►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 13
Description
In this Governance and Risk meeting with Steven Becker we revisit the governance process, governance and executive voting, the cost benefit of where your MKR tokens are stored, MKR a governance token with value - how does that work?
Meeting Minutes: https://github.com/scottrepreneur/maker-minutes
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/governance-and-risk
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...
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
A
Having
missed
two
meetings
leading
up
to
this
one
because
of
travel,
complications
I
think
that
we're
all
looking
forward
to
jumping
right
back
into
it.
So
I'm
not
gonna,
have
a
big
preamble,
because
I'm,
sick
and
I
can
barely
talk
so
Stephen
I'm
gonna
have
this
off
to
you
immediately.
Take
it
away.
B
B
Any
change
in
the
state-
and
that
is
obviously
the
government
support
and
just
to
recap
on
that.
The
governance
board
starts
off
with
the
big
discussion
generally
in
social
media
and
that
eventually
leads
up
to
a
point
where
a
proposal
gets
cast
into
the
bulletin
structure
and
then
what
you
know.
People
vote
on
that
particular
in
that
particular
proposal.
Either.
C
B
A
A
B
C
B
Simple
yes/no
proposals,
most
of
the
most
of
the
proposals
that
you
put
on
the
bottom
structure,
will
be
scientific
leave
that
it
will
have
a
certain
level
of
scientific
rigor
behind
it
that
sort
of
defends
itself
against
any
sort
of
contentious
property
that
you
might
get
from
sort
of
rival
factions
in
the
bottom
structure.
Okay,
so
that's
governance.
We
understand
that
executive
voting
is
actually.
B
B
B
C
C
B
A
A
B
With
any
proposal
you're
going
to
have
two
weeks
looking
at
the
proposal
and
look
at
the
links
to
all
the
explanatory
documentation
as
to
what
the
proposal
means,
you
know
what
the
effect
of
it
is
going
to
hopefully
create
and
discussion
will
start
around
so
for
a
governance
vote.
It
would
be.
You
know,
two
weeks
of
discussion
and
often
two
weeks
of
discussion.
If
we
find
that
there
really
is
no
point
of
contention,
then
we
can
open
up
that
governance,
that
it
wasn't
up
to
a
governance
vote
and
then
the
last
two
weeks
as
well.
C
B
Appropriately
and
no
fixity
trying
to
have
that
proposal
pass,
but
that
first
two
weeks
is
essential.
That's
where
the
discussion
starts,
because
you
might
find
in
those
two
weeks
that
this
proposal
is
a
lot.
So
what
you
may
want
to
do
is
then
submit
a
new
proposal
and
then
start
a
new
point
of
discussion.
So
you.
B
A
B
Basically
think
about
it
needed
some
editing.
Some
could
be
just
simply
withdrawn
and
advanced.
It's
easy
enough,
but
essentially,
if,
if
you
have
a
folks,
come
to
our
proposal
and
you
submitted
it
and
you
find
that
the
folks
just
generally
don't
like
this
idea
at
all,
there's
no
point
in
going
to
the
boat,
you
can
actually
just
draw
it
and
either.
B
You
know
I
decide
that
this
wasn't
a
very
good
idea
to
begin
with
all
resubmitted
in
the
new
format
that
will
actually
follow,
along
with
what
most
people
consider
would
be,
the
appropriate
form,
I
suppose
and
then
I'm
speaking
with
the
Executive
Board.
This
one
is
different.
This
one
is
a
given,
so
you
might
find
that,
let's
say
I
say
that's
collateral.
A
B
For
the
previous
conversation
or
previous
community,
although
we
had
the
by
voting
on
an
executive
proposal,
you're
actually
voting
on
a
full
change
in
the
system
from
the
incremental
point
of
view.
So
once
you
put
all
your
votes
into
this
new
proposal
in
what
you're
saying
is
that
you
want
the
current
states
of
the
of
the
system,
plus
this
incremental
change.
So
if
this
particular
executive
work
gets
the
majority
of
the
votes,
it
basically
gets
submitted
and
deployed
into
the
system
as
a
new
representation
of
the
system.
So.
