►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 103
Description
Agenda
## Introduction
* @LongForWisdom: Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
## Updates
* Governance - @LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
* Smart Contracts Domain
* Oracles Domain
* Risk Domain
* Collateral Call - @spin
* MIPs - [Charles St. Louis ](https://twitter.com/charliestlouis): Weekly MIPs Update
## Procedural
* @Gov-Facilitators: MIPs Submission Review
## Presentations
* @Akiva: MIP13c3-SP1: Declaration of Intent (Forward Guidance)
* [Vishesh Choudry](https://twitter.com/visavishesh): State of the Peg
## Discussion Topics
* @equivrel: MIP20: Target Price Adjustment Module (Vox) - Postponed to next week.
* Continued Peg Deviation
## General Q&A
We’ll open the floor for any questions about Scientific Governance and Risk.
Please join us and help shape the future of the MakerDAO.
# 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)
# Call Summary
Will be provided here in 2-3 days:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/agenda-discussion-scientific-governance-and-risk-103-thursday-july-30-4-00-pm-utc/3318/2
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
A
A
We've
got
an
update
on
keepers,
bringing
us
a
few
words
from
risk
and
so
on.
We'll
do
the
governance
cycle
review
as
directed
by
three
as
part
of
the
monthly
governance
cycle,
and
then
we'll
have
our
regular
presentation
from
vishesh
for
state
of
the
pic
and
we'll
open
up
to
discussion
as
well,
and
potentially
the
peg
deviation
as
a
topic.
A
I
believe
that
happens
around
eight
o'clock.
Sorry
about
three
hours
from
now
I
should
say
so.
The
there'll
be
there's
a
link
on
the
forum,
for
that
call
and
there'll
be
a
summary
and
the
recording
uploaded
at
some
point
been
a
slight
delay
with
the
recording
due
to
the
some
minor
issues
with
handover
between
me
and
rich,
but
we'll
have
that
up
as
soon
as
possible
cool.
I
think
that
covers
that.
A
A
I
think
probably
foreign
activity
is
probably
the
highest
it's
ever
been,
which
is
on
one
hand
good
and,
on
the
other
hand,
means
there's
a
lot
more
information
for
everyone
to
kind
of
absorb,
so
I'm
gonna
try
and
try
and
point
people
towards
the
the
relevant
bits.
I
guess
there's
photovoltaic
glance
and
some
of
the
other
initiatives
that
are
going
on
so
to
start
off
with
one
of
the
actual
discussions
that
cropped
up.
A
B
Yeah
sure
so
yeah
I
just
put
up
a
thread
basically
advocating
that
we
should
be
lowering
the
base
rate.
This
one
in
particular
wasn't
about
the
base
rate
versus
the
risk
premium.
I
was
just
saying
we
have.
The
tools
to
you
know,
spur
supply
growth
with
dye
and
we
should
use
them.
I
felt
like
a
lot
of
people
were
voting
in
base
rate
of
zero
week
after
week.
B
A
I
believe,
ceo
of
trusttoken,
who
responded
quite
positively,
in
my
opinion,
to
some
of
the
concerns
highlighted
by
the
smart
contracts
team
with
relation
to
the
tusd
token
I'd
encourage
people
to
read
over
that,
because
personally,
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
with
the
response
and
the
willingness
of
raphael
to.
I
guess
compromise
based
on
maker's
requirements
say
I
would
encourage
people
who
are
voting
in
the
tusd
or
origin
to
usd
to
address
that.
A
Okay,
coming
now
to
signal
signal
requests
in
the
forum,
they've
been
quite
a
lot
of
signal
requests
as
well
over
the
last
week,
so
mainly
from
aaron
and
jay
cuts
who
have
both
taken
the
initiative
and
proposed
a
bunch
of
things
which
is
great
on
one
hand.
On
the
other
hand,
just
kind
of
demands
a
lot
of
attention
from
governance.
A
A
So
once
aaron
created,
we
have
requests
to
whether
we
should
increase
the
system
surplus
threshold.
It's
currently
at
500k
aaron
asks
if
we
should
increase
it.
