yes,
regarding
the
mips
portal:
yes,
the
structure
for
globalization
is
pretty
much
in
place
and
we'll
probably
be
ready
to
go
live
next
week.
So
that's
pretty
cool.
Of
course
we
still
have
to
work
on
the
translations
themselves,
but,
yes,
there's
been
a
lot
of
incremental
improvements
which
make
the
user
experience
much
more
much
nicer
and
also
the
dark
mode
is
coming
because
d5
and
why
not
so
that's
pretty
cool
too
probably
next
week,
and
that's
pretty
much
it
from
me.
D
A
E
All
right,
hey
guys,
welcome
to
the
forum
at
a
glance,
a
weekly
review
of
what's
happened
on
the
forums
for
the
week
of
september
17th
to
september
23rd.
So,
let's
begin
with
the
top
announcements,
our
major
announcement
of
the
week,
the
protocol
engineering
core
unit
has
launched
the
official
die
token
bridge
on
arbitram1
derek
posted.
E
The
update,
which
also
includes
some
useful
links,
so
check
that
out
next
up,
we
have
david
from
governance,
communications,
who's,
collecting,
discord,
handles
and
other
associated
information
for
dow
members,
stakeholders
and
anyone
who
wants
to
be
added
to
the
discord
prior
to
their
launch.
Please
visit
the
thread
to
fill
out
the
information
form
provided
then,
in
collaboration
with
maker
dao
matthew
rabinowitz
from
success,
capital
announced
the
first
annual
real
world
assets,
gala
charity
dinner,
which
will
take
place
in
seville,
spain,
on
february
12th
of
2022.
E
Moving
into
the
top
three
discussions,
gov
alpha
content,
production
and
tech
ops
are
collaborating
on
a
plan
for
the
channel
implementation
to
support
long
for
wisdom,
posted
a
thread
seeking
feedback
on
proposed
roles
and
channels,
so
feedback
is
recommended
and
in
parallel,
seth
from
content.
Production
also
has
a
thread
seeking
discussion
on
strategies
for
mitigating
spam
and
other
potential
issues.
E
Next
up,
we
have
greg
the
prisco
stirs
up
community
discussion
on
the
history
of
rear,
frank
and
what
we
can
all
learn
from
how
it
functions.
His
post
presents
some
interesting
similarities
and
differences
between
the
between
the
viewer,
frank
and
maker
dao,
so
check
that
out,
and
then
we
have
louder
who
analyzes,
mick,
54
theo
says,
vest
and
notes
that
the
first
usage
of
dss
vest
will
likely
result
in
new
mkr
minted
to
cover
core
unit
mkr
investing
plans
in
response.
Router
asks
whether
this
was
the
intention
of
the
mip
or
should
it
be
revisited.
F
Quick
pause,
yeah,
we
had
three
active
discussions.
We
had
the
discord
migration
rfc,
we
had.
I
think
you
skipped
over
the
gensler
sec,
focuses
on
regulating
stable
coins.
One
and
you
went
straight
to
greg.
I
think
that's
where
we
had
a
little
bit
of
a
mismatch
in
the
slides,
potentially
okay
yeah.
So
now
you
want
to
go
for
the
signal
requests.
E
Yeah,
let's
do
a
signal
request,
go
for
it,
yeah,
sorry
about
that
all
right.
So
just
two
signal
requests
are
active
this
week
right
now:
first
in
continuation
of
the
process
of
onboarding,
the
remaining
unprofitable
vault
types
that
were
agreed
and
discussed
by
the
community
and
recent
forum
thread,
rama
from
risk
core
unit
signals
to
off-board,
mana,
bat,
0x,
lrc,
univ,
2,
link,
eef
and
uni
v2
ave,
volt
types,
and
our
second
signal
request
in
response
to
proposed
delegate
compensation.
E
E
A
These
topics
for
discussion
have
one
or
two
of
the
core
units
weigh
in
and
open
it
up
for
discussion,
questions
and
basically
anyone
to
share
their
thoughts.
So
first
up
is
the
dss
fest
considerations.
I
believe
either
one
or
water
will
be
kicking
us
off
with
this
one.
If
one
of
y'all
want
to
go
ahead,.
G
G
G
Now
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
at
least
my
my
own
confusion.
So,
as
I
just
mentioned,
it
was
definitely
long
timeline
and
there
were
many
discussions.
So
it's
it's
not
that
this
was
a
secret
project
or
something
still.
It
was
a
surprise
for
some
stakeholders,
so
definitely
myself,
but
also
some
some
others
that
that
I
talked
to
that
maker.
Dao
has
dss,
vest
modules
now
deployed
and
that
will
mint
mpr
tokens
of
investing
because
of
my
own
confusion
there.
G
So
it
was
my
original
understanding
that
54
was
the
description
of
the
ds-fest
mechanic,
but
not
of
the
the
implementation,
the
actual
deployment
of
the
the
s-vest
instances.
