onlymp3.to - Governance and Risk Ep. 202-Zk_tCIV7ItY-192k-1659919701799_otter_ai.pdf -

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

onlymp3.to - Governance and Risk Ep. 202- Zk_tCIV7ItY-192k-1... Sun, 8/7 12:55PM 1:15:28 SUMMARY KEYWORDS delegates, maker, people, proposal, compensation, dai, governance, dao, unit, core, posted, mips, vote, question, forum, discussion, point, support, attract, poll SPEAKERS Prose11, David Utrobin, Brian McMichael, Juan, Artem Gordon, Robert P Prose11 00:03 Hello, everyone, and welcome to the 200 and second governance and risk call. My name is Payton. I'm a governance facilitator here and Maker DAO and go by pros 11 online, really honored to be hosting this call, again, this week, joined by a bunch of awesome people who are both interested or work on or with Maker vertical. And this is our weekly call, where we talk about what's going on in the governance and risk realm. So if you'll let me lay down a few rules before we get started, you might have noticed this call is being recorded. So hello, if you're watching on YouTube, for all of us that are here live, let's try not to talk over one another as it makes for bad viewing experience. As well as meeting one for those of us that are here. While we're at it, if you aren't able, would encourage turning cameras on especially during our discussion segment. Or if you are going to talk or ask a question, obviously, this is recorded and will be on YouTube. So completely your choice and fine if you don't want to partake in that. But if you are open to that sort of thing I would encourage you to do so as the way to kind of build community. Let us see who all here and taking part in these discussions. Finally, would want to highlight our raise hand function within zoom here. So if you would like to join the speaker's list, add something in as David is demonstrating here, you can hit the reactions button and click raise hand, that'll just let me know that you have something to say I can call on you and make it a little more smooth. Otherwise, you can always drop your questions or comments in the chat. I'm happy to read them out if you're unable or otherwise, I'm lined up on the Mac. I think that's enough of the less fun stuff. So let's let's get into some actual governance. We'll start as usual with our governance roundup consisting of the votes, our review of our Maker improvement proposals, as well as what's going on in the forum. No initiative updates today. So we have a main discussion topic of the new proposed delegation, which covers some delegate definitions, as well as deine MKR. Delegate compensation. And then we do have a kind of backup overflow topic of some CEU splitting. So if we don't have much to say, Adobe Comp, don't worry, we'll have plenty of topics to go. Excellent. Well, might as well get started in. Oh, yeah, one final thing I was gonna ask, Well, I'll try to do a little better job of introducing people as they talk. I know that can be confusing for new timers, as well as people in the recording not knowing who's saying what, but we're going to try to give that a go. So if I forget if you can remember that be awesome. And between the two of us, we'll try to get everyone properly introduced. Cool. So dragging our attention to the polls here. We did have three weekly polls that concluded this past week. All of them past top one being the Open Market Committee parameter proposals. We had the Maker toneport deployment on Stark net, and a few risk parameters there, as well as the tentacle reallocation process for budget adjustments. So those all pass, we've got a few notes on some of those on the forum as there was some confusion with the budget allocation process. So would encourage people to read that out. But all those proposals did pass. And one more proposal to highlight on my end would be the ongoing green light pole for panda. That panda investment grade climate assets Greenlight ends on August 15. All right, wonderful. That'll take us to executive proposals. We do still have a executive that is pending. It's kind of about 82,000 MKR supporting it presently, which means it's fairly close to passing and contains the HV bank drawdown and the keeper network stream readable. for next week's executive, we're planning another HV bank drawdown those are coming in $25 million increments. There'll be one more planned after this. We'll have the Maker Open Market Committee parameter changes I mentioned a second ago. Activate the sockin vaults. If you recall a little bit ago, they still had to verify controlling the kind of end address there that would receive the funds. So once that happens, we'll okay the vault and finally we do have recognized compensation for July. All right, that feels like many words for me, so I'm more than happy to pass off the mic. Today I'll be handing off to gala member of the GovAlpha Core Unit to give us MIPS update. 05:03 Hello, thank you Peyton. So yes, this is gala from GovAlpha. To give you the MIPS general updates of this week, so August formal submission window closed yesterday, a total of six proposals were submitted. We have one top level MIP, which is MIPS 66 Sorry 76 Maker Shire Redux. It's a 10 million pool allocated across liquidity pools to support Dai liquidity, utility and your yield. This was initially initially introduced as a special purpose fund and rejected. So this proposal has been reworked and will be up for vote on Monday. There are two Core Unit budget proposals that we'll be entering this cycle. One is for the Dai foundation for unit. It includes multiple options covering bare and super bare market scenarios. Their base case is slightly reduced version of their previous budget. And we have one proposal for the Oracle's per unit with two options one, which would be the reiteration of their previous budget, and a second one and second option with a new budget reduced by 10%. That includes an exception from further reductions for one year. We have a Core Unit offboarding. So the events of burning proposal will enter the August cycle, a severance payment of 103,336 Dai will be transferred if this offboarding is ratified. For the amendments, we have to formally submitted sub proposals. So the Core Unit offboarding process Amendment and the MIP 50 Direct Deposit module amendment. So let's get a look at the proposals in RFC now. Bob, our first facilitator Patrick J just posted a mid set including three proposals. MIPS 77, formalizes and defines the recognized and shadow delegates roles and then MIPS 78 and 79 define the way that compensation compensation in Dai and MKR established for recognized delegates, the MIPS set will replace me 60 144 unit on boardings Yeah. Perfect. So we have part of the team from real world finance 001 per unit is splitting and proposing the creation of a second real world finance per unit, which would be real world finance 0x. This new Core Unit would get 75% of the budget currently assigned to our W F 001. Leaving our W F 001 with 25% of its budget. In this case about a transfer between four units will take place. Christian Peterson is aiming to be the facilitator of this new Core Unit. Next we have a top level of myth that has been around for a while that is myth 72 authorizing success capital as a real world acid arranger for Maker Maker DAO for Core Unit of wordings, the offboarding proposal for immunity security Core Unit and strategic happiness Core Unit. They will remain in RFC for now. We have Psychonauts proposal as the facilitator for the minify security Core