He
also
kind
of
set
up
some
polls
for
asking
whether
we
should
have
how
people
felt
about
maker's
collateral
or
adding
a
new,
classical
type
vault
sony's
b
vault.
A
A
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
saying:
they're
more
advisory
to
the
domain
teams
as
to
their
direction,
but
I
also
encourage
people
to
vote
in
them,
because
it's
a
great
it's
a
great
signal
for
the
domain
teams
and
also
also
we
should
increase
the
e3
risk
premium
with
some
arguments
in
there.
Let's
do
that.
A
So
joycutz
asked
whether
we
should
consider
increasing
the
dust
amount
for
those
that
are
aware.
The
dust
parameter
is
essentially
the
minimum
amount
of
die
debts.
One
can
create
from
a
vault.
I
think
it's
currently
set
to
20
die,
but
with
the
high
gas
prices,
there
is
a
question
as
to
whether
this
is
too
low
and
should
be
increased.
A
C
Please
do
so,
I
think
the
e3
one,
I
think,
is
slowly
been
gaining
a
lot
of
support
and
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
good
arguments
for
it.
I
think
at
this
point
it's
just
a
matter
of
kind
of
resources
on
on,
on
the
back
end,
trying
to
put
it
together
and
get
it
going,
but
yeah,
I
think,
that's
a,
I
think,
that's
a
good,
positive
idea
and
then
for
the
the
dust
amount.
C
Yeah
we've
actually
been
talking
about
that
on
the
engineering
side
internally
as
well,
and
I
think,
there's
definitely
an
argument
to
make
for
increasing
the
dust
amounts
which
is
which
is
kind
of
ironic,
because
it's
just
a
few
months
ago
we
were
discussing
whether
we
should
be
lowering
it
to
accommodate
more
people,
it's
funny
how
quickly
the
ethereum
congestion
blew
up
but
yeah.
Certainly,
I
think
we
can
kind
of
do
a
gas
analysis
and
try
to
figure
out
some
some
threshold
where
below
that
amount.
C
It
doesn't
really
make
sense
to
do
liquidations,
and
I
I
mean
I
think
just
if
I
could
guess
the
dust
amounts
should
probably
go
up.
Of
course,
this
does
introduce
some
user
adoption
trade-offs,
so
that's
definitely
something
to
consider
and
then
regarding
risk
premiums
for
eth
and
bad
and
basically
all
of
them.
I
think
this
is
just
kind
of
one
of
those
never-ending
discussions
where
you're,
just
always
gonna
have
people
on
on
different
sides
of
it.
C
C
I
think
that
would
be
maybe
something
interesting
to
go
generically
towards
a
governance
poll
sort
of
something
that
says
like.
Should
we
start
and
should
we
start
charging
risk
premiums
on
kind
of
all
the
assets
slowly
over
the
coming
weeks
versus
versus
treating
them
as
a
case-by-case
basis,
because
I
think
it's
just
a
general
plan.
If
we
want
to
do
something
like
that
or
not
do
something
like
that,.
A
A
D
On
I'll
just
reiterate
on
the
dust
limit
that
yeah
for
liquidators,
it's
it's
wildly,
non-economical,
just
even
liquidate
fault
right
now
and
sort
of
back
of
the
envelope
numbers
probably
has
us
somewhere
around
a
dust
value
of
100
to
200
die
somewhere
in
there.
I'd
say
like
minimum,
maybe
100,
and
but
maybe
we
should
go
higher
for
for
anticipation
of
the
future,
I'm
not
sure,
but.
A
E
We
have
actually
a
pretty
big
collateral
status
next
list
that
and
with
the
pretty
big
backlog
of
collateral
types,
we
need
to
have
this
done
for
so,
if
anyone
is
interested
in
getting
involved
in
doing
this
and
helping
out,
we
can
actually
set
up
some
meetings.
You
know
weekly
or
bi-weekly
to
do
this.
You
know
here.
Actually
I
will
link
the
status
index
in
chat
for
the
things
that
we,
the
cloud
types
that
we're
we're
doing
for
we
can
reach
out
to
me
fit
sandpiper.
