►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 170
Description
Agenda:
Introduction:
@GovAlpha-Core-Unit : Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
@gov-comms-core-unit : Slides
Governance Round-Up:
@prose11 Poll + Executive Status
@blimpa - MIPs Update
@Artem_Gordon Forum at a Glance
Selected Discussions:
- Delegates
- Compensation program pilot, performance modifier for compensation signal request, role-of, and other related topics.
Collateral Offboarding:
- How should we set up our communication/notification standards?
- Is lack of profitability enough of a reason to offboard–should we consider subsidizing for growth?
- How do we develop clear criteria for offboarding + onboarding?
More Info:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-170-thursday-december-02-17-00-utc/11899
A
Hello,
everybody
and
welcome
this
is
the
170th
scientific
governance
risk
meeting
here
at
maker
down?
My
name
is
peyton.
I
go
by
pros11
online,
I'm
one
of
the
governance,
facilitators
and
yeah
welcome
to
our
kind
of
main
meeting
once
a
week
we
get
together,
give
updates
on
the
state
of
governments
here
at
maker,
as
well
as
talk
about
a
few
of
the
issues
we're
discussing
and
debating
both
in
the
forums
and
in
our
discord
chat.
A
A
So
if
you
have
a
question,
something
that's
relevant
to
what
people
are
saying,
please
do
feel
free
to
speak
up
if
there's
a
pause.
You're
also
welcome
to
drop
the
question
in
chat
and
we'll
work
on
to
it
when,
when
the
time
is
appropriate,
yeah
that's
most
of
the
housekeeping
stuff.
We
do
have
like
kind
of
a
little
agenda
to
get
through
so
I'll
be
trying
to
keep
us
on
track
there,
but
we
will
end
with
open
discussion.
So
if
you
do
have
something
that's
you
know
the
question.
A
Something
on
your
mind
something
you'd
like
to
have
discussed
but
doesn't
quite
fit
into
our
categories.
I
would
ask
that
you
try
to
stay
towards
towards
the
end
there
yeah
that
pretty
much
does
it
so
I'll.
Kick
it
off
with
the
governance
roundup
here
this
is
where
we
go
through.
What's
happened
basically
in
the
last
week
since
our
previous
meeting
and
let
you
know
how
the
votes
have
shaken
out
on
chain.
A
Fancy
vote
side,
gotta
love
it
all
right,
so
we
had
a
strong
showing
everything
that
ended
the
past
week
did
pass
most
with,
with
the
same
mkr
voting
the
exception
being
the
green
light
polls.
I
have
listed
there
so
just
to
give
a
quick
rundown.
We
did
have
holes
for
increasing
dust
parameters
as
well
as
using
the
maker
dial
treasury
to
fund
expenses.
A
A
So
some
of
these
will
be
going
in
this
week's
executive
I'll
cover
that
in
the
next
slide,
but
for
those
that
will
not
don't
worry,
we'll
be
getting
to
them
shortly
as
soon
as
the
technical
work
is
done
and
just
to
highlight
those
two
green
light,
poles
got
the
monitalis
and
the
solid
block
red
frog.
Digital
coin,
both
past
slightly
different
numbers
there
in
terms
of
our
input
scores.
A
As
a
reminder,
we
take
the
positives
and
kind
of
subtract
them.
The
against
votes.
Sorry,
take
the
four
votes
and
subtract
the
against
votes
to
calculate
the
governance
score
there.
So,
even
if
a
poll
is
is
heading
in
one
direction,
it
is
helpful
to
vote
on
those,
as
that
does
change
our
our
prioritization.
A
All
right
slept
through
those
enough.
So
I'll
go
on
to
the
executive
proposals.
Last
week's
executive
was
one
of
the
quicker
ones
we've
seen
past.
So
that
was
pretty
exciting.
The
delegates
were
on
the
ball.
It
seemed
it
had
changes,
including
the
wbtc
and
gusd
psm
on
board.
Well,
only
the
gocd
is
a
psn
starter
that
was
confusing,
but
both
those
different
vault
facilities
were
passed
and
are
officially
part
of
the
protocol.
A
Now
we
had
changes
to
our
surplus
buffer
and
the
die
direct
deposit
module
parameters,
so
take
a
look
for
specific
details
there
and
we
also
had
a
number
of
core
units
get
their
stream
set
up
in
a
couple
core
units
that
have
budget
distributions:
tomorrow's
executive.
As
a
reminder,
you
can
kind
of
follow
the
happenings
as
we're
putting
it
together
in
our
new
spells
channel
in
our
discord
and
so
far
it's
slated
to
include
delegate
compensation
payouts
which
we'll
be
discussing
here
in
a
little
bit.
A
A
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Baby,
hello.
Everyone
paolo
here
with
a
maps
update,
so
the
feedback
period
for
the
new
proposals
must
start
on
wednesday
at
the
latest
if
they
are
to
make
it
into
january's
governance
cycle.
Remember
that
we
have
no
monthly
governance
cycle
in
december.
Therefore,
no
formal
summation
window
and
no
ratification
polls
and
january
is
a
formal
submission
window
opens
on
monday.
The
third
so
we'll
just
skip
right
into
this
stuff
in
rfc.
B
B
B
B
And
about
it
for
the
oracle
query
on
it
more
specifically,
specifically
a
budget
to
cover
gas
cost
that
I
forgot
to
mention
during
my
presentation
last
week,
but
you're
in
the
chat
a
couple
of
minutes
later
and
sure
link
to
that.
Don't
you
regarding
the
rest
of
the
proposals
I
feel
like
they
have
already
been.
