►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 71
Description
Governance Segment
- Richard Brown: General Q&A
- LongForWisdom: ‘Governance at a Glance’
Risk Segment
- Mariano Conti: Surplus Auctions
- Vishesh Choudry: State of the Pegs
General Q&A
We'll open the floor for any questions about Scientific Governance and Risk.
Please join us and help shape the future of the MakerDAO.
Links
- [Video/Voice](https://zoom.us/j/697074715)
- [Dial-in](https://zoom.us/u/acRbIMDvK)
- [Calendar](https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=makerdao.com_3efhm2ghipksegl009ktniomdk@group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles)
A
Hello,
everyone
welcome
to
the
January
31st
31st
I
was
do
it
again,
I
really
most
observant
people
in
the
call
I
messed
up
to
date
on
the
agenda.
It's
not
the
31st.
Welcome
to
the
January
30th
edition
of
the
science
of
the
governance
and
risk
meeting.
My
name
is
Richard
Brown
I'm,
the
head
of
Community
development's
at
maker,
Dow,
North,
America,
Foundation
nation.
A
So
perhaps
we'll
talk
about
a
very
special
thread
today,
and
so
we
can
dig
into
some
of
the
issues
that
we
see
happening
our
surface
some
of
the
issues
that
are
happening
in
the
in
the
forum
because,
as
we
all
hope,
there's
a
fantastic
level
of
the
activity
in
there
and
we
need
to
one
of
the
challenges
we're
gonna
have
to
deal
with
as
a
group.
Soon,
if
notes
immediately
is
how
do
we
make
sure
that
the
momentum
doesn't
get
lost
in
the
sort
of
tidal
wave
of
activity
that
we
have
going
on
there?
A
So
we'd
hoped
for
the
longest
time
to
see
a
lot
of
engaged
and
intelligent
actors
arriving
in
the
ecosystem
and
using
the
forum
to
implement
change
and
now
they're
doing
it,
and
so
we
need
to
sort
of
optimize
but
how
to
make
sure
that
that
momentum
is
not
lost.
Mariano
Conte
is
here,
there's
no
need
to
introduce
him
any
more
than
that.
A
The
past
is
my
throat
a
lot
of
hard
questions
and
then
I
cracked.
Under
the
pressure
of
lack
of
a
medium
response
and
we
move
into
special
segments
and
that
kind
of
interrupts
the
flow
so
at
the
end
of
the
call
toward
the
end
of
the
call
I
want
to
talk
about
some
some
major
threats,
some
some
topics
that
we've
been
discussing
in
these
calls
that
require
more
than
just
a
sort
of
a
one-off,
mini
debate.
My
suggestion
is:
when
we
talk
about
shutdowns
and
fees,
why
not
I
think
there's
nothing
to
be
explored
there?
A
Then
you
notice
that
I
said
fees
and
not
tax
the
parameter
tax,
and
so
what
I
would
like
to
talk
about?
Maybe
just
get
people
thinking
about
this
now
is
that
we've
been
talking
about
the
implementation
and
I'm
I'm,
not
convinced
that
the
ecosystem,
where
the
community
has
aligned
on
intent
on
the
requirements
that
they're
trying
to
satisfy
here,
and
so
we
we
talked
about
this
a
bit
at
the
end
of
the
last
call
I
want
to
pick
up
that
thread.
A
A
We
have
yeah,
let's,
let's
figure
out
what
the
community
wants
to
optimize
for
and
let's
figure
out
what
the
plan
is
to
optimize
for
that
preferred
outcome.
Instead
of
casting
around
for
immediate
hey,
you
guys
know
what
I'm
talking
about
all
right.
What
I
want
to
do,
though,
is
make
good
on
my
promise
to
not
ramble
at
the
beginning
of
the
call,
so
I
want
to
hand
it
off
to
too
long
for
wisdom
actually
to
give
us
governor's
advice
and
then
we'll
talk
to
Mario
longer.
You
run.
B
A
C
D
C
A
C
Five
minutes
to
go:
it's
kind
of
go
live
soon,
so
I'm
gonna
be
talking
a
little
bit
really
quick
about
surplus
auctions
and
you've
already
seen
this
happen.
Whenever
you
see
one
of
these
vault
actions
means
that
a
vault
has
been
liquidated
and
collateral
is
put
up
and
in
option.
That's
we're
already
familiar
with
this
we've
seen
almost
400
of
those,
but
this
is
gonna
be
unique
because
the
surplus
auction
is
going
to
be
the
first
of
its
kind.
A
single
collateral
died,
didn't
have
this
as
well.
C
Our
stability
feast
were
paid
in
nkr
and
then
that
NTR
went
to
the
burner-
and
you
can
see
here
that
there's
almost
78
and
Kay
are
available
to
verb
to
burn
from
single
collateral,
diced
ability,
fees
and
anybody
can
call
contribute
this
murdered
by
just
using
this
burn
burner.
But
in
the
case
of
multi
collateral
die
everything
happens
with
auctions,
so
we're
gonna
be
adding
this.
You
see
that
the
buffer
is
500,000
die
and
a
lot
is
set
at
10,000.
So
what
does
this
mean?
C
The
system
keeps
a
surplus
in
die
and
this
is
a
safeguard.
In
case
you
know,
black
swuan
happens
or
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
liquidations
and
there's
not
enough,
and
you
know
the
auction.
The
system
is
set
at
500,000
and
we're
currently
at
400,
maybe
1,000
and
increasing
by
the
block.
As
you
can
see
so
the
moment,
this
one
hits
the
buffer
plus
a
lot.
So
five
hundred
and
ten
thousand
died.
This
little
button
will
change
right
now.
C
A
C
Heel
heel
is
something
that
we
have
this
button
here,
but
it
doesn't
need
to
be
called
even
that
often,
unless
you
want,
you
want
to
trigger
a
surplus
auction.
What
he'll
does
is
it
reconciles
system
surplused
and
system
debt
so
and
we're
hiding
a
couple
of
numbers
here?
You
will
see
that
here
it
says
debt
available
to
heal
at
three
hundred
and
sixty
four.
But
if
you
go
up
to
the
fundamental
equation
of
die,
you
will
see
that
system.
That
is
a
little
bit
above.
This
is
706.
C
That
is
because
there
are
still
some
debt
in
the
queue
from
liquidations,
and
this
and
this
the
debt
needs
to
stay
in
the
system
for
three
days
before
it
can
be
flushed
out
and
it
can
become
that
available
to
heal
I.