E
E
A
D
D
I
just
want
to
be
the
boy
who
cried
wolf.
There
weren't,
as
many
people
participating
in
the
first
couple,
eat
auctions
that
we
had.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
everybody
knows
that
we
should
update,
update
your
contracts
and
then
your
your
keepers,
so
it's
out
there
and
we
have
full
participation
in
auctions
if
we,
as
the
system
is
growing
exponentially
now,
I
want
to
make
sure
if
something
we
have
like
a
mini
march,
12th
everyone's
there.
F
And
on
that
note,
sorry,
if
anybody's
interested
on
getting
more
information
as
to
how
to
perform
that
update,
feel
free
to
go
to
the
keepers
channel.
There's
been
one
or
two
messages
about
it
and
if
you
have
any
additional
issues,
switching
or
having
any
migration
issues
again,
the
keepers
channel
is
the
place
to
go
inside
of
maker's
rocket
chat.
A
D
A
C
An
unscheduled
executive
vote
and
meeting
due
to
the
recent
upward
pressure
on
the
die
price
spoke
a
little
bit
about
where
that
pressure
was
coming
from
seen.
Kind
of
new
all-time
highs
in
the
compound
in
the
compound
die
farming
as
well
as
a
kind
of
a
surprise,
new
farm
from
a
yiffi
or
a
wifey
fork.
C
They
just
kind
of
went
to
show
how
how
high
the
demand
for
for
dye
is
at
this
stage,
so
it
I,
I
think
it
made
sense
to
do
a
slightly
more
significant
increase
in
the
debt
ceilings,
to
I
guess,
partly
to
reduce
governance
overhead
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
be
holding
a
new
executive
vote.
Every
couple
days
made
tends
to
just
go
with
larger
amounts
and,
as
a
result,
made
sense
to
kind
of
hold
a
hold.
C
C
There's.
Certainly,
some
good
discussions
to
have
surrounding
the
increase
in
risk
to
the
system
liquidations
centralization
risk
all
that
all
that
juicy
stuff,
but
for
now
kind
of
in
the
absence
of
any
other
short-term
solutions,
I
think
the
compute
the
community
was
more
or
less
on
the
same
page
for
increasing
debt
ceilings.
D
Cyrus,
if
I
can
step
in
there,
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
we
have
the
debt
ceilings
that
I've
you
know
heard
is
to
protect
us
from
a
technical
risk
where
someone
could
utilize
that
that
ceiling
through
some
unforeseen
exploit.
Now
we
have
a
situation
right
now,
where
we've
got
unprecedented
demand.
Is
there
a
reason
that
you
could
foresee
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
say
like
double
or
triple
the
existing
debt
ceiling?
What
what
kind
of
risks
do
you
think
that
would
pose.
C
Sure
I
mean
it's
very
straightforward,
which
is
if
eth
crashes,
then
I
I
think
the
protocol
would
struggle
to
efficiently
liquidate
a
couple
hundred
million
ether
in
in
the
current
liquidation
setting
in
the
current
ethereum
network
congestion,
environment
and
the
current
dye
liquidity
environment.
It
just
I'm.
D
If
I
can
jump
in
for
just
a
second
on
top
of
the
just
sheer
size
of
the
amount
we
might
have
to
sell
into
the
market
in
a
liquidation
event,
there's
another
risk
involved
with
having
a
debt
ceiling.
That's
very
far
above
the
utilization,
which
is
that
in
one
of
those
market
crash
events,
someone
might
see
that
and
take
advan
there.
There
are
some
cases
if
the
decline
is
large
enough.
It
it's
profitable
to
like
throw
each
into
the
protocol
and
pull
a
bunch
of
die
out,
because
you
can
actually
pull
out
more
than
that.
B
D
Be
able
to
respond
to
an
oracle
attack
if
it
was
15
minutes
and
hours,
cutting
it
really
close
the
lower
you
make
that
time,
yeah
the
more
you
mitigate
that
oracle
attack
or
that
osm
attack
risk
that
we
just
described
where
the
price
crashes
and
someone
takes
out
a
big
one,
but
as
you
lower
that
time,
you're
increasing
the
risk
that
if
something
goes
wrong
with
the
oracles
there's,
some
actual,
you
know
manipulation
of
the
oracle
prices
themselves.
