►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 52
Description
Governance Segment
- Richard Brown: Results of Mandate polls (Cyrus and I aren't fired)
- LongForWisdom: Governance at a Glance
Oracle Segment
- Nik Kunkel - will continue his tour of the new Oracle systems
Risk Segment
- Cyrus Younesssi: DSR Q&A
- Vishesh Choudry: State of the Peg
We'll then spend the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Threads: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/439
Podcast version: https://feeds.soundcloud.com/playlists/soundcloud:playlists:623643288/sounds.rss
Summaries: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/summaries
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours): https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-and-risk-meetings/transcripts
Foundation Proposal: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/core-principles
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://community-development.makerdao.com/governance/governance-risk-framework/part-one
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Forum: https://forum.makerdao.com/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
A
So
today
we
have
government's,
we
have
Oracle's
and
we
have
risk
and
the
governance.
Oh
sorry,
I
forgot
my
Granville's
again.
I
am
going
to
continue
to
beg
and
grovel.
If
people
have
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask
those
questions
at
any
moment,
so
type
them
in
the
chat.
If
you
don't
have
access
to
a
microphone,
if
you
do
have
access
to
a
microphone,
please
interrupt
us.
We
love
it.
When
that
happens,
and
and
just
ask
away,
we
will
deal
with
questions
as
they
arise.
A
If
you
want
to
formulate
your
questions
and
ask
later,
we
at
the
top
of
the
hour
at
the
end
of
the
hour,
will
have
just
a
general
Q&A
session,
so
we'll
stick
around
for
30
minutes
and
talk
about
anything
that
people
might
have
on
their
minds.
I
think
that's
it!
That's
enough
for
the
preambles
today
I'm
going
to
try
and
keep
this
as
tight
as
I,
possibly
can
so
in
the
governance
world.
A
We
have
a
couple
of
interesting
things
happen,
the
good
news
and
more
good
news,
I
guess
the
good
news
being
that
the
community
shows
overwhelmingly
not
to
fire,
Cyrus
and
rich
from
from
the
government
ecosystem.
That
was
nice
to
hear
so
we
still
have
public
jobs,
so
the
government's
a
facilitator
role
was
ratified,
with
a
99.9
percent
approval
rating
still
daily.
Appreciating
whoever
it
was
about
$20
and
vote,
no
against
me,
I
love
you.
What
does
India
t-shirt
if
you
like
this
new,
your
address
cyrus,
on
the
other
hand,
was
a
hundred.
A
Point
five
percent,
more
approachable
than
I
am,
I
suppose
the
good
news.
There,
though,
is
that
we
can
begin
to
start
doing
some
work
in
earnest.
I
believable
I
Cyrus's
voted
no
I
actually
planned
to
buy
twenty
one
dollars
and
make
her
and
vote
no
against
Cyrus.
Just
to
make
my
stats
look
better,
but
I
forgot
so
yeah.
We
have
like
a
lot
of
work
to
do,
and
so
we
are
going
to
start
doing
that.
A
Work
and
part
of
that
work
is
evidenced
by
the
activity
in
the
forums
recently
and
I'm
going
to
let
long
fruit
and
I
gotta
steal.
His
thunder
long
for
wisdom
can
tell
us
about
a
bit
about
some
of
that,
but
we've
had
these
slow
burn
issues
for
a
while.
Now
around
cadence
of
the
votes
list,
ability
fees
the
questions
around.
Do
we
really
need
to
be
doing
this?
Every
single
week
community
has
gotten
together
and
debated.
That
issue
can
come
to
some
conclusions
and
we'll
be
hearing
about
that
soon.
A
The
same
process
has
occurred
around
the
rate
stepping.
So
when
we
have
these
stability
votes,
we
have
semi-long
basically
come
out
and
say
an
arbitrary
number
of
options
in
these
votes
we've.
We
chose
previously
just
pick
four
above
and
four
below
the
current
stability
fee,
and
that's
what
people
can
vote
on
why
it
sounds
good.
It
turns
out
that
there's
a
bit
more
sophisticated
and
elegant
ways
of
doing
that,
and
the
community
has
been
talking
about
an
exponential
rate
stepping
and
so
well
with
the
into
that
event.
A
Endorse
it,
because
I
would
think
that
this
is
a
beneficial
activity,
so
I
need
to
walk
this
fine
line.
The
community
keeps
on
lowering
the
stability
fee,
which
is
good,
that's
a
very
good
thing,
because
this
shows
the
ecosystem
that
the
the
maker
holders,
the
voters
are
not.
You
know,
self-interest
to
the
point
of
self-destruction,
they're
not
going
to
race
the
stability
fee
endlessly
in
some
hopes
of
burning
all
the
maker
in
existence.
They
will
actually
lower
the
stability
Funes
appropriate.
A
This
shows
that
the
community
and
the
maker
holders
hold
the
stability
of
died,
paramount
over
everything
else,
and
that's
precisely
what
this
ecosystem,
or
what
this
governance
ecosystem
is
designed.
Ultimately,
to
do
we
need
to
support
the
peg,
so
we
can
support
the
protocol,
so
we
can
protocol
can
support
D,
Phi
and
D
if
I
could
take
over
the
world
and
that's
precisely
where
all
of
that
so
thoughts
of
good
things
happening
there.
A
A
Governance
is
going
to
be
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
more
to
talk
buttoning
governance
over
the
next
few
months,
but
let's
nuts
drown
out
the
interesting
things
that
are
happening
in
the
Oracles
world
which
we'll
get
to
in
a
second
before
we
do
that
that
I
want
to
hand
it
over
to
you
Lanka
wisdom.
If
you
can
give
us
a
recap
of
the
cool
things
that
are
happening
in
the
forms,
yeah.
D
So
that's
so
I
made
a
threads
specifically
about
the
current
signaling
process,
as
I
currently
as
I
see
what
it
is
currently
I
guess:
sort
of
a
description
of
waters
of
what
I
view
it
to
be.
There's
been
discussion
around
that
as
well.
This
is
fairly
important
because
in
sort
of
interacts
with
how
the
signal
crests
are
getting
kind
of
pushing
or
going
so,
if
you
think
they're
going
wrong
in
some
way,
then
let
me
know
that
foot
oh
yeah
I
have
it
in
in.
A
D
Yeah
so
I'm,
essentially
suggesting
that
we
split
up
in
two
stages.
Those
three
stages
I,
think
it's
good
to
start
with
a
sort
of
more
general
sort
of
question
of
whether
there
is
appetite
for
change
in
some
form,
it's
not
sort
of
specifically
but
sort
of
generally
around
an
issue,
and
so
that
lets
us
sort
of
early
exit.
If,
like
everyone,
is
kind
of
fine
with
something
like
if
someone's
just
you
know,
picking
up
some
personal
personal
Bugaboo
with
the
system,
then
everyone
consider
say
it's
fine
and
it
end
early.
D
So
why
we
did
that
said,
you
can
also
discuss
more
specific
things
as
we're
signaling,
for
that
general
change,
parallelism
there
to
try
and
increase
efficiency
in
stage
two
we.
So
if
there's
actually
appetite
for
change,
then
we
go
to
stage
two.
