Meet Your Delegate: Episode #3

--- tags: Meet Your Delegate --- # Meet Your Delegate: Episode #3 ## Agenda - [00:09](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=9): Introduction - [01:12](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=72): monetsupply - [28:45](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=1725): Gauntlet Team - [31:58](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=1917): Conflict of Interest - [55:58](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=3358): Conclusion ## Video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbdUe4diPjg> ### General Introduction #### LongForWisdom [00:09](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=9) - Hello everyone, and welcome to the MakerDAO Meet Your Delegate meeting #3. We’ve had two of these so far with a couple of our recognized delegates. This week we have @Monet-supply and Gauntlet. - Regarding the structure of these meetings, we give each of the delegates around 30 minutes to present their position and then there’s an open O&A for anyone who’s here to ask questions. These meetings are recorded and put on YouTube. ### Delegate Introductions ### monetsupply [01:12](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=72) ![](https://i.imgur.com/Xg8n3Tg.png) ![](https://i.imgur.com/pY1oPKk.png) - My name is Monet-supply and I’ve been in crypto since early 2020. MakerDAO was the first community that I landed in. It’s where I feel at home most, despite having some engagements here and there. I’ll share a bit on how I think about MakerDAO and about the priorities regarding DAO and voting. - As to the key points of my platform, first and foremost it’s to expand the DAI supply and market share. DAI should get into more hands of people who want and need it. One of the reasons for that is I’m skeptical that we can reach financial self-sustainability at current scale. We are essentially breaking even right now. However, we’ll need more talent and more Core Units as time goes on. The expenses will be growing. We also have non-cash expenses like Core Unit Maker token vesting. We’ve gotten really big in the past year but we still need to scale up to reach a point of self-sustainability. I’m not too concerned with breaking even in the present if we can make sound investments that lead to more growth and more self-sustainability in the future. I think it’s OK to have negative cash flow if we need to e.g., sell tokens into the market in some cases. We just need to make sure we still remain disciplined about our spending. Everything we do should have as much impact as possible and should get us closer to the moment of crossing over and becoming sustainable. - A second area I want to focus on is building bridges with other communities. First and foremost, I believe it’ll help with scaling and adoption. I’m particularly interested in figuring out how we can get DAI in more non-financial and non-yield farming use cases. That’s when you see stuff take hold and it really becomes sustainable. Also, if more people from around the ecosystem are invested in our success, it does give us more buy-in and a sense of greater security. People won’t try and undermine MakerDAO to eke out a profit or push their own competing product. There’s a lot of interesting products and services we can offer by working with other communities, so we can have a force multiplier effect. We don’t necessarily need to build everything in-house. We can find people who already do some of these things and benefit mutually. - My last primary goal is to minimize the risk of DAI holders losing money. This will play into regulators accepting us in the broader financial system. It’s unavoidable that DeFi and real world finance will meet at some point. We need to reach a point of acceptance. On the narrative front, we need to prove we’re as safe or safer than traditional financial institutions. However much vested interests will want to keep us down, I think it gives us a huge advantage and a lot of safety against regulators. - On an organizational level, we need to make sure that values are greater than value. Why are we participating in MakerDAO? Is it to increase the value of the Maker token or to profit? Yes, sort of, but I think it’s a secondary goal that Maker has value to backstop the system and allows us to fulfill our key value. The key value is to provide fair, unbiased and safe financial services to people who don’t have it or have it limited due to their financial systems not being great. - That’s the key broad strokes of my platform. I have plenty of opinions on other small scale stuff impacting the DAO. We’ll get into those later. ![](https://i.imgur.com/jX4qEX1.png) - Now onto a brief section on potential conflicts of interest, which I might have the most among delegates as I 'm involved in a lot of places. I work for the Maker Risk Team and get paid by MakerDAO. I know there’s a potential for a conflict of interest there. Will I try to protect or increase my own pay? I’m committed to resolving those conflicts and figuring out a way that will make that less of an issue for me being a delegate. Potentially, it might be recusing myself from Maker Risk-related poll votes and letting other people take the lead on whether they