---
tags: G&R
---

# Episode 192: May 26th, 2022

## Agenda

- [00:00](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=4): Introduction
- [02:37](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=157): Votes and Polls
- [04:49](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=289): MIPs Update
- [10:10](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=610): Forum at a Glance
- [18:55](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1135): Discussion: Revisiting D3M Risk & Meta
- [1:06:47](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=4007): Open Discussion
- [1:14:02](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=4442): Conclusion

## Video

[Link](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM)

## Introduction

### Agenda and Preamble

#### Payton Rose

[00:00](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM)

- Welcome. This is episode #192 of the Governance and Risk call at MakerDao. My name is Payton, I go by Prose11 online, and I am one of the governance facilitators. I am happy to be joined by many awesome people. Many of them are CU members of our community and some recognized delegates. Today is the 26th of May 2022.
- The call is being recorded. Let us try not to talk over one another. There are a couple of neat zoom features you can utilize that make the experience easier.
- Today's agenda:
- We will start with the governance round-up, go over the votes, the Maker improvement proposals, and a little snapshot of what is going on in the Maker forum.
- We do not have any initiative updates today.
- After that, we will go straight into our discussion, which is hopefully a reasonably timely one, and that is on global workforce accessibility. We will be talking a bit about why we are trying this out on this call, like the trade-offs, what we could be doing, what we should be doing, and hopefully gathering some good opinions.

## General Updates

### Votes

#### Payton Rose

[2:37](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=157)

*Polls:*
- 3 Concluded Weekly Polls - **PASSED**
- Investigate Implementation of an Antalpha Institutional Vault
- Investigate Deploying the MakerDAO Balance Sheet in ETH
- Launch Maker Teleport with 1 Basis Point Fee
- 1 Active Greenlight (Voting Ends May 30th)
- FEI (Fei USD)

*Executive:*
- Yesterday's Executive - 63k MKR Supporting:
- Raise ESM Threshold -> 150,000 MKR
- Adjust "lid" Parameter -> 30,000 DAI
- MKR Transfers -> DUX, SAS
- Next Week:
- No Executive Proposal

### MIPs

#### Gala

[04:49](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=289)

[Weekly MIPs Update #88](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-mips-update-88/15329)



- Let us start with the ratification polls. We have had five formal submissions for the May Governance Cycle. All proposals passed except for MIP68: Monetalis Lusitano.
- MIP40 was approved. This means that budget proposals must follow the new MIP40c3-SP67 sub-proposal template from now on. They must be submitted in March, June, September, or November during the budget submission window. Among other considerations. From GovAlpha, we are working on a forum post to inform the community about the new considerations to keep in mind when submitting a budget proposal.
- There will also be a know-your-MIP for MIP40 shortly.

##### Proposals in RFC

[05:58](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=358)


- Most of the proposals have been around for a while now. We will try to keep it short. For the top-level MIPs, we have the same top-level MIPs as the last week. MIP72: Delegated Collateral Attachment RWA Arranger Application for 6s Capital, MIP74: Permissionless Open Market Operations, MIP75: Task Forces. MIP75 was introduced simultaneously with one sub-proposal to create the task force for growth. MIP72 will stay in RFC for the next cycle.


- We have the onboarding proposal of the Lending Oversight Core Unit (LOVE-001).


- We have a facilitator onboarding proposal from Psychonaut for the Immunefi Security CU. Thomas from Data Insights submitted a voluntary off-boarding, and supported by Thomas, Tadeo is being proposed as the new facilitator for this CU. Last week, Patrick_J from GovAlpha submitted his MIP41c4. He aims to become a GovAlpha facilitator alongside Payton and LongForWisdom.


- We have three amendments. The Core Unit Offboarding Process Amendment, whose forum post was recently updated by Tim. Please take a look at the new post if you have a moment. MIP16: the Weekly Governance Cycle is being amended to reflect the new weekly cadence for executives. We have MIP4c2-SP21 which amends MIP0 to introduce retrospection dates for MIPs.