It
creates
a
multi
choice
poll
that
lets
everyone
signal,
yes
or
no
to
any
of
the
suggested,
specific
options
that
haven't
discussed
or
proposed
by
members
of
the
community,
and
it
suggests
that
lasts
for
two
weeks,
because
I
think
you
need
two
weeks
to
to
get
to
given
everyone
enough
time
to
vote.
A
Course,
I
am
anybody
who's
interested
in
getting
involved
with
governance
check
this
out,
because
this
is
an
example
of
a
merchant
process
that's
forming
in
the
community,
which
is
going
to
be
big
for
SBA.
We
have
there's
two
ways:
we
can.
Let's
divide
the
world
up
at
arbitrary
pieces,
so
it's
looking
finer
on
binary
perspective.
There's
two
ways
we
can
do
this.
We
can
either
come
up
with
a
600
page
manual
about
how
covered
is
going
to
work
and
attempt
to
predict
how
the
future
will
shake
out.
I,
think
that
might
be
fraught
with
peril.
A
The
other
option
and
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
is
let's
just
not
figure
out
anything
and
just
see
what
happens
as
we
go
along
and
then
there's
a
happy
middle
ground
between
those
two.
Those
two
ends
where
we
make
we
set
targets
for
ourselves
in
the
future.
We
know
what
we
hope
governance
will
be,
and
then
we
plan
out
how
we're
going
to
get
there
in
increments,
reasonable
increments.
It's
it's
always
tough
to
predict
how
the
future
was
going
to
look
at
all
ever,
but
more
and
more
specifically
with
crypto.
A
This
is
very
accelerated
and
rapidly
evolving
ecosystems,
so
the
the
things
that
are
happening
in
the
forum
right
now
are
examples
of
how
people
choose
to
stop
organizing
in
the
framework
that
we
have
to
work
with
here
and
it's
important
that
we
remain
cognizant
of
that
evolution
and
that
people's
step
up
and
speak
and
have
their
voices
heard.
It's
not,
but
also
these
are
all
living
documents,
and
it
also
gives
us
enough
velocity
to
implement
things
and
to
do
what
needs
to
be
done
in
order
to
make
this
protocol
a
success.
A
A
If
you
have
any
suggestions
about
how
it
can
be
improved
or
any
comments,
please
add
them
look
was
and
what
I
think
I
want
to
ask
you
about,
though,
and
I
have
to
admit
that
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
pull
this
apart
yet,
but
I've
been
increasingly
interested
in
scheduling,
which
sounds
like
the
most
boring
thing,
a
person
could
possibly
be
interested
in,
but
there
are
some
interesting
questions
to
be
answered
here.
So
we
have
somebody
comes
into
the
forum,
they
make
a
proposal
about
something
or
they
ask
an
important
question.
A
How
long
do
we
talk
about
that
question
and
how
do
we
determine
that?
That
question
has
been
answered
and
then
how
long
do
we
wait
for
a
full
vote
to
happen
and
then
how
long
do
we
wait
for
a
governance
poll
to
occur
these?
These
are
all
things
that
I'm
I'm
really
having
trouble
wrapping
my
head
around,
because
we
can't
predict
the
level
of
interest
at
a
specific
issue
we
might
have.
We
can't
predict
the
level
of
debate
that
it
requires.
We
we
have
to
sort
of.
A
D
For
sure,
so,
just
to
go
back
a
second
to
one
that
you
just
said
just
about
the
whole
figuring
everything
ahead,
sort
of
figuring
out
as
you
as
you
sort
of
go,
just
sort
of
don't
say
like
there's
a
description
I
did
is
descriptive
rather
than
prescriptive
right.
It's
literally
just
my
view
of
how
it
I'm
planning
to
run
the
next
couple
of
lacing
requests
right.
So
anyone
can
come
along
and
do
something
different
or
say
something.
Different
I'll
suggest
something
different
in
regards
to
scheduling
they
say
in
the
state.
D
It's
the
second
stage
stage
two,
where
everyone
sort
of
discussed,
specific
proposals
and
there's
kind
of
a
requirement
in
that
step.
That's
one
of
those
specific
rules
gets
a
majority
votes
with
a
reasonable
number
of
voters.
So
my
suggestion,
if
it's
is
that
doesn't
happen,
then
you
essentially
repeat:
that
is
tire
stage
and
you.
D
A
That
dropping
it
and
coming
back
so
it's
interesting
to
me
as
well.
Do
we
need
to
I
see
there's
value
in
creating
a
sense
of
urgency
so,
like
the
community
needs
to
learn
that
you
don't
check
in
and
we
once
every
two
weeks
might
miss
some
things
which
I
think
might
be
a
reasonable
expectation
for
engaged
stakeholders?
What
happens
if
we
wanted
to
have
debates?
That's
just
let's.
Let's
just
think
about
this,
and
if
people
care
we'll
do
it
at
some
point
like?
A
D
We
kind
of
already
have
that
in
terms
of
just
general
threats
that
discuss
things
like
'hey,
you
don't
have
to
make
like
a
signal
request
threats.
The
signal
rest
is
more
sort
of
when
something's
been
discussed
and
sort
of
people.
There's
some
consensus
that
some
point
I
guess.
Then
you
set
that
up
and
then
try
and
move
through
the
process.
D
Hard
to
judge
specific
evidence,
I
mean
no
one's
been
sort
of
coming
out
and
saying
like
this
is
way
way
too
much.
All
the
time
I
mean
this.
There's
always
a
couple
of
people
saying
that,
but
no
one
that's
engage
has
really
been
saying
that
yeah,
it's
really
hard
because
the
more
time
everyone's
kind
of
commit
to
it,
the
better
decisions
we
can
make.
Obviously
that's
the
trade-off
right,
see
ya.
A
At
the
same
challenge,
that
david
has
that
a
week
can
slip
by
very
quickly
and
very
easily
and
thinking
oh
man.
What
am
I,
what
have
I
missed
and
then
having
to
spend
an
hour
to
trying
to
catch
up
in
those
forms?
It's
gonna
be
tough,
but
anyways.
I
think
that
these
these
are
obviously
challenges.
We
just
need
to
address
over
time.
The
fact
that
we
have
so
much
activity
that
it
takes
a
while
to
catch
up
is
probably
the
best
problem.
A
Me
too,
I
could
not
be
happier
that's
and
if
you
knew
me
at
all,
you
know
how
what
strange
thing
that
is
from
unison.
Oh
it's
from
a
super
high
level
is
both
management
of
human
risk
and
we
haven't.
We
haven't
rubbed
buck's
up
to
that
into
that
risk,
yet
which
I'm
super
happy
about.
There's
a
lot
of
smart
people
doing
a
lot
of
smart
things
and
a
lot
of
smart
ways
and
I'm
very
excited
about
how
this
thing
is
shaking
all
right.
Sorry
for
it
for
derailing
you
long
for
wisdom.
D
D
Let's
see
what
else
via
so
the
C
natural
signal
press
thoughts
as
well,
so
just
to
sort
of
reach
over.
You
said
the
exponential
rate,
stepping
threads
I
think
it's
probably
at
a
point
where
we
want
to
move
on
chain.
We
kind
of
vote.
It's
a
reasonable
number
of
people's
need
to
vote
it.
They
want
to
move
on
chain
in
a
specific
form.
So
I
guess
that's
sort
of
looking
at
you,
I!
Guess
the
sort
of
asks
of
how
that
proceeds.
