Governance and Risk Ep 180 Fri, 3/4 12:43PM 1:27:05 SUMMARY KEYWORDS maker, dai, governance, collateral, people, unit, core, dao, budget, community, protocol, spending, question, proposal, discussion, forum, liquidations, finance, borrowers, request SPEAKERS Artem Gordon, David Utrobin, Prose11, Luca, Andrew Burban Prose11 00:03 Alright, hello, everyone, and welcome to the 100 and 80th Scientific governance and risk meeting here at Maker DAO. My name is Payton, I go by pros 11 online, and I'm one of the governance facilitators. I'm joined by a bunch of awesome Maker people who both work for the protocol, care about it and wish to engage with it. And this is our weekly call, where we discuss what's going on what needs to be considered by the doubt. As usual, we do have a bit of an agenda to get through, I'll go over some housekeeping first, and you made a notice this is being recorded, this meeting is being recorded. So please try not to talk over one another. Also, we do encourage it to be like an open meeting. So we want you to ask questions, give feedback and engage in the conversations, however, obviously want to do it respectfully. So you can use the raise hand feature here on Zoom, if you'd like to be recognized as part of the queue. Otherwise, feel free to hop in and speak when there's a moment to do so. If you're unable to use your mic, or otherwise unwilling to do so you can drop a comment in the sidebar. And we'll try to bring it up when conversationally appropriate. Yeah, I think that's the most of the stuff we tend to cover. So let's get started. Thanks for joining. By the way. As usual, we'll kick things off with our governance round up, like give you an idea what's going on with our official votes, our Mitch process and what is happening in the forum. There are no initiative updates today and pretty light discussion topic, we have a presentation for the ambassador program. So we'll be able to talk about that at length and I suspect have some time for open discussion as well today. So if there are other topics you wish to discuss, you might start thinking now and dropping them in chat, or just writing them down so you can bring them up later 01:50 when time permits. Prose11 01:53 Awesome. Well, I will take us to governance then and what you know what's been going on was a fairly white week for polls. At least in terms of new ones coming on, we had two weekly goals that went up, both of which passed. One is the open market committee's rates proposal and P P that went up, both of which passed. One is the open market committee's rates proposal and the other is adding a rate limiter to the flat Hawkins. Both of those past There is however one ongoing Greenlight goal. That is for the punk in in TF X, crypto Clara always want to say NFT there. And finally we'll in our MIP segment, we'll go over the conclusion of the ratification polls. Those ended on Monday for the February cycle. Awesome. So that should take us to our executive vote. Last week, we did have a bit of contention around the executive. So maybe that's something we wish to talk about today. Maybe not but it was ultimately passed and executed that contain the G USD PSM master stencilling increase, as well as retroactive Delia compensation. She'll know not everything from the polls made it into our planned executives. For tomorrow, it is quite crowded executive a wise. So we decided that delegate compensation will be in there. We'll have the Core Unit Budget Transfers and new strain for the newly applied budgets, as well as the parameter changes. They're mentioned in that Maker Open Market Committee proposals. You can reminder you can always check out our governance tracker to see what's going on live. But yeah, that's what's planned for tomorrow. Awesome. That'll take us through to our MIPS update and today we actually have a different presenters so happy to welcome gala from the GovAlpha Core Unit who knew what's going on in Maryland today. 03:59 Thank you, bro. So can you hear me well? Loud and clear. Awesome. So this is Bala from GovAlpha publishing system that I do the presentation this way. So hopefully he won't regret it at the end. So let's go to the ratification calls this week. They they closed this week, and we can take a look at the outcome. So far this week, we have accepted MIPS 60 intangible asset assignment. Dennis was on boarded as the new dogs facilitator. We have a justed the budgets for risk. See yes and is four units and mid 55 was amended for increased clarity. The tech up Skipper network was onboarded and the community has been rejected the onboarding of Maker talent Core Unit. So that's it for the ratification polls. Let's take a look at the proposals in RFC now. So if we can go to the next slide, yeah. So this proposal proposals are eligible for March governance cycle most of them and they have now entered their frozen period. First we have MIPS 61. So it's delegate compensation. It's it's still being trialed. And I believe it won't be intermarche cycle. So it's open for feedback, and it will hopefully enter April cycle. Next, we have the Core Unit budgets. There's two Dai budgets, one for real world finances and the other one for GovAlpha. And also we have the MC MKR compensation plan from GovAlpha. Then there's the Core Unit offboarding. 