►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk | Ep. 172
Description
Agenda:
Introduction:
@GovAlpha-Core-Unit : Hosting, Introduction, Agenda.
@gov-comms-core-unit : Slides
Governance Round-Up:
@prose11 Poll + Executive Status
@blimpa - MIPs Update
@Artem_Gordon Forum at a Glance
Selected Discussions:
Newcomers, Anons, and Sock Puppets
- How does the Maker community handle engagement from questionable sources?
- Differentiating malice or trolling from controversial but legitimate proposals.
- Is a proposal ever considered illegitimate, assuming it fulfills all the requirements of the proposal type?
- Is being hands-off and relying on MKR voters and delegates to judge for themselves enough?
- Do authors of proposals matter?
Core Unit Proposals & Dispute Methods
- What are the methods for stakeholders to engage in disputes or publish complaints regarding Core Units? Is there a sliding scale of possible actions we could outline as a DAO?
- Is it reasonable to restrict third parties from submitting MIP 39, 40, & 41 subproposals on behalf of Core Units?
- Is offboarding a Core Unit or its facilitator unavoidable public drama?
= How would you design a Core Unit offboarding proposal process that is less publicly exposed?
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/governance-and-risk-172-thursday-december-16-17-00-utc/12217
-
-
-
-
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in these public calls are those of the hosts and guests involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates.
A
All
right,
hello,
everyone
and
welcome
this
is
the
172nd
governance
and
risk
call
here
in
maker
dao.
It
also
happens
to
be
our
last
planned
governance,
risk
call
for
2021.
My
name
is
peyton.
I
go
by
pros
11
online
and
I
am
one
of
the
governance
facilitators
here
very
happy
to
be
kind
of
moderating.
This
call
I'm
joined
here
by
a
bunch
of
awesome
maker
folks,
both
those
who
work
in
the
community,
those
who
are
interested
by
it
and
kind
of
everyone
in
between.
A
So
thank
you
all
for
coming
out
and
thank
you
if
you're
watching
this
later
on
the
recording.
That
is
a
good
spot
to
remind
our
participants
that
we
are
recording
this
call.
So
please
try
not
to
speak
over
one
another
with
that
said,
we
do
encourage
participating
right.
We
want
to
get
your
questions
and
comments.
A
So
if
there
is
a
a
pause
in
the
conversation
feel
free
to
hop
on
the
mic
or
for
whatever
reason,
if
you're
not
comfortable,
asking
your
question
yourself,
you
can
drop
it
in
the
chat
and
I'm
happy
to
do
so.
For
you,
I
think
that
mostly
covers
the
kind
of
housekeeping
rules
we
do
have
a
bit
of
an
agenda
to
get
through
today,
I'll
be
guiding
us
through,
as
always
we'll
start
with
our
governance
roundup.
A
Until
we
move
on
to
our
community
discussions,
if
there's
time
left
after
those,
we
will
have
an
open
discussion
portion
and
that's
where,
if
you
have
anything
not
related
to
what
we've
been
talking
about,
you
can
save
it
to
the
end
or
if
anyone
mentions
anything
in
chat.
That
might
be
a
good
topic
to
close
out
on.
I
won't
bring
it
back
up,
then,
so
without
further
ado,
I'll
get
back
to
what's
happened
in
the
world
of
governance,
and
our
votes
in
particular,
was
a
bit
of
a
lighter
week.
A
The
two
other
polls
we
ran
were
a
little
bit
unique
and
that
they
were
signaled
more
for
the
maker
open
markets
committee,
particularly
dealing
with
our
direct
deposit
module
over
at
ave
and
what
rates
and
debt
ceiling
felt
the
community
should
be
targeting
so
for
those
had
a
fairly
close
vote,
though
still
fairly
decisive
as
well
on
the
net
rate
spread.
This
was
voting
on
having
a
negative
point.
A
A
A
That
wraps
up
polls.
Next
we
have
our
executive
votes
again,
a
little
bit
easier.
This
week,
our
last
executive
did
pass
that
included,
changes
to
wraps
to
heat,
as
well
as
matic
a
and
the
debt
ceiling
and
for
rap
detail
some
of
the
liquidation
parameters
as
well.
We
also
switched
the
source
of
the
mkr.
Investing
proposals
were
present
or
saw
the
recording
it
would
be
about
a
month
a
month
ago.
A
Now
I
don't
know
if
time
is
time
is
hard
to
tell,
but
we
did
have
that
discussion
here
on
the
g
r
about
the
sourcing
for
our
mkr,
investing,
particularly
that
the
contracts
were
set
up
to
mint
it
and
there's
some
community
discussion.
Ultimately,
the
community
deciding
they
would
rather
pull
those
funds
from
from
the
mkr
and
our
paws
proxy.
Essentially
our
community
treasurer.
A
Next
week
there
is
no
planned
executive.
In
fact,
the
earliest
time
we're
planning
to
have
one
is
january
7th.
However,
I
would
ask
that
the
recognized
delegates
keep
that
phone
handy,
that's
a
little
bit
ingest,
but
at
the
very
least,
if
you
could
leave
notifications
on
to
the
gov
alpha
and
delegates
discord
channel,
that
is
publicly
viewable,
so
anyone
could
can
see
if
we
do
need
to
summon
the
delegates
for
any
reason,
but
basically
the
reason
we're
asking
that
is.
A
B
Okay,
cool.
Thank
you,
peyton,
hello,
everyone!
