Governance_and_Risk_Ep_196_(getmp3.pro) Fri, 6/24 9:41AM 1:06:28 SUMMARY KEYWORDS votes, core, dao, maker, delegates, budget, option, unit, proposal, polls, people, forum, post, request, units, updates, dai, bear market, sentiment, signal SPEAKERS Artem Gordon, Robert, Prose11, Nadia Alvarez, Luca Prose11 00:02 All right. Hello everyone and welcome. My name is Peyton that go by pros 11 online and my pleasure here to host the 196 governance and risk call here and Maker DAO. Today is Thursday, June 23 2022. And I'm joined by a bunch of awesome people who care about Maker work in the ecosystem or otherwise interested in what we do. This is our weekly call, where we discuss what's going on in the protocol, as well as any risks or kind of problems and challenges we'd like to the face. There are a few ground rules before we get into things, you might have noticed this meeting is being recorded. So let's try not to speak over one another. There are a couple helpful tools for moderating that that will make my life easier. The first is the raised hand function for zoom, we can find that under reactions. Use that if you kind of like to join the speaker's list, so to speak, if someone is talking and you'd like to say something after they finish, raise your hand, that'll make it easy for me or Thomas to call on you, and let you get your point in if you're unable or otherwise unwilling to hop on the mic, you can always drop your question or comment in chat. And we'll try to circle through it at an appropriate time. But yeah, this is an open meeting. So obviously, be respectful of each other. But we do really want you to ask questions, to give comments to engage, if you feel so called to do so. Cool. So that should cover the ground rules. Let's go ahead and get into the agenda for today. As usual, we'll start with our governance Roundup. So that'll include things like latest votes, what's going on with our Maker improvement proposals and a overview of the forum, which has been quite lively this week. So we'll be interested in CRM tackles that. As far as initiative updates, today, we'll have a cash flow forecast from the Strategic Finance Core Unit. And then we'll be doing a little bit of a deeper dive on the prioritization sentiment poll. Results is one word but ongoing a poll situation, I guess, we talked a little bit about this last week. But this week, we also have a demo from data insights that should be helpful. And we can kind of accommodate some of the discussion that was going on last week that we had to cut a little short. As usual, if we have time, we'll end with a general open discussion. Awesome. That'll take us to our first point, which is the votes. Still a somewhat busy cycle, but on the short term, we do not have any weekly polls. So hopefully, our delegates and other voters enjoyed a break there. We will cover the ratification polls in the next segment. And like I said, the priority polls later. The only news polls wise is we did have two concluded green lights. Both of those were deferred. So we will not be investigating those further. Though the teams can get in touch with our collateral engineering services or post on the forum. Should they have updates to give about their project P and collateral will actually take us next slide and executive proposals. Thanks, Thomas. Yesterday's executive still live about an hour before the call, there's about 22 and a half 1000 MKR supporting it. So we're still a decent away from that passing. That does contain Core Unit MKR transfers. So please do go and vote there if you support us executing on that. And a preview for what's to come next Wednesday, be still a fairly wide executive. But three, three points there we've got to risk Core Unit MKR transfer will be activating liquidations and turning on the loop module that increases the threshold for the five collateral types. We'd previously pulled off board. And then there's some smart contract housekeeping, namely updating the start net main contract to the change, walk. Cool, that should do it for votes. So that'll bring us to our MIPS segment. And I believe we have Gallin presenting that today. 04:18 Yes, hello. So this is gala from GovAlpha Given the MIPS general updates this week. The ratification pulse are now in their second and last week. So we can take a look at the results from around 30 minutes before the call. We have to top level MIPS, MIPS 74, which introduces permissionless open market operations. The learning option is currently no with 81% of the bolts. Our team is going to be reviewing the signal request seeking to revoke the trial run of using MIB 74 to buy back and burn. But it's important to highlight that the DSM SQL module is a general module, whose usages for sapping tokens over time and does not necessarily entail MKR. Burning. MIPS 75 introduces task forces, which aim to coordinate high level business decisions on behalf of Maker DAO. There's also the first task force onboarding proposal for the growth Task Force. At the moment that no option is leaving for MIP 75. And the leading option for the onboarding of the growth Task Force is reject. For Core Unit budgets, we have two of them. One for the growth Core Unit, and one for the Strategic Finance Core Unit. The leading option for growth is approved increased budget bear market with 61% of the votes. This budget option includes the funding of the brand team. And for Strategic Finance, the leading option is approved existing budget only with 53% of the boats. We also have to facilitator onboarding for existing core units. Amid a large number of abstain votes. The proposal to onboard cycle note as the Unified Security facilitator is currently