onlymp3.to - Governance and Risk Ep. 201- ADYHWUbFUKw-192k-1... Sun, 7/31 10:31AM 1:16:29 SUMMARY KEYWORDS kpis, dao, budget, maker, core, delegates, kpi, unit, holders, proposal, units, budget proposals, vote, people, process, question, revenue, project, governance, reallocation SPEAKERS ElPro, Prose11, David Utrobin, Artem Gordon, Pablo, Wouter, Robert, Sebastien Derivaux Prose11 00:00 All right. Hello everyone and welcome. We're at the 200 and first governance and risk call here at Maker DAO. My name is Payton I go by pros 11 online. And I am one of the governance facilitators here Maker DAO really excited to be here at all. Everyone today, as you might have noticed, this call is being recorded. So hello to anyone watching afterwards as well. Seeing a lot of familiar faces in the audience as well. So some new ones perhaps so if this is your first call, welcome. This was our kind of weekly get together, where we talking about what's going on and Maker both with the votes, proposals, ideas, kind of general community discussion, and and talk about them. So welcome. We're so glad to have you here a few ground rules to go over before we get too deep into things I guess. Number one, let's try not to talk over one another. This was an open call. So we do really encourage participation. But it can get really hard to listen to or participate in if if people are cutting each other off and talking over one another. There are a couple of facilitation tools you can utilize that will make my job a little easier. If you'd like to kind of hop in line to the Speaker's list so to speak, you can utilize the raised hand function and zoom. If you're on the desktop version, that should be under the reactions button on the bottom. You can also always drop a comment or question in chat, and we'll try to read it off as soon as possible. But with that in mind, it is an open meeting. We really do encourage questions, comments, general input from your perspective. So we hope you'll feel comfortable enough to join us in some of the discussions. Think that's enough housekeeping. So let's move slides here and get into what we're talking about today. As usual, we'll go over the votes on what's happening in the world of Maker improvement proposals. And as well as some highlights from the forum. We don't have any specific initiative updates today. So after that, we will get into our discussion topic, which is around the budget Rio que reallocation and Core Unit accountability framework. So a lot of talks going on in the DAO right now about reducing spending and kind of a question on like how you practically carry that out in, in a decentralized organization. So after that, if we have time, we can always go into open discussion. But really encourage your your thoughts and participation when we get there. All right. Well, let's get into governance votes. I can stop talking. Had a pretty easy week to recap on the poll side. We still have the one ongoing Greenlight. She'll go to the next slide there, Thomas. Thank you. The is the back finance, short term bond ETF voting on that continues to Monday. So please go ahead P and get over there and vote if you haven't already. And we have one concluded ratification poll that'll be covered in our next MIPS. Cool, that brings us on to executive proposal. So for those of you that have been watching the forum in the new spells, channel, in chat, this one has been a few Growing Pains putting together but the good news is we are on track to have that executive release tomorrow, that would take care of the SOC Jin and HV bank onboarding. There is a forum post penned as to why that was delayed from our our typical Wednesday date. And if you know good relevant information there, but it will also be in this a little bit and spell copy. So you can read about kind of what took place and why that's ready to go now. for next week's executive, we were planning to have a drawdown on the HP bank that's being on boarded a kind of redo of the keeper three network stream as well as handling some Oracle's Core Unit MKR. Stream housekeeping. Basically, they claimed all the MKR they need to for their first years investing. So now we'll be kind of be authorizing the rest of it that wasn't needed, and preparation of continuing on with with their agreement. Cool. That is more than enough talking for me. So I'm very happy to hand the mic over to Pablo to give us an update on what's happening in lipslide. Pablo 04:27 Yep, thank you, Aidan. And hello, everyone. 04:34 Can you guys hear me? Yes. Pablo 04:35 So as you know, we had only one but application bowl for this current cycle that are projects Chase onboarding as a developer facilitator. There are negotiable paths passed unanimously. So congratulations, Patrick. And that's it for a relative example. So let's move on to proposals in RFC. So the frozen period has been attend which means that you should expect proposals eligible to enter the service cycle not to undergo any substantial non cosmetic change, lest they be pushed back to be eligible for the September cycle. Instead, we have two top level MIPS MIPS seven six Maker shall Redux initially introduced as a special purpose client and rejected. This proposal has been reworked into a top level MC that addresses some of the concerns that it originally raised. It will be formally submitted for this coming governance cycle, and MIPS 72, which was authorized access capital as a real world assets arrange for Maker DAO and even will remain in RFC for now. We also have to clean the budgets that we'll be entering this upcoming cycle 140 Dai foundation Core Unit. This one includes multiple options that cover bare and super market