►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 23
Description
In this Governance and Risk meeting we talk about the recent Stability Fee change and the affect on Dai inventory. We also debate the merits of introducing another 50 bps change with a target of starting the vote next Tuesday.
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
A
We
have
a
lot
to
go
over.
We
always
have
a
lot
to
go
over,
but
welcome
everybody
to
the
February
21st
edition
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting
with
Stephen
Beck,
Barron,
Christensen
and
array
of
industry
luminaries
every
meeting.
I
kick
off
with
the
same
brief
speech,
but
I'm
gonna
keep
on
doing
it
because
it's
super
important
to
me.
We
love
debates
and
we
love
questions
and
we
love
interacting
with
people,
and
we
have
things
to
learn
and
we
have
things
to
teach
as
well.
So,
let's,
let's
get
this
circle
of
sharing
going.
A
So
if
anybody
has
any
questions
any
comments,
any
thoughts,
please
feel
free
to
type
those
in
the
chat
at
the
side.
If
you
don't
have
access
to
a
microphone,
if
you
do
have
a
microphone,
please
feel
free
to
jump
in
whenever
you
need
to
and
ask
questions
we're
here
to
talk
and
some
of
the
questions
we
get
are
amazing.
So
that's
a
highlight
of
my
calls.
I
think
I'm
gonna
hand
that,
over
to
you
directly
Steven
Leight,
you
set
the
agenda
for
us.
Okay,.
B
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
today?
It's
just
talk,
firstly
about
two
things:
number,
one,
no
metrics,
that
we
are
looking
at
right
now
that
may
inform
us
to
to
consider
another
change
in
the
stability
fee.
I,
don't
think.
We've
had
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
go
to
to
go
by
in
order
to
assess
if
the
the
first
raise
was
impactful,
but
we
are
now.
B
Certainly
cognizant
of
the
community
need
to
be
very
much
aware
where
we
are
right
now
and
then
the
second
aspect
is
and
I
was
asked
this
as
well
is:
let's
revisit
the
whole
idea
of
how
to
be
a
risk
team.
We
can
go
back
and
say:
well,
we
don't
have
the
formal
tools
arranged,
but
we
can
at
least
use
this
a
particularly
space
to
discuss
elements
about
becoming
a
risk
team
where
you
contribute
and
what
you
need
to
basically
consider
and
the.
B
D
C
D
E
My
impression
is,
actually
the
things
have
gotten
worse
now:
I
mean
we're
seeing
like
multiple
rent
posts,
with
people
just
complaining
and
being
like
dice
a
week.
You
know
like
this,
so
I
I
think
we
should
just
try
to
get
a
consensus
today
to
just
continue
with
the
Superfund
5%
races
and
just
in
general
I
mean
there
are
some
people
out
there
saying
we
you
know
like
we
need.
You
know
to
go
to
4%.
We
need
to
go
to
10%
and
so
on.
Right
and
I
mean
actually
had
that.
E
Of
course,
it's
really
hard
to
say
in
advance
right,
but
I
mean
I
I.
Think
there's
a
good
chance
that
we
are
quite
sort
of
unbalanced.
Considering
the
eath
like
a
this
looking
formation,
all
that
stuff,
so
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
just
get
on
with
it
yeah.
This
is
what
I
was
hoping
for
right,
so
live
sending
us
some
pictures.
That
probably,
is
a
bunch
of
like
order
books,
yeah.
F
E
E
D
We're
talking
about
the
the
die
balancing
around
one
dollar
as
a
function
of
the
market
cap
of
ether
and
how
much
die
CDP's
GDP
holders
can
mint,
isn't
army
also
kind
of
by
proxy
talking
about
changing
the
stability
fee.
Every
time
ether
changes
in
price
to
any
significant
degree,
yeah
absolutely
I
mean
this
is
something.
E
That
I
mean
this
is
just
how
it
has
always
been
explained
right,
we're
always
going
to
have
to
very
very
reactive,
Lea,
just
missed
ability,
piece
and
later
the
die
savings
rate
continuously
every
single
week
in
constantly
responding
to
changes
in
dynamics
right,
even
they
even
they
change
and
I.
Think
let's
kick
it
over
to
live
now.
So
we
can
have
a
look
at
some
data
stuff
feel
comfortable,
hey.
G
Guys
just
thought
I'd
share.
Some
data
like
Runa,
was
saying
so
I
put
this
link
in
the
in
the
chat,
so
you
can
open
it.
What
you're
looking
at
here
is
a
plot
of
some
data
that
I
collected,
the
dots
are
individual
trades.
The
size
of
the
dot
is
proportional
to
the
volume
of
the
trade.
All
of
these
trades
were
gathered
from
a
couple
of
Dex's
if
you're
wondering
which
ones
it's
the
most
decks,
is
where
most
dry
ball
game
happens.
G
It's
Oasis
radar
relay
paradox
DDX
and
that
sort
of
thing
you
know,
starting
from
about
fifty
days
ago,
every
trade
on
the
eath
die
market
on
those
Dex's
is
listed
here
and
what
I
did
was
in
order
to
get
an
implied,
die.