B
A
bit
delegation
and
the
currently
being
trial,
the
mape
61,
are
going
to
be
discussed
on
this
call
today,
yes,
thank
you.
We
also
have
a
number
of
upcoming
proposals
soon
to
be
posted
in
the
forum.
There's
three
new
ses,
incubated
core
units,
the
maker
canadian
core
unit.
First
focus
is
recruiting
talent
for
the
maker
protocol
chaos
labs,
whose
focus
is
to
secure
the
protocol
through
robust
agent
and
scenario
based
simulations
and
tech
ops.
B
We
also
have
a
special
purpose
on
bounty
for
developing
a
legal
communication
framework
for
soliciting,
disseminating
and
acting
on
legal
advice.
There's
an
upcoming
new
budget
for
the
star
net
engineering
coordinate,
which
is
entering
its
second
phase.
You
can
take
a
look
at
its
map39
c2
to
see
what
that
is
about
and
there's
also
the
collateral,
folding
user
notification
process
map,
which
is
probably
going
to
be
discussed
on
this
call
as
collateral
affording
and
more
specifically,
setting
a
standard
for
communication
and
notification
is
one
of
the
topics
for
today.
B
D
All
right,
hey
thanks,
guys,
welcome
to
the
forum
at
a
glance,
a
weekly
review
of
what's
happened
on
the
forums
this
week
for
the
week
of
november
25th
to
december
2nd
today.
So,
let's
begin
with
the
top
announcements,
acre
invest
comes
forth
as
a
newly
recognized
delegate
with
many
years
of
prior
legal
experience
in
derivatives
and
commodity
markets
to
the
world
of
d5
and
maker.
Dow
specifically
acre
invest's
mission
is
to
help
with
capital
markets
and
financial
content
join
their
meet.
Your
delegate
call
coming
up
on
december
8
to
find
more.
D
D
Next
up
kobe
publishes
a
follow-up
post
to
the
previous
discussion
concerning
range
poll.
Voting
colby
presents
two
steps
for
implementing
a
range
polling
strategy
reviews
their
gas
efficiency,
provides
sample
results
and
proposes
our
next
steps
to
take
check
out
the
post
for
a
lot
more
data
documents
and
information
and
moving
on
to
our
top
three
discussions,
prankster
25
announces
that
the
new
silver
team
would
like
to
participate
in
and
expand
efforts
on
improving
how
non-blockchain
native
companies
could
better
interact
and
be
more
transparent
with
the
community.
D
Prankster
25
is
asking
the
community
to
help
provide
some
ideas
and
commentary
on
what
will
be
best
for
new
silver
to
focus
on
next
up
ace
from
real
world
finance.
Seeks
community
feedback
on
a
proposal
to
purchase
additional,
if
held
by
the
protocol
as
strategic
reserves
to
hedge
any
sustained
spikes
in
beef
prices.
Anyway,
ace
asked
the
community
whether
the
dow
should
purchase
if
as
a
strategic
reserve
to
hedge
gas
costs
and
if
yes,
then,
how
much
should
be
purchased
in
reserves.
D
In
our
next
signal
request.
The
gov
alpha
core
unit
would
like
to
propose
a
change
to
cut-off
value
for
delegate
compensation.
They
introduced
a
performance
modifier
which
will
result
in
a
reduced
amount
of
compensation
at
lower
levels
of
metric
and
ask
whether
we
should
introduce
a
performance
modifier
to
the
delegate
compensation
trial.
D
A
Remember
check
it
out,
inform
links
to
everything
in
a
bit
more
detail
than
we're
able
to
go
into
during
the
call
awesome
if
we
pop
to
the
next
slide.
Thank
you,
david.
We're.
Looking
at
our
first,
the
kind
of
discussion
topic
this
being
on
delegates
specifically
we're
looking
to
talk
about
the
compensation
pilot
program
pilot,
like
I
mentioned
that
will
be
coming
out
tomorrow
on
tomorrow's
executive.
So
do
keep
an
eye
on
that.
C
No,
that's
fine
yeah,
so
I
kind
of
wanted
to
just
give
everyone
a
chance
to
kind
of
comment
or
or
sort
of
you
know,
bring
up
any
thoughts
with
respect
to
how
delegates
are
going
so
far
how
the
conversation
trial
is
going
where's,
it
started,
so
I'm
gonna
give
a
brief
overview.
I
guess
of
like
where
we're
at
right
in
terms
of
delegates
generally.
C
C
One
more
so
we've
kind
of
done
the
meet
your
delegates-
stuff,
oh,
which
is
good
like
so
one
thing
we
were
sort
of
like
initially
concerned
about.
I
guess
is
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
attract.
I
recognize
delegates.
The
fact
that
we've
are
seeing
sort
of
new
people
to
the
make
a
community
come
in,
and
you
know
kind
of
like
look
at
that
as
something
they
can
do.
C
It's
kind
of
fantastic
right,
that's
exactly
what
we
wanted
yeah
so,
on
the
whole,
I'd
say
that
that
side's
looking
pretty
positive,
whether
that's
directly
attributable
attributable
to
the
kind
of
trial
conversation,
is
kind
of
to
debate,
I'm
not
sure
sort
of
whether
we
can
draw
any
conclusions
yeah
as
to
like
some
of
the
courses
right
but
like
regardless.
It's
good
to
see.
C
I
believe,
there's
only
four
delegates
and
we're
distributing
to
this
week,
so
we're
leaving
out
so
some
of
them
obviously
are
not
eligible
based
on
the
the
current
kind
of
cutoff
for
metrics
at
like
90,
a
couple
of
them
sort
of
are
eligible,
but
have
not
because
they
sort
of
started
very
recently.