- We have the Strategic Finance Budget, a one-year budget that totals 1.4 million Dai. And we have the Growth Core Unit budget, which is also a one-year budget that totals 5 million Dai. These two budgets incorporate new notions introduced by the recently amended MIP40.


- There is the Makershire Hathaway Special Purpose Fund, which aims to experiment with different yield generation strategies.


- Finally, we have two proposals from Oracles. The first one is to modify the data models for BTC/US, LINK/USD, MANA/USD, USDT/USD, and YFI/USD. Then the other is to update the Oracle expiration time for all Oracles. These proposals can be found under the Oracle category in the forum, and we will go on-chain as polls on Monday, the 30th, for three days.


- The last day for modifications for proposals eligible to enter June’s Governance cycle is Wednesday, the 1st. The formal submission window for this cycle opens on Monday, the 6th. Proposals aspiring to enter July’s governance cycle should be posted on the forum by Wednesday, the 8th of June.

### Forum at a Glance

#### Artem Gordon

[10:10](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=610)

Post: [Forum at a Glance: May 19th - 25th, 2022](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/forum-at-a-glance-may-19-25-2022/15397)

Video: [Forum at a Glance](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=610)


//Add links to mentioned posts on video//

- _Announcements_:

- [Introducing the governance stats and tracker dashboard](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=632)
- [Intangible Asset Agreed Modification of Management - 2022-05-24](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=665)
- [ChicagoDAO Delegate Platform](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=697)

- _Discussions_:

- [[Informal Poll] Curve Basepool Composition](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=722)
- [{New} MIP4c2-SP15: Core Unit Offboarding Process Amendments](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=798)
- [Off-Chain Governance Incentive Changes (SourceCred)](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=829)

- _Active Signal Requests_:

- [[Signal Request] Deploy a Trial Permissionless Open Market Operation & Resurrect the Burn](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=865)
- [[Signal Request] Incoming Velodrome Airdrop on Optimism - $VELO veNFT](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=920)
- [[Signal Request] Request Minting of new MKR Tokens to Replace MKR Tokens Inadvertantly Sent to MKR Token Address(Burned)](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=996)
- [[Signal Request] Offboard UNI, UNIV2DAIETH, UNIV2WBTCETH, UNIV2UNIETH, and UNIV2WBTCDAI](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1036)

## Discussion

### Global Workforce Accessibility

#### Payton Rose

[18:55](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1135)


- This call is four hours later than the usual time, and that is a part of a test run we are doing for the last call of the month this month and next month. It aims to get a different group of people on the call or make it more accessible to a different group of people. The idea is that while MakerDAO is a global organization, many of us end up coming from the Americas and Europe, meaning that when we go to schedule meetings, they tend to be at times that are more convenient for us than people on the east.

## Open Discussion

### Payton Rose

#### State of the DAO

[20:10](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1210)


- I wanted to present the state of the DAO. We have a global workforce. People worldwide are contributing to CUs, posting in the forums, and trying to participate in our system, and more so DAI and MKR users or tokens. Likewise, we value decentralization, a core principle, both our product and our social organization. Again, we prefer permissionless setups to unsteady permissions. This means that when we can make a choice, we want to make it so anyone who wants to be able to do the thing can do so.


- We faced many challenges. As I mentioned at the top of the introduction, the majority reside in the Americas and the Eurozone. Our meeting times happened accordingly. Our meetings are hosted in English, and most of our discussions are on the forums; we have some Spanish support and resources for coordination and communication. This means that if you want to get the word out, or if you want to get something on the Maker calendar if you want to get something tweeted, the list can go on and on.
- Essentially, you will have to go through someone in the CU, and most likely, they will be a person residing in the US or the Eurozone. This means that gatekeeping is possible and that the things that we promote and that we would like to share can be biased. There are many downside implications to the idea that because we are steered, it would be a favor by the CUs, and the CUs have a geographic bias. Going forward, our geographic bias compounds.