From
this
point,
I
guess
yeah.
A
It's
an
interesting
question
and
the
the
plan
is
that
once
the
community
signals
that
support
for
something,
then
the
wheels
of
bureaucracy
begin
to
spin
and
then
it
gets
scheduled
for
moving
into
the
portal
itself.
So
one
of
the
things
I
think
I've
cautioned
in
a
thread
somewhere,
but
possibly
not
enough.
We're
in
the
right
spot
is
that
there's
overhead,
there's
administrative
overhead
with
moving
these
things
out
of
the
port
out
of
the
four
minutes,
the
portal,
and
it
would
be
nice
to
add
some
predictability.
Is
this
thing?
A
So
my
hope
is
that
the
community
would
be
fine
with
at
some
point,
consensus
has
been
established,
there's
some
kind
of
ceremony
or
something
where
the
poll
is
closed.
The
thread
is
ended
and
then
at
that
point
the
timer
starts
or
something
and
then
the
next
Monday
of
next
business
week.
Then
it
goes
into
the
forum
I
mean
into
the
governance
portal.
I
think
it
would
be
my
plant.
A
A
And
you
and
I
have
spoken
about
this,
that
you
have
visibility
on
the
ground
and
acting
sort
of
as
an
advocate
for
the
community,
or
at
least
an
administrator,
an
ad
hoc
administrator.
Now
we
need
to
tighten
up
our
communication
have
been
so
we're
gonna.
Have
these
weekly
calls?
So
you
just
letting
me
know,
what's
going
on
and
reminding
me
what
needs
to
be
done
next,
which
would
be
only
short-term
yeah.
D
So
the
only
other,
the
other
one
was
the
suno
Crestor,
the
cadence,
like
the
one
we
questions
to
week
versus
potentially
longer
cadence.
So
it's
a
sort
of
come
about
so
they're
sort
of
steps
sort
of
stage,
one
generalife,
a
type
of
change-
seems
to
be
kind
of
mixed
I.
Think
it's
about
50/50
in
terms
of
whether
we're
happy
with
the
one-week
cadence
or
whether
we
want
to
change
to
attend.
A
This
is
something
else
that
I'm
super
interested
in
there's.
This
notion
that
we
need
to
have
sort
of
overall
I
should
say
overwhelming,
but
we
need
to
have
a
visible
or
a
comfortable
level
of
it.
Remit
in
the
form
before
things
can
go
to
the
portal
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
we're
potentially
talking
about
two
different
demographics
here,
so
we
have
in
the
community.
A
In
the
forum
we
have
more
of
a
representative
democracy
in
the
loosest
most
easily
sibling
attacked
form
imaginable,
but
this
is
just
people
on
talking
about
things.
We
can
get
aggregated
some
numbers
about.
There
are
some
data,
but
amount
of
people.
That's
show
up
in
the
month
of
people,
say
again
but
frequently.
Why
don't?
A
What
I
want
to
community
to
consider,
though,
is
that,
even
if
there
isn't
overwhelming
support
in
the
forums,
there
still
might
be
value
in
putting
something
in
the
portal
for
the
maker
holders
and
a
large
two-photon
I
suppose,
as
I
started,
saying,
oh,
that
this
sounded
like
sort
of
it
I
realized
it
was
half
flat
up,
but
it's
something
that
I
want
to
consider
like.
Is
this,
so
is
this
a
filter
for
anything
that
gets
into
the
governance
portal?
Does
it
have
to
have
a
certain
level
of
support
in
the
forums?
A
A
D
D
Yes
or
no,
or
do
we
set
up
like
multiple
polls
that
we
let
them
vote
on
every
option
that
was
suggested
rather
than
just
like
the
top-rated
one
and
in
general
that
the
forum
seems
to
think
that
just
fell
on
like
the
top
rated
one
in
the
forum.
Of
course,
again,
that's
the
representative
democracy
saying
that
we
should
listen
to
yeah.
A
A
Cool
thanks
for
the
the
recap:
it's
great
to
surface
those
things
here,
Nick
I'm
gonna
turn
this
over
to
you
now
and
refresh
my
memory
or
and
or
clarify
whether
the
plant
has
changed.
Are
we
going
to
talk
about
sustainability
in
the
Oracle
system,
or
did
you
want
to
recap
some
of
those
things
that
happened
last
week,
I.
F
C
I'll
just
say
a
couple
of
words:
I
did
the
AC
part,
which
was
sitting
alone
with
my
computer
programming,
some
of
the
technology
that
goes
behind
it.
Now
you
get
the
fun
part
of
actually
turning
this
turning
it
into
a
community
and
expanding
it
to
governance.
So
I
wish
you
the
best
of
luck
and
I'll,
be
helping
as
well
with
whatever
I.
Can
that
excited
that
we're
finally
like
this
is
what
we
always
wanted
to
do
right,
so
we're
at
the
steps
where
the
Oracles
are
gonna
become
even
more
interesting.
F
Why
are
we
doing
this,
and
why
now
the
Oracles
were
always
meant
to
be
handed
over
to
to
governance,
and
it's
part
of
this
drive
of
gradual
decentralization
that
the
foundation
has
committed
to
that
we're
starting
to
do
this
now
and
in
particular,
the
proposal
that
I
think
I
I
think
was
the
most
confusing
to
people
was
the
one
talking
about
the
incentives
and
and
why?
Why
do
we
need
them?
Why?
A
F
So
this
diagram
is
showing
the
different
actors
in
the
Oracle
ecosystem.
So
on
the
bottom
left
here
we
have
you
guys
for
the
maker
token
holders
we
on
the
top.
Here
we
have
the
feats
and
I
think
this
maybe
wasn't
as
clear
last
week
about
what
a
feed
is,
but
feeds
are
kind
of
humans
or
organizations
that
are
running
a
bot
and
all
this
bot
does
is
it
sources
the
prices
or
an
asset?
And
then
it
signs.
F
You
know
with
your
identity,
saying
I
think
you
know
feed
a
thinks.
The
price
of
Bitcoin
is
this
and
essentially
feeds
are
the
input
for
the
Oracle
smart
contracts,
where
people
will
actually
get
the
canonical
Oracle
price
from
so
here
in
this
diagram
you
can
see
the
feats
are
pushing
the
prices
to
the
Oracles
more
contracts
and
then
on
the
bottom.
F
Here
you
have
kind
of
data
consumers,
so
you
can
think
of
them
as
a
snaps
or
other
smart
contracts
and
other
smart
contracts
can
then
read
the
prices
from
the
from
the
Oracle
SWAT
contracts
and
they're
meant
to
then
remunerate
MKR
holders
in
some
way,
and
so
why?
Why
did
we
set
it
up
this
way?
You
know
we
didn't
use
to
regulate
access
on
the
on
the
oracle
prices
to
to
external
partners.
You
know
why.
Why
are
we
starting
to
do
this
now?
F
Currently,
the
dev
fund
is
paying
feet
for
the
price
service
that
they're
providing.
It
is
the
attention
that
eventually,
MKR
holders
will
take
over
that
responsibility
through
the
use
of
stability
fees,
because
you
know
the
maker
foundation
may
not
be
around
forever.