06:13 So MIP 06:16 41 C type of words the Maker ll shop Core Unit. This doesn't exactly comply with the offboarding process that we formalized in MIP 39. The process itself has proven to be inconvenient and people are currently working on it to improve it. So we believe MIP 41 C five is good enough in this case, as this Core Unit has no budget to remote and the circumstances of its offboarding have been made abundantly public. Then for the amended amendments, we have three amendment proposals. The mid Force C two s. SB 15, amends MIPS 3940, and 41 which together they define the Core Unit framework to improve the current Core Unit offboarding process. For Instant instance, it will remain in RFC status. So it's open for comments and feedback. Then MIP four c two sp 17 amends me 64, which defines the bug bounty program run by a minify security to make small payments more agile. This entails a modification to minify security previous budget. And then, we have made for C three SB one that clarifies the budget amount on MIP 64. It was a minor change to avoid confusion. So just on the side, made for C three sub proposals and MIPS that are younger than three months. They go through the weekly cycle. They have a one week feedback period in this case, and before going on chain, a signal request needs to pass with 51% Plus. Oh, finally, there's a renewed mandate for the governance communications Core Unit whose goal is to adjust the accuracy of the mandate and to provide enhanced accessibility to the Core Unit documentation. It will be eligible for April's cycle. Then there's two proposals for to further onboard to keep her networks and declaration of intent to invest in short term bonds as a solution to Maker DAO having its balance sheet composed of around 60% stable coins. So, as a reminder for everyone, the formal submission window for March governance cycle opens next Monday. If you're planning on having a proposal, enter April cycle, make sure you post it by Wednesday, March 9, so the next one Wednesday at the latest. And that's all for me. Thank you very much everyone. Prose11 09:31 Michelle, go. Very thorough, and we appreciate you coming on and sharing the progress here. Thank you. Awesome. So next up will be our forum update. Looks like Artem is ready to go on that. Artem Gordon 09:46 Yep. Testing. Alright, I guess you guys could hear me. So welcome to the forum update. So quick change up on how I'm posting. I'm going to be posting the day before the GNR. Just For the fact that posting midday does confuse some posts like some posts will be come out after the after the GNR and after the four minute glance, but would include post before then so just to clarify, they're going to be posted the day before. And there's just one announcement post for the GNR and the rest are discussions so we'll actually start up with welcoming our new recognize delegate who stepped into the ring. Welcoming Fagin is governance team at flipside, crypto, acting as the first group delegate and Maker history and the team operates in various Dows and communities such as AVI sushi swap, ens, Olympus DAO and others. Flipside, crypto believes there's plenty of room for improved proposals a greater understanding of governance, landscape, and stronger relationships with key players and stakeholders. And they believe that this is best achieved through governance, education, fair distribution of voting power, and incentivization and engagement. Both Flipside crypto and do presented their delegate platforms on Wednesday, yesterday, march 2, during the meet your delegate number 10. And the video recording is now up on YouTube. And moving on to our discussions, Alan Peterson has submitted an informal poll proposing that Maker lend between one to 5 million Dai to Ukraine to aid their ongoing war effort. If the community supports the idea, Oasis pro markets and mana talents have pledged to help executed using real world collateral. community discussion is currently ongoing to decide the best approach with sending the Dai while still preventing Maker from any political and government involvement. So check out the post vote and submit your feedback or opinions. And next up Ashlyn de his idea for a decentralized clearinghouse for P A stable coins and how much such an entity could fit in with Maker. He calls the idea clearing DAO and describes it as a PSM like interface, that is a money market in the background where you can convert dye and in the background Maker Maker will issue $1 equivalent loan to the tribe protocol sub explains that this helps solve two problems one it provides price equivalence to all major DeFi stable coins, and