►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 176
Description
Agenda
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-176-thursday-january-27-17-00-utc/12853
Governance Round-Up
Votes
MIPs
Forum
Initiative Updates
Overview of the new segment
Layer 2
On-Chain Collateral Management
Off-Chain Collateral Management
Selected Discussions
Offboarding Process for CU’s and Facilitators
Disclaimer
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved, and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial or other advisory services.
A
psa
long
for
wisdom
is
not
going
to
be
hosting
today
he
is
feeling
a
bit
under
the
weather,
so
I
am
stepping
in
to
carry,
and
likewise
pros
is
actually
on
vacation
this
week.
So
yeah,
it's
gonna,
be
all
good
cops
today.
Basically,
so
yeah
long
for
wisdom
is
still
here,
so
he's
gonna
be
kind
of
hanging
out
in
chat.
A
Wait,
oh
yeah,
so
yeah
welcome
to
the
governance,
and
this
call
this
is
a
public
call
at
maker
dao,
where
we
bring
together
internal
and
external
stakeholders
and
kind
of
go
through
a
handful
of
different
things.
The
contents
of
the
call
involved
four
main
components:
a
governance
roundup,
where
we
go
through
the
votes
mips
and
the
forum
update
for
the
week,
and
now
we
actually
have
a
new
segment
called
the
initiative
updates
and
I'm
gonna
be
covering
that
shortly.
A
We're
also
going
to
have
presentations
that
should
actually
read
discussions,
because
there's
no
real
presentation,
but
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
kind
of
the
most
pertinent
topic
of
the
week,
which
is
you
know,
upgrading
the
surplus
auctions,
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
like
the
options
in
order
of
resource
investment.
Other
considerations
timelines,
you
know
all
that
good
stuff
and
then.
A
Lastly,
if
there's
time
at
the
end
of
the
call,
it's
just
open
discussion,
if
anybody
would
like
to
bring
things
up,
they
can
we
have
an
anonymous
question
box
if
artem.
If
you
want
to
share
that
in
the
chat,
be
my
guest,
I'm
pretty
sure
we
check
it
every
call,
but
yeah
so
feel
free
to
use
it
and
and
yeah,
let's
get
rolling
with
the
first
update,
which
which
actually
is
going
to
be
delivered
by
me.
So
today,
I'm
gonna
cover
the
votes.
A
A
So
look
out
for
that
and
also
it's
going
to
effectively
revoke
content,
production's
budget
as
a
result
of
monday's
completed
ratification
poll
to
off-board
their
budget
and
their
facilitator.
So
yeah,
that's
about
it
for
the
votes.
I'm
gonna
pass
it
off
to
pablo
aka
blimpa
for
the
mips
general
update.
B
B
Also,
we
are
welcoming
two
new
units:
strategic
finance,
whose
mission
is
to
provide
financial
reporting
and
analysis
for
the
dao
and
the
cops
whose
mission
is
to
provide
technical
support
services.
Obviously,
as
for
other
staff,
we
have
a
core
unit
of
boarding,
that
of
mkt-001,
also
known
as
content.
Production,
which
has
been
afforded
and
is
no
longer
occur.
Units
also
will
remember,
is
now
the
new
and
sole
facilitator
for
real
world
finance.
B
As
usual,
we
also
have
a
number
of
proposals
in
rfc
that
need
your
feedback
on
the
phone.
Some
have
been
there
for
a
while
now,
so
I'm
not
going
to
be
exhausted
here,
so
this
one
has
been
on
the
forum
posted
for
a
while
now,
but
I
pay
attention
to
it,
because
the
important
proposal
said
for
the
prospective
maker
telecom
units
is
going
to
be
seeing
some
modifications
and
revisions
very
soon
and
is
eligible
to
enter
february's
governance
cycle.
B
We
also
have
a
number
of
our
budget
adjustments
for
risk
collateral
engineering
services
and
mean
five
security.
We
have
the
facilitator
on
and
uploading
for
docs.
We
have
a
torch
passing
between
philip
and
dennis
in
this
case,
and
finally,
we
have
an
amendment
for
mip
55
that
improves
clarity.
That
is
the
special
purpose
fund
map.
By
the
way,
we
also
have
an
amendment
for
the
freshly
accepted
meep
64.
B
to
expedite
small
bug,
bounty
payouts
and
decent
day,
it's
an
adjustment
to
their
budget
too.
So
please
take
a
look
and
we
have
three
nip
63
c4,
some
proposals
to
board
maker
keeper,
sorry
maker
keeper
networks-
and
yes,
I
think
I
didn't
miss
anything-
that's
pretty
much
it
at
the
moment.
So
thank
you
guys.
A
C
Awesome
thanks
david,
a
quick
note
kind
of
scaled
up
the
forum
at
a
glance
to
be
a
little
bit
more
comprehensive,
so
leave
any
feedback
for
improvements.
So
I
could,
you
know,
make
a
better
form
at
a
glance
for
you
guys
and
we'll
get
started
so
we're
reviewing
the
week
of
january
20th
up
to
today
january
27th
of
2022
and
we're
beginning
with
the
week's
top
announcements.
C
Now
last
friday
was
a
stress
test
of
our
liquidation
system,
which
went
overall
quite
well
and
in
response
to
the
event,
the
risk
core
unit
released
an
analysis
and
data
report
for
the
collateral
auctions
and
surplus
auctions
that
occurred
during
that
friday.
The
report
covers
many
specific
details
of
these
auctions,
including
coverage
of
the
largest
concern
being
the
seven
sibling
vault
owner
having
over
632
million
depth
at
risk.
C
In
conclusion,
though,
the
effective
slippage
of
these
auctions
showed
that
the
protocol
overspent
about
two
and
a
half
million
die
for
mkr
collected.
However,
this
number
should
be
taken
over
grain
of
salt
and
for
more
information
and
details.
On
the
whole
analysis,
please
check
out
the
original
post.
You
could
check
it
at
the
forum
at
a
glance
as
well
moving
on
next
up
yeah.
So
please
welcome
with
the
help
of
ses
the
new
incubating
core
unit
known
as
maker
academy.
They
released
an
introductory
post
about
their
core
unit.
C
C
And
next
up,
there
are
currently
three
auction
uis
in
the
in
the
maker
ecosystem,
which
could
be
confusing
to
users,
especially
with
the
lack
of
documentation
or
clarity
on
how
to
use
or
when
to
use
some
of
them.
Meanwhile,
as
the
sidestream
core
unit
is
building
out
their
unified
auctions
ui
during
this
transition
period,
the
ducks
core
unit
identified
this
period
as
an
opportunity
to
target
some
low-hanging
fruit
to
improve
the
discoverability
of
uis
and
in
collaboration
of
lucas
from
sidestream
core
unit.
C
The
ducks
core
unit
have
defined
a
couple
of
short-term
measures
that
could
help
increase,
increase
the
discoverability
of
the
of
the
uis
for
front-end
users
and
end-users.
They
right
now.
They
continue
to
work
through
the
collateral
management
for
on-chain
initiative
called
command
until
the
sidestream
core
unit
is
ready
to
fully
own
the
domain
of
auction
uis,
and
then
there
will
be
some
follow-up
posts
from
there.
C
And
moving
on
to
our
top
discussions
as
the
community
seeks
to
scale
real
world
finance
program,
the
real
world
finance
core
unit
and
the
community
must
support
external
counsel,
which
is
a
commercially
standard
practice
and
in
response
christian
peterson
submits
an
informal
poll
seeking
the
support
from
the
community
towards
the
approach.