Don't
want
to
go
into
details
as
to
why,
but
just
know
that
when
a
vault
is
liquidated,
that
goes
a
step
to
the
system
that
needs
to
stay
there
for
three
days
and
then
it
can
be
flogged.
C
That's
the
name
of
the
function,
you
call
flog
and
it
turns
into
debt
available
to
heal
and
when
you
call
heal,
it'll,
take
even
cancel
out
debt
suppose
that
there
was
no
surplus,
that
spirits
were
zero
and
this
debt
starts
to
accumulate
if
it
hits
fifty
thousand
plus
I.
Believe
it's
also
tempered
well
I
need
to
check
exactly
how
much
it
is.
It
would
trigger
the
opposite
of
a
surplus
auction,
which
is
a
debt
auction,
in
which
case
and
care
would
be
minted.
C
This,
hopefully,
will
never
happen
as
long
as
everybody
here
correctly
manages
you
know,
risk
and
governments.
So
in
this
case,
what
will
happen
is
hopefully
Saturday
or
Sunday.
According
to
the
numbers
there's
going
to
be
a
surplus
auction,
so
it
might
be
a
keeper
of
the
trigger
set,
but
you
we'll
also
be
able
to
trigger
it
front,
die
stats.
So
you
would
call
heal
to
reduce
the
debt
available
to
zero
and
then
you'll
be
able
to
call.
C
Ya
to
initiate
a
surplus
auction
and
what
will
happen?
There's
going
to
be
10,000
die
available
and
the
system
is
gonna,
say:
hey,
I'm,
gonna
sell
10,000
die
how
much
MKR
do
you
offer,
and
this
is
when
the
auction
starts,
somebody's
going
to
be
a
number,
and
hopefully
some
but
isn't
in
a
bid
a
little
bit
more
and
a
little
bit
more
and
the
system
will
try
to
buy
as
much
time
kr
as
it
can
with
those
10,000
and
whoever
wins
they
will
be
subtracted
in
kr,
which
the
system
will
burn.
C
That'll
be
a
first
as
well,
because
that
is
different
from
the
burning
of
single
collateral
die
debt
and
once
that
happens,
yeah
it's
another
milestone
for
the
system,
because
it's
gonna
be
a
first.
But
after
that
happens,
expected
I
would
say
once
or
twice
per
week,
because
you
see
that
this
number
increases
pretty
fast.
This
number
can
decrease,
it
can
slow
down,
because
right
now
we
have
45.
46
percent
died
in
DSR.
If
more
people
put
dye
into
the
dsr,
then
it
seems
then
there's
not
going
to
be
as
much
surplus.
C
It's
going
to
go
up
still,
but
slower
so
I
don't
know
I
guess
this
is.
This
is
also
an
interesting
number
to
watch
and
it's
gonna
be
a
more
interesting
in
the
coming
weeks
after
the
first
time,
because
government's
is
gonna
want
to
see
and
I
don't
want
to
step
on
any
toes.
But
okay
is
500k
dye
enough
of
a
surplus.
Do
we
need
more?
Do
we
need
less?
Do
we
want
more
value
going
to
entire
holders
in
the
case
of
the
burning
of
MK
r
of
terror
system
after
a
surplus,
auction
and
I?
A
A
E
E
A
A
C
It's
built
by
Martine,
Sanchez
who's,
a
member
of
the
community,
and
he
just
released
is
today
so
it's
great
cuz.
It's
gonna,
be
just
in
time
for
the
flop,
auction
and
may
take
a
little
bit
to
load,
but
you
can
see
all
of
the
the
collateral
auctions
to
flip
for
eath
and
bat,
and
up
here
to
the
right,
you
can
see
the
flop
auctions.
You
know
the
dioxins
with
says:
Mr
K,
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
typo,
but
this
is
also
going
to
be
a
good
resource.
C
A
D
So
so
my
quick
question
to
Mariano
in
regards
to
the
the
surplus
threshold
being
500k
and
I
understand
that
that's
kind
of
just
like
that's
how
it
should
be,
but
like
what
are
the
disadvantages
of
increasing
it
to
give
maybe
more
of
a
buffer
in
the
case
that,
like
a
lot
of
bad
debt,
occurs
in
the
system
so
yeah.
What's
what's
the
disadvantage
of
making
that
threshold
even
higher
than
500k
I,
think
I
heard
siren
yeah.
C
E
There's
a
there's
gonna
be
some
interesting
trade-offs
between
what
that
what
that
surplus
should
be.
The
surplus
is
somewhat
of
a
more
stable
kind
of
more
reliable
source
of
then
I'm
carried
dilution,
I'm
care
facilities,
obviously
fairly
high.
This
liquidity
is
fairly
low.
Well,
you
can
make
some
you
can
kind
of
make
some
estimates
on
how
much
value
you
may
be
able
to
extract
through
the
dilution
using
various
methods.
E
The
buffer
is
significantly
more
conservative
and
so,
depending
on
what
your
estimated
distribution
of
losses
is
for
your
collateral
portfolio,
you
may
want
to
have
more
or
less
buffer
depending
the
downside.
Is
that
the
more
buffer
you
have,
the
less
the
more
that's
held
back
and
does
not
go
to
the
buy
and
burn
auction
yeah.
D
But
that's
just
the
floating
amount
right
so
like
it
would
like
once
it's
set
once
it
hits
like
that
that
maximum,
like
let's
say
it's
like
2
million
or
something
once
it
hits,
that's
2
million
the
rate
of
burn
is
gonna,
be
pretty
much
the
same
as
it
would
have
been.
The
only
thing
we
losses
like
that,
whatever
1.5
that
wasn't
burned
right
right.
E
E
D
E
As
the
risk
grows,
you'll
probably
want
to
have
more
surplus
and
that
there's
some
kind
of
some
quantitative
ways
to
maybe
determine
the
total
amount
of
the
total
amount
of
combined
surplus
and
uncared
dilution
value.
You
might
want
for
the
level
of
risk
in
your
in
the
portfolio.
So
as
long
as
that,
the
combined
amount
is
is
with
is,
is
above
the
threshold
that
you're
targeting
you're
generally
okay.
F
D
The
only
time
a
debt
auction
is
actually
issued
is,
if
we're
running
a
deficit
for
long
enough
or
if
there's
like
a
big
enough
expense
that
in
one
shot
it
completely
eliminates
all
of
the
die
in
the
system
surplus
and
then
also
causes
50k
plus
of
the
bad
debt
right.
