►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 21
Description
in this Governance and Risk meeting Steven Becker, President & COO of MakerDAO, was joined by special guests Joe Quintilian, Head of PTD. We got a tour of some of the tools used to determine the health of the ecosystem, looked at some order books, and talked about how this data will inform the Stability Fee change.
Meeting Minutes: https://github.com/scottrepreneur/mak...
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
Well,
everyone
welcome
to
the
February
seventh
edition
of
the
scientific
governance
and
risk
meeting
with
maker
doubt
we
have
an
interesting
call
today
we
are
going
to
do
some
show-and-tell,
so
this
this
is
part
of
the
evolution
of
these
meetings.
I
discussed
in
our
last
call
about
how
we've
been
on
a
track
a
very
long
track.
A
Right,
so
we
look
forward
to
a
visit
from
her
in
our
next
call.
I
think
that
oh
yeah,
sorry
I
always
forget
I'm,
not
gonna,
forget
anymore,
so
we're
very,
very
interested
in
getting
feedback
from
the
community
we
want
to
have.
These
calls
be
a
discussion
and
not
priests
from
the
temple
coming
out
and
having
a
big
speech
and
going
back
inside.
So
if
anybody
has
a
question,
please
feel
free
just
to
jump
right
in
and
start
asking.
If
you
don't
have
access
to
a
mic.
A
Please
type
your
questions
in
the
chat,
decide
and
we'll
wait
for
quiet
moments
and
ask
those
for
you
and
make
sure
that
we
have
a
lot
of
back-and-forth,
because
we
have
some
very
talented
visitors.
There's
some
people
with
a
lot
of
deep
insight
and
that's
all,
and
we
want
to
hear
from
more
than
just
make
her
down
in
DC.
So
having
said
that,
Steven
are
gonna
hand
it
off
to
you
sure.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
okay.
So
today,
what
we're
gonna
do
is
try
something
that's
a
bit
of
a
first-of-its-kind.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
replicate
verbally
how
our
sort
of
pseudo
liable
process
is
going
to
work,
we're
going
to
replicate
how
we
will
effectively
put
forward
an
argument
in
terms
of
a
stability
theory
and
then,
at
the
same
time,
give
an
indication
of
what
kind
of
evidence
to
to
back
that
argument
now
keep
in
mind
that
not,
generally
speaking,
one
would
do
this
within
a
report
and
then
come
up
with
a
conclusion.
C
Like
therefore
I
believe
the
stability
P
should
be
X,
Y
or
Z.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
be
extremely
a
sort
of
high
level
so
that
we
don't
get
too
much
into
into
the
detail
in
order
to
have
enough
time
to
discuss
the
salient
features
around
this
and,
at
the
same
time
get
a
sense
of
what
is
it
that
we're
actually
trying
to
achieve
at
the
end
of
the
day.
C
So
to
that
point,
and
as
rich
has
already
mentioned,
I
asked
Joe
to
come
and
join
us,
and,
as
Jose
mentioned,
he
looks
after
the
the
proprietary
trading
desk
for
the
foundation
and
within
their
trading
desk,
performs,
amongst
other
things,
the
market
making
function.
Now
what
we
need
to
do
is
we
are
going
to
act
as
the
first
sort
of
risk
team
that
proposes
reliable
submissions,
we're
basically
going
to
give
you
a
breakdown
of
why
we
think
the
stability
piece
should
change
and
in
what
direction
and
give
a
sense
of
what
information
we
have.
C
That
supports
that,
once
we've
done
that,
we
can
open
up
to
to
the
rest
of
the
folks
on
this
call
and
get
a
sense
of
what
they
would
think
as
well.
And
then,
ultimately,
we
can
go
into
the
weeds
a
little
bit
and
look
have
a
look
at
have
a
look
at
a
bit
of
the
details
and
analytics.
So
to
that
end,
I'm
going
to
hand
over
to
to
Joe.
B
B
So
right
now
you
see
this
is
the
first
one.
Is
the
inventory
levels
the
screen?
You
can
see
the
stability
fee,
one
decreased
from
two
and
a
percent
to
a
half
percent
and
our
inventory
levels
went
from,
went
up
from
ten
percent
being
died
to
over
10%
of
the
home
fire
to
the
system
to
being
almost
twenty
three,
almost
twenty
percent
of
the
system
being
us
holding
die
I.
Think
that's
not
the
target
we
want
to
have
I
think
we
want
to
be
down
like
fifteen
percent.
We
want.
B
We
don't
want
to
be
that
much
of
the
system
and
I'd
also
notice
these.
My
next
point
that
most
of
the
mostly
offers,
if
you
look
back,
if
you
look
at
like
where
coinbase
is
trading
and
where,
if
the
dye
is
trading,
it's
below
its
trading
at,
like
almost
ninety
nine
point,
five.
