►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 106
Description
# Introduction
- @LongForWisdom: Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
# Domain Updates
- Governance - @LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
- Smart Contracts Domain
- Oracles Domain
- Risk Domain
- MIPs - Charles St. Louis : Weekly MIPs Update
# Procedural
- @Gov-Facilitators: MIPs Governance Poll Review
# Other Updates and Presentations
- @Wil: MIP15: Dark Spell Mechanism
- @BrianMcMakerDAO : SC Bugs Postmortem
- @cmooney: Liquidations 1.2 1
- Vishesh Choudry: State of the Peg
# Discussion Topics
- 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.
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
Hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
106th,
make
it
our
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting
taking
place
on
thursday,
the
20th
of
august.
My
name
is
long
for
wisdom.
I
am
one
of
the
governor's
facilities
for
maker
dao,
I'm
joined
by
currently
36
participants
or
35
other
people.
I
suppose
in
this
meeting
so
what's
gonna
happen
is,
I
will
briefly
go
through
the
agenda
and
then
we'll
start
kind
of
starts
at
the
top.
Just
a
general
editor
on.
B
A
This
but
feel
free
to
interrupt
or
kind
of
make
comments
at
any
time
yeah.
So
I
guess
let's
go
through
the
agenda
so
so
we've
got
the
general
kind
of
domain
updates,
so
we'll
go
through
the
different
domain
teams.
Ask
them
if
they
have
anything
important
to
share
we'll
go
through
the
mips
updates
I'll.
Do
the
mips
governance
poll
review,
then
we've
got
a
few
updates
from
various
people
on
the
smart
projects.
A
Let's
sorry,
I
just
actually
felt
so
I'll
start
off
with
governance
advance
as
usual
cool,
so
active
discussions
on
the
forum.
This
week,
we've
had
a
discussion
created
by
sir
ventures,
I'm
talking
about
the
advantages
of
using
c
dai
a
dye
or
why
die
as
collateral,
which
has
had
some
discussion
this
week,
which
has
been
interesting.
A
We're
going
to
kind
of
see
this
over
the
next
few
kind
of
few
weeks
and
months,
kind
of
more
of
a
focus
on
real
world
assets,
as
we
kind
of
get
to
a
point
where
we
can.
You
know
finally
consider
actually
onboarding
them,
which
I
think
is
gonna
be
great
and
I
kind
of
hope
everyone
is
sort
of
as
excited
about
that.
As
I
guess
I
am,
which
sounds
kind
of
sad
but
yeah,
it's
exciting
for
me,
and
hopefully
for
some
of
you
as
well
cool.
A
So
on
the
signal
requests
seeing
consensus
terms,
we've
had
one
new
zealand
request
from
aaron
asking
whether
we
should
increase
the
wbtc
debt
ceiling
again
we're
approaching
the
current
cap
of
80
million.
I
think
we're
coming
at
77
or
something
so
if
you
feel
strongly
about
either
increasing
that
or
not
increasing
that
further,
I
would
suggest
making
your
feelings
known
in
that
post.
A
A
Other
thing
I
want
to
kind
of
just
highlight
is
that
juan
has
posted
a
thread
in
which
casual
partners
can
post
to
kind
of
register
their
interest
for
presenting
in
the
new
collateral
poll,
which
is
here
so
I
would
encourage
anyone
who,
who
is,
is
a
classical
partner
one
of
those
colorful
partners
that
wants
to
present
to
point
them
in
the
direction
of
that
thread
right.
So
I
think
that
covers
governments
of
glance.
A
That
is
currently
a
signal
request,
which
and
it'll
then
go
through
the
usual
steps.
No
one's
going
to
present
it
as
an
emergency
change,
yet
so
absent
of
that
happening.
It
will
follow
the
usual
process.
Yeah
look
at
starting
in
in
the
chat
as
well.
The
the
class
record
is
next
wednesday.
I
believe
that
is
the
26th.
A
D
I
can
do
this
marianna's
out
today
and
tomorrow,
so
I'll
take
care
of
the
update
for
you.
Team
has
been
mostly
working
on
they've,
been
working,
pretty
hard
on
liquidations
1.2
for
the
last
week
and
we'll
have
some
updates
later
in
the
call
about
that.
I
do
want
to
mention.
Last
week's
spell
passed.
We
raised
the
dust
values
from
20
to
100
die
on
all
collateral
types.
The
base
rate
was
reduced
by
two
percent,
which
on
chain
ended
up.
D
D
We
also
had
an
emergency
executive
vote,
a
spell
go
out
earlier
this
week
to
raise
the
a
collateral
debt
ceiling
from
340
to
420
million
die,
and
that
succeeded.
So
that's
that's.
The
updates,
mostly
mostly
hard
work
on
liquidation,
1.2
we've
also
been
doing
some
updates
to
our
spell
process.
I
did
post
a
postmortem
for
the
wbtc
bug
that
mariano
mentioned
last
week
on
the
call.
Thank
you
for
the
link
longer
wisdom.
D
We,
we
all,
knew
that
something
like
this
could
happen
and
it
was
sort
of
a
matter
of
when
and
not
if,
because
the
the
executive
spells
or
smart
contracts
in
themselves,
we
usually
prepare
and
test
them
like
the
morning
of
we'll
get
a
head
start.
The
evening
like
after
this
call
and
frankly,
the
stakes
are
high.
So
in
this
case
we
changed
the
wbtc
line
from
40
million.
D
It
should
have
been
rad,
we
changed
it
to
a
wad
and
that
effectively
set
the
the
cap
to
zero.
So,
in
the
short
term,
what
we've
done
was
we've
refactored
our
test
suites
to
be
able
to
quickly
spot
an
error
like
this.
In
our
audits,
we've
also
added
unit
testing
around
all
of
our
modifiable
variables
that
we'll
check
for
precision
ranges.