So,
if
there's
like
500k
of
bad
debt
because
of
like
assistant
expense,
that's
not
that's.
Just
going
to
take
away
from
the
surplus
doesn't
necessarily
cause
a
dilution
right
right,
yeah,
okay,.
C
E
E
D
Yeah
maker
man
writes
a
really
good
point
in
the
chat:
dilution
of
m'kay
arts,
a
covered
eye
debts
versus
surplus
diets
covered
I'd
that
send
me
are
vastly
different
things.
One
requires
a
market,
the
other
doesn't
yeah,
so
the
advantage
of
using
the
surplus
is
you
get
around
from
actually
selling
or
causing
like
downward
price
pressure
on
them
care.
G
What
I
will
touch
on
so
this
is
I
think
this
loaded
prior
to
maintenance,
starting.
So
you
can
still
talk
about
this.
Luckily,
on
yeah
so
made
too
low
amount
of
titrating
in
the
last
24
hours
slightly
below
peg,
but
I.
Don't
think
enough
to
be
concerned
is
worth
noting
that
for
a
few
days
there
was
a
bit
more
dye
trading
below
peg.
Then
above
that
sometimes
stable
point
out.
Science
is
slightly
visually
misleading
because
of
the
size
of
the
trades.
G
So
you
know
there
may
be
more
pink
area
below
there's
large
concentrations
of
trades
happening
above
as
well,
so
it
more
or
less
balances
out,
but
still
something
to
be
cognizant
of
a
fair
amount
of
that
trading
happening
on
dy/dx.
Actually.
So
that's
also
been
an
interesting
note,
just
since
MCD
launched
that
is
picked
up
in
share
and
then
sigh
there's
been
some
funky
trades
kind
of
drifting
below
the
peg
on
unit
swap
and
obviously
low
volumes,
but
nothing
too
significant.
G
It's
all
within
tiny
margins
there
and
so
something
to
watch
in
terms
of
amount
of
liquidity
and
and
as
those
conversations
progress
around
shutdown
and
taxes,
not
taxes.
What
happens
with
trading
activity
inside
this
is
something
that's
going
to
be
interesting
but
yeah
overall,
so
that
bar
re
for
size
about
10
percent
supply
rate
I
think
this.
This
was
a
slight
bump
as
well.
So
that's
interesting
to
just
note
on
the
secondary
markets,
but
Verdi.
G
This
had
also
come
up
as
well
in
terms
of
supply
rate
and
the
total
amount
of
lending
activity
with
die.
So
that's
also
interesting
to
watch
net
so
that
total
amount
of
cyclists
die,
has
increased,
total
mounted
dies,
decrease,
total
amount
of
sorry
total
amount
of
sigh
is
decreased
and
total
amount
of
dye
is
increased.
So
that's
migration
proceeding
and
it's
actually
really
interesting.
G
So
this
graph
clarifies
that
you
see
that
the
total
size
supply,
though
there
are
these
like
slight
bumps
the
this-
was
the
one
that
promotion
talked
about
two
weeks
ago:
there's
net
a
continual
decrease
in
amount
of
side,
so
that
that
barrel
is
emptying.
However,
slowly
that
maybe
and
again,
as
has
been
mentioned
since
migration
sort
of
started,
people
can
debate
about
the
pace
and
whether
that's
acceptable.
G
The
amount
of
leverage
that
people
are
seeking-
just
a
quick
note,
is
proportionally
so
you
can
just
see
that
the
amount
of
that
dye
supply
that
is
existing
at
lower
collateralization
ratios
has
increased
again.
So
just
proportionately.
It
does
seem
that
there
is
more
leverage
seeking
behavior
which
tracks
with
the
fact
that
more
dye
size
been
issued
and
pretty
I
think
reasonably
explainable,
with
the
fact
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
trading
activity
with
efj
and
a
lot
of
price
movements
of
crypto
in
general.
G
So
it
makes
sense
that
there's
a
bit
more
bullishness
coming
into
play
with
leverage
to
key
and
then
just
a
quick
note.
I
don't
think
this
was
mentioned
today,
but
just
the
total
amount
of
dyeing
the
DSR
is
as
well.
So
that's
seeing
pretty
heavy
utilization
and
I
think
it's
it's
extremely
significant
to
consider
that
out
of
a
six
million
died
issued,
there's
49
million
in
the
dsr
and
and
that
savings
rate
of
7.5%.
That's
pretty
high
I
think
compared
to
what
is
out
there
in
terms
of
rates
for
secondary
lending,
I
have.
D
Like
if,
if
you
have
just
a
bunch
of
die,
being
pulled
there,
and
maybe
like
people,
are
treating
it
like
their
like
their
other
investments,
were
that
you
know
they're
making
seven
but
they're
withdrawing
3%
and
they're
converting
that
dye
into
US
dollars?
Doesn't
that
basically
create?
You
know
like
a
very
steady
selling
pressure
on
the
open
markets?
If
they're
not
doing
it,
OTC.
G
Well,
I
would
say
conceptually
that
makes
sense.
I
don't
know
if
that
in
practice
is
how
it
hits
the
order
books
collide
the
flip
side
right,
so
that
that
would
be
a
balanced
effect.
The
flip
side
of
it
is
when
you
absorb
dye
into,
and
that's
only
if
the
you
know
immediately
follows
into
this
sort
of
cashing
out
activity
which
again
hard
hard
to
say
yeah.
G
If
people
are
necessarily
exchanging
the
dye
for
US
dollars
in
that
way,
that's
something
where
we
could
then
go
back
and
look
at,
for
example,
some
of
well-known
off-ramps
and
try
to
understand.
What's
going
on
there
and
I
think
it
is
worthwhile
to
sort
of
look
at
like,
for
example,
coinbase,
Porter
books
and
centralized
exchanges
and
see
what
kind
of
information
we
can
get,
unfortunately,
down
at
the
moment
again
as
I
mentioned.
G
But
the
website
of
that
right
is
when
die
is
being
locked
into
the
DSR,
it's
theoretically
being
taken
off
the
market
and
reducing
pressure.
So
probably
so,
yes,
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
probably
not
accurate,
but
it
stones
it
out
a
likely
potential
outcome,
but
right
it's
bounced
out.
So
this
is
where
I
think
some
refined
thought
is
required
in
terms
of
how
you
think,
if
the
DSR
as
a
lever
and
and
what
is
the
impact
of
the
DSR
and
it's
not
it's
not
simple
by
any
stretch
so.