So
I
expected
subsequent
webs
with
concrete
parameters,
for
example,
updates
of
the
the
map
40s,
which
define
the
coordinate
budgets
and
budget
implementations.
G
G
Furthermore,
so
what
happened
was
instead
of
these
these
parameters?
They
were
derived
from
earlier
coordinate
budget
methods,
which,
of
course,
have
the
divesting
schedules
and
everything,
and
even
though
map
54
mentions
different
options
for
the
mkr
minting
was
interpreted
as
as
being
the
the
proposed
method.
G
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
to
reopen
the
discussion
where
the
npr
from
the
retention
bonuses
should
come
from
as
a
as
a
first
action
item
for
for
all
of
us
and
minting
versus
treasury
decision
has
important
legal
implications
that
may
not
have
been
considered
as
a
as
a
result.
I
don't
think
that
it
should
be
an
implementation
detail.
I
think
we
should
be
very,
very
explicit
about
it
if,
if
we
make
decisions
like
that,
if
voters
decide
to
use
the
treasury
instead,
then
we
can.
G
I
mean
refer
for
the
technical
details
to
the
practical
engineering
korean,
but
I
think
we
can
deploy
new
instances
and
shut
down
the
current
ones.
So
yeah,
nothing
dramatic
happened.
No
npr
has
been
minted
to
date
and
the
first
fest
is
still
months
away.
So
there's
there's
no
need
for
urgent
changes,
but
I
would
definitely
reopen
that
discussion.
G
I
also
think
that
we
need
to
work
to
include
more
legal
feedback
in
the
direct
decision
making
process,
and
we
we
have
a
few
ideas
around
that,
but
they're
still
quite
far
down
the
road.
So
one
option
would
be
that
we
can
do
legal
opinion
crowdsourcing
the
the
typical
way
of
interacting
with
the
community
that
we
we
have
for
technical
discussions,
etc.
G
I
would
consider
some
changes
to
the
governance
process
based
on
on
this
experience,
so
technical
mips
they're
supposed
to
describe
the
implementation
without
room
for
interpretation
to
avoid
this
exact
situation,
and
so
I'm
wondering,
can
we
be
more
strict
about
this?
That
we
we
flag?
Technical
maps
that
are
are
not
very
explicit
about
what
the
next
steps
are.
G
So
I
think
we
should
be
considering
about
ways
to
clarify
better
what
the
fundamental
decisions
versus
the
implementation
details
are.
As
I
said,
I
think
the
decision
to
mint
mprs
is
not
an
implementation
detail.
This
is
something
that
we
should
be
very,
very
explicit
about
and
yeah
more
fundamentally,
I
think
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
mdr
holders
don't
have
the
bandwidth
and
their
expertise
to
properly
review
mips
this.
This
has
gotten
worse
as
we
are
growing
and
and
as
more
mips
are,
are
being
proposed
and
go
through
the
system.
G
You
also
need
the
expertise
to
to
properly
review
these
maps
and-
and
there
are
many
different
areas
of
expertise,
so
I
think
this
is
maybe
the
the
most
fundamental
question
that
we
should
ask
yourself
based
on
this
experience
and
yeah,
that's
my
summary
of
the
the
events
as
they
unfolded.
So
we're
happy
to
open
the
discussion
about
it.
A
A
B
B
F
My
question
is:
are
we
are
we
just
kicking
the
problem
down
the
road?
So,
although
it
is
a
large
amount
of
mkr
84
000,
you
know
at
some
point
you
know
either
the
protocol
will
have
to
re-up
on
its
mkr
treasury
to
continue
paying
out
or
it
will
yeah.
I
have
to
mint
eventually.
So
obviously
it's
a
very
84
000
is
a
large
number.
So
I
don't
expect
this
to
need
to
deal
with
this
for
many
years,
but
nevertheless,
isn't
it
kicking
the
can
down
the
road.
B
I
I
don't
think
it's
kicking
the
cam,
because
the
crypto
has
such
the
planning
horizon
is
so
short
that
we
can't
there's
no
way.
We
can
plan
three
four
five
years
ahead,
that
doesn't
that's
not
going
to
work,
so
I
don't
feel
this
is
kicking
the
camera.
It's
just
it's
just
avoiding
increasing
the
number
of
npr.
It's
just
avoiding
minting.
F
H
Yeah,
so
I
I
spoke
with
an
attorney
on
this
as
well,
and-
and
it
does
seem
like
the
least
risky
legal
move
is
to
just
pull
it
from
the
reserves
that
we
have
in
the
pos
proxy
and
not
to
mint
it.
So
I
know
there
are
mechanisms
in
the
protocol
that
end
up
minting,
but
I
think
we
want
to
keep
anything
that
does
that
to
a
minimum,
so
yeah.
H
H
Oh,
I
I'll
come
back
to
it
later,
because
I
feel
like
it's
a
little
tangential
of
the
subject,
but
on
your
last
slide
letter
there
was
an
idea
about
more
technical
detail
in
the
mips,
and
I
have
some
musings
on
that
that
are
maybe
contrary
to
adding
more
technical
detail
but
I'll
I'll,
just
state.