Unit that will also remain in RFC. 09:06 And finally we have the amendments made zero the amendment to net zero, introducing retrospection dates for MIPS, which is currently being worked on by its author. And the recently posted MIP for C two sub proposal 24, which aims to shorten the feedback loop for delegate participation, which is currently calculated on a lifetime basis. And it's a key variable of their compensation calculation. Please note that this proposal addresses some of the issues that are covered by the delegate MIP set that we just mentioned. And this review, review both of them. So for important dates, the ratification polls for the formal submissions will go up next Monday. Please go cast your votes, votes and if If you're working on a proposal and you want it to be eligible to enter September cycle, please post it on the forum no later than Wednesday, August the 10th. Note also that the next formal submission window for budget proposals is set for September's governance cycle as well. So that's it for MIPS. P Prose11 10:20 Thank you very much. Awesome. Thanks, Carla. That was super informative. And as a reminder, there is a weekly MIPS update post so you can see exactly what's going on and get all this stuff in detail in a written form. In case you didn't absorb it all just now. Excellent. So that should take us to our forum update section. And I believe I'll be passing the mic over to Artem from GovComms. A Artem Gordon 10:49 Yes, so just posted the link to the forum recap. And Happy Thursday, call Day to everyone. Welcome to the forum recap for the GNR. We'll be going over the week of July 28 to August 3, for news and announcements and signal requests. And we'll get started with our news and announcements. First up, we have recognized delegate governance house that was their previous name, who have merged with llama Allama collaborates with Dallas on protocol engineering, Treasury allocation and analytics and so delegate governance house name or is now a llama. And they introduce also their new members of their team along with some more opportunities that will be able to help Maker DAO through this new collaboration. And next up, we have as quickly mentioned earlier by Peyton GovAlpha made a post clarifying the wording of a governance poll posted on August 2, which aimed on gathering sentiment about whether to approve the proposal by Strategic Finance for tactical reallocation of budgets, and the original wording could have been interpreted to suggest that any changes resulting from this process could have entered directly into an executive vote, which is incorrect and now has been clarified on the poll. And next up, we have PE who announced that they are deploying a simple permissionless bridge on arbitrary Nova. So ensure that its users will be using canonical Dai and remove the need for any token migration. Also, there's no specific risk parameters to be set until teleport or dementing are enabled. And also no executive is required to support the bridge. And now let's move on to our signal requests. There's currently one signal live right now posted by recognized delegate GFX labs. So the volt stability fee for success. Capital was set to 3% at lunch and has yet to be adjusted. And GFX Labs is asking the community whether to reset the feed so the prime rate minus 25 basis points as published by The Wall Street Journal and in accordance with the success credit agreement. GFX lab presents some pros and cons. Pros could be to more accurately reflect the fees accruing for the vault and also marginally increased revenue. The cons are of course that successful have substantial jump in their rates. And right now the votes currently majority of the vote 41% at yes equal to the abstain number of votes and the signal ends on August 10. So place your vote if you haven't yet. And that's it for the forum recap pretty quick. We'll get onto the hot topics now. P Prose11 13:36 And on things I'd like you and likewise, there is of course a more detailed version of that in written form on the forum. So I would encourage everyone to check that out. Thank you for the updates. All right, that'll take us to our discussion segment. I might actually have you pause the slides here, Thomas. Basically, wanted to launch into kind of our update and discussion on delegate compensation. Kind of before we do, we thought it'd be a great moment to give everyone like a little bit of a stretch break. Right. Like I said, this is a great time, if you can have your camera on to turn it on and engage on the topic with us. No judgement if you do not choose to do so of course, we would invite all those that are willing to do so. And while you're maybe setting up giving a stretch, I did launch a little pre poll. If you don't mind answering those three questions. I'll give it about one minute here. We're gonna stretch out a little bit. And so the pre poll questions and we'll want to get into things on on delegate compensation. I'd love to see the onslaught on that. 100%? Awesome. Yeah, we're getting up there on position a patient here. It's been a minute and 20 seconds and so much cool. So go ahead and end it there and share the results. Thank you everyone for participating. Just so everyone can take a look. We're basically wondering like, Hey, I will do you know, this system? Has this been a concern of yours? And is this like a good topic? I'll have one quick follow up poll at the end of this discussion segment, just to kind of see how we did. And really do appreciate now taking a moment to participate. Cool. All right, let's go ahead and go to the next slide, then tongs and another reminder to utilize that raise hand or dropping questions or comments in the chat. And we can work those in whenever. Cool, so I'll give a few brief words here. We also have Patrick with us on the call who actually wrote the mix. So when we have questions and discussions, I'll probably turn it over to him when when appropriate. But for now happy to give a quick rundown. So the midspan number 77 through 79. And like I said, cover both a few definitions, tightening kind of some of our how we form metrics, as well as the role of delegates as an admin as well as changing and introducing and character delegates. So if you take us to the next slide, David Utrobin 17:12 Thomas, thank you. P Prose11 17:15 So we didn't create a perfect system surprise on the first go for delegation. With that said, I think we did learn a lot and our first year of writing this system. We are one of the few protocols that that does actually pay recognize delegates directly. So there's like still a lot of learning space to do here. And these are some of our observations. Some of these were shared with some other groups we talked to when we reached out about delegate compensation. But these are kind of some of our top concerns and our motivation for including this and in our budget plan for this year. Right, so we have the both the role and the metrics are poorly defined, right? We have lifetime metrics. Not too many people can tell you like, you know, how quickly do this someone need to vote on an executive, we had a whole bunch of like other small bubbles, I could point to where things have to get clarified. So this is actually introducing them in a minute. So it's very clear to everyone what the rules are and and that they were all agreed upon. Some feedback we had is that MKR are at the max compensation, regardless of what form it takes was too low to attract top talent. It's possibly contributing but maybe