Ninety
nine
point,
three
its
offer
below
a
dollar
and
I'd
like
to
make
painting
around
the
dollar
I
think
if
we
keep
things
around
a
dollar
there's
also
things
back.
They
also
bring
back
honor
women
trawl
always
one
other
point.
A
C
So
the
so
just
to
break
it
down
the
blue
line
effectively
is
the
other
primary
axis.
On
the
left
hand,
side,
that
is
the
inventory
percentage
of
supply,
the
gray
one
is
the
price
of
eath
of
at
the
same
time,
and
then,
obviously
the
orange
one
is
needed
stability
fee.
So
it
gives
you
a
sense
of
what
the
percentages
were
in
terms
of
inventory,
how
it
drops
off
how
we
did
a
correction
in
the
instability
fee
and
our
increased
backup.
C
Now,
the
one
thing
that's
obviously
interesting
and
why
you
know
we've
all
decided
include
the
eath
price
is
because
you
know
you
got
to
be
open-minded
and
say
to
yourself
well,
what's
driving
this
process,
is
it
the
ease
process
into
these
prices,
the
stability
fee?
To
that
end,
we
we
try
and
figure
out
that
it
is
the
stability
P,
but
you
know
the
the
the
question
is
open
and
the
question
is
something
that
I
hope
to
get
folks
from
this
call
interested
in
trying
to
answer
as
well.
Okay,.
A
So
I
guess
that
this
is
a
really
great
breath
because,
but,
as
you
pointed
out,
we
have
two
data
points
here
and
we
don't
know
which
one
actually
moved
the
needle.
So
it
does
that
mean
that
this
is
what
fed
into
the
decision
that
rate
a
steppin
rate
over
time
would
be
the
way
to
go.
So
if
we
did
50
basis
points
every
two
or
three
weeks,
we
would
have
enough.
We'd
have
enough
plots
in
order
to
figure
out
whether
or
to
disregard
shifts
in
eath
price
and
have
confidence
that
was
actually
stability.
C
B
A
A
A
C
A
B
C
So
there's
two
aspects
here
and
the
one
thing
that's
what's
very
interesting
is
that
there's
a
dramatic
drop
rather
dramatic
spikes
down,
and
once
you
get
to
that
sort
of
weirdly
natural
level
around
about
60
and
17%,
it
seems
to
turn
off
a
little
bit.
So
that's
you
know.
These
are
the
sort
of
features
that
you
can
extract
from
this,
and
you
know
try
and
come
to
conclusions
for
yourself
as
to
what
this
means.
C
And
then
you
know
from
there
everything
we
can
try
and
figure
out
a
model
to
move
forward,
but
expressly
the
inventory
level
and
the
protracted
level
of
Industry
inventory
and
the
protracted
level
of
the
dye
exchange
rate
below
the
$1
mark.
Those
are
the
things
that's
from
I,
say
from
our
point
of
view,
drives
our
notion
of
what
to
do
with
stability
fee
now.
B
C
A
I'm
trying
to
think
figure
out
whether
that
we
need
to
gauge
the
response
to
a
change
in
the
stability
fee.
So
what
would
whether
we
see
people
adding
more
to
their
positions
or
whether
we
see
people
closing
out
their
positions
that
understanding
that
cause
and
effect
of
a
stability
fee
change
on
the
actual
users
of
the
system
would
be
an
interesting
data
point
to
collect
as
well
right.
You.
D
Know
I
would
also
make
sure
to
just
reference
in
turn.
Let's
not
confuse
causality
in
correlation
right,
I
mean
from
what
that
graph.
Sorry
Joe,
you
just
showed
up,
but
the
graph
you
just
had
up
and
one
can
make
an
argument
that,
as
the
eath
price
went
down,
you
know
maker
basically
helped
construct
a
soft
landing
piece.
D
C
It
that's
the
foundation
that
we're
looking
for
that's
the
foundation
from
which
we
are
asking
folks
now,
if
you
want
to
submit,
create
the
risk
team
for
yourself
start
thinking
about
what
the
the
model
should
look
like
and
then
contribute
appropriately.
This
remember.
This
is
just
merely
an
exercise
from
our
front
to
show
you
and
to
talk
through
a
process
that
ultimately
will
become
a
lot
more
rigorous
and
lot
more
well-defined.
C
E
As
someone
who
I
used
to
analyze,
you
know
split
testing
statistics,
a
lot
which
is
much
easier
than
what
we're
trying
to
do
here,
but
one
thing
I
would
always
look
at
is
where
you
know,
because
there's
always
so
much
noise.
When
do
you
actually
see
that
something?
You
did
actually
made
a
difference,
and
usually
it
doesn't.
E
But
in
this
case
you
know
the
I'm
not
even
sure
the
exact
why
the
inventory
fell
low
like
dramatically,
then
you
lowered
the
stability
fee
and
it
immediately
shot
up
dramatically
so
clearly,
I
would
guess
that
what
we
did
there
made
a
difference
and
it
seems
like
overshot
one
from
a
half
a
percent
to
two
and
a
half,
so
my
guess
is
well.
