Episode 150: July 15, 2021
01:06: Governance Update
02:38: GovAlpha Core Unit update
05:46: Forum at a Glance
08:18: Protocol Engineering Team Update
17:17: Risk Team Update
22:07: Oracles Team Update
29:02: Real World Finance Update
34:05: Growth Core Unit Update
43:55: Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling Update
49:20: MIPs Update
59:25: Open Discussion
Agenda and Preamble
- Hello everyone, and welcome to the MakerDAO Scientific Governance and Risk meeting number 150, taking place on Thursday, July 15th at 17:00 UTC. My name is Payton Rose, or @prose11. I am one of the Governance Facilitators at MakerDAO.
- We like people to get involved and ask questions or comments, so please, do not be shy if you have something to say.
- In terms of Governance for the week, the Executive from 2 weeks ago is yet to pass. we are 4,000 MKR away from passing. If you have not looked at that, I would appreciate you taking a look and supporting the Executive. There are a few things on there, but it does include CU budgets. Many CUs are waiting for their funds.
- Three polls from this week have already passed:
GovAlpha Core Unit update
GovAlpha Weekly Update
- If anybody is against any particular votes, please either favor it or come to me to explain your opinion. I am convinced that the lack of voting is mainly due to voter apathy rather than actual objection, but if anybody wants to talk to me, please do. I’d love to hear any opinion against any vote, especially the executive.
- We’re continuing to work on Delegation. We now have a launch date of August 2nd. I’ll be doing an announcement post sometime Monday, which will be a formal post. We’ll schedule the Meet Your Delegate meetings within the next couple of weeks. There will also be additional sets of forum documents, and stuff publically posted that concern Delegation.
- Payton posted an on-chain technical design for SourceCred, which was produced by Kevin and Seth, I believe from SourceCred. Big thanks to them. - Finally, I’ve been working with Derek on the coordination sheet for Governance to make mandated actors more transparent. We are all working on as well as the state it is currently in.
Forum at a Glance
Forum at a Glance: July 8 - July 15
- Almost 5.5B DAI in circulation. 4.5 more to go till the 10B goal.
- The Surplus Buffer is about to hit 50M DAI for the first time.
- The Total Value Locked in Maker at $9.3B.
Protocol Engineering Team Update
- We published the technical evaluation for stETH. It’s worth reading because it may impact how much risk we assess and whether we want to add it.
- Regarding collateral onboarding, we’ve been working on the Centrifuge DROP tokens. We’ve got four Centrifuge assets in line right now. There have been many back and forth; No major errors, but we’re trying to massage the Centrifuge additions to be really turnkey. We’ve come up with a checklist for validating Centrifuge additions and were working for the Kovan spell to become the mainnet and the config to be easy enough to add multiple kinds.
- The Centrifuge guys just finished the Kovan version after some feedback right before this call. I was also deploying the mainnet versions of the contracts they need, but I ran out of gas. I’m thinking that for Centrifuge, week’s Executive will contain what’s in the polling, but we’ll likely include the DC raise for NewSilver and then get the Kovan assets out this week. Next Friday, we will probably end up doing the mainnet executive.
- Regarding SushiLP tokens, there was a miscommunication with the Sushi team. The pairs that we’re interested in adding will not be moving over to the Sushi MasterChefV2 contract yet, which means we have prepared for this, which will take a few months. We’re going to deploy with the current version of MasterChef; we’re working on getting all of that ready to go. There were some changes across a few things. We also had to get liquidations ready for them, which meant that we had to update the exchange-
callees contracts, ran some extra tests, and will be making updates to the DssCropJoin.
- For L2, we had the official announcement of DAI-Optimism-Bridge! This is huge, and I am super excited. We did many reviews to ensure that everything was
denied correctly or
denied correctly on the bridge and whatnot to ensure that it is fully decentralized.
- The next milestone for L2 will be Arbitrum. We’re also going to start looking at this Optimism-Fast-Withdrawal as well as publishing how to do that. We’re. Also, we’re planning to create an L2 risk framework.
- Regarding institutional Vaults, we have been working similarly to the Growth CU and crossing teams to define what this would mean. We produced a mock-up of this DssCharter, which is the initial implementation that will allow institutional or permission vaults to be created. We also wrote some GemJoin stuff around that, which we will have to go back and discuss more with the other teams.