scenarios. In addition to a base case, that is a slightly reduced version of their previous budget. And we also have the Oracles Core Unit budget. This one provides a substance either a reiteration of their previous budget or a new budget reduced by 10%, bundled with an exemption from further reductions for one year. So coordinator coordinates we have three of those for the following coordinates events, immune fi security and strategic happiness. Only the events are holding proposal is eligible to enter the yoga cycle and severance payment has been proposed. But for this one. We have also one possibly better onboarding. Can we go to the Yes. So second attachment submitted a proposal to be imported as a facilitator for the Unified Security Core Unit. It's probably worth mentioning that the P P according proposal for these coordinates in unify will remain in RFC and that is it will not be formally submitted for now, after a compromise between the parties has been raised. Next slide. We have three amendments or one that I meant Smith 50. That is the direct deposit module to make it more general. In particular, not specific to lending protocols, one that amends the somewhat awkward Coriolis recording process we currently have in place, and these two will be entered into yoga cycle. And finally one that I'm in to me, zero then introduces the notion of retrospection, dates for omics. This one will remain in RFC until some issues have been addressed, stated by itself. And finally, we have one proposal that has been withdrawn. Next slide, please. So recognize delegates, Kanga Reddington has withdrawn her proposal to create a special homeless haunt that that would have retained her as the Interim Chief Legal Officer of Maker. Let's move on to the important dates. So the August formal submission window opens on Monday, the first that is this next Monday, and the other certification points from this will go up on Monday, the eight then that's it from me. Thank you very much. Prose11 08:24 All right on public, appreciate the fresh side designs as well. Great. So yeah, please do check out the MIP update and everything in the form there. In case there's anything you missed or want to revisit. That should take us to Artem and the form updates. Yes, posted the link. Artem Gordon 08:50 Welcome, everybody. Happy Thursday and welcome to the GNR forum recap. We'll be going over the week of July 21 to the 27th. Let's get started with this week's announcements. First, active community member coordinate published their delegate platform on Monday, Artem David Utrobin 09:08 Yes, sorry to interrupt you. Can you make sure your output is going to your mic by your laptop? Because it sounds like it's your laptop like picking up your voice? Artem Gordon 09:18 Let me check. SPEAKER Yes, that happened. Is it better now? Check check. 09:26 significantly David Utrobin 09:27 better. Thank you. P A A Artem Gordon 09:28 Perfect. Yeah, that's weird. All right. Thanks, David. All right. So let's restart this. So code night, active community member he published his delegate platform this Monday. And his core values include one simplifying the core protocol by eliminating unnecessary complexity, also developing sustainable and decentralized systems and making sure that MKR holders interests are represented. Now in terms of voting expectations, coordinate states that they We'll support proposals that anticipate strong risk adjusted returns and object to overly expensive proposals which have low potential impact. So also keep an eye for the next meet your delegate call announcement, which should feature code night and their delegate platform. Next up, we have a double whammy by real world finance. Now the real world finance Core Unit has completed all necessary work for onboarding society general as she Forge and HVB volt types. With this work complete, the Core Unit will now focus on spinning off a new Core Unit centered for North American market, the original real world finance Core Unit will begin to transition so it's becoming a metadata. And the community can track the spell code and executive vote content on GitHub which are provided at the bottom of the post. Additionally, the real world finance Core Unit has returned 2 million Dai from the DSS vest and back to the Maker protocol showing a voluntary responsibility for core units to help mitigate effects of bear market budget constraints. All right, very awesome. Now let's move on to our signals. There's currently one signal going on, and it's in line with the discussion topic. During the first part of July 20 of CVC. Meeting, the Strategic Finance Core Unit, presented two options for the DAO to choose between adjusting budgets and returning to break even operating cash flow and option one is broad cut, which has which require less overhead, however, at the disadvantage of treating all core units equally, regardless of their performance or spending habits. And option two is tactical reallocation, which involves allocating budgets based on merit and rely on the development of evaluative framework and KPIs to estimate each Core Unit performance. Now, the signal request as the community which of these two options are more preferred, with multiple choice allowed and the signal ends on July 30. It's a short signal lasting only one week. Currently, the majority vote sits at option two, which is tactical reallocation. And that's it for the GNR forum recap, but if you want some more announcements, discussions and ongoing initiatives, check out the forum recap on the forum, the forum thread, which is now continuous thread, it's and it's pinned under updates. So check it out. Prose11 12:26 Thank you. Awesome, thanks, I