The
borrowers
will
be
required
to
pay
for
makers,
external
legal
support,
check
out
the
forum
at
a
glance
for
the
original
or
the
original
post
for
more
information,
and
please
make
a
vote.
C
Next
up,
chris
wants
to
personally
convince
maker
holders.
Why
increasing
the
surplus
buffer
is
the
right
strategy
to
ensure
long-term
growth
of
the
protocol.
He
explains
how
a
bigger
surplus
buffer
can
be
used
as
fuel
for
growth
and
that
we
shouldn't
be
short-sighted
by
burning
mkr.
Instead,
we
should
focus
on
reinvesting
into
growth
for
the
protocol.
In
the
long
term,
this
could
even
improve
the
value
of
mkr.
C
C
Multiple
ideas
of
replacing
the
current
flapper
have
been
floating
around
in
the
past,
so
in
response,
shoopy
submits
a
signal
request
to
find
out
whether
the
community
would
like
to
either
do
nothing
and
not
burn
any
more
mkr.
Until
we
have
a
long-term
solution
in
place
or
introduce
the
rate
limiting
into
the
flapper
and
bring
back
mkr
burning
as
soon
as
possible.
C
A
discussion
and
signal
request,
submitted
over
a
year
ago,
has
passed
and
set
the
debt
ceiling
of
t
usda
to
zero
die
today,
there's
still
about
26
million
die
of
outstanding
debt
and
the
increase
of
the
stability
fee
to
one
percent
hasn't
changed.
Anything
in
response
to
this
shoopi
offers
three
options
as
potential
changes
to
the
tusd
and
asks
the
community
whether
they
want
to
offload
to
a
to
a
new
to
usd
psm
with
a
depth
ceiling
of
zero
or
activate
liquidations
on
tusda
keepers
or
keep
it
as
is,
and
do
nothing.
C
And
our
final
signal
request
is
to
extend
the
delegation
compensation
trial.
The
initial
signal
request
that
approved
the
delegation
compensation
trial
implemented
a
three-month
trial
period.
We
recognized
that
initial
parameter
requirements
were
too
harsh
and
introduced
the
performance
modifier
through
a
signal
request,
which
has
been
added
to
mip
61..
C
As
things
currently
stand,
mip
61
hasn't
been
formally
completely
submitted
and
there's
still
a
few
changes
being
discussed
january
is
the
final
month
currently
covered
by
the
trial,
and
compensation
for
recognized
delegates
would
cease
after
this
month.
In
response
to
this,
patrick
patrick
asks
the
community
whether
we
should
extend
the
delegate
compensation
trial
by
a
maximum
of
six
months
and
end
it
if
the
mip
61
were
to
be
ratified.
C
And
that's
it
for
a
forum
at
a
glance.
It
was
kind
of
plump
today,
actually
pretty
hefty,
so
definitely
check
it
out.
It
also
contains
a
three-point
summary
evaluations
reports,
ongoing
initiatives,
help
wanted
and
a
lot
more
announcements
and
discussions
than
where
manches
mentioned
in
this
call.
Thanks.
A
Thank
you
arden
for
the
excellent
overview
for
this
next
segment.
We're
going
to
be
talking
about
the
initiative
updates
and
they
will
be
presented
by
stakeholder
alignment,
call
beats,
which
two
of
those
happen
to
be
me.
So
all
right.
Just
so
just
a
quick
note
of
context.
This
is
not
a
one-time
update.
It's
a
recurring
segment.
A
How
often
we're
going
to
be
updating
weekly
on
the
various
initiatives,
we're
figuring
it
out,
so
you
know
there's
a
balance
that
we
need
to
strike
between
giving
too
much
information
and
updating
you
guys
too
much
versus
updating
kind
of
yeah.
There's
balance,
there's
a
lot
of
information
and
there's
a
lot
of
initiatives
as
you'll
see
in
one
of
my
coming,
slides
and
in
general,
we're
iterating
and
improving
the
reporting
format.
So
this
is
kind
of
a
first
pilot
run
of
the
format
and
we
are
very
open
to
suggestions.
A
So
please
yeah
reach
out
to
us
if
you'd
like
to
see
something
different
or
have
a
great
suggestion,
slides,
okay,
so
this
initiative
updates
section
is
powered
by
the
initiative
tracking
and
reporting
project.
So
it's
many
initiative
words
and
also
the
cross-court
unit
collaboration.
That's
involved
in
it,
so
our
team
govcoms
has
been
taking
on
a
brand
new
project
to
track
all
of
the
various
initiatives
at
maker
to
coordinate.
A
You
know
the
different
stakeholders
involved
in
each
of
these
initiatives
with
with
that,
with
kind
of
like
this
modular
framework
that
we're
developing
in
partnership
with
wilder
from
ses.
So
why
is
this
cro
like?
Why
is
this
stakeholder
alignment
and
initiatives
tracking
thing
necessary?
Well,
you
know
we
are
in
a
down
it's
a
headless
organization
and
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
to
be
doing
this
kind
of
practice.
So
I
listed
a
bunch
of
them,
but
the
main
ones
are
really:
it
prevents
stagnating
initiatives.
It
produces.
A
A
You
know
the
globally
diverse
cross-team
planning,
that's
involved
in
many
of
these
initiatives,
and
also
it
improves
clarity
by
focusing
on
initiative
output
rather
than
team
output,
because
we
recognize
that
initiatives
actually
have
a
huge
ecosystem
overlapping
core
units,
so
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
really
follow
core
unit
updates
individually,
unless
you're
trying
to
keep
them
accountable
for
purposes
of
like
stakeholders
and
thinking
about
maker
dial
from
a
more
like
holistic
roadmap
perspective.
We
believe
that
this
is
really
important
for
focusing
on
initiative
output
and
also
it
creates
confidence
for
external
stakeholders.
A
A
This
is
a
natural
part
of
that
process,
or
not
really
a
natural
part
of
the
natural,
but
it
should
be
a
natural
part.
It
also
reduces
bus
factor
when
you
bring
all
of
these
different
cross-functional
teams,
there's
a
lot
of
cross-functional
knowledge
sharing
and
also
across
team
training.
That
happens,
and
it
also
produces
shared
road
maps,
which
I
already
mentioned,
are
important
for
clare,
so
to
give
some
greater
context
around
the
I'm.
A
Sorry
just
got
to
meet
somebody
yeah,
so
to
give
a
little
bit
of
a
greater
context
on
the
different
initiatives
that
are
actually
happening.
At
maker,
dow
there's
11
buckets
that
we've
identified
like
layers,
2
collateral
management
for
on
and
off
chain,
oracles
technical
upgrades,
organizational
improvements,
growth,
stakeholder
content,
special
purpose
funds,
risk
security,
and-
and
all
of
these
have
you
know,
sub
projects
underneath
them
obviously
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them,
but
we
are
working
on
tracking.
You
know
exactly
what
these
trees
are.
A
So
there's
some
process
requirements
for
all
this
core
units
should
be
able
to
self-organize.
They
should
be
able
to
identify
stakeholders.
They
should
be
able
to
identify
common
goals.
They
should
be
able
to
identify
the
solutions
that
need
to
be
implemented.
Agree
on
the
work
breakdown
of
tasks
that
are
associated
with
those
milestones,
dependencies
have
to
be
mapped
and
understood
and
agreed,
and
at
the
same
time,
timelines
have
to
be
estimated
correctly
and
orchestrated
between
all
of
these
different
teams
that
do
all
this
different
work.