passing with about 27% of positive votes. The proposal to onboard Taradale as a facilitator for data insights is passing with ES leaving around 82%. Then the proposal set for onboarding the lending oversight per unit led by Luca Pro is currently passing with yes as the living option. And last but not least, we have the Maker shires special. Next slide, please. Yeah. So we have the Maker Shire Special Purpose fund with no azulene option. The amendment for MIP 16 is which is passing with 100% support. And the budget amendment for the keeper keeper network is passing with almost 83% of the votes. Now as for the proposals in RFC, we've had a couple of additions since last week. So we'll let's take a look at those first. The special purpose funds move 55 to three sp five. So it's recognized delegate kianga Darrington is proposing the creation of a special purpose fund to pay legal fees and expenses to retain her younger during term s through the very term PLLs PLLC as full time interim chief legal officer of Maker DAO for a period of six months. Two proposals were posted yesterday, aiming to offer the events or units. As you know, the current ratified procedure establishes that a Core Unit can be off bordick of boarded if and only if it has no active budget or no facilitator. So those were the new proposals. Now the old acquaintances we have the top level MIP MIP 72, which authorizes six s capital as a real world asset arranger for Maker DAO. The author of this MIP is actively asking the community to please get involved and provide feedback. So please do so if you have the time. For the facilitator onboarding, we have Patrick J now has submitted a proposal to become a GovAlpha facilitator. Payton Rose is currently GovAlpha Only facilitator 09:01 and then we have finally the two amendments. One that I mentioned Core Unit offboarding process. For this, the video and notes for the Know Your MIP call are now up on the forum. So you can go and take a look. And we also have MC four c two s sub proposal 21, which amends MIPS zero to introduce the notion of retrospection dates for MIPS. Nadia Alvarez 09:30 Before I leave, 09:32 there's a MIP draft has been posted under proposal ideas. So let me right here on the chat, share the link for that. Since it's a special category, we didn't want the community that this post to go unnoticed. So there you have it. Go take a look, please. And this is all for this week. Thank you very much. Prose11 10:03 Awesome, appreciate it. That will take us to our form updates and I see Artem sitting there ready to go. Take it away. Nope, your mic is not picking up sorry. 10:19 Nope. No sound Prose11 10:27 might be a zoom issue. Artem Gordon 10:29 How about now? Oh, perfect there. Oh, okay. I guess it just had to turn it off and on. All right, well, anyways, SCADA works. So welcome everybody to the GNR forum recap quickly going over the past week's top news, announcements, discussions and signal requests. And we'll be going over the week of June 16, to the 22nd. And usually, when there's a lot of stuff on the forums, just for the sake of keeping the gene our call a little short, I just go over the top three announcements and discussions and then the signal requests, but there's definitely a lot more in the forum at a glance. But we'll start up over our first post, where rune posted a weekly reminder and the agenda for both decentralized voter committee calls that are held this week at 1900 USD on Wednesday, and Thursday. So that's yesterday and later today. And yesterday's call focused on short term issues and governance organization, and today's call will N P P A focus on the long term design of the end game plan. Both recordings will be available on YouTube and on the thread and yesterday's call is already actually available. So go check it out if you weren't able to make it. Next up, we have layer zero from SES who provided an update on the self insurance fund initiative for covering legal and liability risks that Maker DAO stakeholders may be exposed to. And currently SES legal research is conducting a feasibility study for structuring the fund that's aided by risk management firms are tax and Gallagher. And as part of a series of exploratory surveys with different Maker DAO stakeholder groups, different surveys will be sent out to recognize delegates and Core Unit facilitators in the in the near future. So yeah, and next up we have we're welcoming a new delegates at a table Deimos, who published their delegate platform with the primary goal of pushing forward the end game plan and also ensuring a good transitional phase for it. The most believes that MKR holders opinions are not being heard and he plans to change help change that for the better. The most also provide some background and other information about themselves for anybody interested to check it out. And now we're moving on to our discussions. And first up we have rune who has recently posted a thread where delegates can sign up to help support the end game party and delegates are expected delegates who sign up are expected to attend as many end game calls as possible as well as vote according to its direction contribute with information, ideas and proposals that are relevant. And now a handful of recognized delegates have signed up and committed to the end game plan. Other recognized delegates have decided to support the end game vision but also remain independent to maintain their platform values. Furthermore, we have Sebastian who posted his own delegate signup platform for a plan that is more business oriented towards improving balance sheet allocation. Next up, we have a post that's independent of the end game plan. It's actually