really did want to highlight a couple of things, their paper did post a signal towards the end of yesterday. So do check that out, I provided the link in the chat might be some good, or there already is some good discussion going on there. And then second, I also want to highlight code nights. Meet your delegate meeting coming up next Wednesday. Look for forum post after this call. Thanks. All right, let's see it take us to our discussion segment. I will pass the mic off to Thomas to introduce him in a second year. But didn't kind of wanna invite everyone. Take a little stretch. If you plan on participating in the segment, you can consider turning your camera on. This is recorded on YouTube. But they haven't done anything about my face being on there. So don't be too shy. But yeah, so if you'd like to participate, go ahead and get ready. This is our kind of active session. So do you want to give a special shout out to that before Thomas says the introduced introduction. All right. 13:34 A P 13:34 Thank you Payton, a hello, everyone's Tom's political GovComms. Just here to introduce our discussion segment. That is today going to be on the signal request for the budget reallocation and Core Unit accountability framework. Our special guests here today is Pepco with the Strategic Finance Core Unit, and he will be here to present their information. I'm going to switch over briefly to their presentation. And I'll let PIP go go ahead and take it 14:06 from here. Hi, everyone. 14:11 This is an update to the presentation that we I think we gave last week on the signal requests talking about Core Unit accountability, etc. So before we get started, brief disclaimer that we always give but this report is not provided for tax written for it's provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial investment, legal regulatory or tax advice. And I think we can go on to the next slide. 14:43 Next slide again. So at a 14:47 at a high level to summarize what ace and Adrian talked about on the last call. But the DAO has weathered the collapse of some of the larger lenders in this space, mostly sci fi lenders pretty well. We haven't incurred Any bad debt to date linked to those loans linked to those lenders. That being said, the overall revenue of the protocol has declined. And we're now faced with declining revenues but a stable budget, given the current budgeting process and how the budgets have been stacked on a historical basis. So our view is we need a way either a broad cut, or a tactical reallocation, to figure out how to reallocate capital to the different core units and bring it in line with what we expect revenue will be on a go forward basis, at least for the next six to 12 months. And this is really to respond to the I think it was the signal crest discussing what the target level of profitability should be for the protocol. And that was confirmed on an on chain vote, saying, basically, somewhere between breakeven to plus 5% was was the takeaway. So I think we can skip some of the slides around the current financial situation, revenue and cash forecast, et cetera. And then if you don't mind going to the slide with the two options, option one and option two. To talk about it. So the first option that we discussed during the call was a broad cut. Here, this would be a percentage cut across all core units, the pros are the reductions can be made quickly. It's simple to implement. I think on the con side, we're treating all core units equally, especially regardless of performance or spend, which rewards people who have over budgeted, etcetera. And we also have the potential to cut mission critical activities. So for example, cutting the budget of Oracle's or protocol engineering might hurt some of our ongoing projects, or even our just day to day running of the protocol projects. The second option that we proposed was a tactical reallocation. I'll go into this in more detail. But the idea behind this is instituting a high level KPI and budgeting process, where we'll ask core units to tell us what their strategic priorities are, they'll propose KPIs that are linked to those strategic priorities and also target where they think they'll be after the end of the budgeting period. And then their performance versus the KPIs that they chose targeted and then executed against will be used as information for future capital allocations to that Core Unit so we can better understand which core units are creating value, and actually delivering on delivering on the promises that they've made to the protocol in which core units might not be delivering on the promises. The big con with this solution is it's going to be time consuming. We have to spin up new processes. And just to touch on something I we discussed during the delegate office hours. We don't have any plans for a broader MBR. Okay, our process right now we're primarily thinking about KPIs, how do Core Unit select their own KPIs? And how do they communicate their KPIs and that progress against those KPIs back to the DAO. 18:19 So next slide. 