OnlyMP3.to - Governance and Risk Ep. 193- _tOhFiReRkI-192k-1... Sat, 6/4 8:58PM 1:29:11 SUMMARY KEYWORDS dai, maker, poll, proposals, talk, vote, vision, protocol, point, core, delegate, question, updates, collateral, idea, governance, discussion, list, coin, voters SPEAKERS Wouter, David Utrobin, Prose11, UltraSchuppi, Pablo Prose11 00:00 Here we go. All right. Hello, everyone, and welcome. This is 190/3 governance and risk call here at Maker DAO. My name is Payton rose, and I'm a facilitator at the GovAlpha Core Unit, one of the governance facilitators for the organization. I go by pros 11. Online, and we're here at our weekly governance and risk call. As you've noticed, this is being recorded. So hello, if you're watching from YouTube later. This is a meeting where we get together, talk about what's going on with Maker, have some open discussions and dialogue and just generally try to keep everyone updated and informed. So a few ground rules. Before we get started, let's try not to talk over one another. There are a couple of useful facilitation tools that will help me out with running meeting. One of them is the raise hand feature on Zoom, you can find that under reactions. So if you would like to add a comment or question after whoever speaking is done, go ahead and use that raise hand function, let me know I can call on you. Likewise, if you have something you'd like to add, but either canter or don't go to come on the mic, you can always drop your comment in chat. We'll also go through those. There is a agenda that we'll be showcasing here shortly. So I will try to keep this to that agenda. So if your comment, your question doesn't quite fit in my table till the open discussion section. And know that we will try to get to everyone's comments, questions and concerns. I think that mostly covers the ground. We'll go ahead and get started with our agenda. So as usual, start off with the governance round up talking about the votes that have taken place, go on to the Maker improvement proposals, as well as a look at what is happening on the forums. We do have a quick initiative update from me about prioritization sentiment polling. You might remember that been introduced a few weeks ago, and there's been an update, so wanted to get that out. And finally, we have a pretty broad discussion topic today. So hopefully should be good to get a lot of different voices and opinions in there. That's going to be on visions for Maker now. All right. So without further ado, we'll hop right into the votes. Well, it's actually quite a busy week. As far as the federal governance goes. We had eight polls that concluded they all passed and many with with unanimous support, which is always interesting to see. We had a vulc offboarding polls five of them for nearly a unit Dai eath uni W BTC. Uni v two unis and of course W BTC Dai. So all those, like I said were more successful. So I'll be given a slight update on the next slide there. We also had a Open Market Committee proposal, a proposal for modifying Oracle data models P as well as updating the expiration time for Oracle's on Monday, we added a conclusion of a greenlight poll for faith. That winning option was no so that will be marked as deferred and updated in collateral. Onboarding cheat was not some brief explanation polls will go over to executive proposals. Last week, we did not have a new executive however the previous executive it took a little bit longer to pass and execute. However that did happen. That took care of the ESM threshold, adjusting the lid parameter and some MKR transfers next week, due to partly due to all the polls as well as taking a week off we do have a bit beefier have an exec it'll contain some C budget items. The Maker Open Market Committee proposal I mentioned earlier, all those five volts for clatter. offboarding will have their first step that involves setting their debt ceilings to zero and then making an announcement before we take any further action. We'll have recognized our compensation and finally some changes for the stark net breach. So locked review there, we will keep it updated. As always, you can check out the new spells channel on our Discord to read the latest on on how that development is going. Right. I think that should cover it for votes. So I will pass the mic over to Blimpa for MIPS. Take it away. Pablo 04:19 Thank you, Baden. Hello everyone, Pablo here with MIPS update. So June's going on cycle begins on Monday sixth, we're currently in a gap week so there's been no manipulated regular events. What we did have has been mentioned is to short ratification polls that enter the weekly cycle last Monday. We had to meet potential proposals that is articles related so proposals why modifies the data models for BTC USD link USD Manor, USD USD T USD and Wi Fi USD. The other updates the expiration time for the locals reducing it which entails a reduction of costs seats. Both proposals passed with no negative votes. Now we'll take a quick look at the proposals currently in their frozen periods. That is proposals that have to remain unmodified if they are to enter June's governance cycle. We have achieved top level MIPS MIPS 74 permissionless open market operations which defines the process used to execute permissionless open market operations with funds controlled by Maker DAO and the Maker 75 task forces which introduces groups responsible for coordinating high level business operate decisions sorry, on behalf of the DAO. We also have a proposal to onboard the reverse task force the growth task force we have to coordinate budgets one for a Strategic Finance for 1.4 million Dai one for a growth Core Unit with two alternative