D
Basically,
we
can
infer
something
if
we
see
that
the
DSR
is
growing
over
time
or,
like,
let's
say
over
the
course
of
like
a
couple
weeks-
a
task-
it's
actually
shrinking
over
time,
despite
like
our
rate,
setting
that
in
and
of
itself,
can
be
like
a
really
important
thing
to
consider.
When
looking
at
the.
G
Hell
hundred
percent
yeah
I
think
the
the
utilization
of
the
DSR,
just
in
even
in
just
aggregate
terms
like
how
much
is
in
the
DSR,
but
that
that
utilization
rate
for
sure
I
think
is
it's
an
important
data
point
I
think
we
could
have
a
discussion
around
what
it
means
and
how
to
interpret
that
data
point.
Because
again,
my
point
is
that's
not
necessarily
super
simple.
G
D
G
A
very
good
point:
yes,
it's
a
very
good
point.
I
think,
what's
really
important
to
consider
is
not
the
DSR
as
a
standalone,
but
as
a
linked
behavior,
what's
happening
prior
to
that
guy
getting
into
the
DSR
yeah.
Is
it
being
minted
simply
for
the
purpose
of
walking
up
in
the
DSR
and
then
subsequently
what's
happening
when
that
diet
leaves
the
DSR?
These
are
people
going
and
cashing
out
for
US
dollars?
It's
not
really.
Those
types
of
linked,
behaviors
really
tell
you
the
most
okay,
but
that
is
what
I
have.
D
Maker
man
said
in
regards
to
the
conversation
we
were
just
having.
This
discussion
is
one
of
the
many
reasons
why
I
have
been
advocating
paying
a
fixed
percentage
of
the
stability
fees
generated
hyphens
to
have
the
DSR
pay
rate
be
connected
to
utilization,
then
both
utilization
and
rate
can
fluctuate
with
the
markets.
Yeah
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
that.
A
G
H
Terrible
cell
phone
service
here
so
I
won't
walk
around
but
know
that
I
mean
I've,
been
listening
to
the
Scott
discussion
on
this,
and
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I've
been
trying
to
get
maker
to
move
towards
doing
a
rate
based
utilization
model.
You
know
so
that
if
you
people
are
really
pounding
into
the
DSR,
the
rate
should
go
down
a
little
bit.
H
If
there
are
out
of
it,
the
rate
should
go
up
a
little
bit
and
if
you
just
do
effects
greater
than
SF
fees,
then
everybody's
really
clear
on
how
much
money
is
going
where
and
the
rates
can
kind
of
move
based
on
how
the
markets
dictate
it
to
me,
it's
pretty
straight
forward
so
now
I
wanted
to
say
hi
to
everybody
and
apologize
that
I'm
using
a
phone
and
first
time
I
can
talk
to
you.
So
we.
E
E
D
H
The
rate
effectively
isn't
going
to
jump
around
unless
you
have
huge
moves
into
or
out
of
it
or
that
governance
decides
we're
going
to
go
from
50%
of
the
DSR
to
like
80
and
then
you'll
get
big
you'll
get
a
kind
of
big
rate
fluctuation,
depending
on
how
the
things
are
moving.
It's
like
the
markets
move
radically
at
times,
and
the
rates
actually
move
pretty
radically
and
I
think
in
some
ways.
It's
good
to
have
these
things.
H
Flux
you'll
be
able
to
fluctuate
with
them
when
they
don't,
it
means
behavior
starts
to
fluctuate,
and
you
really
want
to
moderate
behavior
and
let
the
rates
move.
I
mean
I,
have
an
example
of
a
control
system
thing
where
it
was
like
the
difference
between
a
thing
operating
and
going
wildly
all
over
the
map
versus
applying
a
regulation
model
that
absolutely
fixed
the
thing
that
I
wanted
to
Mont
manage
and
let
this
other
thing
go
all
over
the
map.
H
G
If
you
accept
that
assumption,
then
the
dye
supply
would
fluctuate
like
effectively
as
a
function
of
utilization
of
the
DSR
in
terms
of
like
what
that
rate
is
versus
the
the
actual
demand
out
there
for
for
that
yield.
So
in
the
sense
that,
if
you
assume
that
that
demand
is
fluctuating
wildly,
which
I
think
is
pretty
reasonable,
based
on
how
ICD
worked
and
and
what
a
lot
of
people's
behaviors
have
been
in
the
secondary
lending
market
in
crypto,
then
what's
going
to
happen
or
what
would
have
to
happen?
Mathematically
is
that
I.
G
If
those
rates
are
pretty
fixed,
then
your
supply
is
going
to
fluctuate
more
wildly
if
there's
rates
are
more
variable
than
the
growth
of
that
supply.
Based
on
that
fluctuating
demand
would
happen
more
predictably,
and
so
it's
a
choice
and
I
think
there's
a
good
point
there
that
you
kind
of
have
to
choose
between
that
behavior
fluctuating
wildly
versus
the
rate
fluctuating
well
I.
Think
that
makes
a
lot
of
time.
H
I
mean
I
want
to
belabor
this.
We
can
keep
this
meeting
short
because
a
lot
of
the
stuff
we
can
do
asynchronously
and
either
the
forums
or
in
chat,
kinda
and
so
I
think
we're
kind
of
on
the
same
page
here
so
I'm
gonna
hand
it
back
to
and
move
along
or
something
next
good.
I
love
the
state
of
the
tape
by
the
way
vishesh
and
I'm
gonna
make
one
comment
on
the
pigs.
I've
made
it
in
the
in
the
groups
elsewhere
and
I.
H
See
it
on
the
data
is
that
the
tag
tends
to
be
a
low
I
would
like
to
see
it
fluctuate
equally
above
and
below
one
and
the
one
thing
that
we
don't
there's
two
things
we
don't
take
into
account,
but
I
think
we
should
think
about.
One
is
what
is
the
actual
liquidity
depth
for
price
and
shoot
the
other
one
just
totally
slipped
out
of
my
head,
so
I'll
leave
it
till
it
comes
back,
is
just
I,
think
the
pegs
too
low
or
a
little
bit
low
I.
H
Don't
think
we
have
to
do
anything
that
it's
inherently
in
a
decent
range.
Oh,
the
other
thing
is:
is
the
fees
involved?
Is
that
anybody
trying
to
arm
arbitrage?
These
peg
rates
now
have
to
deal
with
pretty
significant
fees.
