►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 32
Description
The theme for this call will be 'Demand/Supply Imbalance' and as such we will primarily be focused on issues surrounding that. Steven will talk a bit about what Scientific Governance means. Rich will discuss the previous vote, then present some thoughts about how proposals could be created. Cyrus will introduce some analysts who will walk us through some data. We'll then spend the rest of the time in a general Q&A session.
Discussion Thread: https://redd.it/bh9vqa
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/governance-and-risk
Transcripts (Delayed by 48 hours) : https://github.com/makerdao/community/tree/master/governance/transcripts
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-38625f514101
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-fc8939f3d4e9
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-governance-risk-framework-part-3-7a4c620f4077
Website: https://makerdao.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/makerdao
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/
Chat: https://chat.makerdao.com/home
Email: info@makerdao.com
A
There
we
go
hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
April
25th
edition
of
the
sanctity
governance
and
risk
meeting.
We
have
a
lot
to
go
over
today,
so
I'm
not
going
to
have
a
big
preamble
on
my
side,
I'm
going
to
repeat
the
same
thing,
I
repeat
every
single
time,
though
we
are
enormous,
ly
interested
in
getting
as
much
feedback
from
this
group
as
we
possibly
can.
So,
if
you
have
questions
or
comments,
please
do
not
feel
shy
about
sharing
those
with
us
type.
A
Your
messages
in
the
chat,
if
you
don't
have
access
to
a
microphone
or
your
work
and
supposed
to
be
doing
something
else.
If
you
do
have
a
microphone
feel
free
to
interrupt
us,
we
do
it
all
the
time
it's
allowed
here.
What
else
do
I
do
should
talk,
I,
think
that
might
be
a
oh
I
I?
Do
it
forgetting
something
I
want
to
ensure
that
we
continue
these
conversations
in
our
subreddit
there's
a
lot
to
go
over.
A
We
are
unable
to
get
through
all
of
it
in
these
calls,
and
it's
important
to
me
that
we
can
share
these
things
in
the
beginning
of
a
conversation
and
not
the
conversation
itself.
So
we
have
chats
here.
We
should
be
look
at
data.
We
talked
about
issues,
we
discuss
directions
for
the
future
and
then
we
move
those
discussions
into
reddit,
because
these
these
calls
are
in
northland,
skews
enormous
lis,
time-bound.
A
We
have
their
North
America
friendly
they're
in
English
and
they
last
for
an
hour
and
that's
a
very,
very
small
window
for
people
to
schedule
their
lives
around.
So
it's
important
that
we
use
these
as
a
way
to
kick-off
new
initiatives,
new
ideas
and
then
spend
the
next
week
or
so
discussing
them
and
pulling
them
apart
in
the
maker
Go
subreddit
I
am
going
to
post
a
link
to
that
discussion
in
a
second
but
first
I'm
going
to
hand
it
off
to
Steven
Becker.
A
To
give
us
his
thoughts
for
the
week,
then
I'm
going
to
pick
it
up
again
to
have
a
brief
chat
about
the
poll
we
just
had
and
then
trying
to
keep
my
speechifying
down
enough.
So
we
can
move
almost
immediately
into
risk,
because
the
quality
of
the
analysis
that
we're
getting
in
the
last
few
calls
is
amazing
and
I,
don't
want
to
monopolize
the
time.
B
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
joining
us
hey.
This
is
I,
see
that
the
turn
on
T's
is
is
quite
spectacular.
The
one
thing
I
want
to
do
a
jump
on
quickly
is
obviously
you
know.
We've
had
some
changes
in
the
organisation
as
reflected
by
our
blog
post
and
further
reflected
by
other
articles
that
have
come
out
and
the
one
thing
I
just
really
want
to
say
about
it.
Is
you
know
if
you
want
to
see?
What's
going
on
on
a
post?
Have
a
look,
and
you
get
a
sense
of
where
we
are?
B
We're
going
through
some
changes,
and
these
refer
to
our
blog
posts
that
we
put
out
but
importantly,
more
relevant.
Today's
conversation
I
would
like
to
focus
on
you
know.
The
idea
of
we
are
all
here
to
facilitate
and
try
to
understand
science
at
the
governess,
and
to
that
end
we
need
to
have
a
very
clear
idea
as
to
what
that
what
that
really
is
and
to.
B
Give
us
the
ability
to
put
forward
proposals
and
to
assess
those
proposals
appropriately
now.
The
reason
why
we
want
to
do
this
through
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods
and
models
is
that
we
can
contain
the
level
of
discussion.
We
can
contain
the
level
of
contention
so
that
we
don't
have
subjectivity
running
amok.
We
make
sure
that
the
conversation
is
applicable
to
the
running
of
the
system.
We
make
sure
that
the
the
ideas
are
productive
and
actually
move
the
system
forward
in
terms
of
what
it
wants
to
achieve
in
terms
of
its
objectives.
B
So,
therefore,
it
is
not
a
productive
proposal
and,
as
such,
no
folks
will
be
very
clear
on
the
fact
that
that
is
something
that
we
should
not
entertain.
So,
in
essence,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
moving
away
from
representative
democracy
and
looking
at
subjects
and
points
of
view
and
focusing
wholeheartedly
on
scientific
premise
of
rigor
and
reproducibility
to
be
able
to
extract
value
from
proposals
that
have
been
put
forward.
D
B
Mind
that
this
one-hour
window,
that
we
had
is
just
simply
the
momentum
behind
a
broader
governance
process.
It's
a
governance
process
that
is
decentralized
and
requires
everyone
to
continue
be
part
of
in
order
to
get
a
sense
of
not
only
what
is
happening,
but
also
being
able
to
evaluate
proposals
we
put
forward
and
in
their
minds
votes
on
things
that
will
extract
the
appropriate
value
and
explain
the
appropriate
robustness
for
the
system
as
a
whole.
A
A
I
want
to
talk
a
bit
about
sentiment
and
sentiment
is
an
issue
that
we've
been
running
into
for
the
last
few
weeks
made
perhaps
longer,
but
it's
sort
of
coming
to
a
head
recently
and
sentiment
is
a
tricky
thing,
particularly
in
the
crypto
space
generally,
there's
enough
criticism
and
resentment
and
frustration
that
can
be
evenly
distributed
across
everyone
in
the
space,
seemingly
without
being
specifically
targeted.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
angry
people
in
the
world
and
crypto
is
a
great
place
for
them
to
live
and
make
it
out.
A
Well,
it
lasted,
but
it
was
clear
to
a
lot
of
us
that
that
wasn't
a
position
that
was
written
in
stone
and
it's
always
subject
to
change,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen
recently
is
a
sort
of
this
uptick
in
frustration
levels
around
the
peg
frustration
levels
around
the
the
stability
fee,
changes
and
those
things
they
tend
to
get
condensed
and
distilled
in
social
media.
For
all
the
attendant
risks
involved
with
social
media.
A
And
it's
it's
something
that
we
need
to
take
into
account
when
we
are
coming
up
plans
in
these
calls
and
when
we're
coming
up
and
plans
on
the
subreddits
and
when
we
are
having
discussions
is
that
this
is
a
very
dramatic
business
that
we're
in
it's
a
very
open
business,
there's
blog
posts
and
crypto
and
journalism.
Journalists
everywhere
you
go
a
few
of
our
favorite
are
actually
on.
A
This
call
hello
Christine
and
it's
easy
for
people
to
sort
of
overemphasize
things
or
perhaps
cast
a
vote
for
solutions
and,
and
that's
one
of
the
things
so
I'm
kind
of
teeing
something
up
here.
So
what
that
does
is
it
can
be
a
little
contrary
or
some
pressure
on
this
idea
of
measured
scientific
governance
where
we
make
plans
and
decisions
and
we
as
a
group,
all
discuss
ideas
and
then
come
up
with
these
models.
A
And
excuse
me
these
plans
for
the
future
and
and
these,
for
example,
the
stability
for
you
raises
how
those
things
get
into
the
system
is
a
large
and
a
fairly
onerous
process,
and
the
reason
why
it's
an
onerous
process
is
because
it's
designed
to
be
that
way,
pulling
levers
and
pressing
buttons,
because
you're,
upset
and
or
frustrated
and
or
nervous
is
a
very
risky
thing
to
do
in
any
business,
but
particularly
in
one
work.
