►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 73
Description
Please join us and help shape the future of the MakerDAO.
Governance Segment
Richard Brown: Introduction
LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
Risk Segment
Primoz Kordez: Migration Analysis
Discussions Segment
We open the floor for general discussion about current events and issues.
Links
- [Video/Voice](https://zoom.us/j/697074715)
- [Dial-in](https://zoom.us/u/acRbIMDvK)
- [Calendar](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=makerdao.com_3efhm2ghipksegl009ktniomdk@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles)
A
A
Today
we
are
going
to
be
talking
about
something
very
interesting,
I,
say
interesting
at
the
beginning
of
every
single
call,
but
I'm
not
going
to
stop
doing
it
because
it
is
Mariano
has
a
treat
for
us
I'm,
hoping
that
I'm
smart
enough
to
follow
along
because
this
we're
getting
into
some
dark
magic
here
and
I'm
excited
to
see
here
what
that's
all
about
he's,
also
in
transit
right
now,
so
I
think
Mariana
is
the
idea
that
wills
going
to
pick
up
pick
it
up
for
you.
Are
you
lying
yeah.
B
A
Right:
okay,
thanks
Sarah
Mariana,
your
dedication
to
the
cause
has
been
noted
and
ago
in
your
employment
record,
so
well
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
appropriate
schedule
would
be.
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
a
significant
number
of
questions
about
the
dark
fix
and
the
GSM.
Those
are
those
are
very
complex
topics
and
becoming
more
topical
by
the
day
as
close
Watchers
of
the
ecosystem.
A
I
guess
maybe
we'll
leave
that
for
the
second
half
of
the
call,
long
four-way,
so
I'm
going
to
throw
you
under
the
bus,
I
mean
I
hand
things
off
to
you.
If
you
want
to
give
us
governance
at
a
glance,
perhaps,
and
then
do
you
have
a
special
thread,
do
you
want
to
talk
to
you
talk
about,
or
should
we
stick
to
government's
at-a-glance.
C
A
A
Know
what's
going
with
my
camera,
so
the
politicians
and
campaigners
and
parties
will
arise,
and
then
people
will
begin
asking
questions
and
sort
of
agitating
for
change
or
demanding
answers
and
stuff
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
first
highly
visible
examples
of
that.
So
is
there
an
idea
that
whoever
it
was
that
was
voting
for
2%
reconsidered,
or
was
it
hinges?
It.
C
But
yes,
so
that
was
that
was
pretty
cool.
It's
I
posted
some
of
the
history
of
the
distribution
of
the
poll
looked
like
in
that
threat,
but
briefly
tips
then
started
off
winning
and
with
like
the
only
sort
of
major
like
major
make
a
hold
of
waiting,
and
then
we
had
sort
of
large
amounts
to
make
a
drop
on
to
0%
and
well.
C
A
A
C
So
what
that
means
is
that
some
entity
kind
of
needs
to
be
in
charge
of
defining
what
is
an
emergency
change
for
both
monetary
policy
and
like
technical
changes
according
to
the
vote.
So,
according
to
the
wedding,
the
vote
which
I
wrote
the
foundation
technical
team,
which
is
a
budget
a
bit
vague,
can
is
like
the
sort
of
authority
to
say
whether
something
is
an
emergency
or
not.
An
interim
risk
team
is
the
authority
for
saying
if
something,
if
ever
monetary
policy
changes
an
emergency
or
not,
that.
A
Potentially
unappealing
monetary
policy
was
potentially
important,
technical
fixes,
or
vice
versa.
It
creates
too
much
too
much
of
a
risk
of
a
weak
executive,
not
a
lot
I'm
going
to
exact
fix
to
go
through.
For
that
to
happen.
Groups
of
empowered
actors
need
to
what's
the
word,
for
it
come
to
an
agreement.
A
C
C
About
doing
continuous
poll
polling,
as
well
as
like
the
continuous
executive
approval,
this
is
quite
interesting
idea
and
to
give
a
brief
gist
of
it,
which
is
that,
instead
of
having
poll
like
new
polls
every
week,
we
just
have
say
a
single
poll
that
has
like
a
slow
difficult
for
this
belief.
It
was
like
all
the
stability
few
options,
perhaps
in
a
continuous
way
and
then
as
maker
changes
on
that
poll,
as
as
we
go
through
weeks.
C
If
at
any
points,
the
picture
painted
by
the
continuous
polls
is
different
from
the
active
picture
and
in
the
mega
protocol,
then
we
would
create
an
executive
votes.
You
capture
the
changes
for
that
week
and
I
figure
no
well
the
reasons
for
doing
this
well,
but
there
were
some
details
in
that
in
that
threads
yeah.
A
It's
worth
if
somebody
could
put
I'm
stuck
with
one
Li
one
monitor
like
a
farmer,
but
if
somebody
can
can
dig
up
the
link
to
that
post
and
instigate
an
aside
yeah
that'd
be
great,
there's
interesting
anyway.
Sorry,
let
me
let
me
condense
all
that
big
speech
I
was
surfing.
I
was
about
to
do
it.
We
keep
on
biting
up
against
limitations
of
continuous
approval
and
first-past-the-post
and
I.
A
Think
that
there's
it's
worth
the
community
digging
into
this
discussion
to
and
having
a
look
at
that
local
Mandy
is
a
an
active
member
of
the
community,
he's
a
deep
thinker
and
a
very
smart
guy,
so
from
previously
a
status,
possibly
still
I'm,
not
entirely
sure,
but
there's
worth
when
Andy
is
interested
in
your
ecosystem.
It's
worth
paying
attention.
C
There's
like
there's
polls
in
there
for
you
to
like
vote
on
which
ones
you
think
are
the
most
important.
It's
not
really
an
official
signaling
things.
It's
not
a
change,
anything
register
so
polling
exercise,
and
so,
if
you
have
ideas
for
improvements
for
the
state
of
The,
Pickwick
AB
section
or
you
want
to,
you
know
like
weigh
in
on
the
ideas
that
are
only
in
there.
That
might
be
useful
if
you're,
British
and
Sam
and
the
people
responsible
for
those
some
direction.
C
C
So,
most
recently,
they
used
to
called
bits
great,
as
you
know,
arrests
for
discussing
what
the
next
eath
debt
ceiling
should
be
for
MCD,
basically
so
describe.