I
mean
in
talking
around
trip
is
anywhere
from
0.2%
to
over
a
percent,
and
so
you're
gonna.
H
H
D
So
I
think
that
it's,
it
is
a
result
of
the
fact
that
it,
you
know,
there's
a
cost
to
do
the
ARB
and
and
like
the
fact
that
it
might
be
a
little
bit
lower
is
still
like
should
be
considered
a
healthy
peg
and
shouldn't
necessarily
warrant
like
a
rate
adjustment
based
on
that.
So
I
think
maybe
like
the
next
step
for
our
community
or
like
the
people
doing
risk
is
to
like
define
what
really
is
like
a
reasonable
range
before
we
should
consider
rate
adjustments.
G
G
G
So
there
were
people,
they
were
going
around
saying
that
the
well
the
peg
for
die
is
actually
you
know
a
hair
below
a
dollar
and
that's
the
resting
state,
and
so
the
the
point
around
is
die
necessarily
going
to
fluctuate
evenly
above
and
below
a
dollar.
And
should
you
try
to
manage
to
that
goal?
Is
a
not
new
and
B
I?
Don't
think
it
was
ever
really
resolved,
but
my
sense
would
be
it's
probably
never
going
to
be
perfectly
balanced.
H
It's
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
wanna
take
data
from
you
is
that
to
me
it
looks
like
what
we
have
is
a
system
that
is
kind
of
on
a
growth
path,
and
literally
it
wasn't
until
we
hit
you
guys,
hit
sixteen
to
twenty
percent
and
that
the
market
started
to
you
know
things
started
to
drop
and
the
peg
started
to
rise
pretty
significantly
and
everything
I'm
seeing
is.
It
looks
like
there's
a
high
demand
for
dye
that
we
can
grow
the
system.
H
No
problem
I
see
it
as
an
average
of
about
half
a
million
a
day
of
outstanding
dye,
as
it
stands
right
now,
with
the
rates
at
eight
percent
and
so
I
think,
inherently
what
we're
seeing.
We
see
the
peg
sag
a
little
bit
as
what
we're
seeing
is
a
system
that
wants
to
grow,
and
so
there's
kind
of
a
downward
selling
pressure
from
all
the
people
minting
to
to
do
that
and
I've
been
trying
to
get
a
feeling
for
what
the
liquidity
depths
are
here,
because
it
isn't
just
where
the
peg
is.
It's
like.
H
H
G
G
So
now
you,
you
sort
of
what
achieves
this
steady
state
and
so
I,
don't
know
the
oil
compound
I
is
already
in
the
DSR.
Yes,
but
if
people
are
supplying
dye
directly
to
the
DSR
versus
the
compound
supply
pool
right,
those
should
work
economically
differently.
I'm
curious.
If
your
thoughts
on
that
I
mean.
G
E
G
This
is
fundamentally
devaki
and
because
this
is
fundamentally
different
from
that,
because
at
that
point,
that
was
the
only
supply
sink,
and
so
what
you're
really
talking
about
there
was
the
the
amount
being
minted
versus
the
amount
being
borrowed
from
from
compound
and
and
no
doubt
like
the
amount
being
borrowed,
does
have
an
impact
on
utilization
on
compound,
but
I
guess.
My
point
is
in
the
event
that
the
DSR
were
hiring
so
like.
In
your
example,
it's
a
was
8
percent.
G
Theoretically
now
some
people
would
withdraw
dye
from
from
compound
reducing
the
supply
utilization
on
compound
the
industry,
well
increasing
effectively
the
amount
of
yeah.
It
depends
how
you
think
about
that.
But
the
point
is
the
DSR
utilization
would
go
up.
The
SR
rate
would
not
be
impacted,
but
the
compound
supply
rate
would
theoretically
then
go
up
right,
because
the
amount
being
supplied
on
compound
would
go
down,
so
those
would
theoretically
kind
of
level
out.
G
E
I
think
the
effect
is
that
the
I
mean
that
that
kind
of
back
and
forth
doesn't
affect
the
dye
peg
right,
cuz
that
doesn't
affect
any
fresh
like
outside,
outside
capital
coming
into
the
D
easr,
but
it
the
existence
of
compound
allows
kind
of
additional
liquidity
for
people,
locking
up
die
such
that
the
DSR
doesn't
have
to
go
as
high.
Is
it
normally
otherwise,
whatever
right
so
like
without
compound
the
DSR
might
be
significantly
higher,
but
with
compound
it
kind
of
absorbs
more
of
that
or
that
that
demand
for
walking
of
die
well.
G
It's
it's
a
trade-off
right
because
if
there
is
less
being
supplied
on
compound,
then
theoretically,
it's
more
expensive
to
borrow
from
compound
which
theoretically
then
puts
less
die
on
the
streets
at
the
end
of
the
day.
But
if
you
are
putting
dying
to
the
DSR
in
theoretically
has
no
impact
on
the
amount
of
liquidity
out
there.
The
amount
of
die,
that's
just
floating,
so
really,
theoretically
has
no
price
effect.
So
I
guess
that's
the
difference,
but
then
the
trade-off
is
there's
also
a
cost
rate
associated
with
with
maintaining
the
DSR.
So
it's
a
choice.
H
All
right,
no
guys
I'm
listening
to
this
and
I
think
since
compound
is
match
rate.
It's.
This
is
kind
of
a
non-event
with
respect
to
compound
and
when
we
talk
about
the
rest
of
the
markets,
could
I
have
sigh
in
neck
0
at
8%
been
there
until
you
know
till
they
start
to
do
die
honestly,
but
this
whole
idea
of
like
the
purpose.
H
Do
anything
for
0.1%
you've
already
seen
that,
and
there
are
other
reasons
why
people
have
their
money
either
to
earn
the
return
or
to
be
able
to
borrow
against
it
and
right
now
the
only
thing
you
can
borrow
them:
you'll
only
make
die.
If
you
put
us
on
maker-
or
you
know,
assets
on
maker
to
meant
die,
and
so
what's
out,
there
is
determined
by
how
much
make
their
mints
and
then
how
it
floats
wrong
in
the
system
yeah,
it's
definitely
determined
by
the
secondary
markets
and
rates.
H
But
since
compound
is
basically
pegged
and
some
other
places
are
starting
to
peg
I
mean
this
becomes
a
non-issue.
The
real
you
know:
I
was
talking
about
the
size
stuff
in
particular,
but
we're
talking
about
the
peg
I,
don't
think
how
these
markets
are
moving
with
respect
to
that
I,
don't
see
it
having
an
adverse
effect.