People's
value
is
at
stake
and
that's
why
there's
so
many
checks
and
balances
built
into
the
maker
down
system?
A
I
didn't
I'm
not
really
heading
towards
a
very
specific
point
to
be
made
here.
But
one
of
those
points
is
that-
and
that
excuse
me
that
we've
seen
this
in
the
subreddit,
where
why
don't
we
do
this?
Why
don't
we
do
that?
I?
This
gets
uploaded,
it's
a
lot
and
a
lot
of
statements
or
questions
about
I
think
we
should
do
this
and
why
haven't
you
done
that
kind
of
stuff
and
what
I
wanted
to
reinforce
in
today's
call
is
that
the
the
likelihood
of
that
implementing
any
sort
of
change
is
very,
very,
very
small.
A
The
way
that
things
get
altered
in
this
system
is
as
to
Stevens
Point
through
the
scientific
governance
framework,
and
it's
a
series
of
four
documents
and
I
can
post
links
to
them
when
I'm
finished
future
finding
in
this
sidebar,
but
they
vary
kind
of
clearly
outline
how
changes
happen
in
the
system,
how
they
need
to
be
evaluated.
What
kind
of
considerations
need
to
be
taken
into
account?
A
What
kind
of
thinking
needs
to
go
behind
them
and
we're
all
moving
towards
this
model
as
quickly
as
we
possibly
can,
where
those
changes
need
to
be
backed
up
by
clean
datasets
that
have
been
approved
by
reproducible
algorithms,
that
anybody
can
like
download
from
get
up
and
run
themselves
to
validate
the
assumptions
in
these
in
these
proposals?
We're
not
there
yet
we're
getting
there
very
very
quickly,
but
in
the
meantime
we
need
to
do
as
much
due
diligence
as
we
possibly
can.
A
So,
if
somebody
wants
to
see
a
change
in
the
system,
it
needs
to
be
a
lot
more
than
an
opinion.
It
needs
to
be
I
want
to
do
X
because
of
Y.
These
are
the
implications
that
we've
thought
about:
here's
the
risks
that
have
been
identified,
here's
the
impacts
that
could
here's.
How
could
impact
these
three
or
four
stakeholders
in
the
system?
Here's
how
it
can
be?
Undone,
here's
what
the
polling
process
looks
like
I'm,
not
a
risk
expert
and
I'm,
not
a
data
analyst,
so
I
can
only
provide
some
of
these
broad
strokes.
A
The
risk
teams
can
probably
provide
a
list
of
50
different
questions
and
need
to
be
addressed,
but
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
that
there's
a
significant
amount
of
due
diligence
that
needs
to
be
performed
before
changes
to
the
system
can
be
considered,
and
that
I
think
is
where
I'm
probably
going
to
leave
things
right
now.
Chris
I
can
see
you
I'm
meeting
yourself.
Did
you
all
miss,
isn't.
F
F
E
Know
there
have
been
changes
made
to
the
system,
specifically
around
civilities
and
ever
been
some
assumptions
that
have
been
made.
That
turned
out
to
not
be
true.
For
example,
right
stability
sees
not
having
the
effect
that
that
we'd,
like
them
to
have
and
I
just
think
that
it's
an
ter
token
holders
who
truly
govern
the
system.
They
want
to
be
capricious
and
just
put
votes
and
changes
into
the
system.
They
probably
can
oh
well.
A
Sure
yeah
I
see
your
point
completely.
I
thought
I
was
hoping
that
maybe
I
didn't
make
myself
fair
enough
that
we're
in
this
situation,
where
we
don't
have
the
robust
models,
we
don't
have
the
clean
data
we
don't
have
the
approved
sets
and
the
repeatable
systems.
That's
you
know
the
rest
of
the
financial
world
have
been
using
for
and
lost
next
number
hundred
of
years,
we're
moving
towards
that
as
quickly
as
we
can
in
the
interim.
A
The
solution
to
this
problem
of
in
the
absence
of
a
very
clear
process
is
that
we
need
to
find
this
middle
ground
between
opinion
and
a
very
well
reasoned
opinion
and
eventually
moving
towards
a
model
scripts
code
that
can
prove
the
assumptions
are,
or
at
least
backup
people's
assumptions.
The
point
that
I
want
to
make
today,
though,
is
that
we
need
to
be
in
that
middle
ground,
where
there
is
a
very
well
reasoned,
very
comprehensive
arguments
with
at
least
loose
data.
A
Somebody's
data
to
back
ups
on
these
assumptions
and
I
think
that,
from
that
point,
that
gives
the
foundation
something
to
grab
onto
that
to
move
something
forward
and
into
a
proposal
phase,
and
that's.
We
can't
move
into
a
proposal
phase
based
on
one
or
two-sentence
comments
in
the
subreddit
it
needs
to
be.
There
needs
to
be
a
middle
ground
where
there's
a
reasoned
arguments
as
opposed
I.
Don't
know
precisely
what
that
looks
like
I
am
hoping
that
we
can
discover
that
in
the
inside.
A
Maybe
that's
a
good
place
to
leave
it,
because
my
hope
was
that
we
could
start
at
a
conversation
today
briefly
about
the
nature
of
proposals,
but
having
that
framed
by
the
fact
that
it
needs
to
be
very
well
considered.
And
ultimately,
the
goal
of
the
role
of
the
foundation
right
now
is
to
Shepherd
the
organization
through
a
process
of
eventual
decentralization
ring,
that's
built
into
the
principles
and
we've
tossed
around
fake
numbers.
A
You
can't
predict
how
long
that's
going
to
take,
but
it
needs
to
be
understood
that
this
is
like
a
years
long
process
before
all
the
checks
and
balances
come
off,
so
anyways
I've
before
I
promised
I,
wouldn't
miss
speechify
and
it's
already
20
after
the
hour.
So
if
there's
any
comments
or
questions
or
suggestions
about
how
we
could
facilitate
and/or
optimize
and/or
frame
the
way
the
proposal
process
works,
add
those
to
the
discussion
thread
that
I
posted
inside
and
we
can
continue
those
discussions
over
the
course
of
the
week
or
type
in
your
questions
now.
A
Know
sorry,
this
is
embarrassing,
have
to
cut
you
off,
because
I
realized
I
forgot.
The
second
half
of
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about
I
want
to
go
over
the
poll
really
fast.
That's
the
whole
point
of
why
we're
here
kind
of
so
we
saw
something:
I,
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
pull
up
graphs
and
analysis
about
what
happened
with
the
poll.
I
think
there's
something
interesting
that
we
can
we
can
consider
here,
though,
we
had
an
option,
leave
this
ability
where
it
is
so
raised
at
0%
all
the
way
up
to
4%.
A
We
saw
far
more
of
a
distribution
of
votes,
uneven
distribution,
which
is
good,
shows
that
there's
some
kind
of
signaling
I
work
here.
The
surprising
thing
that
happened
this
week,
though,
was
12,000
maker
was
staked
at
the
4%
stability
feat
level,
but
50,000
was
staked
at
the
2%
stability,
feat
level,
and
so
there's
things
we
need
to
think
about
here,
because
that
says,
depending
on
how
you
want
interpret
that
data,
it
could
mean
a
few
different
things
and
I'll
probably
leave
it
up
to
the
community
to
speculate
on
what
that
means.
A
G
That's
okay,
so
we'll
look
at
some
data
from
the
session
and
Premo
SH
and
then
I
think
we
should
spend
some
time
talking
about
the
stability
fee,
in
particular,
as
the
primary
policy
tool.
I
think,
there's
been
a
lot
of
you
know,
contention
or
confusion
about
how
that
works.
I
think
we
should
kind
of
just
try
to
have
like
a
genuine
conversation
and
kind
of
error,
people's
concerns,
Chris's
or
whomever
else,
and
then
maybe
after
that
we
can
discuss.