My
experience
later
so.
G
G
C
Yeah
there
are
three
different
implementations
of
dss
vest,
and
one
of
them
does
do
just
a
strict
token
transfer.
So
we
already
have
that
capability.
It'll
be
easy
to
just
do
out
the
old
one.
Add
the
new
one
and
reset
up
the
the
streams.
So
that's
not
a
problem.
I
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
that,
like
I
don't
want
to
frame,
this
is
like
nobody
was
trying
to
hide
anything.
C
I
don't
think
that
there
was
any
lack
of
clarity
in
the
governance
process,
because
we
attempted
to
you
know
put
this
through
our
exact
intentions
at
every
step
of
the
way
but
yeah
we
we
have
chris
mentioned
that
we
do
have
some
unofficial
legal
advice
that
maybe
we
need
to
to
go
the
other
route.
So
I
don't
know
what
the
next
steps
are
in
terms
of
governance.
For
that.
H
Yeah
to
a
waters
point
about
getting
more
like
legal
expertise
on
mips.
That
would
be
a
really
good
idea.
Obviously
the
pe
team
isn't
capable
of
of
providing
that
I
mean
other
than
whatever
tangent
to
like
the
legal
system
we've
all
had
throughout
our
careers,
but
a
specific
like
legal
cu
or
some
sort
of
crowd
source
legal
opinion
on
a
myth
would
be
probably
good
to
just
get
like
as
like
a
step
of
the
review
feedback
or
something.
So
I
kind
of
do
like
that
proposal
later.
A
Can
we
mention
kind
of
the
governance
side
of
things
so
probably
valuable?
The
way
it
is
as
a
governor's
facilitator?
Basically,
as
as
water
pointed
out,
no
minting
has
taken
place
and
in
fact
it
can't
take
place
until
I
believe
may
first
would
be
the
first
eligible
contract
that
conven
new
mkr.
So
basically,
if
this
is
something
that
the
community
felt
should
be
changed,
all
that
would
need
to
happen
would
be
a
proposal
put
up
to
do
so.
A
In
this
case,
a
signal
request
is,
is
probably
sufficient
to
do
so,
essentially
asking
the
community
if
they
would
like
to
switch
over
the
mkr
minting
side
of
dss
fest
to
instead
use
the
erc20
stream
with
the
protocol,
treasury
mkr
and
typically
we
have
our
signals
go
on
for
two
weeks
before
they
in
the
form
before
they
are
brought
on
to
on
chain
polling
and
then
in
to
an
executive.
So
that's
what
the
process
would
look
like
in
terms
of
governance,
changing
how
this
has
been
implemented
so
far.
A
And
had
a
good
call-up
in
in
the
sidebar
there
that,
basically,
you
know
we're
kind
of
expressing
our
individual
opinions
here
and
and
kind
of
taking
our
knowledge
and
expertise,
sharing
it
with
the
community
and
discussing
this.
So
nothing
anyone
says
is
like
legally
binding
or
anything
like
that.
It's
we're
just
discussing
the
situation
and
what
we
as
a
community
would
would
like
to
do
about
it.
F
Exactly
there's
something
that
sebastian
wrote
in
the
chat
that
I'd
like
to
respond
to
so
sebastian
wrote
that
by
making
this
decision
taking
instead
of
minting,
aren't
we
agreeing
that
mkr
is
a
security?
What
are
the
implications
of
that
better?
To
be
careful?
So
two
things
here,
number
one.
I
don't
think
we're
making
this
decision.
F
First
of
all,
there's
going
to
be
a
signal
process
and
and
voters
at
the
end
of
the
day,
are
making
a
decision.
Not
whether
or
not
maker
is
a
security
they're.
Making
a
decision
on
on
where
to
draw
the
mkr
from
and
both
options
have
a
certain
league
perceived
legal
risk,
and
I
think
the
voters,
as
a
governing
body
are
doing
their
best
to
make
the
wisest
choice.
F
C
And
yeah
there
were
discussions
about.
You
know
burning
that
whole
84k
pot,
because
it's
all
you
know
the
the
pause
proxy
that
it's
sitting
in
has
the
ability
to
mint
tokens
as
well.
So
it's
all
technically
a
wash,
but
by
doing
it
with
the
token
transfer
way,
we're
also
kind
of
telling
the
dao
that
it
has
to
leave
those
tokens
there
for
its
other
obligations.
F
I
guess
this
brings
up
the
question
of
what
can
the
dow
do
to
get
more
legal
subject
matter
experts
to
participate?
I
think
there
are
a
few
people
around
like
the
old
maker
foundation
lawyers.
I
know
that
juan
k
on
the
scs
team
is
working
on.
You
know
legal
review
and
there's
a
handful
of
legal
minds
around
the
dao,
but
I'm
curious.
If
people
have
ideas
for
how
we
can
attract
more.