I
somewhat
sleep,
deprived
pablo
here,
so
forgive
me
if
I
fumble
over
my
words
a
bit
more
than
usual,
so
it's
a
pretty
short
update.
Can
we
move
to
the
next
slide?
Please
yeah!
So
we've
had
a
great
many
number
of
proposals
this
month
that
could
make
it
into
that
can
make
it
into
january's
governance
cycle.
There's
been
no
new
additions
and
they've
already
been
covered
here.
B
So
I
don't
want
to
for
you
cycling
through
that
list
again,
but
it
will
I'll
just
try
to
make
it
a
bit
quicker.
So
we
have
a
two
coordinate
proposal
sets
that
is
tech,
ops
and
strategic
finance,
I'm
not
forgetting
maker
talent.
More
in
it
later.
We
also
have
five
mips
intangible
asset
assignment
delegate,
compensation,
collateral,
affording
process
maker
keeper
keeper
network
and
the
tentatively
named
map64,
which
is
amine
fire
securities
black
bounty
program.
B
We
have
a
five
budget
modifications,
including
the
removal
of
our
content
productions.
Current
budget,
we
have
a
facilitator
on
boarding,
a
proposal
for
real
world
finance
for
will
remember
specifically,
and
one
for
affording
fortune
core
unit,
I'm
sorry
and
one
for
affording
for
set
goal
far
from
content
production.
B
Also,
as
you
know,
the
oracle
gas
cost
budget
posted
by
nick
conker
has
been
fought
and
split
by
the
aptly
named
user.
The
fork
this
proposal
will
be
eligible
for
formal
submission.
On
february
team.
James
mccall
has
posted
a
special
purpose,
found
that
I
mentioned
before,
create
real
da
spf
to
make
mollock-based
special
purpose
vehicles
and
is
looking
for
controllers
for
this
spf.
B
A
B
A
B
B
A
D
Hey
guys
just
posted
the
link,
all
right
welcome
to
the
forum
at
a
glance.
This
is
a
weekly
review
of
what's
happened
on
the
forums
and
for
the
week
of
december,
9th
to
today
december
16th.
This
will
be
the
last
forum
at
a
glance
for
the
year
of
2021
and
we'll
begin
of
our
top
announcements.
So
we
could
go
to
the
next
slide
there
we
go
all
right,
makerburn
published
their
most
recent
updates.
D
Next
up
the
sidestream
auction
services
core
unit
present
their
unified
auctions,
ui
release,
which
aims
to
provide
a
one-stop
solution
that
redirects
users
to
relevant
resources
related
to
auctions.
This
also
includes
different
uis
participating
in
collateral
surplus
or
debt
auctions.
They
also
include
auction
related
analytics
tools
and
existing
keeper
implementations.
D
D
That's
because,
as
we
have
seen,
the
second
half
of
2021
has
really
cooled
off
the
d5
sector
to
the
point
of
being
undervalued,
at
least
for
maker
many
other
d5
applications
are
now
pushing
for
changes
in
2022
to
help
improve
their
token
or
application
value.
This
means
that
it's
now
time
for
maker
as
well
to
cross
to
the
next
frontier,
which
is
the
multi-chain
blockchain
future.
D
D
The
platform
threads
are
currently
summarizing,
on-chain
actions
of
recognized
delegates,
and
this
gives
a
good
overview
of
their
thinking
process
results,
but
it
doesn't
provide
any
hints
about
what's
going
on
before
making
their
decisions
in
response.
Shoopy
asks
the
community
whether
it
will
be
helpful
to
provide
additional
updates
around
their
thinking
process
prior
to
voting,
and
should
we
have
this
as
something
where
the
community
interacts
with
individual
delegates.
D
D
Currently
75
000
mkr
would
be
needed
to
be
burned
in
the
esm
to
allow
for
emergency
shutdown,
and
this
invites
a
risk
where
a
single,
really
heavy
mkr
holder
may
be
compelled
to
trigger
the
emergency
shutdown
in
response,
gfx
lab
submits
a
request
to
determine
whether
to
increase
the
esm
threshold.
It's
not
believed
that
any
single
mkr
holder
currently
holds
more
than
100
000
mkr
and
thereby
gfxlab
asks
the
community
whether
we
should
raise
the
esm
threshold
to
100
000
mkr.
D
That's
it
so
for
more
information
at
the
forum
at
a
glance
go
check
out
the
post.
It
includes
three
point
summary
evaluations
and
reports.
Ongoing
initiatives
help
wanted
and
for
this
particular
post
there's
some
details
on
what's
coming
up
with
the
forum
at
a
glance
for
next
year,
some
updates-
and
things
like
that.
Thank
you.
A
C
C
You
know
sock
puppet
accounts
from
newcomers
who
are
very
you
know,
potentially
very
real
stakeholders
who
just
don't
participate
very
actively,
and
so
so
I
prepared
a
few
prompts,
but
the
first
one
kind
of
talks
about
how
we've
historically
handled
it
and
basically
how
it's
currently
being
handled.
So
the
forum
has
been
designed
to
allow
newcomers
to
freely
engage
so
discourse
at
the
forum
platform
that
we
use
actually
has
a
trust
level
functionality.
C
We
don't
rely
on
it
too
much,
but
we
do
actually
use
it
for
a
couple
of
different
sections
in
the
forum,
for
example,
media
inquiries.
In
order
to
post
in
media
inquiries,
you
have
to
be
a
trust
level
three
or
higher
in
order
to
actually
post
a
thread.
