►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 97
Description
# Agenda
## Governance
- Richard Brown: General Q&A
- LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
- Seth Benton: SourceCred Update
## Smart Contracts
- Mariano Conti: Removing SAI from MCD.
## MIPs
- Charles St. Louis : Weekly MIPs Update
- Gov-Facilitators: Inclusion Review
## Risk
- Vishesh Choudry: State of the Peg
## Links
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-risk-framework/part-one
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Forum: https://forum.makerdao.com/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
Thank
you
all
right.
Welcome
to
the
97th
governance
and
risk
meeting
from
a
Cadell.
My
name
is
a
song
for
wisdom,
I'm
one
of
the
governor's
facilitators
all
right.
So
we
have
a
fairly
short
introduction
this
week.
I'll
just
briefly
go
over
the
agenda
that
we
it
started.
So
we've
got
governance
at
a
glance
from
me.
We've
got
a
great
update
on
saw
squared
from
Seth.
A
We've
got
Mariano
from
smart
contracts.
Talking
about
removing
the
last
remnants
of
acai
from
multicultural
tie,
we've
got
Charleston
Louie
the
myth
editor,
giving
a
weekly
MIPS
updates
the
comments.
Dilatation
is
doing
the
governance
Club
review
as
part
of
the
week
monthly
government
cycle,
and
then
we've
got
rajesh
doing
state
of
the
PEC
and
I
will
probably
finish
off
with
a
general
QA
session,
like
we
usually
do
as
well.
A
Okay
yeah,
so
it's
been
moderately
quiet
this
week
on
the
forums
not
too
many
sort
of
very
active
discussions
generally
had
a
lot
a
lot
of
a
kind
agent
with
the
threads
discussing
the
liquidation
system,
redesign,
as
you
might
expect,
so.
We've
had
some
goods
ideas
coming
from
a
number
of
number
of
people
in
that
thread.
I
know
it's
been
great
to
see
this
month
that
steam
kind
of
engaging
and
missus
every
as
they
are
as
well.
A
We
had
a
couple
of
fairly
new
fairly
recent
threads.
We
had
use
a
freezer
colleges
for
me
doing
that
wrong,
who
talked
about
bounties
and
grants
and
possible
ways
to
influence
these
or
possible
some
suggestions
on
what
this
could
look
like
for
make
it
down,
which
was
cool
we've.
Also,
just
a
few
hours
ago,
you
had
a
Kiva
posts,
a
premium
discussion
regarding
sort
of
soft
committing
to
keeping
premiums
and
responses
in
general
and
Static,
like
in
the
in
the,
in
the
absence
of
like
specific
conditions,
changing
which
I
thought
was
an
interesting.
A
An
interesting
discussion
and
to
consider
signaling,
why
is
this
kind
of
been
one
main
consistence
signal
this
week?
Nothing
newts
come
up,
there's
a
signal
for
adjusting
the
WTC
debt-ceiling
Andrew
screams,
created
by
insurer
cuts,
which
has
attracted
a
lot
of
attention
and
votes,
which
is
fantastic,
I.
A
Currently,
it's
20
million
debt
ceiling
is
leading
with
like
52
percent
of
the
votes
and
then
for
the
risk
premium.
Two
percent
is
leading
with
47
percent.
The
second
leading
option
is
the
is
letting
the
regime
decide
that
Viserys,
which
is
interesting,
I,
think
this
might
be
good
song.
So
let's
take
a
brief
second
brief
moment
to
kind
of
discuss
this
a
little
bit.
So
if
anybody
has
anything
they
want
to
say
briefly,
let
me
spend
my
502
minutes
kind
of
discussing
how
this
is
going.
B
Yes,
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
complex
situation
with
with
the
debt
ceiling,
so
yeah
I
think.
As
we
all
know,
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
to
quantify
the
specific
risks
associated
with
with
rap
Bitcoin.
As
far
as
I
know,
there's
isn't
really
a
good
framework
for
evaluating
this
type
of
custodial
centralization
risk
you
know
potentially
not
doable
or
you
know
requires
it.
The
very
least
some
legal
opinions.
B
So
what
what
we
can
say,
those
like
what
is
the
effects
of
if
things
go
very,
very
wrong,
and
that-
and
the
edge
case
here
is
that
a
the
entire
debt
ceiling
is
has
to
be
the
orbed
as
bad
debt
into
the
system,
similar
to
what
we
saw
after
Black
Thursday
with
the
five
or
so
million
die
that
had
to
be
had
to
be
paid
back.
So
you
know
this
is
this.