Maybe
it
would
have
been
better
if,
instead
of
two
and
a
half
it
was
I,
don't
know
1.75.
Maybe
that
would
have
been
right,
but
keeping.
E
C
C
B
C
Everybody
has
and
look
at
this
graph
what's
interesting
about
it.
Is
that
have
a
look
at
the
the
date
that
the
stability
disability
fee
dropped?
You'll
see
it
notes
as
the
14th
of
December,
where
in
fact
we
actually,
if
I
recall,
executed
it
on
the
21st,
but
the
reason
it
was
included
as
the
14th
is
that's
because
that
was
the
date.
The
the
article
got
published,
that
that
was
the
intention.
C
C
Net
submission
on
stability
fee,
that's
kind
of
like
what
libel
was
trying
to
do
before
2014
when
and
everyone
discovered
it
has
been
manipulated
a
little
bit
first
2014.
They
have
a
lot
more
processes
in
place
that
actually
attributes
directly
to
the
the
bank's
balance
sheet,
and
in
this
case
it
will
attribute
back
to
the
submitters.
C
Inventory
levels
as
well,
so
there
is
going
to
be
a
need
for
a
certain
amount
of
transparency
to
to
get
the
privilege
to
submit
a
stability
fee.
So
that's
where
we
are
at
the
moment
and
based
on
the
data
that
we've
seen
we
are
going
to
put
for
day
if
we
can
get
some
sort
of
consensus
over
here.
As
a
point
of
example,
there's
a
rough
consensus
over
here.
We
can
move
forward
to
put
a
proposal
for
to
increase
disability
fee
by
you
know,
50
basis
points.
E
Have
a
question
I
have
regarding
this
to
Melanie
thing,
one
thing
I've
thought
about
and
is
to
make
sure
I
have
this
correct,
which
is
if
there
was
a
global
whatever
you
call
it
global
disaster.
You
know
settlement
process.
Might
so
one
thing,
I'm
not
sure
is
well
with
all
the
collateral
be
enough
to
pay
everybody
off,
and
my
understanding
is
if
it's
not
not
what
the
odds
are
of
that
maker
is
token,
is
supposed
to
be
there
to
bail
people
out.
E
C
Who
know
you're
deaf
can
use.
Thank
you
so,
with
respect
to
emergency
shutdown,
what
happens
is-
and
this
is
just
to
put
into
a
nutshell-
he
left
with
dying
collateral
and
they
get
stated
or
with
respect
to
CDP.
They
get
liquidated
and
fall
short.
That's
when
NPR
steps
in
as
a
kind
of
insurance.
So
to
your
points
about
emergency
shutdown.
Mkr
is
not
a
part
of
that
process.
Only
with
respect
to
CDP
has
been
liquidated
and
not
being
fully
satisfied.
So
it's
not
a
it's,
not
the
grand
context.
E
C
Maker
doesn't
feature
in
emergency
shutdown.
That's
the
point,
so
you
basically
just
left
with
died
and
collateral,
and
you
net
out
to
find
out
how
much
of
that
net
loans
or
how
much
of
that
a
gross
loan
position
you
can
cover,
and
you
hope
that
in
a
shutdown
you'll
have
enough
collateral
to
satisfy
everything
such
that
you
just
return:
a
portion
of
collateral
back
to
the
original
CDP
holders.
C
But
to
that
end,
what
that
ten
million
economic
capital
is
talking
about
is
in
the
worst
possible
scenario.
You
need
to
get
10
million
quickly.
Can
you
do
it,
and
that
comes
slow
back
to
the
question
of
you
know
is:
is
the
the
token
liquid
enough
at
that
point
in
the
time
in
order
to
you
know,
be
able
to
cover
that
right
now?
That
question
is
definitely
open.
That
can
be
discussed.
E
That
helped
I
always
had
a
little
misunderstanding,
but
I
guess.
My
other
point
then,
is
just
regarding
what
the
stability
fee
should
be.
I
saw
a
lot
of
discussions
on
Twitter
about
well
what
is
maker?
What's
the
value
of
it,
and
you
know
that's
obviously
not
an
easy
question,
but
you
know
the
idea
is
well
you're
only
getting
a
half
a
percent,
and
if
collateral
was
this,
you
only
have
a
half
a
percent.
So
how
is
maker
worth
much
and
so
I
wonder
it's
so.
C
A
lot
of
folks
have
had
the
same
question
so
I
think
in
a
in
a
subsequent
coal.
We
can
maybe
go
over
the
idea
of
how
to
go
and
use
some
traditional
tools
like
DCF
Gordon
growth
model,
with
a
little
bit
of
adjustment
to
find
out
how
to
run
your
maker
understand
what
sort
of
permutations
and
and
sort
of
stochastic
processes
we
need
to
think
about
in
terms
of
stability
fee
and
GDP
liquidations.