18:23 So there's there's four main components to the RE budgeting process under a tactical reallocation. The first would be initial capital allocation and KPI selection. This would be when we right size the budget for the new revenue environment that we're operating within. After the Core Unit has performed against their KPIs, delegates and Maker holders would evaluate their KPI attainment, and then use that attainment to inform budget requests and future capital allocation. And the process repeats. So with the new budget that's being dispensed to the DC us, they'll set new KPIs. And this will provide us with a way to keep core units accountable. And also do this in a data driven permissionless and fully open way. Next slide. So here we were talking about some of the big issues with the current process and how our proposal for tactical reallocation would fix some of these issues. So right now there's a lack of visibility and transparency. We think by Core Unit saying what they're actually working on and what they think that they will accomplish. They'll be held more accountable and also it'll provide delegates and Maker holders more transparency into their activities. Performance is difficult to evaluate. As part of this program, we see core units having three KPIs simple high level KPIs that are easy to measure, but also are linked to value creation that the CU is in is working on. And then the final big period. And at least personally, I think this is one of the biggest issues we have with our current budget process is the budgeting periods aren't simultaneous. And therefore any Maker holder or delegate when trading off between two different budgets, not only has to make a trade off in capital, but they also have to do it in time. And that that's very difficult when you're not presented two budgets at the same time. On the next page, I know that there'll be some concerns and mitigates This is not an exhaustive list, but just to run through them quickly, Strategic Finance will not be picking your KPIs, we will also not be determining your KPI attainment. This will be determined by delegates and Maker holders whenever it needs to be a qualitative attainment metric. In terms of actual actually executing on this process, we think that we'll be able to execute a budget reallocation process in the next two months. And we're willing to work with Core Unit facilitators, members, delegates and Maker holders to help them with some of that analysis associated with this project process. And there will be a slight enhance time requirement, but we hope that the KPIs will be simple and easy to maintain. And we can put in place dashboards or reporting. So that ideally these these flow is straight through as possible. Next slide. So to talk about the Core Unit budget process and a little bit of detail, there's four main stages we have three of them on this slide. So the first stage is the Core Unit budget, and KPI proposals. So delegates and Maker holders would determine a targeted level of spend, similar to the signal request last month, core units would provide budgets, layout, operating activities, strategic goals and KPIs. essentially making a promise to the protocol. If you give us this money, this is what we're going to accomplish. And as part of that process, they would also lay out what is baseline lights on spend, and what is the growth spend, so that delegates can understand whether they would be cutting any potential mission critical activity, they would publish or communicate their KPIs as part of this. And then Strategic Finance, would would basically aggregate all these different budgets up into an aggregate level view that the delegates and Maker holders can then use to determine the proper capital allocation to each Core Unit. The second process is that stage so here, the Maker holders and delegates really have two main jobs. The first is they need to match the total budget to the targeted spend level, it's difficult to say that we're going through a budgeting process, if at the end of the process, we don't hit our actual budget that we wanted to spend. And then the second piece would be figuring out the best way to allocate capital among the core units to hit that target and level of spend. 23:16 illustrative governance process and I know that there'll be some discussion about this. But also, we're the Strategic Finance team, we're not the GovAlpha team. So they should also chime in would be you have multiple different budget proposals that are created and put forward they would be competing. And that would allow people to vote for those proposals on chain. And that way, you wouldn't necessarily need as much consensus off chain, although you would need consensus to come up with a budget proposal. The third stage is capital allocation and KPI retargeting. So here the budget would be voted on and confirmed on chain by Maker holders. core units can communicate to delegates and Maker holders the impact of the lower higher budget that they received and how that changes the KPIs that they might be able to accomplish. And then delegates and Maker holders confirm that these new targets are reasonable. And the core units not either sandbagging or setting too high a target that might hurt them down the road. The final step of this entire process is choosing KPIs if you go to the next slide. So we've put forth some criteria for effective KPIs. But we really want these to be high level, very easy to measure and very easy to understand. Because we know that the moment that these KPIs go in place, people will be incentivized to to accomplish them, but also to game them if they're game doable. And along these lines on the next page, we put together an example KPI proposal for the Strategic Finance unit. If You go to the next slide. So here, we've laid out three illustrative KPIs for Strategic Finance. The first would be PSM bond revenue in calendar year 2023, for example, setting a $10 million target, and the weight would be 30% of our total score. The second is a launch of a stable coin treasury management strategy by q4 22. This is basically Maker Shire. And here it will be determined by whether the target is true or false, did we actually attain revenue or not. And the final piece would be ongoing development of financial reporting and