►
From YouTube: Governance and Risk Meeting: Ep. 24
Description
In this Governance and Risk meeting we continued the debate:
- Was the last change effective?
- Do we have enough data to identify a trend?
- When is the next change going to happen?
- Are we still happy with 50 bps?
- What are we going to do about the Debt Ceiling?
Podcast version: https://soundcloud.com/makerdao/sets/...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 1: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 2: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
Foundation Proposal: https://medium.com/makerdao/foundatio...
Governance and Risk Framework - Part 3: https://medium.com/makerdao/makerdao-...
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
But
as
we
continue
to
progress,
these
meetings
are
going
to
become
more
complex
and
I.
Think
it's
time
that
we
start
clarifying
what
the
agenda
is
and
how
we
can
make
these
things.
Mars
as
efficient
as
possible
to
make
sure
that
they
sort
of
hew
to
the
governance
principles
and
the
framework
documents
that
that
Steven
was
gracious
enough
to
provide
us
ever
so
long
ago,
and
that
we
make
sure
that
we
keep
the
momentum
in
the
velocity
up
and
so
I'm.
The
way
that
I'm
thinking
and
this
is
open
to
suggestion
or
iteration.
A
But
we
start
off
with
clarifying
what
the
agenda
of
this
meeting
actually
is.
We'll
take
care
of
any
kind
of
new
events
right
off
the
top
hand
over
to
Steven,
to
clarify
some
high-level
agenda
items
that
the
foundation
would
like
to
bring
to
the
community
to
discuss.
Then
we'll
bring
in
guests
or
presenters
to
show
us
some
of
the
data.
That
would
inform
the
discussion
that
happens
afterwards.
A
So
the
collateral
types,
the
risk
frame
in
general.
What
governance
looks
like
that's
a
larger
discussion,
a
meta
discussion
and
we
should
start
carving
at
some
time
in
these
calls
to
address
those,
and
so
the
feeling
is
that
at
some
point
you
might
end
up
doing
half
in
half.
But
let's
revisit
that's
that
question
towards
the
end
of
this
meeting
and
at
the
end
it.
If
there's
any
random
questions,
we
can
address
them
there.
So
I'll
be
posting.
A
This
information
in
the
next
reddit
thread
about
the
call
where
we
can
get
a
bit
debates
on
and
help
hopefully
have
the
community
help
refine
things
a
bit.
So
having
said
that,
I've
already
wasted
eight
minutes
of
the
call,
so
I
need
to
speed
up.
We
have
some
really
interesting
things
happening
in
this
call.
We
have
a
new
employee
to
introduce
which
I
am
unbelievably
excited
about.
A
Then
I
can
head
off
to
Steven
to
introduce
the
agenda,
but
so
before
we
get
going,
though
Cyrus
so
I
Racine
se,
are
you
in
the
house:
hey,
Larry
yeah.
We
can
hear
you
so
introduce
yourself.
Let
us
start
people
that
don't
know
about
your
Twitter
fan,
fill
us
in
on
what
you
who
you
are
and
what
you've
been
up
to.
B
Hey
everyone,
my
name
is
Cyrus
I'll,
be
working
on
risk
management
at
maker,
quick
background
spent
seven
eight
years
trading,
fixed
income
securities
here
in
Chicago
after
that
I
discovered
crypto
spent
some
time
on
the
investments
team
at
Cumberland
mining,
OTC,
crypto
desk.
Most
recently,
I
was
director
of
research
and
trading
at
scalar
capital,
crypto
asset
investment
firm.
Where
explored
and
studied
dozens
of
crypto
projects,
as
well
as
managed
portfolio
risk
and
worked
on
trading
strategies.
B
My
goal
for
risk
is
obviously
to
maintain
the
stability
of
dye,
both
in
the
short
term
and
help
protect
against
tail
events
looking
at
kind
of
both
the
quantitative
aspects,
markets,
various
risk
models,
as
well
as
the
qualitative,
common-sense
side
of
things,
kind
of
understanding
the
organization's
behind
the
collateral
types
kind
of
getting
an
understanding
of
where
the
different
risks
lie
and
going
from
there
excited
to
be
here,
be
a
part
of
the
team
and
help
make
her
succeed.
I.
A
Cannot
wait,
I
think
that
you're,
like
the
poster
definition
of
a
good
get
so
I'm,
really
excited
about
this
transition.
I
call
there's
some
amazing
possibilities
for
interaction
between
these
calls
and
the
risk
teams
in
the
future,
which
I'm
looking
forward
to
clarifying
I.
Think
that
having
a
really
strong
presence
that
can
actually
show
us
the
numbers
and
come
up
with
the
models
and
I'm
gonna
pull
back
the
curtain
on
things
it's
going
to
be
enormously
value,
so
I'm
looking
forward
to
welcome
them
forward.
Yeah.
B
A
C
So
the
well,
the
first
thing
I
do
want
to
say,
is
welcome
Cyrus,
and
what
we
are
going
to
do
is
you
know,
pull
back
the
curtain
on
in
terms
of
the
models
and
have
a
look
at
how
those
models
work,
how
we
affect
them
and
how
we
start
building
out
collateral
portfolios.