H
Okay,
so
I
think
based
on
some
feedback
from
last
week
and
will
continue
to
iterate
on
making
sure
showing
things
succinctly
and
focusing
on
the
things
that
people
are
really
interested
in
in
discussing,
but
to
start
off
just
what's
been
going
on
with
the
price
so
added
some
ticks
here
for
the
stability
fee
changes.
What
was
interesting
was
with
the
last
increase.
H
The
price
has
held
relatively
steady
but
still
below
the
peg
and
I
think
this
is
going
to
kind
of
be
the
the
theme
of
the
past
week
is:
we've
seen
an
impact
from
the
stability
fee,
but
it
is
not
necessarily
to
bring
up
in
any
like
sustained,
meaningful
way.
The
price
above,
like
a
97,
ish
level
or
0.97
level.
What
we
have
seen,
though,
is
the
impact
on
supply.
So
what's
really
interesting
now
is
I
I
feel
and
again
this
was
part
of
the
theme
of
the
discussion
last
week.
H
Is
how
much
can
we
really
start
to
draw
patterns
and
conclusions
versus
we're
just
getting
a
few
data
points,
and
we
need
more
time
and
more
sample
size
to
really
start
to
draw
conclusions,
but
what
what
I
think
we're
seeing
here
is
that
the
stability
fee
clearly
has
an
impact
on
impact
on
supply.
It
may
not
be
enough
to
purely
increase
the
stability
fee
to
really
get
the
peg
back
up
to
a
dollar
and
I.
H
Think
that's
a
conversation
that
we
should
be
having
the
other
thing
that
I
do
want
to
say
is
volume
has
been
very
low,
so
we
can
sort
of
take
these
numbers
of
the
grain
of
salt
right
now,
because
that
trading
volume
has
been
low.
Since
you
know
a
large
quantity
of
trades
and
wipes
two
three
weeks
ago,
I.
I
Just
want
one
really
leave
the
question.
The
one
I
want
to
break
your
flow
here,
but
it
just
seems
to
me
that
every
time
we
pull
these
up
and
write
out
immediately
after
us
ability
feed
change,
volume
almost
has
universally
always
dropped
off
immediately
following
that
I
mean
at
least
going
back
to
the
past
presentations.
That
you've
done
is
that
a
trend
that
you've
seen
as
well?
Well.
H
So
what
I
would
say
is
let's
talk
about
supply,
because
I
think
the
volume
is
to
some
extent
a
function
of
supply.
If
there's
you
know
less
dye
out
there,
because
it's
being
wiped
down
I'm,
not
surprised
that
there
are
some
slight
dips
in
trading
volume
and
I
would
imagine
that
some
of
the
trading
volume
around
I
before
the
increases
these
people
trying
to
get
their
hands
back
on
some
dye
so
that
they
can
wipe
down
some
of
that
debt,
so
they're
not
exposed
to
higher
rates
in
the
future.
H
So
so
it's
a
relative
because
I'm
sure
there's
a
bit
of
a
run-up.
At
least
there
there
was
when
we
started
talking
about.
It
was
a
big,
prolonged
discussion
around
this
11.5%
increase
and
so
I
think,
prior
to
that
there
was
people
getting
their
hands
on
dye
and
then,
since
then,
I
think
you
do
tend
to
see
a
drop
in
trading
volume
because
there
is
a
drop
in
supply.
So.
G
H
I,
definitely
don't
doubt
that
last
point,
because
and
we'll
talk
about
this
in
a
second
ethos
is
again
just
to
me.
The
tried-and-true
driver
of,
what's
going
on
with
dye
price
and
I,
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it
has
an
impact
on
trading
volume
as
well,
so
just
to
kind
of
show
that
here
I
mean
we're
seeing
this
kind
of
sustained
correlation
between
what's
going
on
with
eath
price
and
what
happens
with
dye
price.
It's
definitely
I
understand
not
like
a
one-to-one.
H
So
if
we
go
back
to
here,
this
was
the
14.5
percent
increase,
and
so
you
kind
of
had
this
moment
of
we
were
discussing.
You
know
repetitive.
Fee
increases
at
the
same
time
that
diet
price
was
starting
to
fall
and
I
think
that
led
to
kind
of
a
swerve
back
onto
the
road
a
little
bit
when
we
were,
you
know
veering
towards
96
95
94
a
little
bit,
and
so
that
was
I
think
an
effective
monetary
policy
change.
H
What
is
interesting,
though,
is
now
the
deep-fry
TSA's
kind
of
a
little
bit
more
volatile,
but
still
holding
it
relative
levels.
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
wait-and-see
mentality
in
terms
of
what
people
want
to
do
with
derivative
positions,
whether
they
want
to
lever
up
further,
whether
they
want
to
start
to
ease
off
the
gas
a
little
bit
and
so
I
think
there's
a
depression
in
volume,
partly
because
of
a
bit
of
a
wait-and-see
mentality.
H
People
aren't
sure
at
these
levels,
like
what's
gonna
happen
with
Eve
price,
whereas
earlier
I
think
people
were
way
more
bullish
on
Eve
price,
and
so
they
were
levering
up
way
more
on
dyeing
and
so
that
kind
of
segues
into
the
dye
supply.
What
we've
seen
I
think
and
again
I
do
want
to
encourage
I
think
that
we
have
seen
an
actual
impact
from
these
stability
fee
increases.
That
is
like
clear
and
measurable,
and
so
that's
primarily
the
outstanding
supply.
H
So
we've
seen
you
know,
as
as
we
increased
to
7.5%,
there
was
a
lot
going
on
a
thief
price.
There
was
a
lot
of
unpredictability
what
was
happening
with
dye
supply
but
as
we
started
discussing
the
11.5
percent
increase
and
then
implementing
it
and
then
discussing
a
further
increase
and
it
was
becoming
clear
to
I
think
the
market,
the
community,
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
series
of
increases
that
we
started
to
see
the
dye
supply
really
start
to
come
down,
and
so
there's
been
a
ton
of
burns.
H
H
We
need
more
time
to
really
be
sure,
but
it
seems
that
that
trend
is
not
reversing
and
it
seems
that
the
increased
cost
of
drawing
out
this
dye
has
really
been
an
actual
effective
deterrent
in
terms
of
contracting
the
supply,
although
contracting
that
supply
has
not
purely
saved
the
price
peg,
and
so
that's
probably
a
separate
discussion
that
this
group
of
the
community
should
have
was
in
addition
to
what's
going
on
with
supply.
What
else
can
we
be
doing
about
the
price,
or
is
there
kind
of
a
equilibrium
level
of
the
price?
H
Yeah
I
do
think
that's
a
big
question
that
warrants
a
broader
discussion
and
then
just
the
last
little
piece.
I'd
only
take
it
too
much
time
what's
been
going
on
in
kind
of
the
secondary
platforms
so
compound
the
interest
rates
we
discussed
on
the
last
call
that
you
know
is
finally
more
expensive
to
get
dye
from
maker.
H
The
borrow
rate
for
dye
on
compound
has
not
jumped
back
up
to
you
know
the
fourteen
point
five
percent
level
and
then
the
supply
rate
I
think
has
just
moved
sort
of
in
lockstep
with
the
borrow
rate.
But
when
you
look
at
the
volume
so
I
think
again
on
this
theme
with
like,
can
we
start
to
draw
conclusions?
What
we
do
see
is
when
we
jack
up
the
civility
fee,
there
is
a
clear
drop
in
the
supply.
H
If
there
are
these
kind
of
semi-independent
and
it's
good
I
think
we
should
look
for
independent
signals
from
stability
fee
increases,
but
I
think
again.
This
may
have
to
do
with
more
with
eath
price
and
less
with.
What's
going
on
the
civility
fee,
these
jumps
in
the
Baro
volume
on
compound
now
I
think
we
saw
a
little
bit
of
a
dip
and
then
recovery.
So
it's
really
hard
to
say
what's
going
on
since
the
14.5
percent
increase,
but
the
Baro
volume
I
think
has
not
changed
significantly.
H
So
what's
interesting
is
initially
when
we
were
jacking
up
to
11.5%.