A
I'm
with
you
now,
yeah
I
think
that
just
cleared
up
I'm
gonna.
Take
this
opportunity,
though,
to
do
something.
I
should
have
done
at
the
top
of
the
meeting,
just
to
remind
everybody
that
if
anyone
has
any
questions
at
any
time,
for
any
reason,
please
feel
free
to
speak
up
either
jump
on
mic.
If
you
have
one
or
type
your
question
in
the
chat
at
the
side
and
I'll
make
sure
that
your
questions
could
addressed
so.
C
I
have
a
quick
question
just
to
search
how
to
clarify
this
for
myself,
so
the
two
different
votes
for
the
governance
bill:
it's
in
the
executive,
its
governance,
both
sort
of
like
where,
as
Liu
Shu
bullets
and
philosophy
votes,
things
of
that
nature,
risk
teams,
then
executive
votes
are
actually
in
the
votes.
That
stated
the
system
so
they're,
more
concrete
and
both
of
these
votes
are
going
to
have
sort
of
a
two-step
process.
Where
there's
going
to
be
a
proposal,
the
last
for
a
week
or
two
and
then
there's
going
to
be
an
actual
vote.
C
B
Basically,
let
me
give
an
example,
so
I
I
put
forward
a
proposal
to
accept
took
in
ABC
so
the
way
I
do
it
is
I
first
put
in,
for
instance,
into
the
let's
say
the
naturalization,
the
public
collateralization
channel
on
collector
channel
on
rocket,
checked
and
I
say
guys.
What
do
you
think
about
certainly
easy,
but
everybody
comes
in
and
says:
well
what
do
you
think
about
it?
Well,
this
is
my
qualitative
assessment
on
it.
This
is
kind
of
my
assessment,
but.
B
C
B
B
B
Maybe
a
couple
of
tweaks
to
tell
everyone
please
welcome
to
the
channel
jump
into
the
red.
Would
you
come
in
seeing
its
find
out
what
you
think
about
to
a
can
ABC
and
by
the
way
this
is
working
out?
Pretty
early
preliminary
qualitative
assessment
looks
like,
and
so
some
folks
might
come
back
and
go
I
think
you
know
you
you've
been
a
bit
harsh
on
them
or
maybe
use
of
giving
them
too
much
of
into
higher
school,
but.
A
C
B
C
B
C
B
Subreddit
and
the
rocket
checked,
and
for
two
weeks
everybody
keeps
talking
about
it
in
the
same
way,
is
nothing
contentious
that
comes
up
not
the
two
weeks
ago.
Cool.
We
need
to
then
put
this
in
so
for
two
weeks,
everybody
votes,
and
after
two
weeks
we
find
out
that
there's
majority
says
yes,
and
then
we
go
great.
So
we've
got
resolution
of
the
fact
that
we
won't
talk,
maybe
see
included
well.
A
Okay,
now
you
get
up
again
at
what
point
are
their
initial
references
to
potential
risk
parameters?
Is
that
going
to
be
in
the
initial
qualitative
quantitative
assessment
saying
that
ballparking
we're
thinking
about
this
kind
of
a
debt
ceiling
of
this
kind
of
a
stability
fee?
Or
is
there
no
mention
of
that
until
it's
already
been
approved,
and
then
it
goes
to
a
risk?
You
know.
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
Wants
to
vote
that
this
doesn't
all
you
might
find
that
you
know
folks
do
move
from
the
current
vote.
That
has
the
majority
of
the
sorry
the
current
proposal
that
has
majority
of
the
folks
that
represents
the
current
state
of
the
system.
So
if
they
move
from
that
current
proposal
on
to
this
new
proposal
and
this
majority
of
them
on
this
new
proposal,
what
they
saying
is
that
we.
B
A
That's
that's
really
cool.
Maybe
this
is
embarrassing
because
maybe
I'm
just
catching
up
to
something
everybody
else
already
understood
as
possible,
but
well
you
mentioned
in
the
past
that
the
executive
voting
represents
the
state
of
the
system
and
I
didn't
quite
tweet
to
the
fact
that
that's
what
we're
saying
it.