- We have broader discussion questions to get us thinking and talking about this. Challenges exist. However, there is a coordination cost to doing something about these challenges. For example, when we reminded people this morning on Discord that this call would be later, we saw some people upset by this, who said they would not be able to attend and that it was far less convenient for them. Likewise, it is a tremendous benefit to be coordinated in English, like it is a shared language: if you speak English, you can come in and participate. That will block out people who do not speak English.
- Today’s discussion is: A.) Is there loading fruit? B.) where do we fall in terms of persisting our values through how we steer the organization? And a final wrap-up is that we are the CUs running these calls and setting up this infrastructure. How much should we be taking this idea of global accessibility, internally and externally, when trying to put things together?

[24:31](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1471)

- David Utrobin: I did not understand the last point: Resources for mass coordination and communication reside with Core Units. Because all the CUs in our workforces are EU and US-centric, everything is designed to help with coordination on those teams. Were you trying to explain the bias?
- Payton Rose: Yes, the bias and the practicality of the lack's permissionless. Because to get something on our official calendar, you will have to go through GovComms or GovAlpha. We can primarily reside in the Americas or the Eurozone. When we schedule events, we will schedule them at times that are convenient for us to moderate. When we make announcements, those will be when we are awake and working.
- David Utrobin: The CUs influence the actual operations, like these key coordination touchpoints?
- Payton Rose: Yes, I do not think there is necessarily a way to avoid that. Given that we have a residency bias, when we coordinate those things, that will persist further into future stuff we do. I appreciate you asking for clarification, and hopefully, I explained that somewhat.
- Raphael: I think the point was raised already. It is fine to shift one meeting a month to a different time zone, but the current shift is somewhere in the middle. If we want to optimize for other time zones, it would probably be good to shift it nine hours ahead to catch Japan, Asia, and the Pacific. That would still be fine for Europeans too. Because when we move nine hours ahead, it would be around 9 am Central European Time and 8 am British Standard Time, which is early but doable. Whereas now, it is pretty late. In Europe, it is like midnight, and it is one o'clock in the UK, which is late.
- Payton Rose: That is a good point. If we are trying to achieve a specific zone, we should target better hours. There is, of course, another problematic bias of what is better hours. We saw in the chat that some people saying around noon is excellent. The middle of the day is probably great if you work on the CUs in the decentralized world. If that is your second job or a side hobby, you would probably prefer it before or after work. I agree that perhaps we did not shift far enough. We also have this dual problem: if we moved too far and lost all of our core audience, what type of meeting do we have?
- It is interesting to design the question. How would you design this question? And how would you ask it so that as many people from other time zones can express their opinion? Like a Doodle poll, and only non-Europeans can see it.
- David Utrobin: What is the purpose of these calls? Initially, the Governance & Risk calls were about coordination and getting people aligned around the emergent governance model in Maker. As Maker matured, this call became more of an informational call. It was about getting everybody interested in the room, including mainly external stakeholders. And catch them up on what has been going on with the week and bring up a pertinent topic. If you want to engage in the discussion, that makes sense. But for the informational side, you have the recording, so you do not need to be on the call. Instead of using the call, I am curious about how we design discussion spaces around critical issues and topics with global contributors.

[29:54](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=1794)

- Payton Rose: Those were good reflections. David, we will always have the problem with it not being useful for somebody. Is there a better way to get the word out or segment the information?
- Will Remor: Part of it is the workforce and the coordination. But the wider context, starting today, is the fact that previously, in the foundation times, they used to have a wider presence and in top of mind for Maker because there were people across the globe working for a single organization. Since they moved the foundation model to the CU model, much of that was deprioritized. For example, Growth as a team, like BD, used to have people with a presence in Korea, Japan, and China, a lot of different places. So there was a bit of attention there.
- Since the move to the CU model: the activity happens where most of the CUs are on the Atlantic axis between the Americas, Europe, and Africa. We are almost two years into the model - a little over a year. The mindshare of Maker has reduced in those regions because there has not been attention given to them. People barely know that Maker exists. Part of it is creating a reach in areas where people do not engage with Maker because nothing that happens in the Maker protocol takes care of it; not saying necessarily that the G&R call is the right one for this, but to create that global reach to those areas is. In the background, it is something that existed at the foundation but was not prioritized since then. That is the only point. But elsewhere, finding the right time zones and stuff will always be tricky because someone around the globe is always sleeping. Whether it is in the East or West, it will be impossible to have something suitable for everyone.