I
believe
you
have
to
be
in
a
specific
group
of
you
know
being
in
the
media
group,
which
requires
a
level
of
verification
from
our
team,
but
for
the
most
part
you
know
the
the
forum
doesn't
have
you
know
limits
to
newcomers.
C
But
ultimately
it's
kind
of,
like
you
know,
signal
requests
are
the
first,
the
first
step
of
the
governance
consensus
process
here
at
maker,
but
really
like
nothing
happens
until
a
governance
poll
and
then
eventually
an
executive
vote
happens.
So
you
know,
mkr
holders
still
have
the
ultimate
say
on
you
know,
votes
and
decisions,
but
of
course
you
know
we
want
to
have
a
higher
integrity
signal
process.
C
So
at
the
moment,
all
that
we
really
do
or
all
that
gov
alpha
really
does
is
make
a
note
of
it
when
there
are
when
there
is
suspicious
activity
on
signals,
but
from
my
understanding
that
hasn't
actually
happened
very
much
and
peyton
can
confirm
or
deny
that
or
yeah
kind
of
bring
me
into
reality.
Here.
A
If
so,
our
potential
like
suspicious
votes,
causing
the
the
margin
of
error,
and
if
so,
we
post
the
community,
we
we
can
do
things
like
extend
the
poll
right,
ask
for
for
more
participation,
call
up,
potentially
professional
behavior,
but,
generally
speaking
like
there's,
not
a
ton
of
participation
in
signal
requests
right.
You
know
it's
usually
between
20
and
40
votes
and
most
of
them
are
known
entities.
A
C
Yeah
also,
like
you
know,
from
from
the
start,
I
believe
the
maker
community,
its
forum,
admins
and
moderators,
like
have
always
valued
kind
of,
like
you,
know,
freedom
of
speech
and
your
ability
to
to
really
have
freedom
on
this
communications
channel.
So
I
know
we've
always
you
know
treated
censorship
or
over
moderation,
kind
of
delicately
like
we
don't
want
to
over.
We
don't
want
to
censor
if
we
don't
need
to.
C
Yeah
and
if
there's
no
strong,
like
so
from
what
I'm
sensing
like
there,
isn't
really
very
much
like
strong
opinions
or
thought
here,
because
it
has
been
somewhat
of
like
a
non-issue.
It's
just.
Its
head
has
been
showing,
in
a
few
small
cases,
for
example
like
the
case
with
the
oracle's
quarter
unit
budget.
Just
now
as
well
as
well,
what's
another
case,
actually
I'm
blanking,
but
yeah
nick.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
that
you
would
wanna
share
about
kind
of
this
whole
topic.
E
E
It's
who
is
gets
to
vote
in
the
signal
request
right,
we've
seen
like
instances
of
like
other
communities,
kind
of
come
and
like
raid
us
right,
where
they
all
just
make
like
a
bunch
of
accounts
that
day
right
and
then
they
they
try
and
sway.
The
community
sentiment
right
to
be.
You
know,
super
bullish
on
whatever
their
collateral
type
is
right.
We
we
saw
it
with
the
chain
link
kind
of
org
or
you
know,
maybe
not
the
org,
the
the
the
organism.
E
So
there
there
is
some
kind
of
balance
that
that
we
need
to
strike
here.
But
I
think
the
important
thing
is
that
we
just
define
these
things
ahead
of
time.
So
then,
when
we
do
this
kind
of
moderation
in
the
future,
then
it's
not
like
we're
just
making
up
the
rules.
As
we
go
right,
there's
a
predefined
set
of
guidelines
that
the
communities
kind
of
come
up
with
that
we
can
then
point
to,
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
some.
E
F
A
Well,
he
fixes
his
connection.
There
will
invite
you
back
when
you
get
it
established.
Fine,
there's
a
lot
of
good
chat
in
the
side
here.
I
would
encourage
people
to
like
raise
their
hand
if
they
do
want
to
hop
on
the
mic,
but
one
conversation
in
particular
I
wanted
to
highlight
from
like
gov
alpha's
perspective.
Is
this
conversation
of
like
not
being
sure
someone's
a
sock
puppet
right
and
that's
definitely
one
danger.
A
F
F
F
C
C
C
You
know
one
piece,
one
thing
that
seth
is
saying
right
like
in
the
real
world,
like
you,
have
a
right
to
face
your
accuser,
but
in
our
world
it's
kind
of
made
a
little
bit
muddy
right
because
of
the
fact
that
we're
accepting
of
people
who
choose
to
cloak
their
identities
or
to
you
know,
have
a
internet
idea.
That's
right,
so
I'm
curious
like
like
you
know,
I
don't
see
a
reasonable
way
that
we
should
we
could
require,
or
I
don't
even
think
we
should
require
people's
like
identities.
H
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
the
important
thing
to
emphasize
is
that
you
know
when
there
is,
you
know
some
kind
of
anonymous
unknown
actor.
You
just
have
to
much
place,
you
know
or
really
you
just
want
to
be
consistent
at
all
times,
placing
the
emphasis
on,
like
the
strength
of
the
arguments,
on
an
objective
basis
from
like
publicly
known
facts,
and
you
know
things
that
they
say
that
you
know
are
unsubstantiated
or
can't
be
corroborated,
just
kind
of
have
to
be
thrown
out.
C
Yeah-
and
I
think
that
that's
where
the
action
of
the
community
and
voters
has
been
it's
really
been
like
hey,
you
know
like
this
vote
is
annoying.