artists one for 5 million Dai and one for 4.2 million Dai to these two bots incorporate new notions introduced by the recently amended mk 40. We have the onboarding proposal of the lending oversight Core Unit, also known as love led by local pro. Next slide, please thank you. And as for facilitator on and off boardings segment is aiming to become a facilitator for the unify Core Unit. He is currently the Deputy facilitator for the Core Unit. And Tomash is stepping is stepping down from the role in data insights in hopes to be succeeded by the DL for whom we have onboarding proposal. We have one amendment need for Situ SB 20 amends MIPS exceed the weekly cycle map to reflect the executive vote cadence change. And there's a special purpose month for 10 million that the idea is to experiment with various yield generation strategies. The poll is going to be managed by Strategic Finance under the supervision of the risk oriented and the prospective love Korean it's these frozen proposals will need to be formally submitted within the formal submission window which opens next Monday and closes Wednesday end of day to do that just post a message on there to proposals threat saying I am formerly somebody in this if you're the author, of course. So let's do a quick recap of the proposals in RFC. We have one top level MIP 72, which authorizes six is capital as a real world acid arranger for Maker DAO. Today's proposal will not be entering tunes governance cycle. And please go leave feedback on this wall. So if you still haven't done so, there hasn't been much of it. Where are we facilitate our own recordings? So Patrick J from a GovAlpha, formerly known as Maker breaker submitted his P report is civil. For the ones before he aims to become a GovAlpha facilitator alongside Payton and LongForWisdom. We have two amendments. Although eligible in principle, the Core Unit affording process amendment will remain in RFC for now, there are still some rough edges that need polishing. And we have a 42 SB one which are meant to meet zero to introduce the notion of retrospection dates for MIPS. So, finally, let me remind you again that the former submission window for June opens on Monday, the sixth new proposals to enter July's governance cycle should be posted on the forum by June the eighth, next, next Wednesday. And that's it from me. Thank you very much. Prose11 09:06 It's always nice to have that rundown. Awesome. That'll bring us to our form updates. I knew we had a last minute to drop out there. But as part of a decentralized org, it's just funny people step in and then take the mic. I think I'll pass it off to David here. David Utrobin 09:22 Yeah. Hey, everybody. Today I'm going to be running through for medical ads. So Happy Thursday, everybody, and welcome to the for recap, we're going to be covering the week of May 26 Through June 1. And I'm gonna start us off with the week's announcements. So first of all, I'd like to welcome yet one more recognized delegate platform managed by two long term MKR holders Moke and I'm sorry for butchering the names. Mon Castle, mon Kosala. And Team Lau Jesus. And so yeah, welcome. So GovAlpha has already scheduled a meet your delegate call with them. for June 8 at 5:30pm UTC, which will feature both theirs and Chicago Dallas delegate platform, so anybody who's interested in getting to know more about them as delegates and their platforms, feel free to attend the call. Next up, we have Gollum from GovAlpha announcing some important information regarding the recent passing of the MIP 40. amendment for Core Unit budget framework. And basically, there's a number of different things that this amendment changes for Core Unit for core units. budget submission windows are now included in the MIP 40. budget requests can only be submitted quarterly in March, June, September and November. Budgets now have a maximum duration of 12 months and cannot start later than three months after being formally submitted. budget requests are now required to provide more specific details regarding compensation and budget increases, and more so check out the post for details. Moving into our discussions, Ruian posted a comprehensive overview of the end game plan which contains the first two sections, which stem from a completed document that is yet to be released, he is still working on it planning to be released in the near future. Additionally, anybody who wants to check out an even more compact summary of the end game plan. Recognize delegate RSPA posted such a document in the comments of that thread. So check it out. Next up on discussions we have AD CV and a team of wonderful authors who have helped connect and build over many of the recent posts and threads discussing growth tokenomics and burn this post creates a growth strategy series where views and ideas are shared to the broader community to help gather more feedback. They discuss things such as foundations for a growth oriented strategy, and then detail a potential roadmap consisting of five strong initiatives that I won't go over here, but can be found in the post or inform at a glance. Also, a big shout out to strategic finances a call that's coming up this this coming Tuesday, I believe. Yeah, sorry for not having the call details on hand. But there's going to be a strategic overview call, similar to the past ones that they posted this coming week. So look out for that. And finally, in the interest of encouraging Maker P contributors seeking to raise money to address issues raised by critics, Alice in MKR, land submits an informal poll asking one that any vote authorizing the sale of MKR require a two out of three majority to pass that any vote Rule