analysis. And this would be since it's sort of qualitative, voted on by Maker holders and delegates to determine our attainment. And that attainment determination process for examples laid out on the next page. If you flip to that, so for example, PSM bond revenue, let's say we were able to get 25 million of revenue out of that, here we would be over attaining. Let's say we fail to launch stable coin treasury management strategy, we get zero points for that. And then development of ongoing financial reporting and analysis. It would be a qualitative metric voted on on chain and we would get high ideally. So this is this is an example process. I'm happy to open up the floor to questions. And I'm sure ace Adrian and myself can can answer any questions that you guys might have. Prose11 26:48 Awesome, thanks for the presentation there. Quick reminder that if you would like to speak, you can use the raise hand feature, as I'm seeing David do. You can also drop some comments in chat. But since you ever raise hand, everyone when you take it away. David Utrobin 27:06 Hey, how's it going? First off, sorry for the background noise there is any running an errand. But I had a question. So if this were to pass and this framework were to be adopted, does that mean that basically it would be one ultimate budget proposal at the end of it all, that the delegates would take the individual for a unit proposals? And then like, yeah, combine them all into like one mega proposals? Is that my understanding? And then also, like, with 20 core units, like the the way that the framework is proposed, it seems very heavy because those 24 units have to put up their individual budgets. And then yeah, sure. And then they have to basically get a response from the SF delegates and whoever's working on like, the counter budget proposals, and there's supposed to be like multiple counter budget proposals for each team. Yeah, it just seems like very, very heavy. And so yeah, so the comments on whether I'm understanding that right, would be great. 28:04 So your is your question about the budget proposals that are generated by the Core Unit. So the the competing budget proposals that would be voted on? David Utrobin 28:18 I guess, a bit of both, like, I just don't really think like this, it seems like unfeasible just because of the scale. So I think 28:32 this is the similar process to the process we currently have, like when when people request a budget, they they post on the forum, there's some feedback, they might change elements of the budget, the issue with that current process is they're not happening concurrently. And therefore there's no way to make sure that the total spend amount doesn't go past what our targeted ad spend amount is. David Utrobin 28:54 Yeah, okay. Got it. Just a sorry, let me let me just finish really quickly. So basically, like, for P Yeah, okay. Got it. Just a sorry, let me let me just finish really quickly. So basically, like, for example, there's a November formal submission requirements for budgets, according to the unit 40. So that means that October would be RFC. But October is not RFC for your individual per unit budget anymore. Actually, your per unit budget would have had to have been submitted even earlier, like August so that it can go through this process that's being proposed. Is that correct? 29:35 I don't I don't know about the timing. I would have to think about that. And maybe ace you have a view on that. But I, I think the the place where you create incremental time is really around the competing budget proposals. And I think you have to have that so that you don't have a world where the delegates are just coming up with a proposal on their own. And that's the only proposal that people can vote for. but for the core units, at least my personal view is if we're if we're giving them money in in return for specific operating results, they should be telling us what they're going to execute on, in return for that money. And that's not currently the case in all Core Unit today. 30:27 I'll just add that, yeah, we understand this is going to be a time consuming process, it's going to be a lot of investment from a lot of different people within the Dow. But the alternative is essentially to do nothing or sub optimally allocate capital throughout the Dow, both of which we feel are untenable options. So you know, were more than willing to work with the community to roll up our sleeves and help them go through this process and build this framework. And also, like, this is really a one off sort of situation that we hope to, you know, bootstrap the KPI process, and then go through this sort of exercise, essentially, once every six months until our cash flow stabilizes. That's quite difficult to plan on a long term basis when your annualized revenue goes from 20 million a year to 20 million in six months. Thankfully, we have some very diversified revenue streams coming with monetary loss and other institutional asset managers. It's kind of hard to use. But until we get there, we need to plan and be flexible. Thanks for that mark. Prose11 31:46 Had a quick because let's bring in a lot of chat going on. So I would maybe encourage some of you who are willing up on the mic to maybe raise your hand and into the speaker's list if you have some good comments on chat. Just scrolling here, saw a nice comment from Porter, you know, kind of noting some of the downsides of potential KPI scorecards like Wells Fargo situation where people salespeople are trying to get metrics. So they'll make fake accounts or or what have you in order to meet those. It's definitely some good perspective there. 