I
have
to
think
about
it,
but
clearly
you
know
whatever
the
objective
claim
is
it's
kind
of
like
it's
kind
of
vaporware
right,
so
I'm
gonna
ignore
it
like
that.
I've
seen
that
sort
of
sentiment
for
sure.
C
So
the
second
prompt
that
I
have
for
this
conversation
is
whether
or
not
a
proposal
is
ever
considered
illegitimate,
assuming
it
fulfills
all
the
requirements
of
like
the
specific
proposal
or
sub-proposal
type
yeah.
I
mean
I
already
kind
of
asked
this
in
a
way.
Does
the
author
of
the
proposal
matter
and
how
much
energy
should
be
given
to
lower
quality
or
spam
proposals
or
unsubstantiated
proposals?
C
A
Yeah,
we'll
give
you
a
few
more
moments
I
was.
I
was
prepared
for
the
arguments
to
mostly
be
on
the
other
side,
as
almost
my
notes,
so
kind
of
supporting
the
the
more
anonymous,
because
I
figured
we
do
kind
of
have
a
clear
bias
right
as
people
being
comfortable
here
and
talking
on
the
call
right
for
the
most
part
as
well
as
identified
core
unit
people,
but
like
one
risk.
A
G
G
F
F
F
F
I
would
like
to
be
on
it
on
myself,
but
I'm
I've
spent
many
years,
and
you
know
many
of
us
have
spent
many
years
using
our
own
identities
and
building
that
reputational
stake
in
the
dow
so
yeah
when
a
new
account
gets
spun
up
and
it
just
comes
in
to
create
a
post
that
seems
to
be
stirring
the
pot.
I
I
guess
for
me
personally,
I'm
going
to
take
the
side
of
the
entity
that
has
the
greater
social
stake.
F
C
Good
points-
and
I
guess,
like
those
points,
actually
also
reinforce
a
culture
where
any
like
external
or
like
semi
external
stakeholders,
actually
do
put
in
the
work
to
establish
some
sort
of
social
reputation.
But
I'm
still
a
bit
concerned
about
like
stakeholders
that
are
are
big,
that
don't
participate.
F
C
F
Comes
in
and
decides
they
want
to
make
a
post
after
many
years
of
not
posting
like
they'll
still
identify
themselves
as
someone
with
dragonfly,
and
we
will
take
the
credit
that
they
built
elsewhere
and
apply
that
I
think
ashley
came
in
and
posted
something
after
never
having
posted.
But
we
know
who
she
is
right.
She's
got
a
history
with
maker
and
with
other
protocols,
so
yeah.
J
I
agree,
I
feel
like
it's
a
cop-out
in
a
way
like
you
can
tell
people
that
are
making
a
proposal.
That's
like
controversial
and
they're
using
an
anon
account
just
because
they
don't
want
to
be.
They
don't
want
to
use
their
like
real
identity,
but
I
mean
at
the
same
time
I
think
you
just
have
to
look
at
the
content
of
the
proposal
and
not
the
person
creating
it
but
like,
in
my
opinion,
and
I
think,
probably
a
lot
of
other
people's.
It's
just
the
cop-out.
J
J
It's
an
interesting
thing
to
me
because,
like
in
some
ways
it
makes
sense,
but
then,
in
some
ways
I
I
don't
know
if
it
does,
but
it
seems
like
an
interesting
topic
of
discussion
like
related
to
budget.
I
don't
know
if
it
makes
sense,
but
I
mean
relating
to
off-boarding.
I
get
that.
I
mean
someone
within
the
core
unit
can't
make
that
proposal,
but
I
was
just
wondering
like
what
people
in
core
units
think
about
that.
C
Katie
that
is
so
awesome
that
you
brought
it
up
because
it
perfectly
segues
into
the
next
discussion
topic.
So
this,
what
you
brought
up
is
actually
prompt
number
two
right.
What
do
we
think
about
submitting
proposals
on
behalf
of
another
cu,
but
just
to
kind
of
center?
The
conversation
like
really
it's
about
core
unit
sort
of
what
are
they
right
here?
C
Yeah
core
unit
proposals
and
dispute
methods
like
so
when
somebody
does
propose
something
on
behalf
of
another
core
unit,
it's
it's
kind
of
like
a
stronger
signal
of
a
dispute,
but
really
like
there
are.
This
is
kind
of
my
attempt
to
map
out
what
are
other
ways
to
dispute
before
you
go
nuclear
so
to
speak,
and
so
these
are
kind
of
like
the
the
available
dispute
methods
that
the
public
has
right
or
disagreeing
or
or
whatever,
with
core
units
right.
There's
complaining.
C
You
can
complain
directly
to
the
facilitator.
That's
probably
the
best
first
thing
that
you
can
do
actually
talk
to
the
core
unit,
who
you
have
a
problem
with
then
there's
like
complaining
to
surrounding
actors
right
delegates,
for
example,
hey
like.
Why
isn't
this
core
unit
doing
its
thing
and
then
there's
like
the
third
sort
of
escalation
of
complaining,
which
is
publicly
on
the
forum?
You
know
you
go
and
you
make
a
case.
C
It's
not
a
proposal,
it's
just
a
discussion
right
like
why?
Isn't
this
core
unit
performing
right
or
something?
But
then
beyond
that,
I
believe
greg
proposed
and
and
maker
governance
passed
mip
52,
which
is
actually
a
dispute
resolution
process
that
we've
never
actually
used,
but
it
is
available
as
a
tool
for
for
governance
and
for
people.