You
know,
may
not
have
you
know
buckets
of
money
forever,
and
so,
if
you
want
to
make
a
resilient
Oracle
system,
you
need
to
decentralize
the
funding
of
it
as
well,
and
the
stability
fee
mechanism
provides
a
nice
way
to
do
that.
F
But
if
mkl
holders
are
going
to
be
spending
on,
you
know
there
are
their
money
on
feeds,
they're
going
to
probably
want
some
way
to
then
monetize
that
feed
infrastructure
right
if
they're
paying
the
feeds
and
they're
administrating
this
entire
Oracle
ecosystem,
it
only
makes
sense
that
they
have
the
ability
to
monetize
it
as
well.
So
that's
why
we've
added
this
whitelist
to
the
Oracle,
smart
contracts
and
essentially
the
white
list,
is
a
list
of
smart
contract
addresses
that
governance
controls.
F
So
you
guys
get
to
decide
who
is
allowed
to
read
prices
from
the
Oracle's
and
who
is
not,
and
in
doing
so
I
you
can
charge
a
fee
for
that
right,
so
you
can
go
to
token
company
X
right
and
they
they
want
to
read
the
BTC
price,
and
you
know
you
guys
can
say:
okay,
good!
Well,
that's
gonna
cost
you.
You
know
five
thousand
die
annually
or
something
like
that
or
maybe
you
say
you
know
some
of
them
monthly
right.
F
There's
there's
a
couple
of
things
here,
though,
so
what
this
proposal
does?
Is
it's
not
actually
enforcing
this
particular
combination
of
relationships
between
all
the
actors
right
so
I
said
earlier
that
the
maker
Development
Fund
is
paying
the
fees
right
now.
So
really,
this
piece
does
not
is
not
applicable
to
to
this
proposal.
F
F
You
know
for
for
better
or
worse,
we
we
don't
even
know
the
extent
to
how
many
of
them
they
really
are-
and
this
is
just
by
nature
of
us
being
the
first
to
release
any
Oracle's
and
maintain
them.
So
the
ecosystem
kind
of
really
grew
very
very
quickly
by
just
integrating
our
Oracle's
and
everything,
and
so
we
don't
know,
we
don't
want
to
risk
some
kind
of
chain
reaction
by
kind
of
pulling
the
rug
out
from
everyone
and
saying:
okay,
now
you're
cut
off
from
warbles,
and
nobody
has
a
plant
beat
right.
F
So
even
by
adding
this
whitelist,
don't
we
don't
have
to
actually
use
it
right
away.
It
is
a
another
tool
for
mk
our
token
holders
to
kind
of
use
down
the
road
and
another
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
that
there
are
ways
to
utilize
the
whitelist
to
extract
value
from
the
Oracle
ecosystem.
That
is
not
monetary.
F
So,
for
example,
you
could
have
some
kind
of
quid
pro
quo
relationship
between
someone
who
wants
to
do
something
right
for
us.
What
else
looking
access
to
the
Oracles?
So,
let's
say:
there's
a
deck
and
this
Dex
wants
to
start
offering
margin
trading.
Well,
if
you
want
to
offer
margin
trading,
you're
going
to
need
Oracle's
right
to
know
when
to
liquidate
the
position,
so
I
went
to
margin
call.
So
what?
F
If
we
could
have
a
deal
with
this
Dex
where
we
say
hey,
you
know
we'll
give
you
the
Oracle
services,
but
in
exchange
you
know,
we
want
you
to
list
that
as
a
base
token.
You
know
trading
pair
right.
So
these
are.
These
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
are
better
possible,
so
I
kind
of
just
want
to
get
everyone's
minds
thinking
more
in
in
that
direction
and
so
to
just
really
drill
this
point
home.
F
The
acceptance
of
this
proposal
does
not
mean
that
this
is
what's
going
to
happen
on
day
one
when
we
launch
Oracle's
speech
right
that
the
maker
Development
Fund
will
still
be
paying
for
the
fees
you
know
ideally
you're
not
going
to
charge
people
for
the
first
year.
You
know
to
actually
use
the
Oracles,
but
it
isn't
in
explicit
approval
that
this
is
the
model
and
relationship
of
incentives
and
actors
that
we're
moving
towards.
F
A
B
A
First,
second
I
would
tuck
them
in
the
chat
beside
or
ask
us
now.
We
will
also
have
like
I
said
earlier:
30
minutes
at
the
end
of
the
hour
to
do
random,
Q&A
thanks
for
that
Nick.
That
was
great
Cyrus
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
risk.
Now,
if
you
want
to
you,
take
it
away,
did
you
want
to
talk
about
the
DSR
today
or
do
you
want
to
talk
about
the
peg
first.
G
You
know
I'm
thinking
of
maybe
holding
off
for
a
week
on
the
DSR
talks
because
seems
like
there's
a
there's.
Some
good
discussion,
kind
of
getting
started
in
the
forums
kind
of,
and
we
just
I
think
the
blog
just
went
out
yesterday
the
day
before
some
thing
came
kind
of
letting
that
stew
for
a
bit
and
then
circling
back
when
we've
heard
some
more
thoughts.
G
I'm
gonna
skip
the
mechanics
portion
of
it
and
just
kind
of
focus
on
the
governance
and
risk
portion.
That
was
that
I
highlighted
in
the
forum
thread,
so
I
guess
the
first
major.
It's
not
really
a
decision,
but
rather
a
an
educational
topic
is
where
the
DSR
even
comes
from,
and
how
its
created
and
so
forth.
So
essentially
the
the
DSR
is
right.
When
you
put
dye
into
the
DSR
contract
and
then
you
retrieve
it.
Obviously
you
are.
You
are
taking
a
more
dive
in
so
a
natural
question
where
this
additional
dye
comes
from.
G
The
DSR
contract
has
the
functionality
to
essentially
just
print
that
dye
and
give
it
to
you,
regardless
of
any
any
exogenous
factors
such
as
collateral
or
whatnot,
and
at
first
glance
this
seems
concerning
right
because
kind
of
the
main,
the
main
tagline.
It
has
always
been
collateral
back
dye,
and
this
appears
to
be
an
instance
where
dye
is
being
minted
without
any
collateral
being
posted
against
it.
G
But
to
kind
of
remedy
this
little
issue,
the
amount
of
DSR
that
is
created,
gets,
gets,
waited,
not
wait
but
gets
counted
against
the
the
collected
stability
fees
or
the
the
internal
surplus
of
the
system
such
that.
If,
for
whatever
reason
there
wasn't
enough
collected
stability
fees
to
pay
out
the
DSR,
then
then
the
DSR
essentially
gets
recorded
as
bad
debt
right
and
so
would
be
subject
to
a
MKR
dilution.
So
the
point
being
that,
on
the
technical
side
of
things,
DSR
is
paid
for
by
MKR
holders
out
of
the
accrued
stability
fees.
G
And
so
the
question
is:
to
what
extent
do
we
allow
for
I?
Don't
know
if
subsidy
is
the
correct
word
here,
but
essentially
do
we
allow
for
for
leeway
for
certain
collateral
types
and
then
either
the
m'kay
either?
Am
care
holders
pay
for
it?
Out
of
the
this
total
stability
fees
collected
or
potentially,
there
are
options
of
collateral,
specific
DSR
adjustments.
So,
for
example,
if
there's
a
particular
collateral
type
that
is
extreme,
the
popular
is
generating
a
lot
of
dye
and
is
for
whatever
reason
contributing
to.