32:20 Cool, I believe Eric P Prose11 32:20 was next up, and the handle is order. So if you want to take the microphone, 32:25 yeah. Hey, it's Eric. Sorry, I have a little bit of background noise. I think it's a great set of KPI initiatives. One thing I just wanted to point out, and I'll give you just one specific example, make my point. But you really need to set the KPIs realistically or sensibly so that you actually are getting the kind of behavior you want. I know, Porter pointed out Wells Fargo, one concern, say on the bond revenue, you got to hit 10 million, that a lot of that's gonna be a function of how the interest rate curve moves over. Over the next year. If rates short rates go real high, you'll nail that short rates fall down into a recession, you're going to fail. But neither one of those is that much in your control. And so one, I think you want to try to focus on things under your control and the KPI is to, you want to look about perverse behavior. Because if I want to lock in 10 million a bond revenue, how do I do that? Right now, I'm gonna go out a little longer. So I can be encouraging you to buy longer bonds, assets, that doesn't help our liquidity that compare liquidity profile or risks. So this is a very complicated area. But I just think when you're doing KPIs, and this is gonna be a challenge, they need to be thought through carefully around. What do people really control? And what are the adverse side effects you could get out of them. And so this would require expertise in really making sure these types of KPIs are what Maker wants, you know, it's I think they're great, but it's just it's hard to do this well, particularly the centralized world. Thanks. 33:49 Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. That being said, Just because something's hard to do, well, doesn't mean we, we shouldn't do it, we need to do this from a p&l perspective is my view. 34:02 I agree. But I'm saying even on the bond example, it's not well thought out, right? Incentives are bad, you could really put additional risk on. 34:10 These aren't just this is not what we would present. And we're not saying these are our KPIs. We're just presenting examples for the community. You know, we, like every other Core Unit would go through this process, talking to delegates and Maker holders to decide what our KPIs would be. And, you know, we expect that any, you know, shortcomings and how we've thought through our own KPIs should be brought up in such conversations now, 34:36 P I'm fully supportive I think I just want to emphasize the level of expertise This is a skill take across lots of different key areas. So not only at the CEU but you're only delegates are probably going to have an informed view and say no that's that's not right. You know, if you have one delegate delegates, you're a jack of all trades, master of none. Well, they have the expertise the weight into the KPIs for a given unit, like on A PE, I couldn't say Jack, you know, on yours, I would probably have a pretty strong view. So again, I think we're gonna really have to push to strong delegates with subject matter expertise to make this work. And I want to make it work. I think it's important Prose11 35:18 I think the ranking perspective there, thanks for noticing a few more comments in the chat, but nothing I'm ready to read out yet. So I'm gonna go ahead and call in code night, if you want to take them back. Sure, 35:29 um, so typically, KPIs get assessed on maybe a monthly or quarterly basis. How would we envision doing? We set the KPIs in August or October or whenever? And then are we meeting having a meeting every month or two to kind of discuss where everyone's at on their KPIs? How's that going envisioned? 35:52 So that 35:53 the current vision is a six month period, we want to set longer term KPIs so that we're, we're not micromanaging the different core units with short term sort of deliverables. And at the same time, we want to keep in mind that our revenue has declined 60% Plus in the last six months, so we need it to be a short enough period where we can react and reallocate capital if needed. Prose11 36:20 Okay, thanks. Thanks for bringing that up. Yeah, another shout out like a lot of good comments, and back and forth going on the chat. If you want this to reach the recording, and other people watching, please do consider hopping on the mic. Questions are a little easier to me to pull out. So I will go ahead and pull one out Chroma class saying, Can't we try to try this system out with a few CPUs to see what works and any downfalls before bringing everyone through this process? I think that's like kind of a question directed more towards SF in terms of implementation. P P 37:00 Well, let's let's be clear. The purpose of this is not only to have accountability, KPIs for you to use, but it's also to get back to breakeven cash flow. And that's not going to happen without changes, accountability. And understanding the value of each year is creating for the miners everything provided, we can help them the market rebounds and running demand magically recovers. But hoping is not a good business strategy. It's not a good way to run a protocol or project. So I don't think there's any real advantage to going through a beta beta test with a few core units, is the whole purpose is to allocate across the entire DAO and figure out how we can get back to breakeven cash flow like this is what they call there's want. So I think it's in the community's interest to follow through on Maker holders, desires. Thanks, America, Prose11 38:01 she'll allow a brief aside, I grew up playing competitive chess. And one, one statement that always stuck with me was you don't want to be playing hope