C
But
if
you
disagree
with
a
core
unit
or
mandated
actors
actions,
you
could
submit
a
dispute
to
maker
voters
using
that
process
and
then,
like
the
third
sort
of
most
most,
like
aggressive
way
that
you
could
dispute
with
a
core
unit
is
like
through
the
proposal
process
itself.
So,
first
of
all,
you
can
campaign
against
active
proposals,
so
we've
seen
that
most
most
with
like
budgets,
for
example,
people
push
back
on
budgets
or
they'll
straight
up,
say
like
no
or
they'll.
C
You
know
propose
an
alternative
budget
as
we've
seen
and
then
there's
you
know,
besides
campaigning
for
active
proposals,
there's
proposing
off-boarding
a
facilitator
or
like
proposing
something
directly
and
and
that's
kind
of
like
the
question
that
you
brought
up
katie
you
know:
is
it
reasonable
for
other
people
to
propose?
You
know
mip
39,
40
and
41
sub
proposals
on
behalf
of
another
court
unit
right
and
that's
kind
of
where
the
whole
conversation
is
at
so
yeah
bringing
it
back
to
your
question.
I'm
gonna!
Let
people
respond.
G
G
I
I
think
I
would
find
it
pretty
frustrating
if,
if
we
had
to
like
battle
complaints
and
perceptions
in
the
forums
constantly,
but
I
can
see,
I
can
see
that
you
know
sometimes
that's
probably
better
than
allowing
someone
else
to
like
I
don't
know,
convince
them
care
holders
of
something
incorrect
or
or
whatever,
but
yeah.
So
that
that
I
was
going
to
say.
Like
you
know,
our
our
road
map
is
pretty
heavily
decided
by
the
dao.
G
I
mean,
I
think
we
protocol
engineering
suggests
stuff
too,
and
I
feel
like
that's
probably
true,
for
a
lot
of
core
units.
Is
that
is
the
core
units
basically
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
mkr
holders,
so
in
a
way,
m
care
holders
kind
of
can
drive
us
a
little
bit,
but
but
yes,
and
that
so
now
like
without
taking
that
sort
of
mkr
weight
into
into
account,
like
you
know,
where
do
we?
E
I
I
just
want
to
have
guidelines
kind
of
for
for
the
future,
because
I
think
those
those
are
kind
of
more
important
than
whatever
singularity
or
whatever
we
we
want
to
call
it
right.
So
I
I
think,
on
the
one
hand,
we
we
kind
of
have
this
like
philosophical
argument,
right,
mooney
kind
of
mentioned
this
one
thing
of
right.
E
You
know
we
already
kind
of
base
our
direction
within
the
core
units
on
you
know
the
sentiment
that
we
see
in
the
community
right-
and
you
know
how
we
kind
of
see
the
the
voting
going
on
on
different
proposals.
But
then
you
kind
of
get
to
to
more
minute
things.
So,
for
example,
with
with
facilitator,
off-boarding
right.
E
There
there's
no
way
to
like
involuntarily
write
off
for
like
if
you
don't
give
the
community
to
the
the
power
to
kind
of
off-board
someone
who
doesn't
want
to
be
off-boarded
right,
then
you're
you're
severely
handicapping
them
right.
So,
okay,
in
a
sense,
the
community
does
need
to
have
the
power
to
to
just
to
submit
an
off-boarding
proposal
for
a
core
unit.
Facilitator.
E
Okay,
but
is,
is
that
kind
of
the
case
for
for
every
aspect
of
of
a
core
unit,
and
so
in
the
case
of
budget,
I
would
kind
of
argue
no
and
and
kind
of
here's.
Why?
So
you
start
a
core
unit
and
you
have
a
mandate
and
you
promise
that
you're
going
to
do
certain
things
you
know
in
on
your
kind
of
roadmap,
say
within
the
next
year
within
this
budget
cycle.
Whatever
time
period
your
your
budget
cycle
is,
and
then
you
need
to
execute
on
that
mandate.
E
You
need
to
execute
on
that
roadmap
and
only
you,
as
the
facilitator
are
going
to
have
the
insight
of
like
what
kind
of
resources
you
need
to
execute
on
that,
and
it
seems
like
to
me
that
the
natural
way
that
this
should
go
is
that
the
facilitator
submits
the
proposal.
The
community
says
you
know
hell.
No,
that's
too
much.
We
don't
like
that,
and
then
the
facilitator
has
to
go
back
and
like
retool
their
their
their
budget
right
and
it
comes
with.
E
Okay,
let
me
reduce
my
mandate
because
with
less
money,
I
can't
fulfill
all
those
obligations
anymore
right
and
there's
this
back
and
forth
right
until
you
do
actually
manage
to
pass
the
budget
right
and
and
then
you're
good.
That
seems
like
a
much
more
natural
way
to
do
things
than
for
the
facilitators,
basically
to
have
to
deal
with
like
external
budgets
coming
in
where
they
then
have
to
figure
out.
Okay
like
it,
it
seems
like
a
weird
way
to
do
it.
E
They
all
get
allocated
like
a
certain
amount
of
cash,
and
then
they
have
like
you
know
something
left
over
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
since
they
don't
want
their
budgets
to
be
lowered,
you
know
if
they,
if
they
don't
spend
something
they
all
go
and
buy
like
ridiculous,
crap
and-
and
just
try
to
you
know,
spend
all
the
money
by
the
end
of
the
year.