We
saw
you
know
a
few
big
holders
trying
to
get
their
hands
quickly
on
some
die
to
pay
down
their
debts.
I,
don't
think
those
big
holders
have
now
at
least
the
ones
that
you
know
were
deterred
by
anything
less
than
it.
I
don't
know.
25
percent
rate
those
those
kind
of
reasonable
range
holders,
I,
don't
think,
have
gone
and
levered
back
up
in
terms
of
drawing
out
debt.
So
they
don't
have.
H
You
know
those
those
large
outstanding
debts
to
go
and
borrow
die
on
secondary
platforms
to
go
and
pay
down.
So
what
we've
seen
I
think
as
a
result
is
not
a
huge
change
in
the
loan
supply
and
borrow
and
lending
volumes.
One
thing
that
I
did
want
to
just
quickly
mention
because
it
was
part
of
the
discussion.
H
Last
week,
I
had
had
a
graph,
but
a
couple
of
technical
errors,
so
that'll
be
up
next
week,
the
collateralization
ratio,
so
they
end
apologies
that
they're
not
on
the
same
screen
here,
but
you
see
April,
14th
and
April.
19Th
are
these
two
most
recent
increases?
The
collateralization
ratio
on
maker
has
not
significantly
increased.
It
ran
up
a
little
bit
with
what
was
going
on
with
eath
price,
but
people
have
actually
I
think
reduced
the
collateralization
ratio
slightly
again.
H
If
price
has
come
down
slightly
but
I,
if
I
run
the
numbers
on
this
I
believe
the
drop
in
collateralization
ratio
is
more
than
just
what's
been
going
on
with
eath
price
people
have
kind
of
let
their
foot
off
the
gas
a
little
bit
I
think
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
collateral
they
need
to
collateralize
their
loans
with.
So
that's
to
me
a
little
bit
more
of
a
risk
tolerance
a
little
bit
less
fear
of
getting
liquidated
all
that
again.
H
G
J
Yeah,
can
you
see
my
screen?
Yes,
okay,
so
I
sure
don't
have
much
to
show
for
the
past
week,
because
I
just
updated
my
old
spreadsheet
and
wasn't
really
focusing
on
new
metrics.
What
stands
out
in
the
past
week
is
card
activity
of
it
being
removed
or
freed
from
the
collateral
in
the
middle
of
the
week.
Does
the
yellow
part
here
and
the
end
yesterday
and
some
some
other
CDP's
were
locking
some
larger
numata
feature
in
the
collateral?
J
There
wasn't
really
much
activity
in
vibes
and
drawers
their
morale
I
mean,
especially
in
comparison
with.
Last
week
there
were
more
or
less
balanced,
except
on
the
day
of
the
interest
rate
hike
when
almost
1
million
of
diverse,
wiped
and
therefore
dying
circulation
in
the
whole
week
fell
by
only
only
about
a
million
or
below
and
a
half.
So
the
pattern
is
still
the
same
single
activity
event
still
amato
about
one
third
of
total
activity,
the
top
five
events,
similarly
to
about
three
quarters
or
or
seventy-five
the
whole
activity.
J
There
was
about
200,
see
the
piece
interacting
with
the
system
last
week
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
largest
part
of
activities
associated
with
it
being
free
to
remove
from
collateral.
Interestingly,
we
didn't
see
high
correlation
between
free
and
white
activity,
and
we
don't
know
exactly
what
cost
CDP
owners
to
unlock
heater
and
not
really
use
it
for
debt
repayment.
Afterwards,
potentially
they
might
be
moving
heater
from
collateral
into
some
other
assets.
G
Cool
so
then,
let's
before
we
jumped
into
the
stability
fee,
I
just
want
to
kick
it
off
with
a
quick
reminder
or
refresher.
So
the
goal
of
this
stability
fee
changes
is
to
reduce
the
dye
supply,
which
in
turn,
should
theoretically
push
the
dye
price
up.
So
I
want
to
distinguish
that
as
we
as
we,
you
know.
G
So,
for
example,
I
mean
we
have
seen
some
small
dices
apply
reduction.
We
from
about
I
think
the
high
was
around
95
95,
96
million
down
to
currently
88
million,
and
we
saw
that
twice.
Actually
after
it
dipped
down,
it
went
back
up
and
then
came
down
again.
So
there's
clear
that
you
know
the
supply
is
trending
downwards,
but
do
people
think
that
if
we
continue
raising
the
stability
fee
and
having
the
dye
supply
kind
of
keep
going
down
that
it
won't
push
the
dye
price
up?
There's
something
to
keep
in
mind
so.
C
Cyrus
I
could
add
a
thought
that
I
was
having
about
this
exact
thing
as
like:
I
think
that
on
the
spot
markets
as
there's
like
more
dye
demand,
presumably
from
people
wiping,
which
also
just
isn't
unclear
that
that's
happening
but
like
I.
Imagine
that
the
market
makers
will
probably
be
unloading
between
98
and
a
half
and
a
dollar
so
that
there's
like
additional,
basically
liquidity
on
the
sell
side
right
below
a
dollar.
So
it
might
take
a
lot
to
actually
get
to
the
tank,
because
market
makers
are
eager
to
offload.
G
So
I
I
mean
there
doesn't
seem
I,
don't
see
anything
structurally
wrong
with
that
approach.
I
think
there
is
this
fear
that
the
stability
fee
might
have
to
go
too
high,
which
is
a
which
is
a
nebulous
concept
and
I'm
actually
wanted
to
share
a
picture
or
promotion.
You
have
a
link
to
that
that
tweet
over
that
picture
of
the
ethnics
margin,
yeah.
G
Just
posted
it
all
right,
rich
post,
a
link
in
the
chat
where
you
know
basically
I
think
these
are
the
the
margin
rates
for
big
connects,
and
you
know
we
can
see
that
there's
just
massive
variants
in
this
rate
that
you
know
fluctuates
heavily
based
on
kind
of
the
spot
demand
for
leverage
on
the
exchange.
And
you
know
it's
not.
It's
not
there's,
obviously,
some
nuances,
some
subtleties
that
are
different
between
this
rate
and
the
maker
stability
fee,
but
I
think,
overall,
this
shape.
You
know
it's
reasonable
to
assume
that
they
will
look
somewhat
similar.
G
So
back
to
your
question,
David
I
think
that
if
we
can
collectively
agree
that
a
higher
stability
fee
lowers
this
supply
and
we're
comfortable
with
basically
highly
variable,
you
know
high
very
instability,
feeds
and
I.
Don't
see
anything
structurally
deficient
with
the
current
lever
that
we're
using.
A
You
explain
this
it
to
me
a
couple
days
ago,
and
it
was
sort
of
an
aha
moment
for
me
and
I
think
it
might
be
useful
to
dig
into
this
a
bit
more
because
it
ties
back
to
this.
Deana
we've
been
having
these
calls
of
needing
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
what
people
use
the
CDP
engine
for,
and
there's
been
this
question
about.
A
Is
it
just
to
unlock
liquidity,
to
do
X,
Y
or
Z,
or
is
it
primarily
a
leverage
tool
and
I
think
that
by
comparing
the
the
response
of
the
community
to
receive
AP
owners
to
the
stability
high
hikes,
and
especially,
was
comparing
it
back
to
promotions
Twitter
thread
that
I
posted,
which
is
worth
a
read
yeah?
It
is
your
impression
that
the
reaction
to
the
market
to
the
stability
and
fee
increases
is
a
pretty
clear
indication
that
leverage
is
the
primary
use
case
here,
like
that
yeah.
A
A
That
rates
are
very
clear,
a
lot
clear
picture
about
what
does
the
stability
fee
is
of
the
correct
Weber
then,
in
that
regard,
because
the
risk
appetite
if
some,
if,
obviously
the
clear
and
a
primary
usage
is
leverage,
the
risk
appetite
is
going
to
be
a
lot
higher
and
the
premium
people
are
going
to
pay
for
that
right.
Right.