two it moves the supply and demand imbalance from the price itself over to the interest rate that the stable coin issuers will pay each other. Clearing down will be a piece of his is a piece of his Affer mentioned ALM framework, it would be short term maturity item will be low yield and the risk would depend on the maturity of the stable coin issuers. Now there's nothing in the pipeline for this year 2022 as of yet, but Sebastian promotes the community to leave their feedback on the proposal. Next up, we have Maker Academy and SES who seek feedback on what Maker Academy should focus on when producing new educational content. They provide multiple question forums covering various topics for improving education that require your thoughts and opinions. The questions are pretty short. So go check them out and tell them what you think. And for our last discussion, Maker man made an extensive post discussing the Maker collateral custody centralization that we have. So right now us DC wrapped BTC and USD Paxos each account for over 500 million worth of collateral. Because these assets are issued and controlled by central centralized entities, there is the potential that this collateral could be removed at any given moment. microman argues that we still don't completely understand the effect of such an event were to happen, especially on MKR market cap and Dai adoption. So he outlines both a set of potential solutions and a set of questions that these issues raise. Now the post is merely a request for a discussion on a topic we see becoming more important, at some point Maker may have to take the risk to move away some of its centralized activities in order to maximize its growth and reduce potential risk. And now we're moving on to our signal requests over the week. So a little change up I'm actually going to explain the signal requests that happened over the week as well. The GFX lab signal request to implement their proposed governance finding trial ended yesterday and did not pass responses to the signal discuss that the amount of delegation and delegates themselves are not the issue. But instead though we need to focus on improving governance, education and welcome welcoming high quality delegates that are willing to spend time and effort to produce the best voting decisions for the protocol. So in conclusion, quality over quantity. And next up we have cats requests to fund the ambassador's pilot program which ended this weekend has passed. The ambassador's program funding has been disrupted by the off boarding of the content production Core Unit and response cats pushing the pilot program without any Core Unit and is signaling for a budget of 25,000 Dai, there's still some discussion around what additional evergreen material will be used and how will the output quality be quantified? So she's actually speaking up later, so that'll be fun. And next up we have psychonaut, who believes the simplest method for improving Maker liquidity is to add protocol own Dai MKR LP shares to the Uni v2. He asks the community whether Maker should allocate 20 million to a protocol owned Uni v2 MKR Dai LP and presents his argument that the pros do outweigh the cons. The poll closes today. So vote if you haven't. And finally, well, actually, there's another signal right to fasttrack. So I didn't add that in, but I'll quickly review it after this one. But in response to the executive, temporarily disabling burn and surplus auctions since floppy Friday, should be asked the community whether the protocol should return the previous partial burning configuration as agreed in November of last year, but only if the rate limiter has been installed, and an initial configuration for the rate limiter has been set. And before we quickly continue, yeah, I didn't notice this and the active signal requests until just now but there's a signal request for real world acid fast tracking, where LongForWisdom asks, should we allow users and arrangers that meet the requirements in the fast tracking similar requests to attempt to onboard their collateral structure be a temporary, temporary fast track process for the next month. And next steps will be to propose a signal request as soon as the requirements are met in parallel to the general signal added for the next signal request. Sorry about that. Prose11 16:59 Oh, good. Artem, we've posted it yesterday a little tighter for you to get it all together. But a pretty cryptic. But yeah, Artem Gordon 17:08 that's it for the verbal form of the forum review, check out the forum at a glance that I posted yesterday, and has three points, summary, more announcements, mostly recurring things and also ongoing initiatives and help want it and also shout out to Ashton, my new writer and editor who has been helping write the format of glass. Prose11 17:31 preheated ash. Cool. So as mentioned earlier, we have no initiative updates today. So we're gonna dive right into our discussion segment, which, I guess also doubles as a presentation of sorts. So I'm gonna kick it over to cat to talk to this about the ambassador program. 