G
As
I
said,
I
don't
know
the
details
of
the
of
the
project,
but
I
would
imagine
rank
the
like
rank
these
three
options
in
in
the
order
of
legal
risk
or
maybe
have
some
kind
of
of
check
in
the
in
the
process
where
you
you
ask
this:
the
legal
crowd.
If
this
is
a
risky
legal
move
or
we're
about
to
do
something,
how
how
would
you
rate
the
the
legal
risk?
A
I
would
say
from
the
governance
side
if
we
were
to
have
like
a
legal
core
unit.
You
know
there
would
be
some
some
checks
there,
like
our
core
units,
in
that
facilitators,
can
essentially
put
the
block
on
certain
proposals
for
relevant
risks
within
their
defined
core
unit,
so
that
would
certainly
help
the
governance
process
if
we
did
have
a
community
approved
body.
That
said,
you
know
this
is
you
know
we
can't
approve
this?
A
G
H
Whatever
we
end
up
doing,
we
have
to
sort
of
find
a
path.
That's
not
you
know
the
sort
of
extreme
granularity
of
describing
exactly
what
happens.
I've
noticed
that
at
least
when
we're
developing
these
things
that
the
mips
for
the
most
part
people
are
voting
on
them
and
thinking.
Okay.
This
is
like
a
good
idea
and
then
we
get
to
the
implementation
phase
and
we
find
all
sorts
of
like
little
gotchas
and
so
there's
all
kinds
of
like
subtle,
little
changes
and,
and
obviously
some
of
those
may
have
like
legal
implications
as
well.
H
I
I
kind
of
like
what
we
did
in
liquidations2o,
like
maybe
there's
like
we
keep
saying:
okay
like
here's,
the
code
and
here's
some
like
places
where
this
deviates
from
the
original
mip
and
and
describe
it
so
that
when
the
final
executive
happens,
everyone
kind
of
knows
like
this
is
the
original
mip
and
here
in
the
comments,
the
the
changes
that
that
were
made
in
order
to
accommodate
technical
considerations
or
risk,
or
something
like
that,
I
think
that's,
that's
probably
the
right
way
forward.
It's
just
a
you
know
it's
one
of
these.
H
I
We
need
to
have
some
kind
of
process.
I
don't
know
if
the
the
meep
editors
or
someone
from
governance
alpha
or
or
anyone
really,
they
have
an
opinion
on
this,
but
we
need
to
have
some
kind
of
process
where
we
say
okay,
this
is
ready
to
be
moved
forward
because
there's
only
one
way
of
implementing
it.
This
is
it
so
we
can.
I
We
can
vote
on
this,
otherwise
we
should
have
kind
of
like
hey
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
vote
on
this
because,
yes,
you
mentioned
that.
I
don't
know
this
is
the
best
example.
I
haven't
read
it
in
a
while.
To
be
honest,
so
apparently
it
was
mentioned
that
minting
was
the
preferred
mechanism,
but
also
it
was
open
to
to
other
mechanism,
which
is
which
is
good,
but
then
you'll
be
like
okay.
Here,
here's
what's
going
to
happen
once
that
this
goes
on.
I
H
G
I
I
think
thinking
about,
like
which
kind
of
permissions
to
to
put
in
that
way,
which
kind
of
permissions
the
map
would
use
and
have
a
list
of
permissions.
That
need
very
explicit,
very
explicit
confirmation,
and
I
think
the
impermenting
would
be
quite
high
on
the
list,
and
that
would
probably
be
a
good
idea.
F
D
I
But
also,
I
type
that
I
yeah
they
payments
right,
because
someone
could
come
up
and
say:
okay,
I
want
a
third
of
multiple
of
the
logarithm
of
whatever
number
and
I
want
that
die
every
month
and
then
probably
would
probably
need,
like
a
team
of
mathematicians,
to
help
him
figure
out
how
much
that
needs
to
be
paid
out.
So
all
these
things
are
a
lot
of
work
and
they
need
to
be
be
checked
before
we.
B
B
So
there
are
some
some
some
things
that
are
complex
and
no
one
will
really
look
and
what
it
does
and
we
need
to
find
ways
to
find
to
find
how
to
solve
it.
Because
not
everyone
will
look
at
the
solidity
code.
Look
at
how
it
will
compile
and,
as
I
think
chris
said
at
the
end,
it
might
be
something
a
bit
different
because
there
was
a
bug,
so
they
fixed
it
and
they
don't
implement
the
strict
mip
version
because
it
doesn't
make
any
sense.
G
I
I
don't
think
this
is
very
scalable,
so
we
we
will
need
to
change
that.
But
that's
it
is
a
very
yeah,
that's
a
very
different
discussion
and
I
have
a
lot
of
ideas
about
it.
I
I
just
didn't
want
to
to
make
this
a
three-hour
call,
so
that
one
will
we'll
maybe
return
to,
but
I
think
those
are
the
three
things.
So
there
was
like
a
red
line
that
wasn't
understood,
so
maybe
we
can
clarify
those
these
red
lines.