Usd
price
I
scaled,
the
price
of
every
trade
which
is
on
and
used
to
die
market
with
the
with
the
with
the
coinbase
eath
us
deep
price
at
that
moment
to
get
an
implied
valuation
on
the
die
that
was
traded
in
that
trade.
G
And
there
you
can
see
pretty
clearly
right
like
why
we
have
had
to
have
all
of
these
discussions
the
past
couple
of
weeks,
because
there's
definitely
been
sustained
periods
when
most
trading
was
clustering
somewhere
meaningfully
below
$1.
Obviously,
you
see
a
lot
of
dispersion
here.
That's
a
result
of
the
fact
that
you
know
a
this
aggregates,
a
bunch
of
different
quarter
books
and
in
or
you
know,
trace
they're
happening
on
different
markets,
but
also
that
you
know
indeed,
you
know
large.
G
A
large
burst
of
trading
activity
often
have
a
lot
of
market
impact
which
results
in
these
like
vertical
streaks
that
you
see,
which
is
essentially
people
taking
off
the
taking
out
the
order
book.
A
very
extreme
example
of
that
by
the
way
is
earlier
today.
So
a
lot
of
people
in
maker
chat
we're
discussing
a
large
CDP
if
I
got
liquidated,
usually
around
those
times,
you
see
very
heavy
dye
trading
activity
because
the
people
who
are
liquidating
the
CDP
are
looking
to
are
looking
to
get
this
guy
from
from
the
market.
G
So
this
created
this
short
term
burst
of
dye
demand,
which
is
actually
why
you
see
this.
This
is
called
the
the
far
right
of
the
graph,
which
is
quite
interesting,
and
that
was
a
huge
volume
right,
because
this
was
a
huge
CDP,
but
other
than
that.
You
know
I
just
like
to
draw
your
attention
to
to
the
dates
at
the
bottom
and
how?
Basically
you
know
for
the
last
couple
weeks,
we
see
you
see
a
very
clear
center
to
to
this
kind
of
dispersed
dye
picture
of
you
know
clustering
somewhere
around
point
98.
G
A
G
G
G
E
Just
I
mean
I
just
think.
This
shows
that
a
0.5
race
really
has
no
effect
whatsoever
through
some
extent,
right
I
mean
at
least
if
we
only
go
from
this
data
and
of
course
we
should
I
mean
there's
also
a
bunch
of
other
things,
just
like
the
inventory
levels
and
there's
also
other
ways
to
sort
of
which
is
other
ways
to
to
sort
of
at
least
get
a
sense
of
the
direction
and
which
direction
the
imbalance
has
right.
But.
A
E
I
mean
I,
mean
I
mean
so
there's
been
multiple
people
and
read,
for
instance,
making
the
argument,
but
ultimately
market
dynamics
themselves
drive
changes.
That's
such
a
stronger
degree
than
something
like
a
tiny
stability.
If
you
change
because
a
lot
of
people
they
open
CD
piece
for
fun
right
like
they
don't
even
look
at
the
stability
for
you,
whatever
right,
they
just
go
and
do
it
so
that
I
mean
that
basically
at
0.5%
adjustments
currently
is
is
kind
of
meaningless.
E
G
G
What
obvious
reason
is
that,
right
now
it's
a
viable
strategy
to
open
a
CDP
borrow
die
from
it
at
1%
and
then
lend
it
into
compound
for
2.25
percent.
I.
Don't
know
you
know,
I
I'm
not
actually
commenting
on
whether
that's
a
good
strategy,
but
presumably
someone
could
be
doing
this,
and
if
you
imagine
that
compound
would
get
doubled
their
rate,
then
the
strategy
becomes
twice
as
appealing
so
clearly
more
people
are
going
to
do
it.
G
If
provided
that
someone's
going
to
do
it
before
first
place
right
and
then
likewise
if
it
goes
down,
so
those
rates
actually
have
an
effect
on
dye
supply
in
demand
as
well.
So
there's
these
very,
like
clear
kind
of
exogenous
things
things
going
on.
You
know,
but
they're
still
in
defied
that
are
worth
paying
attention
to
and
in
fact,
I
think
the
dye
rate
on
compound
was
much
higher
earlier.
I.
Remember
seeing
it
something
like
six
or
eight
percent.
Just
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
I
think
the
conversation.
A
This
coming
more
popular
in
the
d5
space,
the
interesting
shift
from
using
eath
as
a
sort
of
a
sticking
or
collateralization
method,
orders
who
acquired
diet,
but
there's
this
after
market
of
lending
organizations
that
want
a
stable
coin
in
order
to
provide
collateral
as
well.
So
we're
actually
feeding
thing
into
compound
we're
feeding
into
Newell
we're
feeding
into
a
Eunice
whap
as
well.
So
the
the
one
of
the
major
drivers
for
large
amounts
of
diameter
seems
to
be
people
lending
from
other
platforms
and.