It
has
sort
of
been
fairly
local
in
the
past
abouts
about
us,
increasing
the
debt
ceiling
more
than
perhaps
we've
considered
in
the
past,
and
has
sort
of
summarized
that
innocent
arrests
and
lastly,
if
it
was
input,
so,
if
you
notice
have
opinions
on,
that's
I
would
suggest
she's
just
sharing
them
there.
C
A
That's
an
interesting
question
to
that,
because
the
the
risk
team
was
sort
of
empowered
with
some
extra
migration
responsibilities
the
we
had
no
idea
what
migration
was
gonna.
Look
like
there's
a
brave
new
world
that
was
completely
unexplored,
and
so
the
idea
I
thinking
was,
and
the
vote
or
proposal
I
went
through
was
that
the
risk
team
would
be
able
to
make
fairly
rapid
changes
to
the
system
in
response
to
a
bunch
of
unknown
variables.
But
at
some
point
we're
gonna
have
to
determine
whether
migration
is
over
and/or.
Ending.
A
E
E
Essentially
a
governance
v2
or
we
can
start
taking
a
more
quantitative
approach
to
how
some
of
these
tremors
might
be
derived
it.
Additionally,
due
to-
and
people
tend
to
forget
this
all
the
time,
but
due
to
the
OSM
risk,
we
should
never
eat,
even
if
the
maximum
tolerable
debt
ceiling
is
in
the
hundreds
of
millions.
We
would
never
just
set
the
debt
ceiling
immediately
to
that
number,
but
we
would
always
use
incremental
incremental
increases
for
just
for
safety
sake.
E
Just
as
long
as
we're
not
accidentally
going
beyond
any
of
the
kind
of
the
safe
thresholds
of
these
25
million
increases,
then
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
like
any
huge,
huge
issues
there
and
then,
with
regards
to
migration,
I
mean
personally
I
still
consider
us
heavily
in
a
migration
phase
topic.
It
comes
up
on
a
weekly
basis.
I
think
I
mean
that's
not
that's
really
kind
of
a
community
appetite
decision
right.
C
Feel
like
I
feel
like
some
of
the
maybe
not
sort
of
disagree.
My
didn't
it's
like
active
disappearance,
but
like
it's
almost
like
we're
in
like
a
migration
or
like
a
shutdown
phase
for
size
still,
but
potentially
not
entirely
in
the
migration
phase
for
MCD
anymore,
because,
like
the
large
majority
of
like
the,
if
the
and
sigh
it's
migrated
right
so
like
I
say
most
of
the
demand
for
like
MCD
is
now
probably
new
rather
than
then
migrating.
So
maybe
that's
a
reason.
Thinking
yeah.
E
Yeah
I
mean
that's,
that's
fair
point,
I
mean
we
can
I
mean
I,
don't
think.
We've
ever
really
discussed
like
an
exit
strategy
out
of
the
migration
phase.
I
think
I,
always
kind
of
implicitly
assumed
it'd
be
what
I
thought
it
would
be,
but
yeah,
that's
a
that's
a
good
stage.
I
mean
that's
a
good
point.
If
we
want
to
officially
declare
ourselves
out
of
the
migration
phase,
that's
possible,
but
I
as
it
pertains
to
kind
of
like
the
the
debt
ceilings
and
the
that
kind
of
stuff
I
mean
I.
E
C
Cool
all
right,
continuing
through
signal
first
then
so.
Well,
it's
been
up
for
a
while.
Now
is
questioning
whether
we
should
reduce
the
minimum
bits
increase
required
for
surplus
auctions
like
the
flop,
oceans,
which
auction
off
maker
for
dyeing
and
auction
off
dye
for
maker
and
then
burn
the
maker
there
you
go
so
I
think
Erin's
been
running
this
I,
don't
know.
Let's
just
talk
about
it
briefly.
Yeah.
C
F
So
if
you
bid
adjust
just
under
three
percent
for
of
what
the
current
maker
price
is,
you
can
pretty
much
be
the
only
bidder,
no
one's
gonna
over
bid.
What
did
with
the
actual
Dido
maker
prices
currently,
because
then
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
sell
it
back
and
then
make
more
money.
So
my
proposal
was
that
we
could
reduce
that
percentage
so
that
more
people
could
either
of
maker
holders.
Could
then
captures
more
of
the
that
spread
in
in
maker
burn
yeah?
Do
you
have
any,
let's
bring
it
much
the
basics
of
it.
B
B
G
B
That,
in
the
case
of
flap,
auctions
is
just
if
you're
the
fastest,
if
you
lower
it
to
1%
and
people
will
like
the
fastest
one
will
bid
close
to
1%
and
I
know
it
maybe
creates
some
different
dynamics.
I,
don't
know
what
everybody
thinks,
but
I
guess
in
this
case
it
just
pays
to
be
the
fastest
I've.
Seen
that
to
be
they're,
almost
always
it's
like
with
a
hundred
and
one
giveaways
of
gas
right.
So
it's
they
pay
like
seven
bucks
and
gas
to
to
really
be
the
first
bit
under
3%.
Oh,
is.
F
It
that
much
but
yeah
it
looks
like
it's
banging
so
they're,
so
so
keepers
right
now,
they're
capturing
like
3%
spread
and
over
$10,000.
You
know
that's
an
extra
300
bucks
that
they're,
probably
a
minimum
they're
profiting
off
of
and
so
I
don't
know.
It's
I
just
made
a
signal
to
Beth
see
if
maker
holders
want
to
reduce
that
see.
So
we
could
capture
more
value,
yeah.
G
F
So
35
percent
and
I
have
right
here
sorry,
so
two
percents
winning
with
35
percent
and
1
percent.
Yes,
when
is
second
with
30
percent
and
current,
which
is
3%,
has
13
percent
so
that
there
is
some
appetite
to
to
make
me
experiment
with
it.
A
little
bit.
I'll
have
three
percent
just
changed.
It's
increased
to
20
percent.
Now
so
I
was
thinking.
It's
been
up
for
a
little
bit.
I
figured
I'll
talk
to
rich
and
maybe
I'll
put
it
on
on
chain
with
with
1
2
and
3
percent.
E
I
have
a
question
for
ad
I
I
mean
I.
I
agree
with
your
point
completely,
but
I
think
the
only
way
to
find
out
if
the
market
participants
would
be
willing
to
tolerate
the
lower
spread
is
to
just
try
it
trip
it
right
and
see
the
data
and
then
and
then
move
it
back.