So
that's
that
is
the
essence
of
it
and
that's
where
we're
going
to
draw
our
not
only
Cyrus's
experience
and
expertise,
but
quite
a
few
folks
that
are
actually
on
this
call
as
well.
C
We're
going
to
draw
on
their
expertise
as
well-
and
you
know,
come
out
with
very
innovative
ways
of
looking
at
at
risk
management.
But
the
the
one
thing
I
need
to
to
really
sort
of
jump
into
now
is
have
a
look
at
the
stability
fee,
and
we
need
to
ask
a
couple
of
questions.
The
first
one
was
we
changed
this
ability
fee
last
week.
C
C
When
should
the
next
change
happen,
my
initial
suggestion
would
be
probably
next
week
and
the
manner
in
which
we're
going
to
do
it
is
hopefully
reverting
back
to
the
the
previous
idea
of
having
everyone
in
this
call
come
to
a
certain
level
of
agreement.
You
can
call
it
rough
consensus
or
not,
and
then
you
know
get
this
on
to
a
governance
point.
So
excuse
me
on
to
a
governance
polling
so
that
we
can
get
full
representation
from
the
broader
community.
C
C
Do
we
jump
one
percent,
something
we
need
to
consider
clearly,
then,
the
other
interesting
risk
parameter
that
it's
that's
getting
a
lot
of
attention
is
the
debt
ceiling
currently
looking
at
Quail
market
cap
or
looking
at
the
maker
tools
that
we
have,
you
can
see
we're
hitting
on
the
90
million.
This
is
the
the
most
we've
ever
had
in
our
history
and
considering
the
debt
ceiling
is
at
100
million.
What
should
we
do?
Should
we
extend
the
debt
ceiling?
C
These
are
the
questions
that
we
need
to
to
really
consider,
but
before
we
do,
we
need
to
try
and
inform
ourselves
in
terms
of
what
data
we
have
and
what
it
can
tell
us
now.
I,
don't
know
if
Liv
is
I,
don't
know
if
Liv
is
in
the
meeting,
but
if
not,
we
can
also
just
start
with
the
foundation
risk
James
data
and
Joe
you.
There
is
possible
future
to
present
the
data
that
we
have
here.
D
D
D
D
It
will
show
you
the
different
right
at
readouts,
but
also,
if
you
go
to
polls
and
labs
and
Chris's
you'll,
see
that
nothing's
really
changed
on
where
dyes
trading
there's
been
a
couple
flesh
flickers
up,
but
really
nothing
I
mean
I.
Think
there's
really
nothing
has
changed
and
that's
why
I'm
advocating
for
the
increase
so.
E
First
of
all,
how
are
your
inventory
littles
now
and
compared
to
let's
say
a
month
ago,
and
then,
secondly,
are
you
seeing
that
there's
generally?
Are
you
seeing
like
any
sort
of
like
you
know
like
in
terms
of
like
trading
discs
and
so
on,
like
demand
for
buying
died
or
you're?
Seeing
more
like
more
like.
D
A
lot
of
cells
for
die
are
inventories
actually
up
because
of
the
comment.
A
couple
of
people
that
needed
to
get
out
for
trades
and
I've
not
seen
a
difference.
I've
seen
on
the
offer,
people
wanted
to
sell
that
and
not
we're
talking
not
talking
hundreds
of
thousands
I'm
talking
millions
of
died
well.
G
One
thing
did
clean
up
on
on
coin
based
Pro
one
week
ago.
It
would
take
about
a
hundred
and
seventy
thousand
dollars.
That's
how
much
capacity
was
the
difference
between
what
it
was
trading
at
at
ninety
eight
cents
and
change
all
the
way
to
a
dollar
and
as
of
right
now.
That
number
is
around
sixty
three
thousand
yeah.
D
G
D
I
went
on
there
as
part
of
our
drive
to
keep
everything
around
a
dollar
because
we're
finally
getting
our
market
making
operations
back
up
to
normal
here
and
I
drove
up
died,
I
drove
the
die
USD
see
price
to
try
to
get
up
there,
but
what
you
will
see
over
the
next
couple
days
that
inventory
go
away,
but
there's
also
something
called
iceberg:
orders
that
are
in
there,
which
you
encounter,
which
you
see
like.
If
you
look
at
it,
it's
like
500
W,
show
500
but
don't
mean
another
500
beyond
another
500
behind
it.
D
E
E
E
I
think
I
mean
that's
in
addition
to
the
fact
that
we
can
look
at
the
dice
table
in
science.
We
can
look
at
the
implied
price
of
the
I
on
T,
centralized
exchanges,
and
then
we
can
also
check
out
coin
base
and
we
can
see
how
it's
still
under
price
there,
and
also
that
like
then,
we
have
mag
and
making
inventory.
That's
kinda,
like
the
third
type
of
thing.
We
can
look
at.
E
Basically,
it's
clear,
like
first
of
all,
it's
clear
that
this
ability
to
increase
we've
done
so
far
haven't
had
had
much
impact
and
also
I,
like
my
general
impression,
is
that
we
are
this
almost
breaking
point
now,
where
there
are
people
who
are
studying
like
we're
stopping
to
use
diet
because
they
feel
the
pig
is
too
weak
right.
So
we
are
right
on
the
edge
of
a
I
mean
kind
of
like
kind
of
like
a
dangerous
feedback.