G
G
Other
questions
are:
how
do
we
even
go
about
calculating
or
evaluating
these
these
phenomenon
phenomena
in
the
sense
that
will
we
even
be
able
to
kind
of
assess
which
collateral
types
are
contributing
more
or
less
than
than
other
collateral
types
towards
a
particular
dye
price
decline
and
stuff?
Like
that,
you
all
should
give
it
a
read
and
think
about
some
of
these
topics
and
post
some
thoughts.
G
Or
become
okay
yeah,
so
anyone
has
any
known
as
any
questions
we
can
move
on
to
the
monetary
policy
aspect.
Okay,
one
question:
Alan
says
why
not
start
the
DSR
at
zero
and
then
increase
it
yeah.
That's
an
interesting
idea
that
was
that
was
brought
up
a
few
other
times
so
I
think
one
one
answer
to
that
is
under
the
current
governance
cycle
that
we
are
proposing.
G
G
B
Just
to
kind
of
set
the
stage
what's
been
going
on
in
the
last
week
or
so
ethers
been
comparatively
stable.
There's
not
been
that
much
activity.
It
did
pick
up
slightly,
but
more
or
less
pretty
stable.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
reflected
in
what's
been
going
on
with
collateral,
so
not
much
movement
in
terms
of
the
total
amount
of
collateral
Locke
not
much
at
it,
not
much
removed,
not
since
basically
the
end
of
August
so
actually
again,
comparatively
quiet.
So
the
just
touch
on
the
stability
Theory,
real
quick.
B
So
you
know
we
saw
that
there
were
a
few
drops
to
the
stability
for
you
over
the
last
couple
weeks.
You
know
first
eighteen,
point
five,
then
sixteen
and
14.5
on
the
September
8th.
So
what's
really
interesting,
is
during
these
first
couple
of
drops.
There
was
there's
actually
a
dropping,
classify
at
the
end
of
the
day,
which
is
very
on,
but
around
the
fourth.
This
started
to
tick
up
a
bit
and
then,
with
the
14.5
percent
drop
on
the
eighth
it
ticked
up
a
little
bit
more.
B
B
You
know
total
of
a
millionaire
couple
million
over
those
few
days
which
actually
basically
more
or
less
just
balanced
out
some
of
the
drops
just
at
the
end
of
the
month.
So
all
in
all,
Indy,
like
one
month
time
scale
pretty
level,
but
there
was
a
dip
before
and
then
after
this
relief,
he
was
increased.
Their
decrease
a
little
bit
of
a
recovery
so
interesting
to
watch.
This
trajectory
will
potentially
keep
increasing,
but
it
should
but
hard
to
say,
given
you
know,
the
things
seen
compared
to
Glee
kind
of
quiet
right
now.
B
As
far
as
just
some
of
the
long-term
activity,
you
know
what
we
saw
was
in
collateral
terms.
Basically,
the
evaluation
of
the
community
on
the
amount
of
risk
that
they
need
to
manage
in
their
CD
piece
was,
you
know,
sort
of
over
the
beginning
of
the
year
that
was
pretty
significant.
Then
it
had
slowed
down
a
bit
and
so
the
amount
of
locked
collateral
and
started
going
down
and
getting
outpaced
by
the
amount
of
collateral
that
was
being
moved.
And
then
you
know
relatively
recently,
just
beginning
of
August.
B
The
amount
being
removed
started
to
slow
down
pretty
significantly
and
the
amount
that
was
being
added
started
recovering
again
a
little
bit.
So
now
these
are
kind
of
on
pace,
but
in
nominal
terms
the
the
curves
have
not
been
moving
that
much
and
then
in
terms
of
debt.
So
you
know
the
amount
of
debt
that's
been
being
pulled
out,
had
kind
of
consistently
been
increasing
throughout
the
history
of
maker
and
then
again
somewhere
around
end
of
mid
end
of
July.
That
slowed
down
a
little
bit.
B
B
I
think
it
runs
pretty
familiar
with
this
phenomenon.
Its
point,
if
price
had
sort
of
in
the
longer
run,
been
decreasing
a
bit
since
July
and
so
collateral,
which
was
initially
being
which
was
initially
dropping
due
to
the
nominal
dropping
price,
was
sort
of
recovered
and
reversing
that
trend.
So
again,
people
perceive
that
as
a
price
drops,
there's
increased
risk
into
the
add
more
collateral.
That
is
a
pretty
well-known
phenomena
at
this
point,
at
least
in
this
relationship
between
debt
and
eath
price,
so
actually
kind
of
comparatively
not
very
well
related.
B
Instead,
as
a
lever,
people
started
to
manipulate
the
amount
of
debt
that
they
had.
So
basically,
as
that
collateralization
ratio
fell,
one
of
the
more
common
activities
rather
than
adding
back
collateral
was
actually
to
remove
some
death,
clear
it
out,
refined
into
it
whatever,
and
so
that's
I
think
part
of
the
reason
why
you
saw
some
of
this
drop
in
debt
and
and
that's
pretty
well
explicable
by
a
bit
of
a
decreased
demand
for
leverage
given
the
way
each
price
had
been
broken.
B
E
I
know
that
a
lot
of
times
when
we
look
at
the
24
hour
die
volume
weighted
average
price
chart.
It's
usually
a
lot
more.
It
follows
that
kind
of
bell
curve
distribution,
whereas
lately
in
the
last
day
or
two
I've,
noticed
that
it's
been
a
lot
more
fragmented
and
like
weird,
do
you
have
an
idea
about
that?
Do
you
think.
B
B
I
mean
lower
volume
will
do
that.
The
the
prices
I
think
follow
a
better
curve
when
there's
stronger
volumes,
which
makes
sense
when
there's
lower
volumes
easier
to
be
a
victim
of
slippage.
Easier
to
you
know,
sort
of
have
price
impacts
from
major
trades.
So
just
naturally
you
do
tend
to
see
that
sort
of
spread
out
a
little
bit
more.
So
I
really
do
think
that's
the
expansion.
It
is
interesting
to
see
on
low
volume
days.
Sorry
I
do
nerd
out
a
little
bit
on
low
volume
days.
B
It
is
interesting
to
see
some
of
the
like
microstructure
patterns.
So,
what's
cool,
is
you
see
khyber
here
at
Lee,
lakes
or
low
and
high
ends
of
these
prices?
Coinbase
is
almost
always
like
dead
center.
Oasis
is
generally
dead
center,
with
maybe
a
little
bit
of
a
wider
spread.
Unis
swap
is
pretty
flat
throughout
and
intends
to
get
pushed
up
either
to
a
higher
end
or
to
a
lower
end,
usually
says
it's
pretty
interesting.
Just
watch
these
microstructures
at
some
point.
B
So
I
think
with
some
of
the
changes
in
the
fees
and
and
some
of
the
lower
supply
there,
it
is
easier
for
some
of
these
platforms
like
run
into
a
bit
of
a
crunch,
so
the
rates
can
jump
up
or
drop
down
a
little
bit
more
than
they
had
say
three
months
ago,
and
so
that's
where
you
start
to
see
some
of
the
spikes
and
valleys
that
that
you
can
explain
around
stability
fee
changes,
though
that
makes
sense.