A
That's
the
complete
state
of
every
parameter
that
governs
our
entire
system
right,
and
so,
if
we
add
a
new
collateral
to
changing
the
stability
feet
on
a
particular
asset
class,
that
boat
is
everything
that
was
in
the
old
system,
with
the
new
tweak
and
as
people
move
back
and
forth.
Yes,
that's
always
like
okay.
That
makes
a
lot
more
sense.
Oh.
C
B
See
that
parameter
should
have
been
looked
at
and
understood
before
it
actually
gets
deployed,
so
it
may
be
fine.
If
I
put
in
there,
you
know
125
percentage
for
a
particular
parameter,
but
in
the
executive
votes
it
somehow
snuck
in
115
percent
that
wouldn't
boss.
You
know
everyone
was
saying,
wait
a
minute.
There's
a
difference
between
what
you
said.
The
number
was
going
to
being
what
it
actually
is.
So.
A
I
think
this
something
else
and
took
their
focus
for
me
when
you
you'd
mentioned
it
earlier
and
a
previous
meeting,
that
the
governance
votes
are
expected
to
be
somewhat
contentious
wherever
the
contentious
attention
exists,
as
a
possibility,
they'll
be
debate
back
and
forth,
but
with
the
executive
books.
The
expectation
is
basically
that
it's
an
overwhelming
success.
We've
all
agreed
that
this
is
what
we
wanted
to
do
previously
and
if
and
if
they,
if
the
new
expected
to
vote
is
doesn't
pass
overwhelmingly,
then
perhaps
we
need
to
re-evaluate
how
the
system
works.
Is
that
correct?
B
C
B
That's
what
the
whole
system
is
is
it
foolproof
doesn't
mean
that
somebody
can
con
come
in
at
the
last
moments
and
mess
things
up,
nope
michigan,
but
this
is
a
system
whereby
people
are
voting,
so
this
is
still
a
social
interaction
of
many
people
in
the
group,
and
we
can't
determine
the
perfect
system
to
make
sure
all
people
are
trapped
into
decision.
Everyone
has
free.
Will
everyone
has
the
right
to
change
their
mind.
B
C
B
Into
the
voting
structure
for
an
executive
vote,
we
literally
should
see
nkm
token
is
being
transferred
from
the
current
proposal,
which
is
the
representation
of
the
current
system
into
this
new
proposal.
It
should
literally
just
be
a
formality
if
it's
not
a
formality,
that
means
somewhere
along
the
line
either
something
has
changed
or
someone's
trying
to
game
the
system.
B
B
The
the
caveat
there
was
that
the
general
Cantonese,
in
my
mind,
would
be
quote,
but
in
order
to
make
sure
that
the
system
gets
enough,
traction
abduction,
the
momentum
you
might
have
to
flywheel
with
more
frequency
might
have
to
be
monthly
and
then
eventually,
when
it
gets
to
a
certain
critical
mass
and
a
lot
of
people
are
included.
You
know
one
month
may
not
be,
and
you
may
find
that
you
have
to
stretch
it
to
two
months.
Then
eventually,
Dakota
I,
wouldn't.
B
A
A
Let
me
come
to
me
again
just
find
the
mute
button.
Yeah
really
from
question
for
me
really
is
about
I.
Guess,
first
of
all,
just
on
that
very
specific
point.
You
said
there
was
two
weeks
our
thing
on
the
governance
vote
to
vote.
Does
that
mean
two
weeks
work
that
people
have
got
to
register
their
time
in
that
time?
Given
that
there
might
be
discussion
going
on,
can
they
change
their
vote?
Can
they
pull
up
yeah.
B
Yes,
usually,
what
happens
is
that
you
you
effectively
lucky
enough
you're
in
PR
and
you
you
are
selecting
a
book
that
matches
your
API
if
we
decide
in
a
second
I,
don't
like
this,
there
is
like
before
the
vote
ends.
You've
got
in
a
second.
You
know:
I
voted
yes,
but
notice
that
you
know
yes,
indeed,
you
can
change
it.
Okay,.
A
B
B
B
Have
the
proposals
looked
at
appropriately
because
there's
only
so
much
bandwidth,
the
the
governing
body
being
in
Piazza
Columbus
can
look
at
so
there's
going
to
be
an
actual
equilibrium
formed.