So
if
anything,
it
slips
in
that's
out
of
a
precision
range,
we'll
catch
that
right
away
in
our
tests.
D
We've
also,
the
foundation
has
some
internal
tools
right
now,
they're
still
under
construction,
but
they
will
be
made
public
for
visualizing
on
chain
changes.
So,
even
if
you
don't
read
the
code,
we've
got
some
tools.
That'll.
Let
you
quickly
look
and
see
like
this
is
what
this
spell
is
going
to
do
to
these
various
values
within
the
system.
D
So
we've
we've
added
those
to
our
checklist
that
we
that
we
use
when
preparing
the
weekly
spells
and
then,
rather
than
so,
we
had
this
process
where
we
kind
of
used
the
we,
the
previous
weekly
executive
and
went
forward
from
there
and
every
week,
we'd
add
a
little
bit
more
to
it.
So
it'd
get
a
little
bit
better
and
it
was
an
incremental
process,
but
it
also
if,
if
things
changed
that
weren't
in
the
last
weeks,
we'd
have
to
go
back
and
that's
that's
where
this
error
happened.
D
So
we're
going
to
be
creating
a
kind
of
a
full-scale
template
that
isn't
a
kind
of
a
copy
code,
type
of
thing
that
we'll
be
using
for
our
weekly
executives
going
forward
and
in
the
longer
term.
This
is
something
that
we
can.
We
can
automate
we're
doing
line
changes,
stability,
changes,
debt
ceiling
changes
every
week,
and
so
I
I
think
this
is
a.
This
is
a
solution
that
we
can
automate
ourselves
out
of,
rather
than
relying
on
this.
This
manual
spell
crafting
process
that
we
currently
have.
D
So
in
a
way,
it's
it's
good
that
this
happened,
because
it
does
put
a
spotlight
and
kind
of
renewed
priority
on
just
how
important
this
spellcrafting
process
is.
We're
we're
a
little
bit
focused
on
new
features,
and
it's
it's
a
reminder
to
all
of
us
that
the
spellcrafting
process
needs
just
as
much
attention
and
I,
I
think,
we're
on
the
right
track.
We've
already
made
some
some
big
improvements
and
there's
more
to
come.
So
if
anyone
has
any
questions,
we
can
do
it
here.
A
A
E
We've
already
gotten
done
so
we're
we're
in
a
good
position
now
to
maybe
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
more
kind
of
difficult
ones
that
have
popped
up
over
the
past
couple
months.
I
I
think
some
of
you
may
have
heard
me
sorry.
I
think
some
of
you
may
have
heard
me
mention
in
the
forum
right
with
respect
to
certain
collateral
types
that
you
know.
Maybe
our
our
stack
doesn't
really
support
this
right
now.
E
We're
implementing
this
would
be
quite
difficult,
we're
looking
for
for
more
low-hanging
fruit
to
be
able
to
onboard
quickly,
but
now
that
we've
built
up
this
kind
of
this
advanced
kind
of
lead.
I
think
now
is
probably
the
right
time
to
start
looking
at
some
of
those.
So
this
can
include
stuff
like
the
the
uniswap
liquidity
tokens.
This
can
include
stuff
like
the
the
unit.
The
the
compound
you
know,
die
the
the
a
adai,
the
y-die
type
of
tokens.
E
A
B
B
B
B
We've
been
spending
some
time
exploring
the
c
tokens
as
potential
collateral
types
c
die
and
whatnot,
seeing
if
it
makes
sense
to
to
to
onboard
those
for
governance
and
then
for
next
month,
we've
begun
preliminary
research
on
a
comp
token
and
tax
gold
as
well,
and
I
think
that's
it
for
updates.
But
if
anybody
has
any
questions
happy
to
answer
offline
or.
A
F
F
F
So
on
the
last
thursday
of
this
governance
cycle
long
is
going
to
perform
the
governance
cycle
review.
Basically,
summarizing.
What's
happened
over
the
course
of
the
month
and
we'll
have
an
open
discussion
for
feedback
and
questions
on
what
processes
are
working.
What
we
can
improve
and
we'll
also
have
an
opportunity
to
discuss
the
plans
for
september's
governance
cycle,
but
I
do
want
to
note
that
september's
governance
cycle
begins
on
september
7th.
So
there
is
a
week
more
specifically
the
31st
of
august
until
september
4th
that
is
a
gap
week
for
the
monthly
governance
activities.
F
I
also
wanted
to
note
that
since
lrc
was
rejected
from
the
inclusion
pool
stage
of
this
month's
governance
cycle
and
the
signal
request
was
put
up
on
the
forms
to
gauge
sentiment
regarding
the
timing
of
its
potential
resubmission
go
and
vote
in
that
signal
poll.
If
you
have
any
opinions
on
it,
it
will
run
until
the
23rd
of
august
at
12
p.m.
F
And
now
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
some
of
the
proposals
that
are
still
in
rfc
phase,
so
I
did
leave
one
out
here.
That
is
the
lrc
map
12
that
would
potentially
be
resubmitted
for
next
month,
but
the
other
ones
that
I've
been
reiterating
over
the
past
couple
weeks
are
mip
20,
so
the
target
price
adjustment
module,
if
you
still
haven't
checked
it
out,
go
ahead.
F
I
also
put
a
recording
link
for
the
specific
segment
that
I
love
did
last
week
in
my
weekly
maps
update
in
the
forums
I
can
link
to
it
in
the
chat
or
if
someone
else
wants
to
do
that
now
go
ahead.
The
weekly
actual
debt
ceiling
adjustments,
so
planet
x
and
myself
have
slowly
been
iterating
towards
creating
a
reworked
version
of
mip
17,
which
was
originally
for
dead
ceiling
and
wrist
pruning
adjustments.