They
haven't
really
accrued
and
don't
have
a
lot
of
mkr
delegated
to
them.
Currently,
I'm
really
accrued
very
much
so
essentially
you're
going
to
skip
some
skip.
C
Payments
which
is
sort
of
like
50
die
just
because
for
cast
reasons,
it
seems
a
bit
sillier.
It
depends
I'm
distributing
50.
so
we'll
like
roll
that
over
into
the
next
month.
Assuming
this
sort
of
those
are
like
accumulated
more
oh
yeah,
and
then
we
have
a
couple
of
delegates
who
are
sort
of
receiving
the
full
amount
and
a
couple
of
sort
of
receiving
close
to
the
amount.
C
C
Yeah
like
this
hasn't
been
sort
of
all
smooth
sailing
there.
So
the
kind
of
initial
plan
to
set
the
compensation
based
on
like
a
hard
cut
off
of
my
90
percent
on
the
metrics,
was
probably
a
mistake.
In
retrospect,
like
we
ended
up
with,
like
I
think
mega
man
has
like
done
something
like
89
for
like
participation,
which
is
a
little
bit
unfortunate
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
rule
right,
so
we're
kind
of
proposing
to
to
sort
of
soften
that
out
a
bit
right.
E
So
when
you're
delegating
to
them,
you're,
not
really
delegating
to
like
one
person
you're
delegating
to
like
a
team
of
people
that
are
working
on
a
few
things,
which
is
interesting
in
a
higher
level
of
participation
than
somebody
who
is
like
an
individual
trying
to
be
an
individual
delegate
right.
And
so
I
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
introduce
kind
of
like
a
sliding
scale
of
compensation.
E
A
E
E
Yeah,
that's
actually
prop
number
three,
you
know
what
is
the
role
of
delegates
jumping
ahead?
No,
no!
No!
It's!
It's
cool
like
these
props
are
meant
to
be
kind
of
jumped
in
between,
like
whatever
is
the
relevant
conversation
right.
So
I
think
I
I
mentioned
this
just
super
briefly
like
recognize
delegates,
as
teams
versus
individuals
there's,
like
kind
of
an
emerging
meta,
that
delegates
are
almost
in
the
role
of
overseers,
even
though
like
they
definitely
don't
want
to
micromanage
core
units.
E
E
So
a
great
example
of
that
is
what
we're
gonna
be
talking
about
in
the
next
discussion
around
the
off-boarding
and
communication
standards
for
vault-off
boarding.
You
know
a
user
came
and
kind
of
told
their
story
first
on
the
governance
call
last
week
and
then
again
they
posted
on
the
forum
for
for
reference
and
and
it
kind
of
produced
this
mip
that
paper
imperium
with
gfx
labs,
spearheaded
and
then
invited
you
know,
members
of
the
dow
to
come
in
and
and
contribute
to
around.
E
You
know
the
what
are
these
requirements?
What
how
do
we
codify?
You
know
our
communication
standards
around
off-boarding,
and
so
we
see
delegates
also
as
these
proactive
starters
ultra
shoopy,
for
example,
he's
been.
You
know,
proactive
on.
So
many
of
the
signal
requests.
You
know
for
the
last
pretty
much
since
maker
has
started
or
mcd
at
least
right.
E
C
F
C
Landscape
starts
getting
like
a
little
bit
more
competitive,
we'll
start
to
see
like
kind
of
a
change
a
little
bit
in
sort
of
behavior
in
some
ways
right
and
then
what
the
delegates
are
doing
so
yeah,
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
sort
of
kind
of
looking
at
the
current
situation
and
sort
of
extrapolating
that
beyond
what
it
is
or
assuming
it's
going
to
carry
on
in
that
vein
right.
Does
that
make
sense.
C
No
not
worried
about
disagreements
necessarily
just
like
I
don't
and
we're
not
worried
at
all
like.
I
think
this
is
good
but,
like
I
think,
basically
just
the
current
state
of
delegates.
It's
not
necessarily
representative
of
the
future
state
when
we
have
more
delegates.
Right
is
basically
what
I'm
saying.
E
G
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
add
that,
as
a
facilitator,
I
I
see
we're
moving
in
in
a
really
good
direction
here.
I
think,
as
long
as
it's
definitely
going
to
change
over
time,
but
david
to
your
point
around
proactive
starters,
you
know
I've
had
a
number
of
the
delegates
reach
out
to
me
with
questions.
Some
I've
been
able
to
answer
some.
I
haven't,
but
it's
forced
me
to
reach
back
to
the
team
and
come
back
with
responses
so
yeah.
G
G
I'd
like
to
make
it
more
well
I'd
like
to
see
it
yeah
be
more
transparent,
which
you
know
ties
back
to
our
mandated
actor
discussions
and
how
that's
going
to
evolve
and
involve
delegates,
I
think,
is
an
important
piece
to
move
towards
as
well,
but
yeah
all
positive
for
me.
So
I'm
happy
to
see
see
the
delegates
get
more
involved
and
yeah
higher
participation
is
always
good.
So
thank
you
guys.
E
G
H
That
created
this
really
good
environment.
I
think
where
I
have
the
feeling
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
transparency
right
now.
What
I
am
worried
about
is
that
it
that
may
not
be.
That,
may
maybe
not
continue
to
be
the
case,
because
there
aren't
really
any
guard
rails
in
place
that
enforce
it.
It's
encouraged,
but
it's
not
really
enforced.
H
A
Awesome
thanks
for
that
ladder.
I
know
one
question
that
has
come
into
our
anonymous
question
box,
which
good
time
to
plug
that,
if
you
haven't
used
it
before
it
is
on
the
link
to
all
of
our
governance
college
industrial.