number two, that any vote authorizing the sale of Debt Debt, like tokens or any form of giving yield requires a two thirds majority to pass. And three MKR investing, flap auctions, DSR deco and any other programs already authorized or excluded from the requirement. And finally for that, if past these effects expire after six months, so yeah, lots lots of stuff going on in this thread. It's an informal poll, not a signal. So definitely go check it out and, and participate if you're interested. Alright, so now we're going to move into our active similar requests. There are four active signals right now. So first up, Remo from the risk team submits a signal request replacing the previous signal by Andrew bourbon to restart the burn. The signal is a trial of the new MIP 74 permissionless open market operations, which will now be tested for its effectiveness through the signal request. Risk believes it is now a critical time for the Maker Dow community to reach a consensus about what to do with the surplus buffer and their solution to help maintain a sustainable surplus buffer making sure it's higher than the current level to support risk mitigation and growth while also burning a relatively small amount of the surplus buffer. So this proposal is something of the in between the tries to satisfy everybody. So the signal ends on June 9 and currently sits at a winning vote of 43% being Yes. So the next signal is coming from Ace from Strategic Finance Core Unit. It is about velodrome which is an amm on solidity as a public good that provides deep liquidity and low slippage to token pairs. And Maker DAO is eligible to receive an airdrop equivalent to 1% of the initial voting power for the new velodrome protocol that's launching on optimism on May 31. So yes, a couple days ago. So the airdrop will allow Maker to direct emissions to liquidity pools of our choosing, thereby increasing liquidity of the pairs and receiving trading fees and bribes through those pools. So the Velodrome team requested to initially manage makers the NFC AirDrop until until their data is ready to manage it they propose both Dai USDC and Dai op pairs for the launch to ensure that emissions are high enough to attract liquidity. And so yeah in response aces asking the community the following questions should make your DAO incentivize the parents recommended by the team should make redock transfer the the NFT, which is our AirDrop to a governance on multi SIG using the 47. And what should Maker dads do with the trading fees so the signal ends June 9 currently sits at a winning vote of about 66% agreeing to incentivize the pair's recommended by velodrome. So yeah, check that out for more details. Next up, wink stick inadvertently sent three points to MKR to the MKR governance address and submitted a signal request to try to save. Currently it looks like it's no because there's not much that governments can do. So yeah, that's pretty much where that sits. And finally, for our our newest signal request, recognized delegate just in case introduces and defines the dusk parameter, or rather reintroduces and reminds us what are those parameters. And additionally, he reminds us the last time that those parameters were changed. We're back in December of 2021. And since then, gas prices have fallen substantially. And so in preparation of market sentiment returning to normal, just in case suggests and asks the community whether dust limits should be prioritized, again for optimization. So the signal ends June 15. The current winning vote is abstained with 52% followed by no sitting at 38%. And so if you want more details on any of that, check out the written version of the format of lights. Yeah, I'll post the link right off Trump don't talk. Prose11 16:47 Right on Thanks, David. I appreciate you stepping in Artem joined from its phone while you're talking senpai here. So catch the call Artem sorry about the tech issues. Right on. So that should sorry about that, guys. I have my gas and electricity shut out perfectly at 12pm here on one, one, IBM, IBM. Choice, global workforce, I suppose. All right. Well, that'll take us into the P initiative updates, which I think is just me. Can I talk briefly about the prioritization, voting, prioritization sentiment polling, because when there's so many names, I can never forget what I titled things. But yeah. Don't mind clicking on the next slide. They're excellent prioritization framework sentiment Hall. The Patrick posts the link on there, thank you. It's already got some great discussion. So maybe some of that will carry over to today, but didn't want to spend too long on this. Last there are dental questions, just because we did introduce it briefly. A few calls ago. But now that we're getting ready to go live, thank SIG Yaga for the suggestion to to cover today. As introduced a few weeks ago, and if you don't mind, go to next slide, David. The kind of problem space is, essentially that the governance can pass a lot of things right. Over 100 items have been passed and not really actioned on if you count all the individual green light bowls and sentiment things and kind of very soft balling that we do. This is one way for MKR holders to tell Koreans what they think should be working on right. But the problem with it is essentially you can't define the prioritization basically just adds another one to the list and the CPUs try to figure out alright, well, what are we capable of doing? What do we feel like would be a good use of our time, and then they come back and communicate that to the community? See, us obviously have a lot of methods for communicating their own priorities, right? They can do it in informal updates, and