not related was that the upper limit for MKR was too low. We initially set that at 10,000, MKR. And not knowing how quickly we would scale up and delegation. And then quite quickly, we ended up with a lot more than a lot more than one delegate, but with this 10,000 MKR. So we mentioned the lack of incentives in terms of MKR vesting, right, so can we get to paid and Dai and based on the MKR, that gets delegated to them. So if the people delegating to them aren't paying attention, or otherwise aren't as concerned with the performance of the protocol, then you could say that delegates comp can become detached from protocol performance. And theory isn't something we'd want to see happen. Cool mentioned most of these other things. But yeah, basically, we we said, alright, well, we have a system, it's attracted some delegates, but we've gotten feedback from some of them about the challenges, as well as kind of a year of of talking to people about this program and getting their first impressions. So that's kind of the motivation for one went into the mat. And if you'll take it to the next slide, Thomas, talking a little bit about how he goes about addressing these. And I see a ton of chat going on, so we'll probably have to recycle through that. Feel free to use a race and if you aren't comfortable explaining your points on the mic. Cool. So then in terms of how we dress Some of those key features, or we just some of those problems with key features, more delegate MKR equals more compensation, basically, we upped the overall cap, and we increase the total amount, meaning that if you, as adult recognized delegate attract more MKR, you get more compensation. We kept it predictable, right? Like this was a big discussion with us and another group that was proposing some changes to delegate comp. But one thing GovAlpha has experienced a lot over the last year and talking with people who are somewhat interested in the delegate program, because that's always their first question is like, well, how much reasonably can I make as a delegate? And not being able to answer that question definitely hinders recruitment. And also, from just a theoretical level keeps delegates like more focused on crown to figure out their compensation rather than trying to perform their duties, which also is suboptimal. So keeping it predictable was, was like an objective of ours. Though some of our changes could be interpreted as like less good for smaller delegates, we did still keep the general curve, that is, you get paid a lot more for smaller amounts of MKR, delegated, or MKR. And that's just as a way of bootstrapping, encouraging new delegates to come aboard and give it a try. Without not, you know, without being subjected to essentially no compensation at the start of it. And, finally, we feel like these changes really do kind of points towards the the idea of a professional delegation, right of someone performing this role full time. Because a year into the program, we've realized that this is a pretty complicated thing, governance, the amount of proposals, the complexity of those proposals are both increasing. So essentially, it's at least GovAlpha stance that we're going to need to be prepared to pay for, for kind of the professionalism and the amount of effort that it takes to govern. Cool, go ahead and take it to the next slide, Thomas. All right, here are a few other solutions, I can talk to the need to run through them all. Directly, as we've kind of covered cover them. In terms of the actual numbers, our previous maximum compensation was 144,000, and Dai now it's 300,000. But keeping in mind that there is an MKR testing component, which could essentially double that, depending on how the price action for MKR performs. Or still on a quadratic curve. So a lot of people like that was easy enough to explain common enough use, I guess, in the industry. Cool. And then the only other major point at the bottom there worth highlighting is we did receive some feedback, I think Chris referenced earlier in the call about how bundling delegate comp with other items, does kind of create these perverse incentives for supporting an executive, regardless of how you feel about the rest of the content. So our proposed way of addressing that or dismiss that would be switching to delegates only getting paid quarterly or their Dai compensation, but it would be an entirely exclusive executive bundle. So exclusive executive, no bundle. So it would be the only thing that the delegates would be voting. Cool. And I think there's one more slide with some potential discussion topics. Excellent. But first kind of just wanted to catch up on chat saw 20 messages go off there. Does anyone have any immediate questions or comments based on what I said I catch up here. What's the race stand for Maker man? If not take the mic. 24:45 Thanks, Payton. I guess I'll launch part of the discussion. So most of my comments are in the forum. One of my biggest issues and I think the DAO will end up having to deal with this is the self nomination or self election. process that there is no nomination nor an election process. And so have other comments on this. But conceptually, if you can self select or self appoint and back yourself with Maker Maker could end up with 50 to 100 delegates with various ranges of Maker and you guys can decide in the end whether that's good or bad. But I think generally, there should be some element of a nomination and election process and a fixed number of seats. So that there's some real competition for those versus just trying to compete for Maker without much communication. That's kind of all I got here. P Prose11 25:43 Thanks for that Maker, man. And I guess I would just add, like that was a consideration in some of the talks, which is like, do we want to target a specific amount of delegates? This method kind of said, No, because we don't know what that number should be. But definitely open to hearing perspective on that. Well, I see q&a with their hand raised, if you want to take the mic. I'm 26:09 sure just like a quick question for the other delegates. So MIT 79. There's a section on retroactive Maker vesting, kind of get some some of the current delegates will be receiving basically like 10s of 1000s of dollars worth of Maker, I don't know if that seems like a conflict of interest. To me, that would push a lot of people to abstain, just wanted to know your feelings on that, or if it just be spun off. Or if you don't see it as an issue. 26:40 You brought up my other point that I left out that I have, I think a number of delegates, including myself, brought this up in the past when this first came up is that there is a distinct conflict of interest on voting on the size of your own compensation. And inherently, I would like to see Maker holders decide that and which would be IOUs. And governance would be a suggestion is that this should be compensation for delegates should be decided by the Maker holders, not by the delegates. As a delegate, I'm going to respect the wishes of Maker holder. So if they pull on that and come up with a compensation plan, I will pass it as an executive. But I would like to have Maker holders decide on what that compensation should be to remove this conflict of interest. 