a group of contributors who are hosting a call on June 30 at 1700 UTC to gather an informal group of colleagues and Maker enthusiasts who share their views around governance and want to help proposal tentative to reform and straightened Maker DAO and Dai. And this call aims to kickstart a process to give them shape and turn it into like actionable items for governance to help enact. This thread also offers a number of selected articles which will be referenced for discussion, and you could join the call through the public calendar or by finding the call link within the post itself. And next up we have Sebastian Strategic Finance, who made a post modeling Dai maturity to complement the ALM framework by analyzing and discussing the durations for locking assets and their effects on Dai liquidity and Dai peg stabilization. He compares historical examples to current conditions while also factoring in future growth of our balance sheet to deduce the most optimal allocation strategy. Definitely worth to check out the summary because what I just mentioned only scratches the surface of what's presented. And yeah, check it out. And we're moving on to our signal requests. Now. First up, we have signal by TJ and this signal gouge gauges the community sentiment for adjusting the existing real world acid fault structure, and updating the reporting system to help defend against the effects of any adverse market conditions. And TJ recommends two adjustments one repricing, which proposes updating vault stability fees to align them with more current macroeconomic conditions and two risk monitoring, which involves monthly surveillance reports, liquidity reports and immediate notifications for any changes to credit worthiness. And in conclusion, TJ asks whether the community agrees with the suggested changes, the signal requests and today at 8:30pm UTC. And next up we have Alan Peterson, who submits a signal request seeking input on allocating 500 million Dai between strategies and asset managers. And he's publishing the signal request as a requirement of MIP 65. Allen provides a list of five allocation options shown on the slide here at the bottom, and he asked the community to select all options that we would believe would work for Maker, and the signal request will run until Monday, June 27, at 9am UTC. And next up as gala mentioned earlier, recognized delegate elpro submitted a signal request to repeal the deployment of the permissionless open market operation trial. And this signal stems from several issues that are mentioned within the post itself. However, there are responses to the signal that show that people are concerned that a repeal may set an unhealthy precedent for future polls. But definitely before voting, check it out and read through the issues that are presented, the signal will run until Monday, June 27, at 9am UTC. And for our final signal, and I'm gonna get the name right, because this is what people told me Junebug, Junebug submits a signal to gauge sentiment about El ping, the Ave and ans tokens that are currently sitting in the treasury. And we're holding about 46,000 ens tokens and one and a half 1000 of a tokens. And he proposes that we do something with these tokens such as LP DME, with an equivalent amount of eath. A breakdown to this proposal is available in the signal requests. And in conclusion, Junebug asks for both ENs and Avi, regarding those, both those tokens, whether the community would like to LP them or keep things as is right now. And the signal request will run until June 30 2022. I don't know why I just gave the air. But yeah. And that's it for the forum. At a glance. There's some more discussions, three points, summary and ongoing initiatives available in the post, check it out. And if anyone thinks of any ways to improve it, let me know. Thanks. Prose11 18:01 Awesome, I appreciate it. I know it's been a busy week makes these updates harder to do. But as you said, there is more info in the post itself. So do check that out if you get the chance. All right, awesome. So this should bring us to our initiative updates. And we are going to try something a little new here. I'm going to do like a pre poll and a Post poll just to kind of see if people's understanding or knowledge was impacted by this presentation, just something we'd like to test out here. So while the Strategic Finance guys are getting ready for their cash flow presentation, he wouldn't mind answering the questions on your screen there or throw up a bus ball with the same questions after the presentation. If that is any use but I do see Adrian on the screen do we need to switch screen share yours hug slides there we go. 19:01 We have Slagharen just coordinate with Mark can get it going always remember slides in the deck 19:22 awesome first and foremost, this is Mark also known as in the forums, and I'll be walking everyone through the cash flow as of 622 22. For a kick things off, the support is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial investment, legal, regulatory or tax advice. Next slide please. So we wanted to provide everyone with a cash flow update because there's been a lot of confusion and mystery factorizations and makers financial position over the past few weeks. The key takeaway I'd like everyone to have from this as compared to the broader crypto markets and especially sci fi services Maker Dow its financial discipline has left it in a position of relative strength, with nearly 100 million of dine equity between the surplus buffer and offering reserves. That said the decrease in recurring net protocol income, which we call a foreign pi for short, necessitates an evaluation of our cash flow runway. So