[33:39](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=2019)

- David Utrobin: I wanted to talk about the trade-offs for Global Inclusion. For a business to operate efficiently, it has to have strong coordination between all the people who work on it. Of course, if you have people from all around the globe, maybe you will not be able to have as high a fidelity connection with those people. There will be a lag due to reality. DAOs already have this problem, especially our DAO, because the workforce is decentralized, not globally, but in leadership; there are 20 different teams. There are many, many other initiatives. Many of those initiatives involve various teams. Just as a DAO, ignoring the Global Inclusion thing, DAOs are already less efficient on the coordination side. Trying to design or optimize for Global Inclusion exacerbates the problem, which worries me because it makes our organization slower and less adaptable.
- Payton Rose: The potential counterpoint is that you do not have to work in an office to be a part of Maker or have a physical location due to our lean infrastructure. We can grab global talent and bring them in more than our traditional corporation might be. You definitely would sacrifice on coordination. Your reward could be that you can garner more talent.

[35:53](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=2153)

- David Utrobin: There is an interesting thing that Rafael wrote about long-form writing rather than the verbal tradition of meetings. The forum and MakerDAO, in general, are involved in many different things that long-form writing ends up being very hard to digest when 12 other complex subjects are being written. Maker also has this information complexity and volume problem that we have all been wrestling with.
- Payton Rose: That is a good point. One solution would be not to host coordinated meetings since someone will always be unable to attend. Another result would be an information deluge of many different posts and updates. I have often wondered about doing recorded updates because you could pipe them into a live call. If people cannot attend and be there, they are much more digestible. Many of us probably have the habit of listening to things above one X speed, which is nice because you can compress information and still follow it and consume it; for example, while on a walk, you do not have to be sitting at the very least. That is one potential alternative. Are there other low-hanging fruits? Are there things we can do to make the DAO more accessible without sacrificing too much on the coordination front?

[38:00](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=2280)

- Raphael: The idea of having more informal and frequent chats can be facilitated quickly. I like these meetings because of the information density. Amazingly, I can get all my Maker fill in one go. However, we have this opportunity to maybe meet more frequently, even multiple times a day, with fewer people together. It is not recorded, and people can share what is on their minds. Sometimes, this happens in the Q&As when a couple of people remember the discussion. The conversation with you, Payton, and Michael about D3Ms was super cool. That group size is amazing. There is Dunbar's number, and it has 100-150 people in mind. We have 118 CU members. With delegates, we are already above that number. Something happens in the group size of the hundreds where communication gets strange. It is not as if this occurs at 151, and we are safe at 149. It is amazing to have smaller groups that can get together and interact.
- David Utrobin: The challenge is getting buy-in and explaining that tool to everybody because it is hard for one team to facilitate that. Each discussion needs a facilitator, somebody to introduce what is being discussed, and somebody to create context. It would be cool to see a proactive and decentralized use of Discord voice channel chats or on Twitter spaces. However, Twitter spaces may invite a lot more outsiders into those discussions. It would help if you were cognizant of whether you want it to be an internal or a public discussion. What I am hearing, Raphael is something more bite-sized. That is good.
- Your point is valid. In a decentralized organization, I should start that. However, it could be moderated by GovAlpha. They can give permission to jump on a Discord channel and the rights to do that. They can make some noise when people jump on voice chat. People will or will not show up, but GovAlpha is okay with us doing that. That expectation has not been set. If that is something that Maker wants to do, the method would explicitly permit to do that.
- Payton Rose: From my viewpoint, you have that explicit permission. You can always reach out to us to get an event on the calendar. The potential problem is that funnel still must go through CU members. The nice part is we are hopefully reasonable and accommodating and willing to get these ideas out there.
- Good point. The idea has never crossed my mind, but it makes total sense. I will think about it.