G
So
I
think
that's
played
a
part
for
the
emotional
side
of
things
as
well,
but
I
think
the
reality
is
that
for
as
long
as
dye
is
being
used
primarily
for
leverage,
we
can
and
should
expect
highly
volatile
stability
fees
going
forward.
You
know
on
the
reverse,
if
it
overshoots
or
for
whatever
reason
the
bull
market
just
suddenly
dies.
I
think
you
know
we
could
see
a
quick
correction
in
terms
of
demand
for
leverage,
so.
C
D
C
G
I,
don't
think
we
know
the
answer
to
the
risk
of
overshooting
I
know.
There's
some
in
this
call
that
have
are
somewhat
concerned
with
it.
Personally:
I'm,
not
I.
Just
do
you
think
it's
gonna
once
we
overshoot
is
gonna
require
some
Swift
governance
to
quickly
undo
it
I
mean
I,
think
we'll
have
a
bit
of
a
buffer
as
if
there's
room
in
the
debt
ceiling,
then
then
market
makers
can
generate
die
and
push
the
push
the
price
back
down,
but
that's
just
kind
of
like,
let's
cross
that
bridge
when
we
get
there.
G
A
I'd
love
to
hear
from
the
community
actually,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
bigwigs
in
the
call,
a
lot
of
maker
holders
and
a
lot
of
maker
voters,
so
some
opinions
about
what
their
impression
is,
but
this
mid-range
selection
in
their
most
recent
poll,
whether
that
implies
sentiment,
has
maybe
scared
people
away
from
trying
to
increase
it
any
farther,
whether
the
community
or
the
maker
butters
that
believe
that
they
are
achieving
or
getting
close
to
an
equilibrium.
I'd
like
some
additional
insight,
because
I
don't
know
what's
happening
in
it.
I'd
like
to.
I
Think
you
make
some
really
really
good
points,
one
one
that
I
like
the
way
that
you
framed
it
that
we
have
two
hypotheses
here,
just
going
back
all
the
way
to
the
first
thing
that
you
mentioned
on
the
one
side
we
have
the
question
of:
does
disability
fee
affect
supply
and
or
so
to
what
extent
and
there's
the
question
is:
to
what
extent
does
the
change
in
supply
then
have
an
impact
on
price
and
I
agree
that
we
have
to
think
about
one,
the
other?
We
haven't
seen
this
ability.
I
We
have
an
enormous
effect
on
supply,
and
so,
therefore,
when
we
don't
have
that
data,
it's
hard
to
answer,
question
number
two,
and
so
it's
who
we
see
that
you
know
I,
think
all
that
is
going
to
be
questioned,
not
just
what
people
on
this
call,
but
the
broader
community
that
essentially
spends
a
little
bit
less
time
on
is
there's
just
something
to
be
aware
of
that.
We
can't
do
much
about
I
mean
if
we're
disciplined
about
continuing
to
increase
the
stability
fee.
I
Until
we
see
the
results
that
we
would
like
to
see
or
are
refuted
in
our
initial
hypothesis,
doctors
will
remain
open
and
we
just
said
something:
we
need
to
be
comfortable
with
on
the
on
the
question
of
overshooting.
Just
because
I
have
a
strong
opinion
about
this.
I
am
absolutely
not
worried
about
overshooting.
I
In
fact,
I
don't
think
it
would
be
a
bad
thing
if
we
overshot
a
little
bit
and
that
that
means
the
market
makers
would
be
able
to
clear
some
trays
and
above
$1
and
they've
valiantly
defended
a
peg
for
us
to
the
extent
that
they
have
the
significant
capital,
and
so
I
wouldn't
I,
wouldn't
mind
if
that
happened,
to
reward
them
for
that.
Taking
that
risk
for
us.
So
that's
just
two
cents
on
two
things
that
you
mention
in
there
right.
G
And
part
of
what
I
said
kind
of
bridges
into
this,
you
know
the
idea
of
alternate
solutions
such
as
obviously
reducing
the
debt
ceiling.
So
if,
if
people
are
of
the
opinion
that
a
reduced
supply
will
have
an
effect,
then
you
know
that
debt
ceiling
argument
is
moved
anyways,
because
it's
accomplishing
the
exact
same
thing.
If
you
do
think
that
supply
reduced
supply
will
help,
then
you
know,
is
it
not
worth
just
considering
the
continuation
of
the
supply
reduction
through
the
stability
fee?
So
they
said
we've
seen
some
reduction
from
you
know
96
to
88.
G
What
is
that,
like?
Maybe
8%
reduction,
which
is
not
great
but
but
so
is
that
not
enough
confirmation
for
certain
people
that
higher
fee
has
resulted
in
a
lower
lower
supply
and
I
mean
no
secret
I'm,
not
again
I'm,
not
for
the
debt
ceiling
reduction
but
happy
to
hear
other
thoughts,
but
for
me,
I
think
it
kind
of
creates
some
weird
incentives
that
we
haven't
fully
thought
out.
Yet
so
it
turns
you
know,
turns
the
system
from
a
permissionless
one
into
a
first-come.
G
E
G
E
Much
more
unlikely
that
they
would
try
to
figure
out
ways
to
sell
their
CDT.
The
CDP
market
opens
up
I
agree
with
you
that
there
are
kind
of
some
unintended
consequences
of
just
immediately
slashing
the
debt
ceiling
to
a
level
where,
like
folks,
can't
issue
new
dye,
but
I
think
that
the
technical
risk
of
global
settlement
certainly
is
a
lot
more
palatable.
If
there's
say
seventy
five
million
dollars
in
dye
outstanding,
as
opposed
to
90
million
or
seventy
million
dollars
in
diodes,
but
anything
I'm
supposed
to
87.
Because
that's
that's.
F
C
F
G
So
I
think
I
think
there
is.
There
is
a
reasonable
argument
for
lowering
the
debt
ceiling
to
something
above
where
we're
currently
at
you
know
to
let's
say:
90
million.
That's
actually
not
something
that
I'm
for
or
against
one
way
or
another,
but
that
doesn't
also
have
an
immediate
effect
on
the
dark
race.
But
I
see
what
you're
saying
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
the
global
settlement
risk
I
mean
that's
like
a
separate.
That's
it
for
me.
G
E
Hundred
percent,
but
like
we'll
come
to
that
bridge
when
we
cross
it
right
now,
we
all
acknowledge
that
we're
in
beta
or
in
single
collateral
die.
We
can
only
use
either.
The
peg
has
been
broken
for
for
three
months,
where
we're
increasing
stability
fees
that
are
at
a
rapid
pace,
right,
I,
don't
think
I.
Think
a
lot
of
people
are
kind
of
surprised
that
the
most
recent
Billy
fee
increase
just
went
through
on
Friday
as
quickly
as
it
did,
but
it
did
and
right
now,
I
think
it's.
C
E
Don't
think
right
there
yet
but
I'm
just
saying
that
is
a
looming
consideration
once
we
start
getting
above
twenty
percent
and
it's
really
yeah
I
just
don't
understand
what
the
what
the
downside
is
of
acknowledging
that
we're
in
data
trying
to
to
use
all
the
tools
in
the
tool
belt
to
try
to
fix,
to
fix
the
the
outstanding
prices
supply
market
makers
will
not
create
CDP's
to
issue
themselves
more
die
and
unless
they're,
unless
at
the
same
time,
they're
naturally
along
eat.
So
that's
kind
of
that's
a
red
herring.
F
E
E
F
E
Hold
on
one
second,
though,
because
this
is
this
keeps
coming
up
and
I,
don't
know
what
why
why
all
of
a
sudden
right
like
we're
just
stability,
feed
Sheriff
when
it
comes
to
measuring
the
the
kind
of
the
viability
of
using
a
stability
feed
to
to
quote
lower
supply
and
fix
the
peg
right
Mike?
That's
that's
not
that's!.
E
But
again,
what's
artificial
about
this,
because
this
whole
thing
is
pretty
artificial,
like
that,
like
the
whole
thing,
it's
not
it's!
It's
it's
a
misnomer!
It's
a
mischaracterization!
It's
trying
to
paint
something
as
being
kind
of
like
like
ugly
and
like
against
market
forces,
but
but
I
just
don't
understand,
so
they
all
be
sure.