G
I
think
the
the
form
like
formally
speaking,
the
mip,
missed
next
steps
which
which
made
me
in
any
case
misinterpreted
and,
and
then
the
third
element,
is
that
we,
we
simply
don't
have
the
time
and
the
expertise
to
review
all
the
mips
that
are
that
are
up
for
voting,
even
if
it
had
been
sitting
there
for
months
right.
So
it's
not
that
that
the
timeline
was
too
short.
It's
just
that
we
don't
seem
to
have
the
bandwidth
to
with
all
the
other
work.
G
A
One
thing
I
would
add
from
like
the
governance
end
to
that
is
that
perhaps
it's
pretty
difficult
to
to
write
next
steps
for
for
a
tool
like
this.
For
instance,
dss
vest,
is
also
used
for
a
lot
of
our
core
unit
dye
streams
as
well.
Right
like
it
was
set
up
to
be
generally
able
for
us
a
tool
for
us
to
use.
G
G
Yeah-
and
I
actually
you
highlight
another
problem,
which
is
that
there
are
we're
missing
the
legal
expertise,
but
we're
even
it's
like
the
principal
agent
problem
right
like
we're
missing,
even
the
legal
insights
to
know
which
lawyer
to
ask
right
who
has
the
the
relevant
legal
expertise.
Even
that
is
unclear
many
times.
J
G
J
That's
that's
a
good
idea.
We,
we
have
a
lawyer
and
well
he's
very
into
krypton
with
all
the
securities
laws
in
the
united
states,
so
we
can
like
work
with
him.
I
guess,
with
with
layer
zero
from
scs.
We
can
also
like
do
something
with
him.
Meanwhile,
we
wait
for
like
a
better
solution
and
we
can
organize
meetings
with
the
delegates
to
share
this
legal
opinion.
B
So
we
have
at
least
one
lawyer
in
free
world
finance
not
acting
as
a
lawyer
for
the
coordinates,
and
we
have
a
three
law
firm
as
an
on
a
retainer
one
is
in
the
comments.
So
it's
not
super
useful
for
this
kind
of
topics,
but
the
problem
I
can
see
is
it
depends
on
how
you
frame
the
questions
like.
If
you
ask,
is
it
more
riskier
to
mint
mkr
or
use
mkrs
that
are
already
minted?
B
That's
the
level
one
of
answer
the
level
two
on
answer
is
well,
it's
maybe
it's
more
risky
but
doesn't
make
any
difference
at
the
end
and
another
kind
of
answer
could
be
well.
You
have
a
big
problem
because
of
x
and
this
problem
choosing
between
the
two
is
not
your
biggest
problem.
When
you
give
me
this
problem,
I
can
tell
you
that
your
problem
is
way
bigger.
B
A
Appreciate
that
context
and
insight
there
said
I
know
this
doesn't
feel
fully
wrapped
up,
but
it
sounds
like
there
are
a
lot
of
next
steps
in
terms
of
forum
actions
and
coordinations
that
we
can
take
place.
So
I
think
I
will
be
kind
of
ushering
us
on
to
the
next
topic
here.
I
also
think
there
is
some
potential
overlap
in
terms
of
what
we're
we're
talking
about,
because
that
that's
next
topic
is
dao
government
relations.
Thanks
for
popping
the
slide
back
up
david.
A
So
so
some
of
you
may
or
may
not
know
paper
vm
did
have
a
a
meeting
with
the
team
from
senator
warren's
office
recently.
So
we
kind
of
want
to
get
some
updates
on
on
that
meeting,
as
well
as
just
some
general
general
thoughts
about
government
relations
with
the
dow,
which
probably
ties
in
pretty
well
so
the
legal
risks
to
to
different
aspects
that
that
we
were
talking
about
in
the
previous
conversation.
F
Yeah,
I
could
briefly,
I
could
briefly
talk
about
a
few
things
with
regards
to
government
relations
and
just
what
our
team
has
been
thinking
about
it.
So
the
government
and
regulators,
you
know
they
fall
into
a
class
of
stakeholders
that
is
pretty
important
to
maker
dow.
You
know
for
the
for
our
desire
to
be
a
global
protocol
to
be
a
desire
for
one
that
actually,
you
know,
is
allowed
to
exist
globally.
F
F
Yeah,
I
could
see
the
paper
dropped
from
the
calls.
So
I'll
do
like
a
brief
topic
overview.
So
yeah
government
relations
is
is,
is
a
subset
of
a
bigger,
a
bigger
there.
He
is
papers
back
yeah,
so
government
relations
is
part
of
like
this
bigger
effort
called
public
affairs
that
organizations
typically
do
public
affairs.
Are.
You
know
you
interact
with
the
most
outer
layer
of
your
stakeholders,
so
governments
legislators,
interest
groups,
the
media,
really.
F
F
F
You
know
to
prevent
unwise
regulation
to
reduce
political
regulatory
risk
by
trying
to
actually
educate
our
regulators,
bringing
them
towards
open-mindedness.