the table on the left hand side shows the last six months of our income statement in December on the far left, all the way through May. On the right. As a reminder are Korean expenses and our financial statements are measured as greenup wallet outflows This is equivalent to cash based P accounting, using this methodology for tracking expenses, or RMPs Bond from 9.2 million in December to 1 million in May. We also request the Korean self report their expenses and consolidate them manually to try and more accurately report the true monthly burn rate of Korean expenses. Using this methodology, RPI has declined from 9.2 million in December 2.6 million in that you can see that highlighted in green, and we've estimated the main expenses, we were still collecting outstanding expenses from core units. And lastly, if we look at the approved Korean budgets and modeled out our MPI, assuming they spent the max budget, we would have gone from 8.5 million of RPI in December to break even and if I can take your attention to the right side of the table, we've broken out the income 73 different scenarios based on the current run rate as of yesterday. A bear market scenario is with eath at about $500 per token and a giga bearish scenario would eat that tuner $90 token. This is the same drop down the experience in five bear market down on the 4%. On the far right side, we've annualized out these scenarios and either runway in years under each stem scenario. Importantly, this forecast is not included in the incremental revenue streams. This is just what's on Maker grand. Next slide please. So as many here are aware, Saba has been working on making invest in the PSM assets into short term treasuries and corporate bonds a reality since these days in the real plans Core Unit using the Canon foundation structure. Today we're working with alpha matalas. to finally bring this to fruition. The first appliance and the short term Treasuries are expected to be made by late q3 which will extend our runway to a minimum of 3.3 years even in the Giga bear and the CU Max spend budget scenario, which you can see in the bottom right corner. This excludes any income from liquidation which in our view would be significant under these market conditions. The second wave of deployments will further increase the protocol in Dallas financial position, solidifying our operational stability by the end of q3. Just for clarity, we're targeting bottom million dollars of deployments into these assets. And obviously, you know, the second way we're going to further look to increase allocations with other counterparties institutional asset managers increase your diversification. As I mentioned in the last slide, this analysis excludes any income from other revenue streams such as DPM RDA is all TOS Maker Shire, etc. Last, next slide, please. So despite our position of financial strength, strap ICU is calling for action and recommending the following step to strengthen our position to not only survive in the bear market, but thrive. First, we'll be making a post request Transparency can facilitators regarding their financial position and returning the excess Dai to surplus buffer. Second, we will be posting the signal request to gauge community segment on what sentiment on what level of cash flow the Dow seeks to operate, measured on a multi month basis. operating at a positive cash flow would be in excess of 5%. Breakeven we're measuring as plus or minus 5% and an operating at a loss which means we're going to assume a minimum of three year runway for an operating loss. 24:25 Third, we're recommending a surgical surgical approach to current spend budgets over broad based cut. The reason we recommend this is because if you look at the Dow's revenue over the past year, we're this business is extremely cyclical and tied to the cyclicality of the crypto markets. We've gone from a high of $29 and annualized revenue down to about 26 million in the past six months. So we need to really be PSs, kind of these buttons holistically for the new market realities, we recommend a process be set up immediately delegates and megastores Maker holders to individually review Core Unit performance, you will see huge input on taking this approach, rather than the broad based cuts that we've suggested before. Lastly, want after this step, the like to have a reallocation capital level set budgets for new market reality. So you can maximize growth eggs in the bear market. And with that said, well, we'll take any questions. Prose11 25:43 Looks like we got a lot of other ones from chat answered while you're talking. So if anyone wants to raise their hand or drop a new one, 25:49 that would be excellent. I have one. Cooper. Robert. Hey, Robert 26:05 um, so were you back to that slide that mark it up? Or maybe that was Mark, slide, Peyton. 26:15 Figure one before that? Prose11 26:19 Yeah, I don't have slide control one second. Robert 26:22 Sorry. I was I was I was curious about, I think it does make sense to take a look at the individual performance of the CPUs. And as we talked about doing something surgical, my question really is to the community is that when we talk about performance, it's a subjective conversation. And so what I would like to understand when when we do option three, if we do it, is that how exactly are we measuring the core units based upon performance, with with the lack of there's common knowledge on strategic objectives inside of the DAO, there has been some of focus objectives that, for example, Rune has posted to the community. And then there's, you know, a variety of other objectives that happen as a result of individual mandates. So I just would like to understand as a community, how would we measure the core units. 