We
have
much
less
time
to
react.
You
know
an
hour
is
already
quite
short.
To
be
honest,.
D
So
I
mean
I
agree
with
all
of
that,
but
at
this
point
we're
doing
emergency
executives
every
two
or
three
days
I
mean.
Is
the
community
fine
continuing
that
or
should
we
consider
larger
increases
that'll
last
a
full
week?
Yeah
the
smart
contracts
team
hates
it
I'll
just
say
that
much
well,
there's
also
the
possibility
of
adding
some
sort
of
instant
access
module
that
would
allow
periodic
or
more
frequent
and
smaller
debt
ceiling
increases
based
on
utilization
and
that
wouldn't
require
an
executive
vote.
A
Yeah,
I
just
point
out,
from
a
governor's
perspective,
doing
emergency
executives
multiple
times
a
week
is
also
not
ideal.
If
we
can
kind
of
get
ahead
of
things
and
we
feel
safe
getting
ahead
of
things,
then
I
would
much
prefer
kind
of
if
government
signaled
that
they
wanted
to
do
that,
rather
than
leaving
it
to
kind
of
the
risk
team
to
react
in
like
as
like
an
emergency
response
right.
C
D
D
A
I
mean
I'll
say
just
a
personal
note,
like
I've
heard
of
international
modules
before
and
I
kind
of
understand
the
theory
of
how
they
work.
But
I
don't
know
if
we've
ever
had
like
kind
of
a
communication
of
what
they
actually
are
like
how
they
work
in
practice
in
detail
on
the
forum
from
from
anyone.
D
B
B
D
F
So
I
I
haven't,
read
mips17,
so
it
could
be.
This
could
be
completely
off
or
completely
useless
comment,
but
I
was
curious,
asking
cyrus
in
terms
of
one
of
the
hardest
parts
I
have-
and
I
agree
with
this
point,
which
is
how
do
we,
how
do
we
handle
liquidation
risk
and
how
do
we
handle
the
amount
of
collateral
and
what
is
deemed
an
acceptable
amount
of
risk
that
we
should?
F
C
C
What
price
points
you'll
be
liquidating
how
much
collateral
just
the
distribution
is,
is
fairly
smooth,
but
occasionally
you'll
see
these
like
huge
huge
increases
from
large
vaults
and
every
time
we
get
one
of
those
one
of
those
hit.
One
of
those
points
it
just
seems
a
little
bit
scary
after
march,
we
informally
spoke
to
a
bunch
of
different
keepers
and
we
tried
to
get
a
sense
of
how
much
available
die.
Liquidity
is
out
there
to
bid
on
keepers.
It's
just
some
small
percentage
of
the
total
die
supply.
F
C
We
were
just
kind
of
targeting
back
in
back
in
april
may,
which
is
we've
since
blown
through
that
we
actually
have
some
some
grants
out
with
some
some
quant
firms
that
are
doing
some
more
sophisticated
liquidity
analysis,
so
kind
of
waiting
to
hear
back
on
that
front
as
well.
Ultimately,
I
I
think
it's
just
a
hybrid
of
of
academic
approaches
as
well
as
kind
of
practical
traitor
approaches
right.
B
C
Yeah
we
we
look.
We
discussed
that
after
black
thursday
as
well,
and
I
think
that
discussion
just
just
kind
of
naturally
converge
to
the
circuit
breaker
implementation,
instead
of
trying
to
figure
out
like
discrete
numbers
or
implement
some
sort
of
complicated
logic.
We
just
have
there's
just
a
big
red
button
to
push
where
we
can
just
put
it
put
a
pause
on
all
liquidations
if,
if
needed,.
D
C
A
G
G
G
A
sub
proposal
that
proposed
to
remove
the
dsr
spread,
adding
mana
as
the
collateral
type
which
I'll
get
into
later,
and
I
believe
that
was
actually
I
might
be
missing
one.