What's
interesting
is
with
the
14.5
percent
drop.
B
B
Additionally,
you
see
in
the
borrow
volumes,
so
borrow
volume
was
for
just
look
at
dydx
and
compound
separately,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
all
together,
but
for
dydx
that
borrow
volume
had
picked
up.
Maybe
20-30
percent,
just
in
the
last
say
three
weeks
from
six
million
to
actually
up
to
about
nine
point.
Five
is
a
little
bit
more
Tintin
compound.
B
You
saw
from
the
end
of
August,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
jump
and
then
starting
to
dip
down
very
slightly
about
three
million,
just
not
a
huge
percentage
change
for
them,
but
but
it
is
a
little
bit
of
a
quieting
down,
and
you
do
see
this
like
sort
of
a
couple
month,
long
trend
of
about
27
26
million,
whereas
dydx
was
very
low
around
end
of
July
at
around
3
million,
and
you
know
has
basically
tripled
its
para
volumes
since
then,
but
nominally
smaller
numbers
on
dy/dx.
So
all
said
and
done.
B
The
total,
like
secondary
lending
borrower
volume
on
at
least
these
two
platforms,
around
30
million
in
and
Devoy
and
around
34
now
so
a
slight
increase,
but
overall,
comparatively
pretty
level.
What's
interesting.
Is
that
increase
was
primarily
happening
during
a
time
of
a
decreasing
stability
fee,
so
decreasing
civility
fee?
Theoretically,
having
these
positions
on
maker
itself
is
a
bit
more
attractive.
So
that's
a
bit
contrary
to
what
you
might
expect.
B
So
you
look
at
supply
volumes.
The
total
supply
again
around
end
of
July
was
around
35
million
and
now
is
up
to
about
48.
So
that's
a
pretty
significant
increase
and
that
does
sort
of
interestingly
correspond
to
the
time
of
the
dropping
civility
fee
as
well,
so,
but
that
as
bad
as
increased
steadily
increasing
so
I
would
actually
say.
The
interesting
part
about
supply
volume
on
the
secondary
lending
platforms
is
how
little
it
was
correlated
to
any
movement
in
the
stability.
B
It
just
appeared
to
be
a
somewhat
independent
trap,
so
we
look
at
the
excess
cash.
So
if
you
recall
two
three
months
ago,
we
were
looking
at
a
graph
that
was
decreasing
and
so
utilization
was
like
significantly
increasing
during
that
time.
During
the
same
time,
period
utilization
has
been
significantly
decreasing
and
again
leveling
around
this
sort
of
effective
floor
for
these
platforms
around
seventy
seventy-five
percent.
You
generally
don't
see
it
go
much
lower
than
that,
because
then
the
rates
start
responding
accordingly.
B
So
so
it
seems
to
be
a
bit
of
a
natural
economic
for
it,
though.
It's
not
like
a
hard
quarter,
hard-coded
Florida,
anything
so
yeah
the
excess
supply
on
these
secondary
lending
platforms
has
come
up.
So
it's
it's
a
very
interesting
time.
Right
now,
because
there's
a
lower
stability
fee,
there
is
a
bit
more
excess
supply
on
secondary
lending
platforms,
which,
as
we've
discussed,
can
often
be
interpreted
to
be
related
to
excess
supply.
B
So
it
would
be
interesting
to
see
what
happens
in
that
situation
and
how
resilient
it
actually
is.
Now,
because
you
know
what
we
did
observe
was
the
second
time
we
went
through
sort
of
that
situation.
Dye
was
a
bit
more
resilient
than
it
was
the
first
time
and
so
like
as
we
come
around
again,
it
will
be
very
interesting
to
watch
yeah
and
then
suggesting
the
the
longer
timescale,
seven
days
again
slightly
low
volumes.
B
There,
though,
it
has
been
lower
in
the
last
couple
days
than
it
was
overall
through
the
seven
days,
but
the
price
again
pre
smack-dab,
similar
to
the
the
price
for
the
last
24
hours.
So
this
you
do,
as
I
mentioned,
David
see
a
little
bit
more
of
that
curve,
primarily
because
it
is
that
longer
time
scale
and
you
do
see
sort
of
this
bimodal
situation
going
on
because,
basically,
for
a
few
days
there-
and
this
was
roughly
the
center
and
then
for
a
few
days-
this
was
the
center.
So
that's
what
it
explains.
B
That
was
just
a
bit
of
a
shift
in
price,
though
again
within
a
pretty
small
band.
When
you
really
think
about
things,
just
switches
through
that
do
decimal
places
view
yeah.
So
we
are
talking
about
a
pretty
small
range
of
variability
in
the
first
place.
Okay,
so
that's
the
top
of
the
hour.
I
will
pause
for
any
questions
and
then
hand
it
back
to
I.
Guess.
A
B
So
is
my
understanding
that
that
is
filtering
out
for
double-counting
right.
That's
a
data
set
that
I
get
from
from
the
labs
group,
but
yeah,
that
is,
that
is
filtering
out
some
degree
of
double
counting
with
regrets
to
get
to
Qyburn.
If
that
was
different,
it
was
a.
It
was
something
someone
tweeted
about
it
at
some
point
as
well.
We
address
that
a
while
back
you.
E
On
just
one
second,
since
this
call
just
as
general
manager,
since
this
call
is
recorded,
and
also
since
we
do
audio
versions.
It'd
be
good
to
like
really
clearly
read
out
the
questions.
So
yeah
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
people
record
listening
after
the
fact
to
get
a
sense
of
the
question.
Yeah.
B
B
This
is
the
the
Dex
eath
to
dye
trades
at
the
moment,
but
I
know
whoever
talked
about
potentially,
including
that
in
his
data
set,
which
would
make
it
easy
for
for
me
to
pull
I
think
it's
just
an
operational
thing,
there's
a
limited
number
of
hours
and
and
things
to
work
on,
and
so
a
lot
of
that
time
does
go
to
some.
You
know
like
the
risk,
modeling
work,
but
there's
no
specific
reason.
I
would
say
to
not
do
it
that
I
can
think
of.
A
B
A
Transition
here
so
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
if
people
would
like
to
hang
around
bro,
do
a
general
Q&A
for
the
next
20
or
30
minutes
or
until
interest
wanes
for
people
that
need
to
bounce,
though
thank
you
to
Nick
for
your
presentation,
Thank
You,
vishesh,
Nikki
long
for
wisdom.
That
was
a
very
interesting
call
standard
reminders
apply.
Please
join
the
discussion
in
the
governance
forum.
Threads
have
been
posted.
It's
not
hard
to
find
forum,
maker.com
lots
of
interesting
things
happening.
A
C
G
Let's
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
PSR
Allen
asks
after
the
DSR
when
making
changes
to
DSR
stability
fees
will
both
be
moved
at
the
same
I'm
or
will
want
to
be
prefer
to
go
on.
That's
a
really
good
question
and
I.
Don't
think
we
know
the
answer
right
now,
because
we'll
have
to
see
how
how
things
kind
of
shake
out,
but
essentially
it
depends.
It
depends
what
kind
of
behavior
you're
trying
to
incentivize.
G
So
if
we
wanted
to
create
more
demand
for
dye
than
we
could,
we
could
just
raise
the
DSR
without
necessarily
touching
the
stability
fee,
and
that
would
that
would
essentially
our
look
if
you're
trying
to
raise
the
dye
pricing,
then
that
should
obviously
have
an
effect.