If
we
need
to
I
mean
I,
don't
see
any
other
easy
way
to
find
out
what
the
good
trade-off
is
between
participation
in
and
the
spread.
G
A
Well,
that
was
the
whole
idea
right.
We
were
the
best
guess
is
for
MCD
launch
and
then
tweaking
once
we
have
empirical
data
right,
but
the
Raval
myself
with
options
because
I'm
not
smart
enough
to
understand
them.
So
let
me
ask
some
really
dumb
questions.
Mariana
you're
are
you?
Are
you
saying
that,
regardless
of
the
spread
and
the
mechanisms
involve
that
essentially
this
is
just
a
high-frequency
trading,
so
the
problem
and
that's
whoever
gets
there?
First
wins,
no
matter.
A
E
Not
quite
an
accurate
representation,
but
the
issue
is
that
there
are
I
think
it's.
The
data
indicates
that
people
are
willing
to
tolerate
the
lower
spread
and,
as
a
result,
they're
they're
bidding
high
in
the
gas
auction
and
the
gas
game
to
to
secure
that
that
bid
position
to
guarantee
themselves
doctrine
so.
E
A
C
Me
so
it
is
an
auction,
but
because
everyone
knows
that
the
minimum
bet
bid
is
like
three
percent,
it
means
you
can
ever
get.
You
can
have
a
bit
like
less
than
three
percent
than
the
current
price.
So
if
you
want
to
win
like
the
like,
opportune
or
thing
to
do
is
to
immediately
bid
for
like
that
three
percent.
A
E
But
I
think
I
think
the
issue
is
so
M
care
holders
are,
are
losing
out
on
300
right
three
hundred
three
hundred
die
per
auction.
In
order
to
ensure
that
you
have
a
swift
and
immediate
resolution
to
the
auction,
could
they
get
that?
Could
they
achieve
that
same
function
with
say
just
two
hundred
died
right,
because
the
benefit
that
we're
getting
in
is
that
there's
somebody
coming
in
immediately
and
bidding
on
the
auction.
D
D
It
wouldn't
be
for
maker
holders.
Does
it
be
for
keepers
right
or
I,
guess
maybe
for
maker
holder?
Well,
how
would
it
benefit
maker
holders
if,
if
the
spread
was
smaller,
it
would
just
end
up
eating
a
little
bit
more
on
kr
over
time?
Well,
a
little
bit
things
compound
right,
but
exactly
yeah,
okay,
I
see
what
you're
saying.
A
D
Hey
guys
Mike
Newman,
I,
just
I
would
just
say
we
moved
from
version
one
of
the
original
system
to
this
new
auction
system.
10,000
K
is
quite
a
bit
of
chunk
of
change
to
participate
in
this
process
and
I
wasn't
quite
happy
with
that
being
set
that
high.
We
set
all
the
system
variables
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
and
we're
talking
a
lot
about
efficiency
of
1%,
2%
3%,
but
myself
as
much
smaller
keeper.
I
can't
participate
in
that
kind
of
level
of
funds.
D
A
E
Imagine
if
we
had
if
the
lot
size
would
say
a
thousand
then
also
we'd
have
10
times
as
many
auctions
they'd
be
running
ten
times
a
day.
It
was
that
even
smaller
to
like
accommodate
smallest
of
retail,
let's
say
100
we'd
be
having
a
hundred
auctions
a
day
and
that's
at
the
current
level
of
burn
rate
right
so
for
through
you
know,
increased
growth
increased
by
adoption
or
increase
in
the
DSR
spread
that
burn
rate.
E
E
D
E
G
D
D
D
E
Think
you
could
look
at
the
the
extent
to
which
they're
they're
paying
the
miners
in
the
gas
price
as
it
as
an
indicator
for
if
that
spread,
could
go
down
right,
because
if
the
spread
kept
going
down,
then
people
would
start
paying
less
and
gas
until
gas
prices
are
reasonable
enough,
and
that's
maybe
the
equilibrium
point
for
for
what
the
with
the
did.
The
keepers
are
willing
to.
G
A
Actually
guys
I
got
to
this
is
a
super
spicy
conversation
I
think
that
we
need
to
continue
to
dig
into
this,
but
let's,
let's
pick
it
up
again
at
the
end
of
the
college,
during
the
Q&A
session,
because
speaking
of
spicy
there's
a
fantastically
complex
presentation
that
will
has
been
waiting
in
the
wings
to
present
to
us.
If
there's
going
to
be
some
additional
conversations
there,
they
don't
want
to
put
you
on
the
spot.
A
Well,
but
this
better
be
good
I'm,
just
good,
so
will
is
going
to
discuss
some
some
very
significant
or
at
least
touch
on
some
very
significant
issues
in
the
ecosystem
that
have
surfaced
recently.
Around
governance
Lisa
touches
on
what
governance
means
in
a
decentralized
world.
What,
in
what
impact?
Gsm
security
versus
flexibility
have
and
from
a
technical
perspective?
How
do
we
address
technical
issues
without
you
know
showing
our
cards
that
there's
a
bug
in
the
system
so
I'm
gonna
hand
it
off
to
you
well
great.
Thank.
H
A
A
C
C
H
H
The
dichotomy
that
we
have
here
right
now
maker
has
a
GSN
delay
of
0,
which
pretty
much
gives
us
the
ability
to
patch
bugs
instantaneously,
but
on
the
flip
side,
that
opens
this
up
to
a
governance
attack
and
if
we
go
the
other
way
and
introduce
a
non
zero
delay,
any
kind
of
bug
patches
that
we
have
to
do
will
basically
sit
on
chain
or
anyone
can
see
it.
Anyone
can
reverse-engineer
it
and
exploit
it
while
waiting
for
the
delay
to
pass
so
yeah.
H
These
are
the
two
conflicting
risks
we're
trying
to
balance
here
and
we've
spent
a
good
deal
of
personal
hours
figuring
out.
How
does
kind
of
strike
a
balance
between
this?
So
the
proposed
solution
we
have
is
called
a
dark
fix
and
it's
actually
quite
simple.
It
pretty
much
takes
the
same.
It
uses
the
same
infrastructure
that
we
use
today
to
deploy
changes
to
the
system
like
executive
votes
to
the
system.
H
The
process
is
that
a
bug
fix
is
developed
and
tested
tested
against
the
deployment
on
Kovan.