[42:10](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=2530)

- David Utrobin: Will already brought up workshops and stakeholder alignment meetings that sync CUs around coordination for everyday work. Those are typically about an hour or an hour and a half and recur weekly. Something shorter in spaces and formats where we can discuss things that work with the key people involved. I need to think more about what that format is best for. I do not think it is best for coordination or decision-making. It might be a short form for particular things. When we coordinate on initiatives currently, we have many things to go through. However, if we need to figure out a quick manner, we can schedule a 15-minute Discord call. That is possible. The challenge is with global contributors, how do you get all the right people in the room? You could go and tackle something for 15 minutes in a Discord voice channel. However, what if the key person with the correct information is not there to share that context? This would be a mistake you propagate. It concerns me a bit about getting the right people in the room. This goes back to one of your prompts. It is a trade-off. If we try to have more global contributors, it will make it more challenging to get all the right people in the room to make the right decision.
- Will Remor: I have a first-line experience with different time zones. I am too passionate about Maker not to be participating within the Maker protocol. Pockets of contributions work more effectively than others purely amongst workshops and coordination with different teams. There is a lot of activity happening within the CUs in the Maker protocol during the European afternoons and US afternoons and evenings when the Europeans are going to sleep. Most of my work with my team happens in the morning. This is very challenging for a global workforce. However, if you structure synchronized work, you can make it work more effectively by leveraging an organization that can work 24/7. We experimented with this when Phil was based in the UK. They made me the exact antipode of Phil, and we were working 24/7 with the handover of work. At one point in time, we were 24:16 working around the clock. You would hand over and then pick things up on the other end.
- It requires more effort to build that. If you enable a framework with teams to get the job done with handovers internally from one to the other, it can be extremely powerful. This experience was not necessarily related to the G&R call itself but more to the workplace experience. The challenges lie in in-person coordination. You have limited time overlapping that coordination when you are on the antipode. The efficiency across the DAO can be really powerful.
- Payton Rose: I agree with Will. It is valuable to hear how you have been handling it as someone in the time zone that we have been least friendly—at least one of the areas.

[48:23](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=2903)

- Will: A lot of the teams are currently in the US, so it is workable for team meetings. The experience that the US teams have with working with the European teams is generally similar to my experience working with people in the US or the Americas. Much coordination is needed in working with people from Europe for the handover to happen. People need to ask, "I have done work up to this point. Can you pick it up from this point through the night so I can work on it the next day?" If you coordinate well, this system is very powerful.
- David Utrobin: CUs have all been trying to solve this coordination problem. A practical example is the stakeholder alignment call framework. We tried to group all the different cross CU initiatives; we had these large groupings because each initiative has different stakeholders interacting and completely different contexts. Something like collateral management on-chain requires a weekly process for seven or eight people from different teams to meet and work through a spreadsheet line by line together. That is hard to do asynchronously and reliably because people may not do their reoccurring assignments. There is no way to get people to do it. But when you are in a room together, you have way more integrity around the group work that needs to happen.
- That is collateral management on-chain. There is also stuff like security initiatives or smaller initiatives that involve fewer groups. Instead of seven groups, there are only three groups, and those people are more reliable. It is a challenge to organize Maker’s scope of work into the right initiative groups and then understand the touchpoints between the stakeholders. Certain things can be done asynchronously. Maker needs to improve on its toolbox of asynchronous work. I think that Denice is working on from DUXs and something that GovComms is actively thinking about. It is so nuanced, and you cannot just throw a blanket solution on coordination. It has to be taken very carefully and granularly. The difficulty is that Maker is a highly complex and large organization trying to tackle many things.