There's,
you
know,
there's
a
quite
a
few
angles
that
you
can
attack
this
problem
from.
C
But
that
being
said,
the
sense
of
value
you
can
almost
attribute
solely
to
the
governance
utility
and,
at
the
same
time,
the
the
release
of
value
from
proposals
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
If
you
bring
in
a
specific
collateral
type,
and
it
gives
you
a
potential
debt
ceiling,
how
much
value
are
you
bringing
to
the
system?
How
much
value
are
you
basically
putting
into
the
utility
of
governing,
and
that
is
essentially
also
a
question?
We
really
need
to
tackle.
C
C
C
Event,
but
no,
we
don't
really
have
sort
of
sufficient
sufficient
data.
No,
this
was
this
was
basically
we
can
probably
scream
it
together,
but
in
terms
of
this
particular
governance
call,
this
is
pretty
much
what
you
have,
but
I
know
that
you
know
Joe
has
a
little
bit
more
deep
access.
The
jury
were
not
really
yeah.
B
A
Cassidy
just
asked
a
question
in
the
chat
I
can
read
out,
he
says,
or
she
says
potentially
I
think
it
would
be
really
interesting
to
see
the
effect
of
the
announcement
of
a
change
in
the
stability
fee
as
compared
to
its
actual
change.
This
ties
back
to
what
we
were
discussing
earlier
forward
guidance
is
such
a
powerful
tool
for
the
Fed
would
be
curious
to
see
how
much
that
concept
carries
over
to
maker.
So
this
is
interesting
is
something
we've
considered
that
just
saying
to
the
quality?
Hey
we're
going
to
change.
C
That
was
somewhat
implied
in
that
first
graph,
where
the
change
was
shown
on
the
14th,
as
opposed
to
when
it
actually
was
in
effect
in
the
21st
just
to
see
if
there
was
a
semblance
of
impact,
I
mean.
If
you
have
a
look
at
that
point
and
you
go
up
to
the
blue
line,
it
doesn't
look
like
there
was
a
tremendous
effect,
but
if
you
actually
go
to
the
inflection
points
on
the
21st
you're,
really
in
that
sort
of
output
scale.
C
So
to
that
end
it
looks
like
our
announcements
didn't
really
have
that
much
of
effect
at
first,
so
the
ability
to
do
that
will
obviously
cut
out
and
keep
assessing,
because
the
the
ability
just
to
say,
listen,
things
are
going
a
little
bit
too
hot
and
heavy.
We
need
to
cool
it
down
a
bit
somewhere
in
the
future
that
may
be
sufficient
to
to
sort
of
incentivize
people
to
take
their
foot
off.
The
pedal
of
it.
A
You're,
essentially,
it's
sort
of
the
same
tool
we
have
with
the
sorry
the
emergency
shutdown
system
in
general.
It's
we
have
these
mechanisms
in
place.
We
don't
necessarily
need
to
hit
that
big
red
button.
We
can
just
tell
people
that
you
know
trends
continue
that
the
way
they
have
been
we're
going
to
offer
the
system.
That
might
be
enough.
That's
a
fascinating
concept.
I.
C
Mean
it's
quite
a
few
folks
on
this
call.
They
could
probably
talk
to
this
for
a
long
time,
but
all
the
incentives
are
in
player
that,
yes,
you
do
have
the
big
red
button.
But
if
you
press
it
here
are
your
consequences,
and
you
know
that
ties
back
into
to
keeping
the
incentive
structure
of
the
whole
system
intact
and
robust
and
aiming
in
one
direction.
C
Well
to
that
end,
if
there
are
no
further
questions
about
this
little
process
that
we
have
informally
presented,
I
would
like
to
say
and
just
reiterate
that
what
we've
done
here
and
now
is
just
a
very
simple
demonstration
of
the
kind
of
submission
and
the
kind
of
evidence
that
you
want
to
give.
Clearly,
we
can
go
into
much
more
detail
and
as
soon
as
we
get
more
robust
data,
we
can
get
much
better
model.
C
We
then
know
present
to
you,
the
folks
that
look
after
this
particular
function
and
it
was
Joe
to
present,
know
the
further
arguments
and
the
evidence
behind
it
and
then
at
the
end,
you
know
again
say
well.
The
proposal
we'd
like
to
put
forward
is
to
increase
by
by
50
basis,
points.
That's
the
the
end-to-end
and
obviously
that's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
rigorous.
A
lot
more
well
defined
going
forward.
But
if
there
are
any,
aren't
any
other
questions
on
that
point
and
if
unit.
