►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 185
Description
▼Chapters:▼
0:00 Introduction and Agenda
1:20 Votes and Polls
2:57 MIPs Update
7:20 Forum Recap
11:23 Initiatives Update: On-Chain Collateral Management
(CMON)
33:52 Discussion: Collateral Management
▼Agenda:▼
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-184-thursday-march-31-17-00-utc/14314
▼Governance Round-Up:▼
Votes
MIPs
Forum
▼On-Chain Collateral Management▼
- What is the current state of things?
- Discussing Collateral Management lifecycles
- Discussing the Collateral Onboarding process
- What are current issues?
- What improvements can we make?
▼Posts & Links to Relevant Topics:▼
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/forum-at-a-glance-march-31-april-6-2022/14502
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h4XPOXh03C_JWHMfMNNPyZRZHKVerJsz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108824404195701713381&rtpof=true&sd=true
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/collateral-management-lifecycle-cml/12751
▼Disclaimer:▼
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of the people involved. They do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only. They do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services.
A
Hello,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
governance
risk
meeting
number
185..
My
name
is
hayden.
I
go
by
pros
11
online
and
I'm
one
of
the
governance
facilitators
like
today
is
the
7th
of
april
2022.
Now
yeah
4
months
in
there.
I
can
remember
that
that's
a
good
sign,
I'm
joined
to
you
today
by
a
bunch
of
awesome
people
who
both
work
and
are
interested
in
the
maker
protocol.
A
A
Also,
we
do
encourage
open
participation.
So
if
you
do
have
a
question,
you
wanna
hop
on
the
mic
super
helpful.
To
raise
your
hand,
we
can
call
you
that
way.
You
can
also
drop
it
in
the
comment
in
the
comments
section
I'll,
be
happy
to
read
it
out
for
you,
if
you're
unable
or
unwilling
to
hop
on
the
mic
yourself.
A
A
A
Availability,
so
speaking
of
the
executives
last
week's
executive
was
passed
and
executed
that
contained
some
core
unit
budget
distributions,
as
well
as
vesting
stream
setups.
We
had
a
couple
of
the
keeper
networks.
Basically,
we
had
to
set
up
a
budget
stream
for
one
of
them
and
that
is
all
set
now:
tomorrow's
playing
contents.
A
We
have
delegate
recognized,
delegate
compensation,
a
funding,
die
transfer
for
the
amsterdam
event,
special
purpose
fund,
open
markets
committee
proposal
I
mentioned
a
few
moments
ago,
as
well
as
an
increase
of
three
million
to
five
million
for
the
curve,
stated
pool
excellent,
so
yeah
you
can
expect
to
see
those
tomorrow.
Please
do
pay
attention
when
it
goes
online
and
vote.
If
you
support
those
changes.
A
B
Yes,
that's
right!
Thank
you.
Peyton
hello,
everyone
pablo
here
with
a
mips
update.
I
hope
my
mic
is
working
right
now.
So
a
next
slide.
Please
thank
you.
So
we
have
one
weekly
cycle,
sub
proposal
that
is
currently
going
through
its
frozen
period,
which
in
this
case
also
entails
a
signal
request
and
ongoing
signal
request
that,
upon
passing,
will
promote
mid-four,
c3
sp3
to
an
unchanged
three-day
ratification
poll
which
we
are
calling
short
ratification
polls
next
slide.
Please
thank
you.
So
we've
had
14
formal
submissions
for
this
april's
governance
cycle,
namely
nexlite.
B
B
So
governance,
communications,
data,
insights
and
protocol
engineering
have
submitted
their
budgets
the
first
two,
that
is,
governance,
communications
and
data
insights,
have
also
submitted
new
mandates.
You
may
have
noticed
that
there
are
two
budgets
for
governance
communications.
One
of
them
contains
an
expansion
that
the
other
lacks.
I
both
get
approved
the
one
that
lacks
the
expansion
will
be
immediately
discarded
and
the
one
with
expansion
will
be
executed
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
A
C
Yep,
just
posted
the
link
in
the
chat
and
welcome
everybody
good
day,
my
name's
artem
from
goof
comms,
and
welcome
to
the
forum
recap
where
we
click
quickly
review.
What's
happened
on
the
forums,
our
top
news,
announcements,
discussions
and
signal
requests,
and
this
will
be
covering
the
week
of
march
31st
to
april
6th
and
we'll
begin
with
our
top
announcements.
C
Starting
with
us
welcoming
penn
blockchain,
a
new
recognized
delegate
who
submitted
their
delegate
platform,
they
are
one
of
the
largest
student-run
blockchain
organizations
and
we'll
be
speaking
about
their
delegate
platform
at
the
upcoming
meet
your
delegate
call
happening
on
april,
the
13th
next
up,
the
grove
core
unit
announces
the
request
and
community
support
to
develop
a
maker
brand
team
to
help
market
maker
dao
to
a
wider
audience
and
better
engage
with
existing
users.
They
really
break
down
the
vision
and
strategy
for
this.
It's
a
pretty
well
planned
out
post,
so
check
it
out.
C
And
next
up,
we
have
alpha
introducing
the
form
explorer,
which
is
a
discord
discourse
plugin
added
to
the
forum
to
improve
user
experience
when
navigating
the
forums
by
using
accessible
filters
and
custom
queries.
Also
me
from
gofcoms
will
be
helping
out
a
bit
to
manage
some
weekly
highlight
posts
based
off
the
summary
publications
that
we
post
and
moving
on
to
our
top
discussions.
C
Recognized
delegate
dunam
submits
a
discussion
on
using
large
capitalization
coins
as
off-chain
collaterals.
He
also
speaks.
He
also
asks
the
community
whether
they
support
this
idea
and
if
so,
what
should
be
the
minimum
requirement
of
di
minted
for
these
large
cap
coins
so
go
and
submit
your
opinion
in
the
polls
that
he
provides.
The
polls
actually
closed
today,
pretty
soon
and
next
up
recognized
delegate
makerman
submitted
an
aggressive
growth
proposal
for
maker
3.0,
the
future
of
crypto
lending.