B
That's
that's
kind
of
why
there's
at
least
some
hesitation
on
my
part
to
raise
the
debt
ceiling.
Additionally,
you
know
in
terms
of
what
are
the
benefits
or
what
is
kind
of
the
incentive
to
raise
it,
we're
obviously
in
a
very
low
rate
environment
right
now.
All
the
stability
fees
are
zero.
One
percent
and
there's
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
different
carry
trades
going
on
throughout
the
defy
ecosystem,
borrowing,
cheap
somewhere
and
lending
at
a
higher
rate
elsewhere
and
I
think
it.
B
B
But
okay,
but
here
the
downsides
right,
we
don't.
You
know
in
the
absence
of
anyone
from
the
community
to
kind
of
come
in
and
make
a
strong
argument
for
why
we
should
raise
the
debt
ceiling
from
a
perspective
of
centralization
risk.
I,
don't
know
that
it's
I
just
don't
know
that
it's
such
an
automatic
decision
right
with
with.
B
If
we
have
like
a
little
bit
of
leeway
or
when
we
hit
the
cap
cuz,
there's
some
there's
some
leeway
with
raising
it,
because
the
risks
are
the
very
least
constrained
to
the
just
the
price
risks
there
isn't
kind
of
any
of
this
additional
credit
risk
that
we
have
to
worry
about.
So
I
guess
just
my
my
my
minimum
ask.
Is
that
we're
cognizant
of
how
the
risk
for
wrap
the
corner
just
are
different
than
for
eath?
And
that
being
said,
if
the
community
still
wants
to
to
raise
it,
you
know
I
think
totally.
B
Fine,
there's
also
there's
interesting
ways
to
do
it
in
a
somewhat
safer
way.
One
idea
would
be
to
add
a
second
rap
Bitcoin
call,
but
what's
a
higher
liquidation
ratio
so
say
like
175
percent
or
200%,
and
then
add
another
10
million
they're
such
that
you
know
just
a
little
bit
extra
buffer.
A
protection
in
case
anything
goes
wrong.
C
A
C
Should
raise
we
gotta
get
moving
right,
we
got
obviously
we're
gonna,
KN
c
+,
Z
or
X
on
there
they'll
help
out,
but
other
people
taking
bigger
risks
that
us
tether
being
the
big
big
compound
for
us
to
increase
by
10
billion.
In
let's
say
we
go
to
4
percent
on
wbg,
see
I,
don't
think
we're
we're
getting.
We
can
actually
increase
that,
probably
to
five
six
percent.
C
Yeah
I'll
add
to
that.
A
big
change
for
me
in
the
last
week
was
that
W
BTC
cafe,
went
live,
which
is
this
like
very
easy
way
to
sort
of
flip
between
WBT,
see
there
Ren
BTC
and
go
straight
back
to
BTC
over
the
Ren
bridge
and
I
feel
like
that
mitigates
some
of
the
concern
I
had
around
you
know
what
happens
if
there
is
a
liquidation.
C
B
Here's
a
question
so
I
mean
if
this
is
pure,
pure
Bitcoin,
just
like
no,
no
trustless
bridge
nothing
right.
If
the
if
debt
ceiling
is,
you
know,
if
we
can
agree
that
it's
at
least
100
million,
then
the
bitcoin
one
could
also
conceivably
be.
You
know
significally
higher
than
that,
so
does
that
mean
the
community
is
on?
B
Is
okay
with
one
day
having
say
150
million
of
rap
Bitcoin
right,
so
I
think
that
I
think
I
agree
that
the
the
risk
is
small,
but
it's
but
the
fact
that
it's
nonzero
there's
somewhere
in
between
right
and
yes,
if
we
can,
if
the
community
can
maybe
give
some.
You
know
that
would
be
like
a
better
signal
request
indicator
in
my
mind:
yeah.
C
C
Etherium
is
not
it's
not
going
to
be
as
risk-free
as
just
etherium,
so
you
know
we're
gonna
have
to
have
that
sort
of
calculation
in
there
I
don't
know
if
that
means
that
if
your
games
are
upper
bound
or
what
you
know,
the
decentralized
bridges
may
get
so
good
and
and
baked
in
for
so
long
that
we
can
trust
it
more
over
time,
but
yeah
you're,
I
think
you're
right
to
call
out
the
centralization
risk
and
it's
hard
to
quantify.
Yeah.
B
C
We
should
charge
him
for
the
risk
right
we
charge
for
the
risk
right.
If
we,
if
we're
gonna,
take
the
risk
of
putting
twenty
million
dollars.
Let's
say
we
get
the
thirty
million
right
and
the
default.