17:50 Hey, hey, everyone, I'm Cat. I've been around here for a while, but I'm currently running the ambassador program. And I live in Bonita and vice versa, because like their medications, so we can do the next slide. So hi. So the ambassador program seeks to engage with and provide resources for non English speaking communities. We'd like to learn more about MakerDAO and Dai. We are currently doing our pilot in Latin America, because that is our largest demographic other than English speaking. We provide two way translation services, so Spanish to English and English to Spanish, currently. And we also, in addition to providing translation services, engage communities with meetups locally and virtually. We also have created online communities for Spanish language Maker DAO interested people. And we also share resources that were produced in the ambassador's native language back to English so that we can also utilize those resources. So the next slide there we go. Sorry. So the ambassadors are translators. So we translate weekly material, and also ongoing material, which I'll talk about in a little bit. And then also we are community developers, managers and organizers on and offline. So we are bringing Maker doubt to new communities and engaging them in their own language so that they can participate. Let me see here okay. So the ambassador program was formally being piloted with the content production Core Unit. Is was off board It was adapted from the GovComms translation program. And also there was formerly the Dai action group, but they're no longer in existence. So there's a large amount of want and need for educational materials in other languages, especially in Spanish. And since we've created accounts and groups with this program, we've received a large wave of like, thank you so much this is appreciated. This is needed comments. And as well as people being excited for considering a Spanish speaking audience that often felt forgotten. So let's fill you in on what we've done so far. Right, I see. So the first thing that we did was create an infrastructure for the team, so that we'd have cohesive voice and consistency in our content. And a big thank you just Sebastian, who helped to take the lead on this, we created a translation guide to ensure the translations P A P are consistent, as well as workflow which prioritizes tasks as well as rotates tasks, so that each ambassador has exposure to every material. And if an ambassador was to be absent a week, then nobody would have a problem taking over their content. We also have ongoing projects, we've actually just completed 50. So those are longer term projects like translating our evergreen content. So we also completed a content audit in English and Spanish language resources, so that we could prioritize which things should be translated first, and then also, which things should be translated from Spanish to English, we can do the next slide. Perfect. So in the future, we would like to continue translating our weekly governance material. And then also we'd like to translate evergreen material are like the Maker, operational manual community portal Maker dots, you see, and also organization, our organization of meetups and continued growth of online communities. If you could go back, I want to talk a little bit about just the progress on social media. 22:29 There we go. Thank you. So since we've started this pilot, we have made a huge amount of progress on the Maker operation manual. We also translated the how to vote video subtitles, which is the educational material we are given. We'd love to work with other core units in the future when there is more educational material and content produced. We also ran two virtual meetups that had quite a bit of attendance. And that also led to a lot of engagement on our Twitter, telegram and also the discord channel and Latin America and Maker DAO forum. 23:17 Yeah. I think that we can go to questions. Yeah. All right, actually, I'm looking in the chat now here. Um, so translations to look what languages right now our pilot program is in for Latin America in Spanish. In the future, if this pilot goes successfully, and we're able to create our own Core Unit, or do another Core Unit, we'd like to see this expand to other regions, Asia, Eastern Europe would be some of the larger ones. Also, Latin American in Portuguese instead of Spanish would also be very helpful. Um, Andrew Burban 24:07 okay, I guess it can go over like, you know, I saw some people talking about in the forum. Why don't we just pay these people in source credit? And, in my opinion, that I think the source cred trickle is maybe nice, but probably not enough to cover the scope of what you're trying to do. Just maybe add a little bit on that. Why this is warrants slightly more budget than what source code itself pays out. 24:34 Right? So I could repeat