►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 1
Description
In our inaugural Governance and Risk meeting, Steven Becker, our Head of Risk at MakerDAO, will begin guiding us through his MakerDAO Governance Risk Framework document, beginning with an introduction to Risk Management.
This is the first of many governance-specific meetings we will be holding in preparation for the public launch of Decentralized Governance.
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-38625f514101
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
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
Welcome
everyone
soon,
I'd
make
her
down
in
in
these
meetings.
We're
going
to
be
doing
we're
gonna
be
covering
a
lot,
and
it's
it's
going
to
be
pretty
interesting.
I'm
looking
forward
to
it,
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
everything
from
base
principles
around
what
scientific
governance
means,
what
the
risk
means,
what
the
risk
framework
is.
It
will
be
from
there
potentially
moving
into
some
high
level
definitions
of
financial
and
risk
terms
and
we'll
be
touching
on
eventually
we'll
be
getting
into
the
actual
mechanics
of
how
it
does
make
a
doubt.
A
B
A
A
All
right,
so
you've
recently
released
a
document
that
I
think
that
internally,
we've
all
been
pretty
amazed
about
I
think
it's,
it's
incredibly
important,
I
think
it's
gonna
be
one
of
those
seminal
documents
from
the
when
we
look
back
on
the
evolution
of
maker,
Dow
I
encourage
everybody
to
read
it.
We
have
links
in
the
YouTube
description,
we
have
links
in
the
meeting
agenda,
so
people
should
have
a
look
at
that
doc.
You
go
over
a
lot
of
really
fascinating
ideas
and
I.
C
C
So
that
is
ultimately
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
risk
management
and
risk
constructs,
and
my
job
is
to
understand
these
various
layers
and
to
be
able
to
identify
these
risks,
to
put
metrics
to
them,
to
be
able
to
manage
them
and
diagnose
them
and
then
express
them
in
a
some
sort
of
template
form.
So
if
people
can
look
at
and
take
away
from
it
and
say
well,
you
know
what
can
I
do
with
this
myself.
How
can
I
add
on
to
it?
What
is
the?
C
What
are
the
other
benefits
in
this,
and
you
know,
obviously,
what
are
the
gaps
and
what
are
the
solutions
to
those
gaps
and
the
one
thing
that
I
think
we
need
to
then
focus
on.
You
know,
that's
the
high
level
view,
but
it
wouldn't
come
close
to
the
earth.
We
can
start
focusing
on
a
simple,
very
expects,
such
as.
How
do
we
assess
collateral
that
we
want
to
put
into
the
system?
What
does
that
mean?
C
What
does
it
mean
to
actually
have
collateral,
and
what
are
we
trying
to
accomplish
using
the
actual
construct
of
a
CDP
and
a
pledging
of
collateral
so
from
a
very
high
level
down
to
very
narrow
level?
That
pretty
much
is
the
the
full
idea
of
risk
management.
So,
on
that
basis,
any
any
thoughts
comments,
questions.
A
B
So
the
house
who's
like
there
is
men
we
assume,
though
they
didn't
want
to
make
it
easy
for
people
to
learn
about
risk
management
if
they're
interested
in
participating
system.
So
I
know
that
rich
is
working
on
old
bunch
of
like
the
facts,
though,
is
they're
gonna
be
like
how
to's
for
all
the
different
levels
of
risk
and
layers
of
risk
in
there?
Are
you
guys,
looking
for
a
way
to
make
it
digestible
sort
of
educational
resource?
Yes,.
C
C
Okay,
so
then
I
think
the
if,
if
there
are
no
further
questions
with
respect
to
that,
first
little
bit
of
commentary
and
second
one
is
well
the
most
interesting
aspect
of
it
all
is
now.
How
do
we
actually
decentralize
this
function?
You
know,
what's
the
benefit
of
centralizing,
the
notion
of
decentralizing
has
really
been
probably
Nene's
previous
meetings
and
I
think
it's
one
of
the
other
core
concepts
that
you
have
obviously
with
the
doll,
but
in
terms
of
a
risk
management
function.
You
know
where
does
that
actually
fit
into
this?
C
The
reason
that
you
think
about
it
is
that
it's
a
it's
a
very
technocrat,
ik
concept.
You
want
to
sort
of
defer,
or
you
want
to
proxy
your
vote
to
someone
or
a
group
that
has
an
experience
with
respect
to
these
notions
and
they
have
experience
with
respect
to
how
to
understand
them,
and
you
know,
manifests
them
in
a
way
that
is
easily
understandable
for
someone
to
make
decisions.