I
believe
happy
to
share
that
as
well,
and
one
question
that
has
come
up
is
this
idea
of
delegates
voting
on
their
own
compensation
right,
something
that
has
happened
in
the
past
and
will
happen
in
the
future
suing?
A
Our
present
signal
request
does
go
through
that
would
be
voted
on
in
an
upcoming
poll
right
kind
of
wanted
to.
I
guess
talk
about
the
alpha
view
and
kind
of
the
response
in
our
setup
around
that,
because
it
might
be
interesting
to
some
on
the
call,
while
others
think
other
things
they
might
want
to
discuss.
But
you
know
it
is
like
in
many
governments
right.
A
E
A
Sure
I
obviously
parted
expert
on
different
ones
across
the
world.
I
can
tell
you
here
in
the
us:
there
are
like
several
rules
that
are
obviously
vary
depending
on
what
level
of
government
structure
but
pretty
standard
amount
is
like
you
can
vote
on
a
raise,
but
it
won't
take
place
until
the
next
election
cycle
happens.
A
C
Yeah,
like
there's
a
couple
of
things,
I
think
we
can
do
and
the
protocol
to
make
it
less
of
a
problem
like
it
just
hasn't,
been
the
highest
priority
to
get
sorted
right
now,
right,
like
during
the
trial
period.
I'm
not
worried
about
like
long-term,
I
mean
like
long-term,
is
obviously
important,
but
I
don't
think
we're
gonna
like
lock
ourselves
out
of
fixing
that
later
by
not
fixing
it
immediately.
If
that
makes
sense,.
H
H
Why
would
delegates
ever
vote
to
restrict
their
own
power?
I
think
that's
that's
the
core
question
and,
as
I
said,
I
I
think
we
we
started
off
with
like
really
high
standards
and
and
exemplary
behavior,
but
it
may
soon
become
clear
that
there
are
certain
things
that
delegates
can
vote
for.
That
would
greatly
improve
their
increase,
their
influence
or
yeah
in
general.
As
I
said,
determine
like
how
much
power
they
have-
and
I
I
think
that's
the
that's
a
key
question:
why
would
delegates
ever
vote
to
reduce
their
own
power.
C
I
You
know
once
you
delegate
to
someone
like
they're:
they
have
that
they.
You
know
they
like
in
congress
like
they
hold
that
office
for
two
years
or
in
the
senate
six
years
and
and
you're
like
stuck
with
them,
but
here
at
maker
dao
you
can
undelegate
in
a
moment's
notice
so
that
that's
pretty
unique.
I
think.
E
Yeah,
I
I
agree
and
and
there,
but
I
think,
like
the
challenge-
is
that
most
delegators
aren't
actively
paying
attention.
So
unless
there's
like
some
big
campaign
on
the
forum
or
like
controversy,
saying
hey,
like
you
know,
these
delegates
are
kind
of
doing
something.
That's
probably
not
you
know
not
not
kosher
for
lack
of
a
better
explanation
or
return
or
phrase
but
yeah.
E
I
agree,
and
I
think
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
comment
on
is
what
wowder
was
talking
about
as
delegates
as
power,
centers
and
also
just
general
governance,
representation
of
other
parties
at
maker.
So
you
know,
there's
various
stakeholders,
it's
not
just
you
know
core
units
and
delegates.
There's
also
you
know
a
level
of
representation.
E
I
think
that
vault
users
die
holders
and
other
you
know
stakeholder
types
at
maker
like
should
we
be
considering
other
ways
that
they
could
be
represented
in
the
sister
system
or
given
power,
and
just
generally
I
had
this
kind
of
idea
of
like
phantom.
You
know
voting
mkr,
so
it's
not
actual
mkr.
You
can't
like
redeem
it
for
mkr.
E
You
just
have
a
certain
base
voting
weight
if
you
like
own
a
vault
or
if
you're
like
a
mandated
actor
or
you
know-
and
obviously
this
is
kind
of
like
a
far
out
idea
that
I
didn't
really
see
talked
about
anywhere.
But
I'm
curious
about
people's
general
thoughts
on
governance,
power
and
representation
for
other
stakeholder
types
beyond
delegates
and
regular
mkr
voters.
C
E
Yeah,
I'm
happy
to
just
put
it
out
there
as
like
a
seed
and
an
idea,
because
I
know
that
the
meta
of
the
meta
of
the
governance
that
maker
is
really
like
plutocracy,
like
you,
have
to
have
skin
in
the
game.
You
know
in
order
to
have
some
say
in
the
governance,
and
my
thinking
is
like
okay,
like
all
right,
if
you
own
mkr
yeah,
you
have
skin
in
the
game.
E
If
you're,
delegate,
okay,
you
have
some
some
some
sort
of
skin
in
the
game,
but
you
also
have
skin
in
the
game
if
you're
a
vault
user,
you
also
somewhat
have
skin
in
the
game
of
your
die
user.
So
that's
kind
of
like
the
root
of
my
thinking
with
this
idea,
but
yeah
happy
to
table
it
and
I'll
talk
about
it
on
other
channels
and
other
times.
C
A
C
Ahead,
yeah
I'll
just
maybe
quickly
talk
about
the
institutional
sticking
thing
quickly.
Sorry,
institutional
delegation
thing
does
that,
like
anchorage
is,
is
sort
of
all
good
for
institutional
institutional
users
to
delegate
so,
I
believe,
like
a
number
of
sort
of
larger
holders,
are
in
the
process
of
setting
that
up
now.
So
the
other
thing
to
expect
in
the
next
sort
of
few
months,
hopefully
on
the
outside,
is
that
we
see
more
mkr
coming
in
to
to
the
delegates,
and
hopefully
delegates
as
well
so.