C
A
C
A
B
So
what
Madison
was
unfortunate
out
here
was
able
to
go
through
some
of
the
data
that
we
she
just,
which
is
a
very
smart
girl
who
was
Steven,
hired
and
Shawn
hired
credit
to
them
for
maker
and
were
able
to
go
back
and
go
back
through
a
lot
of
data.
That
I
thought
be
pertinent
to
die
governance
and
the
first
graph
which
is
in
an
interactive
chart,
so
go
ahead
and
you
can
click
it
on
and
everything
you
can
see
the
active
dresses
for
died
and
the
spikes
up.
B
B
This
is
like
percentage
of
die
on
exchanges
that
we
get
listed
on,
so
we
almost
we're
still
around
to
2%,
even
though
we
got
listed
on
something
other
than
some
new
exchanges,
but
like
as
we
they're
major
changes
that
we're
getting
that
we've
listed
on,
but
like
the
coinbase
crow,
but
like
we.
We
think
that
this
will.
This
percentage
will
eventually
grow
with
this
growing.
The
active
addresses
should.
A
B
What
has
to
be
included
in
this
thing
is,
like
we've
been
at
or
being
added
on
to
other
exchanges,
major
changes,
that's
why
it
looks
like
it's
going
down,
but
like
the
percentage,
because
we're
at
I
haven't
this
graphic
people
better.
Next
time
like
this
will
be
another.
This
will
be
on
the
major
exchanges.
If
you
go
along
okay,.
A
B
B
B
This
is
like
it
has
the
the
most,
the
major
pair
that
everybody
trades
eat,
thigh,
that
I've
noticed
I
mean
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
anybody
else
really
trades
I
mean
once
a
while.
You
see
you
as
tethered
I've,
so
they
happen
to
tether,
but,
like
you
can
see,
the
overall
created
created
overall
Twitter
users
have
been
going
up
and
over
all
eat.
Thigh
volume
has
been
on
the
upswing
since
September.
B
A
B
B
A
That's
one
of
the
most
interesting
or
compelling
graphs,
for
me
at
least
I
think
is
when
we
people
talk
about
the
liquidity
of
stable
coins
and
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
and
I'm,
obviously
biased,
but
it's
on
chain
transactions
that
carry
the
most
weight
with
being
seeing
an
uptick
of
people
actually
moving
diet
between
one
wall
and
another
is
really
encouraging.
So
it
looks
like
we're
seeing
adoption
here
then.
Yes,.
B
This
is
die,
trying
tract
contracted
volume,
overdyne
circulation,
I
think
this
is
it
I
like
this
rock
gives
us
like
more
of
it.
Incre
is
encouraging.
I'd
rather
see
died,
transaction
volume
that
this
this
keeps
on
getting
smaller
and
smaller
and
smaller.
That
way,
you
know
that,
there's
more,
you
know
the
over
overall
transaction
there's,
not
many
people,
one
person
controls
everything,
there's
more
people
using
the
system.
B
B
One
all
out-
that's
at
Madison
and
I
will
not
know.
I
do
not
know
that
one,
but
she
she
not
before
she's,
not
here,
but
what
will
happen
going
forward
to
everybody?
The
governor's
call
we
will
will
eventually
have
this.
I
cannot
a
little
bit
better
website
for
governance
or
we're
gonna
figure
out
how
we're
gonna
post
this
up
before
the
meetings
and
allow
everybody
to
get
all
the
graphs
I
was
kind
of.
We
were.
A
B
A
C
Yeah,
so
we've
got
the
first
part
of
this
meeting
was
simplistic
in
the
idea
that
we
wanted
to
do
a
we
do
want
to
do
a
stability
sea
change.
We
give
you
an
abstract
of
know
why
we
want
to
do
it
and
then
other
scale.
At
the
tail
end,
we
we
presented
you
with
quite
a
few
metrics
that
can
be
used
or
consolidated
into
the
decision-making
process
as
well.
So
to
that
end,
what
we?
C
What
we
need
to
do
is
sort
of
finalize
this
with
saying
that
you
know
given
this
position,
given
this
data
and
given
the
the
reasoning
that
we
put
forward,
we
are
going
to
put
forward
a
proposal
that
is
going
to
request
a
0.5%
increase
in
the
stability
fee,
I'm
hoping
to
have
a
proposal
out
before
Tuesday
next
week,
which
is
I,
think
the
14th.
This
is
what
is
it
twelve,
sorry
before
the
twelfth
Tuesday,
the
12th,
the
please
look
out
for
that
and
I'll
just
be
co-ed.
You
vote
on
it.
One.
D
Question
for
you
I
think
it's
an
important
component
to
add
to
any
discussion
related
to.
Let's
make
the
assumption
right
now,
it's
a
percentage
point
whatever
the
number
is.
What
is
it
a?
What
is
the
objective
and
raising
it?
If
you
mentioned
it
was
liquidity,
that's
fine!
Then
how
will
we
know
if
it's
like?
How
do
we
define
winning
like?