E
Loop
right,
we're,
like
the
weakening
of
the
eye,
actually
causes
it
to
weaken
further
and
we
get
like
a
speculative
drop
in
the
price,
essentially
so
I,
and
this
has
already
been
discussed
quite
a
bit
on
reddit
as
well
right
over
the
past
couple
weeks.
There's
actually
a
lot
of
people
who
are
out
sounding
the
alarm
on
this
right,
and
we
would
discuss
this
last
week
as
well
and
I.
E
A
Right
well,
I
mean
this
train,
put
some
parameters
around
that.
So
we've
talked
about
the
50
basis,
points
on
a
weekly
on
a
weekly
cadence
and
we've
seen
that
that's
not
providing
forward
guidance
to
the
rest
of
the
community
and
it's
not
moving
the
needle.
So
do
we
need
to
change
the
rate
or
do
we
need
to
change
the
step?
You
feel
that's
the
we
need
to
it's
the
actual
fee
that
needs
to
go
up.
The
rate
is
fine.
A
E
E
A
E
E
If
someone
like,
if
someone
actually
has
data
that
there's
plenty
of
demand
coming
or
something,
and
it's
it's
silly
to
increase
this
ability,
if
you
know
there
should
be
a
way
for
them
to
like
probably
signal
that
and
that
I
think
theoretically,
that
basically
needs
to
be
an
ability
to
vote
no
to
this
ability
increase
in
a
governance
poll
right.
So
we
can
say
that
it's
not
a
governance
meeting
that
decided
this
change.
It's
actually
decided
to
do
it
in
a
second
abode.
E
A
There
are
some
deeply
engaged
fund
managers
and
analysts
and
the
call
so
maybe
we
can
start
pulling
this
community
at
least
to
see
if
there's
any
good
suggestions
or
if
they
can
offer
any
insight
to
how
they
perceive
the
market
in
the
last
week
and
what
they
feel
a
new
stability
fee.
With
you
worth
the
examining.
E
C
To
start
off
with
that
slew
of
suggestions,
my
first
suggestion
is
that
I
think
we
should
do
just
half
a
basis
points.
So
half
a
percent
or
50
basis,
point
increase
and
here's.
My
reasoning
why
it
actually
has
to
do
with
the
debt
ceiling
I
words
just
not
to
increase
the
debt
ceiling,
so
therefore
it
does
give
a
sense
that
supply
will
be
curtailed.
I
get
the
sense
that
most
of
the
the
supply
we
see
now,
our
folks
getting
slightly
more
comfortable
with
an
increase
in
the
eath
price
and
therefore
creating
more
more
die.
C
E
C
C
E
The
thing
is
when
we
increase
the
feed
to
two
and
a
half
percent,
it
just
coincided
with
the
market
starting
to
really
crash,
and
then
when
we,
when
we
slash
the
fee
to
half
a
percent,
it
just
happened
to
coincide
with
when
the
markets
turned
around.
So,
unfortunately,
in
both
cases
we
don't
have
any
like
there's
too
much
noise
to
figure
out
what
what
the
effect
of
the
2
percent
change
was.
Basically
because.
F
F
F
Let's
see,
maybe
we
observe
the
market
reacting
to
that
with
dye
shooting
up
above
the
$1
pegas
there's
a
shortage
of
dive.
It's
not
enough
out
there,
people,
maybe
on
a
clothes
or
CDs
or
do
whatever
with
it
are.
We
then
comfortable
if
we
observe
dye
trading
above
doing
you
know
one
and
a
half
percent
to
get,
or
does
that
start
to
see
erratic
I'll
just
think
like
okay,
let's
say
we
raise
one
percent,
we
don't
see
an
observable
effect,
but
the
but
the
debt
ceiling
comes
into
effect,
they're
only
ten
percent
away.
E
Yeah,
so
I
would
say
that,
like
like
I,
first
of
all,
I
think
we
should
increase
the
debt
ceiling
because
I
don't
think
that
there's
like
a
hundred
100
million
dollar
number,
is
arbitrary
and,
what's
really
said,
on
technical
risk
and
not
on
market
risk,
so
I
think-
and
this
is
kind
of
like
the
second
thing,
I
think
you
know
we
were
talking
about
splitting
this
meeting
up
into
two
parts
right.
The
long
term
risk
parameters
so
I
think
there's
plenty
of
room
to
to
increase
the
debt
ceiling.
E
We
could
decrease
the
debt
ceiling
today
right
and
we
could
use
that
to
make
sure
that
there's
just
no
cd
like
you
can
completely
stifle
CDP
creation
right
now
and
and
use
that
to
kind
of
like
try
to
put
a
put
a
like
like
take
it
to
pay
gun
control,
but
the
the
problem
is
just
then
we'll
always
have
this.
You
know
you
know
like
we'll,
have
even
less
understanding
of
how
to
use
system
bility
for
you
to
control
so.
G
So
well
one
thing
that
I
would
throw
in
there,
though,
given
how
early
we
are
right,
we're
gonna,
be
say
a
bit
more
elementary
with
how
we
control
things
and
one
interesting
thing
that
I
find
with
the
debt
ceiling
is
right.
Now
we
have
native
demand
for
dye.