So
a
lot
of
times.
You
know
regulators
will
not
have
a
very
open
line
of
communication
with
what
it
is
that
they
are
regulating
and
so
breaking
down.
Those
barriers
are
really
important
and
then
also
to
uncover
nuance
that
regulators
might
not
understand.
So
you
know
like
they
are
not
the
subject
matter,
experts
so
to
speak.
F
We
are,
or
the
people
in
the
dao
are,
or
various
people
in
the
dao
are,
and
so
there's
the
question
of
you
know
who
do
we
send?
How
does
maker
dow
do
government
relations
and
the
basic
answer
is
you
know
we
send
qualified
individuals
subject
matter?
Experts
recognize
delegates,
as
seen
by
by
papers,
really
really
great
effort,
people
willing
to
share
legal
opinions.
F
You
know
if
eventually,
maybe
there's
a
legal
cu.
Maybe
they
can
also
do
governmental
relations
for
the
dow
and
yeah
and,
generally
speaking,
there
are
a
ton
of
things
to
bring
up
with
regards
to
maker
dow
maker
now
has
not
a
very
small
range
of
topics,
so
so
yeah,
that's
the
general
overview,
and
so
now
the
paper's
back
on
yeah.
K
K
K
For
one
thing,
we
don't
you
know
we're
not
selling
interest
bearing
tokens,
and
you
know
interest
bearing
products
like
that
which
seem
to
be
drawing
a
lot
of
attention,
because
then
you
have
a
a
return.
That's
expected.
Even
when
you
talk
about
stable
coins,
you
know
they're
they're.
They
are
envisioning
tether
in
usdc,
which
you
know
they
hold
a
a
dollar
right,
that's
in
some
ways,
a
deposit
which
is
expected
to
be
withdrawn
at
some
later
date
and
in
traditional
you
know,
banking
or
insurance
or
other
forms
of
finance
tradition.
K
K
So
this
is
this
is
a
big
problem
so
like
just
for
and
it's
it's
something
that
is
also
easy
to
relate,
I
think
to
get
across
to
lawmakers.
So
perhaps
it's
it
should
be
one
of
the
things
we
focus
on
first,
so
you
know:
we've
had
discussions
where
we're
like.
You
know
what
what
happens
if
someone
wants
to
sue
the
dow
or
subpoena
the
dow,
or
just
send
a
letter
to
the
dow
right
about
anything
you
know
who
who
do
they
call?
Well,
that's
a
great
question
or
looking
at
it
from
the
other
way.
K
You
know
I
you
know.
Senator
warren's
advisor
was
quite
clear
that
consumer
protection
and
getting
as
much
of
crypto
inside
a
regulatory
ring
fence
as
possible
are
their
top
priorities,
and
so
I
asked
I
was
like
well,
even
if
there
was
something
specific
that
we
wanted
to
comply
with,
and
that
this
is
a
hypothetical
that
we
admitted.
We
were
then
us
jurisdiction,
because
the
protocol
lives
on
the
blockchain.
It's
like.
K
The
details
would
have
to
be
carefully
thought
out,
but
it
would
has
the
potential
to
simultaneously
remove
the
ambiguity
about
maker
being
decentralized
if
there
was
a
way
to
like
register
as
a
decentralized
entity
or
something
like
that,
so
that
all
of
these
reporting
requirements
and
and
obligations
that
will
have
to
be
met
at
some
point
it
went,
but
it's
not
clear
who
should
what
they
are.
You
know
right
now.
That's
the
case.
K
We
it's
unclear,
but
at
some
point
it
may
become
clear
and
we
need
a
way
to
interface
with
these,
with
regulators
in
the
largest
financial
market
in
the
world.
Otherwise
it's
just
really
going
to
limit
our
our
ability
to
grow.
So
so
decentralization
and
that's
you
know
not
really
a
crypto
specific
problem.
It
just
happens
that
decentralization
is
mostly
seen
in
crypto.
K
So
I
I
think,
that's
probably
our
first
battle
to
fight
and
the
good
news
is
no
one
knocks
on
your
door
and
says:
hey
you're,
decentralized,
you're
going
to
go
to
prison
because
that's
not
a
crime,
but
we
don't
want
to.
I
mean
I
the
way
I
look
at
it
is
our
worst
case
scenario.
Is
we
pile
up
a
lot
of
fines,
which
we
don't
want
right,
because
those
can
eventually
amount
to
something
that
is
catastrophic?
K
So
we
just
we
lack
legal
expertise.
We
lack
friends
in
the
legislature
if
neither
of
the
republican
or
democratic
senators
I've
reached
out
to
about
this
are
interested,
and
I
will
start
reaching
out
to
people
in
the
house
to
see
if
we
can
get
moving
on
that
side,
but
and
also
just
I've
also
reached
out
to
some
folks
at
other
regulatory
agencies
that
that
would
not
get
us
the
broad
brush
across
all
us
regulation
that
we
would
really
need.