A
You
know
autonomous
execution
is
what
we're
going
for,
and
it
requires
well-understood
best
practices
to
avoid
amateurism
and
really
to
provide
stagnation
of
initiatives
due
to
like
responsibility,
gaps
and,
ultimately,
this
whole
process.
It
can
be
leveraged
to
create
a
lot
more
transparency
through
exactly
this
process.
You
know
the
reporting,
and
so
this
is
how
this
is,
how
the
framework
is
basically
structured,
but
every
initiative
kind
of
have
has
four
stages.
A
It
could
be
in
there's
an
ideation
workshop
stage
where
you
know
there's
an
idea
for
an
initiative,
but
there's
a
lot
of
thought
that
has
to
go
into
producing
like
the
right
game
plan
for
it.
Eventually
that
results
in
a
solution,
design
and
so
there's
a
couple
rounds
of
feedback
that
happened
there.
Solution
design
is
actually
very
relevant
to
like
technical
projects
where
there's
multiple
dependencies
and
you
know
multiple
considerations,
but
ultimately,
every
initiative
goes
through
a
work
breakdown
format,
and
this
is
where
an
initiative
decides.
A
After
that,
you
know,
statuses
are
placed,
owners
are
placed
and
the
the
stakeholder
alignment
call
moves
into
this
production
coordination
phase,
and
this
is
where
all
the
deliverables
are.
You
know
kind
of
flattened
out
and
it
really
becomes
formulaic
of
people
before
the
call
they
update
all
the
stuff.
That
happened,
and
the
call
is
just
used
to
kind
of
surface
blockers
to
discuss
like
key
points
to
move
forward
on
various
milestones
and,
ultimately,
all
of
this
stuff.
A
A
A
Let
me
breathe,
there's
a
lot
of
words
and
then
the
third
one
is
layer,
two
which
actually
was
the
very
first
one
that
we
piloted
the
stakeholder
alignment
calls
on
and
so
yeah.
That's
the
three
that
we're
gonna
be
bringing
to
you
today
and
some
next
ones
that
are
planned.
Are
the
security,
slash
emergency
response
planning
initiative,
as
well
as
the
new
education
and
onboarding
initiative.
A
D
All
right
next
slide,
please
so
cool.
I
think
david
did
a
really
good
intro
of
what
the
stakeholder
coordination
meetings
are.
The
fact
that
they're
cross-functional
in
nature-
and
you
know
all
talking
about
aligning
on
common
milestones
and
the
work
that
is
broken
down
in
those
so
I'll,
breathe
over
that
section,
and
then
we
can
dive
into
the
l2
specifics.
D
So
yeah
much
much
like
david,
said
yeah.
This
is
all
about
bringing
together
cross-functional
stakeholders
defining
milestones,
making
sure
that
we
have
a
work
breakdown
that
helps
us
to
align
tasks,
understand
the
next
steps,
so
all
about
understanding
dependencies
blockers
and
as
we
walk
through
these
for
us
on
the
l2
side,
it's
a
weekly
process,
so
understanding
what
those
blockers
are
talking
about
the
accomplishments
and
then
providing
govcoms
and
others
with
a
weekly
progress
status
update
and
that
really
helps
to
keep
align.
D
The
expectations
understand
what
the
tasks
are
their
relative
priority
and,
quite
importantly,
the
relationships
between
those
various
types
of
work
because,
as
you'll
see
on
the
next
slide,
there
are
a
lot
of
different
stakeholders
involved,
and
now
I
have
not
captured
all
of
them
because
they
changed
quite
regularly.
Well,
they
updated
quite
regularly
as
people
were
saying
in
the
sidebar.
D
So,
as
the
next
slide
shows,
you
know
making
sure
that
we
have
engagement
from
these
different
core
units
is
critical
and,
like
david
mentioned
l2
that
I'll
be
talking
about
in
a
moment,
collateral,
onboarding,
off-boarding
and
then
the
two
that
are
coming
shortly
for
security,
stakeholder
and
maker
academy.
I've
already
been
talking
to
the
maker
academy,
guys
and
understanding
how
we
in
protocol
engineering
can
contribute
to
that
and
work
with
other
core
units.
So
we
have
a
coordinated
response
to
these
dedicated
topic
meetings.
D
We
still
maintain
the
mandated
actor
meeting
as
that's
an
important
sort
of
roll
up
for
coordination
across
facilitators
in
the
different
groups.
So
I
won't
spend
more
time
on
that
I'll
move
to
the
next
one,
as
I
think
david's
covered
everything
here,
so
l2
progress,
specifically,
let's
first
of
all
talk
about
the
scope,
so
here
we're
talking
about
all
efforts
related
to
scaling
dye
adoption
across
l2,
roll-ups
and
side
chains,
and
you
notice
I'm
not
discriminating
between
roll-ups
or
side
chains.
D
It's
really
about
the
fact
of
scaling,
diet,
adoption
and
anything
that
contributes
to
that
is
really
fair
game
for
this
focus.
This
meeting
of
stakeholders.
So
you'll
see
the
snapshot
here
that
I
have
on
the
right
side
of
the
page,
so
it's
really
bringing
out
the
the
full
product
life
cycle
from
you
know,
inception
architecture,
development,
testing,
auditing,
working
with
third
parties
and
third
parties
can
be
external
to
maker
internal
core
units
and
then
eventually,
deployment
and
maintenance
once
live
so
pulling
out.
D
Also,
oracle
support
so
they've
been
working
on
a
proof
of
concept
which
which
is
functional
so
making
sure
that
that
integrates
with
the
work
we're
doing.
On
the
protocol
engineering
side,
we've
got
upcoming
discussions
with
risk
parameter
with
the
risk
team,
and
also
integrating
with
growth
and
govcoms
to
have.
D
Sorry,
computers,
okay,
we're
good
just
making
sure
that
yeah
we
have
integration
with
other
teams
and
that
the
communication
to
the
forum
and
twitter
etc
is
all
all
included.
Also
we're
working
with
keepers,
so
talking
with
tech,
ops
and
working
with
third-party
keeper
networks
to
make
sure
that
they're
engaged
in
this
new
these
new
ecosystems
as
well,
and
that,
of
course,
includes
l2
user
interfaces.
D
So
in
terms
of
working
with
third
parties.
There's
a
lot
of
testing
auditing
with
in
this
case,
chain
security
and
making
sure
that
the
contracts
are
as
we
expect
them
to
be,
and
so
this
all
rolls
up
to
the
milestones
which
I'll
break
out
on
the
next
slide.
So
we
split
these
into
three
three
groups.
So,
as
you
all
know,
from
our
multi-chain
strategy,
we've
referenced,
slow
withdrawals,
fast
withdrawals
and
mcd
on
layer
2
as
the
main
milestones
here
with
the
respective
domains.
D
At
one
point
before
I
go
into
the
plotting
of
these
on
a
roadmap,
I
wanted
to
mention
for
awareness
that
we've
currently
got
a
lot
of
discussions
around
risk
considerations,
and
this
is
quite
a
multi-faceted
discussion-
that's
ongoing
at
the
moment,
so
it
it's
talking
about
roll-ups
for
side
chains.
What
are
the
implications
of
rap
diverse,
canonical
die?
What
is
the
behavior
of
dye
in
the
wormhole
and
across
domains?