How
do
we
choose
to
test
the
fix
but
where
it
gets
interesting,
is
we
actually
fingerprint
this
bug
fix
the
byte
code
which,
from
now
on,
we
will
just
refer
to
it
as
the
dark
fix
which
really
just
all
it
is,
is
we're
just
taking
the
byte
code
pre
determining
deploy,
dress
for
that
byte
code
and
then
we're
pointing
the
spell
at
that
deploy
address,
which
right
would
be
sitting
on
chain
is
just
an
externally
own
address.
H
There
would
be
no
byte
code,
but
you
could
see
there
so
after
that
we
schedule
the
dark,
fix,
wait
for
the
GS
and
delay
to
pass
and
then
via
an
atomic
transaction.
We
actually
deploy
the
bug
fix.
Well,
in
this
case,
furniture
is
the
dark
fix
which
gives
it
the
dark
game,
because
no
one
really
can
see
what's
going
on
they,
they
can't
see
the
actual
code.
H
That
code
is
deployed
to
the
predetermined
address
and
then
it's
instantly
executed
and
the
bug
is
patched
so
some
things
that
are
interesting
about
this
is
that
only
that
bytecode
could
be
deployed
at
that
address.
Any
changes
in
it
would
result
in
an
entirely
different
address.
It
would
be.
The
spell
would
be
put
the
address
wouldn't
be
just
this
address
that
the
spell
is
pointing
at
so
the
fix
would
fail
so
that
there's
a
lot
of
security
provided
by
that
cryptographic
primitive
there.
That
makes
this
situation
or
this
solution
unique
and
very
secure.
So
there.
A
I'm,
sorry,
maybe
I'm
getting
ahead.
So
what
we're
doing
here
is
we
have
this
just
to
reframe
things.
We
have
this
trade
off
like
I,
said
security
versus
flexibility.
So
do
we
either
fix
the
system
immediately
or
do
we
remove
the
possibility
for
governance
capture
and
we're
in
the
middle?
Can
we
land
on
the
and
this?
This
is
a
very
fascinating
technical
fix,
but
what
it
what
it
does
is
it
moves
a
significant
amount
of
coordination
back
up
to
the
social
layer.
So
at
some
point
there
needs
to
be
okay.
A
I
H
H
The
second
thing
is
that
the
solution
is
cryptographically
secure.
It
cannot
be
reversed,
engineered
there's,
no
bytecode
that
sits
on
chain.
No
one
can
see
what's
being
fixed,
so
I
think
that's
important,
because
yeah
the
issue
that
we
had
before
was
that
any
bug
fix
would
just
be
sitting
open
source.
So
it's
kind
of
a
big
deal
breaker
and
it
would
just
be.
H
You
know,
I
think
it
would
be
catastrophic
if
we
tried
to
do
that
without
just
letting
it
sit
for
for,
however
long
the
delay
is,
but
so
yeah
cryptographically
secure
if
this
crypto
primitive
is
broken,
which
is
this
is
just
to
create
two
opcode.
So
it's
a
EBM
opcode,
it's
pretty
much
just
one
more
argument
and
create
I
know
it's
a
bit
of
a
technical
jargon
there.
But
if
this,
if
this
scripts,
our
permit
is
broken,
basically
you
can
say
the
whole
internet
is
broken
to
be
other
issues.
H
H
H
H
How
do
you
express
that
to
people
I
mean
what
kind
of
quorum
do
you
want
to
make
that
decision
and
actually
deploy
the
code
fix
the
vulnerability
so
right
now,
in
conjunction
with
voting
major
mkr
stakeholders
that
explicitly
back
this
dark
fix
will
be
asked
to
cryptographically
sign
an
approval
message,
and
this
is
really
done
just
bolster
community
trust
in
the
process,
because
it
is
a
very
sensitive
issue.
I
think
it
to
be
quite
cognizant
of
who
knows
that,
there's
an
exploit
and
how
kind
of
information
propagates,
but
that
this
is
mechanism
we're
working
on.
H
In
tandem,
how
to
get
air
having
maker
stakeholders
sign
a
message
that
says
they
saw
or
that
they
were
informed
of
the
bug,
bug
fix,
they
understand
what
the
dark
fix
is
and
what
it's
going
to
fix
and
signal
support
to
the
greater
community
so
and
again,
I
wanted
to
do
two
points
here
reminder
this.
Emergency
shutdown
can
still
be
triggered
at
any
time
during
this
process.
That's
that
is
preserved
throughout
the
whole
process
and
again
this
bug
fix.
You
know
any
time
during
the
lay
before
it's
cast
can
be
dropped
from
the
delay
queue.
H
So
just
to
summarize,
everything
in
we
walk
through
a
pretty
technical
concept
here,
but
this
is
to
demonstrate
the
pros
and
cons
that
this
this
gives
us
is
we
now
with
when
we
introduce
GS
and
delay.
We
know
how
to
produced
exposure
to
government's
attacks
depending
on
the
delay.
That's
chosen
the
preserves
all
the
other
options
we've
just
been
through,
though
there
are
some
cons
with
the
dark
fix.
It's
still
open
these
signals
that
there's
a
known,
critical
vulnerability
in
the
system,
and
this
is
a
bit
psychological
too,
because
it
could
there's
in
software.
H
There's
always
bugs
and
I
think
that's
reasonable
expectation.
No
matter
if
it's
blockchain
web
to
you
know,
I
said
you
can
argue
that
it'll
draw
increased
scrutiny
for,
however
long
the
delay
is,
but
it
should
be
known
that
that
it's
still
open
these
signals
that
there's
some
vulnerability
and
secondly,
if
someone's
actively
attacking
MCD
and
we
could
potentially
defend
it
with
the
spell
that
fish
fix
will
not
allow
us
to
do
that,
the
GSN
delay
will
still
apply.
H
H
Knowing
the
solution
now,
there's
some
next
steps
that
were
highlighting
here,
we're
confident
the
dissolution
balance
is
pretty
much.
It
gives
us
it
gives
us
the
best.
I
did
say
there
are
some
things
that
we
lose
right.
We
can't
just
patch
things
instantly.
We
stop
to
wait
for
the
delay,
so
we
do
give
us
a
little
bit.
We
do
introduce
a
time
line,
but
this
captures
just
about
most
of
what
we
had
before.
H
So
it's
a
good
it's
a
good
good
balance
between
producing
exposures
or
governance
attacks
and
just
allowing
us
to
still
have
some
modicum
of
secrecy.
While
we
patch
a
bug,
so
we
have
developed
a
smart
contract
implementation
for
this
dark
fix,
which
you
can
see
here.