G
So
let
me
try
to
answer
it.
So
I
think
people
have
people
think
that
the
people
misunderstand
what
the
primary
risk
to
the
debt
ceiling
is,
and
it's
actually
not
it's
not
relevant
to
monetary
policy
or
the
dice
ability,
but
rather
is
a
function
of
the
risk
of
the
collateral.
Failing
so
how
much
you
know
that
ceiling
for
risky
asset
is
a
billion
dollars
and
it
fails
and
that's
a
billion
dollars
of
bad
debt.
You
know
technically
not
something
thats
related
to
monetary
policy.
I
get.
E
That
but
I
guess
why
and
I
understand
too
that,
like
that
this
may
be
a
growing
minority,
but
but
but
I'm
a
minority
position.
Nonetheless,
right
is
we
we
think
we're
pretty
certain
that
we
have
too
much
supply
right,
I,
think
everyone
is
in
agreement
with
that
and
I.
Don't
have
a
good
reason
why
if
we
have
too
much
supply,
why
don't
we
tap
supply
understanding
full
well
that
we.
E
F
D
F
The
challenge
is
not
what
you
do
to
start:
it's
what
you
do
to
stop.
Okay,
what
think
about
what
you're
saying
it
you're
putting
a
tool
in
there
that
limits
supply
in
its
creation?
How
do
you
turn
it
off
and
do
not
expect
when
you
release
that
inhibition
you're
going
to
have
the
alt
the
exact
opposite
challenge,
because.
E
So,
but
here's
the
thing
right
is
that
we
have
this
great.
We
have
this
great
data
set
about
what
happened.
What
happened?
The
last
time
we've
ran
up
against
the
debt
ceiling,
die,
appreciated
above
a
dollar,
and
then
once
the
debt
ceiling
was
raised,
the
pressure
was
relieved
and
died
traded
much
closer
to
$1
than
it
is
right.
Now
in
December.
F
E
A
I
need
to
cut
you
off
so
I'm
not
going
to
kill
the
conversation.
Let's
stick
around
after
the
call,
but
we're
at
the
top
of
the
hour.
We're
gonna
start
losing
a
pile
of
people
so
Steven.
If
you
want
to
give
us
your
final
thought.
Anybody
who's
interested
in
continuing
the
distant
conversation
stick
around
but
I.
Let
you
go
Steve.
Noise
I
just
want
to
basically
just.
B
Thank
you
and
for
for
being
on
school
and
just
listen
to
the
points
that
have
been
raised.
It's
very
interesting
to
think
about
you
know
still
MCP
is
a
beaver
and
think
more
broadly
about
you
know
what
is
the
environment?
What
does
the
eco
system
look
like
to
make
a
stability
theme
more
effective?
Then
you
know
what
you
believe
is
doing
at
the
moment.
B
At
the
same
time
probably
be
focused
into
the
fact
that
what
that
ideal
state
is
and
trying
to
compare
it
to
where
we
are
and
think
clearly
about
what
are
the
demands
that
we
need
to
to
innovate
on,
to
try
and
counter,
as
opposed
to
try
to
console
the
system
as
opposed
to
try
and
manage
something
that
you
know
vo
at
the
same
time
bootstrapping,
but
to
all
the
folks
that
have
contributed
this
conversation.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
really
do
appreciate
it
and
I
think
that
we
can
definitely
keep
the
momentum
behind
this
all.
A
Right
thanks
Steven
thanks
everybody
for
your
great
and
impassioned
conversations
and
thoughts.
Today.
Last
week
we
kept
the
call
going
after
the
ten
o'clock
mark,
and
that
was
well-received
surprisingly,
so
I
think
we
can
potentially
do
that
again.
So
if
people
have
jobs
to
do
feel
free
to
hang
out-
and
we
can
continue
to
talk
ourselves
out,
one
thing
I
do
want
to
caution.
Chris
love
your
passion,
it's
very
important
that
we
let
people
finish
their
conversation,
so
I,
don't
turn
this
thing
to
turn
into
the
Fox
and
Friends
kind
of
deals.
K
E
K
Really,
this
is
an
important
thing
when
you
die
above
$1.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
on
this
call
that
didn't
get
a
chance
to
talk
during
the
hour.
That's
the
I
think.
Maybe
that's
next
time
we
suggest,
like
the
Q&A
we
have
shorter.
Being
apart
in
like
a
beer
Q&A,
because
I
know
there
are
less
partners
that
would
love
to
talk
as
they
want
to
drive
died
back
up
to
$1.
That's.
A
A
great
point
thanks:
Joe
there's
something
we've
been
talking
about
for
a
while
is
whether
this
call
should
actually
break
out
into
something
different
at
10
o'clock,
where
we
basically
maybe
just
a
roundtable
around
risk
where
there's
just
random
questions.
Maybe
it's
just
thoughts
and
feelings
and
all
the
rest
of
it,
and
so
maybe
let's
do
that.
I'm,
not
sure
whether
we're
talking
on
the
debt
ceiling
thing
yet
and
judging
from
Chris's
passion,
I
think
probably
not.
C
I
think
that
we
should
continue
with
the
the
debt
ceiling
discussion,
but
Mike
did
post
a
link
to
his
some
of
his
thoughts
that
are
actually
pointed
out,
contrary
to
the
position
of
wire
as
one
large
die
market-makers.
So
it's
definitely
something
that
the
community
should
take
a
look
at,
but
other
than
that
we
didn't
see
anything
particular
yeah.
C
A
Right
well
keep
an
eye
on.
Let
me
finish.
Let
me
put
maybe
a
bow
on
this
best
anything
so
I,
it's
potentially
not
something
we're
I,
don't
know.
I'm,
not
gonna,
stifle
the
conversation.
If
people
wanna
keep
on
talking
about
it,
that's
great
here's,
my
advice,
though
we
we
have
this,
maybe
I
reframe
things.
A
So
we
had
this
discussion
where
I
think
at
least
personally,
it's
becoming
obvious
that
maybe
I'm
just
the
slowest
guy
in
the
room
that
CDP's
are
all
about
leverage
people
are
willing
to
leave
because
they're,
potentially
degenerate
gamblers
or
who
knows
how
things
work
so
as
a
high
stability
fee
is
not
really
a
disincentive.
So
perhaps
we
haven't
found
out
what
that
sweet
spot
is
yet
there's
another
school
of
thought
that
just
simply
artificially
capping
the
amount
of
diet.
That's
in
circulation
is
a
valid
way
to
go
as
well.
I'm,
not
a
smart.
A
This
this
is
the
thing
where
I
want
to
finish
my
sentence
before
you
jump
increase
so
that
the
next
step
is.
We
need
to
completely
understand
the
conversation
and
I,
don't
think
the
completely
understanding
that
implications
of
the
density
of
conversation
is
going
to
happen
today,
although
we
can
like
work
towards
that,
what
I
would
love
to
see,
though-
and
this
is
kind
of
something
that
I
was
touching
on
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
call-
is
that
there
needs
to
be
a
berry.
A
There
basically
needs
to
be
a
thesis
presented
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
about
what
the
debt
ceiling
is
all
about
and
why
that
would
be
good.
So
somebody
needs
to
write
up
boost
up
the
old
Google
sheets,
now
Google
Docs
and
just
write
up
like
10
or
15
sentences
or
paragraphs
whatever
it
takes
to
create
a
reasoned
and
impassioned
platform
for
which
people
can
begin
to
debate,
because,
right
now
the
the
debt
ceiling
discussion
from
what
I
can
proceed.
A
Maybe
this
is
my
own
perception,
but
it's
spread
across
five
or
six
different
threads
in
the
maker.
Coso
read
it
maybe
there's
one
or
two
maker
Dow:
they
have
various
levels
of
complexity
in
them.
Some
of
them
have
really
good
comments.
Some
of
them
have
you
know
shady
comments.
Somebody
needs
to
aggregate
those
that
thinking
and
come
up
with
a
plan
that
we
can
all
go.
Okay.
This
is
the
debt
ceiling
plan.