C
So
it's
a
it's
a
business
intelligence
aspect
as
well,
and
the
one
thing
that's
really
interesting
about
decentralization
is
two
concepts,
competition
and
collaboration,
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is
that
a
risk
process
or
risk
function
is
a
process.
You
know,
there's
initial
inputs,
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
steps
and
then
their
outputs
that
is
effectively
it
and
each
to
the
protest.
If
the
the
of
each
of
these
processes
sort
of
represents
the
breadth
of
the
the
the
function,
but
each
of
those
steps
represents
a
vertical
now,
what
am
I
talking
about?
C
C
Now
this
becomes
a
lot
more
interesting,
because
teams
that
contribute
to
the
entire
process
can
compete
with
each
other,
and
then
you
know
make
it
open
holders
acting
as
governance
can
choose
between
them,
which
one
makes
more
sense,
or
you
know
they
could
actually
choose
all
of
them
and
weight
them
appropriately.
So
that
will
effectively
have
a
synergistic
role
and
contributes
a
lot
better
in
terms
of
the
pram.
Nemetrix
is
a
really
interesting
is
that
a
risk
team
that
may
want
to
contribute
to
the
system
could
just
focus
on
a
single
step.
C
So
in
that
way
they
could
actually
cooperate
amongst
themselves.
They
could
collaborate
amongst
themselves.
You
might
find
a
risk
team's
outputs
for
a
specific
step
will
be
the
input
for
another
esteem.
A
very
good
example
comes
to
mind,
and
that
is
Quality
Assurance.
On
data
now,
I'm
sure
everybody
is
quite
a
PHA,
with
the
fact
that
trying
to
get
data
that
is
representative
of
what
actually
is
happening
in
the
market
is
is
pretty
difficult
for
two
reasons.
C
One
is
how
its
collected,
but
two
and
the
most
importantly,
is
the
unlined
idea
of
watch
trading,
and
you
know
that
effect
that
it
has
are
not
only
the
pricing
but
the
volumes,
and
you
know
what
it
represents.
So
you
might
find
that
he
might
be
able
to
identify
the
metrics
to
filter
out
watch
trading
or
they
may
be
able
to
create
a
functionality
that
aggregates
data
in
a
much
better
way.
So
maybe.
A
Can
I
jump
in
really
great,
almost
so
yeah
sanitizing
and
validating
data
sets,
that's
something
I
had
considered
and
that's
probably
going
to
be
critical
access
garbage
in
garbage
out
right.
So
how
do
we
do
that
from
up
from
a
high
level?
Do
we
say
that
we
only
accept
information
from
these
sources,
or
do
we
expect
these
teams
to
be
pulling
apart?
Each
other's
data
sets
to
ensure
validity
of
them.
Well,.
C
The
first
step
that
you
take
is
creating
reproducible
research
and
what
that
means
is
that,
whatever
you
have
divined
or
devised
as
a
functional
metric,
you
need
to
encapsulate
the
data
that
you
that
you
used
now.
Why
is
that
important?
Because
your
cons
to
do
that
it
uses
it
will
be
able
to
say
this
is
the
data
that
I
used
to
get
these
results?
So
now,
why
am
I
saying
this
specifically
because
that
dates
it
may
be
wrong,
but
the
model
may
be
right
so
to
be
able
to
validate
those
models.
C
Everyone
can
use
that
same
incorrect
data
come
out
with
the
rights.
The
correct
answers
and
say
this
model
is
is
is
correct,
but
by
the
way,
where
did
you
get
your
data
from
then
the
question
might
be
well,
you
know
I
use
an
API
and
I
download
it
from
XYZ
organization
or
I,
went
to
the
publicly
available
coin
market
cap
and
there
will
be
a
filtering
point
where
you'd
say:
okay,
so
you
use
Quin
market
cap.
Do
you
understand
how
they
aggregate
data?
C
Do
you
understand
how
they
compile
it
together
and
what
it
means
to
to
use
that
data
now
I'm
also
from
the
traditional
world
and
I,
can
tell
you
something
very
clear
that
if
you
have
Bloomberg
on
one
side
and
Reuters
on
the
other
side
and
you
where
it's
in
da
hood,
it's
the
last
20
years,
I
assure
you
that
when
you
compare
them,
they
would
be
different.
It
happens
at
this
through
the
highest
level
of
service
provision.
C
B
A
C
C
As
an
example,
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
there
there's
going
to
be
quality
issues
and
we
need
to
adjust
for
them
when
we
actually
go
about
our
calculations,
but
for
purposes
of
actually
creating
risk.
Constructs
it's
more
important.
The
first
step
is
more
important
to
get
the
model
correct
and
the
model
validated.