We
should
be
having
our
interest
rates,
not
at
one
percent,
where
they
are
right
now
for
WPT
C,
which
is
ridiculous.
We
should
be
up
at
like
seven
eight
right.
The
overall
market
centralized
market
is
that
ten,
nine
ten,
depending
what
it
is.
So
we
should
be
at
least
where
that
is.
B
Right
took
I
mean,
but
compensation
for
risk
in
in
the
stability
fee
just
doesn't
compensate
for
the
exposure
risk
right.
So
it's
not
that
you
could
have.
You
know
uncapped
debt
ceiling
as
long
as
you
just
increase
the
stability
fee,
because
then
kind
of
maker
Dow
as
a
whole
become
susceptible
to
one
collateral
type.
So
the
way
way
I
was
thinking
about
it.
B
Is
that,
like
you
know,
if
there's
a
plan
to
get
dozens
and
dozens
of
collateral
type
or
hundreds
of
collateral
types
into
the
system,
then
they're
likely
all
to
have
somewhat
smaller
debt
ceilings
right.
So
I
think
we
could
consider
increasing
the
few
that
we
have
right
now
was
kind
of
this
implicit
understanding
that
they'll
go
back
down.
B
As
we
add
more
collateral
types,
we'll
start
to
reduce
some
of
the
existing
collateral
debt
ceilings,
otherwise
I
think
we're
just
gonna
end
up
in
the
situation
where
we
just
balloon
an
exposure
risk,
and
we
just
we
just
charge
higher
stability
fees,
but
you
know,
but
if
you
know,
even
if
we
charge
it
something
high
right,
if
we
have
a
bad
event
it
could,
it
could
take
down
the
whole
system.
That's
what
I'm
concerned
about
so.
C
So
the
stability
fee,
real
estate
of
risk
premium,
is
really
what
we'd
be
talking
about
here.
The
risk
premium
for
WB
TC
should
help
to
build
up
that
surplus
buffer,
which,
in
theory
of
the
entire
thing
evaporated,
would
you
know
we'd
take
a
hit
to
the
surplus
buffer
and
so
over
time.
One
can
imagine
that
we
build
up
a
surplus
buffer.
That
is
a
sort
of
insulated
layer.
The
problem
is
March,
12th
blew
our
our
surplus
buffer,
so
you
know
we've
got
to
build
it
again
and
and
so
they're.
C
You
know
it's
not
an
ideal
situation,
but
while
increasing
the
stability
fee
does
not
remove
the
risk
of
you
know
the
entire
collateral
disappearing
over
time.
It
can
help
mitigate
that
so
long
as
we
have
a
wise
surplus
buffer,
that's
like
chasing
over
all
died
supply
or
something
but
yeah
we're
in
a
we're
in
a
tricky
situation.
How
do
we
get
there
from
where
we
are
well.
E
Yes,
yes
hear
from
that
go.
It
is
oh,
so
then,
and
cash
wait.
Wait
on
here
is
the
hundred
million
for
individual
asset
holders,
or
is
it
for
the
entire
company
right
right?
So
it's
one
hundred
million
dollars
per
wall,
so
each
wallet
is
insured
up
to
a
hundred
million.
So
what
will
happen
is
as
if
we're
reaching
100
million,
we
wouldn't
use
one
wallet.
E
We
would
distribute
into
multiple
wallets,
but
if
there
is
a
any
reason
which
we
should
use
a
single
wallet,
which
is
not
the
case
currently,
there
is
a
way
for
us
to
very
cheaply
increase
the
hundred
million
limit,
so
we
would
have
to
pay
for
it.
Well,
so
that
let
me
put
it
simply,
then,
like
it,
our
vaults
covered
under
the
insurance
policy,
like
the
maker
vaults,
yeah
like
it
did
any
WPT
see
in
maker,
would
if
there
was
a
theft
from
big
go,
is
that
covered
by
the
insurance
policy?
E
B
Right,
arguably,
there's
other
there's
non
theft,
types
of
centralization
risk
to
you
right,
such
as
potential
regulatory
pressures
that
would
render
you
know
insurance
right,
I
mean
again.
So
let
me
let
me
kind
of
reiterate,
cuz,
I
think
long
who's,
the
most
once
move
on.
My
my
stance
is
that
I,
if
this
is
kind
of
like
the
will
of
the
community-
and
this
will
go
through
governance
phone,
what's
over
it-
it's
it's
workable.
I
just
it
gives
me
pause
one
like
the
debt
ceiling
increase.
B
B
You
know
we
should
also
be
conscious
that,
like
you
know
being
compensated
through,
you
know
additional
5%
stability
fee.