You
know,
depending
on
how
many
people
are
participating
in
the
system
as
to
how
many
proposals
you
can
even
put
forth
it's
going
to
be
naturally
determined.
You
must
remember
that
this
is
going
to
be.
B
This
is
going
to
be
deployed
on
into
you,
know,
blockchain
space,
and
there
is
no
formalism
around
how
many
will
be
considered
it
because
it
really
is
a
function
of
how
and
when
they
gonna
consider
it,
and
this
comes
back
to
the
the
sort
of
cost
benefit
of
nkr
tokens
and
where
you
store
them.
So
I'll
touch
on
that
a
little
bit
later,
but
now
there
isn't
a
limiting
mechanism,
it
can
basically
be
as
much
as
possible.
It's
got
to
be.
It's
got
to
organically,
determine
itself.
You
know
how
much
can
be
considered
anyone's
mine.
B
A
Yeah
but
okay,
but
at
the
point
that
a
vote
is
created,
so
you
can
have
a
proposal
when,
when
you've
got
a
mechanism
for
a
vote
to
take
place
there-
and
you
have,
as
you
say,
do
you
getting
five
thousand
a
day
in
two
weeks
time
you
can
have
five
thousand
voters
vote
today
and,
depending
on
the
bandwidth
of
maker
holders
and
the
number
of
maker
holders
and
you're
gonna
have
potentially
a
undesirable
or
not.
You
know
optimal
voting
process.
So
is
that
is
that.
B
C
B
Number
of
proposals
is
actually
a
function
of
value
that
you
can
extract
from
them,
because
that
is
essentially
how
you
get
eternal.
The
value
that
you're
going
to
increase
the
whole
system
by
maybe
the
the
map
thing
that
the
connection
is
not
there
yet,
but
hopefully,
through
a
little
bit
of
an
explanation.
I
can
sort
of
this
is
elucidate
that
point.
We.
A
B
A
A
No
business,
some
filtering
for
quality
I
think
that
it'd
be
tough
for
the
average
person
to
say
that
we
should
do
token
X,
because
I
have
thousands
of
the
versus
risk
teams,
financial
models
and
their
qualitative
and
quantitative
assessments
that'd
be
hard
to
compare
those
two
things.
You
know
in
a
realistic
manner.
It
might
be.
B
A
case,
that's
a
tool
will
be
required
to
actually
filter
proposals
for
or
maybe
categorize,
proposals
for,
risk
team
contributions
versus
contributions
from
other
folks
or
you
might
want
to
categorize
them
in
terms
of
what
does
proposals
are?
The
point
being
is
I
need
to
emphasize
this
a
lot.
This
is
something
that
anything
out
took
and
holders
need
to
figure
out.
This
is
this
is
something
that
they
need
to
determine.
Certain
tools
can
be
put
in
place,
but
these
tools
are
there
for
them
to
use.
You
know
I'm.
B
The
the
same
sort
of
value
that
has
to
be
surpassed
the
filter
because,
as
soon
as
I
start
putting
a
filter
in
place,
I'm
censoring
what
cannot
be?
That's
it
and
you
know
Katie,
that's
the
last
thing
I
want
to
do,
but
it
really
is
the
case
of
in
normal
operations.
There
is
an
expectation
that
the
predominant.
C
B
Will
find
that
from
ERISA
teams
putting
forward
proposals
for
new
collateral
times,
you
may
find
that
there's
going
to
be
a
intermediate
period
where
people
are
going
to
consider
governance
quotes
about
articles.
You
may
find
some
new
discovery
where
pricing
becomes
a
lot
more
interesting.
If
it's
done
in
this
specific
way,
and
you
need
to
think
about
well,
nkr
technical
is
when
I
say
we
I'm
talking
about
in
colleges,
need
to
consider
Oh,
something
miss
discovered,
a
new
way
of
median
izing
articles.
This
is
great.
We
can
actually
use
it.