So
next
year
they
can
get
a
similar
budget.
E
I
it's
also
kind
of
weird
like
so,
for
example
like
in
in
my
case
right
where
the
the
the
the
resulting
budgeting
proposals
right.
We're
just
kind
of
splitting
mine
up
right.
I
think
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
unique
case,
but
let's
say
what,
if,
like
multiple
people
had
submitted
different
budgets
for
the
oracle
core
unit.
E
E
A
K
Well,
thank
you.
I
hope
everyone
can
hear
me
because
I'm
out
on
trial
right
now,
so
the
health
of
this
internet
connection
is
severely
in
dispute.
So
if
I
should
drop
out
or
if
my
voice
breaks
out
you'll
have
to
forgive
me
on
that
one.
I
actually
asked
the
question
before
we
segue
to
this
segment
of
it.
I
K
It
says
core
units
has
to
reapply
their
budget
whenever
the
coin
has
a
reapply.
The
community
gets
a
chance
to
speak
out
against
it.
If,
if
you
go
in
and
do
micromanagement
of
the
budgets
throughout
the
year
or
throughout
the
budget
period,
it's
just
gonna
make
a
mess
out
of
everything
and
and
the
core
units
are
gonna,
be
end
up,
focused
on
on
them
unit
of
their
budgets
and
if
anything,
they
do
might
be
conceived
that
controversial
and
we
will
lose
all
progress.
K
So
I
think,
once
a
budget
proposal
is
accepted,
we
will
have
to
live
with
that
for
a
while
until
the
next
time
it
comes
up,
and
then
we
have
a
chance
to
do
something
about
it
and,
as
was
mentioned
here,
we
do
have
the
off-boarding
process.
If
someone
is
doing
something
extremely
controversial,
and
maybe
in
some
cases,
we
need
a
of
boarding
for
an
entire
core
unit
if
we
for
some
reason
deemed
that
the
the
necessity
of
this
core
unit
has
earned
its
course.
K
But
I
think
that
those
things
are
natural
to
do
in
conjunction
with
the
budget
proposal
or
the
renewal
of
a
budget
proposal,
because
things
doesn't
happen
that
quickly
that
we
can't
you
know,
wait
one
quarter
or
six
months
or
how
long
it
takes
for
the
next
budget
proposal
to
come
up
again
and-
and
that
makes
for
a
more
sensible
approach
to
subject
matter
in.
In
my
opinion,
at
least.
A
A
Right,
like
we
delegate
a
lot
of
authority
to
two
core
units,
we
allowed
them
to
to
block
proposals
to
insert
them
directly
into
to
haunching
voting,
basically
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
permissions
that
could
be
abused
if
taken
in
the
worst
case
scenario,
so
one
advantage
to
allowing
others
to
to
post.
This
is
that
you
know
if
a
core
unit
is
particularly
powerful
or
particularly
influential
and
they're
doing
something
that
the
community
has.
A
You
know
maybe
not
liked
right,
maybe
suggested
that
they
change
and
they
don't
want
to
change
it.
You
know
you
have
very
little
recourse
if,
if
the
leverage
is
all
on
the
community,
yeah
excuse
me
on
the
core
unit
facilitator
side.
That
doesn't
mean
there
aren't
other
ways
we
can
solve
that
right.
That's
just,
I
guess
providing
opposite
perspective
as
to
one
reason
why
we
might
want
to
keep
that
in
place.
C
Yeah,
like
I
wrote
it
in
the
chat,
but
permissionless
proposals
are
supportive
of
general
decentralization
of
governance
at
maker,
but
I
think,
like
the
key
problem
that
nick
and
like
so
many
others
are
kind
of
like
pointing
at
is,
it
might
not
make
sense.
With
specific
proposals
like
for
off-boarding
blimpa
mentioned
like
there
is
a
component
that
sets
a
precedent
for
actual
off-boarding
in
the
budget.
C
Mip,
like
you,
don't
have
that
you
don't
have
like
oh
use
this
component
to
like
alter
somebody
else's
budget,
and
I
think,
like
you
know,
there
is
way
there
are
way
more
sensible
ways
of
approaching
that
specific
kind
of
dispute,
as
justin
mentioned
right
but
yeah
like.
I
don't
think
that
in
general
we
should
be
restricting
like
proposals,
but
in
very
specific
cases
it
might
make
sense
with
especially
with
the
budget
proposals
so
like
I
don't
know
how
it
would
look
like.
C
A
A
C
Yeah
that
makes
sense,
there's
also
like
this
thing
is
popping
up
in
my
head
of
like
hard
rules
versus
soft
rules
like
so
soft
rules
are
kind
of
like
things
that
the
entire
active
community
sort
of
understands,
but
there's
no
hard
rule
to
codify
it
or
to
enforce
it.
It's
just
sort
of
naturally
enforced.
So,
for
example,
you
know
the
next
time
somebody
you
know
posts
a
budget
proposal
on
behalf
for
some
other
core
unit
like
we
have
this
conversation,
like
everybody
kind
of
knows.
C
Oh
you
know
just
just
ignore
it
like
you,
don't
have
to
give
it
much
thought,
but
then
you
know
there's
kind
of
the
heart.
Like
you
know,
at
what
point
do
we
want
to
put
in
a
harder
rule
where
it's
like?
Oh
you
know
like
regardless
of
what
anybody
thinks
at
some
point
in
the
past,
we
we
have
made
a
rule.
Okay,
like
it
never
makes
sense
like.