E
D
So
in
the
Google
Doc
that
I
shared
the
first
two
graphs
are
kind
of
cut
up
by
each
of
the
exchange
sources
and
then
the
second
two
are
sort
of
combined
altogether
volume
weighted
average
price.
And
then,
after
that,
there's
three
that
follow,
which
is
essentially
what's
the
dying
price
for
die,
USD,
see
and
then
just
direct
from
coinbase.
What
the
implied
that
USD
price
would
be
going
through.
Usd
C.
E
H
E
G
H
F
H
E
H
Yeah
that'd
be
something
to
double-click
on
in
terms
of
what
what
estimate
of
each
price
do
you
take
to
be
the
correct
one?
I
would
probably
argue
that
since
we're
this
is
all
coinbase,
we
should
just
take
the
coin
base
rate
so
but
I
I
think
that's
debatable.
There's
also
some
loss
of
resolution
and
that
those
are
reported
at
daily
frequency
and
so
really
I
think
the
right
way
to
probably
do
this
would
be
to
recompute
the
trade
box
index.
I.
H
Think
I
can
only
get
it
four
days,
but
do
it
let's
say
hourly
or
within
a
minute
where
the
variance
of
the
price
is
relatively
low
and
then
adjusted
based
on
that,
and
maybe
that
would
be
the
best
one
or
maybe
doing
something
equivalent
for
coinbase
I
mean
I,
think
it'd
be
worthwhile
to
do
so.
I
might
spend
a
little
bit
more
time
next
week
doing
that,
but
yeah
you're
right
I
think
when
you
use
the
when
you
use
that
price,
you
get
a
little
bit
more
work
stability
around
the
dollar
peg.
E
What's
our
especially
looking
with
this
stuff,
I
feel
like
I
think
this
really
speaks
to
the
fact
that
a
0.5%
stability
increase
has
it's
not
like
it?
Doesn't
it
doesn't
even
work
early
and
at
the
same
time
we
are,
we
actually
training
down
right,
so
things
are
getting
worse
and
worse
over
time
and
I.
Think
sort
of
the
the
right
thing
to
do
now
would
be
I
mean
so
right
now,
they're
sick,
you
take,
you
know,
like
I,
mean
I,
don't
think
that
we
could
go
out
today
and
be
like
hey.
E
E
Is
we
could
get
consensus
today
of
doing
a
survivor,
sensibility
increase
and
then
set
the
expectation
that
if
we
once
again
see
absolutely
zero
effect
of
this,
and
in
fact,
if
we
see
a
continuous
negative
trend,
then
we're
gonna
start
with
I
mean
that
we
or
maybe
she
could
pay
to
2%
adjustments
or
something
like
that
I
mean
we
can
have
that
discussion
about
that,
maybe
and
reddit
or
something
but
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
looking
bad
right.
It's
like
getting
into
like
we're
kind
of
the
thing
is
also
it's
sort
of
deaths.
E
Well
then,
for
now,
let's
just
see
right
now,
there's
anyone
who's
disagrees
or
has
data
against
a
0.5%
stability
fee
increase,
and
if
not,
then
you
know
we
can.
We
can.
Basically,
we
can
have
the
well
I
mean
ultimately,
I
would
say
it's
up
to
Stephen
right,
but
we
can
see
if,
based
on
consensus
today,
see
we
can
then
have
the
Foundation's
regime.
A
It's
an
interesting
question
so
Stephen.
Can
we
push
that
over
to
you?
Do
you
want
to
comment
on
that?
It
is
it
important
that
we
maintain
a
certain
cadence
so
like
we
can't
eliminate
the
variables
in
the
system.
Obviously
there's
market
forces,
we
don't
quite
understand,
there's
crypto
forces
that
nobody
understands,
but
should
we
figure
out
every
two
weeks
we're
going
to
make
a
change
until
we
see
something,
that's
a
satisfactory
results,
so
maybe
another
10.5,
and
if
that
doesn't
change
to
move
the
needle,
then
we
go
to
one.
A
B
The
other
methods
for
this
kind
of
thing,
and
it's
generally
linear,
because
we're
going
to
think
about
the
the
fact
that
if
you
started
at
Northwind
five
and
you
increased
by
ten
or
point
five
one
hundred
percent
increase
and
then
I
view
increased
by
Northwind
fly
up
again,
it's
a
33%
increase.
So
you
know
really,
if
you're
talking
about
an
impactful
increase,
you're
going
to
keep
the
consistent
percentage,
so
we
might
have
to
consider
increasing
by
more
than
50
percents.
B
That's
one
thing
that
we
need
to
put
on
the
table
for
next
time,
not
not
now
because
be
going
against
what
we
initially
agreed,
but
outside
one
thing
that
live
brought
out
and
I
completely
agree
with
is
outside
of
the
demand
function,
which
is
something
that
you
have
to
constantly
be
working
on.
Is
the
consideration
of
the
deep
I
space
and
actually
use
the
deep
eye
space
to
our
advantage
in
order
to
you
know
manage
the
exchange
rate
property?