A
Definitely
that's
exciting
and
yeah
always
fun
to
see
how
it
plays
out
and
yeah
david,
we're
always
down
to
nerd
about
nerd
out
about
government
stuff,
so
happy
to
set
up
a
separate
call
or
a
different
way
to
explore
those
ideas,
because
you
know
they're
fun
and
we're
constantly
kind
of
on
the
lookout
for
different
ways
to
improve
the
system.
So
yeah,
thanks
for
for
bringing
it
up
feels
like
we
probably
maybe
not
exhausted,
is
the
right
word.
But
we've
covered
this
topic
very
well.
A
A
As
well
as
systems
for
collateral
off-boarding
that
that
we
could
follow
more
broadly,
so
it
isn't
just
delegated
to
the
mandated
actors
for
the-
I
guess,
a
little
bit
of
maker
history
that
that
was
kind
of
the
the
signal
request
and
poll
we
had
at
this
point,
probably
a
few
months
ago,
that
kind
of
said
hey.
We
should
investigate
off
boarding
these
vaults
and
we'll
leave
it
to
the
mandated
actors
to
try
and
sort
out
how
and
and
when
and
all
that
stuff.
A
Obviously,
this
isn't
as
great
for
transparency
so
hoping
to.
We
can
have
this
conversation
to
talk
about
clutter
off
boarding.
More
generally,
I
think
I
got
a
response,
so
if
you
don't
want
to
speak
I'll,
just
take
your
silence
paper,
but
I
know
you
are
putting
together
a
a
mip
for
collateral
off-porting,
that's
been
shared
on
yeah.
J
I
mean
I
yeah,
I
can
talk
yeah
so
just
working
on
on
a
mip
just
to
have
like
a
communication
process
to
users
happy
to
actively
seeking
input
from
anybody
that
wants
it.
We're
kind
of
on
the
second
round,
I'll,
probably
put
something
up
on
the
forum,
either
tomorrow
or
or
next
week.
Just
you
know,
then
people
can
continue
to
to
offer
suggestions.
J
It's
it's
not!
I
don't
think
it'll
be
anything
terribly
controversial.
It's
mostly
shaping
up
to
look
like
ces,
basically
gets
a
checklist
of
and
owns
the
process
of
running
down
all
the
owner's
various
media
assets
and
communication
channels-
and
you
know,
give
a
you
know
a
period
to
communicate
before.
Actually
getting
people
liquidated.
A
E
I'm
actually
I'm
curious
about
one
aspect
of
collateral
off-boarding
that
richards
talked
about
in
his
post,
mainly
in
his
like
recommendations
list.
There
was
one
recommendation
about
instead
of
offboarding
the
way
we
do,
which
is
set,
the
death
ceilings
to
zero,
set
the
liquidations
penalty
to
zero
and
then
start
increasing
the
collateralization
ratio
requirement
which
pushes
all
the
vaults
into
liquidation.
So
that's
the
way
we
currently
do
it,
but
his
suggestion
was
like
you
know
what
are
alternatives
for
softer
off-boardings
and
I
think
he
he
like
recommended
hey.
E
So
I'm
curious,
like
of
anybody
here
if
anybody
has
thoughts
on
like
what
might
be
a
more
ideal
like
soft
off-boarding
tactic,
but
also
just
to
note,
I
do
recognize
that
soft,
off-boarding
or
or
like
taking
longer
to
off-board
does
incur
a
cost
like
an
oracle
cost.
So
I'm
also
mindful
of
like
what
can
we
do
on
the
oracle
side
for
for,
like
collaterals,
that
are
being
off-boarded
during
that
time?
E
K
You
know
dead
ceiling
to
zero
and
liquidation
penalty
to
zero,
but
then
the
question
is
whether
or
not
you
approach
the
liquidation
point
by
either
tuning
the
stability
fee
so
that
the
stability
fee
goes
up
over
time
or
whether
or
not
you
just
tuned
the
collateralization
ratio
and
the
the
obvious
answer
is
the
reason
we
chose
the
collateralization
ratio
is
because
it
doesn't
cost
the
user
anything
additional
right,
so
the
stability
fee
increase
is
is
in
a
way
without
being
able
to
communicate
with
the
user.
It's
it's.
K
You
know
they
would
just
be
blindsided
by
this
additional
like
massive
sort
of
fee
collection
on
their
vaults,
and
so
it
would
end
up
costing
them
more.
It
would
be
a
bad
user
experience
and
it
would
look
like
sort
of
predatory
lending
from
the
maker
perspective.
So
so
you
know
that's
the
answer
to
the
first
question.
I
leave
it
to
nick
or
someone
else
to
sort
of
talk
about
the
second
one
you
know,
although
with
the
the
subtlety
that
we're
gonna.
K
So
the
second
question
was
what
the
is
there
a
way
to
to
sort
of
take
a
lighter
approach
on
oracle's.
That
is,
we
don't
have
to
update
them
like
every
hour
and
I
think
the
I
think
the
answer
would
be.
We'd
probably
want
to
update
them
in
the
case
where
prices
fell,
but
not
when
not
when
prices
were
increasing,
so
that
that
would
be
the
sort
of
answer
there,
but
maybe
I'll
let
nick
oracles
take
that.
L
There
there
is
risk
that
the
system
takes
on
right
for
a
particular
collateral
type
right,
and
we
we
give
those
collateral
types
risk
parameters
based
off
of
things
like
the
liquidity
in
the
markets,
right,
the
volatility
profile
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
when
you
actually
update
the
oracle
less
right,
you
are
you're
effectively
having
the
protocol
take
on
more
risk.