Building
right
really
in
defy
I,
would
say
and
I
think
we're
gonna
see
more
of
that,
and
so,
while
that
native
demand
for
dye
is
building,
the
debt
ceiling
is
a
way
I
agree
to
arbitrarily
constrain
supply.
G
But
it's
a
way
to
allow
us
to
not
have
a
dye
supply
glut,
while
native
demand
for
dyes
building,
so
it's
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
see
it
as
a
precedent.
I
would
see
it
more
as
a
representation
of
where
we
are
currently,
if
the,
if
the
most
important
thing
right
is
making
sure
that
dye
doesn't
break
too
strongly
from
its
peg
I.
A
Want
to
the
we're
all
in
the
same
page
too,
but
the
reason
why
we
have
a
debt
ceiling
and
even
if
the
number
was
arrived
at
semi
arbitrarily
there,
there
is
reasoning
that
implies
that
the
ceiling
is
there,
because
in
the
case
of
a
rapid
downturn
and
the
price
of
B
theorem,
we
need
to
liquidate
this
collateral
right.
And
if
we
start
raising
that
stability
I
mean
that
debt
ceiling
in
order
to
just
give
us
more
breathing
room.
E
To
give
the
country
of
this
story
actually
have
the
actual
context
for
Iverson,
and
it
was
entirely
set
based
on
technical
risk.
So
this
number,
the
debt
ceiling
number,
was
initially
set
at
50
million
based
around
the
idea
that
this
was
like.
We
were
thinking
about
the
worst
case
scenario,
where
the
system
would
get
Hecht
and
at
the
time
we
were
very
uncomfortable
with
launching
a
system
and
we'd
security
audits,
but
but
single
die
has
not
been
formally
verified.
E
So
this
number
is
entirely
focused
on
the
risk
of
the
system
getting
hacked
essentially
so
and
and
and
the
reason
why
it's
a
hundred
million
is
because
we
we
started
at
a
50
million,
so
that
was
kind
of
like
the
arbitrary
number
we'd
already
done
once
so
we
just
did
the
same
increase
with
the
same
number
again
sort
of
without
it
was
not
based
around.
This
is
any
sort
of
liquidity
risk.
E
It
was
again
like
this
is
how
like
we
don't
want
an
infinite
debt
ceiling,
because
there's
some
technical
risk
in
the
system
getting
hacked
in
terms
of
like
market
depth
and
anything
like
that.
There's
actually
been
done.
No
real
analysis
into
that
done
in
terms
of
how
much
the
absolute
maximum
is
where
we
have
to
globally
sell
the
system,
which
is
something
that's
like
I,
really
wanted
to
drive
home
right.
E
We're
also
just
like
a
ton
of
dice
created
out
of
nowhere
very
subtly,
but
like
the
number
in
terms
of
especially
in
single
die
like
the
number
that
is
sort
of
like
this
is
a
maximum
limit
of
the
size
of
the
system.
We
will
go
to
write.
That
number
is
not
determined
by
the
linked
by
the
debt
ceiling
in
that
sense,
because
it's
that
number
is
really
at
like
a
question
of
when
are
we
gonna?
E
Do
an
emergency
shutdown
of
the
system,
because
there's
no
such
thing
as,
like,
we
said
the
debt
ceiling
here
and
we
just
decide
that
that's
how
big
the
system
will
grow
because
we
can't
control
that,
because
demand
will
grow.
However,
the
hell
it
wants
to
grow
right
and
the
problem
is,
if
he
said,
the
debt
ceiling
is
a
big
number
and
the
man
just
grows
beyond
that.
That
just
means
we
have
to
do
an
emergency
shutdown.
We
either
have
to
increase
the
debt
ceiling
or
do
an
emergency
shutdown
right.
There's
no
such
thing.
E
It's
like
we
set
the
debt
ceiling
at
this
number
and
then
somehow
we
control
demand
by
doing
that.
So
that's
again,
why,
like
the
debt
ceiling
is
not
really.
It
should
not
be
viewed
in
this
in
this
way,
it's
kind
of
like
this
policy
instrument
or
really
something
that
that
helps
us
control
much
of
the
system,
which,
again,
why
I
think
it's
just
like
it
would
kind
of
just
be
the
wrong
direction
to
go
to
try
to
suddenly
like
change
the
it's
change
that
fundamental.
E
A
Don't
know
make
sure
that
I
haven't
lost
the
threat
here,
because
we
have.
We
have
two
things
that
are
happening
here.
We
have
an
inventory
issue,
but
we're
also
rapidly
approaching
a
debt
ceiling
issue,
and
if
we
are
going
to
prioritize
a
change
in
the
stability
fee,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
completely
understood
that
that's
also
going
to
solve
our
debt
ceiling
issue.
If
it's
not,
then
we
can't
lose
sight
of
these
two
conversations
right.
This
is
feeling
that
raising
this
is
going
to
fix.
E
E
The
stability
only
affects
supply,
but
what
this
also
means
is
that,
while
the
supply
right
now
is
very
close
to
the
debt
ceiling,
because
we're
in
this
situation,
where
the
market
makers
have
too
much
inventory-
and
you
know
the
peg
is
too
low
and
so
on,
the
demand
is
actually
not
anywhere
close
to
hundred
million.
So
this
is
also
the.