B
So,
for
instance,
the
increase
in
beef
could
have
just
promoted
people
to
draw
out
more
dye,
and
that
is
a
factor
that
is
confounding
to
the
stability
P
and
concern
we
salute
strapless.
We
then
need
to
be
very
pragmatic
in
terms
of
how
these
variables
very
much
like
defy
space
that
we
are
in
will
contribute
to
the
impact
on
the
bat
exchange
rate.
That
is
the
pragmatic
discussion
we
need
to
have
now
now.
A
B
Is
outside
of
the
Daman
function
was:
if
you
will
the
one
critical
thing,
one
foundational
piece
that
you
have
to
have
is
trying
to
understand
what
the
demand
function
is
and
improving
it.
So
now,
what
are
the
use
cases
way?
Can
you
apply
it
a
perfectly?
How
do
you
spare
that
and
so
on
and
so
forth?
You
know
very
much
like
the
Community
development's.
That's
focused
on
diet
and
development,
so
we've
got
all
these
things
in
the
face,
but
you've
got
to
give
it
enough
time
to
get
the
momentum
right.
B
So
that's
a
given
and
I
think
everyone
can
agree
that
that
is
a
given.
So
over
and
above
that
you
need
to
get
extraordinary,
pragmatic
and
say
well.
What
are
we
dealing
with
outside
of
that?
What
we're
dealing
with
is
a
stability
fee
that
tries
to
disincentivize
people
through
the
the
idea
of
cost,
and
if
you
see
that
that's
not
having
an
impact,
we
need
to
say:
okay
well,
there's
a
possibility.
B
Bansi
fees,
not
working
I,
don't
work
it's
two
weeks
where
the
dates
are.
So
it's
not
really.
You
know
it's
stretching,
statistically
speaking,
that
most
that
really
impactful
not
really
telling,
but
at
the
same
time
we
we
would
have
expected
some
kind
of
response
and
we're
not
getting
it
so
I
think
we
need
to
keep
on
increasing
this
in
any
fashion
and
has
some
sort
of
exponential
fashion,
yeah.
E
I
think,
let's
before
I,
think
one
thing
like
I
think
the
most
important
thing
that
we
should
get
out
of
this
meeting
today
right
is
that
we
should
I
think
the
expectation
has
been
said
enough
that
we
can
definitely
sign
off
on
a
serum
on
5%
increase
today.
So
that's
why
I
mean
so
what
I'm
then,
according
to
kind
of
like
how
the
scientific
governance
framework
is,
you
know
how
this
is
supposed
to
work
in
long-run
right?
That
means
that
we
cannot.
We
have.
You
know
we
have
a
scientific
debate.
E
In
the
long
run,
then,
what
needs
to
happen
is
at
risk
team,
which
right
now
is
the
internal
foundation
Risty,
which
is
represented
by
Steven
here
right
signs
off
on
this
saying
this
was
kind
of
like
this
is
legit,
so
did
like
you
know,
there's
a
legit
sort
of
scientific
debate
that
is
had
in
here
and
there's
actually
legit
scientific
consensus
and
based
on
that
there's
you
like.
We
believe,
it's
possible
that
we
can
actually
get
this.
You
know
we
can
create
a
boat
for
this.
E
B
Only
thing
the
only
thing
I'd
like
to
pose
a
question
is
we
generally
use
governance
pudding
as
the
place
where
we
get
the
rough
consensus
as
it
were.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
so
that
everyone
understands
that
what
we
doing
now
substitutes
that
and
the
fans
that
then
it's
important,
because
we've
laid
down
this
premise
off
we're
gonna,
do
governance,
polling
and
then
we'll
have
an
executive
vote,
and
what
we
saying
right
now
is
that
this
governance
polling
is
not
going
to
be
substitute.
Are
we
gonna
substitute
this
for
the
governance
voting?
B
E
E
Well,
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
regardless
no
matter
what's
up,
one
so
I
mean
so,
let's
not
make
sure
this
is
not
taking
as
a
precedent
for
how
things
should
be
done
tomorrow,
because
really
this
is
kind
of
like
a
mix
of
different
things
altogether
right,
it's
like
Stephen
is
saying
what
we're
doing
now
is
actually
executive
vote
in
the
system.
E
If
there's
anyone
who
wants
to
basically
argue
for
the
the
opposing
viewpoint,
and
then
we
have
you
know
every
scheme
Steven
or
you
know,
like
you
know,
sign
off
on
the
fact
that
this
is.
You
know
that
we
have
followed
the
process
and
then
we
can.
Actually
you
know
we
can
go
out
and
do
this
in
the
key.
You
know
present
this
to
the
whole
body
community
and
get
them
to
see
what,
if
they
all
not
supported.
B
C
A
I
might
want
to
clarify
that
a
bit
I'm,
not
sure
that
I
disagree
but
I
think
the
establishing
signal
or
rough
consensus
I
have
a
lot
of
strong
opinions
about
the
term
rough
consensus.
So
we
need
to
be
careful
about
what
that
means
and
when
it's
has
been
established,
but
I
think
that
there's
a
good
middle
ground
here
that
this.