It's
public
repo.
You
can
run
the
test
yourself
and
provide
any
feedback
for
those
either
interested
free,
technical
folks
or
anyone
who
just
wants
to
see
what
the
implementation
looks
like.
So
we
proposed
really
with
this
new
information
to
wait
an
additional
week.
H
Let
everyone
think
it
over
form
opinions
around
it
and
review
the
code.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I
would
love
to
hear
them
and
hear
what
the
community
has
to
say
and
after
that
I'm,
actually
it
Ethan
Burke.
Anyone
would
like
to
chat
about
it.
I
there's
other
team
members,
suitors
too
so
yeah
I.
Would
you
know
please
let
us
know
if
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns
after
that
hold
an
executive
vote
to
enable
the
GSM
delay,
and
we
will
know
that
we
have
this
dark
fix
in
our
pocket.
H
A
Layer
looks
like,
but
am
I
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that
what
we're
doing
here
is
we're
we're
placing
a
kind
of
a
significant
level
of
trust
in
a
group
of
the
largest
maker
holders,
and
presumably
these
people
are
driven
by
profit
motives,
and
so
what?
How
can
we
trust
them
not
to
immediately
exploit
the
system
for
gain
and
and
if
they
do
like,
how
are
they
punished
or
be
held
accountable
for
those
activities?.
H
A
A
I
Think
so
well
can
I
can
talk
to
this
a
little
bit.
So
one
of
the
things
I
like
about
the
solution
is
that
I
kind
of
maps
well
on
the
gradual,
decentralization
roadmap
that
we
have.
If
you
and
the
one
hand
look
at
the
risk
curve
of
you
know
critical
book
critical
vulnerabilities
being
found
in
the
code
that
one
will
drop
over
time
and
the
MPR
distribution
will
get
decentralized
over
time.
So
in
other
words,
it
will
become
harder
and
harder
to
get
into
contact
with
these
larger
MPR
holders.
I
I
E
Have
a
question
so
I
remember
before,
like
one
proposed
idea,
was
we
asked
the
community
to
trust
us
to
remove
the
GSM,
activate
the
bug,
fix
and
then
reactivate
the
GSM,
and
that
I
mean
there
was
like
a
significant
level
of
trust
involved
with
that
idea?
Is
there?
Is
there
like
an
improvement
on
this
version
that
that
at
least
kind
of
reduces
any
trust
requirements
somewhat
I
mean?
Is
it
or
does
it
still
kind
of
just
boil
down
to
you.
I
Absolutely
the
improvement
is
that,
if
you,
this
is
more
bounded
in
what
in
what
can
be
done.
So
if
you
have
these
major
and
clear
stakeholders
vouching
that
they
you
know,
they
know
what
the
vulnerability
is.
They
understand
what
the
proposed
fixes
and
they
agree
that
this
needs
to
be
kept
a
secret
for
the
benefit
like
for
the
good
of
the
ecosystem.
I
I
We
can
do
anything
we
want
at
that
point
right
and
additionally,
the
GSM
delay
is
never
removed
here.
So
the
community
has
the
opportunity
to
to
call
like
either
use
the
emergency
shut
down
security,
module
and
and
trigger
emergency
shut
down
or
if,
if
they
have
a
majority
of
NPR
voters,
they
can
also
just
cancel
the
dark
fix
that
you
know
is
being
pre-approved.
Oh
so
I
would
say
a
very
significant.
This
is
significantly
better
than
just
removing
all
guardrails
and
asking
us
asking
people
to
trust
us
so.
E
B
B
Let
me
give
you
an
example
of
what
I
think
this
would
go
right.
So
we
know
four
of
the
largest
five
of
the
largest
and
their
holders,
including
VCS.
You
know
like
a
16,
C
and
whatever
driving
something
I,
don't
know.
We
have
the
addresses
and
this
way
to
contact
them.
So
there's
a
problem
with
the
DSR
contract
that
somebody
can
exploit
and
grab
all
the
dye.
That
is
there.
B
We
find
it
and
if
we
just
if
there
is
a
delay
of
a
day
and
we
create
a
spell
and
put
the
fix
there,
then
they
have
24
hours
where
they
can
look
at
exactly
what
we're
fixing
and
exploit
it
right.
So
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
say:
okay,
we've
write
the
code
to
fix
it.
We
hash
it.
So
we
create
a
hash
that
says
the
like
nothing
else
in
the
universe,
hashes
to
this
or
I
mean
there's
almost
zero
probability
and
we
show
the
the
fix
to
five
of
the
largest
NPR
holders.
B
They
say:
hey
we've
seen
the
the
code.
We
vouch
that
it
does.
What
that
it
fixes
something
we
we
put
the
spell
on
the
blockchain,
but
the
spell
only
has
the
hash
it
doesn't
have
the
code.
The
code
only
exists
on
the
blockchain
at
the
moment
after
the
GSM
has
passed,
and
it
does
everything
in
one
transaction.
B
So
the
only
way
to
look
at
it
would
be
it
would
be
live
on
the
mempool
for
as
long
as
it
takes
to
be
mine,
which
shouldn't
be
enough
time
to
actually
look
at
the
code,
see
what
it
doesn't
exploited.
That
would
be
like
a
path
to
take
and
I
realized
that
this
is
going
to
take
a
lot
of
like
the
community
is
gonna
argue
a
lot
about
this
and
I'm
hoping
that
they
do.
This
is
like
I
believe
a
great
fix
for
this,
like
wow.
That
said,
it
lets
people.
B
I
Answer
the
specific
question:
how
would
an
characters
died
for
this
and
would
be
known
like
wouldn't
be
known?
Who
is
vouching
for
this?
So
they,
the
most
pseudonymous
pseudonymous
way
that
you
can
do
it
is
that
they
they
sign
a
message,
so
they
sign
a
transaction
from
the
address
which
is
holding
a
large
amount
of
nkr
and
they
they
reference
the
the
hash
of
the
fix
right.
I
I
So
that's
anonymous
way
of
doing
it.
If
you
do
know
who
it
is,
then
indeed
they
are,
they
are
not
only
cryptographically
proving
that
they
are
the
ones
agreeing
to
it.
They're
also
staking
their
reputation,
so
that
is,
that
is
correct,
like
if
you
think
that
an
ASIC
Cindy,
for
example,
can
afford
to
steal
the
plot
of
eve.