E
I,
basically
think
these
are
two
completely
separate
issues
and
they're
like
and
they're
kind
of,
like
the
the
debt
ceiling
issue
is
sort
of
a
technical
and
it's
a
technical
assessment
of
whether
we
are
comfortable
with
increasing
the
debt
ceiling
further
and
then
it's
a
it's.
Basically
a
market
deaf
assessment
of
whether
we
are
ready
to
do
an
emergency
shutdown
of
the
system
when
it
reaches
a
hundred
million
dollars
in
size
of
weather.
E
Do
not
want
to
do
an
emergency
shutdown
at
that
point
and
we
want
to
let
the
system
continue
to
grow,
in
which
case
we
increase
the
debt
ceiling.
But
that
is
really
like.
That
is
totally
separate
to
this
more
fundamental
problem
of
we
have
to
figure
out
how
to
get
the
pig
under
control
with
the
stability
fees,
and
we
really
can't.
We
can't
escape
that
like
there's,
we
had.
E
We
have
to
just
do
these
changes
until
it
works
and
like,
without
that
the
fundamental
sort
of
logic
of
using
governance
to
control
the
system
just
failed
right,
so
I
really
don't
see
it
as
an
option
to
kind
of,
like,
let's
say,
be
afraid
of
doing
a
life
stability
increase
and
then
try
to
do
some
trick.
That's
not
really
how
governance
is
supposed
to
be
done
right,
but
rather
we
just
have
to
do
a
big
increase
and
again
yeah.
E
We
should
it
probably
the
big
increase
is
4%
or
something
easily
I
could
I
could
see
that
the
case?
If
you
look
at
there's
this
interesting
articles,
comparing
make
it
out
rates
to
other
defy
rates
right
and
how
everything
else
is
like
an
8%
range,
and
at
least
that
would
be
great
right,
but
that
would
be
too
much
of
a
shock.
E
However,
the
2%
changes
have
been
done
in
the
past
and
what
we
could
do
now
is
you
can
just
set
up
this
expectation
that
there's
going
to
be
this
regular
cadence
of
2%
increases
until
we
start
seeing
an
effect,
because,
if
we'd
started,
doing
2%
increases,
there's
definitely
going
to
be
an
effect
at
some
point.
There's
just
no
way
that
won't
happen.
All.
A
B
B
So
as
I
understand
it,
obviously
the
stability
fee
is
low
and
it's
led
to
a
lot
of
cheap
credit,
a
lot
of
people
taking
out
near
interest-free
loans,
which
is
you
know,
with
the
eath
price
being
low.
It's
basically
a
lot,
a
lot
of
people
to
go.
You
know,
lever
up,
you
know,
had
reasonably
good
rates
now.
B
I
think
that
by
increasing
the
debt
ceiling
were
without
solving
the
PEG
crisis
were
dating
more
of
this
cheap
leverage
and
so
I
think
the
peg
needs
to
be
under
control
first,
at
the
same
time,
if
we
hit
the
debt
ceiling
before
we
fix
the
peg,
then
we
are.
We
are
risk.
Conflating
are
our
policy
tools
and
work,
we're
no
longer
two
kind
of
we're
no
longer
able
to
evaluate
the
effect
of
our
fee
increase.
B
A
Obviously
have
missed
sorry:
yeah
I
agree
that
we
shouldn't
confound
our
variables
or
change
two
things
at
once,
because
we're
not
gonna
get
a
clear
signal
from
that.
But
do
is
there
going
to
be
a
situation
where
we
don't
have
that
luxury
because
we're
popular
and
we're
cheap?
You
obviously
said
that
we're
out
competing
everybody
as
a
credit
facility
that
might
be
a
problem
right.
B
So
I
mean
I
agree
with
rune
that
we
should
increase
the
fee
somewhat
aggressively
so
that
we
can
kind
of
fix,
fix
the
98
cent
problem
before
we
hit
up
hit
the
debt
ceiling,
but
yeah.
If
we
hit
the
debt
ceiling
first,
then
we're
gonna
have
to
increase
it
so
that
we
could
kind
of
see
what
the
natural
market
price
of
dye
is.
So
we
can
make
further
policy
changes.
Is
that
is
that
correct,
yeah.
G
Rich,
what
you
were
saying
a
moment
ago,
I
know
for
me
personally
I
kind
of
dispute.
The
idea
that
you
shouldn't
do
two
things
at
the
same
time,
like
100
percent,
agree
with
what
you're
just
saying,
Cyrus,
that
you
can't
have
a
scenario
where
you
hit
your
debt
ceiling.
What
you
were
mentioning
about,
hitting
the
debt
ceiling,
it
it's
no
different
than
lifting
up
a
bucket
of
water
and
then
dropping
it,
trying
to
figure
out
where
it's
gonna
splash.
G
You
know
you
just
you
always
want
to
make
sure
that
thing
gets
pushed
20%
out
in
the
future.
More
than
way
more
than
work,
we're
not
going
to
hit
it.
Unless
somebody
takes
out
some
massive
CVP.
That
said,
you
know
we're
in
the
scenario
we're
not
in
an
efficient
market
right
I
mean
that's
really
important
component,
it's
rapidly
changing.
So
if
we
need
to
increase
the
rates
more
than
50
bits
and
do
it
yeah,
that's
an
interesting
perspective.