This
is
one
of
the
primary
venues
for
people
to
be
heard
to
present
data,
or
we
can
come
up
with
a
plan.
A
E
Yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
I.
Think,
though,
that
we
are
still
we
are
following
a
process
that
we've
already
has
already
worked
right.
I
mean
that
already
went
through
with
the
community
forum,
then
its
last
time
we
meet
for
a
while.
We
presented
evidence
and
so
on,
and
then
we
did
a
survey
$0.05
race,
so
I
think.
Definitely
if
we
have
no.
Once
again,
we
have
no
data
against
this.
You
know
comparison
race,
I,
think
we
do
it
okay.
C
Don't
have
anything
against
the
Rays
I
think
I'd
like
to
discuss
whether
it
should
be
50
basis,
points
or
a
hundred
basis
points
and
David
Terry,
just
posted,
and
something
to
this
end
as
well,
and
it's
not
I
I,
don't
have
the
expertise
to
say
whether
it
should
be
50
or
100,
I.
Think
more
I'm
more
concerned
with
making
sure
that
we
appear
rational
and
not
erratic
to
the
community
with
how
we
decide
between
the
50
basis
points
of
100
basis
points
because
Stephen
just
gave
the
example
of
you
know.
C
If
we
raise
50
basis
points
right
now
from
where
we
are
it's
a
50
percent
increase,
and
so
that
is
less
of
an
increase
than
the
last
one
that
we
went
through
right,
which
was
basically
a
doubling,
and
so,
when
I
think
about
the
current
market
dynamics.
You
know
we
had
ether
rally,
so
that
makes
it
easier
to
create
more
dye
and
we
have
a
defy
space.
That's
showing
some
strong
traction,
which
is
also
creating
more
demand
for
dye.
C
So
I
think
we
have
kind
of
these
two
drivers
for
a
supply,
dye,
supply,
glut,
I,
don't
think
personally.
I
think
you
know
once
either
Forks
I
think
I
personally,
don't
see
eath
continuing
to
really
rally
super
strongly
here
and
so
I.
Don't
think
that
we
will
face
that
say:
quote
unquote:
supply
glut
headwind
in
a
really
strong
way
in
the
coming
few
weeks.
So
that
would,
for
me
argue
for
a
50
basis.
Point
increase,
because
then
it's
really
the
defy
demand
and
supply
glut
that
we
have
to
look
into
consideration.
A
That's
a
great
point,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
capturing
the
variables
that
we
need
to
address
here
so
that
whether
it's
fifty
or
a
hundred
is
something
we
need
to
figure
out.
The
other
thing
I'd
like
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
cognizant
of
what's
the
cadence
of
the
changes
that
were
prepared
to
make
until
we
see
a
positive
solution
here.
So
is
that
mean
that
does
I
mean
that
every
two
weeks
is
you
know
the
sweet
spot?
A
Can
we
spread
shout
out
to
four
weeks
to
see
whether
things
working
on
and
I
think
that
that
cadence
is
going
to
be
determined
by
how
quickly
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here
and
everyone?
How
quickly
we
approach
the
danger
zone
with
a
debt
ceiling
right
is
that
is
that
the
cap
that
we're
looking
at
here
so.
E
I
just
I
mean
I
think
that
all
of
this
stuff,
like
let's,
let's
discuss
the
cadence
and
let's
discuss
I,
mean
but
I
think
my
main
goal
is
still
we
got
it
like
so
I,
don't
think
we
can
possibly
do
a
one
percent
increase
today,
for
instance,
if
we
did
that
you
know
there
would
just
be
no
kind
of
like
warning
on
that
right
like
and
something
on
that
definitely
would
have
to.
But
if
we're
gonna,
if
we're
gonna
change
change
again,
there's
no
expectation
of
the
cadence.
E
So
theoretically
we
could
do
is
hear
like
a
0.5%
increase
weekly
apparently,
and
we
haven't
really
set
up
an
expectation
that
that's
not
going
to
happen,
but
we
have
said
the
expectation
that
changes
will
be
Seri
front.
5%,
so
I
think
that
we
have
to
today
we
have
to
do
what
we
can
I
mean.
Basically,
the
data
is
looking
pretty
critical.
B
B
So
we
gave
ourselves
the
the
ambit
of
0.5%
increases
and
that's
what
we
that's
available
to
us
today,
but
we
can
lay
the
foundation
for
something
to
adjust
going
forward
and
obviously
we
can
use
that
foundation
next
week
to
maybe
increase
it
more
so
I
just
given
the
fact
that
this
is
recorded
and
given
the
fact
that
most
folks
out
there
that
are
not
online
right
now
would
wish
to
see
this.
It
would
be
great
for
them
to
be
prepared
for
the
fact
that
we've
created
a
new
foundation
from
which
we
can
actually
operate.
B
There's
just
more
sickening
thing
and
I
do
understand
at
the
same
time,
and
considering
that
it's
really
a
weekly
basis
and
we
don't
really
have
a
statistical
telling
of
the
impact
yet
I
think
we
can
safely
say
that
the
foundation
can
be
built
now
for
a
further
and
larger
increase
next
week.