Is
that
the
benchmark
that
when
it
never
makes
sense
that
you
make
a
hard
rule
or
should
it
really
be
just
kept
as
a
soft
rule?
B
Yep
sorry,
I
was
reading
nicholas
comment
in
the
chat.
Are
there
any
cases
where
the
community
might
want
to
set
the
budget
to
zero
instead
of
affording
a
core
unit?
Actually
mip
39
c3
is
the
process
for
removing
core
units,
and
the
conditions
for
such
as
a
proposal
to
be
submitted
is
that
the
court
you
need
to
be
to
be
afforded
should
not
have
any
active
budget
nor
active
facilitators.
B
L
Anything
that
falls
outside
of
that
is
really
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense,
because
it's
as
I
wrote
it's
like
the
ownership
of
the
court
unit,
you
can't
tell
someone
to,
or
you
can't
force
someone
to
to
do
something
in
a
certain
way,
simply
by
voting
a
mip
about
it.
Right,
like
I
can't
submit
a
mip
that
says
that
chris
mooney
has
to
wear
a
christmas
hat
every
week,
or
I
would
have
already
done
it.
L
So
these
are
because
these
are
not
permissions
that
were
given
by
the
community
to
that
individual,
and
I
think,
if
we
want
to
formalize
it,
it's
probably
good
to
be
formal
about
these
kind
of
permissions
that
we're
granting,
and
then
you
have
a
very
good
framework
to
say.
Well,
you
can,
if
you
grant
them,
you
can
take
them
away
and
then
there's
the
the
kind
of
edge
case
that
I
brought
up,
which
is
which
is
simply
consent.
L
You
can
just
about
propose
anything
if
the
the
party
does
involve
consents
to
it
or
supports
it.
So
that's
that's
the
other
case
right,
so
you
can
take
permissions
away
that
you
have
previously
given
you
can
propose
anything
if
it's
with
consent.
Anything
that
falls
outside
of
that
is
not
useful.
I
think.
A
So
I'm
going
to
use
me
and
my
core
unit
as
an
example
just
so
that
doesn't
apply
to
anyone
else,
but,
like
you
know,
the
community
obviously
would
know.
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
on
like
our
source,
credit
instance
right.
So
what
if
we
get
to
the
point
where
the
community
feels
weird
we're
spending
too
much
money
on
on
source
crit
right?
But
because
this
is
my
pet
project,
I
don't
want
to
get
rid
of
it.
This
is
hypothetical,
but
let's
say
it.
A
That
was
the
mindset
I
was
I
was
taking
on
was
that
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
listen
to
the
community
like
gov
alpha's
important,
you
guys
aren't
going
to
vote
us
down,
so
I'm
leaving
the
source
cred
funding
in
place
because
it's
a
part
of
our
budget
like
it
is
much
harder
to
address
that,
like
through
other
governance
methods.
So
that's
potentially
one
scenario
where
the
lack
of
consent
for
for
that
particular
program
might
make
sense
happy
to
have.
L
Your
thoughts
there
yeah
but
there's
differently.
I
would
disagree
because
you
know
you
you
pro.
What
you
propose
is
the
full
package
right.
It's
not
like
it's
not
like
a
menu,
and
we
can
pick
and
choose
it's
like
this
is
what
we're
proposing
and
it
it
includes
the
full
package
and
we're
willing
to
do
all
the
other
things
that
are
in
the
proposal.
L
If
it
also
includes
the
the
substantial
budget
for
for
source
spread
or
whatever
right,
any
other
input
from
the
community
is
based
on
your
consent.
It's
like
I
want
to
do
all
these
other
things,
and
then
I
also
want
to
fund
source
cred,
and
I
would
like
to
go
for
the
highest
option,
but
I
would
consent
to
a
lower
budget,
but
there
is
no
yeah
the
only
thing
that
can
be
taken
away.
There
is
just
the
permission
on
the
package
deal
right,
so
I
do
think
it
fits
within
this
frame
of
thinking.
C
I
mean
also
there's
like
other
dispute
methods
that
can
happen.
You
know
before
you
go
nuclear
right.
Like
you
know,
if
you
disagree
with
the
funding
of
one
program,
that's
in
a
big
budget
package
you
could
post
about
it.
You
could
put
up
a
signal
request
about
it.
You
can
try
to
influence
the
core
unit
itself,
to
see
your
reasoning
for
why
we
think
you
know,
or
they
think
this
program
doesn't
make
sense
right.
If
there
is
a
like
a
total
disagreement,
you
could
bring
it
to
mkr
voters
through
mip
52
right.
C
So
like
I
s
like,
I
think
that,
with
the
tools
that
exist,
there
isn't
really
never
a
case
where
a
direct
sort
of
budget
proposal,
like
a
disruptive
budget
proposal,
should
be
proposed
on
you
know,
from
a
third
party
without
consent,
but
yeah.
That's
kind
of
the
view
that
I'm
gravitating
gravitating
towards.
C
Like
ultimately,
if,
like
this
whole,
like
using
your
example,
if,
if
a
program
was
approved
in
your
budget
in
your
mandate,
but
three
months
into
the
six
months,
it's
like
people
are
realizing.
Oh,
this
is
not
working
like
there
should
be
a
way
for
people
to
communicate.
That
right.
I
see
juan
with
his
hand
up.
I
I'm
wondering
what
we
are
trying
to
to
fix.
