►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 47
Description
Governance Segment
- Richard Brown
- Managing expectations, transparency versus opacity
- Talk about asset priority poll in the forums
- Chris Bradbury
- Demo of the new Governance Portal
Risk Segment
- General Risk
- Cyrus: Why are we doing an asset priority list?
- Monetary Policy - Vishesh Choudry
We'll then spend the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Thread: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/236
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/governance-and-risk
Summaries: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/summaries
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours): https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/transcripts
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundation-proposal-v2-f10d8ee5fe8c
Governance and Risk Framework: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-framework/part-one
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
Hello
and
welcome
to
the
August
eighth
edition
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting
with
Mike
Adel.
My
name
is
Richard
Crenna
I'm,
the
head
of
Community
development's
in
these
calls.
We
have
a
lot
of
interesting
things
to
talk
about.
We
have
a
lot
of
interesting
people
talking
about
it
and
it's
very
important
to
us
that
we
collect
as
much
feedback
as
we
possibly
can.
So
please
do
not
be
shy
about
speaking
up
and
your
voice
heard.
A
If
you
have
a
question,
please
type
it
in
the
chat
and
David
or
I
will
review
it
periodically
to
see.
If
there's
something
we
can
serve
this
in
there
but
like
I
said,
please
don't
be
shy
about
interrupting
us.
This
is
a
meeting
just
like
any
other
meeting.
The
world's
like
an
all
day.
Long
feel
eyes
are
the
only
thing
like
mine,
so
there's
no
special
privileges
here.
So
just
guess,
I'm
gonna
say
make
your
voice
heard.
Today
we
have
a
relatively
eclectic
agenda.
A
I
would
like
to
talk
about
some
governance
stuff
for
a
few
minutes.
Hopefully,
I'll
keep
that
promise
and
that's
why
I'm
more
than
that,
then
we're
gonna,
hear
from
Cyrus
from
wrist
and
so
I
was
gonna.
Tell
us
a
bit
about
why
I
asked
that
priority
lists
are
a
thing
why
that's
important
to
the
organization
Chris
Bradbury
is
on
the
call
from
the
product
team
he's
going
to
fill
us
in
on
some
of
the
more
sophisticated
reasons
why
the
new
portal
should
be
interesting
to
this
group.
A
David
is
going
to
run
us
through
the
governance
of
the
glance.
That's
that
we've
lifted
completely
from
Humphrey
wisdoms
great
efforts
in
the
forum.
You're
gonna
give
us
a
an
update
on
what's
been
happening.
There
vishesh
will
give
us
an
update
on
the
state
of
the
peg
and
then
we're
going
to
stick
around
for
a
Q&A
session.
We've
been
just
like
to
go
over
a
lots
of
things
in
its
best.
A
A
I
think
I
just
shame
them
into
meeting
themselves.
Alright,
cool
I
am
going
to
kick
into
my
my
agenda,
so
we
Matthew
was
just
asking
a
question
about
this
and
it
touched
on
an
emergent
process,
and
how
are
you
gonna
do
things
and
my
answer
to
that
was
I,
don't
know,
but
it'd
be
interesting
to
find
it.
A
In
my
opinion,
we
you
saw.
I
sorry,
let
me
segue
back
into
this
thing
to
segways
ago.
We
have
been
talking
about
the
nasa
priority
list
for
a
while,
and
we've
talked
about
in
vlogs
and
forums
and
Twitter's
about
how
we
need
to
figure
out
what
to
do
first,
but
I
really
Cyrus
talked
about
in
a
second,
but
what
I
want
to
talk
about
is
how
do
we
assemble
that
information?
A
How
do
we
organize
this
group,
in
the
wider
maker
token
holding
community,
to
align
on
an
idea
and
to
begin
to
do
work
and
to
signal
their
intentions?
And
it's
been
a
running
theme
in
these
calls
that
the
way
that
that
happens
is
we
start
talking
about
things,
and
then
we
make
decisions
based
on
those
talks.
Those
talks
happen
in
the
forums
and
I'm
going
to
post
a
link
into
the
chat
of
where
this
particular
conversation
occurred.
A
So
we
have
an
asset
priority
poll
thread
in
the
forum
in
the
governance
section
tagged
happily
with
the
signaling
tags,
and
people
know
that
we're
looking
for
signals.
What
I
did
here
is
explained
that
we
have
an
asset,
Fargo's
pole
coming
up
offered
three
different
suggestions
for
what
those
poles
would
look
like
reason,
I
did.
That
is
because
we
have
vastly
improved
polling
a
portal
governance
portal
with
fasting
approved
polling
system,
which
Chris
will
talk
about
in
a
bit.
But
it's
it's
not
finished.
A
Yet
it's
it's
a
great
inner
iteration,
it's
better
than
it
was
before
it's
not
quite
there
yet,
but
so
we're
in
this
world,
where
we
do
not
have
a
mechanism
available
to
us
that
allows
for
dragging
and
dropping
a
list
of
things
into
an
order
of
priority
it's,
but
we
do
have
a
mechanism
that
allows
people
to
signal
their
interest
in
a
thing
or
a
group
of
things.
So
the
question
becomes:
how
do
we
use
the
polling
system
that
we
have
to
determine
a
priority
list?
Three
options
presented
work.
A
We
have
one
poll
for
all
of
the
assets
and
so
there's
one
poll
we're
going
to
priority,
which
how
would
you
like
to
prioritize
these
seven
items?
And
then
we
a
lot
of
people
to
vote,
and
then
we
order
that
list
based
on
stake
weight,
which
is
basic,
perches
fun
of
not.