think our pay packages are appropriate. - I also work with Tally. That’s a governance front-end interface. I have some employee stock with them. I don’t see that as being a conflict. I think if anything, Tally wants to bring more people and visibility into Maker’s governance space. - As to my investments, I have a bunch of crypto tokens. You can check them on my ENS account. That’s pretty much everything. Regarding private investments, I have LDO tokens, i.e., the governance token for LIDO DAO. That might have some potential for conflicts. I’m committed to making sure that it doesn’t cloud my judgement. You can see those in my ENS, the terms are public. I also have one investment in Rabbithole which is a crypto learning quest platform. I don’t think there’s much conflict there but it’s worth calling out. - I do various work with other protocols. I’m on the grant program committees for Compound and Uniswap. I’m a big voter for those protocols as well. In most cases it’s not much opportunity for conflict but it’s definitely something for others to be aware of. #### Questions [10:10](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=610) - Payton Rose: Practically, in terms of being on the Risk Team, how would you handle a situation in which you’d feel differently than how the Risk Team is advising the DAO as a whole? - That’s a good question and one that hasn’t come up so far in my personal voting. I think it’s because internally we communicate a lot on the Risk Team. We pretty much always come to a consensus on what our recommendation is. The way I would handle it if there was some disagreement and I was outvoted in the Risk Team’s perspective, I would probably state me voting another way in my regular delegate communications. I’d explain why and make it very clear that this is in my personal capacity as a voter, rather than as a member of the Risk Team. - Payton Rose: How do you feel about real world assets in Maker? Are there different ways you want to see prioritized as a delegate? - I’m trying to get increasingly more familiar with how Maker is handling them. With a several years-long background at a fintech blender, I’ve learned you can’t rely on borrowers honestly providing you with info. I know the Real World Finance team is digging in a lot, but I’d be concerned that anytime we’re taking a borrower at face value that’s an opportunity for them to take advantage. There’s strong incentives for people to lie. Maker has relatively less recourse than if we were a bank able to bring a case against somebody for bank fraud. That’s a concern of mine. I’d also need to wrap my head around what constitutes someone permissionlessly using Maker, versus having a customer relationship with some of these originators. It seems like if we are taking on customers (versus releasing open software), there’s more risk in a regulatory and legal sense. I still need to learn more about that. Another area of hesitancy is how we structure these vaults or facilities. We need to keep in mind what sort of legal landmines we need to be avoiding. Overall, real world assets are unavoidable if we want to scale up and meet the needs of people for quality financial services. - There’s a question in the chat from Chris Cameron: what are your priorities when Maker enters into a business relationship with another entity, e.g., B.Protocol, Centrifuge, Deco Protocol? - That’s a good question. I earlier got into a hand-in-hand situation with Centrifuge. First and foremost, we need to be looking out for our own interests. In how we’re operating with Centrifuge, it can make sense to take a little more risk and be willing to try out a new way of operating. That’s how I feel with Centrifuge vaults now. There are some added risks from this being new for us. Similarly with B.Protocol, the way their proposed backstop system would integrate with oracles and our liquidation system is new and definitely presents outsized risk. We need to make sure that the scope is small enough at the beginning so that we can take manageable risks and we don’t get too far ahead of ourselves. I think we’re doing a pretty good job of that with Centrifuge. We don’t have too much exposure and the general idea is that we will scale it up as we grow more confident in the way it works. To the extent the DAO decides to move forward with B.Protocol, a similar setup will make sense. Making sure the exposure is small we can test and learn, see what breaks, see what the risk factors are, and only increase scope when we have more confidence. - LongForWisdom: Regarding the portfolio of assets backing DAI, how do you see a breakdown between real-world assets, decentralized assets, and potentially centralized stablecoins looking? What would be your perfect scenario? What do you think we will actually see? - I’ve shifted over the past year. I think having a portion of centralized stablecoins increases DAI’s stability and utility in important ways. Being able to take DAI and bridge it to fiat without huge slippage is valuable. That will help us with onboarding real-world assets. It’ll help people to use DAI in their daily life for non-crypto and non-financial purposes. I’d be happy to see in the long run a 10-20% of centralized stablecoins or highly-liquid and