I
does
not.
You
know
earning
an
extra
five
percent
over
you
know
for
the
next
three
months
does
not
compensate
for
one.
We
have
to
absorb
the
entire.
You
know
20
million
in
a
in
a
maker
auction.
If
we
can,
you
know,
agree
to
those
like
be
aware.
Those
in
sure.
E
B
E
C
A
G
A
G
H
A
Yeah
I
think
that's
fine.
We
discussed
it
in
the
in
that
forum
threads
and
anything
there
was
anybody
with
I
know.
One
seem
to
object
strongly.
A
A
Exactly
things
just
like
kind
of
administrative
change,
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
pretty
fine.
They,
for
whatever
reason
my
coders
are
strongly
opposed
to
it.
They
can
vote
it
down,
and
this
is
mainly
kind
of
just
informing
people
is
that
it
will
be
in
the
next
executive.
So
they're
not
surprised.
Yes,.
G
G
G
G
A
Yeah
I
just
say:
I'm,
like
personally,
like
I
found
like
messing
with
the
weights
of
the
the
algorithm
pretty
interesting
I'm,
just
gonna
see
how
it
effects
Kretz
cause
generally,
there's
like
all
this
different
sliders
to
sort
of
control,
how
much
cred
flows
from
different
nodes
so
like
how
much
current
flows
from
like
a
topic
to
the
person.
You
mate
the
topic.
A
You
know
from
people
that,
like
things
to
the
thing
they
liked
and
all
this
sort
of
stuff,
so
it's
quite
interesting
to
look
at
the
default
weights
that
have
been
used
and
kind
of
fiddle
with
them
and
potentially
see.
If
there's
a
if
you
can
figure
out
like
a
better
configuration
for
the
weights,
that
leads
to
a
more
like
to
a
sort
of
credit
region
that
you
think
better
matches
like
people's
contributions.
G
Absolutely
yeah-
and
you
know
we
put
some
thought
and
a
considerable
out
of
thought
into
the
default
weights
and
we
think
it
works
well
out
of
the
box,
but
there
are
certainly
better
configurations
for
maker,
so
I
encourage
everyone
to
throw
out
the
weights
and
if
you
find
a
configuration
that
just
gives
a
better
reflection
of
reality.
Just
let
us
know
where
we're
totally
open
to
you
know
tweaking
them
to
optimize
them.
G
G
G
Some
observations
from
the
first
two
and
a
half
weeks
that
the
trials
been
going.
First
of
all
note
we're
gaming,
which
was
great
to
see
not
terribly
surprising,
because
the
maker
community
is
relatively
small
and
high
trust,
and
we
will
definitely
be
digitally
monitoring
for
gaming.
But
then
so
far
we
have
13
opt-ins.
G
G
You
know,
for
instance,
some
scores
are
artificially
high
because
basically
it
like
a
quirk
where,
if
a
contributor
comes
in
and
contributes
a
lot
of
value
and
then
disappears
without
liking
or
engaging
with
other
content,
prep
sort
of
gets
trapped
in
that
person's
node
and
they
have
an
artificially
high
school.
We
don't.
We
don't
see
that
as
terribly
problematic,
because
there's
not
too
much
money
being
diverted
from
that,
and
we
also
have
a
refactor
of
the
algorithm
in
process
which
is
going
to
fix
that
problem,
which
I'll
talk
about
in
a
minute
and
I'll.
G
G
If
anyone
has
any
questions,
though,
please
don't
hesitate
to
ask
me
on
the
forums
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
and
in
the
right
direction,
we're
working
on
some
data
visualization
analysis,
which
will
take
the
form
of
tools
that
we
can
provide.
The
maker
community
and
I'm
also
planning
to
start
doing
a
little
bit
of
that
analysis
and
posting
results
in
forum.
G
So
if
anyone
has
any
sort
of
data
analysis
or
data,
vis,
ideas,
I'm
all
ears
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
before,
we're
doing
a
refactor
of
the
algorithm,
which
is
called
Fred
rank,
and
this
won't
actually
change
the
basic
scores
or
anything.
It's
it's
more,
just
an
optimization
that
will
give
us
more
flexibility,
we'll
get
rid
of
our
little
problem
with
credit
sinks
and
allow
us
to
do
more
data
analysis
and
make
it
faster,
etc.
G
G
One
thing
that
he
I've
been
talking
too
long
about
doing,
is
potentially
minting
pred
based
on
levels
in
discourse,
which
would
allow
us
to
prevent
certain
types
of
gaming
and
give
us
a
little
bit
more
civil
resistance.