that, Andrew Burban 24:41 um, for what you're doing so, but some people had said that, like, why don't why doesn't A A um, for what you're doing so, but some people had said that, like, why don't why doesn't source credit pay pay for this? 24:49 Course? Yeah. So this is professional translation material. And it's not just participation, like online or participation in this This is actual, like professional work that does need to be paid for you know? Andrew Burban 25:13 Also, I don't think it was covered here, I think like you, you first are looking for a, like a preliminary budget for the first quarter. See how see how this is going? I think you're asking for a very small amount of money. And then if everyone likes it, then expand the budget in the future. Right. But the first quarter of this, I think you're asking for a very small amount of money, I think the DAO 25:47 I would agree. And I yeah, thank you. Yeah, I think this is it. This is more like it is. We need trained professionals to do this. And so therefore, we do need to provide more incentives than just sourcecred. The cost of running the program for a year would so its current state right now. That would be our budget time is four, so 100,000 a year, that does not include any salary for me who was running it, this is just to pay our three ambassadors. Yeah, I would like I mean, I think that if this goes well, and it grows, then the cost would be larger, because we would expand to more regions. Um, the Twitter hasn't been so active seeing around three tweets so far. Any plans to make them more active? Yes. So we did just start that Twitter account, I think, about a month ago, or whenever that first tweet was. So that is part of our pilot program already. It has a huge amount of engagement and followers. And we do seem, we do seek to make them more active. We just, we need our content to be able to post but we are like we posted today about our new welcome thread in the Latin American form. And then also, about this governance call today to have people join. So we are planning on making that much more active, but it's just a very new Twitter account. It's already doing really well. Let's see, Andrew Burban 27:42 it's another one that people might be asked might be thinking is you envision this spinning off into a new Core Unit? Or do you think this ambassador program could become sort of a subsidiary of a another printer that already exists? So that you don't have to become a facilitator manager? Well, budgets and all that sort of stuff? 28:05 Yeah. So I think that it does make sense to be its own Core Unit, but also if the community or another Core Unit would like to take it on and take that responsibility. That would be wonderful. But I will do it if if I need to. And I do think that makes sense for this to be its own Core Unit. I'm A A But I will do it if if I need to. And I do think that makes sense for this to be its own Core Unit. I'm sorry, I'm just reading through the questions. I'm a little bit of a slow reader sorry. 28:40 Any plans were translating Maker DAO dot world? Yes, that is our community portal. And that is one of our top priorities. I do believe it's to focus on one or a few social channels, for example. So with regards to social channels, I think that it very much depends regionally. So is it better to focus on Discord and telegram or so where we've seen the largest community is Twitter and telegram? We are driving people to the discord and the form but it also does vary like much depend regionally right so like Latin America, Telegram might be a larger thing in like Asia WeChat larger thing. So it the reason what the ambassadors are doing more than just translation work they're doing Ambassador work is so that we know where to post these things, where to contact the community that we're actually trying to contact right. Um, let's see. So the goal is the goal to attract diverse talent stakeholders Dai users, Vault users, So we'd like to just, I think that we'll be able to get all of those. Right now the content that we are able to translate is a little bit more technical. And for people who are interested in participating in the MakerDAO, community governance, and at a larger risk, our larger role than just holding Dai, we would like to, of course, increase Dai users and other things, but we need the content to be able to do that. Did I answer everyone's questions? Or? Artem Gordon 30:48 I actually have a quick question. And from my personal experience, somebody might ask you this sooner or later, but do you have any ideas or potential strategy on how you might I guess, like, quantify or analyze the value of the translations? Because somebody's probably going to ask that sooner or later. 