K
So
that's
issue
number
one
is
decentralization
like
how
does
a
dow
even
file
paperwork
right?
You
know,
for
how
would
you?
How
would
we
file
a
disclosure
and
then
the
then
the
other
issue
is
you
know,
securities
laws
which
seem
very
open
to
interpretation
and
it's
we
don't
have
legal
counsel
looking
into
this,
and
so
I
think
we
just
need
to
fix
that
so
kind
of
related
to
what
we
talked
about
for
the
first
hour.
K
You
know
with
mkr
my
my
non-lawyer
thinking
of
why
it
would
be
better
to
draw
from
the
treasury.
Is
that,
since
it
economically
makes
no
difference,
your
securities
actions
seem
to
be
brought
against
issuers
right.
Not
necessarily.
You
know
that
that
seems
to
be
the
number
one
place
is
that
they're
going
after
our
issuers,
all
mkr
that's
in
circulation.
Today
was
minted.
You
know
it's
probably
safe
to
say
it's
all
under
the
foundation
right.
The
dow
did
not
meant
it.
So
we're
not.
K
Yeah
I
mean
I
don't,
I
think
the
dow
should
probably
be
agnostic
about
in
which
direction
it
gets
outsourced.
You
know
the
benefit
of
having
a
delegate.
Is
that
you
can?
You
can't
really
agree
to
anything,
but
you
can
have
some
idea
of
what's
likely
to
float.
You
know
past
a
vote.
The
core
units,
a
core
unit
that
engages
external
help,
might
be
the
best
solution,
because
there
are
professionals
that
do
this.
Unfortunately,
they
are
not
cheap,
but
you.
K
What
you
need
are
people
who
have
these
personal
relationships
which
are
non-transferable
right
and
we
don't
have
that
the
foundation
had
some
of
that
I've
run
under
people
that
are
like.
Oh,
I
know
blah
blah
blah
from
the
foundation
or.
Oh,
are
you
with
the
foundation?
So
I've
stumbled
across
you
know,
people
that
you
know
have
have
been
in
contact
with
the
maker
foundation
in
the
past,
but
you
know
that's
that's.
You
know
the
foundation's,
not
gonna
be
around
much
longer
here,
and
so
we
we
need
to
spread
our
wings
here.
K
I
don't
have
a
great
idea:
I'm
not
a
lobbyist
lobbying.
You
know
real
lobbying
where
you're
like
trying
to
draft
legislation
and-
and
you
know,
to
give
to
people
and
perhaps
make
some
donations
and
stuff
those
come
with
reporting
requirements
and
a
certain
level
of
discretion
that
may
or
may
not
be
compatible
with
our
very
transparent
out
in
the
open
method
of
government
governance.
K
It's
a
bit
of
a
moot
point
at
this
point,
though,
because
there's
such
a
deficit
of
really
basic
information.
I
mean
like,
let's,
let's
think
about
the
gensler
hearing
last
week,
right
where
senator
warren
asked
was
it
last
week
or
two
weeks
ago,
where
any
in
the
senate
banking
committee,
where
she
she
specifically
asked
about
decentralized
exchanges
and
transaction
costs,
and
he
said
oh
well,
that
would
be
a
function
of
their
user
agreements.
K
You
know,
like
I
mean
unit
swap
and
sushi,
swap
don't
have
user
agreements
that
determine
gas
fees
right,
excuse
the
toddler
in
the
background,
so
I
mean
that's
that's
kind
of
like
where
we're
at,
and
everyone
was
happy
with
that
answer.
Right
so
I
mean
there's
just
a
complete
lack
of
understanding,
and
I
don't
know
I
I
I
actually
asked
I
was
like.
Am
I
the
fr?
I
asked
senator
warren's
banking
advisor,
I
was
like
you
know.
K
Are
you
am
I
the
first
person
from
crypto
to
talk
to
y'all
and
she
was
like
no
we've
had
some
the
lobbying
people
talk
to
us
over
the
years,
occasionally,
which
I
you
know
you
know
their
job
is
to
talk
to
people
that
don't
like
us,
and
I
just
but
I
I'm
often
the
first
person
to
have
talked
to
these
people,
and
it's
it's
really
disheartening.
I
don't
know
what
to
do
about
that,
because
maker
obviously
can't.
K
F
K
Yeah
like,
in
particular
with
regards
to
staple
any
stable
coin
regulation
like
we,
we
just
are
built
differently
right.
Our
end
product
looks
very
similar
to
a
usdc
or
a
tether
from
the
user
perspective,
but
you
know,
just
like
a
bank
and
a
credit
union
look
the
same
from
the
parking
lot.
You
know
we're
built
differently
on
the
inside
and
you
know.
L
K
Now
this
is
a
really
golden
opportunity
for
us
to
differentiate
ourselves
from
all
the
other
major
stable
coins
and
and
there's
also
the
danger
that
we
get
swept
up
with
particularly
onerous
requirements
lobby.