So
to
that
point,
I
would
agree
now
I
would
I'm
going
to
put
forward
a
proposal
between
community
P
by
1.5
percent.
That
being
50
basis
points.
G
Can
I
add
a
technical,
just
a
technical
point,
since
we're
talking
about
magnitudes
of
changes
and
stuff
like
that,
I
would
advise
against
thinking
about
stability,
fee
or
interest
rate
in
general
changes
in
terms
of
like
doubling
it
sort
of
going
from
0.5
to
1
being
doubling
or
increasing
it
by
30%
or
having
it
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
it's
cut,
it's
actually
kind
of
meaningless
to
use
those
relative
change
terms.
It's
kind
of
like
saying
you
know:
double
the
temperature
increase
the
temperature
by
30
percent.
G
B
G
D
B
That's
agreed,
but
at
the
same
time
we
don't
know
the
effect
of
the
stability
fee,
so
getting
that
it's
sort
of
exponential
effect
working
for
us
now
might
get
us
to
a
point
quicker
in
understanding
if
the
stability
fee
does
have
an
impact.
So
it's
not
necessarily
I,
wouldn't
say
it's
a
a
principle
that
should
apply
going
forward,
but
it's
almost
like
a
principle.
Eh
apply
it
getting
to
a
point
where
you
find
that
you
have
an
effect
yeah
we're
not
neutralizing
it.
From
that
point
of
view,
the.
E
I
and
I
I
agree
with,
like
I,
agree
with
a
notion
that
doubling
interest
rates
doesn't
make
much
much
sense
in
that
regard,
but
I
knew
and
but
it
small
I
mean
interest
rates.
A
super
arbitrary
and
yeah
I'm
like
Stephen,
saying
right.
What
the
thing
is
that
our
arbitrary
changed
level
of
0.5%,
considering
the
current
conditions
is
probably
said
too
low,
and
we
should
we
should
we
should
make
it
bigger,
but
this
thing
is
funny
like
well
like
fun
or
whatever
data
point
on
this
whole
approach.
E
You've
kinda
like
having
a
betray
number
and
then
making
changes
with
it.
That's
how
central
banks
do
it
right,
so
they
always
changed
with
0.25
percent
right
and
they
just
like
the
thing
that
that
then
determines
how
how
much
of
a
change
they
do
over
time
is
how
often
they
do
these
changes,
but
they
always
do
them
most
of
the
time
with,
with
the
25
basis,
points
would.
A
It
help
us
with
messaging
and
potentially
the
psychological
impact
of
these
changes,
to
have
a
message
about
the
cadence
that
we're
looking
at.
So
we
say
that
you
know
we're
going
to
do
another
50
basis
points
this
week
and
if
that
doesn't
work,
we're
going
to
continue
doing
it
until
it
does
work.
Would
that
help
maybe
move
the
market
in
the
way
that
we're
hoping
yeah.
B
I
think
there's
a
starting
point.
I
agree,
but
I
mean
at
the
end
at
the
end
of
the
day.
It
might
not
actually
be
that
informative
because
you
might
find
that
the
co-founding
variables,
while
we
bootstrapping
that
this
the
system
might
actually
play
a
greater
part.
So
we
could
be.
You
know,
constantly
increasing
the
stability
fee
until
it
has
an
effect,
but
but
maybe
because
the
confounding
variables
have
stopped
having
effect,
so
it
really
is
considering
what
we've
discussed
today
and
the
input
that
we've
got
today
is
really
I
must
confess
a
it's
brilliant.
B
A
Sounds
great,
so
I
I
think
that
we're
reached
I'm
gonna,
say
it
rough
consensus,
and
so
we
have
a
way
to
move
forward.
But
I
wanna
throws
a
wrench
in
the
works
and
ask
kind
of
a
tough
question
here
because
it
feels
like
we
are
operating
with
one
of
our
hands
tied
behind
our
back.
Until
we
get
a
deeper
sorry
type
mechanism
into
the
into
the
framework,
it
is
there
a
possibility
that
there
just
isn't
enough
room
on
the
stability
feet
to
see
the
kind
of
changes
we
want
in
inventory.
This.
A
E
E
F
You've
got
question,
I've
got
them,
and
this
is
kind
of
related
to
the
debt
ceiling
component,
also
like
during
the
course
of
the
last
year
right,
the
price
of
ether
has
continually
gone
down,
so
the
issuance
of
death
has
been
like
hitting
a
headwind
of
both
participants.
Only
ether
needing
to
both
put
collateral
in
and
continue
to
borrow
died
against
it.
F
When
we
turn
that
ship
at
some
point,
maybe
it's
in
a
month
two
weeks
a
year
whatever
and
the
price
starts
to
accelerate
going
up,
the
creation
of
died
can
also
then
exponentially,
increase
and
and
and
I,
don't
know
the
technical
components
about
how
its
put
in
for
multi
collateral
to
forgive
that.