D
And
then
what
are
the
attack
vectors
that
are
present
as
a
result
of
that,
so
the
security
implications
and
how
these
discussions
steer
our
approach
for
side
chains
such
as
polygon
and
others?
So
again,
this
is
not
restricted
to
roll-ups.
It's
also
talking
about
side
chains,
it's
a
very
broad
discussion
and
it's
a
discretion
that
introduces
a
lot
of
risk
considerations
so
that
we
have
a
broad
view.
D
So
you'll
know
that
the
optimism
and
arbitrary
have
been
delivered,
so
you
can
click
through
with
me
david
slowly
as
I
go
through
these,
the
the
stark
net
die
bridge
is
currently
targeting
the
end
of
february.
We've
got
medium
confidence
for
that.
There's
some
dependencies
here
so
we're
working
with,
and
this
is
the
the
stark
net
core
unit
team
so
predominantly
led
by
louis
and
mutczek.
D
So
we've
got
some
dependencies
on
the
starkware
ui,
there's
some
event:
audits,
which
are
going
to
be
completed
mid-february
and
there's
also
work
to
integrate
oracles.
It's
all
going
ahead,
medium
confidence
there
because
of
those
dependencies,
the
technical
work,
that's
enabling
the
fast
withdrawals
and
die
wormhole
is
currently
ongoing.
That
some
of
the
previous
points,
I
alluded
to
liquidity
requirements,
technical
specifications,
working
with
risk
making
sure
we
have
the
keeper
third
parties
involved
as
well,
and
then
the
fast
withdrawals,
space,
so
optimism
and
arbitrary
targeting
end
of
q1.
D
We've
got
technical
documentation,
there's
governance
processes,
understanding
how
the
message
really
will
work
and
be
documented
how
governance
will
engage
with
it,
l2
liquidations
and
also
l2
integration,
so
that
we
make
sure
we
have
third
parties
participating.
We
have
liquidity.
We
have
involvement
because,
of
course,
without
the
liquidity,
there's
not
much
point
being
in
the
space,
so
working
with
third
parties,
market
makers
and
so
on
will
be
a
key
part
here,
which
leads
us
on
to
the
mcd
l2
implementations
for
optimism
and
arbitrary.
D
Again,
we've
got
medium
confidence
here
for
the
end
of
q2
dependencies,
include
audits
and
doing
the
mcd
deployment.
So,
there's
quite
a
lot
of
work
in
this
one
across
the
core
units
to
do
hence
the
medium
confidence
and
then
stocknet,
because
it's
a
slightly
different
implementation
with
dvd
on
the
exact
state
there,
but
I'm
sure
louis
and
much
I
can
team
will
be
providing
input
on
that
as
we
get
closer
once
we
have
those
audits
and
once
we
understand
the
prover
trust
assumptions
as
well.
D
That
protocol
engineering,
l2
team
will
be
deploying
optimism
by
wormhole
to
covan
testnet
next
week,
which
is
awesome,
so
stay
tuned
for
more
updates
on
this
and
opportunities
to
test.
We'll
we'll
have
more
news
out
on
this
soon,
but
this
is
a
really
big
move
towards
the
milestone
overall
and
yeah
keep
an
eye
out
for
this
one,
which
is
really
cool
and
just
a
reminder
that
next
week,
bartek
and
the
protocol
engineering
team
will
be
holding
a
multi-chain
strategy
meeting.
D
Where
we'll
be
talking
about
those
risk
considerations
I
mentioned
on
the
previous
slide,
so
scaling
die
beyond
roll-ups.
The
key
participants
of
this
meeting
will
be,
I
think,
of
course,
protocol
engineering.
We
want
to
have
risk.
We
want
to
have
growth
to
continue
the
discussions
we've
had
already,
but
I
also
see
value
in
the
community
and
delegates.
So
you
know
we
mentioned
the
core
units
on
one
of
my
first
slides
there,
but
it's
broader
than
that.
It's
community
and
delegates,
so
this
will
be
a
good
opportunity
for
that
sort
of
broader
communication.
A
All
right
sweet
all
right.
Well,
in
that
case
I'm
gonna
disclaimer,
don't
judge
me
too
poorly
for
not
being
as
amazing
as
derek
on
my
slides,
but
I'm
gonna
bring
us
through
the
two
collateral
management
initiatives
and
so
yeah.
Let's,
let's
kind
of
keep
going
so
on
chain
collateral
management.
There
is
a
handful
of
involved
stakeholders,
mainly
core
units
com,
sas
risk
protocol
engineering.
You
know
ces
ses
growth
oracles.
A
There
are
many
people
involved
in
auction
collateral
management.
Let
me
tell
you:
it
is
a
key
part
of
nakedo's
business
and
so
in
the
work
breakdown
phase
of
our
stakeholder
alignment
calls
we've
identified
really
seven
major
or
sorry,
six
major
milestones,
the
fifth
one
we
kind
of
asked
last
call.
So
forgive
us
for
not
updating
the
milestone
numbers,
but
the
overview
is
really.
You
know
the
first
one
is
to
deliver
the
next
major
revision
for
the
collateral
onboarding
process.
The
current
process
is
a
little
bit
outdated.
A
It
doesn't
scale
as
well
as
we
would
like
it
to
etc
milestones.
Who
is
a
liquidations
infrastructure
cleanup?
This
involves
both
you
know:
kind
of
sanity
checking
ourselves
on
the
auctions,
infrastructure
that
exists.
Ensuring
the
handoff
to
se
to
sas
and
more
I'm
going
to
cover
a
little
bit
more
detail
in
the
next
slides
milestone.
A
3
is
really
to
onboard
curved
stake
through
this
kind
of
renewed
mapped
out
process
that
you
know
really
maps
all
the
touch
points
of
the
different
core
units
involved
in
the
launch
of
a
given
collateral
like
we
want
to
integrate
our
public
communications,
around
collateral,
onboarding
and
etc.
So
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
happening
there.
Milestone
four
is
to
fully
define
the
criteria
for
collateral
off-boarding.
A
This
is
important
for
for
just
regular
business
practice,
as
many
of
you
know
if
you've
been
following
just
because
a
vault
exists
and
there's
die
doesn't
mean
that
it's
necessarily
profitable.
There's
overhead
costs
like
oracle's,
for
example,
that
might
make
it
really
not
worth
it
and
more
so
yeah,
there's
some
stuff
going
on
at
that
milestone,
then
skipping
milestone
five
straight
into
six
and
seven.
These
are
more
bonus
milestones,
but
the
goal
is
in
the
next
two
quarters
to
fully
clean
out
the
stable
coin
volts.
A
A
If
there's
a
yellow
dot,
it's
in
progress,
if
there's
a
blue
dot,
it
is
not
yet
done,
it
has
to
be
done
and
then,
if
there's
a
green
dot,
it's
done,
but
in
general
these
are
kind
of
the
big
components
which
have
you
know,
mapped
out,
work
breakdowns
under
each
but
yeah.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
want
me
to
kind
of
read
through
each
individual
one
but
I'll
I'll
go
through
it
briefly.
So
one
is
to
provide
the
renewed
criteria
for
onboarding
admittance
and
prioritization
for
the
mipsticks
applications.
A
There
also
is
a
review
slash
a
review
of
the
diagram
and
process.
That's
currently
hosted
at
thecollateral.maker.com
site.
We
also
once
the
new
process
is
kind
of
drafted
out.
We
have
to
communicate
it
with
the
existing
greenlit
application
authors.