[51:57](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=3117)

- Payton Rose: That is a good point, David. The context does vary quite a bit. I wanted to circle back to Kianga’s (one of our recognized delegates) comment in the chat. I thought it had a construe observation. She said that we need to project more openness. What does outsider mean for a DAO?
- Kianga: Although I know what David meant, it struck me odd when he said the Twitter spaces would be outsiders. I think you mean this in the sense of trolls. It is interesting how we, as a DAO, do feel the sense of insider/outsider. I know people who are not part of the day-to-day find it very intimidating to interact or learn how to interact with the community. The way other DAOs use Twitter spaces and Discord for meetings could be like the low-hanging fruit for MakerDAO to project its welcoming of new blood and voices. Anyone can participate. This could help us solve some of the dynamics and challenges we have by bringing us more of a volunteer workforce. Volunteers can help us tackle things and create the pipeline for some of the responsibilities that exist in the DAO. I support the conversation. In some way, I agree that we want to try to ensure the right facilitators in any of these more informal chats. But we should take advantage of the community in Discord and people who would see a Twitter space and listen in and get more informed.
- Nadia Alvarez: We are already organizing Twitter space through the Maker Growth Twitter account because we do not have direct access to the Maker DAO Twitter account. We already have a schedule for the different things we want to discuss in these Twitter spaces. We are trying to find a solution to coordinate with TechOps to start doing this on the official MakerDAO account.

[55:06](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=3306)

- Will Remor: I want to highlight the two levels of conversation here. One level is meetings and coordination. We must not forget the second level: MakerDAO is an open-sourced protocol. We are much bigger than we were just two years ago. We also have that ethos of open source and openness. When we talk about insiders, we refer to CU's structured workforce compared to a less wide and structured workforce. Being open-source, that is where we have to do more work.
- Back in the Foundation days, running grants attracted the developer community to help us evolve the protocol. I am not saying they have disappeared, but enabling channels for the distribution in the global workforce to contribute (even if they are outsiders of the CUs) is still extremely valuable for the Maker community. They do not necessarily have to be there for every meeting; it is just about attracting many people. I am considering this when thinking about risk management. This will help us attract fresh blood, which is good because it challenges the thing we have settled and forces you to rethink frameworks. Maybe there is something different about how we do things.
- That is the beauty of open source. Speaking for myself and anyone else who has worked with open source, this is the value that attracted people. That was how I was drawn to Maker from a little island on the corner of the globe. We were working on lots of projects even before Maker around the world. We had odd meetings here and there late at night or early morning. But most of the time, we were doing great work with whoever. That is a core value that you should never forget, despite how now the workforce is more organized around CUs.
- Payton Rose: That is a great reflection, Will. Part of that ties into the mentions of Discord and Twitter spaces. The nice thing about those events is that you log on to the platform with a call happening; it is one click, and you are already on the platform. You are already going to visit, and you can jump in and participate. Whereas when we hold these structured calls on Zoom, this creates that additional barrier to entry. There is an additional requirement for attendance where people may not feel quite as welcome. Then the other part is that the monetary incentives now are essentially the funding. This has shifted from the Foundation to the dissolution of a Foundation. Most of the funds go to CUs who have mandates to care for their desired things. Where they spend money is more internally focused rather than externally. Things like grant programs are incentives to create more open things, and many of those have dried up.
- We have created an excellent protocol, especially since the Terra fallout. People are paying attention, possibly connecting it to the older uncle that created a kind of DeFi that is sustainable long term. People are looking at it globally, especially since what happened over the last couple of weeks. That is what I am perceiving, and it is solid. It is almost like people are looking at it how many developers used to or how some currently look at Linux and similar projects. They want to be part of it and come from across the globe.
- It is about allowing talent to come on board that wants to contribute and recognize the entry barriers from wherever they are from. It can sometimes work on the edge because we know that we will not be able to do the entire development we know to compete in a very competitive environment of stablecoins. This environment will not get less competitive but get increasingly more competitive. So how can we create extra frameworks to attract some development where we do not do all the development? Instead, many organized groups can spend time on the design and oversight. Some development happens on the edges with grants or other protocols that want to work with Maker.
- We organize the group and oversee the architecture and what is being done. You can attract much talent globally just from that possibility. It is the same thing for risk management as well. There is lots of talent coming from either finTech banking, the crypto native, or a mix of those that want to participate. They do not know how to participate, especially not by spending a year trying to get around the channels of the internal workforce. Instead, other protocols offer them to contribute in an open-source capacity. That is where it comes down. That is how I am reflecting on it.