B
It's
a
lot
safer
and
it
actually
provides
a
lot
more
efficiency,
let's
plug
that
in,
but
we
may
need
two
boats
in
a
hundred
new
articles,
so
that
might
take
a
certain
period
of
time
and
people
might
meet
instead
of
that,
so
there's
quite
a
few
angles
that
need
to
be
considered.
Even
if
the
the
chance
of
them
happening
is
remote
or
not
as
frequent.
B
Doesn't
you
think
it's
going
to
be
because
you're
going
to
have
different
types
of
frequencies
generally
with
respect
to
vent
system
stocks,
there's
going
to
be
a
whole
bunch
of
initial
voids
to
get
things
going,
but
as
soon
as
things
start
developing
in
the
ecosystem?
Also,
the
architecture
is
one
that
matter.
You
might
need
a
change
in
the
code
base
which
might
make
things
more
efficient
or
not
quicker,
and
you
know
in
character
than
what
does
need
to
think
about
fullerton.
Anything
as
well,
so
to
repeat
myself
and
I
apologize
for
that,
but
Rich's
rights.
A
B
B
You
need
to
be
vigilant
in
terms
of
every
single
proposal
that
comes
in
because
it
is
you,
as
the
nkr
token
holder,
that
decides
the
value
that
you're
going
to
get
you
other
is
that
there
is
going
to
be
valuing
assistance.
So
if
you
do
not
see
value
in
the
proposals
being
put
forward
for
yourself
in
order
to
vote
them
in
then
you've
got
to
consider
the
fact
that
there's
no
more
betting
to
be
had,
and
if
that's
the
case,
your
alternate
options
to
obviously
Soviet
Carol
Tobin's
I
mean.
A
You've
mentioned
this
in
the
last
minutes.
Random
and
I've
been
pondering
this
for
two
and
a
half
weeks
now,
because
it
was,
it
was
a
new
way
of
looking
at
things
for
me.
Are
you
saying
that
people
should
should
engage
in
this
behavior
for
their
own
benefit,
or
is
this
for
the
benefit
of
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole?
There's
this
never
holding
maker
unless
you're
voting
with
them?
Well,.
B
The
thing
here
is
that,
if
you
are
benefiting
the
system,
you
benefit
in
yourself
I.
When
you
are
voting
you,
you
can
assume
that
you
are
voting
for
yourself,
but
you
are
a
Mississippi
virgin
for
the
system.
If
you
see
a
proposal
to
include
a
new
collateral
time-
and
it
is
positively
clear
that
that
collection
time
has
got
great
amount
of
volume,
great
amount
of
value
and
create
a
lot
great
amounts
of
daily
turnover.
This
is
a
great
collateral
type
to
include
because
it's
going
to
generate
a
large
supply
of
time.
B
So
by
default,
you
look
at
this
as
an
MPR
token
Holden
you
go,
I
want
to
create
more
value
for
the
system.
This
is
how
I
do
it
I'd
release
value
from
proposals
by
making
a
proposal
work
by
voting
it
in
and
having
a
deployed
as
the
new
stage
of
the
system
I
have
released.
This
value
I
have
created
this
myself.
I
have
done
this
myself.
No
one
else
has
done
this.
B
A
B
Words
there
is
absolutely
nothing
trade,
so
nobody
knows
exactly
what
the
value
of
in
accountants
are,
but
that
is
preposterous.
That
is
to
you
know,
believe
that
everyone
is
going
to
be
so
so
in
agreements
and
so
prophetic
in
understanding
exactly
what
betty
was
going
to
come
into
the
system
and
when
that's
not
going
to
happen.
So
if
they're
not
doing
that,
then
they
need
to
release
themselves
of
the
obligation
to
vote
and
the
way
that
they
do.
That
is
to
go
and
exchange
their.
B
C
A
B
Find
a
new
school
proposal
spending,
which
means
there's
new
collateral
attacks
that
have
been
considered,
which
means
that
there
are
new
goods
and
services
we
provide
watching.
You
might
then
say
this
is
a
good
time
to
then
get
back
into
this
and
actually
start
releasing
these
a
day
from
these
new
proposals
that
are
going
to
be
before.
Oh,
you
may
be
more,
you
may
be
more
of
an
activist,
you
might
say.