It
could
also
first
prevent
people
from
getting
cred,
for
instance,
for
showing
up.
You
know
just
to
like
show
their
coin,
to
get
accepted
to
maker
down
out
and
even
if
it
doesn't
get
accepted,
they
get
crap
like
that.
G
We're
also
looking
at
the
possibility
of
minting
cred
based
on
categories
or
tags,
which
would
give
us
a
lot
of
flexibility
to
incentivize
specific
things.
You
know,
for
instance,
acting
me
a
category
potentially
incentivize
certain
governance
actions,
which
is
a
pretty
exciting
and
we
are
we're
looking
to
experiment
with
that
in
the
coming
weeks.
G
Yeah
and
just
finally,
you
know
engaging
soar
spread,
feel
free
to
ask
the
questions
on
the
forum
I'm
here
any
time,
here's
a
link
to
our
discord
and
we
actually
have
created
a
maker.
Doubt
chat
channel
just
puts
maker
specific
stuff.
If
you
want
to
just
dig
deeper
or
ask
questions
directly
to
the
team.
G
There's
our
website
and
we
also
have
a
community
call
every
Thursday
at
11
a.m.
Pacific
time
on
our
discord
and
that's
a
great
place
for
anyone
to
drop
in
and
just
learn
more
about
Swiss
pride.
Ask
ask
any
questions
in
my
path
around
a
child.
Anything
and
I
guess!
That's
that's
about
all
I.
Have
long.
Is
there
time
for
questions
or.
A
G
I
think
I
know
I
know
what
he
means
there
isn't
currently.
All
all
that
we're
doing
right
now
is
publishing
an
observable
notebook
which
just
lists
the
scores,
but
I
can
definitely
create
a
little
chart
of
the
dye
distributions
or
scores
over
time,
and,
if
you're
just
looking
to
look
at
the
scores
that
is
current
in
the
current
UI,
you
can't
see
that.
A
That
would
be
something
that
would
need
to
be
decided
by
where
for
the
funds
for
in
certification
came
from
which
ultimately,
if
everything
goes
well,
should
be
the
protocol.
So
ideally
it
should
be
the
community
deciding
where,
like
what's
specific,
things
are
incentivized
and
whether
that's
like
discussion
around
MIPS
or
you
know,
engagement
with
kind
of
like
risk
reports
from
light
sources.
Team
or
you
know,
smart
contracts,
things.
H
The
first
month
is
prototyping
and
testing,
you
know
and
red
flags,
but
at
least
my
my
personal
hope
is
that
the
community
engages
with
source
pride
and
the
team
directly
to
determine
for
themselves
what
activities
they
think
is
beneficial
for
the
ecosystem,
so
part
of
the.
Why
I
find
this
experiment
so
compelling?
Is
that
we'll
be
able
to
directly
interact
with
the
community
to
figure
out
what
kind
activities
the
community
wants
to
incentivize
is
awesome?
I
That's
me
I
think
yeah,
all
right,
I'll
I'll
get
right
to
it.
So,
in
terms
of
this
week's
activity
in
the
world
of
MIPS,
the
monthly
MIPS
governance
poll
was
submitted
for
the
six
proposals
that
passed
the
inclusion
poll
stage.
This
includes
four
it's
to
change,
myth,
eight,
nine,
twelve
and
six.
A
risk
came
onboarding
proposal
and
the
declarations
of
intent
so
OH.
I
Additionally,
there
are
also
four
polls
that
went
out
for
white
listing
Oracle's.
These
proposals
were
for
were
for
defy
savor
on
the
eath
USD
oracle,
waitlist
for
for
defy
savor
on
the
bat
USD
defy
saver
on
rapid
coin
USD
and
then
MC
Dex
on
eath
USD
oracle.
Lastly,
there
were
eight
polls
that
went
out
for
pointing
and
proposing
new
light
feeds.
More
specifically
is
for
Khyber
and
fira
ether
scan
and
geek
coin.
I
If
nick
is
here,
he
maybe
might
want
to
add
some
details
as
to
what
these
polls
entail
and
what
the
next
steps
are
for
those
polls
if
they,
if
they
did
it,
if
they
all
passed
the
governor's
poll,
so
if
not
I'll,
be
sure
to
include
it
in
the
weekly
website
date
forum
post.
But
if
Nick
is
here
and
wants
to
shed
some
light
notice,
the
opportunity.
D
I
F
I
Okay,
perfect
all
right
thanks
Nick,
so
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
Thursday.