This
proposal
is
broken
down
into
three
concrete
actions,
some
with
several
sub-actions
and
additional
considerations.
C
And
finally,
we
have
monkey
irish
who
posted
a
call
to
action
advising
the
maker
community
members
against
shifting
important
issues
at
hand
which
only
result
in
new
issues
and
instead
encourages
in
solving
current
issues
that
we
have
and
towards
this
goal.
He
is
asking
the
community
to
vote
no
on
any
mips
that
includes
severe
prioritization
or
promote
a
sentiment
to
block
some
kind
of
current
existing
issues
that
we
should
work
on
and
moving
on
to
our
signal
requests.
C
D
So
for
the
first
section,
we're
going
to
go
through
all
the
different
implementations
that
we've
been
keeping
an
eye
on
and
tracking
for
the
last
couple
of
months.
So
for
one
we've
achieved
the
milestone
to
onboard
the
curve
lp
token
for
sd
staked
eath
over
eth.
So
we
recently
got
that
up
at
the
beginning
of
this
month.
I
believe,
and
next
collaterals
under
consideration
are
wrap,
wrap
staked
e
c
pax
g
g,
o
r
eth
and
s
eth2.
D
Of
course.
At
the
moment,
the
groups
involved
in
priority
and
and
priority
setting
are
in
the
process
of
determining
what
should
be
next
and
actually
yeah.
There's
some
more
really
really
exciting
updates,
because
we,
the
groups
just
published,
recommended
metrics
for
collateral
onboarding
to
help
guide
in
these
decisions
and
also
an
updated
collateral
status
index
sheet
we'll
get
to
that
later.
D
As
for
d3m
implementations,
the
quick
update
is
that
in
general,
there's
a
large
code
rewrite
happening
to
make
onboarding
d3ms
from
various
platforms
a
lot
more
easy
and
streamlined
and
efficient.
In
parallel.
The
compound
d3m
is
going
through,
I
believe,
an
internal
or
an
external
code
review
right
now
before
it
is
formally
launched.
D
As
for
institutional
vaults,
we've
had
a
long-running
initiative
to
partner
with
nexo
on
their
big
institutional
vault,
and
so
that
is
still
in
progress.
It's
been
a
bit
slow,
going
back
and
forth
with
them.
Making
progress
on
this,
but
meanwhile,
nadia
and
the
team
from
growth
are
looking
for
other
potential
clients
to
work
out
institutional
vault
deals,
and
so
here
I'm
going
to
pause
and
just
give
nadia
a
chance
here.
Is
there
anything
else
that
we
want
to
add
to
the
slide.
E
Nope,
I
just
want
to
add
that
it
has
been
taking
so
long
because
institutional
balls,
it's
like
a
product,
but
it
by
its
own
and
also
a
lot
of
risk
associated
to
these
faults,
because
they
are
so
large.
So
we
have
been
like
developing
the
product
while
like
in
the
last
months,
so
one
of
the
things
we
thought
was
that
it
it
has
to
be
it.
E
It
is
important
to
audit
the
code
that
nexo
is
using
to
automate
the
protection
of
the
bolt,
because
we
don't
want
that
vault
to
be
liquidated,
so
it
is.
It
is
super
important
for
us
to
understand
that
everything
is
correct
and
also
nexo
or
any
other
institution
will
need
an
interface
to
access
this
vault.
E
So
we
have
been
talking
with
oasis,
who
also
is
building
this
interface.
So
yeah
like
it
is
a
complex
product,
but
we
think
that
after
we
launch
it,
it
will
be
easy
to
onboard
new
institutions,
and
that
is
why
we
are
like
reaching
out
all
of
these
institutions
with
this
with
this
product,
which
is
super
attractive
for
them.
D
D
For
our
products
and
implementation
section
we're
gonna
polish
that
for
next
time,
let's
make
it
a
little
bit
more
comprehensive,
but
in
general
moving
on
this
is
the
overall
milestone
list
for
the
initiative
and
I've
grouped
milestones,
because
we
have
10
of
them
into
four
main
categories.
There
are
process
upgrades
around
collateral
management.
D
This
has
been
probably
the
highest
priority
milestone
within
the
initiative
since
we
started,
and
so
robert
has
really
been
spearheading,
milestone
one
and
milestone
four
for
the
revision
of
the
collateral
onboarding
process,
and
this
includes
actually
a
number
of
different
things.
It's
an
update
of
the
collateral
application
process,
it's
the
onboarding
of
ces
as
a
domain
team.
It's
the
publishing
of
new
publishing
of
a
new
collateral
status
index.
D
It's
also
determining
the
prioritization
criteria
for
collateral.
It's
updating!
The
actual
process
documentation
itself
and
finally,
it
crea.
It
creates
a
process
for
parallel
work
alignments
between
all
the
different
teams
involved
from
from
you
know,
step
one
to
launch,
and
so
I'm
going
to
give
a
pause
here
and
give
it
over
to
robert.
If
you
want
to
speak
to
these
two
milestones,.
F
Thanks
david
wow,
you
did
a
great
justice,
and
I
appreciate
that
summary
and
yes,
there
is
a
lot
of
work.
That's
currently
in
progress.
We
just
completed
our
q1
review
in
the
meeting
prior
to
this
we'll
post,
the
video
and
that'll
give
you
a
lot
more
detail
as
far
as
what
we
did
in
q1
and
what
we're
planning
to
do
in
q2.
But
the
key
about
this
is
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
process
that
works
for
our
community,
that
onboards
collateral,
and
we
can
do
this
in
a
safe,
secure
and
cost-effective
manner.
F
So
we'll
you
know
today
is
is
part
of
that
process
to
the
to
do
the
outreach
into
the
community
and
collect
feedback.
So
we
can
make
sure
that
that
we
hear
what
the
community
is
experiencing
and
take
that
in
and
incorporate
to
the
next
steps
as
it
relates
to
collateral
off-boarding.
This
is
part
of
our
collateral
maintenance
and
so
there's
a
in
the
collateral
management
life
cycle.
We
have
onboarding
and
collateral
maintenance
and
there
are
two
distinct
phases
and
step
steps
got
to
get
the
collateral
into
the
system,
and
then
we
have
to
manage
it.
