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 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 P 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. 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. 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 P A 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. 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. 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 P P 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. 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 P 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 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 P 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. 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. 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 B P 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. 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? 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 P P 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. 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. 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. P P 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. 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. 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 P P 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. Juan 48:5