C
A
D
B
C
That
is
something
I
would
be
happy
to
hear
your
suggestions
on
because
right
now
this
is
simply
an
understand
of
the
format
and
function
and
through
that
I'm
hoping
that
it
would
invigorate
folks
to
contribute,
and
then
it'll
probably
come
to
the
fore,
that
a
certain
structure
will
be
needed
and
we
need
to
then
address
that
appropriately.
But
for
now
I
I,
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
do
that
explicitly
in
terms
of
the
the
reputation
well,
that
will
be
twofold
one
in
terms
of
how
you
construct
yourself.
C
In
the
beginning,
I
mean
if
you
are
an
individual
that
has
just
wrapped
a
model
together
and
and
is
contributing
a
parameter.
That's
fine,
but
then
there
is
a
need
to
show
commitment
for
a
medium
to
long
term
horizon
on
that
contribution,
and
you
know
that
has
to
be
gauged.
So,
if
you're
an
individual
by
yourself
kind
of
hard
to
put
that
forward.
But
if
you
incorporate
or
you
create
a
legal
entity
that
wraps
around
that
function,
it's
a
little
bit
more
in
terms
of
what
that
intent
is
well.
B
So,
assuming
that
there's
gonna
be
institutional
interest
in
making
a
platform
I,
don't
think
that
it
would
be
too
far-fetched
for
institutions
to
seek
like
a
grant
from
like
400
from
maybe
the
foundation
itself
or
even
funded
themselves,
to
have
maybe
like
some
sort
of
risk
team
on
their
own
to
contribute
to
the
project.
But
it
would
have
to
be
in
institutionally
either
a
big
enough.
B
C
But
two
is
their
participation
in
in
the
entire
structure,
and
one
of
those
points
of
participation
is
actually
creating
risk
teams
and
it'll
literally
be
part
and
parcel
with
your
ability
to
invest
now.
Everyone
knows
and
I
I
may
be
assuming
this,
but
I
think
it's
pretty
intuitive
that
everyone
knows
that
every
investment
that
you
make
is
based
on
a
risk
return
framework.
So
if
everyone
is
looking
at
the
return
framework,
we
need
to
be
able
to
give
them
the
ability
to
undertake
a
risk
as
well.
A
D
I
was
just
saying
that
ultimately
make
your
token
holders
are
the
buyers
of
last
resort.
Sort
of
you
know
make
your
tokens
are
minted
to
cover
a
shortfall
if
it
allows
bad
collateral
types
under
the
system.
So
all
of
our
largest
investors
are
planning
very
much
planning
to
be
involved
in
the
risk
analysis
process
and
whether
it's
from
a
good
point
use
we're
working
with
Stephens
team
or
whether
it's
it's
on
their
own
and
sort
of
doing
independent
reviews
of
the
risk
collateral
that
we
put
out
so
yeah.
A
B
My
concern
another
one
of
my
concerns
about
institutions
getting
into
risk
analysis
and
doing
risk
games
is
what,
in
time,
$0.05
publicize
their
work,
because
I
think
that
if
we
want
multiple
risk
teams
going
on
it,
they
would
have
all
the
sizes,
but
it
would
be
in
their
best
interest
to
keep
it
private
because
you
know
if
they
disagree
with
like
the
main
risk
profile.
Maybe
it
would
give
them
a
step
into
a
competitive
eating,
stable
point
or
not
like
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
thinking
of
like
hypothetical
examples,
but
I
don't
know
what.
C
That's
a
that's
a
very
good
point
and
the
reason
that
is
a
good
point
is
twofold:
one
you're
going
to
have
these
explicit
teams
and
these
implicit
teams,
the
explicit
teams,
are
going
to
contribute
and
be
very
transparent.
The
implicit
teams
may
contribute,
but
they
won't
tell
you
where
they
got
their
calculations
from
and
it'll
be
up
to
make
a
token
holders
from
a
governance
point
of
view
to
decide.
C
What's
the
weighting
you
want
to
put
on
them
in
terms
of
their
collective,
their
contribution
towards
the
collective,
because
keep
in
mind
that
the
decentralized
function
is
supposed
to
as
a
net
benefit
come
out
with
the
highest
goal
model
for
the
entire
system.
It's
like
an
ensemble
in
machine
learning.
You
combine
a
whole
bunch
of
models,
be
it
in
basic
or
complex,
but
when
you
put
them
together-
and
they
are
weighted
perfectly
and
almost
like
a
voting
format,
it
is
actually
showing
that
the
variance
decreases
and
your
overall
model
will
actually
be
better.