31:06 Oh, of course. Yeah. So I think that we'll be able to see through our click throughs and analytic, and then also, through our growth of the community, just like, like, you know, new users signing up to forum and participating in the Latin American portion of it. I would, I don't know how to get those analytics currently, but I'm sure that we can, and that would be able to be quantified. Artem Gordon 31:37 Okay, yeah, I'm actually currently trying to get API access to get Google Google Analytics on discourse as well. So if anything, I'll update you. 31:46 Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, A A Prose11 31:49 I'll mention one word of support for this. I mean, this is pretty, pretty basic baseline internationalization, expansion strategy. Like we can't, we can't even hope to begin to grow in these other markets, until we have like the right sort of translation infrastructure. And so I, you know, I've worked for a number of companies that have have expanded internationally. And, and this is, this is a pretty standard, you know, first step, so I'm very much in support of funding this experiment. Yeah, it also plus one. Thank you guys. And when questions come up from the governance side, is if you've thought about how you plan to implement the trial process, like in terms of administering the funds and reporting how they were spent, 32:47 yes, so we do have, I am just waiting on one confirmation for my multi SIG and I will have a lovely post that wraps everything up for that, currently, but we will have a two out of three multisig with specified dates and milestones to reach to make sure that we're on track. Andrew Burban 33:18 This is a sort of tangentially regarding multi cigs. As some of you like, some of you might know I have a one on one multi, I don't have a multi SIG. I may, my next budget moves with multi SIG, but so after the whole fiasco with cotton productions, it seems like it doesn't matter who's on the one these multi SIG. I don't know how it's exactly done right now. But I think the multisig should probably be, at least in part made of other Core Unit facilitators will keep the meaningful community separate from Core Unit. That's a tangential topic. 34:03 So there's a couple things are under right. On the one hand, yeah, the DAO does want some more security guarantees. But on the other hand, you have huge like, inefficiency, right? If, if a Core Unit can't, you know, control a multisig on its own, right, so depending on the number of transactions that you have to do, if you have to rope in other core units, every time you need to make any kind of transaction, this is just not going to scale. Right? It's really not viable at all. I think the best that we can kind of hope for is that okay, if a Core Unit does want to run off with the money that they've been allocated, okay, they can, they can do that there's not really much you can do to stop it without, you know, crippling the Core Unit ability to execute and I think between those two, we should err towards the not tripling the Core Unit side, what you really want to protect for, and this is what we can, what we can actually fix is in the event that, you know, there is a, you know, some kind of accident, or there's some kind of bad blood, right with some member that you are not dependent on the facilitator or the members of that Core Unit to play along, right where other facilitators or other people that governance thinks should be on these multistage right can can pull the funds back. Right? That's, that's what we're protecting from here, right? It's the the former scenario, you have no hope of kind of defending against. Andrew Burban 35:45 P A A Andrew Burban 35:45 Maybe, you know, just a thought that popped in my head, I guess, like, the Core Unit has a main wallet that is a multi SIG, that is held by whatever other Core Unit facilitators, and then that can be accessed, whatever, whatever is necessary. And then a portion of the budget goes into a another wallet that is held by just people from the facilitators from the group itself, and they can spend that as in you. But when you want to tap into larger parts of their budget. 36:21 I mean, this, this only really works when you're running a budget surplus. So when you're spending less than your what you expected in your budget, which really should not be the case, I think it is pretty common at the moment, it certainly is from my Core Unit that we're spending significantly less than we budgeted for. But that's more a symptom of a of a problem than it is really a normal thing that you can rely on to create this mechanism of okay, you know, you have this multi tier kind of ladder of multisig, or whatever, to try to get some some kind of protection. Yeah. But the streaming of the payments is supposed to be that you're, you know, spending what you need to spend, right, you are allocated, what you need to spend every month Andrew Burban 37:10 may just be over complicating if I think it's just a risk that we assume when we hand over a Core Unit budget, and we assume the money is gone, if they run away with it, that was the L we take. And if they don't run away with it, that's great. Um, and yeah, probably everything delayed is fine. It was just like, seem to fall out of that, like, how can we mitigate that, but have the way we mitigate is just not motivating people like that again? 