Then
you
might
want
to
trigger
emergency
shutdown
instead,.
I
That's
right
and
it's
kind
of
the
yeah,
it's
a
trade-off.
Where
are
you
you're
required?
It's
it's
some
trust
that
you
require
really
required,
but
it
still
it
makes
sense
from
a
rational
point
of
view,
and
you
require
the
minimal
trust
for
for
a
very
specific
surgical
operation
in
the
system.
So
in
that
way,
we're
quite
convinced
that
this
is
about
the
best
trade-off
that
you
can
get.
A
That's
the
key
is
the
key
summary,
though
it's
a
trade-off
right,
so
it
depends
on
what
people
consider
minimizing
of
trust,
is
and
minimizing
to
a
smaller
group
of
people
or
the
minimized
trust
by
having
more
people
involved
and
spreading.
That
decision
around
I
guess,
but
it
works
in
in
a
model
where
we
have
a
small
group
of
very
large
holders
that
are
publicly
identifiable.
But
when
that's
changes,
then
the
system
doesn't
work
well
as
effectively
right,
yeah.
C
I
E
I
That's
that's
a
fair
point
and
you
can
definitely
include
trusted
individuals
who
don't
necessarily
have
a
large
NPR
state.
So
yeah,
that's
that's
possible.
We
didn't
include
it
in
the
slides,
but
you
can
have
the
mix
of
the
two.
You
can
even
have
something
like
the
community
saying.
Well,
if
this
you
know
what
we
want
that
person
to
to
look
at
the
code,
and
you
know
and
confirm
that
this
is
not
an
excellent
right.
Okay,
that
can
be
done.
You.
I
The
reasoning
for
that
for
selecting
large
and
PR
holders
is
because
they
would
have
enough
and
clear
to
pre-approve
the
fix
right.
So
you
need
the
large
and
clear
holders.
You
need
those
on
board,
but
you
can
definitely
add
other
trusted
parties.
That's
yeah!
That's
that's!
That's
very
good
comment.
I
That's
another
thing
right,
so
you
actually
have
you
can
take
as
long
like.
If
you
find
a
critical
vulnerability,
there
is
no
reason
to
assume
that
it
will
be
exploited
in
the
next
week.
Right
I
mean
depends
on
the
situation,
but
most
of
the
time
not
so
you
can
then
take
the
time
to
to
properly
explain
this
to
these
large
MPR
holders,
give
him
time
to
audit
this
properly
and
that
it
has
no
relationship
to
the
TSN
delay
right.
I
So
it's
not
because
of
the
Assam
GSM
delay
is
a
day
that
they
only
have
a
day
to
review
that
something
has
nothing
to
do
with
it.
You
can,
you
know,
give
them
a
week
and
then
put
up
the
the
spell
for
tree
authorization.
They
would,
they
would
verify
signing
the
transaction,
they
would
vote
in
the
the
hash
and,
and
then
it's
up
to
the
community,
to
see
if
indeed
the
people
who
are
vouching
for
this,
that
are
they.
You
know
trustworthy
enough
to
prefer
this
instead
of
emergency
shutdown,
that's
basically
the
situation.
There's.
A
Different
mechanisms
to
that
can
be
explored
right
like
potentially,
if
we
had
it's
highly
visible.
Professional
international
organizations
who
are
in
charge
of
auditing
and
dealing
with
security
exploits
could
assure
the
large
make-whole
that
maker
holders
that
they've
evaluated
it
and
signed
off.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
let
them
know
what
the
exploit
is.
They
just
need
to
know
that
they
can
trust.
The
group
that
does
yeah.
B
But
also
also
keep
in
mind
that
this
is
probably
time
sensitive
right.
So
this
is
mostly
to
have
the
GSM
delay
that
I
don't
know
that
it
could
be
a
fix
for
a
bug
that
we
find
ourselves.
Some
white
hat
finds
it,
but
it
could
be
something
that,
even
with
all
of
this,
we
could
be
racing
against
them
right,
for
somebody
sure,
there's.
A
C
So,
just
sorry
just
go
back
to
the
soul
in
formalin
thing
like
the
situation
I'm,
imagining
is
when,
if
you
and
even
form
them
when
you
discover
an
exploit
right
and
then
you
go
and
talk
to
them
and
like
ask
them
to
do
this,
they
might
just
say
like
we
don't
really
know
what
we're
doing
so
like
no.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
it's
not
a
better
idea
to
confirm
that
those
large
maker
holders
would
be
willing
to
do
this
like
before
we
decided
to
go
down
the
dog
fix
root
right
rather
than
something
else.
I
I
Do
you
want
to
actually
prepare
the
dark
fix
deployment
by
already
going
to
these
parties
and
having,
for
example,
for
example,
an
ey
to
you
know
to
commit
to
the
responsibility
that
they
are
willing
to
audit
a
potential
dark
fix,
so
you
can
already
go
to
them
and
try
and
explain
that
the
fact
that
we
we
recommend
to
wait
at
least
another
week
to
activate
the
GSM
delays
is
because
we
see
the
same
thing
in
the
community
right.
This
is
seems
to
be
a
novel
approach
ever
and
process
it.
We
we
don't
want
to
yeah.
I
I
mean
if
we
need
more
time,
we
need
more
time.
It's
just
a
recommendation.
Is
that
give
it
at
least
a
week
so
that
people
can
process
this
new
information?
And
but
the
point
is
we
don't
need
to
change
anything
in
the
system
as
soon
as
it's?
You
know,
as
soon
as
a
community
is
on
board,
and
then
we
can
actually
proceed
with
introducing
that
gsm
delay
that
there's
so
many
people,
one.
A
E
Having
like
almost
like
two
social
classes
of
I'm
care
holders
like
those
were
privileged
to
see
the
fix
versus
those
who
aren't
if,
if,
if
there's
some
other
benefit
of
having
like
them
care
holders,
be
that
same
group
than
I
think
that
concern
that
I'm
still
not
getting
that
part,
but
maybe
there's
a
look
at
different
way
to
optimize,
for
who
these
third
parties
are.
It's.
A
Well,
there's
complexities
here
if
I
was
a
large
maker,
holder
and
I
knew
all
the
gossip
about
the
large
maker
holders,
I
would
probably
be
willing
to
trade,
my
not
knowing
as
long
as
I'd
make
sure
that
they
don't
know
either
right.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of
games
here
to
be
considered
here.