Well
let.
B
A
B
B
B
A
C
B
Once
we've
got
some
sort
of
critical
mass
and
we've
gone
over
that
tipping
point-
and
you
start
finding,
you
know,
what's
I
think
was
Christopher
mentioned
the
previous
concern.
One
speed
you
find
that
there
are
proposals
becoming
kind
of
ridiculous.
Then
yes,
and
it's
taken
you
a
R
to
actually
put
a
proposal
for,
could
be
a
good
idea
because
at
least
it
gives
you
that
sense
of.
C
B
If
you
use
take
one
mkr
and
you
put
forward
an
absolute
the
ridiculous
proposal,
that
is
completely
detrimental
to
the
system,
who
decides
anything
about
that
and
if
the
proposal
is
completely
horrible,
does
that
person
lose
their
stake?
The
point
being
is
you've
got
this
this
bifurcation
of
thinking.
That's
it
needs
to
be
more
terrible.
It's
got
to
be
okay,
so
knowing
what
the
situation
is
at
the
time
before,
we
can
actually
go
ahead
and
consider
it
so
as
it
is
now
fly,
meaning
this
the
system
into
into
reality
and
I'm
actually
getting
real.
B
C
Guess,
along
those
lines,
Gavin
was
on
epicenter
podcast
this
week
and
was
talking
a
little
bit
about
governance
around
etherium
in
general
and
I
thought
it
kind
of
trickled
down,
but
he
mentioned
kind
of
waiting
votes
instead
of
having
an
equal
vote
per
share
and
I
was
wandering
kind
of
what
your
thoughts
were
on
that,
especially
as
we
encourage
people
to
keep
their
maker
locked
up
in
the
voting
contract.
Is
that
something
that
you
could
accrue
not
like
actual
maker
points,
but
like
more
heavily
weighted
stake
in
the
vote?
C
B
C
C
B
Cartels
in
the
system,
so
therefore
you
want
to
get
some
sort
of
real
representation.
The
organization
as
a
whole,
as
opposed
to
this
implicit
bias
that
you
might
garner
from
these
wares
or
these
cartels.
For
so
how
do
you
actually
sort
of
fight
against
that?
So
you
get
better
representation,
what's
good
for
the
organization
as
opposed
to
this
minutes.
In
your
advice
now,.
C
B
A
C
B
C
B
B
B
C
B
Some
third
party
sitting
in
a
office
somewhere
doing
it
on
your
behalf.
There
isn't
a
large
company
full
of
employees
running
around
creating
this
bad
news
for
you,
MKR
cope
involved
is
created
for
themselves.
It's
profoundly
important
to
gem
standards,
because
that
is
the
essence
of
what
a
decentralized
autonomous
organization
is.
It
is
the
realization.
C
B
C
B
C
B
B
How
can
I
describe
the
dark
down
sort
of
landscape
because
you
can
have
a
purposeful
called
bribery
when
people
will
create
a
delegation
of
votes
that
point
in
a
certain
direction,
but
in
this
extent
your
apathy
is
actually
creating
it
for
you,
so
to
fight
against
that.
It
really
simply
a
case
of
just
being
up
to
speed
with
what
the
system
is
doing
and
how
you
can
actually
help
extract
value.
Mart.
This.
A
B
Important
here
is
that,
in
the
traditional
finance
space,
you
are
always
reliance
on
a
third
party
to
find
the
value
for
you
and
basically
return
the
value
to
you.
You
are
dependent
on
money
that
third
party,
but
she
was
the
dependence
on
someone
who
is
supposedly
your
representative,
ensuring
effect
this
third
particles
and
creates
this
very
for
you
here.
We've
gotten
rid
of
all
of
that,
and
we
said
we
there's
not
a
third
party.
B
What
else
do
I
know
while
I
know
that
this
chalking
is
great,
but
you
know
I'm
not
proficient
at
knowing
this.
Let
me
go
find
someone
who
it
is.
Let
them
give
me
the
information
and
once
I
get
the
information
and
I
think
that
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
can
make
a
decision.