Today
we're
going
to
do
the
governance
facilitator
review
of
the
polls
that
tossed
the
MIPS
governance
pulled
pass
with
0
votes,
so
it
will
proceed
if
the
government's
facilitators
confirm
YES
on
the
outcome
and
that
vote
would
go
out
on
the
next
Monday.
I
Next
Thursday,
the
governance
facilitators
will
perform
the
governance
cycle
review
as
part
of
this
meeting
and
summarize
and
discuss
the
past
governance
cycle
with
everyone
on
the
call.
The
meeting
is
also
an
opportunity
to
discuss
the
upcoming
governance
cycle
and
any
potential
submissions
for
July's
govern
cycle.
So
just
a
note
about
the
July
cycle.
So,
even
though
it
is
a
couple
weeks
away,
I
do
want
to
note
that
the
formal
submission
period
does
end
on
July
8th.
I
So
if
you
do
have
any
proposals
in
progress,
submitting
them
for
review
sooner
rather
than
later
is
definitely
a
good
idea
and
other
news
in
terms
of
claro
onboarding.
There
were
two
governance
polls
to
onboard
KNC
in
Xerox
and
they
have
both
passed,
so
they
will
proceed
to
an
executive
vote
at
the
end
of
the
month
on
Friday,
the
26th,
along
with
the
other
polls
that
Nick
mentioned
the
next
community
green
light.
Poles
will
go
out
next
Monday
on
June
22nd
in
the
final
week
of
this
govern
cycle.
I
The
proposal
idea
category
was
created
last
week,
so
this
is
a
place
where
you
can
propose
your
ideas
for
improving
the
maker
protocol,
technical
governance
related
or
or
whatever
the
first
post
in
there
was
the
the
Prima
of
discussion
for
the
redesign
of
the
maker
protocol
liquidation
system,
and
the
discussion
is
still
going
very
strong
and
again
I
do
encourage
everyone.
You
had
to
take
a
look
when
you
have
the
time,
and
now
there
are
three
other
posts
in
the
proposal.
I
Category
which
is
awesome
to
see
the
other
proposals
are
softlocks
and
future
guidance,
I
believe
it
was
by
Akiva
and
a
post
about
bounties,
which
long
mentioned
briefly
at
the
beginning
of
the
call
which
could
potentially
work
well
with
nip
thirteen.
If
that
does
pass,
and
the
last
one
was
a
decentralized
maker
broker.
I
J
A
All
right,
I
think
you
chose
one
thing:
I
just
highlight
is
that's
this,
so
this
one's,
like
the
tunes
current
cycle
finishes
on
the
well
tonight,
is
28th
of
June.
There's
then,
like
one
week
where
we
don't
really
do
any
whips
government
cycle
things,
because
MIPS
3
specifically
states
that
the
cycle
starts
on
the
first
Monday
of
the
month.
A
A
Cool.
Ok
with
that,
then
facilitators
will
do
the
governance
for
review
and
so
just
looking
it's
the
government's
ball
for
the
MEP
cycle,
the
MEP
monthly
cycle.
So
I
said
this
included
13
declarations
of
intense.
It
included
four
amendments
amending
MIPS,
6,
8,
8,
9
12
and
included
a
proposal
to
ratify
it
service
as
a
official
RIS
team.
A
So
the
poll
passed
with
like
3.7,
okay,
thank
you
with
12
unique
waiters.
So
this
is
I'm
not
sure.
If
this
is
lesson
we
had
last
week,
but
there
wasn't
no
makeup
voted
against
it.
So
don't
see
any
reason
to
to
prevent
this
from
proceeding.
Two
things
I,
could've
read,
show
you
you
want
to
give
your
thoughts.
H
A
A
3,700
Tokyo
there's
a
net
12
Otis
I'm,
assuming
this
is
missing
fewer
voters,
honest
I,
think
because
a
gas
prices
are
high
and
be
because
the
kind
of
monthly
cycle
requires
you
to
pay
on
the
same
thing
like
three
dice.
This
is
the
middle
middle
right,
so
I'm
not
terribly
surprised
that
it's
not
attracting
a
huge
amount
of
participation.
I
was
still
encourage.
People
to
vote
you
know
is.
A
A
F
Just
think
all
right,
I
know:
we've
had
a
lot
in
this
meeting,
so
I'll
try
not
to
take
too
long
all
right.
So
in
general
the
dice
is
pretty
stagnant.
Since
the
previous
week,
so
total
dies
at
118
million
died
from
a
406
million
die
from
bat.
Half
a
million
die
from
WBT
C
is
still
just
near.
Capped
out
died
from
USD
C
is
around
1.7
million.