A
Because
this
is
actually
giving
the
same
speech
to
somebody
and
read
it
that
we're
not
dealing
with
the
FET
here
we're
dealing
with
an
enormous
Li,
small
micro,
crypto
economy.
That's
the
influences
and
the
confounding
variables
that
control.
It
are
completely
misunderstood
from
everybody.
So
aggressive
action
is
important.
A
F
Yeah,
so
my
question
was
around
how
the
debt
ceiling
is
enforced.
Is
it
my
understanding
is
correct
room
that
is
not
actually?
Is
it
actually
enforced
at
the
smart
contract
way?
In
other
words,
let's
say
this
like
we're,
99.999
or
whatever
and
I
do
have
got
fraud
transaction
to
pull
out
some
die
9
yeah,
oh
great,
good,
night
yeah.
It's
happened
before,
though,
so
it's
only
really
enforced
by
global
settlement.
It's
not
so
we
we
can
exceed
that.
F
E
But
the
thing
is
that
if
we,
if,
if
another,
ten
million
died
like
the
thing
is
weird,
this
tipping
point
right
now
we're
kind
of
standing
pretty
much
at
an
edge
right
and,
as
we
could
hear
from
from
Joe
Wright,
his
inventory
is
totally
full
right.
He
can't
he's
no
more
capital
to
buy
more
died
with
right
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
other
traders
out
there
in
the
same
situation.
They're
all
trying
to
get
rid
of
the
diet
at
this
point
in
time.
E
Definitely
not
like
that's
one
thing
to
consider
right
and
the
other
thing
is
it's
not
at
the
moment
that
the
supply
hits
100
million
debt
ceiling
and
you
can
no
longer
draw
anymore
died
that
suddenly
there's
a
chance
that
the
pact
will
break
upwards
like
it.
The
way
you
should
actually
think
of
it.
E
It's
kind
of
like
there's
these
two,
like
kind
of
like
aggregate
like
aggregate
demand
and
aggregate
supply
right
so
like
right
now
supplies
at
90
million,
like
in
in
the
in
the
foundation
prop
trading
disk
inventory,
there's
something
like
15
million
died
or
something
right.
So
at
least
like
demand.
A
chronic
organic
demand
is
at
least
like
50
million
below
the
90
million
supply
number
right
and
in
reality,
it's
probably
even
less
cuz.
E
It's
a
bunch
of
other
market
makers
out
there,
who
also
you
know,
are
just
sitting
with
a
ton
of
that
they
want
to
get
rid
of,
but
no
one
wants
to
buy
it
right.
So
once
the
once,
the
debt
like
the
thing
is
once
supply
hits
100
million
that
doesn't
cause
the
price
increase.
That
actually
only
happens
once
entire
demand
catches
all
the
way
up,
and
then
does
that
right,
so
aggregate
demand
actually
has
to
exceed
100
million
before
there's
any
chance
of
the
pic
breaking
upwards.
E
E
It's
only
when
demand
catches
up
and
the
good
news
is
that
the
man
is
right
now
the
thing
that's
very
low
compared
to
supply
right,
but
the
problem
is
that
you
could
like
the
reason
why
I'm
I'm,
against,
like
using
the
debt
ceiling
as
a
policy
tool,
is
because
it's
kind
of
this
like
it's
not
a
long.
It's
not
really
a
long
term
solution
to
some
extent
right
or
like,
because
it
doesn't
give
us
an
indication
of
where
the
right
like
what
the
right
stability
fees
should
be
in
the
system.
E
E
The
market
was
kind
of
said
this
weird
rate
of
like
the
waiting
in
line
to
get
get
a
sort
of
some
free
debt
ceiling,
but
anyway
like,
but
what
we
need
to
find
is
a
better
and
more
realistic
stability
fee
that
reflects
basically
the
discipline
demand
in
the
market
right
and
I.
Think
we
just
like
I
mean
we
could
theoretically
try
to
like
increase
it.
A
We're
at
the
45
minute
mark
I,
mean
50
minute
left
market
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
leave
these
close
with
a
clear
understanding
of
what
it
is
we've
discussed
and
what
the
next
steps
are.
So
I
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
kind
of
revise
that
or
go
through
the
agenda.
Questions
that
we
identified
at
the
outset
ensure
that
we've
actually
come
to
some
conclusions
on
these
things
and
figure
out
what
it
is,
we're
going
to
do
with
governance
going
next
and
thank
you
so.
A
The
first
question
on
the
agenda
was:
what's
the
last
change
effective
and
I'm,
going
to
give
everybody
an
opportunity
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
obviously,
at
least
in
my
mind,
no,
it
wasn't
effective,
and
so
that
leads
us
to
believe
that
this
cadence
that
we've
been
on
is
not
moving
the
needle,
it's
not
affecting
the
market,
and
it's
not
acting
us
for
guidance.
So
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
make
a
bigger,
splash
and
I.
Think.
A
The
second
question
we
have
in
our
agenda
was:
do
we
have
enough
identity'
to
identify
a
trend,
I
think
from
my
perspective
and
I
would
love
somebody
to
type
up
and
correct
me?
I'm
I,
don't
feel
that
we're
there
yet
and
Joe.
Maybe
yes,
some
insight,
but
to
do
to
do
we
feel
that
we
have
a
clear
trend
that
we
can
look
at
here.