A
What
do
we
think
about
this
and
then
we
move
from
there
and
then
I
think
that
an
interesting
plan
possibility
is
that
maybe
we
have
government's
Poli
says
like
hey:
are
people
like
who
is
interested
in
talking
about
this
debt
ceiling
thing
seriously
and
then,
if
maker
comes
out
and
votes
for
it
done
yeah?
And
now
it's
a
thing
right,
but
there
needs
to
be
a
clear
plan
of
action
as
opposed
to
hey.
We
need
to
change
the
dead
soon.
It's
not
going
to
go
anywhere.
K
I
would
I
want
to
give
it
a
little
more
time,
but
I
think
we
are
breaking
down
like
the
overall
number
of
Dai
issued
now
we're
down
to
86
million,
because
right
now
I
would
I
wanted
mine.
I
thought
our
mistake
was
we
shouldn't
have
raised
so
much
and
just
let
it
hit
the
debt
ceiling,
but
I
really
don't
want
to
lower
the
debt
ceiling.
It
shows
like
lower
growth.
We
we
have
like
we're
raising
up
so
much.
It
shows
died.
Demand
at
these
rates.
Think
about
it
as
a
hedge
fund.
K
It's
not
really
not
really
great
I
mean
not.
Many
people
have
acts
as
the
coinbase
Pro
to
go
from
us.
They
go
from
dollar
to
US
DC
to
die.
You
know
what
die
really
needs
to
be
is
great
axis
were
where
people
could
just
go
and
immediately
take
the
credit
card
and
go
by
dying.
We
just
that
hasn't
happened
yet,
but
I'm
sure
I
can
make
her
team
has
tricks
up.
A
D
Like
evident,
if
there's
a
problem
in
the
underline
like
the
infrastructure,
there's
some
problem
somewhere
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
find
like
identify
and
you
we
can't
force
and
we
can
evangelize
and
do
that
sort
of
stuff.
But
demand
will
come.
That's
it.
That's
just
a
fact.
We
just
cannot
fight.
You
know,
time
and
adoption
stuff.
The
only
thing
we
can
do
between
now
and
when
that
hits
is
make
sure
that
there
is
only
one
place
in
town
that
has
the
most
concrete,
stable
coining.
That
is
decentralized.
D
A
Well,
there's
some
good
context:
Eric's
I
think
that
it's
becoming
increasingly
obvious
to
a
lot
of
people,
that
the
reason
that
we
are
having
these
discussions
now
is
because
the
the
community
or
the
voters
left
this
stability
Fiat
at
an
unreasonably
low
rate.
Far
too
long
right,
then,
if
that's
one
of
the
things
that
needs
to
be
in
the
back
of
our
mind
to
if
we
do
hit
that
glorious
day
when
we
find
out
where
the
overshoot
is
that
responding
to
aggressively
in
the
opposite
direction,
potentially
create
some
risks
as
well.
Right.
D
That's
my
reluctance
to
use
it,
but
I
do
agree
that
I
know
it's
right.
It's
factual
that
the
reason
this
is
all
blowing
out
is
because
system
is
not
it's
three
and
a
half
or
three
point:
five
X
the
amount
of
collateral
in
the
system,
but
the
system
is
comfortable
with
based
on
the
price
discovery
numbers
that
I'm
using
it's
saying
that
it's
basically
three
and
a
half
X
bigger
than
it
should
be,
and
so
basically,
you
I
think
this
there's
a
really
good
chance
to
actually
entertain
the
global
settlement.
D
We're
gonna
need
to
do
it.
It's
going
to
be.
It's
gonna
have
to
happen
at
some
point
anyway.
Why
not
do
it
when
you
know
when
there's
an
actual
meaningful
reason
to
do
it,
but
and
I
think
it
would
signal
really
well
to
the
rest
to
the
market,
the
maturity
of
execution,
the
maker
is
taking
to
preserve
long
term
value
you
for
shareholders
or
gal
holders
and
stuff
I.
Don't.
A
D
It's
a
truer
decision,
so
you
know
if
moon
comes
on
and
says:
hey
we
want.
We
want
this
to
be
a
ten
billion
dollar
market
cap
to
die
in
the
next
three
years,
so
we
are
going
to
burn
it
to
the
ground.
This
is
a
this
is
a
fire
drill,
guys
everyone
you're
gonna,
hear
an
alarm
literally
like
Stephen.
Just
getting
a
fire
drill
out.
Another
cool
earlier
I
think
I.
Think
that
would
signal
incredible
maturity
to
the
rest
of
the
market
and
now's
a
great
time
to
do
it.
But
when
there's
a
reason.
D
C
A
D
That's
true,
but
if
you
have,
we
have
a
motivation
to
do
it
right
now,
and
you
could
say
guys
during
these
four
five
days,
we
will
be
executing
a
global
settlement.
No
one
we're
not
going
to
tell
anyone
other
than
rune
and
rich
and
David
or
whatever
so,
and
and
give
that
predictability
just
to
soften
the
market.
A
little
bit
more
I
think
I
mean
want
to
do
it
when
it's
two
billion
and
you
don't
get
to
choose,
is
whether
or
not
you're
gonna
do
it
yeah.
Second,.
A
It
yeah
in
a
second
so
there's
a
corollary
in
the
IT
space
for
you,
if
you
have
like
a
backup
system,
but
you've,
never
tasted
that
backup
system.
How
do
you
know
you
actually
have
a
backup
system?
There's
yeah,
that's
dealing
with
the
global
or
emergency
shutdown,
and
how
do
we
know
it's
a
thing
unless
it's
only
for
the
repo
so
and
from
that
respect
we
can
test
the
mechanics
of
it.
There's
also
the.
How
do
we
signal
to
the
community
that
we're
going
to
do
this?
A
The
signaling
part
I
can
kind
of
understand
terrifies
me,
but
I
can
kind
of
understand,
but
just
if
you
don't
shut
down,
splash
emergents
need
whatever
we're
calling
it
these
days.
Emergency
shutdown
in
the
beta
stage,
with
potentially
whatever
86
million
died
of
this
kind
of
does
not
really
signal
the
fact
that
we'd
be
willing
to
do
it
with
billions
of
diet.
Spending
right
like
it's
designed
to
be
a
fix
for
a
fundamental
flaw
in
either
the
system,
the
game
theory,
the
contracts
or
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole.
There's.
C
Probably
in
relation
to
like
the
earlier
discussion,
we
had
the
idea
that
you
know
the
variance
in
rates
for
leverage
tends
to
be
really
high
on
other
reference.
Points
like
on
BitFenix
might
be.
It
might
be
better
for
maker
governance
to
do
higher
variance
rate
changes.
That
might
be
a
better
kind
of
step
before
global
set
town.
But
you
know
again,
settlement
is
exactly
instrument.
D
A
Nothing
that
I
want
to
talk
about
as
well
and
the
global
settlement.
Slash
debt
ceiling
solutions
are
two
examples
of
probably
on
the
same
spectrum.
We,
the
committee,
is
plate.
The
third
mission
president's
plane
is
raising
the
stability
fee
in
order
to
find
the
equilibrium
state
with
which
we
can
manage
supply
and
demand.
If
we
introduce
my
concern
is
that
we
introduce
something
like
that.
That's
doing,
or
we
just
shut
the
thing
down
and
start
over
again
is
we've?
Never
the
we've,
never
lesson.
A
F
A
Laboring
or
what
the
ecosystem
is
up
to
or
the
price
of
ether
right,
we
lose
that
learning,
and
that
means
that
once
we
got
the
system
back
up,
we
remove
the
debt
ceiling.
We
have
no
idea
we're
back
in
the
same
boat,
where
we
need
to
figure
out.
Okay.
What's
the
appropriate
stability
for
you
for
this
asset
class?
Well,
know
that
answer,
and
so
we
find
it
the.
E
Stability
thingy,
it's
always
going
to
be
dynamic.
We're
never
like,
like
that.
I
think.
The
idea
of
like
shooting
for
this
Platonic
ideal
of
of
a
stability
fee
is,
is
just
not
the
right
way
to
go
for
obvious
ornament,
because
there's
so
much
dot.