F
D
Key
thing
with
these
two
milestones
is
really
trying
to
de-personalize
the
the
reasons
for
prioritizing
one
thing
over
another
and
also
for
offboarding
something.
So
you
know
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
times.
I
hear
in
the
community
that
core
units
tend
to
be
seen
as
the
gatekeepers
for
collateral
and
in
a
lot
of
ways.
That's
true,
but
in
other
ways
what
this
process
revision
aims
to
do
is
to
really
kind
of
standardize
and
objectify.
D
What
those
yeah
recommended
metrics
are
so
that
it's
less
about
the
opinion,
the
subjective
opinions
of
core
units
and
more
about
sort
of
an
objective
guidance
that
can
bring
everybody
to
the
same
answers
regardless
of
personal
opinion
or
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
think
that's
a
big
part
of
this
revision
all
right.
Moving
on.
D
There
is
the
technical
technological
upgrades
category,
and
so
this
involves
milestone,
2,
which
is
the
liquidations
infrastructure
cleanup,
milestone,
10,
which
is
to
deliver
the
d3m
rewrite
and
milestone
seven
psm
improvements
so
for
milestone
two
liquidations
infrastructure
cleanup.
The
main
goal
for
this
milestone
was
really
to
hand
off
to
the
new
side
stream
auction
services
core
unit.
D
All
of
the
touch
points
for
liquidations
and
also
to
completely
sort
of
transition
from
the
old
auction
uis
into
the
new
uis
that
sas
has
developed
and
also
to
to
transition
to
the
new
auction
demo
keeper
that
that
sas
has
been
working
on,
and
so
all
of
these
things
are
in
progress,
not
quite
finished
yet.
But
I
know
if
actually,
if
anybody
from
sas
is
here,
do
you
guys
want
to
speak
to
this
milestone.
D
All
right,
yeah
nobody's
here,
that's
right,
we're
quite
far
along
here
and
I
don't
know
if
you've
seen
the
auctions.maker.com
ui.
I
don't
think
that's
where
the
new
one
is
up.
Yet
it's
still
running
the
old,
the
old
ui,
but
I
believe
auctions.makerdow.network
is
where
the
sas
ui
is,
and
it's
very
close
to
being
ready
to
be
switched
over
for
the
main
maker,
dow
ui.
G
If
you
want
david,
I
can
add
just
just
a
little
bit
more
color
to
that
as
well.
They're,
also
like
piggybacking
off
of
the
code
that
they've
made
for
the
ui
to
make
a
an
actual
standalone
keeper
in
the
same
way
that
we
have
the
option
demo,
keeper
and
just
from
the
particle
engineering
units
perspective
like
that's
a
huge
help,
because
we've
been
maintaining
a
keeper
which
is
a
little
bit
outside
of
our
kind
of
core
discipline.
G
D
Yeah,
sweet,
sweet,
yeah,
thank
you
for
the
concept
and
then
lastly,
milestone
7,
which
is
sort
of
the
lowest
priority
of
everything.
I've
mentioned
so
far,
is
psm
improvements,
and
this
one
is
actually
slated
to
be
a
focus
more
towards
q3.
I
believe,
but
yeah.
Those
are
the
three
main
technological
upgrades
in
the
queue
as
for
housekeeping
there's
only
a
couple
of
milestones
here.
So
one
is
the
stablecoin
vault
cleanup,
and
this
is
thoroughly
improv
in
progress,
as
many
of
you
have
might
have
noticed.
D
Tusd
is
being
off-boarded,
I
believe,
with
the
I
don't
wanna
say
next
friday's
executive.
I
believe
it's
the
friday
after
that,
the
15th
and
so
tusd
is
being
offboarded,
but
what
are
left
are
usdc,
usdp
and
man.
I
hope
I
can
recall
this
from
the
top
of
my
head
a
usdp,
and
there
is
one
more
but
basically
there's
three
different
stablecoin
vaults
in
the
traditional
sense,
like
you
know,
like
usdc8
type
vaults
rather
than
psms,
and
so
the
idea
is
for
the
remaining
vaults.
D
We
want
to
offload
them
and
pretty
much
have
all
of
our
stablecoin
exposure
at
maker,
dow
managed
through
psms,
and
so
this
is
next.
The
next
step
for
milestone
6
is
really
to
off
load
the
other
three
stablecoin
vault
types
in
a
bundle,
and
this
would
essentially
liquidate
them
into
the
psm,
and
so
chris
do
you
want
to
speak
a
little
bit
to
that,
because
I
know
we're
doing
that
batch
slightly
different
than
how
will
actually
completely
differently
yeah
compared
to
how
we
did
tusd
yeah.
G
Just
the
high
level
is,
you
know:
tusd
is
going
to
be
a
sort
of
typical
liquidations
turned
on
you
know,
kind
of
a
rate,
limited
liquidation
through
a
normal
liquidation
mechanism
in
order
to
recapitalize
the
die,
whereas
the
other
stable
coins
like
usdc
and
pax
and
goc.
They
all
have
you
know
they
have.
D
Thank
you,
chris
and
then
lastly,
for
housekeeping
is
we
want
to
respond
to
all
the
green
lipsticks
applications,
and
so
this
is.
This
is
just
a
part
of
increasing
the
stakeholder
experience
for
people
who
want
to
come
in
and
partner
with
maker
dow,
whether
they
actually
end
up
bringing
a
deal
to
fruition
or
not.
F
F
So
they
can
include
the
additional
information
and
signal
to
us.
Are
they
still
interested
in
moving
forward
in
the
process
and
also
for
the
ones
that
aren't
to
simply,
let
us
know
and
then
we'll
take
and
then
remove
them
from
the
list?
So
we
believe
this
will
help
us
understand
who
is
interested
in
moving
forward
and
not
to
do
the
first
round
of
cleanup
on
on
the
collateral
status
index,
and
so
I've
posted
the
draft
index
that
we're
starting
to
use.
We
used
it
in
both
of
our
collateral
alignment
meetings,
both
the
on-chain
and
off-chain.