convertible-to-fiat assets. In that bucket, I’d like to see a lot more diversification of counterparties. The fact it’s all USDC now, is not good. I think USDC has a weaker legal situation about what investments they make versus other options. I’d be happy to see PAX, GUSD, and some other centralized stablecoins take up some of that share. For trustless assets, as much as we can muster from that is good, but there is a balance of risk that we have to keep in mind. If we want to make sure we’re really doing everything we can to keep DAI holders from losing money, there’s one risk in the centralized financial system rugpulling us. But there’s another risk that ETH could have a 70% down daily candle and wreck the entire crypto lending ecosystem. For now it’s best to rebalance away from too much stablecoins. However, I’m assuming it'll be maybe half of our collateral base in the long run and I tend to think that’s ok. Unless the entire US banking system collapses, DAI holders should still be able to get their money back. The US might say that Maker is illegal and needs to be shut down but they would have a hard time saying that all individual users of MakerDAO deserve to get wiped out. I believe a balance of centralized and decentralized assets is good and the remainder would be real world assets. We’re so young in the space that all of our counterparties will know better than us how this stuff works. While we grow our capacity for RWA, we face a lot of risks so I want to see that ramp slowly and steadily. - Seth Goldfarb: I’ve asked this question of all delegates until now: What are your thoughts on pay-for-delegates and potential formation of political parties? LFW has done a good job outlining potential benefits of delegation, but I also see some risk around the concept. Do you see any risks with the introduction of delegation and what do you plan on doing to counteract them? - I think there’s some risk coming from delegation. I think the fact voting power can be revoked at any time does help a lot. As long as the vote owners maintain a minimal level of engagement, it’s their responsibility to take back votes from people who are colluding in different ways. The biggest risk I see is that delegates have the power of voting with tokens without being exposed to the financial risk of owning them. Theoretically, it might make sense for people to cut side deals where they get paid to vote in a certain way that isnt best for Maker. It’s really easy to make anonymous payments in crypto. I’m not exactly sure how that risk is mitigated, but it relies on people valuing their reputation. When it comes to me, I don’t need the money and would prefer to pick reputation and respect. I’d encourage delegates to be resolute in speaking your mind and avoid quid pro quos to avoid the issues I’m talking about. - LongForWisdom: Do you have any thoughts on scaling the DAO itself? Is there anything we should be doing better or we’re currently doing well? What could be improved? - It’d be awesome to have some sort of a legal core unit. It’d be good to have more lawyers, compliance or regulatory people in the room. We’re making many important decisions assuming how this stuff works. There’s no individual person responsible for saying “This is how it works and I have experience to know”. That’d be a great point of growth. - It’d be good to attribute finances on a more granular scale. Now, we know how much each core unit gets. We can attribute how much revenue each vault type is getting. Yet, we could attribute costs more specifically. E.g. calculating the cost of onboarding a collateral type or the cost of maintaining a collateral type would help to get an idea of our break-even point for each individual business line or service we’re offering. That’d be really valuable. It could be done by a dedicated finance department. Real-World Finance CU has been taking it under their wing but there could be an entire core unit focusing on that. - LongForWisdom: I think that’d be cool too. It’s good to know not only how much we’re spending but where. We’re not super clear about it now. - Thanks for coming to the meeting. You can get me at [Maker Chat](https://chat.makerdao.com/) or use the [forum direct messaging](https://forum.makerdao.com/u/monet-supply/summary). You can try [Twitter messages](https://twitter.com/MonetSupply) but I’m not good at responding to those. Stick around for Gauntlet. I’m excited to hear what they have to say as well. ### Nick Cannon from Gauntlet [28:45](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=1725) - Nick cannon here representing Gauntlet Elite Growth. Gauntlet at a high level is a financial modeling platform for risk management and parameter optimization for protocols just like maker.dao. We've previously engaged and worked with maker.dao doing an auction assessment for liquidations 2.0, which you can find in the form or somewhere on our website. Our high level core values and delegate platform are outlined by three of these core values: quantitative risk management, maximizing risk adjusted protocol income, and minimizing insolvent debt to a tolerance that we understand might change over the time depending on community preferences as well.So with those in mind, we will broadly seek to