F
However,
we
decided
to
just
focus
on
dead
sealing
and
we're
still
figuring
out
the
mechanism
and
whether
it
should
be
applied
to
just
crypto
assets
for
short
term
or
if
we
should
also
add
some
functionality
for
the
future
of
potential
real
assets.
So
those
are
some
considerations
we
have
in
mind.
If
anyone
in
the
community
wants
to
join
our
working
group,
please
message
myself
or
planet
x
to
get
involved,
and
so
we
can
speed
up
the
process
of
getting
that
resubmitted.
F
We
have
15
so
the
dark
spell
mechanism.
This
proposal's
feedback
period
ends
on
at
the
end
of
this
month,
so
it
is
eligible
for
september's
governance
cycle
and
I
think
will
will
be
speaking
towards
that
and
giving
everyone
a
recap
of
what
that
proposal
was
originally
for
and
what
the
intentions
are
behind
it
and,
lastly,
the
myth
14
protocol
die
transfer.
F
It's
still
in
a
request
for
comments.
It
was
rejected,
I
think,
last
month
or
the
month
before
his
government
cycle.
But
long
for
wisdom
was
the
original
author
and
he
is
looking
for
someone
in
the
community
who
wants
to
focus
on
this
proposal
and
champion
it
going
forward.
So
if
you
do
want
to
do
that,
go
ahead
and
message
him
or
join
the
mips
channel
and
make
a
comment
there
and
I'll
facilitate
the
transition
of
the
authorship
over.
F
Lastly,
we
had
a
new
pre-mip
discussion
posted
on
the
forums
last
night
and
that's
for
vault
liquidation
mechanism
for
the
centrifuge
trade
finance
assets
it
was
proposed
by
lucas.
Maybe
they
would
like
to
make
a
comment
right
now
or
after
my
little
bit
or
later
on
in
the
call-
and
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone-
that
there
are
still
active
discussions
happening
with
respect
to
a
governance,
chief
contract
redesign,
the
liquidation
system,
2.0
redesign
and
adding
a
poll
to
prioritize
collateral
applications,
and
there
are
other
ones
in
there.
A
A
On
okay,
it
doesn't
sound
like
there's
anything
now
so
yeah.
I
guess
I
will
just
do
the
mips
governance
poll
review,
as
charles
said,
if
against
repeating
generals
yeah
the
two
things
included
in
the
governments
in
the
the
bundle
governance
poll
were
the
declaration
of
intent
to
afford
guidance
by
akiva
and
the
zebra
first,
two
off-board
richard
brown,
as
y'all
said.
The
bundle
passed-
and
I
didn't
see
this-
I
don't
see
any
reason
to
for
it-
not
to
move
to
executive
on
monday.
A
C
A
A
C
So,
as
charles
alluded,
the
mid-15
is
eligible
for
ratification
in
september,
so
I'm
quite
excited
to
finally
work
through
that
process.
So
I
put
together
this
presentation
to
just
walk
us
through
a
little
bit
about
how
we
got
here.
What
the
dark
school
is
for
people
who
who
are
new
and
some
action
items.
C
This
is
actually
the
link
that
I
added
in
chat
has
a
link
to
a
previous
government
governance
and
risk
call
where
you
can
find
more
technicals,
and
so,
if
you're
interested
in
that,
I'd
recommend
that
video,
a
timeline
from
entity
launch
to
today
and
sort
of
how
we
went
from
a
zero
delay
to
what
is
now
a
12
hour.
Governance
load.
G
C
Just
highlight
that
the
infrastructure
to
be
quite
quite
simple,
very
it's
just
a
an
entry
level
mip
that
we
can
build
on
in
the
following
months
upon
ramification,
and
then
we
have
some
action
items
for
september
and
it's
basically
just
use
this
opportunity.
We
have
between
now
and
september,
to
provide
any
feedback
and
then
some
things
we'll
we'll
start
thinking
about
upon
a
successful
magnification.
C
C
C
So
we
were
in
a
situation
where,
if
we
did
find
a
critical
bug,
when
we
had
a
governance
delay
that
we
would
probably
just
need
to
shut
down,
we
would
probably
just
need
to
do
emergency
shutdown.
But
with
this
dark
spell
we
don't
have
to
it
fits
into
existing
governance
processes
and
it
conceals
the
byte
code.
Nothing
goes
on
chain.
C
No
one
can
reverse
engineer
it.
It
pretty
much
checks
all
the
boxes
for
what
we
need
to
do
so
yeah,
it's
it's
the
best
solution.
We've
got
for
our
circumstances
and
to
understand
why
we
have
this
as
a
mip
and
how
we
got
here.
It's
important
to
understand
a
little
bit
of
the
history
we're
approaching
a
year
of
live
mcd
almost
two
months
away,
but
after
we
launched
it,
everyone
would
probably
remember
there
was
some
initial
debate
around
december
where's
about
a
potential
governance
attack,
and
there
was
a
pretty
much
said.
C
I
I
wouldn't
say
it
was
contentious,
but
both
sides
explained
why
we
didn't
why
we
had
a
zero
delay
and
why
we
needed
it,
but
we
actually
didn't
really
come
to
never
really
landed
on
a
solution
there.
And
then
we
just
didn't
discuss
things
for
several
months
until
february,
where
there
was
a
series
of
flash
stone
exploits
that
brought
this
discussion
back
into
the
forefront
and
we
proposed
it
immediately
right
away
this
dark
spell
and
in
all
honesty
we
were
working
on
it
before
this
just
accelerated
the
proposal.
C
C
I
will
just
say
this
is
going
to
be
light
on
technical
details
if
you're
interested
in
the
dark
skull,
I'll,
there's
plenty
of
literature
and
previous
presentations
on
it,
but
I
really
wanted
to
call
out
a
few
dates
here.