Actually,
because
I
don't
like
it's
not
that
we
have
like
a
a
very
large
amount
of
you-
can
call
it
spam
if
you
want,
but
I
can
see
a
lot
of
of
use
cases
and
maybe
I'm
too
naive
and
they
will
never
show
up.
But,
for
example,
when
when
markham's
was
proposing
the
the
moonshot
fund
and
all
that,
what
if
someone
had
said
hey
this
is
your
new
kind
of
like
forked
budget,
there's
no
moonshot
fund
anymore
and
then
everyone's
like
yeah.
I
I
We
should
fix
the
governance
or
the
process
for
that,
but
I
can
see
where,
where
ideas
should
flow
more
naturally-
and
we
should
not
be
judging
the
author
unless
it
becomes
problematic,
but
I
think
that
there
are
different
conversations
yeah.
What,
if
a
maker
holder,
it
could
be
like
a
shadow
delegate,
they
want
to
propose
something.
I
C
I
was
going
to
say,
like
the
thing
that
people
are
bringing
up
is
like
motive
matters
like
to
some
extent
like
yes
like
who
cares
about
the
author,
it's
about
the
proposal,
but
on
the
other
side,
like
you
know
what
about
the
motive?
What
about
the
conflicts
of
interest-
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
like
the
nexus
point
of
where
this
issue
is.
J
I
don't
think
it's
good.
I
think
it's
like
the
operational
overhead
for
the
core
units,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
so
like
outsiders,
making
proposals
about
core
units
about
like
their
internal
operations
like
whether
it's
budget
or
anything
really,
I
don't
know
like
what
could
be
like
another
example,
but
it
seems
like
that
just
causes
a
lot
of
like
operational
overhead
for
the
core
units,
but
then
I
also
understand
the
argument
of
everyone's
voting
on
these
proposals.
I
Yeah,
it
would
be
inefficient,
like
every
dao.
I
think
that
we
have
facilitators
exactly
for
this
to
deal
with
this
kind
of
stuff.
If
someone
posted-
I
don't
know,
probably
the
least
controversial
core
units
of
alpha
right
now.
So
if
someone
posted
something
against
gold
alpha
or
to
defund
them,
I
don't
think
that
anyone
would
take
that
seriously.
I
So
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
if
we
should
start
it
sounds
like
we
are
against
criticism.
We
are
against
and
it's
very
dangerous
to
portray
this
image
to
the
to
the
wider
or
to
the
broader
community
like
we
don't
want
to
to
be
like
oh
the
core
units
within
maker.
They
don't
accept
criticism.
Now
you
need
to
do
a
b
and
c
to
actually
criticize
them.
I
think
that
the
answer
should
be
like
post
solid
work
and
make
sure
that
we're
doing
our
best
and
yeah.
I
C
I
mean
my
thinking
is
that
you
know
being
able
to
take
criticism
is
a
core
fundamental
like
thing
that
you
know
all
core
units
should
should
preserve
like
you
should
be
able
to
take
criticism.
I
guess
like
the
thing
that
I'm
trying
to
fix
going
back
to
your
original
question,
juan
is
not
necessarily
to
fix
it
but
more.
C
K
I
don't
think
there's
much
value
in
discussing
the
same
proposals
over
and
over
again
and
it
can
cause
engagement
fatigue
like
if,
if
every
month
we're
discussing
someone's
budget,
because
someone
has
posted
a
new
budget
proposal
at
some
point,
people
are
gonna
sort
of
give
up
on
that
conversation
and
not
be
engaged
anymore.
So
I
think,
for
processes
that
are
defined
at
regular
intervals.
A
A
A
I
guess
one
thing
might
be
important
to
say
is
like
from
a
governance
process.
Like
you
know,
if
you
hear
this
discussion,
you
think
that
something
should
be
changed
like
it
would
either
probably
need
to
be
a
new
map
or
an
amendment
to
the
core
unit
budget,
mips
that
that
would
address
what
we're
talking
about
yeah
and
as
with
any
proposal,
the
galv
is
here
to
provide
feedback,
help
you
with
the
governance
process.
A
If
that
is
something
you
want
to
undertake
and
and
unsure
about
how
to
go
through
it,
but
yeah
absent
of
of
anything
like
that,
we
would
just
keep
interpreting
the
rules
as
we
have
been,
which
is
that
it
is
permissionless.
So
as
long
as
it
status,
proposals
satisfy
any
other
requirements
that
we've
already
put
in
place,
they
would
be
treated
as
legitimate
and
and
brought
to
vote
when,
when
formally
submitted.
C
Yeah,
I
also
just
want
to
make
a
contextual
note
like,
although,
like
this
isn't
a
huge
problem
in
our
community
now
like,
we
do
just
see
little
blips
of
kind
of
like
edge
cases
popping
up.
So
I
think,
like,
as
maker
dow
grows,
it's
important
to
have
these
conversations
with
the
wider
community
so
that
it's
not
just
a
handful
of
people.
Thinking
about
this
and
so
yeah
like
that,
that's
the
main
motivation
for
bringing
this
up
like
we
want
yeah.
A
The
fun
part
is
the
people
proposing
an
effect
to
shape
our
values
as
well
through
how
they're
accepted
and
engaged
with
so
yeah.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
for
engaging
with
this,
as
mentioned,
at
least
in
the
chat.
I
can't
remember
if
I
said
it
yet.
This
is
our
last
last
call
of
2021
so
really
appreciate
all
the
attendance.
This
is
probably
one
of
our
better
attendant
meetings
and
it's
really
great
to
have
so
much
participation.