- Regarding test nets, last week, I soft announced that we’re going to Goerli and everyone should speak up or hold their peace. We’re now committed to Goerli. I also want to shout out to @ultraschuppi, who managed to score us 20,000 Goerli. We’re off to a good start and will begin making a deployment plan for getting everything onto Goerli.
- Next week, several team members are gonna be at EthCC. If you are there, you can meet up with us and chat. Some people who will be going are Sam, Derek, Bartek, and Kris. There is a variety of meetings that are planned with StarkWare, Nexo, and more!
- Frank Cruz: Hey, I heard a rumor that folks are trying to monetize Goerli. Do you know if that’s true or false? Also, when it comes to reorgs, how could they affect Liq 2.0?
Chris: I haven’t thought a lot on those topics, but reorgs are an interesting problem for Liq 2.0 because we have a price decrease function based on the block timestamp. In theory, if you get these deep reorgs, you could end up in this place where you can go like 10 minutes, and then someone’s able to reorg 10 minutes worth of the blockchain, which would be a pretty big reorg. By the time that’s finished, it would unwind the liquidation that happened within those blocks, and the price decrease function would actually be a little bit lower than 10 minutes later. There could definitely be some fallout from reorg-style stuff. I don’t think we have thought through all of the heavy implications of a strong reorg regime, but I don’t think it’s great. We can take that offline and discuss more.
- Regarding Goerli, I am not entirely sure. The monetization of it would refer to monetizing GoETH, right? I thought that the network looked good, but then Andre released the news, stressing me out. All the faucets went dry, and we had to pay for it, but not much actually. However, one of the reasons we want to use Goerli is to test integrations using the real wrapped ETH. We need enough ETH to create some Vaults for deeper integrations into other projects. However, it looks like we will be getting more than the initial 20k we had asked for. Doesn’t seem to be a problem at the moment.
Risk Team Update
- We managed to publish D3M module risk assessment today. We also proposed parameters such as DC and target borrow rate. These are the only two parameters needed for this module apart from the potential implementation of the DC instant access module, which would also include another two parameters. We proposed conservative parameters at launch, like the DC at only 10MM, but we noted that after a period of testing, we could increase DC up to 200 million. The report tries to describe all kinds of risks that Maker would be exposed to through this module. They are mostly related to Aave’s solvency, liquidity, governance, and oracle risks. The part that is a bit riskier and worth emphasizing is where the module would not be working as we would want in certain edge cases. This would be a situation where there may be a potentially negative event at Aave. Funds would start flowing out. This would increase utilization levels, interest rates, and D3M module to increase exposure to Aave instead of decreasing it. It goes from bad to worse. The module does not know negative events are happening at Aave because the only input it uses is the borrowing rate. The only protection we could think of is implementing an Instant Access Module DC to limit the growth exposure of Aave within this scenario.
- Please read the report. I saw some good comments today which consider these risks and provide feedback especially related to the debt exposure that Maker wants to have. If you are to test this module now or really soon would be a good time because Aave liquidity mining rewards are potentially temporarily disabled in ten days, which might increase rates at Aave. If we had a D3M module, we could see it utilized and test it. We are still waiting for some smart contracts audits, so I am unsure how fast we can move here.
- Now that we have finished most of the risk assessments for collaterals and this module, we started focusing more on others in our backlog. We almost finished running simulations in regards to lowering LRs at Vault types. We are facing the issue right now because Vaults are currently well-capitalized because of the crash in May. Therefore, Vault’s owners started to be more cautious, which is good, but the risk premium calculations show really low numbers. It might be misleading now, which means that the risk premiums are still good when we simulate lower LR. We want to run the same simulations on inputs that present a riskier behavior of users. We will probably try to focus on a period before the May crash when users were heavily leveraged to have a more balanced view about what happens if we lower the LR.
- Also, Chris mentioned there is ongoing work with institutional Vaults. Tomorrow, along with all the teams, we will hopefully finalize the proposal. You can expect an interesting proposal soon regarding these new Vault’s offerings that are not solely for institutions but may also be for Ether.
Oracles Team Update
- Migration of the oracle feeds to the new kind of libp2p type of architecture is ongoing. We have done a very slow rollout because this is like a very big type of change, and we really wanted to ensure that there was no disruption of any service. So far, everything looks really good, and little by little, we are just adding to the number of feeds that were kind of including in this onboarding group. Within two weeks, we should be kind of fully transitioned over. Really proud of the team for the work they’ve put into this. It’s really paying off.