say, Hey, here's what we're working on this week, this month, this quarter. They can do it when they submit budget updates, they can say, Alright, here's what we're going to use the funds for. And they can do it in in cross Core Unit and other initiative update calls. MKR holders do not have that option. Currently, all they can do is pass or reject items as they get an approval. So that's why this was the focus of GovAlpha. And why we wanted to roll out this first trial. If we can go ahead and go to the next page. Excellent. So the implementation is going to be in the form of month long polls on the voting portal. They will be taking the rank choice for essentially asking all MKR holders to rank their preference in terms of what items they would like to see prioritized. And then of course their their voting weight will be applied just like it normally would in a poll there. The only issue with that the only issue. One slight issue with with doing it this way is rank choice polls are kind of hard to visualize, right? Like, you can imagine a long output list from a bunch of different delegates. You can look at them individually and see very clearly what what individuals wanted to prioritize. But when it all comes together, at least traditionally, you're just left with a single result. And that is the one everyone see a 50% plus consensus has been reached. So as a way of kind of counteracting that, we're a going to be both kind of displaying and breaking down the winner on a 50% basis, as well as running to the natural conclusion of of the instant runoff vote format. For those that are unfamiliar, the way that works is each round, a vote takes place, everyone's top preference is included on their vote. And then the last item is dropped off on each round. Again, traditionally, this is until you get to a point where at least 50% is in support of the top candidate. But in addition to doing that, we are going to run into the end with running the instant runoff choices dropping the last one. And that'll kind of give us a reverse order of of how delegates and other voters rank their priorities. I know that's a bit complicated, like what other aspects of like when I like? I guess the The other important point is that we are going to be using multiple polls. So that way, we can pull on specific items. I'll have you go to the next slide here, dude. The first which is going to be the technical resource develop deployment. So this is essentially the idea that, hey, in terms of ideas and things we want to implement, some are soft, are on the social layer. Some are perhaps on the procedural layer. But we'll start with the technical layer in terms of Alright, there are only so many people that can work on items that are going to be implemented into the code base. So what should they be spending their time on? So we came up with this list of of 12 items basically from things that have either been proposed to the community formally through a vote or through the ideation phase. And have basically captured sentiment or attend to pop up in one way or the other, as well as some input from relevant core units. To quickly go through the list, the fiber distributor, or upgrade a flapper that's the idea of of splitting funds, right. And its revenues coming into protocol, apparently, either they go straight to the surplus buffer. Or if the surplus buffers full, they'll go into the burner, flopper distributor could say distribute 25% to the burner, well 75 goes to the surplus. Obviously, that's just a random example, you can set up to a number of things, I'm sure we have the Sagittarius engine, that's kind of the tokenomics framework that we're in proposed. And then a broader category of clever onboarding, depending on that, because it will come back later. We have the compound Aetherium, which is probably to the d3 implementation where the closest thing just in terms of core units in terms of what has been voted in and worked on so far. Then there's MIP for 3d, which is the Term Lending module. That is another fixed rate option. You know, keep in mind, we have like the deco Core Unit who's working on fixed rate solution as well, but mid 43 was actually passed first but never implemented. Then there's Maker teleport, that's the idea of a hopping dive between now I want to know too and eventually between other l twos, that is a prerequisite for other LTE deployments. So of MCD. Next we have DSS comm. That is the mechanism for kind of using I guess you would say a stagnated buying right and you can basically set for token swaps that can be used for buying the protocol eath that could be used as a different way to set up buybacks of MKR essentially just a module that would allow the protocol to to swap one asset for another over a predefined period of time. There's DSS nog which I was happy to see came up in the discord today. That would be a method for kind of pushing the some of the Oracle maintenance outside of just the executive spells. Next we have DSS gate as a mechanism for basically establishing like a sandbox, an area where people could develop with a limited amount of Dai exposure for specific costs. So currently, we've we've seen that with deco in terms of their have experience in iterations on the fixed rate side that can be applied to a number of things. Next, we have the Vox target price adjustment module. This is ideal for kind of negative rates that hasn't come up for quite a while, but is one of the older technical MIPS that was passed in. Finally, we have emergency shutdown. emergency shutdown module simulations, all right, tripping over my words, this is idea that right, we have this mechanism called emergency