C
So
that's
where
it
wouldn't
be
in
the
best
interest
of
an
institution
to
try
and
keep
their
assessments
to
themselves,
because
by
contributing,
they
actually
add
to
the
overall
assessment
to
the
quality
of
it.
So,
consequently,
given
them
even
better
information
about
the
risk
position
and
consequently,
given
them
a
better
idea
about
the
risk
return
profile.
C
C
Our
lunch
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
organic
and
a
little
bit
iterative.
You
know
there's
no
explicit
way
of
going
out
and
saying
this
is
the
way
forward.
You've
got
to
first
show
it
and
the
way
that
we
show
it-
and
this
is
what's
going
to
happen
in
what's
going
to
be
shown
in
part.
Two
of
the
governance
article
is
the
internal
risk
team.
D
But
maybe
there
is
another
risk
team,
and
you
know
large
makers
to
take
holders
that
have
the
feeling
of
you
know
higher
risk
higher
reward
and
that's
something
that
they're
comfortable
with
how?
How
are
you
going
to
come
to
consensus,
and
is
there
going
to
be
a
mechanism
by
which
community
members
can
get
an
understanding
of
okay?
You
know
I'm
voting
with
the
conservative
side
or
I'm
voting
with
the
risky
side.
How?
How
is
that
a
consensus
going
to
be
achieved?
Well.
C
If
they
find
that
the
the
risk
construct
being
offered
is
more
or
less
the
same
than
what
they've
got
you
might
find
that
they
won't
include
it
or
they'll
include
it
with
a
low
weighting,
and
if
you
find
that
there's
a
risk
construct
that
is
completely
different
to
the
ones
that
they
have,
it
may
be
included
with
a
similar
weighting
or
maybe
higher.
Everything
was
sort
of
default
to
an
equal
weighting
at
first,
but
iteratively
it'll,
increase
or
decrease
as
their
longevity
and
as
their
applicability
becomes
obvious.
C
Now
in
terms
of
what
you
just
asked,
the
bias
you're
going
to
have
natural
bias,
and
the
way
do
you
address
that
natural
bias
is
by
diversifying
the
amount
of
risk
teams
that
you
have.
So,
ultimately,
we
would
have
a
construct
with
many
risk
teams
offering
many
biases,
which
will
then
average
out
to
being
more
or
less
representative
of
the
community
at
first,
like
any
other
construct
like
a
start
up,
you're
going
to
find
that
the
bias
might
be
specific,
almost
plutocratic,
if
you
will
to
one
sets
of
ideals.
C
So
from
the
total
risk
point
of
view,
it's
going
to
be
inherently
conservative,
but
as
the
the
notion
of
risk
and
a
risk
assessment
catches
on
as
more
teams
contribute
towards
the
overall
function.
So
you
might
find
that
by
a
sway
and
it'll
sway
until
it
finds
its
median
and
that
meeting
will
represent
what
I
believe
would
be.
The
community
values
and
ideals
at
the
time
doesn't
mean
that
it
won't
change
going
forward.
It
is
a
function
of
what
the
community,
as
governors
will
ultimately
want.
Do.
A
D
A
C
C
C
A
A
C
A
Where
I'm
going
yeah
so
I'm
sorry
I'm
a
serial,
interrupter
and
I
need
to
start
looking
on
that,
so
I'm
just
curious
about
the
reputational
aspect:
cuz
people,
if
they
have
a
reputation
they're
going
to
want
to
capitalize
on
that
and
if
we're
worried
about
like
as
Ashley
said,
political
parties
and
cartels
forming
one
of
the
ways
that
you
can
get
around.
That
is
to
remove
the
reputational
aspect,
but
there's
also
benefits
involved
with
that
as
well.
A
C
That's
the
thing
you
know:
that's
exactly
what
I'm
putting
forward
is
that
you're
looking
at
this
and
you
think
the
monster
has
come
or
oh,
my
goodness,
you
know
someone
from
the
traditional
finance
base.
Maybe
no
tweed
on
to
you
know
something
very
important.
It's
a
very
difficult
thing
to
weigh
up,
and
you
know
the
right
answer
with
that.
It
even
flicks.
You
know
some
sort
of
damage
in
your
soul.
Think
you
know
my
god.
C
The
monster
has
arrived
or
it
basically
validates
this
idea
that
all
care
what
we're
doing
is
right
because
Goldman
Sachs
is
here,
it's
it's
a
conflict.
It's
something
we
probably
will
have
to
address
going
forward,
but
right
now
in
terms
of
the
branding,
pseudonyms
and
unlimited
might
be
the
way
forward.