F
So
let's
double
click
on
those
in
a
moment,
but
in
terms
of
die
price.
So
essentially
what
we
saw
in
the
past
week-
or
so
was
you
know,
a
bit
of
a
dip
and
fluctuation
in
eath
price.
Again,
these
are
not
particularly
large
margins.
That's
just
something
to
keep
in
mind,
but
yeah
that
price
did
sort
of
rise.
F
F
Basically,
what
we
see
is
the
u.s.
DC
Diet
rating
has
leveled
around
you
know
a
dollar
Oh
8,
and
so
that's
that's
a
pretty
small
buffer
above
a
dollar
and
a
bit
better
than
what
the
eath
titrating
had
indicated,
presumably
because
there's
just
a
very,
very
slightly
larger
spread
on
East
I
right
now,
then
there
is
some
dye
u.s.
DC,
so
just
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
the
other
collateral
assets.
First,
so
US
DC
dye
is
pretty
much
flat
at
this
low,
like
point-seven
1.8,
1.9
million
level.dat.
F
This
kind
of
nice
maintained
that
historical
half
a
million,
or
so
it's
a
slight
increase
over
where
it
was
in
March,
but
obviously
that's
a
big
drop-off
of
where
it
was
prior,
WB
TC.
So
what
we
essentially
sees
that's
kind
of
kept
at
that
cap
effectively
and
I
know.
That's
that's
a
thread
that's
already
being
discussed
in
terms
of
eath,
so
what
we
essentially
saw
was,
after
that
initial
10
million-
that's
we'll
need
put
in
taken
out
and
we
saw
a
bit
of
a
dip
and
supply
that
dip.
F
F
We'd
have
to
to
wait
and
see
a
bit,
but
there's
there's
no
indicator
that
that
anything
is
fundamentally
changed
and
you
know
what's
been
going
on
with
East
I.
So
all
in
all
it's
it's
pretty
quiet.
I
mean
there
were.
There
were
a
couple
of
short-term
fluctuations,
but
nothing
that
yet
appears
to
amount
to
like
a
long
term
trend.
I
will
pause
there
and
see
if
there's
any
questions.
F
A
F
F
Essentially,
what
we
tend
to
see
with
the
secondary
lending
markets
is,
you
know,
there's
a
tight
relationship
in
terms
of
the
relative
spread
between
the
rates
and
effectively
what
what
people
refinance
to
and
from,
although
I
do
think
that
what's
been
going
on
with
the
comp
token
distribution
lately
can
potentially
the
model
with
some
of
the
numbers
are
so
that
probably
needs
today,
even
out
of
it
as
well,
but
yeah.
If
there
aren't
any
other
questions,
I'll
just
pass
it
back
or
took
control
back.
A
K
Just
wonder
before
we
do
that
you
know.
Last
week,
Kenickie
talked
about
potentially
pushing
through,
so
the
article
stuff
in
the
weekly
government
cycle
is
that
the
reason
that
these
are
called
folks
were
parting
now
or
was
the
poll
because
we've
decided
to
go
with
sort
of
more
traditional
Maps
process.
D
K
D
You'd,
like
that,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
more
that
are
that
are
on
the
way.
So
you
know
getting
more
more
light.
Feeds
on
board
is
a
big
priority,
at
least
for
me
personally,
but
I
think
should
be
for
the
community
as
well,
because
it
just
further
kind
of
decentralized
as
our
Oracle's.
It
makes
them
more
robust,
more
resilient,
and
it
also
makes
them
a
more
attractive
product
for
for
external
third
parties
as
well.
So
we're
gonna
see
a
lot
more
whitelisting
proposals
as
well.
K
Yeah
and
on
that
point,
just
bouncing
off
I
think
that
it's
well
worth
sort
of
reading,
particularly
ruins
response
in
the
question
about
the
liquidation
process,
because
he
consistently
points
people
to
MI
people
and
this
notion
of
problems
faces.
You
know,
because
there's
been
some
debate
about
the
edge
case
of
those
em
failure
in
the
liquidation
process,
and
if
we
have
notice
in
failure,
then
we
potentially
have
bigger
problems
than
out
liquidation
process
and
having
a
look
at
mi,
p1
and
understanding
me
intimately.
K
What
the
problems
places
that
we
face
as
a
governance
community
are
I
feel
is
quite
an
important
thing
for
the
community
at
large
to
kind
of
keep
front
of
mind
because
there's
genuinely
interesting
stuff
in
there
that
could
lead
to.
You
know
fruitful
discussions
on
these
calls
as
well,
particularly
in
this
kind
of
question
and
answer
session.