But
if
there's
not
a
throttling
method
that
allows
that
to
be
slowed
down
on
the
issuance
path.
Some
portion
of
that
may
turn
around
to
be
sold
off
into
the
Fiat
world,
which
makes
us
look
and
feel
like
it's
worse.
A
G
F
No
dispute
I
mean
that
that's
in
a
completely
efficient
market
I
100%
agree,
but
when
you've
got
we've
gone
through
from
nothing
to
whatever
it's
at
eighty
million.
Now
the
question
is,
while
the
prices
declining
the
interest
rate
at
that
point,
ends
up
being
so
variable.
My
question
is:
is
it
possible
just
have
a
throttle
on
the
dietitians
on
I?
F
E
And
then
there
is
sort
of
an
off
chain
mechanism,
so
basically
a
risky.
But
then
it's
like
okay,
it's
safe
to
keep
going
and
keep
going
until
we
hit
the
point.
That's
actually
set
like
governance,
which
is
called
the
practical
debt
ceiling
right
and
then
so
there
is
actually
a
mechanism
to
some
extent
us
like
this,
but
it's
it's
I,
just
think.
E
It's
very
important
that
that
mechanism
is
only
CMS
to
deal
with
absolute
kind
of
like
disaster
situations
like
very
weird
eske
situations
and
not
really
something
that
should
ever
kick
in
under
normal
circumstances
that
that
you
know
so
normal
people
should
run
into
the
issue
that
whoops
you
can
like.
Do
your
whatever
like
draw
it
for
for
some,
you
know,
regular
amount
of
money
and
I
also
think,
like
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
hypothetical
scenarios
that
can
be
thought
up
right
of
like
weird
behavior
and
in
create
situations
and
I.
E
Think
in
general
we
should
you
know
I
mean
we
should
kind
of
be
empirical
about
this
stuff
in
a
sense
that
we
in
the
in
the
early
phases
of
that,
we
can
actually
afford
that
that
you
know
the
system
looks
a
little
bit
wonky,
because
there's
a
ton
of
like
a
surge
in
demand.
That
kind
of
like
throws
it
off
balance
a
bit,
and
then
we
figure
out
how
to
how
to
deal
with
that,
and
hopefully
we'll
always
end
up
dealing
with
a
savings
rate
and
be
sort
of
flexible
enough
at
using
that.
E
You
know
short
term
monetary
policy,
discussions
that
are
very
actionable
and
especially
currently
right,
where
they're,
the
really
the
only
ones
that
right
now
are
based
around
actually
doing
real
stuff
for
the
real
system
and
and
I
think,
basically,
the
the
easiest
way
to
do.
This
would
be
to
have
a
you
know,
Wednesday
meeting.
At
the
same
time,
that's
the
monetary
policy
meeting
and
then
the
Thursday
meeting
like
now
is
then
the
long-term
risk
governance
meeting
and
and
then
basically
next
week.
We
could
then
have
the
Wednesday
meeting,
be
the
one
where
we
discuss.
E
E
The
reason
why
you
have
to
increase
the
debt
ceiling
is
because
supply
reaches
a
certain
level
and
some
of
CP
demand
that
used
to
serve
a
living
and,
what's
funny,
is
it's?
Actually,
it's
actually
like
demand
that
sort
of
thrives
when
you
must
increase
the
debt
ceiling
and
it's
actually
a
question
of
of
when
dye
demand
some
explodes
that
that
really
puts
the
creates
that
sort
of
pressure
to
imagine
like
to
basically
face
the
fact
that
I
mentioned
it.
E
So
so
I
think
this
way
we'll
be
able
to
focus
a
lot
more
in
these
discussions
and
and
then
yeah
especially
make
sure
that
on
Wednesdays,
it's
really
about
kind
of
like
just
focusing
on
being
actionable
on
protecting
the
dye
pack
for
the
short
run
so
yeah,
and
we
already
discussed
this
with
your
little
bit,
Steven
right
but
I'm.
What
what
is?
What
do
you
think
and
what
little.
B
People
think
it
may
I
make
a
suggestion.
I,
like
the
idea.
Can
we
take
this
particular
meeting
and
first
apportion
it
into
two
parts
to
deal
with
those
two
two
points.
The
reason
being
is
to
try
and
find
another
date
and
everyone's
calendar
and
gets
no
the
same
response
that
we
working
today,
it
might
be,
might
be
a
little
bit
of
an
ass,
but
if
we
can
develop
it
in
this
meeting
and
it
takes
life
of
its
own
I
think
we
can
then
manage
to
transport
the
course
to
to
a
new
dates.
E
Well,
I
mean
I,
just
think
that,
to
be
honest,
like
the
actionable
last,
like
short
term
stabilization
or
you
know,
like
the
eventually
die
savings
rate,
adjustments
are
something
that
are
they're
like
you
know.
They
are
a
little
bit
more
about
the
people
actually
in
the
market
and
who
actually
are
trading
and
so
on
and
who
surely
will
fit
in
the
time
to
you
know
like
fix.