But
it's
a
little
nascent
to
to
decide
how
someone
should
be
represented,
because
that
branding
might
be
justifiable
if
it
comes
from
a
very
independent
source
like
if
it's
Ernst
and
Young
yeah
there's
more.
C
Upon
it,
if
anything,
the
most
important
thing
is
that
the
internal
team
is
completely
transparent
to
who
it
is
what
they're
doing
and
how
it's
happening,
because
we
are
literally
I'm
doing
I've
got
a
very
weird
job.
I
mentioned
this
before.
Ultimately,
my
job
is
to
make
everyone
else
out.
There
do
my
job,
and
that
is
the
only
way
you
can
do,
that
is
by
constructing
a
very
clear,
very
transparent,
transparent,
very
public
idea
of
what
it
is
we're
trying
to
get
at.
So
it's
easily
replicable,
oh
yeah,.
A
Okay,
okay,
so-
and
that
leads
me
to
my
second
major
got
you
then
so,
let's
see
how
you
deal
with
this
one.
So
if
we
do
get
on
this
reputational
road
and
if
we
do
talk
about
transparency
and
sort
of
trying
to
find
a
balance
between
those
two
things,
my
guess
would
be
that
maker
Dow
Foundation
proposals
will
probably
carry
some
more
weight
than
others.
Presumably,
are
we
going
to
sort
of
insulate
ourselves
from
outside
influence
so
we're?
C
Its
it
has
to
be
collaborative
to
a
point
of
view.
There's
got
to
be
the
ability
to
accept
a
different
point
of
view
if
it
is
valid
and
it
can
be
proven
to
be
valid.
So
you
know,
I'm
a
came
out
with
I
may
come
out
with
muddled
ABC,
but
you
know
as
an
example
David
points
out.
Listen,
there's
some
great
research
in
this
particular
Avenue.
Why
don't
you
employ
that
and
at
the
same
time
you
know
I'm
reviewed
I
risk
construct
as
well.
A
That
yeah
that's
great
and
it
probably
took
it-
comes
back
to
one
of
the
overarching
themes
that
we
need
to
keep
on.
Keeping
back
of
mind
is
that
that
this
is
scientific
governance
like
a
scientific
being
the
key
word
scientific
framework.
So
if
the
model
is
sound,
the
data
is
sound.
The
process
is
open,
then
you
have
to
kind
of
accuse
science
as
being
biased.
So
as
long
as
we
have
rationality,
science
and
transparency
built
into
it,
the
accusations
of
bias
lose
weight.
Yeah.
C
The
the
one
aspect
that
I
probably
would
like
to
go.
Actually
the
one
point
like
to
represent
here
is
the
scientific
method.
Ultimately
is
best
guess
you
know
it
is
not
they
affect.
So
it's
around
that
and
we
can
always
employ
the
scientific
method
in
its
true
form,
to
constantly
be
searching
out
for
the
next
best
thing.
C
It's
an
ongoing
thing,
it's
a
continuous
thing,
but
in
doing
so
you
you
manage
to
filter
out
biases
you
manage
to
filter
out
vitriol,
you
manage
true
to
filter
out
the
trolls
and
the
likes
that
are
trying
to
influence
by
both
through
being
a
bad
actor.
That's
what
it
does
do
very
well,
but
what
it
won't
ultimately
do
is
find
like
the
absolute
truth
or
the
absolute
risk
or
the
absolutes
management
structure,
to
look
after
the
system
as
a
whole.
It
is
an
ongoing
process.
B
E
Like
with
regards
to
Goldman
Sachs
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
in
terms
of
you
know,
they
might
want
to
you,
know
squash
the
bug
and
paint
a
whole
lot
of
sort
of
FUD
around
like
a
promising
opportunity
or
project
I.
Think
that
was
sort
of
the
case
where
a
lot
of
these
platforms
or
like
a
lot
of
these
sort
of
incumbents
they've,
tried
to
put
out
research.
E
That
is
poking
holes
in
things
and
it
comes
off
pretty
manufactured
and
more
that
they're,
just
less
educated
about
the
space
and
I
think
if
they're
trying
to
gain
credibility
for
the
next
10
to
15
years
of
their
business.
Obviously
this
is
a
pretty
optimistic
opinion,
but
you
know
if
you're
in
charge
over
there,
and
you
want
to
keep
in
business
for
the
next
10
to
15
years,
you're-
probably
going
to
want
to
absorb
this.
You
know
3.0
market
to
get
them
on
your
side
or
show
that
you're
doing
research.
E
E
That's
my
guess,
but
again
I
play
these
things
pretty
naively
and
pretty
optimistically
that
people
act
a
lot
better
than
they
probably
do.
I
just
can't
see
them
benefiting
enough.