You
know
laid
upon
these
other
ones
because
they
are
susceptible
to
bank
runs
and
the
like
that.
We
are
not
so
it
just,
and
you
know
it's
not
the
foremost
concern
for
some
people
but
yeah.
K
These
are
all
individual
people,
and
so
you
know
each
has
their
own
little
bugaboo,
but,
like
there
are
some
that
are
really
concerned
about
neutering
the
fed.
Should
you
know
stable
coins
get
too
big,
and
you
know
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
where
we're,
ideally,
you
know
suited
to
say.
Oh,
we
make
the
natural
partner,
because
you
know
we're
you
know
by
our
design.
K
We
for
the
most
part
have
to
accept
fed
policy
as
it
transmits
through
the
money
through
the
through
the
economy,
and
you
know
and
then
then,
when
they're
like,
oh
you
well,
what
do
you
feel
about
cbdc's
they're
gonna?
Be
your
competitors
like
well,
no,
they
would
make
great
collateral,
but
unless
they're
gonna
be
on
ethereum
they're,
probably
not
competitors,
and
these
are
just
these
are
new
ideas
to
even
the
you
know
quote.
You
know
air
quotes
here.
You
know
crypto,
knowledgeable,
lawmakers
and
staffers.
F
L
Okay,
I'm
gonna
try
and
make
this
simple.
So
I
agree
that
the
space
of
cover
you
know
the
where
we,
where
maker
interacts
with
politics,
is
important,
but
you
have
to
realize
this
isn't
just
maker
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
decentralized
dials
out
there
right,
and
so
what
maker
does?
If
we
do
it
in
a
vacuum,
it
can
have
implications
for
a
ton
of
other
dows
right,
and
so
what
really
needs
to
happen
here
and
I
hate
to
say
this-
is
kind
of
a
larger
effort.
It
doesn't
just
I
mean.
L
Maybe
you
can
just
look
at
this
and
go
at
it
itself
right
blaze,
the
path
we
can
do
whatever
we
want
right
to
be
a
good
dow
citizen.
We
have
to
think
about
the
larger
set
of
stakeholders
and
implications
here
when
we're
talking
about
dealing
with
legislators
and
and
educating
them
bringing
legal
online
right.
This
is
a
larger
thing
that
we
should
be
looking
at
forming
a
dow
of
dowse
or
or
some
organization
of
dao,
so
that
we
can
get
input.
L
We
can
construct
documents
that
educate
these
people
right
in
terms
of
like
what
a
good
collection
of
daos
would
like
to
see
happen
here
and
to
put
bring
greater
brain
power,
bring
greater
funding.
You
know
this
isn't
just
a
maker
thing.
We
don't
have
to
go
this
alone,
we
can
do
it
together,
but
it
doing
it
together.
It's
like
everything
when
you
get
eight
people
in
a
room
versus
50,
it
always
takes
longer,
and
so
it
has
that
hazard.
But
I
think
we
can't
do
that
in
a
vacuum.
L
C
F
C
C
I
F
Because
I
feel
kind
of
weird
with
like
all
of
these
different
groups,
creating
like
educational
initiatives
and
then
all
you
know
and
then
and
then
they
never
reach
out
to
any
lawmakers.
You
know-
or
you
know
so
I
kind
of
feel
skeptical
about
these
groups
often,
but
I
don't
know,
that's
just
the
feeling
so.
K
Overwhelmed
with
them
yeah
and
perhaps
a
lot
of
stuff
and
no
it's
visible,
but
you
know
I've
never
met
someone
at
this
point.
Who
does
more
than
do
some
hand
waving
you
have
met,
I
know
those
people
and
then
they'll
struggle
for
the
you
know,
group
names
all
blockchain
association
or
who,
whoever
you
know
single
them
out,
but
I
mean
I
I
think
the
biggest
thing
is
just.
How
did
we
get
to
this
point?
Where
even
our
own
friends
that
have
been
like
you
know,
you
run
into
a
staff.
K
C
K
Smart
contracts
forget
maker,
that's
that's
the
in
their
defense.
These
people
are
not
trying
to
be
domain
experts,
they
they're
thinking
about
you,
know
afghanistan
or
tax
policy,
or
you
know
whatever
not.
You
know
we.
We
are
not
really
the
front
of
their
thoughts,
but
who
you
know
our
our
advocate.
You
know
newer,
newer
organizations,
I'm
more
likely
to
give
them
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
but
some
of
these
established
organizations
like
where
have
they,
where
have
they
been.
G
H
A
Definitely
a
lot
to
reflect
on
and
consider,
and
I
appreciate
the
really
high
level
of
participation
today,
I'm
noticing
the
time
and
seeing
that
we
are
kind
of
starting
to
run
over
a
little
bit
so
do
kind
of
want
to
do.
Maybe
a
last
call
for
any
comments
or
questions
that
people
like
to
get
answered
and
as
a
reminder,
you
know
we'll
always
continue
these
conversations
on
the
forum
and
in
the
chat.