Basically,
this
is
one
eventually
how
that
government
system
is
designed,
one
maker,
one
boat,
more
maker,
more
votes,
and
so
whichever
assets
have
the
most
stake
weighted
to
them
are
the
ones
that
get
bitten
off
first.
A
The
other
option
is
we
have
a
yes
or
no
poll
for
each
one
exhausted.
So,
instead
of
one
poll
with
seven
options,
we
have
seven
polls
with
two
options
in
each
one:
one
app
one
poll
for
each
one
of
these
asset
types.
This
allows
voters
to
express
their
interest
in
each
one
of
them.
If
somebody
comes
in
and
votes
no
on
bunch
of
asset
types,
then-
and
it
pushes
us
into
the
negative
range,
then,
whichever
asset
types
have
the
least
know
or
them
get
at
least
no
votes.
A
That's
a
bit
of
a
spoiler
Lex
and
I
finished,
but
what's
the
third
option
is
that
we
have
a
weighting
poll
for
each
one
of
these
assets
and
then
we
have
seven
different
poles
and
instead
of
simple
yes-no
people
would
be
allowed.
People
would
be
able
to
vote
high
medium
or
low
for
each
one
of
those
assets,
and
then
we
can
apply
a
weighting
to
that
list
and
then
do
some
math
on
the
back
end
to
figure
out
they're
like
are
these
three
or
high?
A
The
rest
of
them
were
all
low,
and
so,
let's
see
easy
to
do
some
math
to
figure
out
what
that
actually
shakes
out
to
me
and
then
so
now
that
we
have
these
this,
the
proposal
is
in
the
forum.
We
have
the
list
of
options
in
the
forum.
I
followed
the
rules
of
the
forum
by
referencing.
The
the
community's
guidelines
about
how
polls
are
designed
to
be
aired
meant
to
be
done,
which
was
enormous.
The
usefulness
anytime.
The
community
wants
to
do
work
that
I
don't
need
to
do
it
makes
me
so
happy.
A
A
We
set
up
this
poll
to
last
for
seven
days,
I
believe
that
pull
ended
three
days
ago
and
people
signaled
their
support
for
those
three
options
that
I
just
discussed
and
what
happened
was
option
number
two.
The
straight-up
yes/no
poll
for
each
option
came
out
ahead
with
43%
of
the
votes,
the
waiting
poll
which
I
was
initially
a
big
fan
of,
but
then
I
eventually
turned
on
myself
and
voted
for
a
different
poll
came
in
second
a
38%
and
then
the
one
poll
for
all
of
the
assets
was
a
19%
poll.
So
we
had
21.
A
Voters
came
out
two
votes,
43%
chose
option
two
and
that's
the
option
that
we're
going
with,
and
so
that's
the
mechanism
that
we'll
be
using
in
the
government
portal
when
it
comes
time
to
initiate
that
ball.
These.
These
are
all
very
basic
mechanical
decisions,
but
there's
philosophy
here,
that's
far
more
important,
and
that
is
that
the
the
foundation
and
of
this
form
of
me
presented
here
of
options
as
solicited
feedback.
A
The
community
came
in
and
signal
which
parts
of
that
post
options
they
liked
and
which
there
and
also
have
provided
some
input
about
how
those
options
should
be
presented
differently,
which
was
very
useful,
and
then
there
was
a
clear
signal,
and
now
we
have
a
path
forward.
It
does
raise
a
lot
of
interesting
questions,
though,
and
it's
one
of
these
series
of
questions
that
I
don't
think
we
should
answer
today.
I
think
you
know
it's
more
or
this
week,
possibly
not
even
this
month.
But
you
look
at
this
poll
and
this
is
Wow.
A
We
have
governance
in
action.
Look
at
all
this!
This
sophistication
it's
hard
to
avoid
the
fact
that
only
21
people
voted
though,
and
that's
something
that
we
need
to
consider
as
a
group,
and
so
this
raises
a
lot
of
specters.
You
know
I'm
going
to
cast
them
as
being
specters,
because
I
think
that
these
are
very
dangerous
things
that
we
need
to
start
thinking
about
it,
and
one
of
those
is
threshold.
A
Incurring
as
possibly
something
we
can
consider,
but
how
do
we
do
do
we
want
to
get
into
a
world
where
we
set
limits
on
whether
things
count
or
not,
and
I
think
that
that's
something
that
we
need
to
have
a
lot
of
discussions
about
personally
I
think
that
the
world
we
live
in
is
the
system
we
designed
is
that
whoever
in
the
Vega
this
is
another
favorite
media?
Finally,
I
can
remember
this
correctly.
A
If
you
don't
believe
that
your
vote
matters,
then
it
doesn't,
and
if
you
believe
that
you
vote
does
matter
than
it
does
so,
whoever
whoever
gets
out
and
actually
does
something,
as
though
are
those
are
the
people
that
are
controlling
the
system
and
so,
rather
than
sort
of
begging
the
community
to
come
out
and
do
something
and
then,
if
they
are
not
enough,
people
do
do
it,
we
throw
in
the
towel
and
say:
okay.
Well,
we're
not
going
to
do
anything.
A
I
think
that's
a
dangerous
place
to
be
I
think
that
we're
going
to
need
to
have
some
teaching
moments,
and
so,
if
21
people
votes
out
of
essentially
thousands
of
people
interacting
the
system,
then
then
those
21
people
get
to
make
the
decision
and
that's
just
the
way
things
are
convinced.
So
where
that
leaves
us
is
that
there's
going
to
be
an
asset
priority
poll,
it's
going
into
the
portal
that
is
loosely
scheduled
for
made
early
to
mid
next
week
and
I.