I
mean
that
whole
kind
of
conversation
of
blockchain,
not
Bitcoin,
that
was
the
2014
theme.
Private
blockchains
are
gonna,
be
a
thing.
C
Yeah,
that's
interesting.
The
one
thing
that's
no
being
from
the
traditional
space.
The
one
thing
I
can
say
with
a
lot
of
confidence.
Is
that
what
your
traditional
behemoths
say
is
not
necessarily
what
they're
doing
if
they
come
up
and
say,
a
crypto
is
bad.
You
know
the
way
forward
is
this
that
basically
means
they're
focused
on
crypto.
They
are
doing
it
in
the
background
and
they
basically
are
establishing
a
to
a
point
where
they're
deciding
whether
it's
a
a
viable
business
case.
C
It's
always
happening
in
each
of
these
big
institutions
and
what
they
then
slowly
do.
Is
they
they
change
their
phrasing
in
in
how
they
see
things
until
enough
time
goes
by
where
they've
actually
said
black
in
the
beginning
and
end
up
saying
white
at
the
end,
it's
just
a
tactic.
It's
a
way
they
do
it
and
it
is
it's
being
used.
C
C
E
Know
I
mean
with
the
Jamie
Dimon
comments.
You
know
back
means
like
you
know,
bitcoins,
don't
good
or
whatever
it
was
sort
of
like
12
or
15
months
ago,
or
something
I'm
pretty
sure
that
they
had
already
taken
out
positions
in
Bitcoin
by
that
time,
as
far
as
like
we
understand
sort
of
on
our
end,
where
we
were
pretty
sure
that
that
had
already
started
happening
so
I
definitely
know
this
sort
of
what's
actually
going
on
under
the
hood,
that's
affecting
the
balance
sheet
and
then
what
sort
of
presenting
you
know
all
good,
green
pastures.
E
C
C
The
business
case
which
has
become
prevalent,
is
to
have
a
look
at
Iowa.
You
type
tokens
know
the
tether
that
the
circle,
the
true
USD.
It's
got
the
so-called
best
business
case
for
these
institutions
right
now,
they're
looking
at
the
bottom
line
and
the
same
to
themselves.
Well,
I,
ultimately
want
to
I,
ultimately
want
to
try
and
make
some
money
off
of
this
as
quickly
as
possible.
That's
a
good
model
but
where's
the
trust
placed
it's
pretty
obvious.
C
C
Next
one
is
the
this
image
case
or
the
algorithmic
types,
the
same
sort
of
situation
where
you
place
the
trust
you
know,
the
trust
is,
you
know
very
much
in
an
organization
on
the
blockchain
or
in
the
algorithm
that
they
deploy
to
the
blockchain,
and
you
go
look
at
that
and
say:
well,
fine
I
I
see
that
as
a
choice.
But
what
is
the
environment?
What's
the
context
in
which
it
would
actually
function
appropriately?
C
And
you
know,
with
respect
to
us
collateralization
is
for
intents
and
purposes
the
best
way
forward,
because
it
represents
the
intersection
of
good
economics,
good
philosophy
and
practical
aspects
of
what
the
blockchain
represents.
So
the
one
aspect
about
the
sea
collateralised
root,
you
know
the
way
that
that
that
make
it
dow
is
creating
its
supply
of
stable
coin.
Is
that
it's
saying
we
do
have
our
own
sets
of
governing
dynamics.
C
Do
you
see
it
as
a
transferred
economy?
Do
you
think
that,
ultimately,
the
traditional
economy
will
move
on
to
the
blockchain,
or
do
you
think
that
it
adds
an
extra
dimension
to
our
existing
economy
by
augmenting
a
new
granular
refined
economic
characteristic,
or
maybe
it's
a
combination
of
the
two
there
now
the
one
aspect
that
is
really
important
about
this
discernment
is
that
a
stable
coin
that
is
fully
decentralized?
C
It
is
really
the
way
to
go
in
terms
of
actually
facilitating
the
growth
of
the
economy
on
the
blockchain
and
as
also
to
say
that,
in
order
to
facilitate
that
growth,
you
need
to
have
trust
and
faith
in
the
blockchain
and
its
ability
to
do
so
in
the
first
place.
So
once
again,
you
know
these
these
stable
coin
types
and
the
hybrids
that
you
can
make
out
of
them.
It's
really
a
case
of
where
you
place
in
your
trust,
now
I'm
not
going
to
go
disparage
any
of
them,
because
I
don't
think
that
this
is.
A
I
did
that's
that's
a
good
point,
but
I'm
there's.
There
could
potentially
be
a
lot
of
reasons.