27:28 Ultimately, we are interested in creating a framework to help guide this discussion. So it's no different than a traditional corporate performance review, function, negotiation for one's budget. I think, if you look at like when certain budgets are passed, some of these were passing, you know, operating margins in excess of 70 80%, some even higher. So we want to re allocate capital to where we need it most. We have to go through some sort of process like this. And then despite the challenges that are the parts that are part of it, like we're just gonna have P R P R extremely inefficient shop allocation, if we don't have any performance reviews ever, and it's just frankly, not sustainable. So I'm more concerned about doing the process at all, rather than having it be perfect. And we have to start somewhere, and somewhere is better than nowhere. Robert 28:27 And I would agree with you, Mark. But But you said something very specific. So there are multiple ways to do evaluations, one of which that you had mentioned, one of which I'm very familiar with, as well. And so So I think that to be as objective as possible. I think that's really the key about coming up with how we would measure the Core Unit performance. 28:56 I mean, ultimately, it's gonna be up to delegates, Nikkor holders in terms of what makes it on any framework. And my perspective, it's on the facilitator, to argue why they should have a certain amount of capital allocated for the business and what value they're delivering. It's on them to explain Maker holders and delegates what value they're creating for the protocol. So the design is solely on the framework and just checking off boxes, it's going to be on each facilitator and make the case for why they deserve to have their budgets, whether they deserve expansion or if they don't, how much their budget should truly be set up. Robert 29:36 I hear you and again, I have to go back to value is a subjective measure. If we have strategic objectives that have been clearly set, then it would be kind of an easy exercise. So the only thing we have to go on for each of the core units is that how well have we achieved our our mandates? As we have them listed for core units, I just My concern here is, is that I've been through many, many of these cycles before. And I've experienced both bull and bear markets with many companies. And this can be a when done correctly, it can be a very useful exercise. I rarely have experienced that, though. And so that's my concern. Prose11 30:36 We did have a question from Luca, if you want to take my clicker you're welcome to. I'm also happy to read it out. Luca 30:45 Yeah, the question was, if we could, because I think it's very difficult to assess performance, or needs, or Core Unit from the outside. And we might have the risk of sometimes happens in a DAO of benefiting those that are better lobbyists than executors. So maybe one idea was to maybe suggest a number of budget reduction across the board, and that the Core Unit facilitator, decide how to allocate that number. Because every everyone can have a very different view, how to do that. R R P L Artem Gordon 31:19 Just an idea. 31:25 I think there's some merit in such an approach. But some Koreans, frankly, I have a lot more room to cut than others. And broadly ordinates, that requested much more than they needed. I've been effectively rewarded by governance over those that forecasted exactly what they needed. And now that we're a part in the cycle for many Koreans better question, the next phase of their budget. Those who kind of under promised and then deliver, are being held accountable for people that spent or requested far in excess of what they needed. So, Robert 32:07 Mark, that's a different exercise, though. And at least in my opinion, because what we're asking Core Unit is to do. So my Korean, it's been ratified since October, I have much data now that I did before. So there's a request that could be made to the Koreans to say, Hey, would you use your best efforts to update the forecast. And that's a simple process to go through, that alone might yield enough results for us to stop there. I'm not saying we have to, I'm just saying that there are probably other steps that we can take, that are non evasive, that are kind of easy to do, and probably realistic for us to do that require very little or no oversight. And it's really the responsibility of each of the core units than if we feel as if it's not potentially aggressive enough, or we still think there's more things that we can trim, then potentially, we could step into a much deeper process. But I'd really like to see this happen. Baby steps, because we do have runway. And I'm not saying we should leave fat in the budgets. I'm just saying let's let's be smart about the way that we go about this. Last point, Luca 33:26 just to come to conclude what I given the way the question was coming from me and then let let the others comment is I agree with Mark, and I go with Robert, I think it's both of them. I think it but I think it's in general is difficult. I think we should try to understand also what type of behaviors, certain procedures incentivize, if we start a Core Unit to Core Unit fight, trying to demonstrate who is who has more fat to cut or who actually has more needs for money, we might spend a lot of time in lobbying and politics within the Dow that even more than what we're doing now. Instead, if we are going for more homogeneous request of best effort, we may actually find ourselves in a position where we come all together, at least sold the core units and try to just to and then it's a