A
Did
it
again,
I
talk
too
much,
but
I
can't
stop
now,
because
there's
really
important
things.
We
need
to
get
into
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
do
this
very
overtly
today
we're
going
to
be
talking
a
lot
about
mechanics,
implementation
and
process.
In
the
end,
these
calls,
but
we're
also
going
to
be
talking
about
philosophy,
and
this
is
where
I
want
to
verge
into
the
philosophy
for
a
bit,
because.
A
We
have
as
an
organization
and
as
a
community
and
as
this
governance
ecosystem,
we
have
a
lot
of
things
happening.
There's
there's
more
moving
pieces
than
we
have
time
in
this
call
to
talk
about.
So
that
puts
us
in
a
position
where
it's
tricky
for
us
to
make
predictions
about
what
the
future
looks
like.
Making
predictions
and
cryptic
codes
is
a
fool's
errand
anyways,
but
it's
possible
to
do
it
with
two
or
three
months
window
with
some
inaccuracy
and
we
have
a
lot
of
things
going
to
go.
We
have
a
lot
of
things.
A
We
need
the
community
to
engage
with
and
we
need
to
communicate
that
to
the
community
and
let
them
know
what
to
expect
in
order
to
do
that,
we
need
to
understand
what
we're
up
to.
We
need
to
understand
what
the
partners
are
up
to.
We
need
to
understand
what
the
ecosystem
is
about.
Doing
the
we
need
to
understand
what
governance
is
up
to
the
third.
A
One
is
a
bit
of
a
wild
card,
because
knowing
what
governance
is
up
to
is
impossible
because
governance
is
going
to
tell
us
what
they're
up
to
and
then
we're
going
to
react
to
that
so
we're
in
a
situation
where
maker
Dow
is
enormous.
Lee
invested
in
this
concept
of
radical
transparency.
If
we
have
information,
we
want
people
to
note
that
information
is
the
trade
off
here.
Is
that
information
is
subject
to
change,
so
we
can
make
our
best
effort
guesses.
We
can
make
our
best
efforts
frequently.
A
The
reason
why
I'm
going
through
all
this
is
because
in
another
window,
I'm
looking
at
all
of
the
secret
gates
that
everybody
else
in
this
call
probably
wishes
they
could
see,
and
that
is
not
me
being
cruel.
That's
because
we're
about
to
post
that
on
our
website-
and
this
is
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
caution-
the
community
vote
and
have
the
community
give
some
thought
to
this.
This
give-and-take.
A
Those
dates
are
going
to
slip,
I
guarantee
it
and
I'm
frankly,
not
that
concerned
about
it,
because
that's
just
the
way
the
world
works,
but
we
need
to
create
these
expectations
that
we
can
be
radically
transparent
as
much
as
we
possibly
can
without
breaking
any
you
know,
contracts
or
we
can
keep
things
under
our
belts
and
just
surprise
people
with
things
as
they
happen.
That's
something
the
community
needs
to
align
on
before
we
deal
with
too
much
fallout
over
having
missed
our
dates.
A
C
C
C
C
Until
we
can
scale
our
risk
teams
to
basically
handle
more
throughput
for
evaluations,
it's
just
going
to
take
some
time
to
run
through
these
projects,
one
by
one.
So
that
being
said,
how
does
the
risk
team
go
about?
Selecting
which
assets
to
evaluate
first
first-come,
first-serve
doesn't
necessarily
appear
to
be
a
good
solution,
so
I
think
well.
C
I
think
we
collectively
would
think
that
some
sort
of
prioritization
or
direction
given
by
them
care
token
holders
would
would
be
more
beneficial
and-
and
we
can
discuss
some
criteria
for
why
why
specific
priority
lists
can
be
chosen,
but
I
think
it's
just
kind
of
fairly
intuitive
right.
What
has
the
highest
value
impact
on
maker
Dow?
What
has
capabilities
of
generating
a
lot
of
dye
supply,
adding
to
diversification
and
so
forth?
C
So
right
now,
I
think
our
goal
as
the
interim
foundation
risk
team
is
to
just
essentially
hit
as
many
of
the
initial
seven
as
possible
until
MCD
launch,
but
essentially
our
process
is
to
go
through
them,
one
by
one
to
ensure
that
each
one
of
them
are
of
sufficient
quality,
I.
Think,
for
example,
we'd
rather
put
out
three
super
high-quality
reports.
C
It's
not
going
to
be
just
seven
assets
on
those
lists.
There
could
be
dozens.
There
could
be
hundreds,
it's
really
hard
to
say
right
and
so
there's
some
additional
benefits
to
priority
list.
One
is
prospective
risk,
teams
could
come
in
and
they
can
kind
of
gauge
beforehand
the
value
that
MKR
holders
would
derive
from
certain
assets.
C
So
if
they
see
an
asset
just
at
the
bottom
of
the
list,
maybe
it's
not
worth
their
time,
but
if
they
see
something
that's
up
top
and
they
know
nobody
is
currently
working
on
it.
Then
it
could.
You
know
it
could
spur
some
risk
teams
to
get
to
work.
So,
yes,
I
mean
it's
just
on
the
risk
team
side.
It's
just
purely
scalability
thing.
C
C
Think
it
potentially
a
bit
dangerous
to
add
too
many
collateral
types
at
once.
Let's
say
during
one
particular
governance
cycle
order
batch,
add
20
collateral
types
and
if
something
goes
wrong,
if
something
happens
with
the
die
peg,
it
might
be
a
little
bit
difficult
to
to
concentrate
and
kind
of
surgically
figure
out
which
asset
is
responsible
for
any
problems
we're
dealing
with.