Why
you'd
think
that
and
I'm
curious
about
what
they
are?
Do
you
think
it's
just
some
of
the
inherent
principles
of
blockchain
sort
of
have
this
long
tail
effect
where,
like
transparency,
trust
listeners
permission
list
the
cross
border,
you
know
geopolitical
influences.
Are
those
the
reasons
why
collateral
on
chain
backed
stable
coins
are
the
best
option
or
is
it
because
of
something
like
the
wider
economic
ecosystem,
wider.
C
Economic
ecosystem,
the
ability
for
the
blockchain
to
inherently
create
an
economy
for
itself
that
either
is
working
with
the
traditional
economy,
always
basically
transferring
economy
on
to
it.
That
is,
ultimately
what
I'm
asking
is
now.
What
is
your
belief?
What
do
you
think
that
this
blockchain
is
ultimately
going
to
represent?
And
you
know
for
me,
I
think
it's
gonna
represent
a
hybrid
of
transferring
to
me
that
it's
not
functioning
perfectly
and
not
functioning
efficiently
on
to
the
blockchain.
C
Some
of
it
will
still
remain,
but
at
the
same
time,
there's
going
to
be
a
refinement
to
new
industries,
new
ideas
that
the
blockchain
is
going
to
allow
to
flourish.
So
as
a
combination
you're
going
to
have
the
ability
to
sit
back
and
say
well,
I
used
to
have
my
my
trust
in
the
centralized
traditional
finance
base,
but
now
I
can
actually
get
my
trust
onto
the
blockchain
and
specifically
the
growth
in
the
economy
on
the
blockchain.
But
in
doing
so,
I
need
to
find
out
a
way
to
facilitate
that
growth.
C
C
E
Sorry,
if
I
could
just
add
a
comment,
this
is
my
I
I.
Think
as
well,
like
the
reason
why
you
have
you
know
this
totally
centralized
stuff,
which
is
you
know,
you
call
it
your
PayPal
Z
of
n
Mo's,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
and
then
you've
got
the
decentralized
ones
which
actually
I
suppose
a
custodian
balances
on
whether
that's
on
like
a
platform
like
yr
coinbase
Kraken,
where
we
have
a
u.s.
dollar
balance
for
you.
You
know,
that's
the
promise
that
we're
gonna
we've
got
money
in
the
bank.
E
For
you,
the
next
version
is
well
we're
gonna,
mint
that
but
you're
going
to
be
able
to
make
it
interoperable
so
like
the
tether,
the
true
USD
or
the
circle
USD
types
and
then
there's
sort
of
all
all
blazing
kind
of
totally
decentralized
collateralized
with
what
a
deemed
valuable
asset.
So
when
I,
like
you
know,
if
you
act
collateralized
it
with
'if
I
know
that
eath
is
worth
something
and
I
believe
in
the
ecosystem.
So
there's
like
a
very
we're
understanding
and
it
talks
to
that
market
really
really
well.
I.
E
Think
when
you
look
at
sort
of
the
incumbents
or
the
people
that
say
well,
you
know
circle
is
Goldman
Sachs
and
we
feel
comfortable
with
that.
It
is
like
a
hybrid
approach,
because
you
need
a
hybrid
approach
for
adoption
and
education
barriers
mean
hybrid
approaches
they
soften
that
education
barrier.
E
Everyone
had
these
random
sort
of,
you
know
names
on
internet
forums
and
you
wouldn't
post
pictures
of
yourself
or
anything
like
that,
and
that's
because
it
gradually
took
time
for
me
to
you
know
you
know
be
anonymous
with
some
random
username
in
a
chatroom
and
then
eventually
I
have
a
personal
website
and
then
a
personal
blog.
Then
social
media
comes
out
and
I've
got
my
own
social
media
page.
E
E
Want
you
to
share
that
with
everyone
in
the
world
all
creeps:
weirdos
cool
people,
not
cool
people,
family
members,
whatever
people
would
be
like
get
the
hell
out
of
here
and
I,
think
that's
part
of
the
it's
a
grooming
process
and
it
took
14
or
15
years
with
the
Internet,
but
I
think
it'll
be
a
much
faster
paced
thing
when
it
comes
to
understanding
the
value
of
the
blockchain
yeah.
That
was
just
sort
of
in
comment
to
the
hybrid
approach.
Yeah.
C
The
there's
a
transitional
aspect
to
stable
coins
that,
in
you
know
a
decade
from
now
we're
gonna
look
back,
and
it's
gonna
be
pretty
obvious
that,
oh,
yes,
of
course,
I
see
how
you
know.