There's
the
whole
system's
very
dynamic.
Right,
like
a
major
assumption
that
we
all
have.
We
all
kind
of
thought
was
going
to
happen
with
that
higher
stability
C's
would
push
people
out
of
TP,
but
what
we
never
counted
on
was
in
a
full
run.
F
G
So
put
em,
you
know
that
that's
good
incentives
for
them
care
of
holders
than
they'd
end
up
generating
more
for
the
buy
and
burn.
If
people
are
willing
to
pay,
you
know
that's
one
I.
Actually,
what
I
think
we
we
discounted
was
just
how
valuable
permissionless
leverage
was.
If
you
can
get,
you
know,
X
percent,
on
on
a
centralized
exchange,
I
mean
the
the
benefits
and
flexibility
of
permission.
Leverage
should
probably
even
be
higher
than
bility.
E
To
get
access
to
the
facility,
yes,
but
if
we
agreed
that
like
die
as
a
stable
coin,
is
the
the
chief
export
of
maker
down
then
I'd
say
that,
like
we're,
not
we're
not
doing
the
best
job
right
like
yes,
having
the
having
the
being
able
to
borrow
against
your
eat
and
have
enter
our
token
holders
take
on
the
other
side
of
that
debt.
That's
like
I
agree
with
you
right
like
who
would
have
thought
that
that
would
have
been
so
so
so
popular
as
opposed
to
kind
of
like
this.
E
E
F
E
One
thing
I
just
want
to
touch
on
something
a
Mike
sets
what
Mike
said
about
global
settlement.
I
agree
is
very
extreme,
but
one
of
the
things
that
it
kind
of
demonstrates
would
be
the
Redeem
ability
of
dye
to
eat
and
I.
Think
that's,
probably
a
much
larger
point
than
than
kind
of
you
know
pushing
the
you
know
essentially
like
the
bankruptcy
button
and
saying
like
yes
like
we're
bankrupt,
but
radar.
F
E
E
G
F
I
think
that
a
global
settlement
is
pretty
is
pretty
drastic.
Something
obviously
also
show,
as
soon
as
that's
announced,
is
that
the
dye
peg
should,
in
theory,
return
to
exactly
one
dollar.
There's
no
reason
why
that
wouldn't
happen,
because
every
day
holder
will
receive
exactly
one
dollar,
but
to
me
I
mentioned
earlier
that
that
is
effectively.
What
should
maintain
a
peg
is
the
risk
of
global
settlement.
C
C
All
right
cool,
so
I
mean
my
thoughts
were
that
you
know
I,
think
that
the
cost
of
capital
and
being
willing
maker
governments
being
willing
to
really
raise
the
stability
fees
with
higher
variance
is
important
because,
like
people
can
refinance,
although
it's
an
obstacle,
you
know,
Lauren
supply
is
step.
One
right
like
before
you
see
anything
in
the
spot
market
happening.
You're
gonna
see
a
lowering
of
supply,
naturally,
but
I
just
think.
The
number
one
thing
to
consider
really
is
higher
variance
and
rates
because
number
one
as
we
as
everybody
kind
of
has
already
said.
C
K
K
E
K
A
D
Was
just
saying
one
of
the
reasons
I
mean
I'm,
not
a
IRA
or
all
right,
whatever
30
is
I'm
not
licensed
fund
manager,
but
I
know
that
one
of
the
things
we
consider
is
counterparty
risk
if
these
dudes
of
whipped
up
some
smart
contracts-
and
it's
had
an
audit
by
you-
know
old
mate
that
was
a
year
ago.
It's
that's
where
it's
usually
really
problematic,
so
people
sort
of
bread
carefully
where
they
might
be
sitting
on
five.
D
Ten
million
dollars
rather
die,
but
only
deploying
like
two
hundred
and
fifty
k,
plus
the
markets
they
can
actually
handle.
That
much
did
you.
Rdx
was
twenty
one
percent.
If
you
put
it
on
there,
you
to
act
short
I
think
we
could
is
like
it
was
a
negative
fifty
one
percent
negative
right.
So
it's
basically
fifty
one.
Fifty
one
percent
APO
was
bonkers,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
you
go
sink.
Ten
mil
onto
that
market,
as
with
Dharma
and
stuff
like
that,
Darmok
can
do
up
to
two
million
dollars
at
fourteen
percent.
That
is
wow.
D
I
A
D
Don't
really
I
don't
really
I'm
not
trying
to
evangelize
my
origin,
because
this
is
actually
the
complete
antithesis
of
the
company's
agenda
where
we
actually
sort
of
breaking
down
the
market
maker,
but
the
price
discovery
is
really
important
and
price
discovery
is
done
by
market
makers
and
market
makers
get
out
of
it
in
the
morning
from
having
reasonable
incentive.
I-I
all
ceased
the
other
day
in
the
maker
chat,
and
I
got
air
balls
like
literally
oxygen
when
people
I
was
like
what
are
the
incentives
market
maker
like
they
get
the
arbitrage,
they
get
the
spread.
D
It's
like
there
is
no
incentive
and
there
is
no
patrasche.
If
you
cannot
realize
the
spread.
It's
like
saying,
there's
a
you
know
a
30%
discount
when
I
send
my
a
ieast
here
and
I
sell
it
in
Korea.
Great
I've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
KRW.
Now
I
can't
get
that
back
to
US
dollars.
That's
why
there's
an
arbitrage
opportunity,
so
I
I,
don't
know
if
you
guys
know
something
that
I
don't
but
I
feel
like
I
should
know
more
about
the
incentives
of
a
market
maker
yeah.
Is
there
any
guy
anyone?
K
G
I
think
what
you
need
is
is
this:
you
need
two
way
flow
between
between
borrowers
and
people
paying
back
their
their
loan,
so
the
stability
fee
has
to
be
high
enough,
such
that
you
have
that
two-way
flow.
Where
dye
fluctuates
between
99
and
101.
You
know
back
and
forth.
That's
if
you
don't
have
that.
Then
market
makers
obviously
won't
be
TIA.
A
A
G
Yeah
I
don't
know
that
I'm
not
I,
don't
know
too
much,
but
I
know
that
I
mean
the
simple
answer.
Why
it
can't
be
done
is
is
because
right,
like
whose
latter
will
you
be
redeeming
as
a
dye
holder,
you
know
if
you're
a
die
holder
game.
You
know
what
is
the:
where
does
it,
whose
are
deeming
the
other
side
but
I'm
not
to
knowledge
about
like
what
potential
solutions
are
and
workarounds
and
kind
of
technical
answers.
A
G
So
I
think
that's
I,
think
that's
the
the
partial
global
settlement
idea
right
where
somehow
incentivize
some
CVP
holders
to
to
provide
liquidity
at
some.
You
know
pre
specified
time
intervals.
The
I
don't
know
too
much
about
that.
I
think
David
does,
but
I
think
you
may
be
pissed.
On
top
sorry,
no.
A
10:30
I'm
not
sure
how
much
momentum
we
have
left
I
do
know
that
I
need
to
jump
up
because
I
have
13
hours
of
work.
I
need
to
you.
Yeah
Cyrus
is
in
the
same
boat,
so
I
think
that
what
I
want
to
do
is
the
same
thing
that
I've
done
for
last.
Three
calls
I
am
going
to
spend
the
next
hour
to
rewatching.
This
call
typing
up
a
summary.
Getting
the
videos
and
audio
uploaded
puts
a
a
recap
in
the
thread
that
I
posted
what
seems
like
hours
ago.
I'll.
A
Do
it
again
just
for
clarity,
sig
continued
the
discussion
here
and
the
link
I,
just
posted
questions
that
weren't
asked
or
answered
to
people.
This
particular
satisfaction.
Please
retype
them
there
if
I
don't
get
them
to
in
the
summary,
and
let's
continue
the
chat
over
the
course
of
the
next
week,
Oh
dad
tomorrow,
an
executive
vote
will
go
up
with
asking
the
community
if
they
want
to
raise
the
stability
fee
by
3%.