H
What
I
do
see
is
that
it's
opt
up
a
ton
of
liquidity,
and
so
literally
there's
you
know,
I,
don't
know,
I
didn't
look
at
the
numbers
on
compound,
but
the
amount
of
stuff
deposited
it's
like
half
the
maker
is
an
under
deposit
right
now
and
it's
still
growing,
and
so
that's
the
real
issue.
It's
kind
of
how
it's
affecting
liquidity,
because
liquidity
I
see
affects
pay.
So
that's
kind
of
all
I
have
to
say
on
that.
A
A
F
B
All
right,
so
in
a
couple
of
active
discussions
this
week,
couple
of
cool
things
are
shown
up.
First
of
those
was
a
post
from
my
toe
toe,
which
summarized
some
academic
writing
related
to
to
organizational
management.
So
academic
work,
that's
been
done,
describing
how
like
a
company's
work
or
like
people,
help
people
most
optimally
work
together.
B
F
So
I
spent
the
last
week
or
two
kind
of
just
doing
some
academic
reading
just
stuff
on
Google
about
organized
organizational
management.
Some
of
the
older,
some
of
the
newer
thoughts
on
that
and
just
tried
to
summarize
in
the
context
of
maker
and
some
of
the
questions
we
have
about,
like
the
various
groups
that
are
doing
work
and
how
they
communicate
and
share
information
and
how
to
do
that.
In
the
context
of
like
the
goal
of
the
organization
over
some.
F
So
kind
of
just
looking
at
that
a
little
bit
I,
wouldn't
say
I
had
any
like
major
takeaways.
Exactly
the
the
paper
on
meta
organization
was
also
really
interesting
because
they
were
looking
at.
It
was
one
of
the
newer
studies
looking
at
systems
like
basically
like
how
to
describe
open
source
and
sort
of
non-traditional
company,
company
organization
or
large
organization
structures
when,
like
all
the
actors
in
the
organization,
are
legally
autonomous
and
don't
like
have
an
employee
employer
relationship
with
the
whole
organization.
F
A
H
A
F
A
F
E
E
Around
emergency
shutdown
is,
is
the
prudent
is
a
prudent
course
of
action.
There's
nothing,
there's
nothing.
In
particular,
that
I
mean
there's
no
like
severe
attack
fact
or
anything
that
I'm
aware
of,
but
just
from
a
perspective
of
not
arbitrarily
leaving
about
20
million
of
empty
debt-ceiling,
Riverside
seems
seems
like
a
good
idea,
and
there
are
some
questions
about.
Should
it
be
reduced
to
even
below
the
current
size,
apply
to
completely
cut
off
new
new
news,
I'm
minting
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
think.
E
I
So
the
reason
that
we
were
talking
about
needing
to
lower
the
debt
ceiling
to
zero
to
initiate
this
poll
is
because,
if
the
whole
scenario,
one
out
where
we
would
not
implement
attacks
at
all,
there
would
be
an
incentive
to
max
out
the
side.
Debt
ceiling
migrate
that
sigh
and
put
it
in
the
DSR
and
wait
for
emergency
shutdown.
Because
then
you
pay
at
you
pay
zero
interest
on
that
and
you're
getting
a
return
from
the
DSR,
so
that
that
was
the
concern
with
that.
D
What
a
sensible
first
step
I've
been
thinking
about
this
and
I'm
curious
to
hear
your
thoughts.
What
a
sensible
first
step
towards
the
global
settlement
of
single
collateral
die,
be
maybe
setting
a
date
to
to
close
out
the
migration
contract
first
before
even
settling
tax
or
settling
any
of
that
yeah
are
your
thoughts
on
that
I'm.
D
E
D
It
would
give
us
the
chance
to
maybe
sidestep
the
stability
fees
and
the
tax
question,
but
yeah
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud,
but
I
figured
that
it
would
be
good,
because
that
would
push
people
kind
of
as
a
first
step
to
like.
Okay,
like
you
should
migrate
by
this
date
and
then
after
this
date,
you
will
either
have
to
close
out
your
position
by
getting
shy
on
the
open
market.
To
close
it
out
or
by
you
know,
or
you're.
E
B
Cool
yeah,
so
sorry,
so
the
people
who
spoke
in
this
red
thread
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
at
any
point
if
they
want
to
like
summarize
their
own
sections,
because
it's
just
me
talking
so
but
I
set
off
with
like
somewhere
in
central
posts,
so
Aaron
kind
of
just
kicked
off.
The
discussion,
like
propose
suppose
some
questions
to
think
about
before
right.
B
B
Basically
we
remove
or
we
we
discussed
an
an
end-around
site
to
remove
this
because
of
the
issue
that
was
just
mentioned,
where,
if
we
all
vote,
if
it's
really
obvious
on
that
poll
that
we're
not
implementing
a
tax,
then
if
the
slide
out
ceiling
isn't
like
isn't
like
limited,
then
there's
an
incentive
to
mints,
I
and
locking
in
the
DSR.
So.
B
B
My
first
argument
was
that
was
mainly
that
if
we
implant
the
tax
as
Nick
originally
describes,
which
is
a
set
of
high
tax
at
the
end
of
the
at
the
end
of
the
just
before
shut
down
to
incentivize
people
to
pay
back
beforehand,
then
because
there
always
be
some
sort
of
CB
holders
that
don't
migrate.
For
whatever
reason
we
will
be
punishing
these
people,
but
we'll
be
charging
these
people
on
more
than
they
would
have
paid.
B
B
Secondly,
was
the
point
that
if
we
sort
of
put
a
big
threatening
tax,
say,
there's
gonna
be
a
big
threatening
tax
at
the
end,
then
it
incentivize
everyone
to
migrates
it's
possible,
which
has
the
risk,
of
course,
and
he
liquidity
liquidity
crunch
on-site.
The
likelihood
of
this
maybe
sarios
can
speak
more
to.
B
Say
my
third
point
was
on
optics
in
that,
if
we
sort
of
had
a
tax
and
were
charging
people,
then
it's
I
mean
it's
just
difficult
to
explain
to
the
to
the
the
exhaustion
generally,
because
we
have
to
explain
why
the
still,
if
he
doesn't
work
rich,
explain
why
the
text
was
replacing
it.
We
have
to
explain
why
we're
charging
more
on
the
tax
than
or
why
we
appear
to
be
charging
more
on
the
tax
than
the
stability
fee.