You'd
have
the
likes
of
of
truly
SDE
and
circle,
and
then
eventually
that
would
dovetail
into
working
nicely
with
the
decentralized
coin
and
then
o,
obviously
whatever
the
next
manifestation.
Maybe
it
will
become
that
historical
aspects
where
you
know
it
well,
it
defines
the
transition
very
clearly.
C
We
probably
only
gonna
not
only
really
know
sometime
in
the
future,
but
it
actually
talks
to
what
you're
saying
you
know
how
you
adopt
things,
how
you
get
educated
by
it
is
by
looking
at
the
first
case,
the
easy
case.
That's
why
you
know
I'm
Circle
has
been
deployed
because
it
is
seen
as
the
easiest
method
and
makes
effectively
from
a
dollars
and
cents
point
of
view
the
most
viable
business
method
going
forward.
C
A
Got
further
than
I
expected,
we
have
seven
more
minutes.
We
could
jump
into
the
next
major
topic.
I,
don't
think
we
have
time,
though,
if
there's
any
random
questions,
people
wanted
to
ask.
That
would
be
a
good
time
or
Steven
if
you
had
so
many
some
overarching
points
that
you
wanted
to
make
in
the
meeting
before
we
had
to
shut
down
and
I'd
be
good.
C
B
E
Sorry
guys
ya
know
just
basically
the
more
on-ramps
you
have
it's
it's
sort
of
like
a
short-term
threat,
long-term
advantage
in.
In
the
same
capacity
of
you
know,
people
have
talked
about
digitized
national
currencies,
you
know
like.
Are
we
gonna
make
well
we're
gonna
put
the
US
dollar
on
the
blockchain,
the
faster
that
happens,
the
faster
that
education
learning
curve.
You
know
gets
closed
out.
So
essentially,
you
know
in
a
short
term
like
if
this
was
a
stock
right,
I
mean
we're.
E
Theoretically,
it
is
in
a
way,
but
if
you
think
of
this
like,
if
we've
got
a
q1,
q2
q3
earnings
report-
yes,
it's
gonna
get
bashed
to
pieces.
If
all
these
stable
coins
start
coming
out,
that
are
hybrids,
but
the
long-term
effect
is
that
you
guys
are
building
an
absorbing
asset.
That
is
purely
decentralized
and
collateralized,
and
all
those
teams
are
increasing
the
education
learning
curve
sort
of
velocity,
and
basically
you
want
people
to
get
as
close
to
the
blockchain
as
possible.
E
If
they're
not
going
to
get
in
to
die,
then
let's
get
like,
let's
have
them
as
close
as
possible
to
a
blockchain,
a
blockchain
based
stable
coin,
because
then
they'll
be
like
wow.
This
is
this
is
really
interesting
and
then
they'll
start
you
know
they're.
They
start
at
60%
understanding,
instead
of
sort
of
zero
to
die.
A
similar
example
might
be
with
sort
of
centralized
exchanges
and
decentralized
exchanges.
E
You
know
if,
if
these
centralized
exchanges
are
an
event
like
a
more
advantageous
because
there's
no
counterparty
risk,
if
you
have
lots
of
people
on
centralized
exchanges
and
I
am
let's
say,
radar
relay
or
Oasis
Dixon
I'm
gonna
be
like.
Oh,
why
isn't
everyone
trading
with
us?
But
if
you
now
have
10
million
people,
20
30
40,
and
that
scales
really
aggressively
when
someone
gets
hacked
or
something
happens
to
those
people,
the
impact
is
how
you
impact
it's.
E
That
is
sorry
28
million
customer
wallet,
that
is
28
million,
really
pissed-off,
voices
that
are
going
to
be
trying
to
complain
and
wings,
and
that
is
going
to
speed
up
their
understanding
to
be
how
am
I
never
going
to
have
this
happen
to
me
again,
there
is
a
thing
called
decentralized
exchangers
and
that
forces
them
to
look
for
alternatives
and
chat
more
and
more
so
essentially
yeah.
Basically
it's
not
as
threatening
long
term.
E
A
Yeah
that
those
those
are
all
great
comments
and
questions
today,
I
was
I
had
a
feeling
that
this
would
spark
some
really
interesting
conversations
and
it
did
I'm
looking
forward
to
next
week.
I
think
we
might
want
to
wrap
it
up
at
this
point,
though
Loomis
I
think
so.
Actually,
thanks
thanks
Michael
thanks
David
for
all
the
great
questions,
Thank
You
Steven,
most
of
all
and
we'll
be
having
this
meeting
again.
Next
Thursday
9
a.m.
PST,
so
I'm
hoping
to
see
everybody
back
so.