We
have
formal
submission
between
the
seventh
and
ninth
inclusion
fall
between
the
14th
and
16th,
and
the
big
mips
executive
on
sept
28th,
and
I'm
hoping
I'm
targeting
that
we
ratify
the
15
in
september
and
I
think
it's
it
would
be.
C
It
would
set
the
stage
for
further
action
within
britain
in
december
for
us
to
continue
improving
upon
it.
But
the
action
item
is
that
I
would
like-
or
I'm
asking
people
to,
please
review
the
mip
again
and
provide
feedback,
there's
still
ample
time
to
provide
feedback.
I
think
we
got
18
days
until
we
even
begin.
C
C
We
will
have
an
initial
set
of
guidelines
for
having
a
critical
vulnerability
right
now.
We
just
have
a
common
agreement
in
as
the
sedona
team
internally
on
how
we
would
handle
this,
but
this
formalizes
the
process,
and
it
also
creates
a
a
process
where
we
can
onboard
community
to
point
to
trusted
their
parties
in
the
future
and
then
start
adding
increments
to
improvement.
C
And
yet
so.
I
would
like
to
just
direct
well
we'll
have
some
time
for
questions
if
you
haven't,
but
I
would
like
to
direct
all
commenting
all
review
to
the
forum
thread
where
we
can
continue
and
making
changes
to
the
mip
if
anyone
desires,
but
that's
all
I've
got
today.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I
will
I'll
answer
them.
C
A
A
C
A
It
yeah
I
mean
to
some
extent
it
should
sound.
Obviously
right,
yeah,
awesome
cool
all
right.
I
think
we'll
move
on
so
yeah.
Thanks
again
will
for
that
update.
I
would
encourage
anyone
or
anyone.
That's
just
a
moment
to
read
over
that
nip
because
yeah,
it's
potentially
an
important
mechanism
cool
chris.
Do
you
want
to
do
liquidations
1.2
yeah
can.
A
C
I
I
So
this
was
a
plan
feature
that
we
were
working
on
for
liquidations
2.0,
and
we
thought
that
it
was
complete
enough
in
that
that
we
could
sort
of
back
pull
it
into
this
and
limit
some.
What
we
believe
is
a
mounting-
and
you
know,
maybe
growing
risk
in
the
entire
d5
space
today,
and
we
also
get
a
bonus
from
this,
because
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
resilience
against
oracle
attacks
that
set
the
the
prices
for
oracle
assets
down
to
like
one
way
or
something
so
in.
I
Governance
has
about
an
hour
to
act,
to
try
and
mitigate
that,
and
with
this
feature,
even
if
we
weren't
able
to
act
within
that
hour,
the
limit
of
our
exposure
would
be
to
this.
This
new
system
variable
that
would
prevent
the
amount
of
diet
for
liquidation.
So,
rather
than
trying
to
reclaim
420
million
die,
we
would
reclaim
whatever
governance
sets
this
new
parameter
to.
I
I
A
few
of
the
numbers
I've
heard
toss
around
are
maybe
10
to
20
million
of
die
outstanding.
You
know,
so
that's
what
the
box
might
be
set
at.
I
defer
to
cyrus's
team
and
other
people
to
sort
of
come
up
with
a
good
value
that
that
team
has
to
sort
of
balance
the
risk
of
this
new
variable
against
it
being
too
large.
If
it's
too
large,
then
you
know
we're
in
a
similar
situation
to
what
we're
in
today
and
if
it's
too
small
liquidations
don't
operate
as
efficiently
as
they
could.
I
I
I
I
That
you
know
would
like
change,
system
accounting
but
overflowed
in
such
a
way
that
it
would
prevent
us
from
liquidating
really
large
vaults
that
were
up
for
liquidation.
And
so
the
problem
is
there's
a
lot
of
cognitive
overhead
to
try
and
track
this
lump
value,
because
we
have
to
always
track
the
collateral
price.
I
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
changed
that
we've
added
a
new
value
per
ilk
or
per
collateral
type
called
dunk,
which
is
now
a
rad
and
denominated
and
die
units,
because
that's
what
we
store
die
units
as
in
the
core
accounting
system,
and
so
now
we
can
set.
You
know
any
one
of
our
collateral
types.
We
can
just
say:
okay,
when
a
liquidation
happens,
the
dunk
size
is
is
going
to
be
say,
40
or
50
000
for
that.
I
So
I've
made
you
some
pretty
pictures.
You'll
recognize
this
graph
from
vishesh's
weekly
presentation.
This
is
basically
the
you
know
the
amount
of
dye
that
would
be
liquidated
at
any
given
f
price
and
I'm
gonna
use
this
as
an
example
to
sort
of
illustrate
how
this
litter
box
is
gonna
work.
So
up
here
we
have
time
at
you
know,
time
zero.
I
chose
six
hours
here,
just
because
you
know
our
liquidation.
I
Ttl
is
six
hours
and
the
f
price
right
now,
we'll
assume,
is
around
four
hundred,
and
you
know
20
ish
die
per
f.
So
as
time
goes
on,
we
see
an
oracle
price,
we'll
see
an
oracle
price
fall
to.
Let's
say:
what's
that
like
325,
so
that
says:
okay,
this,
this
chunk,
this
area
of
dye
that
needs
to
be
liquidated
is
going
to
get
accumulated
in
the
litter
box.
So
it's
represented
by
this
brown
line
over
here
and
then
as
time
goes
forward.
I
I
All
of
us
are,
you
know,
freaking
out,
it's
we
hit
the
250
price
and
this
entire
chunk
gets
liquidated
and
accumulates
in
the
litter
box,
and
you
can
see
the
litter
box
is
now
over
halfway
full
of
the
die
that
we
have
out
for
liquidation,
and
so
the
next
price
tick
happens,
and
lo
and
behold
we're
down
to
what
200
at
the
price.