F
This
week
it
seemed
to
work
really
well
to
be
able
to
quickly
move
through
where
collateral
was
at,
how
we're
working
through
that
the
next
steps,
and
then
it's
pretty
clear
that
there
are
some
issues.
Obviously
there
are
a
lot
of
green
lit
collateral.
That's
been
sitting
there
for
a
long
period
of
time.
So
again,
this
is
a
step
by
step.
This
is
a
another
three
foot
toss
that
we're
doing
on
the
road
to
cleaning
up
this
process.
D
Yeah
thanks
robert
and
finally,
the
last
bucket
our
products,
so
we
have
three
milestones
relating
to
products.
One
was
to
onboard
the
curve
staked
lp
token,
which
is
delivered.
The
only
thing
left
with
this
milestone
is
actually
to
do
the
debt
ceiling
expansion
and
I
believe
that
there
is
a
small
expansion
plan
for
this
next
executive
vote
from
it's
going
to
go
from
3
million
to
5
million.
D
Milestone
five
is
to
onboard
the
compound
d3m,
and
this
is
somewhat
happening
in
parallel
and
is
somewhat
blocked
by
the
the
d3m
rewrite
in
general.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
or
it
might
be
that
it's
it's
already
code
complete,
it's
just
going
through
reviews.
Chris,
can
you
clar?
Can
you
actually
clarify
me
on
that.
G
G
H
We're
we're
doing
an
internal
team
review
at
the
moment
and
the
next
audit
window
we're
hoping
to
get
it
in
for
that
so
and
yeah.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
modular
discussion
that
chris
mentioned
earlier
so
really
making
sure
that
it's
extensible
scalable
and
that's
what's
driving
some
of
the
discussion
around
how
we
build
the
internal
maker
piece
and
then
the
external
bit
so
to
help
all
the
integration
so
yeah.
That's
that's
underway
and
yeah,
hoping
to
have
more
on
that
coming
up
soon,
as
well.
D
Yeah
cool
and
then
the
last
one
is
the
launch
of
the
first
institutional
vault,
which
we
gave
a
little
bit
of
an
update
earlier.
So
I'm
not
gonna,
redundantly,
repeat
too
much
information
here,
but
yeah.
So
those
are
our
10
milestones
in
four
different
buckets
and
actually
just
to
go
back
to
give
you
guys
a
little
bit
more
context
in
terms
of
like
target
dates
for
completion,
our
confidence,
level
and
statuses.
D
Everything
is
in
progress,
except
for
really
the
first
institutional
vault
which
it
says
blocked,
but
it's
kind
of
back
to
in
progress.
Now
there
there
were
some
stuff
blocking
it
for
the
last
few
weeks,
but
we
managed
to
unblock
it
now
and
end
of
q2
seems
to
be
like
a
low
confidence
target
date.
It
may
look
like
it
really
depends.
D
It
depends
on
a
lot,
so
it's
hard
to
say
with
high
confidence
on
the
target
date,
as
for
everything
else,
from
top
down,
really
we're
still
on
track
for
end
of
q2.
For
the
majority
of
these,
we
don't
have
like
mega
high
confidence
level
until
we
come
close
to
the
finish
line,
so
in
general,
the
update
is
that
everything
here
is
on
track,
with
the
exception
of
psn
improvements,
which
is
just
a
low
priority,
milestone
that
we
are
pushing
so
to
give
the
pe
team.
D
You
know
the
bandwidth
to
do
other,
higher
priority
stuff
and
so
yeah.
That
is
about
it
for
the
collateral
management
on-chain
status.
Update
here
are
some
useful
links,
so
the
production
coordination
tracker,
where
we
look
at
all
the
milestones
and
individual
work
items
that
have
to
be
completed,
is
actually
publicly
viewable.
So
if
you're
curious
to
look
at
it
from
time
to
time
or
bookmark,
it
feel
free
because
we're
doing
work
in
there
week
to
week.
I
also
encourage
you
to
visit
collateral.makerdaw.com.
D
The
ces
team
has
done
a
ton
of
work.
Revising
those
pages
so
check
it
out,
and
I've
also
added
a
couple
of
forum
posts,
one
detailing
the
collateral
management
life
cycle
and
another
that
was
posted
just
recently,
which
is
the
mips
six
recommended
guideline
metrics
for
on-chain,
collateral,
onboarding
and
so
yeah.
Thank
you.
A
F
F
So,
let's
talk
about
how
we
got
here
since
the
history
of
our
collateral
is
is
actually
very
important
since
the
mcd
launch,
which
is
the
multi-collateral
dye
launch
at
the
end
of
2019,
I
don't
think
any
of
us
would
have
anticipated
the
growth
we've
had
with
the
protocol
to
support
this
growth.
Our
collateral
and
onboarding
has
tried
to
keep
up
with
the
quick
pace
of
our
industry.
F
F
F
F
Today
we
have
a
collateral,
onboarding
process.
Yes,
it's
real
and
we
use
it
to
the
best
of
our
ability.
The
we
I
refer
to
are
the
unchained
collateral
stakeholders,
the
off-chain
collateral
stakeholders
and
the
mandated
actors
to
be
clear.
This
list
includes
protocol
engineering,
oracle's
risk
real
world
finance
growth,
ces,
ses,
govcoms,
gov
alpha,
and
the
incubation
ceus
of
lts,
which
is
legal
and
love
which
is
luca
and
the
oversight
committee.
F
The
process
was
created
by
the
ma
by
the
maker,
dow
community
members
shortly
before
the
maker
foundation
was
dissolved.
I
mentioned
a
few
of
them
just
a
moment
ago.
I
think
we
all
realize
the
process
isn't
perfect,
but
there
is
a
process
with
prioritization
and
we
have
a
baseline.
From
my
perspective,
our
opportunities
for
growth
are
in
the
transparency,
communication,
prioritization
and
commitment
areas.
F
The
current
process
may
or
may
not
may
or
may
not.
Look
like
this
graphic
when
we
are
complete
with
the
next
iteration,
but
I
just
want
everyone
to
know
that
ces
is
committed
to
finding
a
solution
that
works
whatever
that
might
look
like
to
scale
the
supply
of
dye
safely
and
securely
in
the
most
cost.