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
J
Cool
yeah,
so
I
think
I
boiled
it
down
to
pretty
much
five
main
options:
I'd
had
the
five
and
then
after
I
had
the
five
I
also
make
her.
Man
has
a
good
one
as
well,
but
the
first
one
was
essentially
all
the
polls
that
I
did
originally.
Those
were
kind
of
a
summation
of
the
first
proposal,
which
was
our
initial
six
months
time,
slot
time,
ten
million
supply
threshold
and
then
a
five
cent
peg
deviation,
so
that
was
kind
of
like
we
have
to.
J
We
have
to
lower
the
DC
the
debt
ceiling
for
that,
because
essentially,
we
wouldn't
be
having
attacks,
so
people
could
just
mentally
and
going
migrate
over
the
DSR,
so
I
mean
pros
and
cons
of
this
proposal
were
that
we're
giving
we
communicate
essentially,
okay.
These
are
the
parameters
that
the
community
that,
if
any
of
these
parameters
are
hit,
then
we're
going
to
initiate
global
settlement.
J
So
the
community
then
understands
okay,
we
have
to
watch
out
for
these
permit
the
thresholds
being
met,
and
we
know
how
long
we
have
to
migrate
and
then
so
one
of
the
cons,
I
guess
you
could
say
it
would
be
that
maker
holders
again
to
lose
the
most
potential
stability
fees.
If
we
don't
implement
attacks,
then
there's
no
incentive
for
people
to
migrate
or
pay
their
stability
fees.
J
Making
us
wait
till
the
end:
ok
stay
there
and
then
no
new
side
can
be
minted
because
we
lower
the
debt
ceiling,
so
we'd
have
possible
liquidity
issues
there
and
that
might
actually
accelerate
the
pegged
deviation.
If
there
are
it's
hard
to
tell,
though,
but
it's
definitely
argument
and
then
second
proposal
was
to
I
think
was
more
alluding
to
Derek's
posts
about
the
swapping
the
fee
for
tax
and
then
sorry
doing
a
long
prose,
and
can
you
you
explain
this
one
for
me.
I
So
the
idea
behind
this
one
is
instead
of
instituting
a
tax
at
the
very
very
end.
That's
like
extremely
harsh.
We
just
swapped
the
fee
for
the
tax
and
vote
on
it,
just
like
the
stability
fee
yeah,
so
it
would
be
shut
down
in
six
months
as
well,
so
this
would
basically
be
forgiving.
The
debt
say,
say
your
CDP,
that's
planning
on
holding
your
position
until
emergency
shutdown.
I
I
I
There
is
also
another
con
in
the
game.
Theory
sense
in
that,
once
this
tax
is
activated,
CDP
owners
will
be
incentivized
to
hold
their
position
until
emergency
shutdown.
So
it's
similar
to
the
one
where
we
instituted
a
tax
at
the
end,
but
oh
yeah,
here's
another
pro
from
that
scenario
where
we
do
the
tax
at
the
end.
So
the
pro
with
this
one
is
it's
completely
fair.
I
If
we
do
a
harsh
tax
at
the
end,
there
could
be
a
scenario
where
somebody
opens
the
CDP
with
one
month
to
go
and
then
oops
they
get
hit
with
that
very
harsh
tax
at
the
end,
completely
unfair
to
the
time
that
they've
had
their
CDP
open.
So
the
tax
at
the
end
penalizes
everybody
potentially
very
harshly
to
some
and
this
one
is
sort
of
a
more
fair
distribution
of
the
tax
I
think
that's
all
the
pros
and
cons.
I
J
I
know,
we've
talked
about.
The
we've
essentially
talked
about
the
flash
tax.
At
the
end
we
had
that
the
last
governments
call
and
then
yes
and
then
Sam
talked
about
the
just
starting
attacks.
Now
that's
supposed
to
at
the
end
so
that,
but
then
you
just
talked
about
the
pros.
It's
like
I
kind
of
thought
of
a
middle-of-the-road
kind
of
hybrid
solution.
I
J
F
J
It's
it's
hard
to
engineer
system
with
these
assumptions,
because
not
everyone.
You
know
people
people
have
CDs
that
they
and
they
don't.
They
go
away
for
six
months
and
they
don't
know
what's
happening,
they'll
follow
what's
happening
and
then
they
come
back
and
and
then
they're
gonna
see
what
the
heck's
going
on
here
right.
So
so
yeah
it
communicated
that
one's,
definitely
a
communication,
heavy
solution
and
then
I
think
that's
not
going
to
the
final
one.
J
J
Okay,
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
you
know,
keep
keep
managing
the
system
till
the
till
X
date
and
then
we're
just
going
to
stop
and
then
the
system's
gonna
do
whatever
it
does
and
then,
if
and
then
you
know
say
six
months
even
later
down
the
road,
if
it's
like
collapsed
and
it's
not
our
problem
anymore,
we
kind
of
washed
our
hands.
We
let
everyone
know
that
this
is
what
was
going
to
happen
and
and
everyone's
on
their
own,
but
then
you
know
we
can
kind
of
move
on
to
different
things.
J
You
not
have
to
worry
about
it
and
then,
like
we
see,
oh
okay,
you
know
it's
got
like
five
million
side
in
there
and
the
pegs
like
ten
cents
off
or
whatever.
Maybe
we
can
shut
it
down
now,
but
yeah
not
now.
Thinking
about
that
I
was
like
you
know,
yeah
I
know,
that's
definitely
an
interesting
option
and
then
long
did
you
want
to
talk
about
our
maker
maker
man?
You
want
to
talk
about
your
post
that
you
did
today.
I'd.
H
Love
to
I
think
the
more
I
looked
at
it
and
the
more
I
thought
about
it.
It'll
pause
I
made
a
long
time
ago
or
tried
to
talk
about
and
was
shot
down
so
horribly,
but
when
I
saw
the
alternatives,
I
was
just
like
this.
We
got
to
do
something
better,
so
here's
the
deal
when
I
look
at
this
from
a
game
theoretic
standpoint
on
the
players.
H
Okay,
but
basically
it's
the
CDP
holders
that
we're
trying
to
figure
out
here
and
I
have
an
issue
with
all
the
people
who
closed
before
and
paid
their
fees
sitting
here
and
looking
at
oh
we're
going
to
forgive
the
tax
and
I
before
I
can
hear
the
uproar,
oh,
my
god,
the
tax
or
the
see
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
for
PR
purposes:
I,
don't
care!