There
has
to
be
a
complete
and
full
process
documentation
of
all
this.
Obviously,
then,
there's
we
have
to
determine
the
formal
role
of
sas
in
liquidations
and
auctions.
This
is
actually
ongoing.
A
We
also
need
to
determine
the
prioritization
of
collateral
types
with
a
two-quarter
time
horizon
according
to
this
new
criterion
process
and,
lastly,
we
need
to
kind
of
attach
the
parallel
work
stuff
that
has
to
happen
on
the
engineering
side
like
crafting,
spells,
etc,
and
not
only
that
but
also
partner
relations
like
growth,
stuff
yeah.
So
that's
the
general
overview
by
the
way
all
of
these
slides
are
available
in
public.
A
So
if
you
want
to
kind
of
look
at
them
again
and
update
yourself
on
the
progress
that's
available
on
the
forum,
the
second
milestone
is
the
liquidations
infrastructure
cleanup,
there's
a
few
key
components
to
it.
First
of
all,
we
need
to
collect
relevant
information
to
determine
the
pain
points.
That's
currently
in
progress.
A
A
So
this
these
are
all
in
progress
pretty
much.
The
third
milestone
is
the
onboard
curved
stake
teeth,
and
these
are
the
components
that
really
are
part
of
every
single
on-boarding.
There's
a
mip-six
application,
a
green
light
pole.
The
collateral
is
chosen
as
next
priority
by
the
teams,
then
there's
collateral
assessments
that
have
to
happen:
the
oracle
risk
and
oracle
risk
and
smart
contracts
assessments.
A
Then,
after
that
happens,
there's
a
governance
poll
and
after
the
government's
poll
passes,
there's
various
implementations
that
have
to
happen
and
that's
where
there's
a
lot
of
cross-core
unit
touch
points
and
then
about
a
month
before
the
projected
launch
of
a
collateral,
there
needs
to
be
an
established
partner
initiative,
so
we
reach
out
to
the
actual
collateral
partner.
We
organize.
You
know
all
of
the
comms
that
have
to
happen
any
like
special
promotions,
like
really
anything
and
then
lastly,
there's
the
final
deployment
and
activation.
A
So
this
is
more
like
the
previous
milestones,
there's
a
lot
of
overlapping
steps,
but
this
is
a
lot
more
sequential.
So
maybe
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
follow
that
than
the
other
ones,
but
yeah,
as
you
can
see,
we're
we're
close
we're
in
the
implementation
stage
and-
and
it's
looking
like
it's
looking
like
it's
gonna
happen
pretty
soon
likely
end
of
february.
A
Milestone
four
is
to
fully
define
the
criteria
for
collateral
off-boarding,
so
there
is
in
progress,
initial
discussions,
which
are
facilitated
by
ces,
robert
jordan
and
other
core
units
involved.
There
are
risk
oracles
and
growth.
This
is,
and
there's
also
an
initial
draft
document.
That's
in
progress
to
define
these
after
that,
there's
going
to
be
a
few
feed
backgrounds
that
the
document
goes
through.
A
All
right,
yeah
so
forget,
milestone
five
ignore
it.
These
are
just
some
bonus
milestones
because
we
added
them
just
last
week,
as
we
were
reviewing
what
are
really
like.
The
major
milestones
and
yeah
milestone.
Six,
as
I
covered
fully
clean
out
the
stable
coin,
bolts
it's
to
be
done
and
then
milestone,
seven,
the
gas
optimizations
for
psm
it's
in
the
backlog,
but
the
goal
is
to
get
it
done
by
end
of
q2.
A
All
right,
so
I'm
gonna
take
a
pause,
take
a
breath,
so
I
also
happen
to
be
the
coordinator
on
the
collateral
management
off
chain.
Stakeholder
alignment
calls,
and
so
here
is
the
status
update
for
those
involved.
Core
units
include
real
world
finance,
ses
ces
growth,
stark
net
risk
and
and
and
us
golf
comps.
A
So
here
are
the
here's
the
overview
of
the
milestones,
the
the
real
goal
for
the
next
two
quarters
is
to
lead
the
existing
deals
through
the
due
diligence
pipeline.
Obviously
not
all
the
deals,
just
the
ones
that
are
most
feasible
yeah
milestone
two
is
to
graduate
the
different
real
world
asset
related
core
units.
D
A
The
ses
incubation
program
milestone
three
is
to
develop
shared
documentation
around
leading
these
deals.
You
know
what
are
the
common
touch
points?
What
are
the
common?
What
are
the
things
that
we
could
standardize
around
these
deals?
What
are
the
things
that
are
essentially
different
for
each
deal?
All
that
kind
of
stuff
milestone
4
is
a
revamp
of
mip
6
in
partnership
with
ces,
so
there
is
actually
a
revamp
being
planned
in
general
for
mips
6
applications
to
do
more
pre-filtering
of
applicants
so
that
they
know
the
criteria
ahead
of
time.
A
So
if
they
don't
fit
it,
you
know
they
shouldn't
be
applying,
you
know,
and
they
should
really
be
working
to
fulfill
the
criteria
before
the
application
even
hits
the
forum
milestone.
Five
is
finally
the
infrastructure
solution
design
and
this
is
kind
of
yeah
kind
of
like
the
the
technical
and
user
experience
side
of
actually
interacting
with
these
deals.
You
know
when
we
do
set
up
a
real
world
asset
deal
like
what
is
the
client's
experience?
You
know
what
are
the
uis?
They
use
what
you
know.
A
What's
the
back
end
stuff
that
has
to
happen
yeah.
So,
let's
move
into
the
details
so
to
lead
existing
deals
through
the
due
diligence
pipeline.
The
timelines
for
these
deal
completions
are
going
to
be
withheld
until
they
go
through.
This
is
important
because
major
partners
like
they
don't
they
don't
want
this.
They
don't
want
timelines,
because
that
kind
of
exposes
them
to
insider
trading.
A
Okay,
so
something
something
estimated
timelines
are
withheld.
It's
important
for,
like
big
partners,
big
deals
that
you
know,
especially
if
they're
like
public
companies
and
stuff
timelines
are
sensitive.
They
change
people
trade
up
based
on
timelines,
so
basically
until
a
deal
is
done,
maker
dao
is
not
going
to
know
that
it's
good
done,
but
rest
assured
there's
lots
of
progress
happening.
So
the
two
main
components
of
this
milestone
are
the
work
breakdowns.
A
Additionally,
there's
a
lot
of
progress
that
has
been
made
on
the
definition
of
all
the
touch
points
for
core
units
and
other
stakeholders
that
are
involved
in
these
kinds
of
in
each
individual
deal
so
yeah,
that's
ongoing,
yeah,
and
so
the
two
primary
deals
that
are
being
focused
on
for
this
milestone
are
sock,
gen
and
monetales,
and,
as
you
can
see,
there
is
like
a
parallel
set
of
components
for
each
of
these
deals.
First
of
all,
the
business
side
of
the
partnership
has
to
be
solved.
A
A
Components
of
the
transaction
actually
need
to
be
mapped
out
and
documented,
and
then,
after
all,
that
the
it
infrastructure
and
integration
has
to
be
planned
and
mapped
out
and
all
while
this
is
happening,
usually
after
the
term
sheet
agreement
and
the
legal
engagement
with
counterparties
and
also
the
components
of
the
transactions
that
the
risk
work
can
happen.
So
all
of
these
things
are
actually
in
progress
for
both
social
and
monetize
and
yeah.