So
if,
if
I
am
please
let
me
know
in
terms
of
the
actions
today
as
usual,
along
for
which
then
we'll
do
the
governance
cycle
review,
so
this
includes
summarizing.
G
G
G
So
next
thursday,
the
governance
facilitator
will
perform
the
submission
review
for
all
the
proposals
that
were
formally
submitted
to
see
if
they
will
be
put
forth
for
inclusion
polls.
So
that
includes
looking
at
the
criteria
making
sure
that
the
proposals
aren't
malicious
or
that
they're
poorly
worded
and
unclear.
G
G
G
G
As
for
the
tusd
update,
so
the
governance
pulled
to
adjust
the
debt
ceiling
to
zero
and
today,
and
it
did
not
pass
so
as
a
result
of
that.
The
smart
contracts
team
will
further
review
the
situation
and
hopefully
propose
a
vote
in
the
near
term.
Looking
at
next
steps
for
risk,
parameter
adjustments
and
other
considerations
related
to
smart
contracts
based
on
the
tsd's
updates
on
the
right
here,
you
can
see
the
list
of
the
current
community
greenlight
polls
by
the
way,
so
there's
a
bunch
and
yep
another
reminder
to
vote.
G
G
G
G
So
I
did
a
call
summary-
and
I
can't
also
post
the
recording,
although
it
does
miss
the
introduction,
but
basically
from
that
meeting
it
was
very
productive.
We
have
a
couple
action
items,
so
we're
gonna
start
by
modifying
it
to
simply
cover
the
debt
ceiling
adjustments
and
then
create
another
for
risk,
premium.
Adjustments
down
the
line-
and
this
will
include-
rethinking
and
defining
the
target
debt
ceiling
definition
in
the
current
mip,
because
it
the
debt
ceiling
adjustments
have
they
rely
on
wrist
parentheses.
So
you
have
to
separate
separate
it.
G
I
wish
I
could
put
more
slides
together
based
on
this
call.
It
was
extremely
productive
after
I
finish
this
presentation.
I'll
share
the
form
thread
and
also
planet
x
has
volunteered
to
help
join
as
an
author
and
get
the
dc
adjustment
proposal
together
with
me,
hopefully
proposing
it
for
august.
It
could
be
a
little
ambitious,
but
we're
going
to
work
on
it
over
the
next
six
days
to
see
informally
submitted
in
time.
G
G
A
E
E
A
Okay,
it
looks
like
no
all
right
so
in
terms
of
the
government
cycle
as
a
whole,
so
we
had
seven
proposals
proposed
at
the
beginning
of
the
month.
Five
of
those
were
included,
two
of
them
weren't
charles,
has
kind
of
described,
which
ones
for
which
we
then
had
the
the
governance
poll
bundle
which
was
approved
for
those
five
and
then
we
then
saw
the
five
proposals
pass
and
in
executive
votes.
So
a
couple
of
things
to
note,
I
guess
about
this
cycle.
A
I
would
say
that
we
saw
more
makeup
participation
in
the
inclusion
polls,
specifically
in
the
specifically
in
the
in
the
ones
in
the
sort
of
form
of
17,
and
I
believe,
the
mip
12
amendments.
We
saw
a
lot
of
people
voting
against
to
keep
things
out
of
the
governance
cycle,
bundle
which
I
thought
was
interesting.
So
we
tended
to
see
kind
of
more.
A
A
I
guess
people
are
more
concerned
with
removing
dangerous
things.
Then
I
guess
approving
kind
of
wanted
things,
or
I
mean
it
could
just
be
a
reflection
of
the
fact
that
no
one
kind
of
felt
super
strongly
about
well,
not
no
one,
but,
like
less
people,
felt
super
strongly
about
the
passing
proposals
so
kind
of
something
to
keep
an
eye
on
going
forwards.
We
did
see
more
participation
in
terms
of
the
governance
full
bundle,
though
I
think
that's
18
000
maker
voted
on
it
this
this
time
rounds.