If
you
look
at
my
post,
I
think
what
we
should
do
was
kind
of
what
I
suggested
lower
the
DC
I
agree
with
Cyrus
we
and
other
people.
H
H
Don't
have
a
date
if
I'm
trying
to
pull
that
side
loan
for
free
interest
or
whatever
I
got
a
hazard,
a
shutdown
that
could
levy
it.
That's
going
to
be
determined
at
the
time
not
before
the
time
and
I
want
that
tax
to
actually
equal.
The
total
of
stability
fees
plus
some
penalty
percent
I
want
it
to
be
a
hazard.
H
That's
growing
for
the
CDP
older
holders
with
an
increasing
SF,
that's
consistent
every
week
it
goes
up
a
half
a
percent
so
that
one
leg,
if
the
sooner
they
get
out
the
less
fees,
they're
gonna
pay
and
the
less
penalty
they
could
face
at
the
end,
to
kind
of
scare
put
the
fear
of
God
into
them.
These
people,
who
borrow
money
I'm,
one
of
them.
You
know
and
I
borrow
money.
I
pay
attention.
When
I
borrow
a
lot
of
money.
We
have
one
holder.
H
Who
basically
has
you
know
40%
of
the
outstanding
or
whatever,
that
has
a
huge
amount
of
fees,
and
so
anybody
new
that
wants
to
play
this
game
is
gonna,
have
to
face
this
risk
and
all
the
old
holders
aren't
going
to
get
out
free
and
then-
and
that
does
a
few
things
you
still
get
some
liquidity
to
manage
the
markets.
I
think
the
peg
is
still
good
throughout
all
of
us.
H
It
puts
the
risk
hazard
in
an
unknown
time
frame
because
the
shutdown
could
happen
as
a
condition,
and
none
of
the
I
want
to
make
it
so
that
none
of
the
exact
details
other
than
we
can
do
we're
going
to
do
a
tax
that
is
equal
to
or
above
the
total
fees
owed,
not
because
maker
needs
money,
but
because
we
need
to
properly
incentivize
the
group.
Anybody
who
fails
that
test
and
doesn't
close
out
then
they
get
what
they
get,
which
is
whatever
they
get
and
whatever
we
decide.
H
But
I
do
not
want
to
advertise
to
everybody.
What's
going
to
happen,
what
I
do
want
to
advertise
the
side
holders
is
the
pay
can
go
up
or
down
and
if
you're
gaming,
that
then
good
luck
to
you,
because
you
can
face
5%
situations.
If
you
need
to
go
at
you
know
whatever
and
the
CDP
holders
they
they
get
massive.
You
know
an
increasing
sort
of
idea
that
oh
shoot.
This
is
really
going
to
cost
me.
Not
just
the
money
I
owe
now,
but
more
money
I'm
going
to
and
then
a
possibly
a
tax.
H
People
are
gaming
this,
and
so,
when
it
comes
to
fairness,
I
play
poker.
It's
like
you
want
to.
You
want
to
put
your
money
in
the
pot
all
right.
Take
the
rest,
I
hope
you
have
a
good
hand,
you
know,
and
so
and
makers
been
very
clear
that
there's
a
possibility
and
shutdown
that
there
can
be
a
fee
or
a
tax
or
whatever
you
know
that
you
do
have
to
pay
fees.
I
mean
there's
nothing
about
this,
that
didn't
go
out
to
everybody
who's,
taking
these
loans
now
how
all
the
fees
would
be
paid.
H
To
really
tell
the
CDP
holders
you're
not
getting
away
here,
and
it's
not
because
we're
greedy.
It's
because
we
need
to
properly
incentivize
all
players
and
so
I
just
encourage
you
to
read
it
think
about
it
and
we
can
go
from
there.
So
it's
kind
of
all
I
have
to
say
in
my
proposal
there,
but
I
think
it's
cleaner
from
from
a
game,
theoretic
and
everything
that
can
happen,
because
when
we
put
it
on
it
as
a
condition
thing,
then
it's
like
nobody
knows
when
it's
going
to
happen.
H
What
they
will
know
is
when
the
conditions
are
met,
it
can
happen
at
any
time
and
that's
when
the
markets
are
going
to
move
and
if
the
pipe
mentors
want
to
like
push
the
debt
limit
right
to
the
limit
like
if
we
go
to
26
million
leave
1
million
out
or
percent
of
the
25.
If
they
want
to
push
that
up
to
that,
then
there
are
the
ones
that
are
actually
causing
this
to
happen
and
it's
on
them
and
you
could
go
well
we're
supposed
to
manage
this.
H
Actually
then,
when
I
looked
at
it
looked
at
my
going
way
better
than
I
thought,
with
the
kind
of
stick
in
the
carrot,
it's
good,
so
I'm
gonna
stick
with
that
and
let
you
guys
think
about
it,
but
that's
kind
of
my
pitch
on
my
proposals.
I
think
it's
clean
and
good
and
it
pretty
much
puts
everybody
in
the
right
to
the
plate.
You
know
right
position
and
with
the
right
incentives
for
this
end
game.
That's
coming
up!
So
that's
it
I.
B
H
I
B
H
Kind
of
saying,
don't
you
only
say
the
basic
minimum
of
what's
gonna
happen
or
the
conditions
for
things
to
happen,
because
then
it
gives
the
gamers
less
information
to
gain
this
out
and
to
know
exactly:
what's
gonna
happen,
cuz
they
they
don't
want
them
to
know
actly.
You
kind
of
do
want
them
to
know
because
they're
your
users,
but
how
long
do
you
say?
Look
we
want
you
guys
to
migrate.
H
You
know,
I,
think
we're
gonna
be
stuck
with
CDP,
308
and
that'll,
be
the
vast
majority
of
the
fees
that
we're
looking
at,
and
so
anybody
else
in
there
is
it's
not
going
to
be
a
lot.
We're
gonna
be
under
20
million
here,
pretty
quick,
depending
I.
Think
you
know
in
the
next
month
for
sure
I'd
be
my
guess.
Unless
something
wacky
happens
so
I.
A
A
So
if
you
need
to
hit
me
up
and
I'll,
send
you
a
microphone,
so
we
can
get
this
happening
regularly
thanks
to
everybody
else,
for
continuing
discussion,
Mariano,
shesh
long
for
wisdom,
it
was
all
great
nice
now,
and
anybody
who
I
might
have
forgotten
and
I
should
never
start
listing.
It
means
somebody
there
we
go.
Let's
continue
this
discussion,
the
shutdown
and
the.