If
we
could
kind
of
do
a
slower,
steady
stream
of
asset
additions
and
basically
take
our
time,
look
at
the
data
make
sure
we're
moving
prudently.
C
C
C
B
C
Yeah,
even
that's
difficult
right,
because
it
depends
on
the
size
of
the
team.
So
right
now,
primarily
it's
just
me
vishesh
and
promotion,
and
we
are
collaborating
to
build
to
do
the
ether,
iske
valuation
and
I
can
certainly
say
it
takes
a
bit
of
time.
Additionally,
there's
also
kind
of
the
way
that
wrist
models
are
designed
to
be
submitted.
C
There
is
also
a
kind
of
a
generalized
model
that
needs
to
be
attached
as
well.
So,
in
addition
to
just
a
specific
collateral
asset
evaluation,
there
needs
to
be
plenty
of
documentation
surrounding
frameworks
and
ideas
and
whatever
academic
research
is
being
used
to
help
support
your
actual
evaluations,
and
that
might
just
be
like
a
one-time,
fixed
cost
on
our
side.
C
So,
for
example,
if
we
wanted
to
evaluate
ten
crypto
assets,
we
could
use
one
general
framework
that
we
would
apply
to
each
of
the
assets,
but
that
general
framework
by
itself
for
the
first
time
adds
considerable
overhead
to
the
entire
to
the
overall
process.
So
each
additional
collateral
asset
would
certainly
move
faster,
but
then,
let's
say
down
the
line.
We
wanted
to
shift
to
something
completely
different.
C
Security
token
stocks,
whatever
then
we'd,
have
to
any
risk
team,
would
have
to
then
create
a
new
general
model
that
describes
their
methodologies
behind
evaluating
a
particular
asset
class,
followed
by
specific
asset
evaluations
for
the
first
few
months,
I
mean
it's
hard
to
say,
because
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
Terrill
we're
also
doing
a
lot
of
parallel
research.
That's
not
directly
related
to
this
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
going
on
right
now,
there's
a
foundation
to
kind
of
isolate,
specifically
how
much
time
the
specific
asset
takes.
C
I
would
say
at
a
good
level
of
efficiency,
probably
takes
several
weeks
to
do
one
asset.
If
you
think
about
having
to
research
a
cloud
asset,
do
your
diligence
investigate
the
organization
evaluate
its
business
potential,
get
the
trading
data
run.
Some
liquidity
models,
run
your
general
risk
models
and
then
finally,
actually
document
everything
and
write
up
the
report
and
find
a
way
to
submit
it
to
the
community.
C
A
Okay,
before
we
move
on
to
Chris's
presentation,
I
wanted
there's
also
a
question
here:
Chris
black,
you
asked
about
the
necessity
of
forum
polling
mechanism
when
we
have
an
official
polling
mechanism-
and
this
is
something
we've
been
discussing
for
for
a
while
now
and
it
seems
circular
in
some
ways.
Why
do
we
need
to
pull
about
polls?
A
They
need
to
put
decisions
in
front
of
the
holders
and
they
can
jump
straight
into
a
poll
in
the
government
portal
because
they've
been
empowered
and
ratified
by
the
community
to
do
something,
but
there's
going
to
be
piles
of
random
decisions.
So
a
good
example.
That
is
that
perhaps
we
don't
need
to
vote
on
stability
every
week,
they're
talking
about
for
a
long
time.
A
The
foundation
could
just
invent
a
bunch
of
and
then
stick
them
into
a
pole
and
then
has
a
community
vote
on
them,
but
that's
not
really
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
community
believes
we
should
be
doing
in
order
for
that
to
happen,
we
need
to
solicit
back
and
forth,
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
threads
in
the
forum
right
now
about
that
issues.
What
is
our
cadence?
What
is
there
steppin
rate
for
these
stability?
Few
changes?
A
How
should
it
be
phrased
that
it's
a
long
discussion
that
discussion
has
to
happen
somewhere
before
it
hits
the
poll,
the
official
poll
and
that's
why
we
have
a
secondary
polling
mechanism?
There's
also
some
interesting
twists
to
this,
because
in
the
governor's
portal
you
vote
with
the
maker
that
you
hold
in
the
governance
forum.
A
It's
the
wider
community
signals
their
intentions,
so
we
can
figure
out
kind
of
what
the
the
user
base
wants
and
then
take
that
into
the
official
arena
where
we
find
out
what
the
the
owners
of
the
system
want
and
figure
out
whether
there's
alignment
there
or
not.
I
hope
that
answer
your
question.
If
nuts
Chris
feel
free
to
ask
more
question,
the
chatter
hang
out
efforts
after
the
call
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
we'll
have
some
more
random
q
and
A's
Chris.
D
D
D
This
is
just
on
archived
and
version
at
the
moment,
which
is
why
there's
still
some
polls
active
but
yeah,
just
a
couple
of
changes
that
we've
made
to
try
and
make
the
experience
a
little
bit
easier
and
to
touch
on
some
of
the
things
that
we've
talked
about
just
previously
about
having
multiple
concurrent
polls
running
at
any
one
time
and
so
on,
and
maybe,
if
you
weren't
sure
how
that
affects
your
voting
and
stuff
like
that,
we'll
cover
it
here.
So
the
first
big
thing:
we've
done.
D
It's
moving
all
of
the
polls
into
this
in
polling
page.