37:44 Yeah, really like the if, if people are budgeting appropriately, right, then the most Core Unit can run away with is like, you know, say one month or two months worth of budget, right? If we're budgeting inappropriately, right? That's when you get these giant surpluses within the multistage right, that now are like these lump sum payments that Core Unit could run off with that are, you know, substantial in terms of loss to the DAO, right. So really, the, the way you combat this is just to kind of be a little more prudent with respect to what budgets like when it comes for budget time renewal for core units, right? Well, what did you spend last year? Right, and what are you changes are you trying to make this year that would corroborate, you know, more spend in certain areas or whatever, right? Like, if you ask for a 200k legal budget, right, but you only ended up spending 50k of that, right? There's no reason to ask for a 200k legal budget next year. Right? So just really simple things like like that year, like that. Prose11 38:56 Appreciate the discussion, I do want to draw back to the investment program here and see if we have any other questions or comments before moving on to other topics. A P 39:21 Question Is there a breakdown just break down. So it'll in terms of cost per session or action? 39:36 We do have hourly rates for the ambassadors and we do have a budget breakdown of that global monthly throughout 39:44 this pilot. Yes, that'll be shared later today when we confirm our Multiset 40:05 later topics Okay, I think we're I think I ambassadors. Any last questions? Then you guys can talk all about multisig. Alright, thank you so much guys crisis much. Prose11 40:21 Yeah, they gather really appreciate the presentation. And like we said that was an active signal on the forum, it will be going up for pulling assumingly on Monday as long as those implementation details surfaced. So Artem Gordon 40:35 awesome. That should Prose11 40:37 take us through with our kind of plan discussion topics. We've had a lot of stuff in the chat here to facilitate with open discussion, which is really awesome. The first one to ask for it to be part of this portion was Luca who wanted to talk about the reward acids fast tracking signal. Luca 40:55 Thanks for us, I just wanted to highlight this in two minutes, and then open the floor for discussion. But yesterday there was a signal request as we've seen before to propose a fast tracking exercise, fast tracking channel for real world assets application. Now, I just wanted to start with with a minute of setting the scene here, we all want real world assets to be on boarded on Maker. This has never been done before. It is complex, we are talking about huge sums with not without the transparency of the smart contract construct we're used to with a P A P L legal setup that is untested. That's why requires an incredible amount of work. On the other side, borrowers are not our friends, borrowers are actually have conflicting interests with a lender, this is the nature of the beast. Hence the fact that competent and sophisticated and prudent real world assets construct within Maker in the Core Unit was created. Now, unfortunately, not all the borrowers will receive a positive feedback. Sometimes these borrowers have blatantly insufficient structures or track record or other issues that the real world finance Core Unit needs to address to work on for the for the community. Now, the system is not perfect. I know there are a lot of frustrations around because things are slow, we would like them to meet to be faster, things are improving massively. We're not there yet. But I think personally that providing an opportunity for unhappy borrowers, potentially with political context to bypass we over finance and any other Core Unit for any borrowing application is nuclear. It doesn't give it doesn't provide the community with the required information. It creates up an existential threat, if we're talking about hundreds of millions that can be on boarded without any analysis without any counterweight within the community. And I actually think the community should look very carefully on who is asking for this type of backchannels. And who is actually willing to use it. Because on the other side, we have a lot of a lot of counterparties that are very happy, although it's heavy lifting and they have conflicting interests to work with us to make this work. And I I think real world finance and myself. I'm incubating a lending oversight for Nuri to some of you know, have made mistakes in being not public enough of the heavy work we're doing. We will amend it will be much more open. We will create office hours where everybody can chip in. But this trust people that will like you and imagine that this thing is easy, because it is