L
L
Right
is
a
little
more
sus
compared
to
something
like
the
the
loop
ring
token,
where
I
believe
there's
only
like,
I
don't
know
like
50k
or
100k,
or
something
die
outstanding
right,
so
yeah
there.
There
is
something
we
can
do
in
terms
of
lowering
oracle
cost
during
during
the
off-boarding
process,
but
it
has
to
be
treated
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
There
there
are
kind
of.
There
are
factors
right
that
would
that
would
make
us
hesitate
to
do
that.
M
Yeah,
so
my
point
is
on
a
slightly
different
topic,
which
is
that
I
think
this
is
a
more
to
general
problem
that
doesn't
only
like
relate
to
collateral
off-boarding.
Rather,
I
see
it
as
an
example
of
maker
governance,
shutting
off
a
service
or
feature
of
the
maker
per
protocol,
or
at
least
changing
it
dramatically.
M
So
there
is
also
one
of
my
inputs
on
papers.
Map
was
that
I
think
we
could
even
make
a
even
more
generic
process
here,
because
yeah
dust
limit
increases
as
spain
road
could
could
could
be
another
one,
but
also
in
the
integrations
team
in
the
foundation.
I
remember
this.
The
vox
map
came
in
and
we
immediately
knew
that
from
our
work
with
integrators
that
you
know
changing
the
par
value
in
the
maker
protocol.
M
So
I
I
think
we
need
to
take
into
consideration
end
users
and
integrators
when
we
yeah
either
shut
off
services
or
change
them
in,
I
would
say,
not
dramatic,
but
in
a
substantial
way
so
yeah.
I
I
think
it's
a
more
general
problem,
but
I
think
we'll
probably
see
it
the
most
with
collateral
on
off-boarding.
E
Yeah,
that's
really
interesting
that
you
bring
that
up,
because
in
one
of
in
literally
the
first
prompt
that
I
designed
for
this
segment,
off-boarding
vaults,
what
other
governance
actions
require
more
proactive,
comms
right
and
that's
what
you're
hitting
on
it's?
It's
not
just
off-boarding.
It's
also
dust
limits.
It
could
be
also
changes
to
auction
parameters
right.
E
It
could
be
a
lot
of
things
and
I
think,
at
some
level,
our
team
at
govcoms,
like
we
want
to
do
the
intel,
what
we
are
doing
and
we
have
done
to
some
extent
the
entire
mapping
of
the
stakeholder
ecosystem
at
maker.
But
the
next
progression
of
that
project
is
to
take
each
stakeholder
and
to
kind
of
drill
down
into
them
into
their
individual
like
profile
and
to
identify,
like
you
know,
what
are
the
changes
that
affect
this
user
type
or
stakeholder
type
most,
because
also
it's
not
necessarily
users
either
right.
E
N
N
When
we
onboard
the
collateral,
when
we
afford
the
collateral
like
clear,
criterias
to
onboard
it
when
it,
this
collateral
could
be
on
risk
to
be
of
order.
What
what?
What
are
the
next
steps
for
this,
the
stakeholder
in
charge
of
that
collateral?
What
what
we
are
going
to
do
with
the
users
and
also
if
we
raise
the
dust
limit,
for
example?
N
That's
that's
part
of
the
like
cycle
of
that
particular
product,
so
I
I
think
it
that
that
was
like
a
very
interesting
point
of
view
and
and
I'm
super
happy
about
having
a
the
collateral
score
unit,
because
I
think
it's
it's.
It's
a
good
approach
to
see
new
collaterals
as
a
product
and
and
like
to
treat
it
as
city
as
as
that
and
create
that
life
cycle,
and
I
think
that
that
that
will
help
us
like
in
the
future.
O
O
Should
we
as
we
onboard
collateral,
is
there
a
need
to
do
a
signaling
process
from
the
community
to
off
board,
or
is
there
something
else
that
we
should
be
doing
and,
in
my
opinion,
once
a
piece
of
collateral
is
onboarded?
It.
It's
really
important
that
we
follow
a
specific
process
and
manage
that
collateral,
communicating
and
especially
if
we
need
to
off-board
it
and
up
until
now
we
haven't
really
seen
or
experienced
collateral
management
as
as
a
product
and
following
some
sort
of
life
cycle.
So
this
also
includes
setting
up.
O
Hopefully,
objective
met
metrics
up
front
when
we
onboard
a
piece
of
collateral.
So
this
is
how
I'm
looking
at
all
of
our
collateral,
that
is,
that
is
currently
onboarded
right
now
and
and
those
yet
to
be
onboarded.
And
if
we're
doing
all
of
that
correctly,
I
don't
feel
there'll
be
a
need
for
a
signal
request
in
the
first
place,
because
we'll
already
be
on
top
of
this.
O
So
so
it's
not
a
matter
of
trying
to
cut
the
community
out
it's
more
about
a
matter
of
once
we
get
something
in
the
pinball
machine.
Let's
be
consistent
on
the
way
that
we
go
through
in
managing
our
collateral,
communicating
to
our
stakeholders
and
if
we
decide
to
off-board
a
piece
of
collateral
following
a
very
well
published
process
to
be
able
to
do
that.
So
that
was
really
the
net
of
the.
A
Conversation
some
really
solid
insight,
thanks
robert
to
that
good,
to
hear
the
framework
there,
and
I
think
we,
you
know
kind
of
all
agree
that
you
know
having
processes
in
places
is
what
makes
us
better
makes
us
more
consistent.
Well,
so
I'm
happy
to
see
those
being
being
iterated
on
noting
that
time
go.