Now
so
there's
a
huge
chunk
of
dye
that
we're
gonna,
try
and
reclaim
in
this
area,
and
we
had.
I
We
had
a
little
bit
of
space
left
in
the
litter
box,
and
so
we
liquidated
out
of
that
chunk.
You
know,
keepers
liquidated
the
amount
that
they
could
before
the
litter
box
was
full.
The
rest
of
this
die
in
this
particular
time.
Slice
is
cannot
be
liquidated
because
there's
no
longer
room
in
the
litter
box,
so
this
entire
red
area
represents
dye.
That
can't
be
liquidated
and,
in
fact,
actually
gives
these
these
vault
holders
a
little
bit
of
a
a
respite
so
that
they
can
attempt
to
re-collateralize
their
positions.
I
But
in
this
fictitious
scenario,
the
price
is
continuing
to
fall,
so
we're
now
down
to
about
what
175
and
there's
a
whole
new
chunk
of
dye.
That's
out
for
liquidation,
we're
four
hours
into
the
auctions,
but
none
of
this
is
being
liquidated.
That
means
none
of
this
is
throwing
you
know,
pressure
on
the
die
price
to
go
up.
I
You
know
other
than
maybe
these
vault
holders
attempting
to
close
their
positions,
and-
and
it's
we
believe
that
it's
this
scenario
right
here-
that,
on
black
thursday,
for
instance,
would
have
a
very
sub-optimal
pricing
like
we.
We
would,
you
know,
find
that
it
would
be
hard
to
collect
at
a
sort
of
fair
market
price
in
in
this
level
of
liquidation.
I
we're
now
at
the
fifth
hour
of
liquidations,
our
ttl
for
the
first
batch
of
auctions
is
six
hours
and
what's
nice
is
that
this
is
a
very
common
behavior
that
we
see
whenever
we
get
these
like
rapid
price
crashes.
In
the
next
time,
quantum
the
price
springs
back
a
little
bit,
and
not
only
does
it
spring
back
a
little
bit
but
we're
at
the
six
hour
mark
and
in
this
six
hour
mark
we've.
I
I
hope
this
sort
of
gives
a
general
idea
of
how
the
litter
box
fills
of
of
what
it
looks
like
and,
and
maybe
even
some
of
you
already
thinking.
Okay,
what
are
the
risks
here?
What's
the
you
know,
what
are
we
looking
at,
so
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
risks,
so
vaults
may
be
withheld
from
liquidation,
while
the
prices
continue
to
drop
and-
and
this
could
lead
to
lower
liquidation
prices,
which
could
be
bad
for
volt
holders
and
bad
for
the
maker
protocol.
I
I
think
it
is
the
contention
of
most
of
the
people
in
the
space
that
that
this
scenario
is
still
far
better
than
one-way
bids,
like
we
saw
on
black
thursday
that
the
the
price
of
col,
you
know,
the
price
that
we'd
collect
for
these
collateral
liquidations
would
be.
You
know,
far
far
better
than
the
price
that
we
would
have
seen
without
this
feature.
I
So
we
also
have
the
risk
that
vaults
could
avoid
liquidation
of
the
price
dips
and
then
recovers.
While
the
box
is
full
and-
and
I
you
know-
that's-
maybe
arguable
that
that's
also
possibly
a
feature,
because
the
box
should
be
set
at
what
we
we
believe
what
governance
believes
the
the
overall
amount
of
liquidity.
I
I
So
the
box
is
set
to
low
for
collateral
types,
then
some
vaults
wouldn't
be
liquidated
that
could
have
been,
and
this
would
be
extra
bad
if
there
was
that
available
liquidity
on
the
market,
and
we
you
know,
we
just
couldn't
take
advantage
of
it
because
we'd
set
the
box
far
too
low
so
and
then,
obviously,
if
you
set
the
box
too
high,
you
have
a
similar
risk
that
you
do
today.
It's
probably
still
strictly
better
than
what
we
have
today.
I
You
know
today,
that's
because
of
that
lump
size,
and
we
may
also
leave
behind
possibly
dusty
vaults,
because
you
know,
if
you,
if
you
imagine
a
a
vault,
could
get
partially
liquidated
and
still
have
like
just
a
little
bit
left
over.
You
know
something
under
our
dust
amount
then,
and
that's
still
subject
to
liquidation,
but
it
might
be
below
that
dust
amount
so,
but
that's
no
different
than
the
current
risks
we
have
today.
I
I
If
we
wanted
to,
we
could
create
an
instant
access
module
that
you
could,
you
know
hit,
and
it
would
you
know
just
anyone
could
call
this
function
on
it
and
it
would
adjust
the
size
of
the
litter
box
based
on
the
size
of
the
outstanding
die
supply.
So
that's
that's,
certainly
a
thing
that
we
could
add
in
the
future
if
we
thought
that
that
was
a
useful
metric
or
a
useful
way
to
set
this.
I
I
A
I
Related
to
what
we
think
the
market
can
handle
in
liquidations,
2.0
that'll
be
basically
die
liquidity
in
all
of
d5
right
because
it'll
be
a
dutch
auction
system,
so
we'll
be
able
to
use
single
block
composability
and
go
out
to
any
any
source
of
dye
in
the
entire
ecosystem
and
handle
liquidations.
So
we
can
be
more
liberal,
probably
with
the
litter
box,
or
we
can.
I
We
can
get
better
numbers
by
looking
at
how
much
liquidity
is
up
there,
but
for
now
you
know
our
the
keepers
actually
have
to
have
that
die
liquidity
or
be
able
to
at
least
cycle
it
from
somewhere
else
within
that
six
hours
to
make
these
bids.
So
I
think
we
need
a
variable
to
limit
this
so
that
we
don't
get
sub-optimal.
A
So
you
kind
of
talked
about
changing
the
dump
parameter
to
I've
already
forgotten
the
name,
so
the
lump
the
parameter
to
something
else
is
what
it
was
called.