27:34 So I'll take that one on the kind of history points been raised there. So there's been the retrospective point that coordinates raised. And I will just highlight briefly why we've included that within the map, rather than separating it out. The previous time that we had, we were working out delegate compensation we had we proceeded it with a delegate compensation trial that was then evolved into MIPS 61, and ratified. So as we were working through the trial, we were changing things as we went not included some of the metric cut offs. And it included kind of changing the amount of MKR of Dai people being paid as well during that process. And what we what happened during that was that we then had people who would have qualified for Dai compensation under under the new rules, but who had missed out under the old rules. And that created a situation which we felt was was unfair, and then required a second request and a subsequent executive vote to fix and we didn't get it through eventually. But that was kind of the rationale for including the retrospective compensation in this in this proposal, because it was kind of the idea was, well, well, we'll avoid that situation we ended up in, you know, a year ago. So that was what was informing that if people feel really, really strongly, we're happy to take that out and put it into a separate vote. But that's why it's included. So hopefully, that kind of explains that. And to make a man's point. Yeah. Ultimately, we would love for people to take the initiative and to make these proposals. And, you know, ideally, it wouldn't even we wouldn't even be GovAlpha that are making these proposals either. Because ultimately, we're massively conflicted as well, we work really closely with the delegates, you know, and we would prefer not to be the ones that were having to write these proposals. But ultimately, for anything to happen in the DAO, someone has to a write it and be MKR holders after to vote on it. And, you know, the delegates will all be voting on the executive to distribute it as well. So it's really hard to find a way to come up with these proposals that doesn't involve conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, we try to minimize them as much as we can. And we're willing again, like, please give us advice if you think there's anything that we need to change or you know, a different mechanism you would like us to use. But it's a really hard problem to P Prose11 29:49 solve. Things from inside there, Patrick, and you've seen more talking about that and The chat. Chris, I don't know if you're in a place where you can talk, but you're welcome to bring up some of these points on the microphone if you like. Go for it. 30:16 I was just wondering, I haven't seen any rationale behind the numbers as far as the 300k. Cap, and then the matching amount in MKR. I was just wondering if anybody could chime in as to how those numbers were reached and P Prose11 30:31 how they're justified. Yeah, so 30:35 starting with the MKR. That is kind of based on how GovAlpha is MKR. Vesting works. So which has been, which is a system that was approved by MKR holders and delegates earlier this year. So we take you know, because because we have a CEU, where lots of people work really, really hard to kind of project FTE equivalents for kind of MKR vesting, so we retrospectively look at how much everyone's been paid. And we we multiply that and turn it into a number of MKR that we then request from the DAO. So we did that in February. And we did that we were about to do it again, for our next round. So we took a system that we use as a call unit, then that has been approved, unanimously, unanimously at the time it was approved. So we felt that it was kind of an established method of doing it. The number was, again, kind of it was one initially, that was what we proposed for our Core Unit was a 1x multiplier. Again, I don't feel hugely strongly about that number, that number can be amended if people feel strongly that it should be a lower number. And with regards to the to the Dai compensation, essentially, it's a roughly 2x of what we're currently paying. And that was kind of why we went for that, slightly more than a 2x. Just because it made it a round number. The idea was we wanted to significantly increase the income, but we also wanted to significantly increase how much MKR you needed for that. So it's worked out. But looking at the curve that we've developed, it's about a 2x increase in pay, but a 3x increase in the amount of MKR required. So we have, we believe made it a lot more difficult to hit the max, but that there isn't any, like deep philosophical background to it. That was, you know, it was just, you know, roughly how much do we think would be reasonable? And again, you know, we are willing to amend these things that these aren't set in stone, you know, please let us know what you think would be reasonable. 32:26 But doubling the DICOM must have had some, like, conversations behind it, some justifications, like, why are we looking to double the Dai comp? 32:38 So the justification was we want to be able to attract people who are at the top of field and legal areas and financial areas in just in the wider crypto space in general. And when you talk to people they will, you know, and they say, how much can I earn? You know, it sounds like a lot of work and you say 144k is the max, people aren't interested. So you have to try and find a way to attract those people. Like, it's not a deep science, I will hold my hands up. There's not been, you know, a huge discussion about it. We're not sorry, no, no, there's not been, you know, a huge amount of, you know, sitting down with a pen and paper and working out how much we want to pay it, it was more of a gut feeling thing that we concluded as a group we thought seemed reasonable. 33:19 33:19 So sorry to hog up, tell me if I'm talking too much. But the the idea here is to attract more people from a traditional finance world, it sounds like you know, as far as legal finance, because what we're saying it sounds like is the current delegates and the delegates we can attract with a mere $144,000 a year, which, by the way, is a lot of money to most people, the quality or the education level, or like, that's not exciting enough. So it sounds like we want to track people who are making 300 to $600,000 a year in their traditional world, in their current occupation, is that am I on the right track? Or am I just way off? 34:04 So that's No, so that's a fair, that's a fair assessment. So that's kind of feedback we've had from the community or the CEU members, you know, the kind of person that they want as a delegate is someone who's got legal or financial expertise, but it's not you know, there was only only industries we would be looking at, you know, like I said, the wider crypto industry as a whole you know, if we could get you know, more people that kind of people that we believe can attract MKR to be delegated, we want to broaden the pool of delegated MKR. So if we can get people who people want to delegate to people they know then that's also something we would see as a benefit as well. 34:41 Thank you. Yeah, Chris, let me address the point here. So you know, I'm an older person I have a career right and I get paid based on my job way more than Maker paid me even if I could man did manage to make the top right. And so if you want peace Both 20 to 30 years of experience not just in finance or law, but any other fields like scientific endeavors might not make as much. But if you really want qualified people, and it's with significant experience that they can apply to certain parts of Maker, you kind of do want to come up somewhat in salary. I mean, I agree with you, I posted on this, for a 20 year old, it's just looking to do something has zero experience, maybe a bit of education or 25 year old, you know, unearned k is going to look pretty good. But for somebody who's 50, that just came out of finance, and was making a half a million a year 144k isn't even going to bring them around. B Brian McMichael 35:53 I just I don't like the way that this, you know, denigrate, so existing batch of delegates, right. Like, we've got people who work hard, and have, you know, accumulated Maker from the community. And, you know, were we saying they're not good enough. P Prose11 36:09 That's, that's harsh. 