How
do
you
know
if
we
raised
it
half
a
point?
What
are
we
realistically
expecting
it
to
go
down
to?
D
What
is
our
expectation
so
that
we
can
come
back
in
whatever
the
timeframe
is
six
months
and
reevaluate
it
and
say:
listen,
we
raised
it
by
50
basis
or
whatever
half
a
point
and
it
did
X.
We
were
expecting
Y.
So,
let's
learn
from
this
iterative
process
and
how
we
look
at
it
in
six
or
seven
months.
I
would.
B
A
D
D
This
is
a
new
project
ever
none
of
us
as
experts
I'd,
love
to
think
we
all
are
it's
an
iterative
process.
It's
a
learning
process
for
all
of
us.
It
will
be
for
as
long
as
we
stay
with
the
project.
So,
if
we
just
say
when
we
change
the
numbers
without
really
having
an
underlying
target,
I'm
Joe-
and
you
said
I
hundred
percent-
agree
with
Mike.
If
the
fundamental
objective
is
to
get
the
doll
at
the
pet,
the
price
to
go
back
and
stick
at
one
I
agree
with
it.
D
E
Think
we
also
have
to
remember
that,
although
this
is
our
lever
that
we
pull
that
we
want
to
see
a
certain
result,
there's
a
lot
of
other
levers
out
there,
that
we
don't
control
such
as
the
price
of
aetherium
or
some
with
a
CDP
doing
whatever
or
there's
all
these
other
things
that
can
have
an
effect
that
sort
of
muddies
the
effect
of
our
lever.
So
we
sort
of
it's
almost
like
you,
I
mean
I.
E
Guess
that's
like
some
of
the
graphs
we
were
looking
at
just
if
we
increase
the
rate-
and
you
know
the
inventory
changes
it
might
not
only
because
we
changed
the
REA,
maybe
something
else
happened
and
then
in
the
future
we
change
the
rate
and
it's
something
else
doesn't
happen.
It
doesn't
work
the
same
way.
It's
you
know
we
got
to
remember.
This
is
a
very
complex
system.
I,
don't
how
many
levers
maker
has,
but
there's
a
lot
of
levers
out
beyond
the
other.
One
is.
C
What
is
their
incentive
to
submit
if
their
incentive
is
not
to
be
profitable
if
their
incentive
is
not
to
benefit
themselves,
they
will
not
be
submitting,
and
that's
the
process
that
we
need
to
emphasize
here
is
that
there
actually
is
this
very
clear
dynamic
that
allows
us
to
align
everything
appropriately
and
still
get
that
robustness
and
still
get
the
ability
to
rebalance
the
demand
supply
a
function,
that's
within
the
system.
What
we're
talking
about
now
is
obviously
not
the
the
full
solution,
because
that
comes
with
the
proper
decentralized
functions,
but
what
this
does
do.
C
Thank
you
for
that
I.
Thank
you
guys
for
contributing
to
today's
call
is
that
we're
looking
for
that
open
dialogue,
saying
right,
we
know
what
you're
doing
we
need
to
consider.
As
you
pointed
out,
confer
variables,
we
need
to
consider
exactly
what
the
targets
are.
We
need
to
put
a
date
to
this.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
this
all
comes
together
into
a
well-formed
plan
and
that's
exactly
what
I
hoped
to
get
out
of
this
is
that
everyone
started
thinking
about
that,
because
we
certainly
are
doing
that.
We
certainly
do
have
targets.
C
We
do
have
timeframes,
we
do
have
this,
but
we
are
just
one
member
of
the
community
and
we
are
contributing
as
a
member
of
the
community.
We
don't
have
any
sort
of
special
privileges
other
than
the
fact
that
you
know
we
do
have
insight
into
the
data
now,
but
soon,
once
we
have
enough
contributors
to
the
liquidity
provision
function,
we're
going
to
be
one
of
many
you're
going
to
have
that
sort
of
insight
and
then
from
there.
C
A
D
A
D
B
You
look
the
coin
based
Pro,
who
I
was
the
example
of
what
the
eat
volume
is.
I
was
looking
for
other
examples
where
why
mister
die
they
died.
I
was
doing
at
the
paracin
of
why
there's
huge
price
of
his
green
eath,
USD
and
eat
die
versus.
What's
going
on,
eat
the
die
which
I
recommend
everybody
go
to
that's
the
new
Oasis.
So
that's
that
was
the
difference
there,
but
we
would
like
everybody
to
be.
We
would
like
it
to
be
around
with
yeah
there
you
go
Tom's.
B
C
So
the
one
aspect
that
I
want
to
just
reinforce
and
again
to
that
question
is
that
you've
got
to
pretend
for
a
moment
that
we
are
not
a
part
of
the
foundation,
we're
an
independent
operator,
how
we
incentivize
to
ensure
that
we
achieve
these.