Alright
bump
lump
to
dunk,
that's
right
so
so
my
question
is:
is
there
any
like
kind
of
side
effects
or
like
potentially
negative
side
effects
of
kind
of
defining
the
lot
size
in
terms
of
dye
rather
than
collateral,
because
presumably
that
means
the
lower
the
collateral
price,
the
bigger
the
lot
size
gets
in
terms
of
amount
of
collateral
right
like
into
like
denominated
and
collateral?
I
Something
yeah
so
so
I've
actually
been
thinking
about.
This
change
is
almost
like
fully
better,
but
you
do
highlight
an
example
like
you
know.
If
we
want
to
get,
let's
say
we
have
a
liquidation
for
a
particular
ilk.
That's
you
know
going
to
ask
for
40
000
die
for
that
ilk,
maybe
the
amount
of
collateral
that
you
would
get
from.
That
would
be.
You
know
hard
to
cycle
that
out
at
market
rates
or
something
this.
I
E
Could
I
just
jump
in
here?
Please
do
yeah
the
interesting
thing,
though,
that
matters
is
not
like
the
actual
number
of
tokens
of
collateral.
What
matters
is
you
know
the
dollar
value
of
that
collateral
and
is
it
you
know,
economical
to
move
chunks
of
collateral
of
that
size
around
and
any
risk
people
who
are
on.
A
E
G
A
E
So
if
you
right,
if
you're,
let's
give
a,
let's
give
a
numerical
example
to
make
it
simple-
let's
say
your
dunk
parameter
is
50
000,
your
volt
has
a
hundred
thousand
units
of
debt.
So
then,
in
your
liquidation,
you
know
you
take
out
50
000
units
of
debt
and
because
50
000
is
half
of
a
hundred
thousand.
You
take
half
of
the
collateral
to
right
right
right,
right,
okay,
okay,.
A
E
That
happens
today
right
if
the
oracle
price
goes
to
zero,
all
volts
can
be
liquidated
for
that
collateral
type,
but
we're
putting
in
a
measure
where,
in
fact,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
liquidate
all
the
vaults
you'd
just
be
able
to
liquidate
up
to
the
box,
but
that
oracle
price
wouldn't
affect
the
you
know.
The
ratio
of
you
know
collateral
to
you
know
debt
in
each
auction,
because
that's
just
determined
by
the
actual
amount
of
debt
and
actual
amount
of
collateral
in
the
vault
at
the
time
of
liquidation
yeah.
I.
A
E
It's
percentage-wise,
which
is
actually
how
it
already
works
the
day.
Only
in
reverse,
you
take
a
fixed
lump
of
collateral
and
you
take
a
portion
of
debt.
You
know
in
proportion
to
you
know
the
ratio
of
that
lump
of
collateral
to
the
total
collateral,
so
this
is
is
just
turning
that
around
and
you
take
a
fixed
amount
of
debt
and
you
take
collateral
according
to
the
percentage
of
debt
you're.
Taking
in
that
in
that
fight
got
it.
D
E
Deal
well
all
the
auctions
will
still
take,
however
long
they're
configured
to
take,
which
is
six
hours,
but
any
deal
is
a
doesn't
require
the
so
once
an
auction
concludes.
It
can't
be.
You
can't
call
deal
before
the
auction
concludes.
That's
not
changing,
but
once
the
auction
has
concluded,
anyone
can
call
deal
for
that
auction.
Just
sort
of
clear
the
auction
off
the
books
send
the
collateral
to
the
winner,
you
know,
etc,
and
that
you
know
that's
already
how
it
works
today.
E
So
the
comment
was
just
that
if,
for
some
reason
the
keeper
wins
an
auction
and
decides
not
to
deal
their
own
auction,
you
know,
maybe
they
also
have
like
a
cdp
that
they're
trying
to
prevent
from
being
liquidated
by
keeping
the
box
full.
Someone
else
can
come
along
and
call
deal
and
unblock
the
system.
D
E
I
E
A
G
So
just
to
take
a
look
at
the
wbtc
supply
that
has
grown
pretty
significantly
as
the
debt
ceiling
was
moved
and
then
it
took
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
that
has
also
shrunk.
The
excess
space
in
the
debt
ceiling
for
wbtc
over
the
last
week,
or
so
so
this
is
seeing
moderately
high
utilization
and
is
is
at
a
pretty
high
percentage
of
the
utilization
of
the
current
debt
ceiling.
G
G
G
G
That's
living
in
the
dsr
and
a
good
chunk
of
that
comes
from
this
excess
supply
of
dye.
That's
supplied
to
the
compound
protocol
for
chasing
yield,
so
we
look
that's
yeah
about
212
million
in
the
dsr,
so
what's
going
on
with
the
peg
currently,
so
you
see
in
terms
of
eat
diet,
trades
dye
has
been
trading
more
or
less
close
to
the
peg.
G
G
So
it's
interesting
to
note
the
differences
in
the
the
profiles
of
how
the
different
die
pairs
are
trading,
but
the
general
consensus
is
kind
of
that.
The
peg
has
come
down
a
bit
and
there's
basically
a
gap
between
where
dye
is
trading
in
the
peg
at
basically
overall
blended
around
1.05,
so
that
I
think
overall
bodes
pretty
well
for
where
the
peg
is
trading
in
terms
of
the
collateral
portfolio,
as
you
know
was
touched
on,
so
we
had.
G
Basically,
if
you
look
at
the
eth
price
rose
and
then
remained
kind
of
sustained
and
has
been
coming
down
a
little
bit
in
that
same
time
frame.
So
it's
always
interesting
to
note
that
when
the
eth
price
starts
to
come
down
a
bit
like
that
generally,
what
we'd
seen
in
the
past
was
okay
reduced
bullishness
on
leveraging,
and
so
people
tend
to
buy
die
back
up
and
price
goes
up
a
bit.