A
Unfortunately,
we're
going
to
we're
in
a
situation
where
the
issues
with
the
peg
and
the
kind
of
current
state
of
the
debt
ceiling
ceilings
forced
our
hand
a
bit
on
my
hand
a
bit.
So
it's
possible
that
that
kind
of
affected-
I
guess
how
quickly
the
mips
fast
or
the
you
know
all
that
affected
them
passing.
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
like
terribly
controversial
and
then
no
one
sort
of
came
to
me
and
said
this
is
right,
but
it
is
something
we
need
to
be
like
aware
of.
A
G
With
respect
to
the
executive
vote
issue
you
just
described,
I
think
a
good
thing
to
look
at
is
how
unanimous
the
governance
poll
was
as
an
indicator
on
how
much
people
support
the
meps.
In
this
case
there
were
zero,
no
votes
yeah,
so
I
think
it
filled
with
other
items,
isn't
as
big
of
a
problem,
but
if
it
is
kind
of
very
close
between
the
yes
and
the
no
votes,
then
it
does
indeed
become
a
problem.
A
Yeah,
I
mean
it's
potentially
a
problem
anyway,
like
if
there's
something
that's.
If
it's
not.
If
the
thing
you
put
into
the
vote
that
wasn't
didn't
go
through
the
cycle,
it's
controversial,
then
you
risk
kind
of
throwing
away
a
month's
worth
of
governance,
work
that
people
otherwise
agree
with
agree,
so
it's
definitely
kind
of
risky
either
way
but
yeah.
A
All
right,
I'm
not
hearing
anyone
else
jump
in
so
I
guess
we
can
kind
of
move
on
to
the
next
kind
of
discussion
of
the
next
cycle.
Charles
has
kind
of
went
over
the
rfc
mips.
Is
there
anything
anybody
kind
of
is
excited
to
see
and
move
into
the
garnet
cycle?
Is
there
anything
anyone
thinks
like
directly
thinks
needs
more
work,
kind
of
open
forum
for
people
to.
A
A
G
E
Yeah,
so
I
actually
updated
it
a
lot.
The
main
the
main
point
of
it
is
that
it
establishes
a
group
titled,
the
vault
holder,
advocacy
group,
which
aims
to
it
aims
to
work
with
risk
teams
with
right
now,
just
one
risk
team,
but
hopefully,
in
the
future,
many
other
teams
to
provide
forward
guidance
and
more
transparency
on
what
the
risk
parameters
are
going
to
be.
E
So
I
mean,
historically,
maker,
has
sort
of
provided
this
fluctuating
rate
which
which
didn't
really
matter
to
people
if
it
was
fluctuating
because
of
the
base
rate
or
dsr
because
of
other
stuff.
But
if
you
see
my
my
presentation
on
the
community
call
from
this
week,
you'll
see
that
now
people
are
actually
involved
in
hedging
the
base
rate.
So
it
opens
the
question
of
is
maker,
going
to
be
transparent,
with
other
risk
parameters.
A
E
H
E
H
H
There
are
basically
a
few
large
positions
that
have
been
opened
and
closed
for
short
periods
of
time,
but
net.
It's
still
up
at
about
58
million
the
wbtc
supply.
So
that's
just
kind
of
still
capped
out
bat
lost
a
little
bit
of
utilization.
Well,
it
gained
a
little
bit
of
you
know
in
the
last
week
and
then
it
lost
a
little
bit
in
that
same
time
frame
and
let
me
touch
on
die
so
as
far
as
the
peg
itself.
H
So
that's
part
of
the
discussion
that
people
have
been
having
is
kind
of
concerned,
that
okay
well
with
further
yield
opportunities
cropping
up
and
with
compound
activity
and
yields
that
those
those
rates
could
continue
to
persist
or
grow.
So
that's
kind
of
been
people's
concern
point
as
we
understand
it
as
far
as
collateral.
H
So
what
we
saw
basically
is
the
eth
collateral
pool
had
gotten
riskier
there's
kind
of
a
consistent
amount
from
the
last
couple
weeks
of
dye.