I
would
if
I
was
a
large
holder
and
I
knew
that
KPMG
had
bonded
this
decision
and
whatever
20
30
years
of
security
protocols
they
put
in
place,
is
now
securing
this
thing.
A
I'd
be
much
easier
well,
this
is
this
is
a
lion
ago,
so
but
I
think
there's
something
to
be
explored
here,
that
what
we
actually
care
about
is
that
the
large
maker
holders
who
need
to
pass
these
votes
have
confidence
in
the
decision-making
process.
We
don't
need
them
to
make
the
decisions
themselves.
That's
the
distinction.
C
Isn't
it
and
we
sort
of
considered
a
possibility
where
so
this
all
the
time
I
would
go
like
the
dev
team
discovers
that
there's
a
bug?
They
know
that
they
need
to
fix
it,
but
they
don't
want
to
reveal
the
details
of
the
fix.
Like
could,
you
know,
have
a
situation
where
the
dev
team
says
something
like
we
found
a
book.
We
want
to
employ
it
like
this
or
what
it
team
to
confirm
it
and
to
like
make
sure
everything's
fine,
so
we're
gonna.
C
We
want
to
like
take
money
from
the
protocol
to
pay
them
and
then,
like
they'll,
get
paid
like
they'll
verify
the
fix.
They'll
say
we
verified
it,
and
then
you
can
start
the
actual
dog
fix
like
it's
like
like
we
have.
The
protocol
has
like
money
right
like
we
could
potentially
use
that
to
like
pay
to
like
flip
onto
these
groups,
link
which
is.
I
G
I
also
think
that,
with
a
bug,
time
is
almost
always
gonna
be
of
the
essence
and
going
to
the
community
to
get
funding
and
then
creating
a
contract
with
KPMG
for
them
to
audit
the
bug
and
stuff.
It
would
just
take
so
much
longer
than
myself
as
a
dev
would
feel
comfortable,
letting
a
known
bug
sit
and
sit
in
the
while.
A
I
think
that,
well
it's
it's
very
least,
it's
indicative
and
thick
types
of
conversations
we
can
probably
expect
these
debates
are
going
to
go
on
for
a
while.
So
it's
there's
things
to
explore
and
making
assumptions
about
what
people
are
different
organizations,
availability
or
capacities
might
be
possibly
premature,
but
it's
something
we
need
to
figure
out
right.
So
this
is
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
say
surface
and
the
forum
thread
that
I'm
hoping
will
get
kicked
off
soon
and
in
the
community
can
start
bouncing
these
ideas
back
and
forth.
A
A
A
Right
taking
everybody
except
for
Mariana,
was
that
okay,
so
we
still
need
to
talk
about
risk
for
a
while
and
like
I
said
earlier.
I
caution
hurry
that
it's
a
bit
shambolic
because
we're
all
traveling
around
and
we're
all
jet-lagged
we're
in
a
hotel.
So
I'm
not
going
to
put
too
much
pressure
on
there
guys.
But
do
we
have
a
state
of
the
peg
or
migration?
We
need
to
talk
about
I.
A
G
A
J
Cents
much
higher
that
was
really
worse,
so
don't
even
get
us
right,
so
yeah
the
volumes
zoo,
just
a
fun
note.
The
trading
volumes
for
multilateral
guy
compared
to
single
collateral
and
then
general,
been
higher
I
mean
the
last
24
hours.
You
saw
a
pretty
decent
chunk
of
of
trading
activity,
which
kind
of
makes
sense,
with
all
the
that's
been
going
on
with
in
the
past,
with
a
CD
as
well
we'd
seen
spikes.
You
know
in
the
14
15
million
psy
range
at
certain
times,
but
yeah
24
million
MCD
trading,
the
last
24
hours.
J
That's
a
pretty
big
chunk.
So
it's
interesting
to
compare
spikes
nowadays
versus
fights
in
the
past.
Disappoint
there,
but
yeah
a
pretty
much
on
peg.
So
we'll
talk
about
this
I
had
tried
to
get
this
a
little
bit
more
evenly
distributed
out.
So
apologies
for
the
fact
that
it
looks
like
a
Picasso
but
yeah.
This
was
another
chart
that
I
had
created
and
and
trying
to
get
it
live.
So
you
don't
just
see
it
on
these
calls,
but
yeah
this
is
trades
over
time.
J
So
you
can
see
the
fact
that
there
were
some
crazy
trades
slipping
above
and
below
around
that
time
frame.
Yeah,
so
long
story
short
going
back
a
few
weeks
here
around
the
second
third
we'd
started
to
see
some
increase
uptick
in
the
amount
of
trading
activity.
You
saw
basically
a
greater
spread
above
and
then
a
tighter
grouping
below
and
then
basically
around
the
9th.
There
was
a
few
well
around
the
7th
6th
through
the
9th.
J
So
other
things
to
note
so
with
the
rise,
Neath
price.
Obviously,
naturally,
collateral
amounts
in
dollar
values
rise,
that's
just
math,
so
figured
it
would
be
good
to
revisit
the
collateralization
ratio.
Breakdown
was
interesting
to
note
that
obviously
there's
a
huge
amount
of
collateralization
of
the
upper
half
of
this
graph,
but
still
you
know
pretty
significant
chunk.
It's
now
closer
to
a
third
than
you
know,
a
half,
but
about
40
40,
ish
million
MCD,
that's
at
300%,
collateralization
or
lower
more
like
37.
J
To
be
precise,
but
that's
still
something
to
note,
because
some
of
this
does
go
down
as
low
as
175
%
collateralize.
So
this
is
a
bit
more
like
the
graphs
that
we
used
to
see
for
fcd.
So
it'll
be
more
interesting
to
see
what
happens
in
the
next
few
days,
because
you
know,
as
as
eath
price
rises,
people
tend
to
pull
collateral
out
to
sort
of
realize
some
of
their
profits
and
and
reduce
their
cost
of
capital,
etc.
J
So
it
will
be
interesting
to
watch
if
this
quantization
sticks-
or
you
know,
the
fee
goes
up
even
further
than
this
could
just
become
much
more
green
yeah,
so
just
touch
on
so
121
million
total
MCD
117
of
which
from
eath.
This
is
a
graph
of
just
the
eath.
So
we
could
look
at
that
collateralization
if
folks
want,
but
that
obviously
hasn't
moved
much,
but
still
the
the
1.6
million
dye
coming
from
bad
as
far
as
the
DSR.