G
But
given
that
the
way
that
dye
is
currently
being
used
is
a
bit
different
than
it
had
been
in
the
past,
where
it's
not,
strictly
speaking,
a
simple
cycle
of
minting
dye
selling
it
for
assets
like
eth
and
then
resupplying
them
in
order
to
re-wrap
for
leverage
there's
a
bit
different
structures.
Now
that
are
dominating
how
dye
is
currently
used,
and
it's
more
of
a
cycle
of
minting
directly
and
then
supplying
directly
into
protocols
for
yields.
G
In
that
there
are
multiple,
different
kinds
of
external
drivers
right
now
in
terms
of
what
moves
the
the
die
price,
but
I
would
say
currently
it's
primarily
still
those
yield
farming
opportunities
and
you
know
basically,
there
are
forks,
etc
that
have
popped
up,
but
you
know
in
large
part
there's
not
as
in
the
last
week
or
so
there's
not
as
much
craziness
in
terms
of
yield.
That
is
available.
G
Obviously
it's
all
relative
because
you
still
have
you
know
a
couple
hundred
million
die
in
protocols
like
compound,
so
it's
by
no
means
insignificant,
but
for
the
moment
things
to
appear
to
have
calmed
down
a
little
bit.
So
it
will
be
interesting
to
watch
how
much
further
this
gap
will
get
tightened
between
where
die
is
trading
in
the
peg
or
whether
there's
going
to
be
another
cycle
of
field
farming.
That
will
push
it
back
up.
G
G
G
A
J
Yes,
I
completely
missed
the
prompt
by
charles
to
to
quickly
talk
about
the
liquidations
proposal
for
short-term
assets
such
as
ours
that
were
bringing
proposing
to
be
onboarded
that
I
posted
in
the
forum.
It
was
only
last
night,
so
I
it
probably
hasn't
made
the
rounds
yet,
but
we've
come
up
with
a
quite
neat
solution
to
solve
the
keeper
liquidations
issue
for
real-world
assets,
specifically,
that
are
a
very
like
very
short-term
assets.
J
I
can
maybe
give
a
very
quick
introduction
and
then
would
love
to
just
hear
feedback
and
lev.
I
think,
you're,
on
the
call.
Still
you
mentioned,
you
might
want
to
ask
some
questions
or
had
a
comment
as
well,
but
the
gist
of
it
is
that
for
real-world
assets
that
are
very
short-term
in
nature.
So
an
example
is
an
in
a
portfolio
of
invoices.
J
The
average
invoice,
the
average
maturity
date
of
an
invoice.
The
payment
term
of
an
invoice
are
65
days
in
the
u.s,
so
if
a
portfolio
of
of
invoices
generally
would
be
fully
paid
back
by
by
day
65
plus,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
or
at
least
the
majority
would
be
paid
back
a
lot
of
times,
you
can
limit
it
to
maybe
90
days
total.
J
That
means
that
if
you're
trying
to
liquidate
these
a
portfolio
of
invoices
like
that,
it's
often
not
actually
the
most
effective
or
the
most
affordable
way
to
try
to
start
an
auction
or
find
a
distressed
loan
buyer
that
you
maybe
would
do
with
a
mortgage
instead,
just
waiting
and
sitting
on
those
loans,
as
they
mature,
is
probably
a
better
a
better
strategy
just
because
for
a
third
for
such
short-lived
assets.
It's
very
it's
very
hard
to
really
discover.
B
J
And
supposed
to
go
through
this
entire
process.
So
for
that
reason,
what
we're
proposing
to
do
with
with
centrifuge
acid
centrifuge
powered
assets
that
are
of
short
term
in
nature,
is
that
we
don't
don't
use
the
existing
flipper
that
will
auction
off
the
collateral,
but
that
we
build
a
mechanism
by
which
the
maker
dive
wallet
can
force
this
portfolio
into
liquidation.
H
Yes,
I
have
a
question
actually
well.
First,
I
wanted
to
say
that
I
I
generally
very
much
agree
with
the
direction
that
this
is
taking,
so
I
think
for
a
while
in
the
discussions
of
real
world
assets,
or
at
least
some
types
of
real
world
assets,
we
were
running
up
against
this
problem
of
how
to
sort
of
reconcile
our
current
paradigm
for
how
cloud
policies
work
with
what
is
suitable
for
those
sorts
of
assets.
H
So,
like
I
don't
know,
the
extreme
example
would
be
something
like,
like
you
know,
trading
on
bitmex,
where
you
know
people
are
taking
on
positions
with
huge
amounts
of
leverage
and
then
there's
like
a
liquidation
engine
that
you
know
once
you
once
your
position
becomes
unsafe,
we'll
just
sort
of
sell
your
position
as
a
market
order
into
the
order
book
and
on
the
other
hand,
you
know
they're
sort
of
in
the
real
world.
You
know
sort
of
you
know
long-term.
H
You
know
loans,
I
mean,
for
example,
real
estate
loans
or
other
kinds
of
loans.
You
know
given
out
by
by
banks,
which
are
you
know,
highly
highly
non-fungible.
The
the
australian
collateral
isn't
is
nowhere
near
as
liquid
and
doesn't
have
you
know
continuous
price
discovery,
but
on
the
other
hand,
you
know
the
underlying
loans
have
sort
of
a
lot,
are
a
lot
kind
of
higher
quality
and
aren't
something
that
you
kind
of
expect
to
be
blowing
up
every
day
and
in
those
two
opposite
extremes.
You
have.
H
You
know
collateral
managed
in
a
completely
different
way
and
of
course
you
know
coming
from
from
the
world
of
sort
of
liquid
crypto
assets
like
like
youth.