Are
we
still
sort
of
looking
for
signal
in
noise,
I.
E
I
think
what
we
got
to
do
is
every
other
week
we
have
a
governance
poll
and
then
every
other
week
we
have
an
executive
boat
and-
and
we
should
like
it
should
be
kind
of
like
it
separately-
I
mean.
But
the
fact
is
we
need
to
get
something
done.
We
need
to
dramatically
increase
the
stability
fee,
probably
by
more
than
2%,
but
I.
Think
if
we
set
it.
If
we
get
in
this
cadence
at
a
2%
increases,
we
should
be
in
good
shape
to
at
some
point
hit
them.
E
A
If
the
assumption
is
we're
sharing
the
same
customer
base,
I
guess
is
the
rest
of
the
the
collateralized
credit
facility
markets.
Then
we
need
to
approach,
compounds,
race,
I,
guess
it's
probably
the
lowest
one
thing
so
that
that
should
factor
into
the
the
step
that
we're
going
to
make
or
the
number
of
basis
points
we're
going
to
increase.
So
I
guess.
The
next
question,
in
my
mind,
is
how
do
we
determine
what
that
governance
poll
is
going
to
look
like
the
weak,
kickoff
I'm
concerned
that
we'd
be
pressured
into
making
that
determination
in
this
call?
A
So
is
it
feasible
that
we
take
this
discussion
to
read
it,
and
then
we
spend
the
next
thing
of
24
hours
debating.
What
that
poll
would
look
like
is
any
heavy
suggestions
about
that
or
I'll
be
fine
with
just
like
kind
of
in
this
call
of
deciding
that
you
know,
or
for
this
point
to
be
the
next
governess
Paul
and
then
we'll
see
what
the
reception
is
to
that
I.
Think.
E
I
think
we
should,
let's
have
it
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
a
discussion
and
read
about
it
right,
but
I
think
the
starting
point
should
be
like.
We've
tried
in
the
pan,
like
we've
done,
0.5%
changes
in
the
past
and
we've
got
2%
changes
in
the
past
right,
so
I
think
we
can't
like
what
like
I
think
we
should.
E
We
should
basically
see
see,
is
their
argument
for
why
it
should
be
something
different
than
2%
increase,
because
most,
what
I
expect
is
that
no
one
has
any
idea
what
it
should
be
right.
The
only
thing
that
we
have
sort
of
an
idea
of
is
that
it
should
be
more
than
what
it
currently
is,
so
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
fall
back
and
then
just
something
that's
happened
before.
A
H
You
do
it
roon
roon
said,
and
you
raise
the
if
you
raise
the
rates
significantly
you're
now
gonna
force
a
lot
of
upward
pressure
on
buying
dyes,
so
people
can
pay
back
their
CDP's
and
get
out
of
the
hole
from
paying
a
6%
fee.
So
that's
obviously
gonna
lift
it
a
lot
on
like
in
an
organic
way,
which
should
lower
the
lower
the
proximity
to
the
debt
ceiling
in
a
more
natural
way.
But
I
think
like
that
range
like
what
room
suggesting
it's
such
a.
H
It's
like
multivariant,
split-testing
and
we're
all
just
throwing
darts
at
you,
know
blindfolded,
there's
not
enough,
like
statistical
significance
anywhere
to
sort
of
poke
its
head
out
about
what
is
the
indicating
factor,
the
probably
the
most
the
most
in
the
the
biggest
indicator
that
like
that,
you
could
make
a
change
on
is
not
going
to
be
duration
based,
which
is
what
we're
looking
at.
You
know.
H
Periodic
changes
when,
like
time
is
not,
what's
you
know,
affecting
the
metric
its
activity
and
we've
got
to
discover
what
that
activity
is,
but
in
the
short
like,
if
we
are
doing
that,
I
think
runes
spot-on
that
you
need
to
close
the
range.
So
alright,
we
went
all
the
way
down
to
0.5
percent.
Okay,
it's
not
there.
Let's
go
all
the
way
up
to
5
percent
or
see
whatever
it
is.
A
H
True
and
and
just
I
think
it's
like
I
totally
agree.
One
thing
I
would
say
that
I
feel
like.
If
everything
is
still
you
know,
everyone's
learning
multiclad
will
die.
This
is
year,
one
of
being
public
or
just
going
to
year.
Two
a
being
public
would
die,
it's
it's
a
massive
learning
curve
and
that
the
the
lessons
are
only
going
to
get
more
expensive
as
the
debt
ceiling
raises,
as
multi-car
like
the
stakes
are:
gonna
get
higher
and
higher.
H
A
That's
good
insight,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
sort
of
representative.
So
is
the
general
feeling
in
the
room
here
for
now.
That's
a
stability
fee
short
sharp
shock,
potentially
planned
for
for
the
next
poll,
and
then
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
vote
is
going
to
be
the
next
step
before
we
start
considering
anything
more
drastic.
E
Is
the
same
as
saying
that
if
the
system
reaches
a
hundred
million
in
size,
we're
going
to
do
an
emergency
shutdown,
so
it's
just
very
important
that
that's
the
frame
for
like
gathering
data
and
sort
of
making
the
decision
is
based
it
around.
It's
not
around
like
that.