J
This
is
again
from
up
sort
of
more
or
less
proportionally
so
we're
now
at
56%
of
the
total
by
supplying
the
DSR,
which
is
very
interesting
to
watch
and
there's
some
discussion.
That
was
happening
on
the
rocket
chat,
etcetera
around.
What
percent
is
expected
over
time
and
sort
of
inefficiencies
by
moving
around
etc?
There's
no
reason
that
most
of
the
MCD
supply
wouldn't
just
ultimately
end
up
in
the
DSR
another.
A
Question
for
your
fish:
is
there
it's
an
impossible
question
to
answer,
but
I
can
ask
it
anyway,
so
is
there
an
optimal
level
of
do?
We
should
be
expecting
or
hoping
for
like
it
feels
to
me
like?
Don't
we
actually
want
people
to
be
using
dye
for
stuff
shouldn't
it
be
in
motion,
mostly
or
at
least
a
significant
chunk
of
it?
Well.
J
So
this
goes
back
to
there's
a
difference
between
what
you
expect
and
what's
good.
So
as
far
as,
what's
expected,
hard
to
say,
I
mean
maybe
this
tops
out
at
like
75%
eventually
but
I.
Think
the
things
that
presumably
keep
dye
out
of
the
DSR
would
reasonably
be
either
trust
the
fact
that
it
is
moving
too
quickly
in
in
usage
or
just
a
lack
of
awareness,
or
you
know,
maybe
somebody
supplying
it
elsewhere
for
for
better
ratio
or
you're
using
it
as
a
collateral
as
well.
J
J
A
J
So
that
is
kind
of
interesting,
because
it's
kind
of
reinforcing
this
idea
that,
as
some
people
ever
up,
those
that
are
purchasing
or
obtaining
that
die
in
other
ways
are
ultimately
putting
it
in
the
DSR
and
it
does
kind
of
make
sense
if
you
think
about
it,
because
if
you
have
died
and
you're
holding
on
to
it,
there's
no
reason
to
not
supply
it
here
or
elsewhere,
and
and
I
think
the
interesting
metrics.
So
I'll
pull
this
up
as
we're
talking.
J
But
the
interesting
thing
ultimately
to
note
would
not
just
be
the
percent
of
died
locked
up
in
the
DSR,
but
it
would
be
the
total
amount
locked
up
in
the
DSR
inclusive
of
I.
Don't
know
why
pulled
of
compound
was
actually
inclusive
of
where
else
it's
being
supplied
for
yield.
So
you
know
whether
that
be
through
dydx
or
other
apps,
plus,
where
it's
being
used
as
collateral
and
then
sort
of
he
subtract
all
of
those
stagnant
pools
of
the
die.
J
This,
the
a
quick
Kalkan
on
the
outstanding,
see
piece
there
is
getting
bolts,
but
before
I
do
that
it
was
just
double
check.
We're
out
of
this
so
yeah.
This
totaled,
I
plus
I
Supply
has
continued
to
grow,
is
just
been
a
steady
sort
of
growth
over
time.
I
guess
some
of
those
lines
go
janky
in
the
middle,
but
yeah.
It's
been
a
city
growth
over
time,
despite
that,
one
dip
that
we
talked
about
to
death
already,
but
that's
one,
that's
a
pretty
significant
growth
rate.
J
If
you
look
at
it
in
comparison
to
the
long-term
size
of
Y,
so
definitely
some
increased
usage
activity,
interest
and
I
would
go
so
far
as
to
say
demand
in
in
the
recent
weeks,
but
yeah.
So
that's
continued
to
grow,
despite
the
fact
that
migration
is
proceeding
and
size
supplies
continued
to
follow.
So
this
is,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
a
good
graph.
This
is
a
positive
indicator,
so
yeah
last
thing,
I
wanna
touch
on
was
just
some
of
the
urns
that
are
sitting
out
there.
J
J
The
you
know,
top
2
is
18
3,
so
I'm
already
get
where
this
is
going,
so
top
10
is
42
percent
top
20
is
53,
top
30
jumps
up
to
61
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
basically
this
is
a
little
bit
less
concentrated
than
SCD
as
promotion
talked
about
prior.
But
you
know
it's
like
Wes
than
100
vaults,
that
have
you
know.
82
percent
of
the
total
supply
I
mean
I.
J
Think
it's
the
most
interesting
look
at
top
20,
which
is
more
than
half,
so
that's
pretty
significant
yeah
and
then
the
the
collateralization
which
actually
did
not
have
time
to
to
throw
in
here
but
I
was
going
to
which
I
could
try
to
be
real,
clever
and
punch
it
in
at
the
last
minute.
But
I
want
tortured.
You
watching
maybe
lists
I'll
just
put
in
the
chat
a
little
bit
later
yeah,
but
the
the
long
story
short
is.
J
You
can
see
the
the
top
vaults
collateralization
ratios
here,
so
the
number
one
that
jumped
up
to
500%
the
number
two
is
sitting
down
at
225
percent.
So
I
will
ignore
the
sort
of
heavily
collateralized
ones,
but
it's
just
interesting
to
mention.
You
know
this
one
with
sort
of
9
million
at
225
and
this
one
with
3.9
million
at
275
so
and
so
forth.
Some
really
large
vaults
do
have
some
comparatively
low
collateralization
ratios.
So
these
are
things
to
watch
and
maybe
you
know
hungry
Liquidators
are
hanging
on
every
word
here,
but
is.
A
A
A
A
Vishesh
just
won't
stop
talking
about
how
easy
is
gonna
moon
come
on
guy,
giving
advice
signals
like
that.
Alright
I
think
that
we'll
put
a
fork
in
it
there
there's
lots
of
important
discussions
need
to
be
had
on
who
hasn't
talked
about
the
number
of
signals
that
we
have
in
the
forum's
right
now
those
require
attention
from
the
governance
ecosystem.
A
The
arcane
engineers,
/,
architects
of
smart
contracts
will
be
posting,
something
about
the
the
dark
fix
and
how
that
affects.
The
GSM
I
would
dearly
love
this
community
to
put
the
word
out
and
join
in
that
discussion,
to
figure
out
how
we
solve
a
social
layer
problem
here,
because
for
me
that's
the
tricky
and
messy
one,
and
so
I
need
some
thought
and
the
more
get
the
things
sorted
out
in
governance
in
real
time
in
the
forums
all
right
thanks.
Everyone
thanks
for
joining
us,
we'll
talk
to
you
next
week,
yeah.