These
objectives,
where
you
know
the
dye
is
trading
around
the
dollar
and
that
is
to
basically
online
incentive.
So
the
arbitrage
component
is
very
important.
C
You
I
mean,
firstly,
you
have
the
natural
arbitrage
component
that
keeps
a
diet
pegged
to
a
dollar,
but
when
you
have
frictions-
and
you
don't
have
enough
continuity
and
fluidity
in
the
market-
and
you
leave
it
to
its
own
devices,
you're
gonna
find
a
massive
spread
because
the
natural
arbitrage
component
doesn't
take
over
quickly
enough.
Therefore,
you
have
you
know
particular
players
coming
and
focus
on
on
creating
trading
algorithms
and
market
making
functions
around
that
you
try
and
capture
as
much
of
that
for
themselves.
C
In
so
doing,
you
would
build
an
inventory
that
would
be
generally
marked
below
a
dollar,
with
the
hope
that
if
you
could
submit
a
stability
fee,
you
would
want
to
submit
one
that
would
induce
the
system
to
go
to
a
dollar,
because
once
you
add
a
dollar
you
can
release.
You
inventory
at
$1
Maliki
be
insane
Tobias
to
make
the
profit.
That's
where
the
the
function
comes
in.
That's
where
the
alignment
comes
in
so
there's
quite
a
few
there's.
C
The
natural
arbitrage
in
the
system
is
the
natural
sort
of
mean
reversing
aspects
of
a
market
making
function
within
a
proprietary
desk
that
allows
you
to
capture
profits,
but
that's
also,
you
know
very
much
driven
by
a
next
step
item,
and
that
is
the
ability
to
submit
what
you
think.
Disability
fee
is
when
you
are
practically
talking
your
own
book,
you're
practically
suggesting
something
that
is
going
to.
If
it
does
work,
make
you
money,
it
incentivizes
you,
along
with
the
system
now
that
you've
got
to
consider
it
as
a
as
an
independent
operator.
C
If
you,
if
you
take
that
point
of
view,
and
then
you
expand
it
to
many
operators,
and
you
expand
it
to
what
all
those
books
would
look
like
and
how
those
folks
would
want
to
contribute
a
a
submission,
they're
going
to
be
different
and
the
point
being
is
the
more
diverse
they
are
in
their
opinions.
The
more
robust
that
next
stability
fee
would
be
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
that's
kind
of
what
we're
looking
at.
D
Of
dealing
there
with
three
variables
and
two
equations
I
mean
right
now:
150
percent
collateralization
liquidation
call
it
floor
is
a
static.
It's
a
known
right
now,
so
we're
the
stability.
He
is
an
infection
insurance
component
of
what
do
we
read
in
single
collateral
die?
What
do
we
realistically
think?
The
probability
will
be
that
the
system
needs
to
stay
stable
by
having
a
what
percentage
of
a
stability
fee.
What
is
just
probability
of
it
collapsing
and
causing
defaults
and
bad
stuff
right.
D
I'm
just
making
numbers
up
so,
let's
just
say
it's
1%
right
now,
which
it's
not
but
assume
it
was,
and
the
percentage
over
collateralization
or
even
stead
of
being
a
hundred
fifty
percent
was
two
hundred
percent
one
make
it
a
thousand
percent.
Is
one
percent
too
high?
Okay,
I,
don't
know
the
answer,
but
my
point
is:
do
we
change
the
percentage
the
stability
fee
based
upon
the
market
price
of
died?
Are
we
changing
it
as
a
component
of
what
the
risk
to
the
collateral
is
so.
C
The
one
I
expect
you've
got
to
keep
in
mind
is
that
the
stability
P
has,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
two
components.
The
first
component
talks
to
the
online
risk
that
you
take
with
respect
to
the
collateral
type
and
always
that'll
always
be
there,
and
then
you
cannot
go.
You
cannot
go
below
it.
So
if
you
have
a
look
at
the
operational
and
credit
risk
premium
that
you
have,
instability
P
in
may
end
up
being
0.75
basis
points.
C
So
the
point
75
basis
points
may
be
the
floor
to
your
stability,
see
if
that
collateral
type
that
you
include
is
only
there's
only
one
of
them,
and
that
is
the
floor.
So
you'll
have
point:
seven
five
is
the
lowest
you
can
go,
in
other
words,
the
the
policy
part
of
it,
which
is
the
second
component,
would
be
zero
and
that's
kind
of
what
I've
been
talking
about
previously.
C
Is
that
your
stability
fear
has
many
facets
to
it,
of
which
one
is
as
a
policy
instrument
and
even
within
that,
and
this
depends
about
only
the
sort
of
granularity
of
the
levers
we
want
to
use.
You
can
have
a
policy
instrument
specific
to
the
collateral
type
and
you've
got
a
policy
instrument
specific
to
the
collateral
as
the
collateral
portfolio
as
a
whole.