A
B
C
I
think
so
I
think
if
I
think
it's
easy
to
just
augment
easier
as
the
hybrid
step
to
augment
the
schedule.
Maybe
you
start,
you
know
the
first
30
minutes,
but
the
short-term
rates.
So
then
you
know
whatever
time
he
started.
I
guess
12:30
p.m.
Eastern.
You
know
that
its
intent
to
switch
to
the
more
theoretical,
longer
term
and
constraining
time
tends
to
lead
to
more
efficient
conversation.
E
Yeah
I
mean
that
is
a
valid
point,
but
I
just
still
think
I
mean
today
we
spent
40
minutes
and
on
some
of
the
dye
savings
rate
stuff,
for
instance,
right
and
the
thing
is
right
now
we
haven't
even
gotten
started
with
the
actual
point
of
these
discussions
right,
the
actual
like
risk,
governance
framework
and
the
collateral
array.
Where
does
not
all
that
stuff.
B
I
think
that
this
is
the
exciting
thing
about
this
is
that
you've
started
a
a
you've
started
the
catalyst
behind
this
thing
we're
going
to
have
meetings,
we
were
gonna,
have
a
lot
more
efficient,
metrics
being
shown.
You're
gonna
have
meeting
is
where
everyone
knows
what
we
need
to
discuss
and
if
the
discussion
is
going
to
be
more
pointment
right
now,
it
really
is
sort
of
gathering
our
thoughts
about
what
are
the
items
we
need
to.
B
Consider
and
I
reckon
as
we
go
along
so
will
become
a
little
bit
more
efficient
in
terms
of
what
we
are
discussing,
because
I
certainly
don't
think
that
there's
an
infinite
number
of
variables
out
there.
That's
going
to
constantly
confound
our
analysis,
so
this
is
a
great
starting
point.
I
mean
the
fact
that
we've
used.
You
know
one
hour
of
the
risk
governors
to
discuss.
This
is
great
because
I
think
it
works
part
and
possible
with
what
your
esteemed
look
like.
B
E
A
great
point,
but
I
just
want
to
say
that
once
we
do
roll
out
the
risk
parameters,
we're
gonna
need
an
hour
for
it.
For
that
only
like.
If
we
only
have
half
an
hour
and
because
I
mean
that's
when
the
the
real
engagement
really
starts
right.
So
maybe
we
can
say,
let's
have
a
hybrid
for
now,
but
they
sort
of
keep
in
mind
that
once
we
roll
out
the
risk
parameters,
we
open
them
up
and
I'll
move
that
half
hour
to
the
Wednesday
yeah.
A
D
B
That's
a
very
good
question:
I
want
to
commit
to
anything
right
now,
but
I
would
like
to
try
and
get
something
out.
I'm
in
Omaha
and
I
still
need
to
go
to
a
few
things.
So
if
I
want
to
put
a
Tuesday
as
my
my
first
target,
it's
a
soft
target,
but
hopefully
by
then
not
on
Tuesday,
but
by
then
we
might
have
something
we
should
have
something
out.
Okay,.
A
So
we'll
look
for
that
next
Tuesday,
we
had
an
interesting
conclusion:
abouts
talking
about
its
deeper
monetary
policy
and
we'll
shift
the
agenda
around
and
make
sure
people
know
to
expect
that
for
the
next
call
and
see
how
that
evolves.
Thank
you
everyone
for
the
excellent
questions.
This
is
not
really
good
on
questions.
This
is
really
good.
D
A
I
guess
some
crazy
feedback
for
me.
So
sorry,
very
good,
yeah,
that's
a
great
idea,
so
Scott
here
and
one
of
our
community
members
was
doing
that
for
the
longest
time,
but
it's
an
enormous
time
sink.
But
happily
we
have
a
community
development
department
of
which
I
am
the
head.
So
if
somebody
would
like
to
step
up
and
offer
to
take
minutes
on
these
meetings,
I
will
be
happy
to
discuss
a
reasonable
compensation
plan.
So
we
and
figure
out
how
to
do
that
movement,
but.
E
I
think
that's
I
totally
agree
that
that's
well
now,
let's,
let's
like
we'll
the
wrists
like
this
and
and
so
okay,
the
meetings
over
but
I
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
in
general,
the
wrist
teams
are
the
ones
that
kind
of
are
responsible
for
facilitating
meetings
like
this
right.
So
it
makes
sense
that
we
basically
say
that's
something
on
that.
That's
a
standard
responsibility
of
the
wrist
team,
which
then
I
mean
since
the
regime
is
now
essentially
the
foundation,
then
you
know
then
we
have.
A
Alright,
so
we
there's
a
lot
of
important
people
in
this
meeting
and
I'm
sure
lots
of
us
have
hard
stuff,
so
let's
Alyssa
take
a
fork
in
it
there.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
joining
I'm,
going
to
stop
recording
now.
If
people
want
to
hang
out,
though,
that's
entirely
up
to
you,
so
thanks
everybody
for
for
coming
by
see
you
next
week.
Thank.