- We are also have been scrutinizing the DAI fast withdrawal bridge. A key to this fast withdrawal bridge right is an oracle-like mechanism that is basically looking at L2 and L1 by vouching that the transactions are legitimate. It helps us circumvent a one-week withdrawal delay that you typically see on an Optimism roll-up type of situation. We’re evaluating what’s really needed there by talking to external teams doing some internal research. We are trying to vet the trust assumptions here or the incentives and under what conditions do they break. We also want to know whether those are the same or riskier than the trust assumptions we already make regarding Oracles. For example, when talking about feeds, the feeds are essentially like a trusted validator set that Maker Governance is elected or delegated. Then in this circumstance, whoever is kind of deciding that or whatever the consensus mechanism is where you’re deciding that these transactions seen on Optimism on L2 are running locally and verifying their transparency. You know this consensus game that you play where you’d show that everyone agrees you know this is or is not legit. We see a lot of potential with L2. not just for DAI and Maker in general but also for Oracles in particular. from a business model POV, if DeFi shifts to L2, they’re still going to need Oracles on there. And from a margins POV, the transactions on L2s are significantly cheaper. It makes delivering the Oracle service much cheaper, which is a very attractive business opportunity. L2 Oracles are not just for Optimism but also for Arbitrum and other L2s. Oracles are front and center.
- We’ve already spoken to teams looking at launching on those chains regarding if they would be open to using Maker Oracles. We did a collateral onboarding assessment for MATIC. We will have to push back on the Executive vote for a couple of weeks because we’re busy with the migration for libp2p. We don’t want to have too many different Oracle versions kind of flying around. We want to get the upgrade out and then do the incremental changes involved for token onboarding, for example, MATIC. The earliest that we’re looking at for MATIC onboarding is next week’s Executive beginning August 6th, 3 weeks from now. That would be for tokens that require a feedback Oracle.
- Christopher reminded me that we’re looking at the Sushi LP tokens. There is no roadblock from the Oracle side there because those are individual smart contracts that we deploy. There’s no conflict there. From the Oracle perspective, we’re ready to go on those whenever. Also, please pass the Executive vote. You know the Oracle CU is trying to spin out of the foundation at the end of the month. It’s hard to do that when we don’t have any money.
Real-World Finance Team Update
- I will start by thanking the Strategic Happiness CU for sending me cool Maker swag. It’s my first one, and I’m super happy to have them even if it was not easy to send the package to us.
- Regarding updates, we have an updated budget by @aes, it’s not yet public on the forum, but as a teaser, I can say that if the community incorporates all the proposed CUs, we will lose money at the end of the month but still be cash flow positive. The difference between net income and being cash flow positive is the Maker tokens giving us compensation.
- James did a post on RealDAO SPV work, which is in progress. RealDAO SPV is based on Monarch and is a new way to bring an RWA on-chain by using a Monarch and other DeFi pure institutions to bring RWAs on-chain.
- We have a meeting today covering the NewSilver audit. There is a lot of stuff in there, and it will take time to unpack it, but it’s interesting because it gave us a clear view of a real battle plan for on-chain securitization. The funny part concerns why the blockchain could be super interesting for securitization. There is a game we can play here to be a key element for the securitization of the ecosystem, which might allow us to increase the DC of those kinds of securities. not only NewSilver and Centrifuge but all those that are based on the same structure. Securitization above the DC has a drawback in that it will take a lot of time to implement everything. We need to add many legal complexities and align with what is happening in the real world.
- Regarding the Cayman Foundation, we have some news. We have started to get some documents on the Article of Incorporation and Memorandum. one of the main questions we currently have is who is in charge of this Cayman Foundation. My first post proposed to have Maker representatives—three to five appointed people. But then we started to work on a MIP that we will be able to pass messages to the board of directors, saying that the board of directors has to do only what they are told by Maker Governance. So then you may say, you don’t have to have real people as directors of the Cayman Foundation. Instead, we can have trustees who you pay and ensure to do whatever they are told.
- But then, there’s another issue. Those people and trustees, in general, don’t want to do much and want to be told almost everything every single step. That means that we will have to spend a lot of executives just to make them do something. Maybe it’s not ideal. Maybe the best strategy is to combine Maker representatives and independent directors of trustees that will safeguard.
- LongForWisdom: I like the idea of not having loads of things to put into executives. If we can come up with a hybrid team, that would be good.
- Seb: Yeah, and that’s the issue. If you’re having to tell everything every week, it’s quite complex to do.