E
Ahead:
dude,
oh
yeah.
I
just
wanted
also
to
attack
on
a
note
about
kind
of
the
culture
of
the
cultural
implications
of
this
issue.
So
I
know,
like
you,
know,
we're
as
this
group
that
manages
the
protocol
we're
all
very
mindful
of
the
numbers,
the
risk
management,
the
operational
efficiency
this
that,
but
I
think
that
one
thing
that
really
makes
standout
companies
stand
out
and
successful
companies
really
succeed
is
the
amount
of
emphasis
we
place
in
our
culture
about
looking
after
the
end
user
and
at
maker.
E
Obviously
it's
not
super
straightforward
who
the
end
user
is
because
there's
many
of
them
there's.
You
know
oracle
users
yeah,
you
know,
there's
dye
users,
fault
users
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
but
the
point
is
that
I'm
trying
to
make
is
you
know,
outside
of
our
very
technical
and
kind
of
like
quantitative
view
on
managing
the
protocol.
We
should
try
to
be
a
lot
more
mindful
about
what
our
actions
implicate
for
the
end
user,
whoever
that
might
be
and
so
yeah.
That's
just
a
note.
I
want
to
make.
A
C
No
direct
comments
on
it-
I
guess,
but
just
you
know
I
feel
like
we
should
maybe
just
trying
to
get
into
the
habit
of
this
is
kind
of
what
they
were
saying
as
well,
but
we
should
get
into
the
habit
of
thinking
about
like
the
possible
outcomes
of
what
we
decide
to
do
before.
We
actually
do
them
right
because,
like
it's
kind
of
predictable,
this
was
gonna
happen.
A
Yeah
definitely
a
good
call
out
there,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
one
thing
I
appreciate
about
that.
Everyone's
helped
us
put
together
like
some
of
the
documentation
around
parameters.
You
know
getting
able
to
see
like
the
considerations
and
trade-offs
with
them,
and
you
know
it's
not
just
for
when
we
change
specific
parameters,
but
when
we
have
initiatives
that
we
should
really
be
approaching
with
that
kind
of
advantages
and
disadvantages
mindset.
A
A
K
Thought
about
collateral
off-boarding
that
just
occurred
to
me,
which
is-
and
this
is
related
to
the
jurisdiction
in
which
you
sort
of
find
yourself.
But
getting
let's
say
if
you
have
a
house
right
and
you
have
a
loan
against
your
house,
some
sort
of
home
equity
line
of
credit,
and
then
you
don't
pay
your
bills
and
your
house
gets
repossessed
and
liquidated.
K
You
owe
taxes
in
a
lot
of
jurisdictions
on
that
sort
of
liquidated
portion,
because
it's
a
gain
so
so
offboarding
through
liquidation
is
actually
like.
There's
some
some
pretty
bad
tax
implications
depending
on
the
jurisdiction
you're
in
to
getting
liquidated.
So
that's
a
that's
another
just
to
flag
it
as
something
we
may
want
to
consider
or
figure
out
about
the
collateral
off-boarding
process
and
how
it
may
impact
users.
So.
E
A
E
It
was
literally
just
I
guess,
mindlessness
and
a
lack
of
somebody.
You
know
putting
it
in
front
of
somebody's
face
and
also
just
a
total
failure
on
a
few
people's
parts,
including
my
own
right.
But
I
think
that
in
general,
opening
up
lines
of
feedback
and
communications
to
these
stakeholder
types
is
really
important,
and
I
think
that's
why
we've
always
kept
this
governance
and
risk
call
public.
I
think
that's
why
we're
moving
towards
a
model
at
maker
for
our
coordination
calls
that
is
a
lot
more
transparent
and
open.
E
M
A
Yeah,
I
think
we're
welcome
if
you're
things
are
tangential
to
collateral,
onboarding
or
related
feel
free
to
pepper
them
in,
but
I
will
just
introduce
the
open
discussion
section
since
I
know
we
often
don't
get
all
the
way.
To
that
point,
I
haven't
seen
anything
in
the
chat.
That's
like
struck
me
as
a
topic
that
wasn't
related
but
yeah.
E
Yeah
also,
if
you
have,
if
you're
thinking
of
what
you
could
ask
during
this
open
discussion
section,
you
can
look
at
the
call
agenda.
I
listed
a
few
of
like
the
relevant
current
events
that
are
going
on
that
we
haven't
talked
about
so
feel
free
to
look
at
that
list
and
see
if
it
conjures
up
any
questions
or
comments.
F
F
So
we
was
well.
We
we
technically
had
for
the
pilot
we
have.
We
had
the
dive
foundation
some
years
ago,
but
now
we're
going
to
have
the
dao
cooperative
research.
I
think
it
is
so
it's
a
miles
jennings
from
a16z
and
david
kerr
from
corey
llc,
so
they
they've
been
doing
some
some
research
about
dallas
and
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very,
like
general,
so
looking
forward
to
to
those
and
then
we'll
we
have
other
calls
as
well,
but
I'll
just
let
you
check
it
out
in
the
forums.
J
E
A
M
So
I
posted
today
in
the
oracle's
budget
map
that
I
mean
I
haven't
really
thought
this
through,
but
I
can
see
that
we
have
almost
3
million
dollars
worth
of
ens
tokens
and
that
what
that's
what
we
owe
the
mega
foundation.
So
I
was
thinking
why
don't
we
use
cns
airdrop
to
just
get
that
out
of
the
way,
so
we
can
discuss
that.