So
that
is
something
that
is
already
taken
into
consideration.
So
you
use
spot-on
you
handled
the
same.
Correct
I
mean
you
can't
start
changing.
C
Instability,
see
like
the
very
risk
nature
of
the
collateral
type
that
you
that
you've
included
as
well.
It
may
be
a
time
where
you've
created
enough
buffer.
What
you
can
do
that,
but
at
the
moment
the
the
points
of
the
the
master
is
that
we
have
to
be
cognizant
of
both
parts.
So
you
have
salutely
right.
There.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
I
think
that
might
be
a
good
points
to
end
the
meeting.
One
last
question,
possibly
alright,
see
we
get
through
this
one
very
quickly.
Eric,
I'm,
gonna,
read
out
your
question
for
you.
Can
you
speak
a
bit
more
to
the
inventory
level
in
the
first
graph
that
was
presented
today,
ie
the
20%
of
dye
supply
who's.
The
inventory
was
that.
C
A
A
C
C
A
C
Ammar
can
make
from
the
regulatory
point
of
view,
and
this
is
very
important
a
mark
can
make
is
by
default.
A
dealer
and
dealer
is
a
very
clearly
defined
person
that
opens
himself
and
puts
himself
out
as
someone
who
has
inventory
for
the
public
to
come
in
and
purchase
himself
think
of
a
second-hand
car
salesman.
They
deal
in
cars,
so
they
tell
the
public
come
and
buy
cars.
For
me,
I
have
an
inventory
to
sell
to
you
because
you're,
including
the
public,
because
you're
putting
yourself
out
to
the
public.
The
public
needs
to
be
protected.
C
That's
why
the
regulation
is
in
place.
Now,
if
you
are
a
market
maker,
you
are
saying
to
the
public
I'm
going
to
make
two-way
prices
for
everybody
come
and
hit.
My
two-way
prices.
I
am
literally
making
myself
known
out
there
as
a
market
maker,
and
that
means
that
you
are
first
and
foremost
a
dealer,
so
think
about
the
car
salesman.
Again,
if
you
are
proprietary
trading,
this
you're
doing
this
for
your
own
accounts.
C
You
are
a
trade
of
first
and
foremost
you're,
not
putting
yourself
out
there
saying
that
you
are
providing
prices
you're,
not
selling
inventory.
You
are
basically
trading
for
the
purpose
of
looking
after
your
own
book,
so
you
do
not
have
special
privileges
and
the
one
thing
amar
could
make
it
does
within
exchange
and
they
actually
negotiate.
C
Contracts
within
exchange
is
to
get
a
privileged
position,
because
in
doing
so
they
will
provide
the
exchange
with
the
the
nexus,
the
the
necessary
bootstrapping
functionality
to
get
equality
in
I'm,
going
to
talk
about
traditional
market
now,
the
smaller
cap
stocks,
but
they
can
also
act
as
sort
of
the
momentum
in
the
sort
of
medium
cap
even
to
a
certain
extent
the
large
cap
stocks.
So
that's
the
most
important
thing.
If
you
have
a
privileged
position
like
a
dealer
or
like
a
market
maker,
then
you
are
de
facto
engaging
with
the
public.
C
You
need
regulation,
you
needs
public,
tubular
Tata.
If
you're
a
proprietary
trading
disc,
then
you
are
basically
trading
for
your
own
accord
and
if
it
just
so
happens
that
you
crazy
market
making
function,
you
can
almost
see
it
like
the
high
frequency
traders.
Do
they
not.
You
know,
to
a
certain
extent
the
are
market
makers,
they
go
to
the
exchange
and
they
make
a
deal
with
exchange
and
they
have
to
be
licensed
which
they
are
there's
some
other
high
frequency
traders
and
just
literally
sit
there.
C
What's
a
bootstrap
in
the
quick
supervision
system,
we're
also
doing
that
with
the
idea
of
same
as
a
proprietary
trading
disk,
we're
not
only
putting
this
out
there,
but
we're
also
creating
a
template
to
show
everyone
that,
yes,
you
can
do
it
as
well
and
at
the
same
time,
if
you
wish
to
submit
to
the
stability
feed-
and
it's
inherently
important
for
you
to
be
very
transparent
as
to
as
to
why
you're
doing
that.
So
we
don't
have
the
2003
2014
issue
with
liable
where
everyone
was
submitting,
but
nobody
knows
why
they
were
submitting
okay.
A
That's
great
contacts:
Thank
You
Stephen
people
are
starting
to
miss
their
next
call,
myself
included.
So
let's
wrap
it
up
you
there.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
for
joining
us,
thanks
Joe
for
those
graphs
that
was
great
and
looking
forward
to
seeing
some
more
in
the
future
Thank
You
Steven
for
your
time
and
we're
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
first
draft
of
that
proposal.
Next,
Tuesday
I
think
you
said,
is
that
true,
yes,.