That's
about
as
basic
of
an
overview
as
I
can
give
you
guys,
and
also
the
purpose
of
that.
A
A
A
A
A
After
that,
the
incubation
program
okrs
are
set
up,
then
the
bootstrapping
okrs
are
set
up
and
then,
after
that,
finally,
the
team
publishes
their
mipset
mid,
39,
40
and
41
sub
proposals
which
govern
the
facilitator,
the
mandate
well
actually
in
order
the
39
is
the
facility.
39
is
the
mandate.
40
is
the
budget.
41
is
the
facilitator,
yeah
and
then.
Lastly,
the
graduation
is
really
marked
by
the
reception
of
the
first
payment
from
the
protocol.
A
A
So
likewise,
the
real
world
asset
legal
review
core
unit
is
in
an
earlier
stage
than
the
previous
core
unit
that
I
mentioned
it
is
in
progress.
Looking
for
a
facilitator
candidate.
In
the
meantime,
ses
has
to
implement
a
temporary
budget
to
ensure
that
it
can
fund
this
particular
core
unit
and
yeah
and
after
that,
all
of
the
other
components
have
to
happen,
but
they
haven't
happened
yet,
which
is
why
they're
in
blue
and
then.
Finally,
there
is
a
lending
compliance
core
unit
with
the
prosperius
that
would
be
facilitator.
A
The
starter
agreements
are
in
place
and
it's
currently
in
its
incubation
program,
okrs
and
bootstrapping
okrs
phase,
so
those
are
all
happening
and
the
mipset
has
not
been
published
yet
so
stay
tuned.
For
that
all
right.
I
know
that
was
beefy.
It's
finished,
I
think.
Let
me
just
sanity
check
myself
on
time:
12
55,
oh
my
gosh,
yeah,
so
dang.
A
So
it
took
us
pretty
much
a
whole
hour
to
get
through
those
first,
two
components
of
the
call
yeah
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
kind
of
take
that
as
as
some
fodder
for
feedback
and
for
adjusting
things
and
seeing
what
we
should
do
for
the
next
calls.
But
really
we
have
about
30
minutes
that
we
can
overflow
in
these
calls,
I
think
they're
actually
scheduled
for
an
hour
and
a
half,
if
I'm
not
mistaken.
A
So
let's
get
into
the
discussion
segment
yeah,
so
upgrading
surplus
auctions
also
known
as
flaps
we're
going
to
talk
through
some
considerations,
options
and
timelines,
and
this
is
an
open
discussion
segment.
So
if
you
would
like
to
speak,
there
is
a
really
cool
sort
of
functionality.
If
you
go
into
your
reactions
thing,
which
I
actually
can't
find
for
myself
right
now,
where
is
it?
A
You
could
raise
your
hand?
Okay,
just
raise
your
hand
or
say
calling
me
in
chat
or
something,
and
I
will
unmute
you
and
you
can
talk
but
yeah.
This
is
a
pertinent
topic
because
of
really
the
liquidations
that
happened
on
friday
surplus
auctions
underperformed
they
incurred,
I
believe,
according
to
to
premotion's
analysis.
A
A
So
I'm
going
to
stop
talking
and
I'm
going
to
ask
somebody
else
to
kind
of
take
on
this
part
of
the
conversation,
which
is
what
are
the
options
in
order
of
resource
investment,
and
I
know
right
now
we're
in
no
burn
for
a
while
phase.
All
it
took
was
a
single
vote
to
do
that
and
we've
got
it
and
the
next
lowest
hanging
fruit
is
the
rate
limiter,
which
we
know.
Sam,
has
already
built
some
code
for,
and
that
seems
to
be
kind
of
in
the
pipeline.
A
But
the
real
open
questions
around
us
are
whether
dutch
auctions
are
a
higher,
are
a
high
priority
for
this,
which
is
essentially
what
liquidations
2.0
did
for
collateral
auctions.
I
converted
them
from
english
oxygens
into
dutch
auctions,
and
so
now
that
same
consideration
is
happening
for
flap
auctions
and
then
there's
others.
So
I'm
going
to
take
a
pause
and
kind
of
give
it
over
to
anybody
who
wants
the
comment.
Buttons.
F
So
the
whole
idea
of
lupine
max
the
surplus
buffer
was
basically
born
and
from
my
point
of
view,
if
we
don't
have
any
majority
on
going
back
from
this
plan
to
something
different
like
no
burning
at
all
or
whatever
we
should
default
coming
back
to
the
to
the
learning
option.
It's
not
that
I
particularly
like
it
that
much,
but
it's
basically
what
the
sentiment
is
right
now,
which
I,
which
is
essentially
the
reason
why
I
put
up
the
the
signal
risk
to
bring
back
the
bond
if
there
is
a
majority
within
the
single
request.
F
F
Burn
then,
we
should
prepare
ourselves
by
probably
the
rate
limiting
thing
that
sam
put
up,
and
I
guess
the
main
question
is
or
we
have
basically
two
main
questions.
If
do
we
yeah?
Do
we
just
go
for
a
different
way
that
we
have
been
taking
for
the
couple
of
last
months
and
decide
to
just
have
a
really
insanely
high
surface
buffer?
F
So
we
can
be
quite
sure
we
are
not
going
to
go
into
interfacing
again
or
do
we
stick
to
the
path
that
we
have
taken
so
far
of
going
with
with
sunburn,
but
then
we
probably
just
need
to
prepare
ourselves,
which
is
adding
some
effort
on
political
engineering,
and
we
heard
about
it.
They
are
working
on
different
stuff.
So
it's
in
the
end,
some
kind
of
priority
questions
some
kind
of
opportunity
cost
that
we
are
going
to
have
here.
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
interesting
actually
kurt
berry
spoke
a
lot
about
this
in
the
form
of
kind
of
prioritization,
not
paralysis,
but
you
know
how?
How
do
you
kind
of
increase
the
connection
between
like
what
maker
holders
want
what's
wise
and
what
pe
and
other
engineering
teams
need
to
prioritize,
because
I
mean,
as
you
can
see,
even
just
from
the
layer
2
initiative
update,
there
is
a
lot
on
the
table
that
is
potentially
a
higher
priority
and
actually
the
risk
team
over
the
last
few
quarters
have
identified
this
risk
with
the
flap.
A
So
it
wasn't
even
kind
of
like
something
that
people
didn't
know
was
going
to
happen.
Everybody
knew
this
was
going
to
happen
in
the
event
of
a
very,
very
large
liquidation
event
and
so
yeah.
It
is
a
very
interesting
sort
of
operational
and
governance
question.
How
do
we
balance
that
need
for
prioritization
and
also
like
how
do
you
give
or
how
do
core
units
really
push
back
with,
like
reasoning
and
stuff
so
yeah?
A
Yeah
water
actually
frames
it
really
well.
The
better
question
is:
should
we
prioritize
x?
So
should
we
prioritize
dutch
auctions
and
if
we
do,
should
we
deep
prioritize,
why
in
favor
of
dutch
auctions-
and
I
think
it
might
be
so-
there
was
actually
a
lot
of
debate
around
dutch
auctions.
I
think
one
part
of
it
was
the
prioritization
piece.
Another
part
was:
does
it
even
make
sense
to
do
dutch
auctions,
given
that
they
actually
introduce
oracle
costs
to
the
flaps
yeah
feel
free
to
jump
on
the
mic?