So
this
is
really
a
case
of
NPR
took
on
home,
is
identified
with
the
value
is
informing
themselves
appropriately
and
then
making
the
inherent
decision
to
extract
the
value
from
from
their
findings.
B
B
C
B
Me
is
the
the
most
novel
characteristic
about
this.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
seen
and
this
anyone
else
is
a
good
example
where
your
votes
can
actually
have
a
sense
of
them.
It's
almost
as
if
you
went
to
someone
going
to
a
general
election
in
the
same
well.
Are
you
good
by
the
constant
word
they
go?
Yes,
sir
cause
I'm
about
to
pass
my
vote.
Okay.
How
much
for
your
vote
and
they'll
go
well?
I,
don't
know
you
know,
do
I
really
care
about
this
election.
What
am
I
clear
about?
Who
knows
something.
A
C
C
B
You've
have
to
have
this
very
kind
of
gray,
listen
to
the
uninformed
area,
where
you
thinking
you
actually
don't
know
that
any
of
you
vote.
You
don't
know
the
value
that
you
have
released
from
this
arena.
You
actually
do
that's
the
difference.
If
you
really
want
to
know
how
much
better
you
going
to
to
release,
go,
have
a
look.
A
And
well,
they
are
gonna,
be
thinking
about
that
for
another
week
as
well.
So
I
guess
there's
discontinuity
ways
to
measure
that
the
value
of
that,
whatever
the
token
happens,
to
be
trading
out
and
I
guess
and
there
is
this
longer-term
stability
of
the
system,
like
the
continued
stability
of
the
expansion
of
the
system,
is
the
secondary
consideration,
but
for
harder
to
measure
immediately
I.
Suppose
oh
yeah.
A
B
Run
around
doing
things
that's
to
make
you
healthier,
you
effectively
have
to
make
your
own
decisions
and
act
out
those
decisions
to
make
sure
that
you,
if
you
want
to
become
bigger,
stronger,
better
faster,
then
you
have
to
make
those
decisions
and
you
have
to
put
them
into
action.
You
may
think
I
don't
know.
B
C
B
A
B
A
B
A
C
A
C
Wasn't
really
its
own
question?
It
was
just
kind
of
Stephen
was
going
in
to
write
different
types
of
votes
and
write,
different
powers
that
mkr
holders
had
and
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
explain
how
something
like
a
you
know,
major
piece
of
infrastructure
changing
would
work
so
the
the
example
we
were
using
was,
for
example,
a
change
in
Oracle's,
not
just
in
you
know
what
individuals
are
running
an
Oracle,
but
a
kind
of
you
know
code
change
on.
C
You
know
one
algorithm
they're
using
so
you
could
imagine
like
a
Elling
point
type
of
game,
and
so
so
the
idea
here
is
right
that
you
would
have
one
kind
of
governance
vote.
Really
you
know
being
a
signaling
mechanism
right,
MKR
holders
desire
this
right
and
then
either
the
foundation
or
some
kind
of
you
know
a
third
party.
That's
intrinsically
motivated
to
do
this.
You
know,
can
go
and
build
this
new
kind
of
software
stack
for
Oracle's
and
then
then
there
is
an
executive
vote
right
to
actually
integrate
the
system,
integrate
this
new
module.
C
A
That's
interesting
was
something
I
topic.
We
briefly
touched
on
it
and
I
called
two
or
three
calls
ago.
I
think
where
somebody
brought
up
the
idea
that
in
the
future,
we
might
see
independent
groups
of
developers,
sort
of
organized
themselves
and
saying,
like
hey,
we've
figured
a
better
way
of
doing
this
and
we'd
like
to
help
that
implement,
which
was
a
bit
of
a
mind-blowing
concept.
For
me,
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
how
that
develops
in
the
future.
A
C
C
A
My
piece
I
think
we
were
talking
about
from
alright
I,
think
that
we're
at
the
top
of
the
hour
and
people
are
starting
to
drop
off
for
other
meetings.
So
thanks
everybody
for
joining
the
call.
That
was
great.
Thank
you
Steven
once
again
for
some
mind-blowing
ideas,
so
he's
taking
a
lot
of
process.
The
world
will
regroup
again
next
week,
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
everybody
come
back.