shutdown, people can submit to it however, what would happen and emergency shutdown, we have a pretty good idea of what we have yet to simulate. So that would basically be a technical load for trying to figure out how that process would work. And then finally, we have a technical solution for returning last Dai. And kind of similar to the signal David brought up a little earlier today, this idea that people tend to send tokens to contract addresses, coming up with a technical implementation for for fixing that can can be quite helpful. So there's a long list of items. I do apologize for that. But hopefully, that gives you an idea of at least what they are, and why they were included. With the actual function of how the poll works. So in this individual poll, we would have voters rank their options, they would only like the ones that they support and would like to see prioritized. And then at the end of the month, we would drop off the underperforming bowls, essentially the last two, as well as any work that could reasonably be considered totally complete. And then replace them with new ones. So earlier, I said, Remember, put a little pen and the collateral onboarding. And that's because this is our first attempt to test this like nested poll options. So essentially, in the first poll, you can rank where you would want the collateral onboarding prioritized. And then on the second bowl, good Express sentiment on what types of collateral classes you would like to see prioritize. Idea being here, I'll give collateral ends up being towards the top of the list, you'd want to know which collateral you would want to be working on. So we have broader market based demand solutions of at 3am is a good example that real world assets fall so you can think of like new silver, or some of the traditional vaults like success we haven't placed now, the success might be slightly more of an arranger, so I'll stick with the new silver option. Reward acid arrangers, we've seen the read arranger model, the idea of basically lending to a group then does further lending. That core crypto collateral that's BTC. And implementations and derivatives, alternative Ethereum base crypto collateral, so anything that's not ether, but that's a an ERC 20 Crypto collateral from other chains. This could be L TOS this could be other side chains. You name it, traditional instruments on some treasuries. And finally, eggs really solutions. Alright, so to kind of wrap it up. So that's a long description of what everything is. The idea is this will give MKR holders a way to input their preferences, and then core units will have some data to be able to say, alright, well, voters tend to wipe this solution, or they tend to think we should be focusing more on this. And then they can either say Alright, well, we agree, and we're going to start working on that or we disagree, and we're not gonna work on that. And here's why. So it's important to note that these are non binding. It's simply a way to gather that data and have the MKR holders communicate some of their sentiments towards people actually building on 28:42 on the protocol. Prose11 28:46 I feel like I talked a lot and I missed a lot of chat messages. Are there any questions that haven't been addressed? I'm scrolling through now better. Feel free to hop on the mic if someone wants to cut one out. David Utrobin 29:17 So something that kianga brings up in the chat is like a feeling of being overwhelmed by all of the choices. So the fact that it's challenging enough to keep up with actual votes and communicating the reasoning. But then on top of that, also trying to rank priority on like technical projects or collateral stuff like yeah, total feeling of overwhelmed with this. Prose11 29:43 I see trash on mute, if you want to add to that trash Feel free. Yeah. 29:48 I mean, I think it'd be helpful to have maybe your voiceover you just went through the slides and kind of described the background for each item and probably we need that transcribed and expanded to inform the voters so they can make intelligent choices in the polls. Prose11 30:13 Yeah, totally agree. And the short descriptions will be what's there for like the actual vote. But the text of the polls were putting up, we'll have a broader descriptions, as well as links to things to describe this. I do think it's kind of important to address the feelings of overwhelmingness. And perhaps we have like maybe too many options, or we could limit it to shorter polls in the future. This is kind of going to be our first go to see how this is working. And if this is like a P P P viable model to continue developing, or continuing to deploy some resources towards on the flip side, I would say, you know, for four core units, like the overwhelmingness, right, is shared, right, because these are all things that have been talked about advocated for or even passed by the community. So that is certainly part of the goal of this is to try to get a little more focused input on on what's really important out of all the things that have been discussed. So I saw a couple hands raised. I saw Tim's first. So I'll pass it back to you. UltraSchuppi 31:22 Yeah, hi. So I actually think the list is actually not overwhelming. I mean, it's, I totally get why count guys coming from that point. And honestly, I think two years back, I would have been in the same situation. I think what's what's more important is that effective core units that have a particular interest in some topic being pushed forward, or maybe even put down from the list or put lower to list actually advocate for the decision and basically point out why they think this needs some special treatment, some special