36:16 Brian, I hope that isn't the impression that people are getting from this. It's more about tracting Brian, I hope that isn't the impression that people are getting from this. It's more about tracting more people to MKR or to Maker as delegates rather than saying the people we have aren't good enough. But if anyone has had that impression from this, I do apologize. 36:35 It's about attracting more delegates who are interested in taking Maker DAO further into real world finance and traditional finance and, you know, possibly helping navigate future regulation. But it's sort of a capitulation to those things, which is my main beef with it. And I look at this as kind of a mandate on those issues. If this goes through, then it's just straight up a mandate for real world continued with real world immersion for the DAO. David Utrobin 37:10 It'll create a board of directors. P Prose11 37:19 It's fair to say that's certainly not our intention with the proposal, but to appreciate the perspective therapists and also in regards to like the pay in the current delegates, like that's also been very consistent feedback we've gotten is that the amount of time it takes to like actually do their job properly is a lot. So that's another motivation behind the pay increases, just like I call, the people who are in the position now are telling us that it's taking up all their time and resources. providing more resources seems like a logical one proposal at least, at least something to discuss. Well, I see that TJ has an interest 38:07 Yeah, thanks, Payton. I mean, unless some sort of misunderstanding the proposal, I guess I don't see I don't see what we're losing here. Right? If you're upping the PE, and it brings you a wider pool of parties that would be interested in being delegates from Maker DAO. And then ultimately it's up to those delegates to now wider pool of them to attract MKR to their platforms is this not just a kind of more effective and broader meritocracy? P Prose11 38:45 I'd say if it works, right, like if if it works, that would hopefully be out plays out. But I think it's fair to question like if the incentives and the activation energy so to speak to get involved with Maker if those things are are prohibited from from allowing true competition to take place, I don't know. That's that's certainly something that could throw a wrench in those plans. The Lively chat here, I don't know if anyone wants to hop on the mic and say some of this I'm happy to give a summary 40:12 and take away. Thank you. 40:16 So it's actually not what I came up with. But like I also on the forum read, like, I think, good comment on this. Like, if we have like more resources available, like the pay, there can be also more people actually involved with the delegate. And like, I feel like, you know, it's hard as the one person to understand everything. I think it's easier if you have kind of expertise. And I think this can enable really like, and that's something we are trying to do. Definitely like people which are having experience in some parts of the of the protocol, so they can really like advice on how he should move there, and so on. So I think this can really improve the overall governance just like because we will be bringing, like, specialized people even like behind the delegates. And that's kind of how I was thinking about it. P Prose11 41:19 Thanks for that perspective, and that was certainly a motivation of ours as well, lunches appear. One, one of the top delegates in the system, like, if you need dire support to work through all the proposals, and although the governance things like that, and obviously the salary needs to provide that, or you're going to be unable to. To check on papers, comments, I have a feeling I might know. Subject. 41:55 Could I take it away? Sure. I guess one thing kind of keep in context is the job is very unstable. Like, yeah, if you can get a summer expert to join for 300k a year, but like, at any point, a Maker holder can just and delegate, you know, 15,000 Maker, and then they're not making anything the next day. So that that is probably going to be a factor is just, if we can provide stability, you know, that can be an counterbalancing point to compensation, as is people have to really consider if I do this full time, like, is it worth the risks? Thanks. 42:44 That's a great, that's a great point about stability. Sorry. And that's one of the reasons why we're using the Dai component as well, is because Dai is hopefully for all the jobs currently is stable, whereas MKR, obviously isn't so so we do want to make sure that there is that attraction of a stable income for the delegates as well. P Prose11 43:10 perspective for sure. I just wanted to call Chris has posted in the chat to kind of proposals, maybe scrapping the changes to the Dai comp, and just adding the MKR instead. can say at least from my perspective, the main thing you lose there is is the cap incentive. Right? Like, I think we had GovAlpha were a little scared at first. That's why 10k was the recommended cap. And I know SES, for a while has been harping on us that that number was set too low. And yeah, that would kind of be the main trade off. If we got rid of that. I think you've got a different perspective, Patrick. 43:57 Know, fully agree. P Prose11 44:03 I see just in case another recognized delegate with their hand raised if you want to take it away. 44:09 Thank you. There is I guess this is a question for GovAlpha. Regarding the raising of the maximum cap, have you considered the effects of concentration of delegates? Because it's not that long ago that we effectively there was maybe three delegates that kind of decided which way the votes were going. And I think we should be mindful of of the dangers of concentrating voting power too much. Because there isn't, there is clear advantages to having more eyes and more heads being involved in a in a position even if, even if ultimately, the Maker that support those delegates come from the same source. I think it's still a better system if it If that is distributed among several sets of eyes and brains and expertise, because with too few people, we were in a real risk of someone having a bad day or someone sort of pushing their horse or their favorite pet project, which is something we can eliminate with having more delegates. In fact, I think maybe we should explore having a max cap on delegates for this particular reason. So you ensure that at least you get a certain number of individuals involved in any one given decision, even though obviously, any Maker holder can just vote themselves, but in order to provide us healthy governance as possible, I think that's something we should at least look into into the future. 