H
H
H
And
then
there
are
oracle
costs
right
so
factor
in
at
least
300k
right
annually
for
an
mkr
oracle
and
okay
yeah.
It's
kind
of
it's
a
little
bit
expensive,
but
you
know
if,
if
you
think
about
it
in
terms
of
like
slippage
right
like
if
we
are
losing,
we,
we
have
five
percent
slippage
and
we
think
we're
going
to
get
better
performance
than
that
through
dutch
auctions.
Right
so,
let's
say
instead
of
five
percent,
you
have
two
and
a
half
percent
slippage.
H
So
if
you
take
the
oracle
cost-
and
you
divide
them
by
that
two
and
a
half
percent
slippage,
the
inflection
point
is
like
12
million
right
so
really
at
the
scale
that
we
are
doing
that
we
are
doing
burns
right.
If
you
think
you're
going
to
be
burning,
you
know
more
than
that
then
economically,
that
that
does
that
that
that
kind
of
does
net
out
to
be
an
advantage.
F
G
A
F
F
Are
we
going
to
to
just
it's
just
just
some
extra
work
derek
has
to
do
then,
I'm
fine
with
doing
that,
but
if
it's
going
to
take
three
engineers
out
of
his
team,
no,
then
that's
not
fine,
I'm
exaggerating
against
derek,
but
it's
not
only
about
how
long
will
it
take
it's
also
about
what
is
essentially,
what
we're
not
going
to
do
or
what?
What
is
the
delay
that
we
are
going
to
have
here
and
honestly?
I
don't
think
we
should
burn
at
all.
So
why
don't
we
we
shouldn't
optimize
for
perfect
burning.
F
We
should
yeah
rethink
our
attitude
about
how
much
do
we
need
to
burn
in
the
first
place,
I
think,
and
I'm
fine
with
having
a
bit
of
burn,
but
I
don't
know
I
mean
this
is
also
one
of
the
questions
I
mean
derek
said
in
some
some
forum
post
that
it
will
take
a
couple
of
weeks
until
we
have
the
the
optimize
the
rate
limiting
flapper
in
place.
So
we
are
not
going
to
have
a
couple
of
weeks
of
burning.
That's
fine!
F
A
J
Yeah
my
opinion
is
that
we
should
not
divert
any
resources
at
all
to
implementing
improvement
on
the
flap
design.
Right
now
like
we
should
be
100
focused
on
making
maker
and
dye
a
better
product
like
designing
and
wasting
time
or,
in
my
opinion,
is
a
waste
of
time
to
like
figure
out
a
way
to
optimize.
J
Our
our
maker
burning
is
just
like.
Not,
it
doesn't
do
anything
for
our
customers.
It's
just
100
likes
selfish
for
maker
holders
and
then
I
think,
will
drive
significantly
less
value
long
term,
especially
when
that
capital
can
be
probably
better
allocated
by
hiring
more
resources,
particularly
developers.
J
A
F
A
F
A
A
H
That
makes
sense,
but
building
something
now
that
you're
just
going
to
throw
away
really
soon,
not
so
much
yeah
I
mean
we
can
we
can
do
some
kind
of
like
band-aid
fix
right.
You
know
rate
limiting,
seems
like
a
a
good
idea
right.
So
we
don't
get.
You
know
the
the
15
to
20
slippage
kind
of
days
right
or
you
know
even
worse
right.
G
G
G
H
A
Yeah,
so
I
I
do
so,
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
pretty
much
like
common
sentiment
from
the
engineering
teams
and
from
a
few
key
people.
I'm
curious
if
recognized
delegates
on
the
call
have
any
sort
of
considerations
to
to
throw
towards
this
prioritization
question,
and
also
I
want
to
just
sanity
check
what
the
other
slide
I
have
is
yeah
there's
some
related
considerations.
A
For
example,
what
can
we
do
to
better
the
sl,
the
flaps
now,
besides
rate
limiting
like?
Are
there
parameter
updates
that
can
be
adjusted
and
then
also
there's
the
question
that
actually
has
brought
up
in
the
governance
channel
and
many
others
have
discussed,
which
is
you
know,
hiring
a
third
party
external
party
for
not
just
market
making
or
otc,
but
also
for
actually
managing
surplus
auctions,
perhaps
like
completely
off
protocol.
A
And
also
just
to
pause
there
and
read
what
brian
was
saying.
His
point
was
that
new
tooling
exists
since
friday
to
better
to
better
manage
flaps,
so
the
system
battle
hardens
himself
after
each
event,
by
bringing
in
new
participants
who
want
to
close
the
alpha
gap.
This
is
very
true.
The
beauty
of
anti-fragility
right.
L
I
think
I'm
in
favor
of
just
keeping
the
I
surplus
buffer,
but
if
we
want
to
go
back
to
some
degree
of
burden
like
activity,
I
think
it
sounds
weird,
but
sending
it
to
a
centralized
party
market
making
is,
in
my
view,
I'm
sorry.
You
cut
out
a
little
bit
sending
it
to
a
centralized
party.
Is
it
sounds
a
bit
weird,
but
it's
not.
I
don't
think
it's
really
that
bad
of
an
idea
I
mean
they
can
definitely
do
more
efficient,
like
market
making.
L
A
Yeah,
I
think
another
thing
that
long
long
actually
mentioned
in
the
chats
around
trusting
their
not
just
trusting
third
parties
but
engaging
in
third
parties.
There's
a
lot
of
hidden
costs
like
on
the
governance
side
like
you
have
to
basically
regulate
your
relationship
with
them,
and
so
there
is
a
a
cost
there
that
should
be
considered.
A
K
You
know
mkr.
You
know
it's
just
a
more
liquid
asset
and
you
know
I
think,
that's
important,
because
mkr
is
part
of
the
tokenomics
of
the
maker
system,
and
you
know
subsidizing
that
liquidity
in
some
way
is
important,
and
you
know
when
the
protocol
owns
it,
it
can
be
trustless.
You
know,
there's
no
additional.
Like
third
party,
you
have
to
interface
with
you
know
it's,
maybe
maybe
it
would
be
a
little
less
capital
efficient
than
a
than
a
centralized
market
maker.
K
Community
or
there
are
lots
of
you-
know,
people
looking
to
extract
md
from
the
chain.
So
I
think
that
our
that
arbitrage,
centralized
exchanges
will
take
care
of
itself
if
there's
deep
on
chain
liquidity,
and
I
I
just
like
people
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
a
kind
of
a
third
option
on
the
market
making
front
or
as
a
way
to
use
surplus
buffer
for
mkr
liquidity.
A
E
E
I
will
put
up
like
a
very
passionate
defense
of
some
amount
of
burn,
because
I
I
think
our
game
theory
is
based
on
that,
and
so
it's
like,
I
just
don't,
want
to
drag
in.
Like
all
of
this
additional
argument,
I
also
the
mandated
actors
heard
me
sort
of
make
this
argument
with
response
to
like
jasu's
comments,
and
I
think
even
roone
had
spoken
in
favor
of
of
doing
this
and
sam's
in
favor.
E
So
I
I
don't
think
that
we
should
be
taking
a
direction
where
we
take
elements
of
the
protocol
and
put
them
on
more
humans.
I
think
it
breeds
centralization.
I
think
it'll
create
weakness,
and
I
I
I
think
what
we
want
to
do
is
keep
pushing
towards
automation,
decentralization
and-
and
it's
just
like
we're
we're
so
close
on
this,
like
a
couple
tweaks
and
it's
fine,
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
to
like
farm
this
out
to
some
human.