Growth Core Unit Update
Growth CU weekly update
- We have been having meetings with different projects such as Brave, Loopring, Decentraland, Kyber. We’re waiting to meet with the 0x team to discuss why they are not using Maker Vaults. We want to have feedback from them and use that as input for the next steps in how we are going to abort these collaterals or if we want to abort these collaterals. The Community sentiment showed us that we should do it because they are not profitable, but I think that through this feedback, we can consider other outcomes besides profits. We can consider if it is a good PR for us or not, if it is a good partnership, or if maybe Maker Vaults could be a treasury management solution for these projects. As of now, they are not using Maker Vaults because of different reasons. In the case of Brave, they were using the BAT token to incentivize their community. In other cases, they do not have someone who has the strategy to manage the treasury, so they are not creating strategies. Although it is interesting to know, and I think that we all have to know that they want to keep their token as collateral on Maker. We are asking them to take the remaining debt available in the Vault. We will consider that as a good sign that they really want to be collateral on Maker. This is not an easy decision because they have to have internal meetings to evaluate the risk parameters and decide about opening the Vault. We are giving them until September 1st to see if they did it or not, and after that, we will evaluate the next steps.
- Regarding institutional Vaults, this will represent an increased Dai supply on our side but with the work that we are doing with different Core Units and by using NEXO’s feedback to create this new product which I think is great. We are also in conversation with others interested in using something like an institutional Vault from Maker. They want to have access to a Dai loan, but we are having some problems. We are trying to figure out how to solve these problems regarding KYC and the new requirements that these big institutions may have. NEXO also has these needs, but they are more flexible since they are already using Maker Vaults. Suppose we really want to create a product focused on institutions. In that case, we have to think about having a 1:1 relationship to set agreements. For example, we could give them a larger Liq window because these large institutions are used to do that. We are talking to our legal counsel to understand all the KYC requirements. We are also trying to talk with different companies because we might not need to find a solution. Instead, we could make an agreement with a partner who could provide these services to these institutions.
- Concerning the PSM delay update, Mariano wrote in the post the updates we got from PAXOS. It is very interesting. They are working on an article to post in the forum to tell you all about this. What we want to achieve with PAXOS is to have access to their APIs. We would have something similar to what Circle has with USDC. We will be able to provide on-off ramps from USDC from Fiat to Dai using the PSM in the middle, but that will be transparent for the user. It is amazing, and we are working with PAXOS to make it a reality.
- We wrote two other posts. One is about future products and what we can create from the Maker Protocol. It does not have to be a product we create; it can also be a partnership that we establish. Please read it and provide us with feedback because it helps us understand the community’s sentiment and bring more partners to the table.
- Last week, I mentioned Dai liquidity in other networks, especially in Thorchain. I wrote a post about why we should think about a solution for Thorchain and other networks. We are now seeing all these multi-chain ecosystems, so we should have a plan for this. Join the conversation in the forum, and we will be reading your feedback.
- Star of the week: This week, the integration between Oasis and the EPNS push notifications module was announced. This is great because it was something that our Vault users really need. They will be able through Oasis to get notifications that let them know different things about their Vault.
Tweet of the week:
- Through our handle, we spoke about the PSM and USDC along with the discussion that was on Crypto Tweeter for the last few days.
- We will be in Paris, so Gustav is talking about RWA. I will be talking about how to transfer from the Foundation to now being a part of the Community as a Core Unit with SES and PE team and GovAlpha; we organized this side event, “Keeping up with the Maker Mafia,” so if you will be in Paris, I expect to see you all there.
- David Utrobin: Were you talking about having meetings with Brave, Loopring, Decentraland, and Kyber about what to do with their current Vaults and whether they support the community’s decision to try to off-board them. Is that it?
Sustainable Ecosystem Scaling
- We are working on publishing OKRs. Hopefully, we will have them ready within the next couple of weeks. It’s looking nice; I’m very happy with the results.
- Also, as Nadia mentioned, we will be at the EthCC event next week in Paris. @linkla is going to be there collecting data and interviewing experts for the project X-Ray.
- last week, we had Nikolai and Wouter present Risks and Opportunities for the DAO. The video is already in the public folder, and we’ll keep pushing on that same framework as well.
- Regarding tomorrow’s call, Andy is going to define the roles and responsibilities within a CU. And tomorrow, we will be talking more about that in our SES updates at 2:30 UTC. Everyone’s welcome to join, learn and give feedback.