45:45 Thanks, Justin. P Prose11 45:47 So that's a good question. Right. Like this was the primary reason for setting the cap at at 10k was because we were concerned about this consolidation. I don't know if Wouter Wan is on the call, but some of their talks on on this subject definitely shaped my thinking a little bit. It's still a concern of mine, for sure. Right. Like, one of the easiest ways to lose control, the whole thing is, is a governance, manipulation. So definitely a concern. But I think if the MKR holders want to delegate to the same people like that is the right we should make them aware of the potential dangers of viewings. But yeah, cool. I do see one with his hand raised if you want to explain some of the thinking there. Yes. Your mics a little quiet? Sorry. No. One's gonna refresh that mic. Sorry about that. There was someone who had their hand raised, maybe one. Or ones can work on like, there was one who had their hand raised and put it down. I don't know if you had a separate point. Yeah, it David Utrobin 47:20 was me. I was kind of debating whether I want to ask this question. But the question is, really, so we want to attract this kind of higher tier of delegate. And I see that we're doing that with this higher comp. But is there any work on the other side of it like creating perhaps like job descriptions for delegates that we're looking for? Like, are we looking for a legal expert with like, 20 years of experience in some sort of specialty? And can we create a delicate pay sort of opportunity for that specific JD? So I'm curious, like, yeah, like, is there any thought on the other side of it? 48:03 So that's a good question. David, I guess the issue that GovAlpha have with that method is a if it was coming from GovAlpha, it's also implying certain characteristics of a delegate are better than other characteristics of delegates. So you know, with our neutrality mandate, we really don't want to be saying, you know, this delegate is better than that delegate, because it's not something we think we should be commenting on. But the second thing is, it's also up to the MKR holders themselves. So you know, we can't know what an MKR holder with 5k MKR sitting on the sidelines is looking for unless they tell us. So between those job descriptions, it might not be the person that they're looking for. So it's a it's a really, it's a really tricky area. David Utrobin 48:44 Yeah. Okay. Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Much better. J Juan 48:53 Thanks. Yeah. So the issue of bringing more court or more delegates to, to avoid the coordination of a potential attack? I think that that's a double edged sword, right? Like, basically, what we're saying is, they should not be able to coordinate. And that's particularly dangerous when we're trying to build a coherent vision or some kind of objectives. So we're saying we're going to bring a lot of people so that they cannot coordinate. So yes, it will be harder for them to coordinate a governance attack. But at the same time, it will also be much harder to coordinate what the protocol should be doing. So that was the point that I wanted to bring up, typically, but P Prose11 49:40 yeah. No, that's great one. Because that was very much our perspective was like, it's so dangerous to have them coordinate. So we'll put a lower cap in place. But the kind of counterpoint to that is it really discourages from going out and seeking additional MKR And then also like if these people are interested in making all these other decisions with the protocol. Perhaps it gets, it's a little foolish to think like, well, once they get to a certain threshold, they can no longer be trusted. Go for it. Thank you, man. I was 50:30 waiting for Justin. So you know, the other factor in this whole delegate equation is this very tenuous and connection between delegates and their delegators. Right. I mean, if you don't have Maker delegated, you're not going to get compensation. Right. And so there, just because you have pay there, you know, we could attract the biggest, baddest whomever and unless there's a delegator, that's going to stick their Maker with them. For some commitment, period, why would anybody do that? Right. I mean, it's one of the biggest issues, as I see it, is that there's kind of, there's no real nomination, there's no tenure. You know, this idea that I could be elected to Congress and my vote yanked and my pay Yank, because the people who voted me into Office basically decided they're not going to support me with their backing anymore. It's kind of ludicrous, from, you know, from this idea that, that anybody can be a delegate and expect some reasonable compensation, whatever that is, man, I'm gonna point out GFX today basically reached out to our asset originators when no one else did over this whole RW F scenario. And that's a really important thing that we had a delegate doing on his own initiative, right. And when you look at compensation for like x and the protocol, I would like to see delegate compensation reach, you know, part of that compensation be related to what the protocol values as what we expect out of delegates, or, you know, not just pushing buttons, but what else right, would you expect for some of this pay component? Right? So those are my thoughts. It says I see a lot of issues here. And I don't see a clean solution to how to do and and raising pay here it's not going to guarantee we're going to get qualified people because we can't guarantee that we're going to drop the Maker on them to give them the appropriate compensation P Prose11 52:30 thanks, thank you rent seeking some cool references to EULAR gauges from money supply, definitely a fun thing to look into if you're on Trulia. Cool, so I'm aware that we do have overflow topic that's potentially something people might want to discuss even more. So there's a lot of chat on this subject. So we'll kind of propose it to the call then. If you have more to add here questions, comments, concerns, and encourage you to hop on the mic and do so otherwise we'll think about wrapping up? Certainly, I've been some filing comments in the chat today. So I hope everyone's enjoying that. All right, so before transitioning topics, I would really appreciate it if you just took a second to answer these three yes or no questions on delegate stuff. Kind of want to be using these poll features a bit more during these questions. If you're watching the recording and unable to participate live, I'm basically just wondering, how well do you understand the new structure? Do you think it's better than the old one? And would you like to see this type of things, discuss more David Utrobin 54:35 on later things. P Prose11 54:45 GovAlpha adds 54:48 a follow up paper on P Prose11 54:55 got about as many of you as participated on the first one. That's all In the pool there, share the results can see the fun part. Does everyone else think like you? Or do you have some arguing to do? All right, excellent. So we're gonna move into the last half hour. The goal here. Like I said, we do have this overflow discussion topic. I suspect there might be a lot of voices that might want to weigh in. So let's try to keep it orderly. But yeah, maybe stand up and do a quick stretch before we get into it. Because this is our final stretch. And really appreciate all the engagement going on here today. Maker man, some comments. I don't know if we have professional covered by the first there's definitely some poker sharks in the waters here, Maker. Cool. All right. Thomas, do you mind taking us to the next slide? Yeah, like I said, this is an overflow subject. That said it is still pretty fresh and perhaps still pretty raw. So yeah, I don't know how much prompting I'll need. But for background, the other day, a proposal to go up on the Maker forum to split up the reward finance Core Unit into two separate operating units. Since then, we have seen a few more posts, one of them claiming that the basically everyone but the facilitator, everyone finance had been let go. So that does inform these, this split proposal perhaps a little bit. Yeah, basically just want to open up this topic, see if there's any questions in the comments in the community that we can address. I know this came up at the delegate office hours a little bit earlier. So perhaps if someone from that call would maybe want to recap some of the things and there might be a good starting point. 