attention. So the context is more most visible for the ones who are actually voting on that stuff. So let's make an example if if not yet, would advocate for something that's that's really important from her growth perspective. And delegate is saying, I'm pushing more on topics that are helpful for growth, then I don't know they are for security, for example, it's a bad example. But you get my point, then this is going to influence the decision making process there. So I think what's what's vital with this, with this, this is not not necessarily that those items are the perfect items. But we have some some space where, you know, people are affected by it by this voting actually can make their point. And yeah, advocate for that. So I don't know, maybe there could be some kind of consolidated format, where basically, I don't know. Yeah, somebody will have a good idea how this could be visualized. Yeah, but I think the list is pretty decent. Actually, I think I would, I would be able to work with that. Prose11 32:56 Appreciate that feedback. And, yeah, just to briefly respond, I do think like, core units have the ability to communicate, right? Like we organize these calls, we can kind of hop on and in basically say, well, in carollers, are right now supporting this option. But we think that's a bad idea, because we feel this is more important. So the hope is that the voting, and these topic categories will kind of spur further discussion on it. And then we'll be able to work from there. I saw ladders hand up. So you want to take away. So Wouter 33:31 I think this is really a great experiment. This is, in our discussions that we've had one of the things that came up the most, which is, of course, the core units, looking for clear direction, what the priorities should be. So I think this this is a very useful and needed experiment. The there's one thing I'm wondering, which is the question of resource allocation is actually quite a technical question, as a planning technical question, right? So for example, the kind of questions that came up in chat, which is, priority of a certain item depends on what's on the critical path, when it's needed, how much work it is, etc. And one way and I think there's definitely good ideas in the to make sure that the people who need to execute the work can provide the necessary context. But still, I think that maybe one thing we should really consider U P W is to, instead of prioritizing technical solutions is to prioritize challenges and problems and opportunities that we should focus on. And then what a technical solution is most efficient one. What, what the critical path is, whether it's useful or not, too Today allocate resources for it. That is more of a, like thinking technical planning technical question. Right? So for example, to take the example that was given in chat, so if let's say, let's say Deko is the absolute priority for Maker DAO people want that, then still it could be that DSS gate is, it's not just doesn't make sense to work on it next week, because maybe they only need it in six months, and maybe the work that needs to be done a will, I don't know, maybe there's some audit work that will push other important work aside, while it's absolutely pointless to do it now. So instead of leaving that planning technical puzzle to the voters, I think, yeah, one thing to consider might be to rather select a collection of high level challenges, opportunities, problems that we need to focus on, and do the polling on that level. And then leave it to the, to our organizational framework to, to come up with the right resource allocation mix to prioritize a certain challenge or opportunity to work on. Prose11 36:25 I think that's a great suggestion, water, and definitely one we consider. And I think would probably be appropriate. I guess, if I could provide a little context on why we went with this implementation was essentially to try to get some feedback as quickly as possible, with actionable solutions. One worried about doing the broader categories for direction and that sort of thing. Was that, you know, let's say, Dai generation, right, is the winning option. Well, there's, you know, 10 different ways we could generate it. So having that poll may not necessarily help see us allocate the resources. With that said, I think it would probably spurred the discussion that kind of get to that answer. Stop that, that probably is like a great, a great starting point for the bulls for for our second run, once we work on some of the kinks for this one. Another kind of intentional design decision was to make the technical role as specific as possible, and then have the collateral class or the collateral poll, which we chose to be collateral class to be much more general. And that was to try to get feedback and say are both to us and voters to like the more specific list you like the broader list. And that'll also help us set up for for future iterations of this. And then I think the only other thing I wanted to add was like, since these polls are ongoing, the nice thing is like, you know, we can kind of respond to them in real time, people can shift their sentiments, as work gets completed or, or more information becomes available, then voters can can kind of respond to that. So the idea is that this is hopefully like a living feedback mechanism, rather than just a static one. 38:21 Go for Tim. Yeah, but I mean, UltraSchuppi 38:25 this, this holds true even for the person that Matan is putting out. So not on voting on particular items on a to do list, but instead of directions that we are that we want to go. I'd actually also would favor the the modus operandi that the Volta is