- In other news, we have the Dai Foundation MIPs in RFC. Please give feedback. we already received a lot of feedback, and we’re very happy with it.
- Regarding the incubees, we have 2 announcements:
- One of them is the CU focused on auctions and liquidations, UIS, and services. Stay tuned for more, and hopefully, we get to scale the DAO and make it safer.
- The other CU that we are going to be onboarding is a bug bounty, which it’s a coin that’s going to manage a bug monthly program and security-related activities. We’re quite happy with them and with the course of the incubation program. Nikolai is beginning an update on that next week next Friday. If you want to know more about that so, please tune in.
- Regarding the community and myself, we were in a podcast a week ago, and it’s live now with DaoHous called Houseparty on Twitter.
- On the EthCC side-event, I will be presenting SES in Maker in the W-source decentralized breakfast. Then we have Keeping up with the Maker Mafia on that same Wednesday. On Friday, we will be visiting the Daoist with Lenkla to speak about DAOs in general.
- Two future calls are coming:
- B.Protocol Declaration of Intent KYP call will be hosted on November 8th.
- Another call will be an RWA: Collateral Onboarding with Untangled, which is to be dated.
- Derek: One, I was curious about the auction UIs, and is the scope of that different from what the dUX team covers or is this an additional team that will create some applications or front ends for the liquidation systems?
- Juan: It is going to be specialized not only in UIs but also in services. But it’s going to be fully specialized in this; it’s not dUX.
- Derek: Cool, looking forward to hearing more on that.
- Christopher Mooney: I have a question about the team that we’re bootstrapping for handling bug bounty stuff. Do we know who these members are? Maybe we can have a discussion with the PE in that team?
- Juan: Yeah, we can definitely; let’s talk about it. We’ll set something up.
MIPs Update #44
- LongForWisdom: Just a reminder that the Ratification Polls need to reach the 10 thousand MKR mark. They were a few CUs that were winning, but they had not reached the 10K mark. Just to remind them that you need to reach the 10K. If not, it is count as failing. I encourage people to go vote!
Presentations and Other Discussions
- LongForWisdom: We were just talking about potentially including the new CUs budgets in the next executive if the current one does not pass. The idea would be to include the budgets in the next executive with a modifier to make sure that if the previous executive passes, then the budgets do not get sent again. This covers most cases. It does not cover the new executive passing and then the previous executive passing, but that seems unlikely.
- Christopher Mooney: We could test to see if the old spell passed, and if it did not, in the new spell, we could have the budgets execute…
- Kurt Barry: The challenge is that if the new spell passes and the old spell passes after the new spell passed, you cannot prevent a double payment, but it does not seem like a big deal because you just do not send payments to those CUs the next month since they got a paycheck advanced.
- LongForWisdom: I think that is vanishingly likely to happen, and also it is low impact.
- Payton Rose: Some contingency budgets factored in with this, though, so maybe it is not the smoothest in terms of just renting another month.
- Kurt Barry: In the worst case, the CUs would probably play nicely. If they ended up being overpaid and needed to send some back or if we underpaid them, we could fill that out in the next month.
- LongForWisdom: It would be a minor fact to get it all sorted out, but it is probably something we can deal with if it happens.
- David Utrobin: We currently have somewhat of a positive vote for the Gov Comms Core Unit. Anything can happen, but in the meantime, in preparation for a positive outcome, we are looking for an engagement lead. We have two full-time people with a third that we are hiring. This engagement lead role would involve many cool things, including a quarterly engagement project with any stakeholder group. I will post the link about the role in the chat, and reach out to me if you are interested. If you are interested in hosting calls, engaging with stakeholders, leading engagement internally, reach out. Also, if anyone is interested in knowing more about the Gov Comms Core Unit, feel free to join the AMA tomorrow. I am going to be there answering all of the questions you have.
- Andrew Burban: I think we should be selective on how we handle this out. Everyone knows that as much as anyone might want to get invested. People deserve to be vested; you are modest in what you request. Ultimately, Governance should be deciding how much Maker or an individual CU or person should be getting rather than putting in a request. I think it is more modest to leave it open-ended “how much do you think we deserve?”. Obviously, some CUs are more critical, and the whole thing would not exist without them, but although every person is valuable here, some talent is really scarce to find, so do not be too aggressive with how much you are asking; leave it up to the Community.
- PaperImperium: I do have a quick technical question. For Maker vesting projects, for easy reference, are those going to appear under MIP38 with budgets and facilitators and all the other key info on the MIPs’ portal? Where is the fast place to find that for each CU?