Effective
manner
possible.
Peyton
next
slide,
please,
as
it
relates
to
our
current
challenges.
F
F
F
F
While
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
between
the
core
units,
work
remains
to
ensure
all
key
stakeholders
are
aligned
when
there
is
an
issue
identified
and
where
there's
already
defined
process.
My
first
step
is
to
take
a
big
step
back,
collect
information
then
move
forward
again.
That
is
what
I'm
hoping
to
do
on
this
call
feedback
is
a
critical
component
of
surfacing
a
solution
that
will
bring
alignment
as
it
relates
to
our
collateral
onboarding.
F
F
So,
right
now,
if
you
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
the
conversations,
the
initiatives,
the
implicit
agreements
that
we
have
in
our
community,
it's
really
clear
that
we
want
to
reduce
the
dependencies
on
usdc
and
the
psm
and
there's
a
lot
of
ways
to
go
about
that.
I
think
that's
a
worthwhile
goal
or
objective.
F
F
F
So,
back
to
my
question,
I
just
pose
it
out
to
the
community
ideas
on
how
we
effectively
prioritize
collateral
in
the
context
of
our
dow
priorities.
That's
pretty
much!
I
have!
I
want
to
leave
it
there
and
allow
the
discussion
to
to
continue
and
I'll
listen,
and
I
would
love
feedback
and
I'd
love
other
people
to
ask
other
questions
that
continue
this
discussion.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
F
The
way
that
it's
defined
the
way
the
documentation
reads
is
about
four
weeks,
so
some
things
can
move
faster
as
an
example,
once
we've
onboarded
a
piece
of
collateral
like
state
deep
and
the
discussions
to
do
different,
vault
types
right,
so
we
could
easily
move
that
through
much
quicker
than
an
eight-week
process.
But
if
it's
known
to
near
c20,
we've
worked
with
it
before
we
have
the
tech
already
available
to
us.
We
can
very
rapidly
move
this
through
the
system
on
the
real
world
finance
side
of
things.
F
We
just
need
to
understand
you
know
to
get
to
that
point,
because
the
mip
21
essentially
means
that
all
of
the
of
the
areas
in
the
way
of
liquidations
or
or
pricing,
if
there
is
any
aspect
of
that
or
if
there
is
a
token
most
of
these
deals,
don't
have
that.
So
it's
a
dummy
token,
an
emergency
shutdown.
F
F
And
so,
if
anyone
from
the
real
world
finance
team
wants
to
pipe
in
that's
fine,
but
that
can
greatly
expand
the
deal.
And
so,
if
you
look
at
the
collateral
status
index,
the
new
one,
I
have
a
t
plus
column,
and
that
means
the
time
plus
the
application
so
you'll
see
that
the
the
current
real
world
assets
that
have
been
onboarded
or
at
greenlit
are
significantly
more
time
than
the
ones
that
are
on
chain.
F
A
I
All
right,
it
seems
like
no,
it's
a
reveal.
Maybe
I'll
go
yes.
So
it's
going
a
little
bit
on
on
robert's
point
around
us.
I
guess
not
having
good.
I
guess.
Prioritization
tools
available
currently
like
a
kind
of
key
like
like
sort
of
saying
you
kind
of
keep
part
of
this
process.
It's
like
transparency
and
communication
between
governance
and
core
units,
and
thus
far
like
all
of
our
kind
of
voting
processes,
are
all
whatever
the
way
we
use
them
has
always
been
like
prioritize.
I
So
the
general
hope
is
that
we
kind
of
provide
a
sort
of
voting
primitive
that
better
handles
like
relative
prioritizations
and
that's
something
that
sort
of
got
our
friend
ducks
are
gonna,
be
working
on.
I
think
in
this
quarter,
I'm
gonna
start
hoping
to
to
be
able
to
sort
of
trial
something
in
the
next
few
months.
If
everything
as
well,
it's
something
that
we
potentially
should
have
prioritized
earlier
and
like
obviously,
a
lot
of
stuff
as
well.
A
It's
like
not
super
easy
right
to
communicate.
Cross-Court
units,
because
different
core
units
might
have
different
priorities,
like
we've
all
budgeted
for
for
different
objectives,
for
different
initiatives
and
when
the
dow
comes
along
and
votes
something
new
and
a
lot
of
coordination
effort
needs
to
take
place.
A
So
I
think
we've
come
a
long
way
with
with
setting
up
cross-court
unit
initiatives
but
working
things
into
a
true
priority
framework
that
you
know
really
prioritizes
governance
input
while
still
preserving
core
unit
autonomy
is,
is
kind
of
a
tough
not
to
crack.
I
guess
so
definitely
open
it
for
collaborators
and
and
further
ideas
on
that.
I
can
expect
a
forum
post
from
us
on
the
subject
tomorrow
to
kind
of
get
things
started,
but
yeah.
It
feels
like
there's
still
a
lot
of
difficult
questions
to
answer.
H
I
I
think
it's
important
to
see
that
these
are
connected
right,
so
the
prioritization
discussion
is
a
very
old
discussion
and
since
the
beginning
there
have
been
a
lot
of
concerns
that
the
prioritization
isn't
transparent
and
that
for
outsiders,
there's
there
often
has
been
concerned
that
core
units
have
too
much
discretion
in
deciding
which
which
collateral
types
gets
get
prioritized
for
insiders.
It's
a
very
different
situation.
H
We
know
there
have
been
coordination
processes
in
place.
We
know
that
the
discussions
about
prioritization
have
have
always
been
intended
as
an
as
objective
as
possible
process,
but
due
to
the
even
perceived
lack
of
transparency,
I
think
that's
sometimes
difficult
to
convince
outsiders
that
that's
actually
the
case.
H
A
J
J
I
do
think
we
need
to
be
really
careful
about
allowing
prioritizations
inside
the
mips
themselves
because
it
can
very
easily
lead
to
an
arms
weight
which
you
already
see
in
examples
of.