bringing up. But I mean, we can evolve to that at some point of time. P U Wouter 38:52 I wanted to add one more clarification there. So the point about prioritizing challenges and problems, that this does not give an instruction about which solutions should be built. I think to a certain degree, that that's that's a very valid point. But even on that level, there is a big difference between highlighting like a high level, high level opportunity or a solution and not specifying a specific implementation at least, right. And this is often complicated because it's, it's really a gradient. Yeah, some some items on the list are already more high level than others. And, you know, also the interpretation of the vote. So that that's definitely like the level of detail I think is a valid discussion. I would now I hope that we can push it as high level as possible. But then the other thing is the interpretation of the outcome of the Vote. I don't think the best outcome would be that the expectation is that now everyone drops what they're doing. And they're, they're working on that just like literally start working on number one on the list. Because of the problem of the critical path that I mentioned, it's just not not smart to work on some items, if you don't need them. Soon enough, like, for example, you might be very ineffective, because information isn't available yet. Or it might just be something that, yeah, you can build it now. But you will only be able to use it in six months. for some other reason. And so I think that the maybe we should put some thought in the the intended interpretation of the vote. And and how cool units are exactly how literally core units are supposed to work with the outcome? 41:03 Definitely, Wouter 41:11 I would like to interpret like, if we have an outcome like that, that gives a list list of priorities, to to make sure that the critical path is executed as fast as possible, right, that that, for example, is already a more nuanced interpretation, that I think leaves leaves a lot more room for optimizing the plant. Prose11 41:39 Definitely. Like, again, the goal is like to spur conversation and to let this be a datasource for Koreans to do not to say, alright, well, voters express their sentiment, why aren't you following the list, though? Right? Because there might be mismatching information, right? Something that's really important to voters, like maybe that SES ever realized that they haven't explained, you know, why they haven't been giving updates or putting priority on that. I'd say a release index, if you take like, yeah, I just wanted to sort of say that a nice side effect of butters approach. And, you know, granted, I think we can do whatever for this iteration. But nice side effect of virus approach is that we document think across CPUs and MKR holders and all the stakeholders basically, what we think the problems and opportunities are, in general, even if we don't rank order them. There is an enormous benefit in in just understanding that list. I know some of you in private conversations have probably noticed me talking about like generalized problems that Maker has, and, and I've been pushing the problems I see into your heads so that when you're reading research papers are seeing things in DeFi, that might W W P actually like be the perfect solution for one of those, like, it pops up and then you can kind of surface it. And I think that can happen wide if we just sort of push these these, like major problems that we have. Out. So it's a it's a sort of nice side effect that we all get to think abstractly about, about that sort of problems slash solution space. And yeah, and then ranking would, you know, obviously be like a bonus on top of that. Awesome. Tim, so you're here next? UltraSchuppi 43:42 Yeah, just a few points about this interpretation of this thing. So the correct amount of anarchy in every system is above zero. And, yeah, obviously, if if something's losing the the pole position goes to those place number three, that doesn't mean that anybody should stop working. It just, if you're top on the list, let's say we have DSS gate on the top of the list, and it's not on the critical path. And at some point, Baker would would basically have some material for for discussion and saying, hey, now it's going to the critical path. And since it's the TopCoder thing, pointer into some kind of fast forward mode with this topic. So it's, we shouldn't be dogmatic about the interpretation of this thing. It's more about the temperature check in some kind of justification that somebody can put in, in discussion between a different CPU that is focusing on a different problem, for example, a different challenge. So I think that's, I think that's the biggest the biggest thing for for now, that would be good enough, I think, but we shouldn't be dogmatic and nobody should stop working on the topic number two, just because Topic number one is there. There's still some kind of common sense to be applied. Prose11 44:51 I'd say. Awesome, and all this feedback is super valuable like this. that I think we're gonna learn a lot from just trying to give this a go and seeing what results from it. So kind of appreciate the community's willingness to experiment. I know we do have a big discussion topic, kind of following this. So I didn't want to take too much more time. Here, however, there are urgent questions or concerns, I'll give one more chance for them to be bad. Hey, 45:26 if I couldn't tear, I liked this. But when people think about collateral class sentiments, and there will be voting, if you don't really present, like, what's the total addressable market? What's the risk? What's the