- David Utrobin: At the moment, all of the budgets are under MIP40c3. If you go into the MIPs’ portal, you could check all of them out of that folder. At the moment, there are two CUs that have proposed their budgets and MKR vesting in one proposal, and that is PE and Oracles. In the proposed guidelines, we have the piece “separation of concerns,” asking for CUs to put their budgets separate from the MKR vesting packages. So far, SCS has followed that guideline even though it is not formally ratified. Speaking as a MIP editor, I suggest people do that separation of concerns. They separate their actual budget that might be modified quarter to quarter from their MKR vesting package. You could find all of that under MIP40c3.
- PaperImperium: Thank you! That is very helpful.
- Juan: PaperImperium, did you mean about the tracking and having a list, or was it more about how it works?
- PaperImperium: No, just a quick reference that I can find where I can see every CU’s allocation.
- Juan: Yes, exactly. I asked this to LongForWisdom on the forum. I do not think he had time to answer yet. There was MIP38, which was supposed to keep track of these CUs. Still, it was modified to not do it because the MIPs’ portal is supposed to have filters where you can say, “give me all the sub proposals for MIP39 that are approved or that have been considered obsolete” or whatever. So you can use these filters to actually access this information in a quite easy way. I am not sure where we are at with the MIPs’ portal if those filters have been implemented yet if they are in a quick link to review. That might be the easiest way to do it, but it might not yet be available.
- PaperImperium: Thanks!
- LongForWisdom: It is both MIP38 and MIP38c2, but they might not be really up to date at the moment, and we do not have separate tags for MKR budgets versus regular budgets. There are just “active budgets” filters. You can look at all active budgets. We could probably look into putting a tag that separates our MKR budgets from our Dai budgets. It makes sense.
- Payton Rose: Thanks for those inquiries there. I find myself tempted to cut the meeting a little short today since it does not seem to be a lot of discussions. If you were planning on getting one last thing in, this would be your last chance to do so.
- Andrew Burban: Anyone that I might have missed, which is probably most people, hit me up on rocket chat, and I will try to send you guys some stock. There are still a couple hundred left.
- David Utrobin: Has there been any updates from the Swag Shop CU?
- Andrew Burban: I think because they are still part of the Foundation, and until that is dissolved, their hands might be a little bit tied. I do not really know a lot of details. It would be cool to talk to them, but I cannot talk about them.
- LongForWisdom: The swag stuff or the urban stock stuff might be a good use of the Special Purpose Budget MIP if it passes. One of my concerns is that they are not CU, and they do not really have any responsibilities. It is still something that we probably want to pay for.
- Andrew Burban: Possibly is some people that are pretty happy getting the word out. It is hard to quantify what is the value of what I am doing, so I am not specifically asking for anything, but I am trying to log my expenses and see what I am actually spending on stuff. It is sometimes more, sometimes less. For years, I bought the original Dai socks, but while I was in Community Development, Amy was comping my expenses for shipping out to the combat members. Then the Community Development dissolves, and so does my funding for it, but I still want to keep sending some stuff out. It makes me happy to see other people happy. When we have high-quality stuff, people like to wear it, share it, show it off to their friends. I wear it five days a week.
- LongForWisdom: I think you mentioned in the chat that you paid 1800 dollars for shipping. It definitely seems like something that we should comp.
- Andrew Burban: That was literally 200 pounds of swag shipped to Africa. I understand why it was so much money. Going forward, I have been paying out of my pocket. It is ok, just a few transactions.
- Payton Rose: That was nice. A few extra discussion topics. Keep it rolling if you have anything else on your mind. These calls are a great opportunity to have so many people for so many different parts of the ecosystem and general interest within Maker. Shoot your shot if you have anything else. Thank you, everyone, for joining, and see you in the forums!
Common Abbreviated Terms
CR: Collateralization Ratio
DC: Debt Ceiling
ES: Emergency Shutdown
SF: Stability Fee
DSR: Dai Savings Rate
MIP: Maker Improvement Proposal
OSM: Oracle Security Module
LR: Liquidation Ratio
RWA: Real-World Asset
RWF: Real-World Finance
SC: Smart Contracts
CU: Core Unit
SPV: Special Purpose Vehicle
- Andrea Suarez produced this summary
- Artem Gordon produced this summary.
- David Utrobin produced this summary.
- Gala Guillén produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.