[1:03:42](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=3822)

- Payton Rose: That was powerful. Are there things we can adopt from open-source principles that would make Maker an easier organization to contribute to?
- Will Remor: It is challenging because it is relatively new. For example, creating truly distributed risk management frameworks with checks and validations of how a model is put into a system is a key opportunity for Maker. This does not exist in TRIFI. Every TRIFI team has its core of how it makes money in its model. This is essentially modeling ability with different levels of efficiency. We, as a protocol, can have many open ways to attract talent coming from universities. Universities are pumping out: data scientists, AI, modelers, machine learning engineers and more. However, these guys are not coming into the Maker protocol. Where are they going?
- We have got this fantastic opportunity to attract that talent into the Maker protocol. We can be open source and have strong validations in model development with frameworks and multiple models across the board. We have projects like Block Science that have done work with complex modeling systems. But many of those guys are being trained by Block Science, which has been around for two years. Many of the people in those projects have not migrated to contribute to the Maker protocol? Why? Why are we not attracting that breath of talent? These things are on the top of my mind when I think about Maker as an open-source protocol. We can work a lot on how we enable that channel.
- Payton Rose: It was nice to have your voice on these calls. Perhaps that is a good example.

## Open Discussion

### Payton Rose

[1:06:47](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=4007)

- Noting the time, we are about 15 minutes from we usually wrap up the meetings. I encourage questions from anyone who has not had the chance to speak yet. Please consider. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns we want to raise? We can respond to another word in the chat. It was not the best Scientific in terms of selecting 2100. There were meeting time coordinators put in many corners of the world and asked what a good time would be. It said sometime between 20 and 2200 UTC. I am not sure if that is true or not, but it seemed like a good enough reason.
- I like the idea of polling for times for the meeting. But you run into a problem if you just go with the majority option because then you are back to the same problem of other people getting excluded. We could do something cool where it is almost proportional. If 60% of people vote for this time, then two weeks will hold it, and one week will do this. The downside is complexity, and it is tough to keep track of when the meeting is happening and why. I do think GovAlpha and the mandated actors bought this up and agreed to give this a shot. I am willing to run some polls, get some data there, and see what we can do. Feedback is super helpful.
- One last call for anything else. Anyone wants to read the open discussion as well. We have gone over many aspects of this topic. If there was something else you were hoping to have covered, please bring it up.
- Will Remor: It is getting late for many people as well. Without further ado, I have something for the guys at GovAlpha. If this experiment works, and I will try to help promote the timeframe for the next call on Twitter. I do not think necessarily the format of G&R calls should change. They are presentations of relevant community-wide topics regardless of when we have the calls. From what I am observing on this corner of the globe on the east, my feedback is that people are interested in knowing what is happening with Maker. Although a good struggle, people struggle with following the forums because Maker has the advantage of having one of the most active forums in DeFi. They come in without knowing the gist of what is going on. Then, they ask other people and me. What is it that you guys doing? What is next for you? There is an opportunity for us to present a little bit of a view. And that is what we usually do in the G&R calls. I see a lot of folks interested in understanding more.
- Having a space for people to come and ask questions and learn at a convenient time for them is going to help them. On GovAlpha’s side, we will probably be doing a write-up and, hopefully, follow up with some polling to get some more input on this one and what we can do better. We will go back to our “regular time” next week. So that is 1700 UTC. I look forward to seeing you all there.
- David Utrobin: We will see you next month, Will.
- Will Remor: I am trying to come at least every two weeks, particularly when we are doing RWA updates with the rest of the group.

## Conclusion

### Payton Rose

[1:14:02](https://youtu.be/96GowcgqSBM?t=4442)
- I am going to close off the recording. Thanks, everyone, for coming. Please continue the discussions in the forum. Join us on our Discord. I look forward to seeing you on future calls. Thanks. Awesome.

[Suggestion Box](https://app.suggestionox.com/r/GovCallQs)

## 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

`Liq`: Liquidations

`CU`: Core Unit

## Credits

- Andrea produced this summary.
- Kunfu-po produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.​