A
If
anyone
hasn't
looked
through
one
just
supply,
brows
I
would
yeah
I
can
encourage
people
to
salute
through
because
it
it's
kind
of
the
closest
thing
to
like.
Oh,
it's
not
like
totally
like
a
road
map.
I
guess
that
we
have
for
this
stage
in
terms
of
what's
the
foundation
wants
to
complete
I
guess
before
it
dissolves.
I
I
C
C
I
have
a
question
about
scaling
the
oracles
so
currently
as
we're
adding
more
collateral
and
we're
also
adding
more
Oracle's.
It
seems
like
it
may
be.
This
is
sort
of
like
a
quadratically,
increasing
function
and
the
function
of
those
two
components.
So
I'm
just
I'm
curious
about
like
thoughts
about
how
to
scale
up
to
that
massive
number,
potentially
in
the
near
future.
D
C
Looking
at
the
feeds,
so
the
feeds
scale
up
with
both
respect
to
the
number
of
Oracle
providers,
as
well
as
the
number
of
collaterals
the
need
feeds,
so
that
that
looks
to
me
like
sort
of
a
since
both
numbers
are
going
up.
That
looks
to
be
like
a
quadratically
scaling
sort
of
number
that
which
concerns
me.
D
D
But
the
idea
of
having
an
equal
number
of
dark
feeds-
slight
feeds
seems
very
attractive
because
then
you
know,
even
if
all
of
the
dark
feeds
were
civil
for
instant,
they
wouldn't
actually
be
able
to
come
to
a
consensus
on
any
price
right
same
with.
You
know
if
there
was
some
kind
of
you
know:
social
media
campaign
and
turn
of
sentiments
and
against
maker,
or
something
like
that.
D
But
at
the
same
time
you
know
we
shouldn't
be
adding
just
anyone
right,
we
don't
want
to
add
low
quality
partners.
You
know
we
do
want
to
just
get
like
the
the
biggest
players
in
the
ecosystem.
So
if
we
have
to
be
a
little
bit
patient
to
get
those
types
of
projects-
and
you
know
we
should
be-
we
should
evaluate
those
trade-offs
right
in
terms
of
the
actual
Oracles
themselves
right
in
terms
of
customers.
D
I
think
that,
now
that
we
have
these
governance
processes
in
place,
everything
is
going
to
kind
of
go
much
quicker
now
right
now
that
we
have
kind
the
monthly
governance
cycle
right
and
there's
specific
dates
by
which
things
need
to
happen
right
and
and
doing
these
in
in
parallel
can
actually
be
quite
rapid
from
a
development
perspective.
It's
only
when
you
have
to
do
them
kind
of
one
by
one
by
one
by
one
that
you're
incurring
I.
Guess
like
the
largest
time
penalty
right,
it's
not
any
more
effort
to
white
list.
D
C
D
D
Matching
that
and
having
a
total
of
30
feeds
seems
like
a
good
number
to
stop
at
before.
We
then
reconsider.
Okay,
do
we
want
to
add
more
right
if
we
do
want
to
add
more?
What
is
kind
of
the
proportion
here?
Do
we
just
exclusively
want
to
add
light
feeds,
or
do
we
want
to
keep
this
kind
of
one-to-one
ratio
of
dark
to
light
right,
you
know,
even
adding
dark
feeds
is
a
is
something
a
little
bit
complicated
right,
because
the
whole
point
is
that
there
are
anonymous.
D
So
it's
like,
how
do
you
evaluate
the
credentials
of
someone
who
is
an
right
and
who
needs
to
be
anonymous
right?
So
if
you
take
a
look
at
mid
ten,
it
kind
of
details,
you
know
what
some
of
those
requirements
might
be.
One
of
the
things,
for
example,
is
if
you
are
a
like
a
might
like
a
long
time
minor
or
validator
on
a
large
blockchain.
D
You
know
you
could,
for
example,
sign
a
message
with
your
private
key
right,
and
that
gives
now
kind
of
a
you
know
gives
everyone
right,
the
the
social
proof
that
you
know
this
person
has
been.
You
know
a
minor
or
validator.
You
know
in
good
standing
for
X
amount
of
time
for
a
blockchain
that
was
securing.
You
know,
X
hundreds
of
millions
or
billions
in
value
right,
but
you
know
we
may
want
to
explore
other
other
types
of
metrics
as
well.
C
A
A
A
A
A
So
thank
you
to
everyone
who
you
did
a
presentation
thanks
for
for
coming
and
I
guess
we
will
see
you
all
again
next
week.