So
now
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
different
options
on
the
dashboard
they're,
simply
on
a
single
kind
of
proposal,
page
really
descriptions
up
the
pole,
and
then
you
vote
just
by
choosing
whichever
option
we've
got
in
there
say
where
first
art
is
cool,
where
we
discussed
what
would
be
lead
types
of
votes,
the
asset
validation
for
authorization
poll,
no
simply
ESC,
yes,
nice.
D
While
it
looks
things
in
these
dropdowns
and
you'll,
see
a
full
boat
breakdown
listed
now
on
a
single
poll
page
instead
of
one
each
individual
poll
option
the
the
way
polling
is
done
now
is
it
was
in
es
chief
before
using
umkr
that
was
locked
up.
That
is
no
longer
the
case
when
you
vote
now,
you
simply
just
omit
an
event
from
from
your
wallet
and
that
will
it
has
to
either
hold
your
nkr
all
be
one
of
your
connected
wallets
if
you're
actually
currently
waiting
on
the
executive
voting
options
as
well.
D
So
if
you've
got
mkr
in
in
the
making
government
system
in
vs,
chief
and
all
you've
got
MKR
in
your
hot
wallet
or
cold
water,
all
three
of
those
MKR
balances
will
be
taken
into
account
and
voted
with.
So
you
don't
have
to
vote
if
you
three
different
ways,
if
you've
got
MKR
in
a
hot
wallet,
a
cold
weather
and
bs
chief,
just
either
one
of
the
two
bullets
that
you
set
up,
the
voting
proxy
with
you
can
vote
with,
and
you
can
also
vote
without
saying
off
of
a
proxy
as
well.
D
So
this
is
to
try
and
encourage
and
help
new
users
come
into
the
system
now
and
help
them
get
involved
in
governance,
not
necessarily
going
the
full
hog
and
going
about
in
executive
rating
by
setting
up
a
voting
contract
and
leaving
their
own
kr
into
chief,
if
they
maybe
don't
trust
it
at
the
first
instance
or
when
or
unsure
about
moving
their
MK
all
into
chief.
They
can
now
to
start
participating
in
the
polls
keeping
their
own
kr
in
their
wallet
and
I'm
afraid,
seeing
on
it.
D
That
way,
if
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
switch
to
mean
that
as
well
and
one
of
the
other
positives
that
we
had
based
on
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
got
before
was
we
had
a
lot
of
people
asking
for
the
polling
stats,
ultimately
to
remain
once
the
poll
is
closed.
We'll
see
one
of
the
kind
of
semi
annoying
things
lost
on
the
previous
version.
Well,
as
soon
as
a
poll
ended,
you
saw
what
the
winning
poll
was,
but
you
couldn't
see
what
the
vote
breakdown
was.
So
this
is
the
pole.
It's
just
finished.
D
D
You
can
see
how
many
unique
voters
to
wear
in
this
poll
or
see
the
number
is
much
much
lower
than
we
that
we
want
and
the
participation
is
I've
seen
fairly
low,
and
this
is
based
on
the
title
of
mkr
voting
and
that
the
total
okay
Owen
in
circulation
when
the
poll
took
place.
So
all
these
stats
will
remain
now
they
won't
move
around
like
you
might
have
seen
previously
and
so
on
and
I
guess.
The
big
thing
here
now
as
well
is
they've
taken
a
huge
step
towards
decentralization.
D
So
all
of
the
content
now
is
hosted
ultimately
outside
of
of
make
up.
We've
got
a
contract
that
omits.
The
events
is,
is
here
and
I
can
share
this
link.
If
anybody
wants
to
take
a
look,
but
this
is
the
contract
now
that
emits
events,
we
don't
store
the
content
inside
a
a
makeup
system
anywhere
else.
D
So
if
you're
looking
back
a
day
a
week
a
month
a
year
to
say,
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
wasn't
what
we
voted
on
at
the
time,
you're
actually
able
to
validate
what
that
hash
was
by
looking
on
chain
at
the
event
that
was,
the
hash
was
created
and
you
can
download
the
war
metadata
that
actually
comes
from
github
and
stored.
I.
Think
if
you
see
this,
let
me
not,
you
can
actually
download
the
war
content
on.
There
are
thank
you
rich
sharing,
and
you
can
actually
run
it
to
either
hashing
algorithm.
C
A
This
is
very
cool
for
the
third
party
ecosystem,
developer,
ecosystem
I.
Think
because
now
we
have
this
very
clear
and
easy-to-read
audit
trail
of
everything
that
happened
in
any
specific
polls.
So
it's
going
to
be
very,
very
easy
to
come
up
with
dashboards
and
graphs
and
do
some
analytics
on
what
people
have
been
up
to
over
time
them
super
excited
about
this.
The
foundation
is
actually
trying
to
instant
device
yeah
an
ecosystem
to
arise
around
governance
itself.
We
know
we
have
a
fairly
fairly
modest.
A
We
have
a
robust
ecosystem
around
that
dice
table
coin
about
GDP
engines,
but
we're
very
interested
in
incentivizing
people
to
build
around
our
governments
ecosystem
as
well
and
so
I'm,
hoping
that
this
reduction
of
friction
will
be
enough
to
get
people
to
start,
throwing
up
some
dashboards
for
us.
So
we
can
see
how
things
have
been
progressing
over
time.
D
Yeah,
exactly
yeah
I'm,
just
I,
just
one
thing:
I
think
Ritchie
touch
near
the
ferry
start
this.
This
is
ultimately
just
our
first
iteration
of
trying
to
improve
governance
and
improve
polling,
and
we've
got
a
number
of
things
on
a
road
map
that
we
know
we
can
do
to
carry
on
making
improvements,
but
I'd
be
super.