That's
been
minted
from
east
that's
sitting
at
a
a
very
low
collateralization
ratio,
but
there's
been
a
shift
downward
from
some
of
the
higher
collateralization
ratios
to
the
sort
of
mid
to
low
200
250
percent
collateralized
bucket,
which
basically
is
like
rebalancing
or
not.
H
Rebalancing,
yeah
well
rebalancing
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
collateral,
and
so
even
though
eth
has
risen
in
price
and
that
initially
pushed
up
collateralization
ratios
people
did
what
they
always
tend
to
do,
where
they
sort
of
withdraw
collateral
or
meant
more
dye
and
risk
sort
of
adjust
to
that
higher
nominal
value
of
eth.
And
so
what
we
basically
see
is,
as
cyrus
alluded
to
the
emergence
of
these
kind
of
liquidation
walls.
H
H
But
you
know
if
you
compare
it
to
what
would
have
been
a
hugely
concerning
liquidation
event,
say
three
months
ago:
34
million
is
nothing
to
sneeze
at
either,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at
in
terms
of
peg
and
system
risk.
We've
seen
you
know,
like,
I
said:
tremendous
amounts
of
activity
and
trading
volume
for
dye
as
well,
which
is
something
to
remain
aware
of
in
the
context
of
you
know,
a
lot
of
insane
yields
a
lot
of
risks,
etc.
H
H
We
talk
about
uscc
and
a
little
more
detail
next
time,
but
for
the
die
eats
trades,
it's
mainly
been
dydx
and
uniswap,
and
then
obviously
we
all
know
that
there's
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
activity
on
the
the
balancer
pools
the
curve
farming
and
then
now,
with
the
most
recent
fork
of
the
wi-fi
farming
pools.
Basically,
that's
got
a
solid.
H
Basically
we're
looking
at
you
know
upwards
of
200
million
die
sitting
in
these
these
farming
opportunities
and
with
a
total
die
supply
of
330
million.
That's
a
tremendous
domination
in
terms
of
the
and
and
that's
that's
sort
of
low
balling
as
well,
because
there's
other
sources
that
have
not
been
included
in
that.
So
it's
that's
why
I
say
upwards
of
200
million.
That's
a
tremendous
amount
of
the
diet,
that's
floating
out
there!
That
persistently
is
used
for
these
farming
opportunities.
H
H
It's
likely
to
continue
to
be
used
for
farming,
so
the
insane
yields
of
the
the
yiffi
one,
you
know
kind
of
kicked
off
a
little
bit
of
a
frenzy
and
I'm
sure
people
will
continue
to
try
to
reproduce
those
yields
in
different
forms.
Whether
it's
going
to
hit
the
same
like
percentage
yield
is,
is
very
uncertain,
probably
not
you
know
hugely
likely.
H
But
if
we
look
at
the
kinds
of
yields
that
you
can
get
with
the
comp
farming
stuff,
I
mean
that's,
that's
very
likely
to
persist,
and-
and
so
this
is
to
some
extent,
a
new
normal
that
needs
to
be
addressed
and
and
something
that
that
the
community
needs
to
plan
around.
And
you
know,
I
would
encourage
some
discussion
around
what
to
do
about
this.
A
A
H
Yeah
so
there's
some
comments
in
chat,
which
are,
I
think,
worth
mentioning,
which
is
around
liquidations.
So
you
know
if
we
do
have
some
sort
of
pullback
in
the
eighth
price
and
and
that's
something
to
be
aware
of,
is
eth
is
kind
of
a
repetitive
beast.
We
kind
of
know
it
when
we
see
it
and
heath
price
has
been
rising
and
rising,
and
then
it's
kind
of
wobbly
or
flat.
H
You
know
in
the
last
couple
of
days
there's
the
potential
for
pullback
there
and
and
if
it
does
like
you,
100
need
to
be
aware
of
the
fact
that
that
can
cause
a
liquidity
crunch
on
die
and
can
push
the
diet
price
up
further.
You
know
having
access
to
keepers
and
liquidity
that
are
ready
to
act
on
those
auctions
is
extremely.