So
I'm
not
happy
about
that
particular
part
of
that,
and
I
don't
think
it
behooves
us
to
do
that
kind
of
detailed
prioritizations
done
for
the
coins,
because
it's
gonna
lead
to
an
overwhelming
amount
of
governance
or
meaning
that
we
have
to
make
all
these
nitty-gritty
details
on
the
dial
level.
J
I
do,
however,
think
we
need
some
sort
of
strategic
prioritization
that
is
on
the
on
the
level
of
the
dial,
where
the
mkr
holders
get
at
least
a
feel
that
they
have
a
say
in
how
the
prioritization
is
being
done
and
then
really
the
details
to
the
different
coordinates.
Because
once
you
get
into
the
weeds
of
the
details,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff.
That.
A
J
K
J
L
You
know
you
go.
You
have
a
meeting.
Everybody
comes
to
grips
with
what
should
be
prioritized,
what
will
be
done
and
then
you
go
off
and
you
do
the
work
and
you
come
back
and
you
do
it
again.
So
this
idea
that
we're
going
to
reprioritize
every
month,
let's
get
past,
that
we'll
be
lucky
to
do
it
every
quarter
or
some
annually.
L
I
kind
of
want
to
have
an
answer
pretty
quickly
to
one
whether
I
should
even
do
that
investment
and
two,
if
I
did
whether
I'm
going
to
get
in
or
not,
and
so
there's
a
real
issue
of
a
mismatch
here
between
outside
parties
and
kind
of
how
we
can
do
process
and
time
frames.
And
so
I
see
these
as
real
issues.
We
can
do
them,
but
I
think
we
need
to
do
it
organizationally
and
across
the
board.
J
D
A
A
M
The
process
coming
from
the
real
world
you
know
been
in
finance
too
long
and
doing
deals
you
typically.
I
just
will
talk
about
typically
in
the
real
world
than
what
we're
doing
and
what
we
don't
know
how
to
do
you.
You
would
work
with
a
potential
borrower
and
if
you
you
know
you
like
what
they're
doing,
and
you
agree
to
a
reasonable
set,
not
all
the
terms
but
high
level
terms.
You
sign
a
term
sheet,
you
know
and
on
both
sides
we
always
sign
it.
M
It's
not
really
legally
binding,
but
your
reputation
matters
and
the
idea
is
that
further
diligence
confirms
what
the
borrower
told
you
you're
going
to
do
a
deal
with
those
terms,
part
of
the
challenge
we
have
and
there's
actually
there's
a
bunch
of
challenges,
but
we'll
have
folks
borrowers
to
come
to
us
and
they'll
make
a
proposal
and
they'll
say
I
want
an
80
advance
rate
with
the
two
percent
debt.
What
do
you
call
it
stability
fee
and
we're
like?
Okay,
we
look
in
the
real
world
in
the
real
world.
M
The
market
would
give
them
65
advance
and
a
five
percent
stability
fee.
So
what
they're
asking
is
markedly
markedly
worse
to
maker
than
they
could
ever
get
in
the
real
world?
We're
not
there
to
negotiate,
but
then
what
do
we
do?
You
know
there's
stages
of
when
this
will
happen,
but
we're
getting
a
lot
of
proposals
that
are
arguably
very,
very
unfair
to
make
her.
M
If
you
consider
maker
wants
to
do
you
know
roughly
real
world
market
terms,
or
at
least
want
to
know
where
the
real
world
is,
and
if
it's
going
to
subsidize
someone's
you
know
they
want
to
know
how
much
they're
subsidizing
them
and
so
like
we're,
not
if
we're
not
negotiating
which
we're
really
not
like.
How
does
this
ever
get
dealt
with?
Do
we
post
in
the
community
and
say
hey,
they
want
80
ltv,
here's,
the
real
world,
you
know
supporting
60
and
here's
my
evidence,
token
holders.
M
Do
you
want
to
vote
on
this
and
then
part
of
the
challenge
there
that
the
next
level
is
it's
not
just
rate
and
debt
ceiling?
You
know
before
you
get
a
deal
done,
where's
christian,
if
he's
here,
there's
gonna
be
dozens
and
dozens
of
points.
You
know
that
really
matter
and
we
can
have
them
all
posted
and
all
negotiated
on
the
forum
by
the
maker
token
holders,
but
it's
going
to
be
just
boatloads
of
votes
and
things
to
think
about-
and
let
me
be
honest
with
you.
M
Part
of
the
challenge
in
the
real
world
is
like
look
maker-
could
get
all
20
terms
at
once
with
a
smart
borrower,
but
if
the
smart
borrower
gets
the
next
150
terms,
you
could
never
get
your
money
back
and
they
wouldn't
violate
the
agreement.
There's
a
lot
of
ways
to
hollow
things
out,
you
know
and
put
in
things
that
are
really
unfair
to
maker,
and
so
when
people
are
asking
unfair
things
to
make-
or
at
least
in
our
professional
judgment,
how
does
the
community
want
to
handle
this.
H
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
eric
is
bringing
up
really
good
points,
but
I
do
think
there
are
actually
two
different
discussions,
because
privatization
does
not
mean
necessarily
that
the
deal
has
to
be
accepted
or
not
accepted
this.
That
is
a
different
discussion
and
it's
definitely
that
is
another
challenge
like
how
are
core
units
supposed
to
even
know
what
is
acceptable
and
not
acceptable
according
to
to
maker
governance.
So
I
I
think,
yeah
it's
a
big
one
and
probably
should
be
discussed
separately.
H
H
What
you
think
is
the
right.
Priority
really
depends
on
which
kind
of
vision
strategy
you
want
to
follow
for
the
dao,
and
this
puts
core
units
in
a
particularly
different,
difficult
position
to
make
to
make
their
own
decisions
when
it
comes
to
prioritization,
because,
whichever
rule
you
follow-
and
it
doesn't
matter
like
how
diligently
and
objectively
you
stick
to
the
rule,
there's
always
going
to
be
mkr
holders
and
delegates
who
are
really
really
upset
about
the
fact
that
you
prioritize
one
way
or
another.