Hit
super
keen
to
hear
any
feedback
on
what
people
think
what
people
have
seen
what
they
like,
what
they
don't
like
on
this
first
iteration.
So
we
don't
make
any
mistakes
we
can
forward.
D
A
All
right,
thanks
Chris,
oh
those
greats,
what
there's
a
beat
that
I
predict.
I
know
you
mentioned
it,
but
I
want
to
really
hammer
this
home.
Is
that
with
the
polling
system
now
youth
there
are
no
more
hoops
to
jump
through
and
so
there's
no
more
excuses
not
to
be
heard.
So
if
you
possess
maker,
you
don't
need
to
lock
up
your
tokens
and
if
you
want
to
engage
in
a
poll,
so
there's
literally
nothing
stopping
you
there's
no,
where
excuses
play.
D
And-
and
you
can
still
use
a
break
proxy
without
leaving
M
cards
chief
as
well,
so
you
can
set
up
that
very
proxy
just
by
making
a
single
event
from
your
cold
wallet
and
then
keep
you
and
carry
on
that
cold
work
and
still
vote
with
your
whole
life,
but
I
think
I
ought
to
come.
So
do
it
yeah!
All
your
barriers
have
gone
in
in.
E
A
Let
me
turn
the
conversation
a
bit,
so
we
have
this
situation
and
I
discovered
this
to
my
own
or
a
couple
months
ago,
when
I
was
doing
some
first
passes
at
gathering
analytics
on
the
system.
Is
that
there's
still
people
out
there
that
have
their
makers
state
for
0.5%
increase
to
the
stability
fee?
So
they've
been
stuck
on
us?
What
we
call
a
spell,
so
they've
been
snot
going
to
vote.
My
I
should
say
stuck
to
his
left,
their
maker
on
a
vote.
A
D
A
Never
going
to
be
lifted
again
if
it
can
never
be
putting
in
front
adora
its
unable
to
ever
affect
the
ecosystem.
That's
essentially
wasted
maker
at
that
point.
So
what
do
we
do?
Do
we
there's
been?
Some
options
floated
so
either
once
a
vote
is
no
longer
applicable,
that
maker
can
just
go
back
into
a
person's
wallet
automatically,
so
that's
risky
for
a
few
different
reasons.
A
Cuz,
you
don't
know
who
owns
that
wallet
or
they
sell
consider
excuse
or
we
can
help
the
system
where,
after
a
certain
time
period,
but
that
maker
can
be
poked,
which
is
an
interesting
idea
that
we
came
up
with
I.
Think
we're
abandoned
maker
could
be
pinged
by
like
some
sort
of
a
keeper,
and
then
that
would
begin
a
countdown
that
would
put
it
back
into
the
person's
wallet
or
put
it
back
into
rotation
and
or
take
it
off
of
a
legacy
encoding
option.
D
Right,
yet
we're
actually
looking
all
these
sort
of
things
at
the
moment,
actually
as
an
update
to
executive
voting.
So
this
fate
of
the
project
was
for
just
for
polling
but
yeah,
but
that
next,
that
next
stage
of
maybe
having
a
complete
like
we
look
at
what
continuous
approval
voting
is
or
looks
like
or
how
executive
voting
might
work
in
the
future.
D
One
thing
we're
keen
to
do
is
is
let
MCD
launch
and
see
how
covenants
kind
of
changes
with
MCD
being
life
and
then
yes
use
the
community
and
and
automated
smart
contract
guys
to
design
the
best
system.
That's
easiest
to
use
and
it's
easiest
to
go
onto
it
onto
it
onto
an
interface,
basically,
because
I
think
that's
one
of
the
hardest
things
we're
at
right
now
is
we
have
a
very
complicated
system
which
we
have.
A
Give
you
sort
of
a
high-level
we're
sort
of
a
slightly
ambiguous
answer,
Matthew.
The
way
that
we
would
answer
that
question
and
come
up
with
a
solution
is
the
same
way
that
we
came
up
with
an
answer
and
a
solution
for
what
a
priority
asset
list
would
look
like.
So
someone
would
make
the
case
for
a
solution
for
this
abandoned
or
stale
maker
solute
problem
posted
into
the
forums
we
would
have
a
debate.
There
would
be
a
poll
we
would
gather
signals.
A
B
I'll,
keep
it
super
short,
so
I'm
not
gonna
cover
everything
in
thread.
As
I
said
last
week,
I
I'm,
just
gonna
cover
the
new
stuff
they're,
so
long
for
wisdom
posted
to
new
threads.
This
week
there
there
was
a
signaling
guidelines
thread
which
actually
summarized
the
old
meta
governance
thread
and
kind
of
put
some
some
guidelines
there
so
and
we're
seeking
consensus
on
what
a
kind
of
canonical
set
of
guidelines
around
signaling
on
the
forum
actually
looks
like,
and
so
he
you
know
he's
inviting
anybody
to
go.
B
Take
a
look
at
that
thread
and
disagree
or
agree
as
you
wish,
and
I'll
post
links
out
there
right
now.
If
you
guys
are
interested
and
then
the
other
thread
that
is,
there
is
again
about
the
asset
priority
poll
which
we
have
already
thoroughly
covered
in
this
call,
so
I
am
NOT
going
to
go
into
my
notes
about
it,
because
richer
Eddy
talk
like
extensively
about
it.
So
yes,
so
those
are
the
only
two
major
new
threads
in
in
the
forum.