negotiation between MKR holders and core units about a number and then that number needs to be implemented. So I know I know. It's imperfect Mike, we should think about the ramifications of behavior that certain certain mechanisms might trigger within the Dow as well. But I know markets, definitely a sub optimal sub optimal solution. But I think we should understand also, what are the impacts of each solution on the behavior of the core units? Prose11 34:48 A R L P Prose11 34:48 Can I can I add I think I think the surgical approach is going to be an intractable political mess. If we tried to do that across the entire DAO, it might be that there's a good hybrid approach here, where MKR holders say, hey, we'd like to reclaim 10% across all CPUs. And you can either, you know, find 10% and send it back for, or you can go through the surgical approach. So we don't do it for everybody like some, you know, like you said, everyone does a best effort to hit some number that 10% is, I don't know, maybe it's too large, but I'm just throwing it out there as a number. So yeah, so so people take this sort of hybrid approach where you don't have to like bogged down in politics and micromanagement which are not things that DAO is going to do well, and, and then for people that are like, look, we already, you know, did an enormous amount of optimization or, or have like a very aggressive roadmap. Those people can take the more surgical approach where they like, you know, go and sort of either re justify that budget or make a strong argument. And MKR holders can vote on that. Yeah, that's, that's all I wanted to add, like, maybe we don't have to choose option one, or option three, maybe we can do one and three. 36:17 My view is that we should do the right thing, regardless of how hard it is. So this processes and have an inevitability, in my view, we can keep kicking the can. Prose11 36:30 The problem, the problem mark is that the the structure of a DAO, and how decentralized it is, the process that that one would typically follow in a normal Corporation is, is basically one that's dictated very well by hierarchy, right? It's a bunch of hierarchy at the very top with executive teams that basically make hard choices. And then everybody you know, those hard choices trickle down through the organization. And with a DAO that's decentralized, I feel like we want an approach where the garden weaves itself. And we would be much better served to say, here's our target. Every see you do the best you can. And if you can't, then we're going to have to go through for this like more sort of hierarchical approach. And I'm simply just trying to think like, like at our scale, maybe we could pull off the more complicated option today. But I just don't see it possibly working. When the DAO is like, wildly distributed and has like, either core units or metadata or whatever, all over the place, following their own incentives. Like we just aren't going to be able to, to operate the DAO this way. So we may want to sort of innovate on exactly how we do this. To start with, like I said, find an approach for the garden weeds itself, where the incentives are set up, so that CPUs are already optimizing for their budget. Thanks, Chris. Nadia has her hand up for a while. So let's go ahead and give her a chance to Nadia Alvarez 38:13 talk. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, um, I, I don't know if I will call it Core Unit performance. Because, yeah, that gives the sense of hierarchy. And it's kind of weird and the DAO, but what I really think we need is Core Unit feedback, because the the only time I receive feedback is when I post about a proposal. And I think that's too late. I think I think we need maybe quarterly reviews where other Core Unit delegates Maker holder to community in general, can give Korean its feedback. And I think that through that feedback that will also help us to P P N reorganize priorities and initiatives inside the core units. And with that, in mind, we could cut on expenses. So I will use my Coronavirus as an example when I was thinking about the new budget proposal I propose different budgets based on on the initiatives that I I will be able to run with each one of these budgets. So if Maker holders wanted a growth to do branding and marketing stuff, then this is the budget that we need. It's like business as usual without marketing, this is the part that that I need. And it's like we have to go crazy with with marketing and that is a priority. This is the budget that I need. And I think all core units, we have to go through that exercise by understanding where the DAO is going, what are the like the the priorities and the pining the initiatives that we want to do with our budget, and then let them make our holders decide. So I think we all will, shall be able to do that, like with this budget, I will be able to do one, two and three with this one I could, like at this forum kittenish and Maker holder society these, like bear market, it's a good moment to do that or not. I think that just like cutting a 10% of all budgets that Yes, that's possible. That is like, the most easy solution. But uh, but I think we, it will be good a good exercise for all of us to start thinking about, okay, the budget I have is for these initiatives, is this like the right moment to do that? Or maybe we should wait a couple of months and redefine budget and initiatives. So I really, I will like for all of us to start thinking about a feedback framework and communicate, what are the initiatives that are budgeted help us to plan and execute? Prose11 41:04 Thanks, Andy. And those are quite valuable to get your perspective. As I see Chris with