57:25 Don't know Peyton was there at the delegate meeting. I won't say there was consensus on this there was support was that we really needed to hear from well on where he stood on this that no Maker has a real world finance facilitator. And while there has been some newsworthy activities there that the people involved have come forward to discuss. We still don't have a formal word from oil directly. As far as I know, people please correct me if I'm wrong. And until we have that word from well, I don't know how long we're gonna wait for this. That's probably that's probably the topic of discussion really is when do we expect to hear from will on what happened with this Core Unit so that a decision can be made simultaneously we have asset originators or asset origination that's kind of on the table here because of what's happened and so I don't know how we address that issue without having a report from well on this P Prose11 58:31 thanks for that Maker man and definitely a lot of echoing support for that and the previous call right which is that we are down we have to discuss this stuff publicly to some extent but really isn't fair if we're only hearing from one side so do you want to be mindful of that? Has anyone isn't fair if we're only hearing from one side so do you want to be mindful of that? Has anyone who was on a real world finance team want to speak up at this point? Don't feel obliged to do so. But you're welcome. All right, see a lot of chat but a lot of people are afraid to get on the mic. Perhaps that reflects the sensitive nature of this conversation. R Robert 59:56 I can always kick it off Peyton hanging on Robert Okay. Okay, I just wanted to wait. So from from a CEOs perspective and a collateral onboarding perspective, my main concern is this is business continuity. So we have work that's currently in the pipeline. We have deals underway, we have some deals that are being originated, and the X, RW F members had been working on them. So will can speak for himself whenever he appears. But for me, it's more about we need to keep business as usual as as as best as possible. And we have three individuals that had been working on the team that are no longer on that team. And so for me, what I'm just trying to do is to determine next steps on things like the MIPS 65. The MIPS 65 is an important piece of work. I think we all agree, and we need legal support on that. So one of the suggestions that I've offered is that anyone can be hired as a contractor inside of the DAO, and any Core Unit can pay contractors. So what I'm offering is, is that CES is willing, provided there's a, there's a, you know, a budgeting discussion to have for the additional compensation. But for business continuity, and I've got a list of items from the XR WF people that at least in the near term, the items that are work currently work in progress, and we need action on and I would highly recommend that the community take action to be able to however, we might want to whether a governance poll or something else, be able to be able to continue to move forward this work. The other areas that even if a new team is hired, there's still a transition period. I've never known any team to kind of come in and be productive day one. So even if there is a new new team, we do need a transitionary period to transition the old work to the new team. So I want to start with that comment. From that, J Juan 1:02:17 but yeah, so the DAO needs to approve a budget right now will with the trusted actor. So I don't know, Robert, if providing a Core Unit as a temporary measure, helps in any way. Because if it approves the budget, they might as well approve the trusted actor, unless you're not trusting any of the, like Christian or the others to actually go there. But otherwise, I don't see this as much help. I think it's very nice. But yeah, what's what's it was saying in the chat, right? Like, there's no need to transition, etc. R Robert 1:02:53 Well, so. So remember, I was and I was being very specific. I'm a Core Unit facilitator, I can choose to hire contractors at will, to complete work for the Core Unit that I then take responsibility for. So at the end of the day, the facilitator is responsible for the work of their Core Unit, what I'm suggesting is, is that I'd be willing to hire people, the X, RW of people as contractors, to help us complete this work, as well as transition the work if there is a new team available. So in addition, I would just be offering through a governance poll or something to say, Hey, I'm also I'm asking the committee to authorize a one time transfer to CES, potentially from funds that had been returned by RW F. And then if there are any funds that are leftover, and we give it a timeframe, we just simply return that to the DAO. So again, my focus is purely on business continuity, I'm not addressing any of the dynamics of the Core Unit or the new core units, I'm simply drawn trying to make sure that work continues to get completed. P Prose11 1:04:13 Robert and her offering a potential solution. So I do see, I want to note the calls for URI a little bit from real world finance Core Unit. But I also want to give a shout for Kodak to comments as people that have raised his hand and do appreciate that. 1:04:32 Sure, I just a quick response. I mean, so that's something Williams should have considered when he was firing these people. So we're kind of if you're hiring them on to do the same work, we're, we're kind of just undermining William and we're saying, you know, he was wrong to just fire them and he should have done something different, which that might be the right solution. But like we have to be very intentional about what we're doing. We're saying hey, you know, Williams screwed up, he shouldn't have been a one month transition period or whatever. So we're going to kind of undo what he was trying to do. R Robert 1:05:08 I can't speak for well, and I'm not hiring people to form a new Core Unit. I'd be hiring people to do work in progress. That's all. 1:05:21 Yeah, but I mean, he, like that's something you consider when you fire someone, right? You say, hey, they've got this work that needs to be done. Like, but it's so important that I fire them. And I'm just going to disregard that right? I'm gonna let this work going down because they need to be fired right now, instead of being ordered over the course of a R Robert 1:05:41 month. Yeah, I definitely hear you. And I have been reaching out to will, and talking with will and offering suggestions as well. So I'm not doing this in a vacuum. P Prose11 1:06:09 All right. I also appreciate how difficult this is to have like when all the facts are all the parties aren't trying to present to talk about the issues. So do you want to kind of call out that, again, as he just said, with his hand raise takeaway, just 1:06:27 like your page, and I think, I think