B
A
It's
on
the
agenda,
but
it's
the
idea
of
broadcasting
and
communication,
but
the
things
that
happen
in
governance
in
the
forums
things
happen
in
this
call.
The
things
that
happen
in
the
chats
need
to
be
broadcast
to
the
way
to
wider
world,
and
we
need
to
come
up
with
mechanisms
that
allow
us
to
do
that.
A
A
A
So
if
you
have
an
idea
about
how
we
can
communicate
governance
issues
more
effectively
risk
issues,
if
you
have
experience
with
Twitter
bots,
if
you
think
you
can
pull
this
off
for
us-
and
you
have
some
ideas
contact
me
and
we
can
talk
about
how
we
can
put
that
into
a
possibly
branch
program
or
it's
going
to
fountain.
We
can
get
something
cooking.
F
F
But
basically
this
is
over
the
last
24
hours,
pretty
much
centered
on
a
dollar.
You
know
somewhat
low
volumes
around
two
or
three
million
most
days
in
the
past
few
weeks,
so
light
trading
but
stable,
and
so
that's
that's.
What
we
see
is
well
over
the
seven-day
time
frame.
You
know
pretty
much
the
exact
same
volume
weighted
average
price
about
fourteen
million
in
trading
rolling
over
the
past
seven
days,
at
least
on
Dex's
and
the
coin
base.
F
F
So
I
think
what
we've
probably
encountered
is
a
bit
of
fatigue
from
from
some
of
those
leverage
positions,
and
so
we,
you
can
see
in
the
transactions
here
the
amount
of
debt
that's
been
wiped
over
the
past
couple
of
weeks
has
ticked
up,
but
the
amount
of
debt
that's
been
gone
out.
It's
been
relatively
steady,
steady
state,
so
you
know
that
means
that
the
supplies
come
down
fairly
significantly,
since
you
know
about
ninety
million
in
mid
July
to
you
know
just
to
begin
the
first
week
of
this
month
down
to
about
76
77
million.
F
So
that's
a
pretty
significant
drop.
Part
of
that
can
be
explained
through
some
of
what's
been
going
on
with
refinancings,
but
I'm,
actually
not
quite
that
significantly.
So
this
has
been
a
drop
in
in
demand.
I
think
we
can,
we
can
safely
say,
but
it's
more
than
likely
that
that
demand,
given
the
way
the
collateralization
has
moved.
So
he
touch
on
that
and
yet
transaction
volumes
have
been
steady
over
the
past
month
or
so,
as
we
talked
about,
but
in
the
past
week
or
so,
I've
dropped
down
quite
a
bit.
F
So
this
is
sort
of
quiet
at
the
moment
and
I
do
want
to
test
out
the
sentiment
dashboard
a
little
bit
but
the
collateralization.
So
what
we
see
is
the
amount
of
eath
locked
has
come
down
a
bit,
but
the
the
dye
supplies
also
come
down.
So
these
have
just
kind
of
moved
in
lockstep
the
collateralization
has
been
held
relatively
steady
so
still
in
this,
like
360
ish,
360
7080
over
the
past
week
or
so
actually
two
weeks,
so
not
a
lot
of
movement
in
collateralization,
but
the
supply
and
collateral
have
come
down.
F
So
that's
just
a
reduction
of
leverage
because
basically,
over
the
past
you
know
two
or
three
months.
The
collateralization
ratio
has
not
come
down
below
this,
like
roughly
three
hundred
sixty
percent
levels.
So
that's
basically
at
the
moment,
seems
like
somewhat
of
a
floor.
Four
we're
seeing
peelers
are
gonna.
Allow
the
collateralization
ratio
to
go
given
with
the
eve
prices
currently
and
honestly.
The
volatility
that's
been
going
on
in
eath
I
think
has
kept
a
healthy
amount
of
fear
in
in
leverage
seekers.
F
You
know
as
much
advantage
of
that
primarily
due
to
you
know:
knowledge
user
interface,
just
the
general
experience
and
the
transaction
cost
involved
in
moving
those
things.
So
so,
naturally,
that
led
to
a
little
bit
more
utilization,
but
that's
actually
leveled
out
a
bit.
So
the
only
explanation
for
for
this
drop
and
I'll
just
explore
the
utilization
graph.
This
drop
in
utilization
in
that
same
time
frame
is
supply,
has
gone
down,
and
we
discuss
this
with
David
a
bit
on
the
maker
chat
over
the
past
week.
F
Essentially,
supplies
come
down,
but
also
utilization
has
come
down,
so
that
unfortunately
means
there
had
to
have
been
a
reduction
in
demand
at
least
a
demand
for
for
leverage
positions.
That
utilization
has
come
down
very
slightly
or
almost
none
on
dy/dx.
So,
what's
really
interesting
is
when
you
disproportionately
see
changes
in
dydx
versus
compound
I.
Think
dy/dx
has
really
nestled
into
a
very
specific
role
of
when
people
are
seeking
high
leverage
when
they
want
to
go.
F
You
know
immediately
3x
leverage
and
just
use
the
you
know
the
the
built-in
button
that
you
idea
it
has
for
doing
that
when
people
are
looking
for
more
short-term
plays
where
they're
willing
to
pay
this.
This
higher
rate,
you
can
see
the
dy/dx
borrow
rate
is
pretty
consistently
higher
than
compound
and
occasionally
higher
than
the
maker
civility
fee,
but
very
unpredictable.
So
I
think
that's.
These
are
reasons.
Why
do
I
DX
is
nestled
into
more
this
short
term,
somewhat
riskier
slightly
more
expensive
role,
whereas
compound
has
been
more
of
me.