This
is
a
size
we
want
the
system
to
take,
and
then
we
can
somehow
control
it
and
make
sure
it
stays
at
that
size
because
that's
not
possible
there's
only
the
only
possibility
is
to
shut
it
down
when
it
reaches
that
size.
So
it's
it's
like.
E
So
it's
basically
it's
it's
like
I
mean
I,
don't
see
it
as
being
dangerous.
I
just
seen
it's
like
a
waste
of
time,
because
a
lot
of
people
would
probably
argue,
let's
keep
it
100
million
right
now,
which
I
agree
with,
because
the
the
the
peg
is
broken
and
so
on,
but
but
probably
once
they
realize
that
actually
arguing.
C
To
that
to
that
point,
which
I
agree
with
that
point,
has
a
presumption
that
we
are
at
a
sort
of
robust
point.
We
had
a
at
a
critical
mass
where
a
debt
ceiling
does
take
on
that
very
technical
definition,
but
in
the
manner
in
example,
form
in
the
matter
of
actually
considering
where
we
are
now
to
get
in
to
where
we
need
to
be
there.
C
There
could
be
a
suggestion
to
the
point
that
the
debt
ceiling
takes
on
more
than
that
it
has
more
to
do
with
the
economic
constructs
and
how
we
bootstrap
it,
as
well
as
the
liquidity
risk
that
we're
facing
with
respect
to
just
the
collateral
and
how
it
performs
in
the
economy
that
we
are
operating
in
as
well.
So
you
know
to
that
end:
I
get
what
you're
saying
with
respect
to
what
the
debt
ceiling
should
be
seen
as,
but
in
terms
of
where
we
are
now.
C
It
may
take
on
a
broader
perspective
or
broader
characteristic,
and
are
we
saying
that
we
shouldn't
allow
for
the
broader
characteristic,
because
it
can,
whilst
bootstrapping
getting
to
critical
mass
help
us
or
is
it
a
case
of
saying
we're?
Just
going
to
we're
going
to
say
it's
an
undo
precedent
that
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
away
from.
E
That
we
can't
be
complacent
around
learning
to
use
the
stability
fee
to
stabilize
the
pic
so
I
mean
so
the
like.
Probably
the
easiest
is
just
be
like.
Well,
let's
not
even
worry
about
the
debt
ceiling
until
we
fix
the
pic
right,
which
I
kind
of
like
an
even
if
we
hit
and
then
if
we
hit
the
debt
ceiling,
which
would
be
really
bad
and
we
hopefully
that
doesn't
happen
right.
Then
we
will
keep
it
there.
Until
again
we
fixed
the
pic
and
only
once
the
peg
has
been
fixed.
A
Right
so
we're
dangerously
close
to
the
top
of
the
hour
and
and
a
lot
of
people
have
heart
stops.
So
what
I
want
to
do
with
this
call?
We've
identified
a
lot
of
really
interesting
questions.
We
had
a
lot
of
very
interesting
suggestions,
but
obviously
the
debate
needs
to
pile
beyond
the
confines
of
this
call.
So
I
discussed
earlier.
Actually
before
we
started
recording
I
discussed
the
restart.
We
have
a
process
to
get
transcripts
generated
for
these
calls
within
24
hours.
A
Combine
them
together
start
a
reddit
post
and
we
can
continue
this
conversation
specifically
from
this
call.
So
we'll
go
over
the
outline.
The
agenda
items
I'll
outline
some
of
the
major
takeaways
that
we
determined
and
then
we'll
continue
the
discussion
there
about
what
the
governance
pole
is
going
to
look
like
in
the
timing
on
that
and
start
tossing
around
ideas
for
a
potential
new
stability
thing.
H
Real
quick
before
we
before
we
move
to
the
the
reddit
discussion,
just
one
thing
from
a
community
members
perspective
I
fully
agree
with
all
the
conclusions
you
guys
are
making
here
and
I
agree
ruin
that
the
stability
theory
should
be
more
dramatic,
but
conveying
this
in
plain
English
to
the
broader
community
as
to
why
that's
needed
when
they
go
and
coin
market
cap
and
see
that
die
is
at
1.01.
That's
what
most
people
do
just
making
sure
that
that
is
conveyed
clearly
as
to
why
this
is
required.
I
think
is
going
to
be
really
important.
C
E
And
I
think
there's
these
three
points
right.
There's
the
implied
rate
of
decentralized
exchanges.
There
is
the
u.s.
DC
rate
on
card
base
and
there's
maggin
maker
inventory
levels,
and
all
of
these
seem
to
be
pointing
in
the
same
direction,
and
then
we've
also
concluded
that
a
small
change
has
no
effect.
So
that's
why
we
should
go
to
a
larger
change.
A
E
A
Right
so,
let's,
let's
take
forking
it
there.
This
was
a
very
energetic
meeting,
so
I'm
super
happy
about
that.
I'll
send
out
or
keep
an
eye
on,
have
a
push
notification
system
and
maker
down
yet
which
we're
going
to
need
sooner
or
later,
but
keep
an
eye
on
the
subreddit
for
a
notification
about
this
debate
and
potential
information
about
where
that
debate
will
happen.
If
it's
not
in
our
subreddit
and
then
we
can
continue
on
and
figure
out
what
the
next
dozen
thanks
everybody
for
taking
the
time.