H
At
the
very
least,
we
can
show
that
we
are
following
a
consistent
set
of
rules
and
that
we
don't
take
favorites
or
we
don't
pick
favorites.
We
follow
an
objective
set
of
rules
and
separating
these
discussions,
I
think,
is
incredibly
important.
It's
a
very
different
situation.
If
you
have
someone
who
is
unhappy
with
the
situation
or
unhappy
with
the
prioritization
order,
that
is
followed,
but
knowing
that
core
units
are
just
following
the
rules
that
are
objectively
defined
and
by
some
way
agreed
on
versus
core
units
working
in
a
less
transparent
manner.
H
Just
saying
trust
us
will.
We
are
professionals,
we
take
the
right
decisions
and
of
course,
the
level
like
some
degree
of
trust
is
needed,
but
sometimes
there
are
just
like
genuine
disagreements
on
on
which
approach
should
be
taken
and
in
those
cases
once
again,
transparency
is
your
best
defense,
because
then
you
can
show
that
you
are
following
an
objective
set
of
rules
and
no,
you
are
not
picking
favorites,
and
that
is
very
important.
K
So
I
appreciate
that
we
need
transparency,
communication,
but
I'm
concerned
about
the
energy
and
the
focus
and
the
capacity
to
do
the
work
to
execute
on
the
vision
the
offensive,
leaning
in
and
we
are
like
sitting
ducks
to
be
flooded
with
proposals
and
and
and
questions
and
sort
of
you
know
all
the
things
and
then
you
all
have
to
respond
and
communicate
and
defend.
And
at
what
point
you
know
are
we
you
know?
Are
you
feeling
sabotaged
by
that
dilemma
and
like
what?
How
do
we
find
that
balance
of
expectations
around
communication?
K
M
Yeah,
I
hope
christian's
here,
to
give
you
his
own
input,
but
I
say
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
stuff.
That
is
arguably,
at
least
from
our
mind
way
off
market.
You
know
what
what
the
folks
are
asking
for.
I
mean,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
more
proactively.
Transparent.
We've
tried
not
to
you,
know,
share
the
dirty
laundry
and
say
we
don't
we
think
you're
you're
not
qualified,
for
these
15
reasons.
M
You
don't
want
to
like
just
slam,
people
in
the
public,
but
I
I
think
we
need
to
be
politely
much
more
sharing
and
then
the
community
wants
to
do
it.
Do
it,
but
like
here,
here's
why
we
think
it's
not
a
good
idea
and
we
spent
so
much
time
around
a
few
big
name
transactions.
As
everyone
knows,
you
know,
then,
when
you
tell
them
you're
off
market,
and
we
think
these
six
items
are
really
problematic.
M
N
What
eric
has
been
saying
is,
I
think
we
need
to
be.
We
need
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
the
parties
that
want
to
make
business
with
maker,
although
they
can
be
in
the
best
possible
phase,
they
don't
have
the
incentives
aligned
they
their
interests,
are
their
business
interests,
not
necessarily
aligned
with
the
dow,
and
we
should
instead
assume
that
the
core
units
are
working
as
servants
of
the
dao.
N
This
is
the
preamble
to
say
that
we
would
expect
adverse
selection
on
the
communication
intensity,
meaning
that
those
that
have
the
lowest
quality
proposals
will
be
the
ones
that
are
the
most
vocal
on
forums.
So
we
need
to
give
trust
to
the
core
units
that
they
can
handle
it.
Otherwise
it
will
be
fully
biased.
M
I
think
it's
a
good
point
that
the
lender
is
never
really
aligned
with
his
borrower,
because
every
dollar
of
interest
he
has
to
pay
us
is
a
dollar
out
of
his
pocket.
I
mean
you
can
try
to
make
more
aligned,
but
there's
a
bit
of
a
zero-sum
going
game
going
on.
You
know,
being
a
lender
you're
like
you're,
not
making
friends.
Let's
be
honest,
you
want
to
be
fair
and
respectful,
but
you're
not
there
to
make
friends.
A
Thanks
for
the
input
there
yeah,
I
see
a
lot
of
comments
in
chat
about
like
proactive
transparency
right
and
I
guess
structurally
kind
of
important
to
put
in
right.
The
facilitator
is
supposed
to
be
the
touch
point
for
the
core
units
with
the
dow
so
like.
Well,
you
as
a
facilitator
might
be
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
transparency
on
discussion.
Maybe,
like
you,
you
in
theory
have
a
team
that
can
be
working
on
your
objectives.
A
A
Things
are
moving
forward,
so
so
we
do
need
to
to
make
sure
that
this
happens,
and
I
think
this
is
what
it
is.
This
map
might
not
be
the
best.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
that
I
would
address,
but
eventually
it
is
vm
care
holders
or
maybe
not
the
emmy
car
holders.
Yet
but
at
least
the
community
is
saying,
hey,
we
don't
see
the
priorities.
A
A
M
Yeah,
it's
our
one
main
rwa
here
now
I
do
want
to
say
from
our
perspective,
we
do
need
a
better
process.
There
needs
to
be
a
lot
more
transparency,
but
like
we
need
a
process
that
works
for
potential
borrowers
as
well.
You
know
when
we're
out
there.
You
know
makers
in
the
market
wanting
good
borrowers
to
come
to
us.
They
have
to
think
there's
a
fair,
reasonable
process
there
to
work
with,
and
at
this
point
it
kind
of
feels
like
we've
got,
you
know
a
two-legged
horse
pulling
a
one.
One
wheel,
cart!
M
It's
just
it's
really
hard!
I'm
not
saying
what
is
the
right
process,
but
when
we're
out
there
trying
to
you
know
make
business
with
quality
counterparties
in
the
real
world.
It
needs
to
be
a
professional
standard.
You
know
that's
reliable
and
consistent,
and
you
know
if
it's
getting
rugged
every
two
months
with
the
new
process,
you
just
aren't
going
to
get
good
borrowers.
People
don't
want
to
put
up
with
our
drama,
I
wouldn't
as
a
borrower.
Frankly,.
L
L
What's
what's
the
advantage
of
the
product
market
fit
of
dye
and
maker
dow
like
if
we
can't
give
borrowers
80
at
competing
stability,
fee
rates
versus
interest
rates
in
the
world
world?