F
So
that's
that's
been
a
little
bit
more
of
a
stable
rate
over
time,
and
so
it's
been
really
interesting
to
see
that
utilization
come
down
from
you
know
pretty
much
topping
out
to
you
know
the
closer
to
dy
DX's
utilization
around
seventy
nine
eighty
percent,
just
in
the
last
week
or
so
so
again,
the
combination
of
the
fact
that
supplies
come
down
and
utilization
on
a
platform
that
compound
has
come
down
first
is
dy/dx,
presumably
means
that
more
of
those
passes.
Passive
leverage
seekers
essentially
not
be
like
higher
risk,
higher
price
tolerance
lenders
and
borrowers.
F
So
again,
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
about
this
and
basically
consolidating
you,
know
three
or
four
different
economic
effects
into
one
single
statement,
so
I'm
sure
I'm
sure
I
glossed
over
some
nuance
there.
But
you
know
you
can
essentially
see
the
same
thing
reflected
in
the
or
excess
supply
on
both
these
platforms,
which
has
come
up
fairly
significantly
from
from
almost
nothing
in
Italy
July
to
a
solid.
F
You
know,
total
ish
million
died
and,
and
the
percentage
of
this
excess
of
I
out
of
the
total
died
supply
has
gone
up
fairly
significantly
because
the
total
total
denominator
has
has
come
down.
But
this
this
numerators
gone
up
fairly,
significantly
so
again,
I
think
and
and
this
echos
some
of
what
was
shared
on
the
the
chat
recently
demand
is,
has
dipped
a
bit,
though
dies
fairly
stable,
so
I
think
you
know
it's
important
to
consider
what
can
be
done
to
help.
F
Yeah,
just
one
last
thing
to
touch
on
is
the
fees,
so
essentially
he
paid
fees
have
had
ticked
up
in
that
same
time
frame.
That
I
was
talking
about
mid
to
late
July
and
have
been
fairly
flat
since
then,
unpaid
fees
have
actually
dipped
during
that
time
period.
So
that
makes
sense
right.
You
lose
some
of
those
unpaid
fees,
because
you
gain
paid
fees
but
again
since
mid
to
late
July
those
unpaid
fees
and
now
resumed
their
trend
of
just
accumulating
where's,
the
paint
fees
and
kind
of
flatlined
a
little
bit.
F
They
paint
bees
tend
to
go
in
a
bit
of
a
stepwise
function,
and
it's
be
really
interesting.
Maybe
I
can
look
at
next
how
this
the
rate
of
of
this
revenue
relates
to
volatility
price,
but
essentially,
that's
the
my
hypothesis
is
that
as
eath
is
more
volatile,
you'll
see
more
churn
more
circulation
in
debt,
which
is
the
concept
that
we've
talked
about
before,
which
leads
to
more
realization
of
paid
fees.
F
F
F
Think
you
know
it
takes
a
little
bit
of
these
things
about
cycles
kind
of
it
takes
a
little
bit
of
time,
I
think
before
people
you
know,
look
at
ok,
there's
a
solid
two
percent
spread
between
the
maker
stability
key
and
the
compound
rate.
For
example.
Now
I
will
go
ahead
and
refinance
I
think
you.
You
should
reasonably
see
more
more
refinancings
over
the
next
few
days.
F
If
the
compound
rate
stays
around,
you
know
16
17
%,
it
doesn't
make
economic
sense
for
people
to
not
take
advantage
of
of
that
now
you
know
8
to
9
million
die.
That's
that's
loading
on
those
platforms
but
I,
don't
think
you'll
see
huge
change
in
dydx,
because
actually
the
the
rate
there's
pretty
much
smack
dab
around
the
stability
fee.
F
A
So
we're
at
the
yeah
we
just
crossed
the
top
of
the
hour
we
can
transition
into
the
general
Q&A
mode.
I
think
that
people
have
questions
that
they
wanted
to
ask,
but
for
people
that
are
dropping
off
already
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
the
thank
yous
in.
So
thank
you
to
Chris
Bradbury.
Thank
you
to
Cyrus.
You
know
see
vishesh
David,
you
drove
in
and
big.
Thank
you
to
me
for
my
continued
administration
of
these
calls.
Everybody
please
hang
out
and
chat.
A
I
am
going
to
go
dark
because
I
have
another
meeting
but
I'll
be
listening
in
another
window
and
oh
yeah,
sorry
I
forgot
my
post,
amble
I
did
the
priam.
Oh
here's,
the
post
animal.
The
conversation
continues
in
the
forums
we
have
a
forum
thread
for
every
one
of
these
calls.
We
post
summaries
of
what
happened
in
these
calls,
missed
threads
and
links
to
videos
and
audios.
A
E
B
E
Not
exactly
I
mean
there's
I'm,
still
writing
a
research
paper
about
it.
I
started
on
it
at
least
drafting
it,
but
it's
it's
far
from
anywhere
and
ready
to
be
published,
but
using
a
PID
does
work,
but
its
benefits
basically
drop
off
the
larger
the
system
gets
because
anyone,
let's
just
call
them
this
matter.
E
But
after
we
have
a
hundred
collateral
packages
or
a
thousand
of
them,
the
impacts
from
any
one
given
source
start
to
be
disproportionately
lower
than
they
were
initially.
So,
if
you
use
a
PID
to
come
up
with
an
algorithmic
suggestion,
it
can
help,
but
it's
really
really
useful
at
the
very
beginning,
which
is
exactly
when
we
won't
have
it
ready
by
and
the
longer
that
system
goes
on
the
more
obvious
what
the
decision
tree
will
be
by
human.