L
L
If
you,
if
you
drop
them
to
us
right
like
so,
don't
even
bother,
you
know,
don't
don't
try
to
don't
try
to
get
us
to
participate
in
your
governance
because,
because
we're
not
going
to,
on
the
other
hand,
you
know,
I
can't
imagine
that
you
know
ens
is
reasonably
valued,
considering
how
little
money
they
actually
make
right.
So
we
could
also
just
be
dumping,
the
top,
which
is
something
to
to
consider.
L
L
A
D
K
K
D
A
M
L
J
L
J
K
Yeah,
I
had
my
hand
up
just
to
sort
of
reiterate
something
that
nick
had
said
at
the
beginning,
which
is
this
is
the
first
time
that
a
sort
of
major
protocol
is
dump
tokens
on
another
protocol,
and
I
think
that
maker's
sort
of
credibly,
decentralized
and
even
if
we
don't
have
a
huge
stake
or
an
interest
in
ens
in
general.
I
think
that
we
very
well
could
be
setting
a
precedent
that
would
inform
a
protocol.
K
K
If
we
make
the
move
to
just
dump
the
enos
tokens
on
the
market,
we
we
run
the
risk
of
like
telling
all
future
projects
that
that
might
give
us
tokens
that
they
that
that's
just
what
we're
going
to
do,
and
I
think
in
the
meantime,
if
a
good
compromise
to
monetize
it
is
what
long
for
wisdom
had
sort
of
brought
up
in
the
sidebar,
which
is
that
we
could
actually
create
a
vault
type
for
it.
Inform
a
price
users
would
get
a
chance
to
use
it.
We
get
the
vault
ourselves.
K
E
P
E
To
say,
what's
interesting
about,
that
is
if
we
do
end
up
creating
an
es
vault,
then
other
token
projects
will
be
like
hey.
If
we
want
to
like
get
around
the
whole
collateral
onboarding
process,
we
could
just
give
them
a
sizeable
allocation
and
they'll
probably
put
us
at
the
at
the
front
of
the
list
like
I
see
that
as
kind
of
like
a
dynamic
that
might
be
playing
out.
If
that
happens,.
L
Yeah,
but,
but
if
like,
if
this
is
actually
like
a
serious
discussion,
we
just
said
that
dumping
three
million
on
the
market
right
that
there's
not
even
enough
liquidity
to
really
do
that
at
a
competitive
kind
of
price.
So
now
our
solution
is
to
lever
up
on
that
and
approach
the
ens
team
be
like
hey.
If
you
want
to
put
a
bunch
of
ens
tokens
in
our
in
our
protocol
right
and
that
we
cannot
liquidate
at
all,
then
we
would
onboard
you
I
mean
at
at
some
point.
L
L
So
sorry
long,
I
I
meant
levering
up
on
the
on
the
risk
right
and
and
to
get
to
clarify
what
I
meant
by.
That
is.
If,
if
you
say
that
oh
well,
we
we
can,
you
know
mitigate
the
oracle
costs
by
you
know
talking
to
ens
and
saying
hey.
If
you
put
you
know
20
mil
worth
of
your
treasury
in
here
a
mint,
you
know,
10
million
die
or
whatever
right.
L
N
M
N
I
I
sorry
I
agree
with
mooney.
I
think
it
will
be
like
a
a
terrible
message
for
the
community
that
we
are
receiving
an
airdrop
and
of
a
governance
token,
and
we
are
dumping
it
like
now.
We
can
do
that
actually,
right
now.
What
what
we
are
seeing
is
that
a
lot
of
projects
are
are
proposing
like
they
give
you
tokens
and
you
give
them
tokens
like
close
partnerships,
and
things
like
that
to
think
like
to
to
have
that
in
the
treasury
and
have
the
skin
in
the
game.
P
Yeah
thanks
bros.
I
can
on
the
idea
of
actually
not
taking
ens
out
server
hands.
What's
I'd
like
to
know
the
general
sentiment
of
actually
using
those
enf
tokens
to
actually
participate
in
their
governance,
I
know
that
we
already
are
our
own
governance.
It's
quite
taxing.
We
have
a
lot
of
votes.
I
think
we
all
agree
with
the
with
the
mission
of
ens
as
a
project,
so
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
for
us,
as
a
as
a
large
player,
to
participate
and
be
part
of
the
decision
making.
F
I
don't
know
what
you're
talking
about
no,
but
guys.
I
seriously
think
that
we
should
try
to
separate
topics
and
instead
of
trying
to
mix
everything
in
one
bag
and
then
decide
because
that
makes
the
decision
making
way
harder
first
nicolas
started
with
oh.
Maybe
we
can
use
this
money
that
we
almost
found
on
the
floor
to
pay
this
other
thing,
so
one
topic
should
be:
how
should
we
pay
the
the
foundation
et
cetera,
et
cetera
the
other
one
is
what
do
we
do
with
tokens?
The
other
should
be.
F
A
Fun
all
the
fun
things
when
I
was
on
a
chromebook,
you
didn't
have
these
reactions
so
just
fyi
if
anyone's
thinking
of
downgrading
all
right.
If
noting
the
time
here,
we've
had
a
pretty
full
call
with
lots
of
discussions,
so
we'll
give
kind
of
a
last
call
here.
If
something
else
you
want
to
discuss
this
week.
This
is
your
last
chance
to
reform.
A
Right
now,
well,
thank
you,
everyone
for
coming.
We
will
have
a
regular
call
next
week
as
well.
I
know,
as
we
start
to
get
into
december,
you
will
have
to
wean
yourself
off
of
these
calls,
at
least
for
a
week
or
two,
but
look
forward
to
seeing
everybody
in
the
future.
Let's
keep
the
conversations
going
in
the
forum
and
on
the
maker
dow
discord
thanks.
Everybody.