Our
system
is
mainly
geared
to
dealing
with
sort
of
things
closer
to
the
first
extreme,
so
you
know
liquid
assets
that
you
you
want
to
just
you
know
quickly
get
off
the
books
when
they're
unsafe,
but
this
really
doesn't
work
for
for
less
liquid
but
high.
H
So
I
think
you
mentioned
there
that
you
know
this
proposal
of
just
winding
down.
The
fund
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
for
trade
finance
assets
that
are
sort
of
you
know
approximately.
If
I
remember
correctly,
two
months
in
in
in
maturities,
which
means
that
you
know
it's,
it's
really
not
a
long
wait
to
to
wait
for
those
two
to
mature,
but
what
about
similar,
similar
structures
that
might
have
longer
maturity
assets
is
there?
Can
we
also
apply
this
idea
of
sort
of
handling
the
liquidations?
J
Yeah
so
so
we
did
spend
some
thinking
and
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
explain
a
little
bit
how
to
work
with
short-term
assets,
and
then
I
can
see
how
we
can
expand
it,
but
what
happens
with
short-term
assets
using
these
example
of
an
invoice,
but
like
bridge
loans
in
trade
finance,
other
kind
of
structures
work
as
well.
Is
these
loans
have
a
fixed
maturity,
after
which
the
final
borrower
is
that
is
required
to
repay
right?
So
it's
not
a
line
of
credit
that
I
can
keep
open
for
an
unlimited
amount
of
time.
J
So
if
I,
as
a
small
business,
borrow
money
from
this
asset
originator
that
then
takes
my
loan
and
uses
it
as
it
puts
it
in
this
pool
and
you
and
and
sort
of
uses
this
pool
as
collateral
maker,
I
will
have
a
a
contract
that
says:
I'm
borrowing,
borrowing
a
hundred
dollars
from
from
this,
this
asset
originator.
I
need
to
pay
back
in
60
days,
so
the
normal
mechanism
is
to
just
say
would
be
that
I
actually
actually
become
delinquent
on
this
loan.
J
If
I
don't
pay
back
and
the
spv
that
is
sort
of
bundling,
this
pool
of
loans
will
have
a
regular
way
to
do
legal
recourse,
hence
the
against
the
final
borrower.
So
getting
the
invoice
paid
back
like
suing
suing
for
payment
and
so
on
with
longer-term
assets,
where
waiting
for
the
loan
to
be
repaid
is
not
an
option,
because
maybe
it's
a
10-year
mortgage,
you
can't
actually
just
ask
the
borrower
to
repay
the
loan,
because
their
loan
contract
might
say
the
this.
J
This
loan
that
is
in
this
pool
is
actually
only
due
in
10
years,
so
you
would
need
to
find
you
need
to
find
someone
else
to
buy
this
loan,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
happen
to
have
on
chain.
If
you
can,
you
can
still
require
the
asset
originator
to
liquidate
the
vault
within
and
the
portfolio
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time.
We
just
don't
have
this
option
to
wait
for
maturity,
so
in
that
instance,
what
we
can
do
is
we
can
have
this
process
be
defined.
J
A
distressed
real
estate
fund
that
would
have
a
that
have
a
mechanism
in
place
where,
if
maker
or
any
other
investor
in
this
portfolio
would
ask
for
money
to
be
repaid,
and
the
asset
originator
can't
find
another
investor
to
take.
On
the
the
share
of
this
pool
the
drop
tokens
that
we're
using
as
collateral,
then
they,
the
asset
originator,
would
have
to
start
liquidating
according
to
this
process,
and
that
would
mean
selling
these
loans
to
this.
J
This
distressed
real
estate,
hedge
fund
or
whatever
it
is
or
broker,
and
so
you
could
and
that
could
still
be.
You
could
still
give
these
drop
tokens
the
the
ability
to
be
liquidated
fairly
quickly,
potentially
at
a
loss
you're
involving
a
distressed
loan
company
or
someone
else.
That
is
trying,
of
course,
to
like
quickly
provide
liquidity
for
which
you're
willing
to
pay
premium
for,
but
this
is
definitely
something
that
we
could
build
into
this
system
if
we
wanted
to
extend
it.
J
So
the
main
difference
would
just
be
that
now
it's
not
waiting
for
maturity,
but
it
is
that
the
asset
originator
would
have
to
have
an
off
chain
process
in
place
to
liquidate
its
portfolio
outside
of
it
and
then,
as
this
liquidation
occurs,
the
dot.
The
fear
that
is
being
raised
is
then
being
converted
to
die
and
repaid
to
the
investors
of
this
pool,
including
the
makerbot.
H
Right
got
it
got
it
thanks.
So
do
I
do
anything
correctly
that
for
for
longer
for
longer
maturity
underlying
assets,
we
could
actually
use
this
as
like
the
first
line
of
defense
and
then
have
have
some
kind
of
unchain
liquidation
system
as
a
as
a
backstop.
So
you
know
potentially,
if
these
are,
if
these
are
multi-year
along
mortgages,
you
can
have
you
can
have
the
you.
J
B
F
J
C
Advocacy
just
passed
and
it's
going
to
go
to
executive
next
week
and
if
we
get
through
we're
going
to
try
to
have
a
call
for
for
self
side
advocacy
for
for
real
world
assets
and
how
that
relates
to
risk
parameters
and
we're
going
to
try
to
bring
security
securities.
Lawyers
on
the
call
to
answer
some
of
the
questions.
J
Actually,
like
we've
done
over
2
million
in
originations
with
like
or
our
asset
originators
have
done
over
2
million
in
originations
in
the
last
months
since,
since
we
launched
in
may
and
our
average
interest
rate
that
we
were
giving
through
that
that
we
saw
on
the
on
these
assets
was,
I,
I
think,
eight
and
a
half
nine
percent
apy,
so
air
apr.
So
that
is,
I
think,
very
competitive.