E
How
how
long
after
that
does
the
hoover
dam
continue
to
like
operate
right,
like
I'd
like
to
think
due
to
some
attack
like
how
long
can
we
get
the
protocol
to
continue
to
operate
with,
like
you
know,
complete
automation,
and
I
like
thinking
about
that
as
like
a
way
to
sort
of
drive
development
of
where
we
should
go
in
the
future,
and
it
frees
our
time
up
to
work
on
like
new
stuff
like
l2
expansion,
so
yeah?
Those
are
the
sort
of
two
comments
that
I
wanted
to
make
more
publicly.
A
L
It
kind
of
sucks
so
yeah.
What
was
I
saying
so
yeah
the
auctions,
even
with
the
fix
they'll,
take
a
three
to
four
percent
slippage
loss
which
isn't
great
if
we
do
want
to
turn
on
some
amount
of
burn,
like
I
think,
sort
of
having
ideological
purity
with
not
having
centralized
parties
in
all
aspects,
I
think,
can
be
damaging
bottom
line.
To
me,
the
flap
is
not
about
restlessness
and
sort
of
this
sort
of
decentral
about
how
much
maker
can
we
can
we
burn
the
most
maker?
L
That's
the
goal
of
it
right.
So,
if
shipping
it
to
a
centralized
party
in
a
streaming
fashion,
burn
more
maker,
then
I
think
that's
a
good
thing.
We
just
have
to
look
at
what
our
risk
exposure
is
so
like
worst
case
scenario,
they
start
stealing
the
die.
We
just
turn
it
off.
We
can
do
that
in
a
two
day,
delay
like
at
most,
they
can
steal
like
200k
and
we're
losing
that
amount
already
just
by
the
flaps
inefficiency
that
that's
my
point
on
centralized
market
makers.
I
don't
think
they
should
be
feared.
H
Sure,
hopefully,
this
will
work.
Let
me
know
if
you
can't
hear
me,
I
always
wanted
to.
I
think,
support
what
chris
mooney
was
saying
and
add.
One
clarifying
point,
I
think
the
problem
or
more
nuance
is
that
too
many
auctions
hit
the
market
at
the
same
time
and
within
that
is
there
wasn't
enough
time
to
react
to
those
auctions,
and
so
something
that
I
feel
isn't
really
being
discussed.
K
All
right,
I
I
need
to
jump
in
here
a
second
and
provide
a
counterpoint,
which
is
that
it's
not
just
a
problem
that
too
many
auctions
went
out
at
once.
It's
that
the
english
auction
mechanism
for
flaps
is
fundamentally
sub-optimal
for
the
blockchain
environment
and
itself
has
broken
game
theory
that
is
centralizing
and
encourages
winner-take-all
dynamics,
even
if
you're
limiting
the
rate
at
which
they
go
out.
K
K
I
encourage
everyone
who
wants
to
have
an
opinion
on
this
to
go,
read
every
single
reply
under
that
thread
and
understand
the
entire
discussion
of
how
the
flap
auction
mechanism
is
just
fundamentally
centralizing,
anti-competitive
and
broken,
and
you
know
trickling
it
out.
Okay,
maybe
that's
fine
if
it's
just
a
band-aid,
because
as
a
compromise,
because
some
people
want
to
burn
and
insist
on
that
and
some
people
don't.
But
I
I
just
push
back
on
the
notion
that
oh,
the
only
problem
is
that
too
many
went
out
at
once.
A
J
J
At
the
same
time,
you
have
procter
and
gamble
or
like
another,
like
costco
like
stable
businesses,
that
aren't
impacted
by
market
cycles
will
like
a
p
e
like
25
or
30
in
normal
times.
Part
of
the
issue
with
maker
today
is
you
know
our
income's
reliant
on
these
boom
bust
cycles
for
crypto,
and
maybe
that's
changing.
Maybe
it's
not,
but
one
of
the
biggest
things
that
we
need
to
prioritize
investing
in,
and
this
will
require
a
lot
of
capital
is
real
world
assets.
J
So
I
really
hate
to
see
us
burn
mkr
today
when
there
are
a
lot
of
there's
so
many
different
things
we
can
reinvest
in.
You
know
chris
and
kurt
made
some
comments
on
the
forum
for
different
things
that
I'm
sure
they'd
love
to
be
able
to
do
today,
but
I
think
we
don't
have
the
resources
to
do
it
from
the
technical
side.
I
Thanks
mark
no
sorry,
I
just
wanted
to
double
down
what
you
said
on
two
points.
I
think,
first
of
all,
what
you're
saying
as
a
corporate
finance
on
the
corporate
finance
side,
it
is
very
important
and
I
think
the
simplest
way
to
think
about
it
for
non-corporate
finance
expert
is
in
paying
out
capital
outside
of
the
protocol.
I
We
are
implicitly
admitting
that
we
don't
have
better
ways
to
use
that
capital
internally
and
for
a
protocol
that
has
growth
potential,
the
growth
potential
of
maker.
This
is
obviously
not
the
case,
because
that
we
could
we
could
use
that
capital
in
so
many
ways
to
expand
the
revenues
of
the
protocol,
as
mark
suggested.
I
The
other
point
is
because
the
crypto
market
in
the
norm,
in
normal
markets
you
buy
back
and
in
buying
back
you
should.
You
would
expect
a
positive
impact
on
price.
Crypto
markets
are
not
there
yet.
So
I
think
the
effort
that
we
are
doing
is
not
even
efficient
to
sustain
the
price,
so
I
think
it's
not
even
a
good,
a
good
use
of
that
capital
at
this
stage
of
the
crypto
markets
and
the
the
second
point
I
agree
with
mark
and
the
second
point
just
to
double
down
again
on
what
mark
just
said.
I
Given
that
he's
talking
about
real
refinance
is
that
we
are,
I
think,
first
of
all,
we
have
huge
huge
potentials
to
potential
to
grow
in
several
avenues
that
will
require
capital.
So
it's
better
that
we
keep
that
capital
within
the
protocol,
in
my
opinion,
and
secondly,
we
shouldn't
forget
that
we
are
running
a
currency
and
we
have
seen
what's
what
happens
in
a
currency
that
he's
keeping
very,
very,
very
thin
and
he's
different.
I
H
M
Here
a
little
bit,
so
I
want
to
echo
luca
here
right,
so
companies
basically
will
buy
back
their
stock
because
they
have
nothing
better
to
invest
in.
This
is
particularly
true
of
dividend
companies,
because
they're
going
to
pay
themselves
dividends
loosely
speaking,
but
it's
also
true
of
just
earnings
right
you
buy
back
when
your
p
e
is
low.
You
try
to
sell
when
pe
is
high.
M
Literally,
I
don't
see
that
buying
back
makers
really
helping
us
for
price.
This
is
really
a
political
issue,
other
than
anything
else
to
chris's
point.
If
we
build
an
sb
buffer
here,
that's
actually
good
for
maker
holders,
because
basically
it
means
we're
covering
ourselves
in
a
loss
event
in
the
loosest
sense.
M
F
You
know
two
months
but
for
the
next
year.
So
all
the
teams
can
you
know,
plan
in
an
appropriate
way.
So
you
know
this
won't
change
too
often,
and
I
think
we're
missing
something
like
this
because
then
maybe
you
know,
why
would
you
work
on
on
better
flow,
flap
actions
when
they're
not
gonna,
be
used
in
the
next
year
right.