chess, which is like, hoping your opponent doesn't make the best move, right? You don't want to just be wishing that things work out. So appreciate the initiative. Didn't see a hand from Sam Patel. Go ahead and pass up, Sebastien Derivaux 38:20 Mike. Yeah, sure. I just, it just occurred to me that last year, your finance, I have set a goal of $3 million at the end of the year. Obviously, it was super, super far. And the objective was to build at the beginning, but it was there was a reason for it. And what I liked is that it puts you under pressure. And we deliver something, though, the fact of not achieving it. Well, it's not the end of the day. And at the end, people can say well, you didn't achieve you should be fired. And I mean, fine. But at least you have something to discuss on. Because otherwise, I have no idea what people are forecasting to do. Achieving to do. And so there is no discussion. So I think maybe it should be with a social rapper to say, well, we have numbers but numbers on KPIs and not representing everything now just in basis for discussion, because I am not sure that are linked to a lot of implications for cabinet. No one is fired because you're, you know, 20% or something like that. 39:25 If I'm correct. Prose11 39:35 Could you maybe clarify the question I said, Sorry, Sebastien Derivaux 39:38 I was just giving an example of a beta test that we kind of did last year. And just to see what could be the implications of this beta test, assuming it will be full and well, one KPI 300 million and z at the end we are 10 P S P S and z at the end we are 10 39:55 or 20. Don't remember Sebastien Derivaux 40:08 If you're if the framework is providing a key result, or is it just to start a discussion, and it's still up to the delegates and Maker token holders to make a decision Prose11 40:23 kind of basically asking like are the KPIs themselves? actionable? Right, like, Sebastien Derivaux 40:28 Yeah, this is automated, and without human judgment. ElPro 40:36 I mean, ideally, Prose11 40:39 I'm sorry, Peyton. Now go for it. Like, ElPro 40:44 if you think about what had been KPI is for every single DeFi platform, protocol. It's been what? TVL? That's pretty much it. TVL and how much dye is outstanding? How much fracks is outstanding? How many wallets are holding Dai? I think it's less than a million. How many stable coins are being held by wallets? I think it's about 18 million. Whatever the facts are, that's been the that's been the KPIs. Right. So I don't really agree with Strategic Finance all the time, right. Like, there are things I agree with things I don't agree with. But I think web three needs this. And I think Maker DAO is the leading governance platform that can bring this into the fi into the ecosystem. So we should at least give it a shot. Give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, then yeah, you know, let's automate it down the road. And I think we're writing the playbook here of governance. And we should at least give it a shot. And if it doesn't work out, then you know, at least we tried. But we moved on beyond TVL and opening Wells Fargo accounts. S P S E P E 41:58 Let me give this a shot. So what's important to the DAO is profitability as well as Maker holders, right? Everything we've been focusing on, you know, when revenues were great, everyone was throwing money at CPUs. Now all of a sudden, we have a poll that says we gotta run revenues, zero, right? Or, you know, profitability, zero, which means we're gonna have to cut budgets. So if you want to look at this, and kind of the least productivity hit way, you do it at the top, I suggested coupling Maker vesting, you can do it differently by just offering rewards if we meet a certain revenue level, or a certain profitability level to all players, Delegate CPUs, you know, etc. Right? And this idea that you're going to find greatness on CPUs, I think we take a huge productivity hit, because there's going to be a huge discussion involved with it. And I like the idea of the CU setting their own KPIs right, that they can set their own targets. That's a great thing. And I would like to see that more. But for sitting on the dial without doing a test, I agree with this idea, let's do a test with one or two CPUs that want to step up to kind of modulate this. But my proposal or my suggestion would be think about something to do to align incentives for performance for the entire DAO against, you know, what everyone wants, which is effectively profitability or at least profit, you know, revenue neutral. 43:28 Yeah, and I've been supportive of performance based compensation since the start, and I argued, publicly, privately, many individual conversations is having a portion of Maker compensation tied to DAO wide objectives or even Korean objectives. The time the feedback I got was, you know, basically, everyone's opposed to that. And, you know, I think that's ultimately the direction that the DAO needs to move in, there needs to be proper incentive alignment, and that needs to be linked to like value being delivered. And whether you measure that and you know, revenue or you know, higher security or a better user experience, it doesn't really matter, but ultimately, the value that's greater community must be aligned with people's compensation and performance. So we then put that into this plan. Because, you know, one, the mayor compensation has been an extremely divisive and contentious subject across the community. We felt that including that, however well intentioned and aligns and logical would make with this proposal, it would further delay any actions to be taken any return to break even profitability. Prose11 44:47 Thanks for t