This
secondary
part
of
that
would
be.
D
then
also
raise
this
to
raise
the
stability
fee
to
compensate
for
that
extra
DSR
and
I.
G
Guess,
if
you
did
both,
then
they
would
both
have
separate
effects
on
the
dye
price,
so
yeah,
I,
guess
I,
guess
we're
gonna
have
to
learn
through
the
governance
community,
how
we
want
to
tinker
these
parameters.
I
kind
of
thinking
that
there's
gonna
be
a
lot
of
overshooting
and
undershooting
and
not
entirely
sure
how
it's
going
to
shake
out
through
governance,
to
be
honest,
kind
of
the
the
goal
was
that
stability
fees
would
generally
not
be
too
variable.
G
So
oh
yeah
right,
so
one
idea
that
was
floated
around
was
that
stability
fees
would
only
change,
and
this
is
just
purely
hypothetical,
but
but
once
a
month
during
the
standard
governance
cycle,
so
every
month
we
can
evaluate
how
is
the
DSR
evolved
over
the
past
month
and
make
any
necessary
stability
fee
changes
and
then
the
DSR
itself
could
could
be
changed
separately
through
a
weekly
process.
So
every
week
we
could
have
a.
We
could
have
governance
for
DSR,
move
it
up
or
down,
but
then
only
only
change
the
stability
once
a
month.
G
G
G
Kind
of
think,
that's
that's,
certainly
technically
something.
That's
possible.
I
kind
of
imagine
we'll
see
some
community
some
community
implementations
of
that
pretty
soon
after
MCD
launches.
If
I
had
to
guess
yes,
something
that
I
know,
a
lot
of
people
would
be
looking
forward
to
stability
fee
changing
once
every
six
months.
The
question
is,
or
the
comment
is:
should
the
stability
feed
we
change
once
every
six
months,
I,
don't
think
you
can
really
set
any
cadence,
really
I.
G
Think
the
one
month
is
just
kind
of
under
standard
operating
procedures,
but
there
could
conceivably
be
times
where
you
need
to
have
mid
month.
Changes
for
some
sort
of
emergency
procedures,
I
think
it's
kind
of
okay
to
reevaluate
or
monitor
collateral
types
on
a
monthly
basis.
It
wouldn't
require
enormous
amount
of
work,
just
kind
of
some
checking
in
on
things.
I
know
at
some
point
in
the
past,
I
think
Lillian
had
floated
an
idea
about
doing
quarterly
evaluations,
we'll
see
I
think
in
the
early
days,
the
more
monitoring
and
and
updating.
G
G
D
G
Basically,
there
is
less
MKR
dilution
potential
for
the
rest
of
the
system.
Now,
III
I,
don't
think
it's
gonna
be
a
huge
deal,
a
small
scale
in
any
sense.
But
surely,
if
there's
a
situation
where
the
DSR
is
like
needs
to
be
like
10%,
and
then
we
only
want
to
pass
off
like
freak.
Whatever
reason
3%
of
it
to
to
the
borrowers,
then
yeah
that's
going
to
create
a
huge
problem
for
sure
so
has
to
be
within
limits,
but
something
that
or
were.
D
G
G
C
G
Yeah,
it
is
good
to
be
reminded
because
the
this
total
stability
fee-
it's
not
as
simple
as
saying
just
risk
premium,
plus
the
DSR
fee,
so
we'll
have
to
do
a
little
bit
of
extra
math.
There
question
about
stress
testing
the
system
in
such
cases
described
before
I'm,
assuming
about
in
terms
of
a
care,
dilution,
potential,
good
question
a
little
bit
topher
for
this.
F
So
currently
the
incentive
for
them
to
to
have
integrity
is
the
fact
that
they
get
paid
right,
so
they're
getting
paid
every
month
from
the
matric
Development
Fund.
The
idea
is
that,
in
the
future
governance,
when
they
take
over
paying
at
least
ability
fees
would
also
gain
the
lever
of
deciding
how
much
the
feeds
get
paid
right.
So
you
can
increase
or
decrease
that
incentive,
depending
on
how
risky
you
want
to
be
from
a
technology
point
of
view.
We
can
also
aid
in
kind
of
risk.
Mitigating
here
right,
so
you
mentioned.
F
Is
there
a
requirement
for
them
to
own
mkr,
so
I
think
what
you're
kind
of
alluding
to
here
is.
Are
they
going
to
stake
MKR?
Should
they
stick
in
kr?
My
opinion
on
this
is
yes,
partly
because
right,
the
more
you
have
them
stake
for
it,
the
more
they
have
to
lose.
The
more
integrity
they're
bound
to
have,
but
then
we
get
to
okay.
What
is
the
right
amount
of
NPR
that
they
need
to
stake?
And
so
there's
there's
a
couple
other
things
that
that
we
can
do
here
right.
F
One
thing
that's
been
brought
up
is
well.
If
you
force
someone
to
stake
MKR
to
get
some
kind
of,
you
know
compensation
string,
don't
you
also
need
to
kind
of
increase
the
compensation
based
on
the
opportunity
cost
of
giving
up
kind
of
you
know:
ownership,
slash
control
of
that
MKR,
that's
something
that
maybe
it's
more
of
a
question
or
a
pirate,
but
yeah
so
so
staking
is,
is
on
the
roadmap
or
will
be
on
the
roadmap.
E
E
E
E
C
Cyrus
had
a
pet
equation
regarding
for
MCD,
you
difference
between
rec
rewinding
Buffy
in
terms
of
the
launch
collide
with
MCD.
So
how
are
you
thinking
about
incorporating
rep
v1
and,
if
not,
we're
sorry?
If
so,
does
it
make
sense
to
incorporate
referee
one?
And
then
you
know
over
time,
as
the
migration
process
takes
place,
then
kind
of
decoy
for
for
rugby
right.
G
Interestingly
enough,
I
think
their
community
themselves
are
a
little
bit
kind
of
pushing
for
are
kind
of
suggesting
that
we
hold
off
and
wait
for
B
of
rep
and
I'm
kind
of
on
board
with
that
as
well.
Just
just
merely
from
the
perspective
of
the
overhead
required
for
kind
of
risk,
evaluations
and
governance
and
everything
and
pushing
a
claw
toe
type
through
and
to
attack
for
a
very
short
lead
collateral
type.
G
G
Anyways
a
couple
people
from
dogger
that
the
forecast
foundation
has
also
suggested
potentially
waiting
for
p2,
but
that
all
that
being
said,
if
a
kind
of
a
cloud
application
gets
filled
out
from
anyone
from
that
community
who
might
where
it
gets
posted
and
I'm
Kara
holders,
for
whatever
reason
wanted.
In
the
end,
they
voted
up
on
the
priority
list.
It's
certainly
certainly
we're
not
in
charge
of
saying
what
gets
in
and
what
doesn't
get
in
so
it
can
happen.
I
think.
G
C
Yeah
that
make
sense
like
it's
just
to
add
on
that
would
be
essentially
fungible
between
the
B
wanted
to
be
aside
from
fork
itself
correct.
So
if
you,
if
any,
would
incorporate
repin
one
and
in
the
event
that
you
know
there
is
a
fork
on
v2,
then
rep
holders
would
have
to
migrate.