not. Now I'll leave it. I'll leave it to you guys. Thanks. Thanks for the couple of minutes. Prose11 43:54 No problem Luca? Yeah, obviously it was GovAlpha who put up this signal? So yeah, it's there. We try to be very clear that that this wasn't us endorsing the option, but rather trying to facilitate the fact that many people were asking why isn't there a quicker governance process for this? And the answer was because no one had proposed it yet. So we took the opportunity to ask the community if they think quicker process should exist. Whatever the community agrees to do is what will follow us as governance here. 44:31 Can you hear me? Yeah, sounds good. 44:34 Well, yeah. Prose11 44:35 Then we'll come to you after Justin. P P 44:38 Yeah. So I think I wonder actually, as well to complement to complement what you and in and Luca, Luca just said. So. The so the thing with this, I guess the the issue with this, the single requests is, is we've been we've been spending A significant amount of time actually working with contract parties and know that it's we have to have to do a little bit more work in terms of in terms of the transparency and communications of it in the form not neglecting that in any way that we've, we've spent a lot of time with wanted parties, working with them, and being as, I guess, as gentle as possible, in the professionalization of flutter we're doing okay, so we're, we're spending a lot of time kind of saying, like giving, giving the opportunity for to contract parties even I should comment on the risks that actually appointed out. So that actually we can find, possibly, like workable agreements, where we kind of like went out if possible, impossible, mitigations. And we'd be having this we'd be having exactly this approach with everything with everyone, both external and internal Koreans that we work with. The the key issue, I think, that I found, with, with the Singapore is expressed this to you guys, do you guys in private and actually express during public is, while we've done this, in, in a goodwill approach with the compet parties, we didn't have that reciprocate, reciprocate, or when actually, when the signature press was actually being discussed, to be to be honest, the similar question was not even discussed prior to actually just submitting to submitting into a call to action. And this is what actually really caused this so much disappointment with the signal request, I understand that you guys have the role to facilitate the discussions that actually bubble up to you. And that's that is that is fine is part of the process, but actually not having the, the professionalism of actually going in engaging is simply like out of this world, in terms of in terms of, I guess, normal adult, adults actually interacting with each other. Right? I've expressed this actually, prior, I should still come in See, I've got like four year old kids. And this is like, this is kindergarten on steroids. And it's extremely, I would say is an extremely dangerous prospect, the fact that actually self that virus can fully self deal. I'm not saying that they should be any sort of bottlenecks in the system with regard strain, particular Core Unit. But I think the fact that there is actually no interaction and no other sites, this is a nuclear bomb waiting to happen. Okay, in terms of actually a protocol, and this is not only for the real world assets, I know that a lot of people that work that weren't necessarily all everywhere else is a completely different thing. This is for all of the protocol. Okay, so I think I would encourage action risk professionals that actually out there that have, I guess, professional integrity, to actually to really look at this thing. Because this is about your Dai that you hold. It's about the MKR that you hold. If something were about full self dealing with no oversight went forth. I would say I would essentially leave the protocol tomorrow. Because this is really, really serious. And I just want to make sure I'm not saying it's about bottleneck Core Unit. Even say like I'm making deliberate efforts to be able to scale the number of four units, professionalised acquire units, I'm actually encouraging people to do that. Okay. And I deliberately encouraging it to happen. But actually having zero relationship between borrower and lender or site is a nuclear bomb. Thinks Well, Prose11 49:00 only part of that I really wanted to comment on was like, first, like apologize for not giving the reward finance people a heads up long kind of address that and one of the the posts on the thread. However, we did, like, want discussion to take place publicly. So while we agree, we really didn't execute this, ideally. The kind of benefit of doing it this way was it does cause the discussion to come out in into the open, which we felt was something that we were getting P feedback a lot that people felt the process was opaque and that the discussion wasn't taking place as publicly as shared. So yea