his Andara report. Sorry, 41:16 the just the one comment I had was as kind of fresh eyes on all this. It doesn't seem to me and correct me if I'm wrong, but each Core Unit doesn't have that I've seen maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't like a metric. That governance that the community expects it to achieve over any certain period of time, when each Core Unit is created, shouldn't have some goal that it needs to achieve, whether it's the return on investment, or some other KPI that it needs to hit to be measured against, because like the idea I gave in chat just now was if we had each Core Unit present, its propose metrics that it needs to aim for and try to satisfy. And then those are actually voted on by governance individually. So like, as opposed to whether this should exist, but what does it need to achieve? There'll be push pull on how far out hard we should push each Core Unit, but then it would give us something to measure performance by but just based on like, this idea of just delegates, reviewing subjectively, it doesn't seem to match up with reality as far as what I might expect from like real world finance versus what somebody else might expect from real world finance. There's no hardcore metrics that I feel like I could use. So I just want to throw that one idea out there. And I see in the comments like there might be some metrics we could use for that. But that's not something I've seen consistently. Robert 42:53 Chris, one of the things I'll respond to with that is is that, yes, that is the goal. And one of the challenges that we have, and I'll use, I'll just use something very simple. As an example, we unveiled a new piece of collateral as collateral engineering services, we have a key key role in P R that. But we are dependent upon many other core units. And there have been people most likely to have touched that deal, prior to coming into the pipeline. And as it moves through the system, right there, there are certain more specific or granular metrics that can be set, for example, throughput, but again, yet dependent upon many other core units. So in the early stages of the current US form, core units forming a tremendous amount of dependencies were created, just because that's the way it was because of the bifurcation of responsibilities. So So in the context of does a Core Unit Perform Well, to me has to also look and ladder up to Yeah, they have a mandate to perform certain activities. But did they achieve goals based upon what was was Dai generation? The key objective for the Dow? Was diversification the key objective? What was the key objective? And how did we each ladder into that? 44:23 And we're missing that. 44:26 I would just want to add to what you just said, you know, in a traditional company, from my experience, when you have departments of a company, that don't have their own responsibilities, independent of other departments, it's a pretty clear indication that that department shouldn't exist independently, you know, so, yes. I think there I think that there are independent metrics that like what your group, you know, like you said, throughput and things like that. But if there's no way to separate that out from other units, then it's an organizational problem. Right? So so but you're right in that reviews of a of a unit that can't control its own, its own throughput, its own results would be counterproductive, as opposed to looking organizationally at whether that unit is positioned properly. Robert 45:19 We'll see. So now what what you're talking about is the redundancy. So if each Core Unit was truly independent, which I think is the direction, that a lot of the proposals that would like with metadata and other things that I think will be proposed, is that to truly have autonomy and independence, not autonomy, as in, we can do whatever the hell we want to do. But a matter of like, it's very clear, what is it that this Core Unit does. So here's the inputs, here's the outputs that are expected. That to me, that's where I've been building my Core Unit to be more and more independent, not independent from the community, but the ability to execute. That's critically important. So if you look around the entire ecosystem that we have created by core units, find one Core Unit that can execute independently and hold those metrics. And it'd be hard to, it'd be hard to find one. Maybe there's one, I don't know. But that's a that's an organizational design that we have, as a result of the Dow being the Dow, at least currently. I'm not saying it should stay that way. I would love to have specific objectives and goals, and being able to share how I delivered on those goals with my Core Unit. It seems like metadata is 46:47 would make this a lot worse, right? If everybody's expected to act independently on their own, like, I don't see how, if they can't do it now, how are they going to do it in that structure, but R like, I don't see how, if they can't do it now, how are they going to do it in that structure, but that's a side chat, Prose11 46:59 I guess. They don't have a chance and a couple hours to make the point. Awesome. There is a lot of good chat here. So don't want to stifle conversation. But noting time we do have like maybe a few more minutes, we can give this topic. So if there's something you want to voice either from chatter that you haven't spoken or harassed yet, that would be the time to do it. I'm gonna go ahead and launch the poll, see how much we learned. If you don't mind, filling that out, especially if you filled out the first one, that would be very helpful. Obviously, there's a lot more to cover in this topic, right? Like rather than just cash f