But
then
you
have
that
60-day
allotment
to
kind
of
migrate
as
well.
So
you
could
incorporate
v1
and
then
over
time
the
event
over,
for
you
have
enough
time
to
let
you
know,
migrated
over
to
be.
G
So,
if
there's,
if
there's
the
law
out
of
v1
collateral
in
maker
down
and
then
that
60-day
window
starts
what
happens
in
terms
of
oh,
let's
see
what
happens
in
terms.
The
auricle
price
is
what
happens
if,
if
you
don't
switch
within
60
days
and
I
have
to
think
about
kind
of?
Are
there
ways
for
CP
users
to
somehow
gain
the
system
you're?
Actually
lifting?
G
What
are
the
ways
we
could
unintentionally
hurt
cedp
owner
or
are
there
ways
that
CDP
owner
is
correct
unintentionally
or
intentionally
hurt
make
her
down
so
I
think
there
are
at
least
a
few
open
questions.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
simple
answers
to
these.
If
they
are
then
sure
it's
it's
possibility
arm
I,
we
can
surely
talk
about
it
as
a
community
I,
don't
really
have
too
strong
thoughts,
one
way
or
another.
G
When
a
token
upgrades
and
does
it
does,
it
does
anything
happen
from
the
auricle
side,
because
the
exchanges
will
just
kind
of
behind
the
scenes
shift
from
one
to
the
other.
But
does
the
market
activity
stay
fluid?
Do
they
keep
trading
open
or
I
guess
if
they
shut
down
training
for
time
it?
You
know
great.
F
F
So
from
an
Oracle
standpoint,
we
would
just
write
if
th,
whatever
the
exchange
thinks
rep
is
that's
what
the
Oracle
is
going
the
source.
So
so
that's
actually
a
risk
right.
We
as
a
community
may
have
a
difference
of
opinion,
of
which
you
know
say.
Rep
token
is
the
real
rep
token
right.
So
it's
not
something
that
we
can
passively
just
say.
Oh
it's
not
our
problem.
It's
it's
the
exchanges
right,
because
individual
exchanges
may
have
different
positions
right
so
say.
Coinbase
and
cracking
have
alternating
views
on
what
the
the
real
rep
token
is.
F
You
know
we
can't
just
have
the
Oracles
keep
sourcing
prices
for
both
and
taking
the
average
right.
So
it's
something
that
we
have
to
be
actively
involved
in
kind
of
first
deciding,
which
kind
of
you
know
version
of
a
token
that
we
want
to
support
and
when
that
transition
will
happen
right
because
it
involves
kind
of
having
to
close.
F
So
there's
a
couple
things
right,
you
either
have
to
close
force,
close
all
existing
positions
which
you
can
do
by
just
setting
the
collateralization
ratio.
Super
super
super
high
right
and
then
just
force
liquidating
everyone
after
you
know
giving
them
a
heads
up.
You
know
say
month
beforehand,
right,
you
need
to
close
your
position.
You
need
to
close
your
position
right
or
an
alternative
is
that
you
know
we
say,
as
a
governance
create
well
or
will
support
both
right.
G
I
mean
I'm,
not
a
fan
of
of
bringing
on
collateral
that
we
know
at
some
point.
We're
gonna
have
to
force
closed
people
out.
That
just
seems
like
something
we
shouldn't
want
to
involve
ourselves
at
this
point,
especially
without
any
sort
of
a
decentralized
messaging
plan.
Right
we'd
have
to
spend
some
time
figuring
out
how
we
can
even
get
messages
out
to
people
so.
F
So
Cyrus,
let's
say
that
there
is
a
oh
me
say:
go
has
a
bug
in
there
token
contract
and
they
immediately
redeployed
the
token
that
is
just
an
externality
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
it's,
not
something
that
we
can
just
kind
of
plan
beforehand.
Oh
we're!
Never
going
to
take
any
shitty
collateral
that
no
possible.
G
C
C
F
So
maybe
I
can
just
chime
in
for
a
second
right,
we'll
have
different
processes
in
place
depending
on
the
scenario
right.
So
there's
a
big
difference
between
you
know:
I
I
don't
want
to
keep
picking
on
these
guys,
but
you
know
Mesa
go
finding
a
bug
in
their
swamp
in
their
token
contract
and
immediately,
you
know
deploying
a
new
one
right
and
they
kind
of
planned
migration
right
where
say,
augur
thinks
hey.
We
need
to
expand
the
capabilities
of
our
token
and
so
we're
gonna.
F
Do
a
plan
took
an
upgrade
right
on
this
state
one
month
from
now
right,
so
how
we
handle
those
two
scenarios
is
probably
very
very
different,
but
I
would
implore
the
community
to
look
at
these
primarily
from
a
risk
perspective.
Right,
if
you
have
to
you,
know,
force
close
everyone's
position
because
it
presents
some
kind
of
existential
risk
to
the
system.
Then
it
doesn't
matter
that
the
optics
of
force
closing
or
bad
you
you
have
to,
but
that's
that's
at
least
my
my
position
on
this.
A
Yeah
this
we
should
point
out
that
there's
some
dramatic
proclamations
being
made,
and
none
of
that
is
written
in
stone.
So
it's
there's
gonna,
be
lots
of
conversations
but
how
to
manage
risk
in
edge
cases
in
the
future.
We
don't
know
what
it
looks
like
for
a
token
to
get
compromised
on
mass,
yet
we
are
going
to
find
it.
What
that
looks
like
I
guarantee
it,
but
there's
there's
and
I'm,
not
the
risk.
Analyst
I'm,
not
a
system
architect,
but
I
am
aware
that
there's
four
or
five
different
things
we
can
do
in
those
situations.
A
I'll
stop
my
head
and
like
accept
that
that's
healing
a
zero.
You
said
this
ability
how
you
liquidate
people
you
allow
them
to
redeem.
You
just
immediately
transfer
their
whatever
existing
cloud
or
for
geeks
and
then
call
it
a
day
on
that
thing
or
you
liquidate
them
and
you
make
them
accept
a
penalty.
So
there's
all
kinds
of
things
we
indeed
it'll
be
fun
to
figure
out
exactly
how
that
happens.
Them.
A
We
are
actually
what's
a
half
hour
after
the
call
and
I
have
other
engagements
like
no
longer
stick
around
I'm,
not
sure
whether
Cyrus
is
going
to
make
it
back
or
not.
What
if
people
think
if
there
are
more
questions
to
be
honest,
I
can
hand
the
hosting
off
to
somebody
else,
or
should
we
stick
a
fork
in
it
and
continue
this
next
week,
I.
E
A
Do
usually
do
it
on
alright,
so
thanks
everybody
for
joining
a
lots
of
great
calls.
I've
learned
a
lesson
that
if
we
put
up
with
at
least
35
seconds
of
uncomfortable
silence,
somebody
will
continue
to
answer
questions
so
well.
Well,
he
hears
that
it's
a
plan
in
the
future
and
I
won't
in
these
calls
so
quickly.
All
right
thanks,
everybody
talk
to
you
next
week,
look
for
forum
thread,
look
for
youtube,
look
for
sound
clouds
and
follow
me
on
twitter
and
like
subscribe,
and
nothing
else
all
right.
Thank
you.