one important point here that was brought up is that I do agree with the points that have been raised before that we should definitely hear both sides of this story before making any final decisions. But the wheels are spinning, we need to actually make a decision and move forward and sort of deal with the immediate situation as well. So we do need to address the question, how long are we willing to wait to have both sides of the story? I think we should actually come to a decision on that question on this forum today. And I personally don't think we should go more than a week from this point, before we actually decide on at least the general direction where we go. Because we have, like has been said we have counterparties is not only a strict protocol issue, this involves a lot of other actors as well. And it also puts our reputation at the stake. And I think one of the greatest advantages that Maker protocol has right now over many other DeFi projects is a rock solid reputation. We start messing with that we're giving away one of our greatest advantages. And I don't think we should do that. So my suggestion would be next governance risk call me make a call on this thing. Least general direction. Hey, 1:07:50 it's Eric, I understand no one else's spoke for real world. So I guess I will. I'm just not sure what to tell you, folks. But if people read the Christians post, and have a sense of the timing events, let me just lay out the timing. You know, the three of us were working under wills since January, you know, the three of us work really well together. And obviously, it's not ideal with will. I think we've done a lot of good work together. A couple weeks ago, Christian kind of got to the point. He's our attorney, partner, where he just he'd lost confidence in well, as he posted, and just didn't want to work with him anymore. He felt like he was being set up to fail, you know, with will leaving the group. And this is all in the post. I'm not saying anything new. And I have to admit TJ and I will concur. And so, you know, the idea is that three of us really liked Maker, we're really the ones who've done HVB and sock Jen, you know, 99%, and really want to continue, you know, and we talked well about it, you know, had a discussion with a Christian wasn't that comfortable? nor were we? And then we'll kind of what did he do next? Yeah, he posted that we were going different directions in the form without talking to us. Then we said, hey, you know, let's try to work out an agreement. You know, maybe we split this and go another way. And he never responded to us. And then yesterday, he he terminated us all in the email. I mean, it's just, it's just a sequence of events, a sequence of events. It's hard to know exactly what to do. But we know that we've done a lot of good work and want to do a lot of innovation here and keep going forwards. I think there's a lot more good RW A's to go. And there's a lot more innovation coming. I'm just not sure what else to tell you guys. It's a weird set of events. I understand that you want to talk to will, there's a lot of questions, I think you should ask him. And I'm just, you know, I'm not aligned with well, so I can't speak on his behalf clearly. And I think we've got a really strong vision and a really good track record, you know, in wanting to take it to the next level. And that's what we're really focused on. But you guys here is delegates managers, or you have to make some other decisions when our proposal is part of it, but you have other things you have to consider. And I read Got that you guys have to deal with this headache, but it is what it is. P Prose11 1:10:02 Thanks for your insight there. Yeah, I'm seeing papers called a table this topic again, as far as like Justin's idea of coming back next week with a bit more measured approach a bit more intentional, I guess, who we have here to talk about the issues and and what the plans are. So I would definitely support that. So don't want to cut discussion short. If that's me. Overtime. Yeah, 1:10:48 I just want to add one thing, that institution is not new. And a lot of people are in the know. And I would suggest that everyone's delegated on Queen just ask him what he wants, there is no need to create drama. Just ask him what he wants. It seems J Juan 1:11:12 that until we get that information from Yeah, from MKR holders. One of the things we're saying that we don't need more, we will finance or at least not for now, unless it's just research, then yeah, potentially the MKR holders gave will the mission. And it's his Core Unit, his mandate, his team has the right to try to create another Core Unit, but then is more of a 1:11:37 offer. J Juan 1:11:41 It's an option open to anyone, right? Like anyone can come and propose a Core Unit. So with that in mind, I think it's important to respect what we all wants to do now. And if someone wants to propose, like bringing him down, as an onboarding, we can also do that as well. But that's not what's being discussed right now. So what he does with his Korean, I think it's more internal to him. So yeah, we don't mind. I wanted to shortly steal the SES update tomorrow, we're going to be discussing on how Maker should move more into the project based budgeting instead of the Core Unit based budgeting, which is bringing all this drama forward and not creating a lot of value. So if you guys want to join us tomorrow, that'd be great. Otherwise, we might have recaps of videos and, and whatnot, the following weeks. Thanks for that. But to this asking at what time, I think it's 230 UTC, 430, Central European, etc. P Prose11 1:13:00 Yeah, I think we can even help with that a little if you want to go to the next slide times. So, yeah, appreciate that. One, and we'll kind of take the opportunity to start winding this down here. Have the upcoming calls list here. As one mentioned, that is at 230 UTC tomorrow, or the SES bi weekly set is something. We've got a bunch of other reoccurring calls here. You'll see a lot of current Core Unit office hours. The decentralized voter committee meetings on Wednesday and Thursday. Obviously, this call is on there again, same time, same place next week. So yeah, please take a look. You can add that calendar, it's linked at the bottom of any Maker executive vote, that's usually my quickest way to find it. So feel free to do that and attend some calls. Hey, I wanted to start wanting us down here and thank everyone for coming out and participating in these talks. This is our weekly meeting. So another chance to do it all again next Thursday. Really appreciate the input on potential topics we can have. As a reminder, you can always comment on the GNR post we put up every week, detailing the agenda if you have something to add or something you would like explored within a segment Sam saying we should syndicate the show and monetize. Might need a bit more in depth hosts but I'd still support it. Cool. Thank you everyone for joining, especially if you're new and you sat through the call. I know a lot of the stuff we talked about can fly over your head, promise that it is rewarding venture to drink from the firehose and figure out what Maker DAO is all about. Nice rewarding for me. Yeah. Excellent. Get a request for some outro music maybe that's something we can work into future shows as well. But for now, I just want to thank everyone for coming out. Encourage you to continue the conversation in the forums and in our discord chat, and we'll see you same time same place next. Thanks, everybody.