What's
why
should
they
come
to
us?
If
we're
not
going
to
give
them,
you
know-
maybe
maybe
90,
maybe
not
85
percent,
maybe
75
percent,
and
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
you
know
there
are
defaults
in
the
world.
L
You
know
this
eric
it's
going
to
happen,
maker's
going
to
take
a
default,
and
you
know
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
stop
sugar
coating
it
and
I
kind
of
get
it
that
you
know
rwf
legal
team
and
all
you
guys
out.
There
want
to
protect
the
dow,
but
there
comes
a
point
where
we
need
to
accept
it
that
there
will
be
defaults
down.
The
road
is
to
be
expected.
So
I
guess
what
I'm
asking
you
is
like:
where
do
we
draw
the
line
and
say
hey
maker
dow?
L
M
N
Can
I
add
something
here
on
the
ranger
model,
because
it's
something
we've
been
discussing
for
a
long
time?
I
think
frank,
there's
a
bit
of
misconception
here
about
the
ranger
model
in
finance.
Everybody
is
an
arranger.
Unless
you
go
down,
you
go
to
meet
the
specific
borrower.
A
bank
is
an
arranger
and
asset
management
is
an
arranger
everybody's,
an
intermediary.
N
So
I
think
that
the
the
input
of
the
arranger
model
that
we
tried
to
incorporate
in
the
so-called
sandbox
rwa
work
that
I
led
was
that
we
wanted
to
work
instead
of
working
with
many
many
borrowers
with
a
few
large
relevant
counterparties.
That
could
have
been
great
channels
for
us
to
do
stuff
at
scale,
and
we
still
want
to
do
that.
That's
why
you
know
hpb
is
a
bank.
It's
a
great
potential
arranger.
An
asset
manager
is
a
great
potential,
ranger
and
potentially
also
startups
like
monetaries,
etc,
but
a.
F
N
Model
doesn't
have
to
be
in
my
view
that
we
are
endorsing
a
black
box
with
hundreds
of
millions
or
billions
of
money
to
people
that
might
have
limited
experience
on
deploying
money.
For
us,
this
is
actually
creating
a
gatekeeper
which
is
a
bit
different.
The
only
the
second
point
is
on
on.
You
is
like
nobody
wants
to
be
in
a
business
that
is
zero
default
and.
N
Wrote
a
methodology
that
says
we
want
to
do
stuff
that
is
investment
grade,
so
it
has
a
certain
level
of
default,
which
is
prudent
now
the
the
important
thing
we
want
to
do
is
if
we
are
deploying
hundreds
of
millions.
We
want
to
do
this
with
big
people
that
are
incentivized
alongside
us
to
do
good
quality
work,
so
we
get
hit
they
get
hit.
If
we
don't
do
that
and
we
work
with
country
parties
that
have
a
lot
of
history,
they
don't
have
skill
in
the
game.
N
They
will
just
beef
up
risk
because
they
don't
get
hit,
we
get
hit
and
that's
something
we
want
to
avoid.
But
this
is
something
we
have
been
doing
over
the
last
few
months.
I
think
going
back
to
voter's
point
is
if
we,
if
rwf-
and
you
know,
I'm
as
landing
incubated
lending
oversight,
I'm
one
step
remote,
but
I
can
I
see
what
our
breath
does
on
a
daily
basis
and
if
rws
has
to
spend
90
to
work
defending
itself,
why
it's
not
working,
then
he
is
going
to
take
10
times
the
time
to
do
work.
N
It's
simply
as
simple
as
that.
So
I
think
there
is
we
need
to
be
aware
of.
We
need
to
give
these
guys
some
and
myself
included
some
level
of
trust
in
finalizing
the
deals.
Otherwise
we
go
back
just
we.
We
discuss
a
proposal,
it's
not
market
standard.
We
convinced
the
delegates,
the
community
good,
we
move
on
two
months.
Two
weeks
later,
there
is
a.
There
is
the
same
proposal
with
another
spin.
We
we
discuss
it.
N
We
move
on
two
weeks
later
there
is
the
same
proposal
with
another
spin
and
it's
just
like
catch
22
and
it's
something
we
need
to
stop.
Otherwise,
it's
gonna
take
ten
times
the
time
because
we
work
with
ten
percent
the
effective
time.
So
I
think
this
is.
It
ultimately
goes
back
to
trust
and
transparency
and
we
hope
we
can
work
on
that
from
now
on.
I
know
that
rwf
has
a
lot
of
things
to
improve
and
we
are
all
working
with
with
other
core
units
to
do
that.
M
And
let
me
thanks
and
one
other
to
one.
My
answer
on
frank's
point
I
would
say
the
ltb
and
60
is
an
example.
It's
not
anything
specific,
but
let
me
try
to
paint
the
point.
I
think
it
make
off-market
deals
it
should,
but
I
think
it
should
also
understand
how
off-market
it
is.
Let's
say
the
deal
we
should
the
real
world
does
a
70
ltv
maker
wants
to
do
adl
tv,
you
know
with
the
same
interest
rate.
That's
fine!
M
Do
it,
but
no
like
if
you
had
to
sell
our
loan
the
next
day,
once
we
did
it
to
another:
sophisticated
investor:
they'd,
probably
pay
85
or
90
cents
on
the
dollar.
So
if
we
were
doing,
100
million
dollar
loan
we're
basically
giving
that
that
borrower
10
to
15
million
dollars
out
of
our
pocket
and
subsidying.
K
You
know
help
us
achieve
a
very
clear
and
tangible
goal.
So
I
think
yeah,
that's!
Maybe
a
decision
to
be
nice
to
make
in
terms
of
strategy
which
is
like
here
are
the
reasons
we
would
do
something
that's
off
market
relative
to
the
real
world
rather
than
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
help
educate
the
community
to
know
what
the
difference
is,
so
that
if
a
proposal
comes
in
and
it's
it's
really
nice
in
terms
of
its
concepts
or
you
know
whatever
it's
about
presenting,
you
know
kind
of
whether
it's
you
know.