provide insights into those quantitative decisions with a focus on market risk, that's the core competency of gauntlet and while that might seem like a small box or a tight framework to think around, this is a financial platform and a financial currency and this touches a lot of things. We will look to also not touch on any decisions or possibly abstain from emotional and politically charged votes, that readily don't necessarily admit to quantitative analysis. there's a lot of qualitative decisions that the community now and in the future might disagree on or should be decided by the community and stakeholders themselves, and we will as best as possible should it not touch on market risk or something that we think affects the protocol, abstain, it will be situational if we do or don't weigh in of why that extension should occur or will occur. Sometimes when those situations do occur or when those votes or proposals do come up, it's better to be ahead of them as we've found in the past previous delegate positions we've had on other protocols. - As i mentioned, we'll look to support any sort of measure that maximizes risk adjusted protocol income through parameter changes, onboarding collateral and other means. Dai is a currency and things that affect this currency and the platform MKR more broadly should be considered with this lens almost always top of mind. We'll also look to support measures that don't materially impact the risk of insolving depth of the protocol. These might very well be growth initiatives. For example, furthering ecosystem growth, bridges, research , security, and novel use cases trying to you know bridge the Trifi? world, whatever the community or new gross growth initiatives might be decided upon or come through, we will look to support and bring that lens of market risk analysis to all of those things. Hopefully that's an added benefit that we can bring to the protocol in the community. #### Conflict of interests [31:58](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=1917) - Gallant obviously works with a number of other protocols that some may be considered competitors, some definitely are not, but we will continue to deploy the platform on other protocols and valves. We currently hold various token positions outlined in the delegate platform and probably will do so going forward. Right now Guantlet is a company holds no mkr personally, some of our investors definitely do. In a gauntlet capacity i guess I personally sit on the grounds down the compact grants program as well as a reviewer this is sort of a temporary position, i don't foresee this affecting my viewpoint capacity helping coordinate gauntlet’s delegate platform for Maker. We are also an active delegate of Compound and Venus Swap. - You mentioned that you're a delegate for also compound and uniswap, i'm curious what goes through your mind or decision making process when there are conflicting proposals and things at play between these protocols? - We should outline sort of why we're coming to this community. We did have a commercial agreement previously doing the auction risk assessment and that sort of is one and done. Liquidations 2.0 is sort of good to go in our eyes and hopefully the community can adjust those trade-offs that we've highlighted. All of these protocols and majority of these protocols especially top protocols with large amounts of TBL or minted Dai or things of that nature touch each other and they are of top considerations for our modeling and our simulations whether we have a commercial engagement or not. How they affect each other overall for now and for the foreseeable future is quite important. So the growth of broader (defy?) is extremely important to us and that's sort of the lens we try to bring to all of our delegate platforms. - From a delegate's perspective why should someone dedicate to you who only vote in a subset of proposals versus another delegate who is saying “yeah i'll vote in all the proposals”, as i think makes the most sense? - The subset is much bigger than you think. I think there's only been a single digit number of proposals we've actually abstained. One example top of mind was the Uni Swap Retroactive for the proxy contracts, where we felt like that the community should decide how to reason about that but there was no real add value that we thought we could bring to that conversation. For the most part we're quite heavily active in all of those proposals. It is worth calling out that should something like uni swap retroactive or something like that come about we'd like to abstain. - How do you plan to communicate your reasoning for votes to the maker community? Second off, how much participation can we expect from you at general maker calls or otherwise from the gauntlet team, more than you specifically? - Yeah we definitely want to be more proactive or more active in community calls and in the forums as it relates to all the new assets you're bringing on in real world or otherwise. Its tough to quantify how many hours that might be. We're a team currently of 24, majority of people are developers or data scientists and that team's growing quite rapidly. Infrastructure in and around all of (Dfi?) is something we're keeping top in mind. A lot of people are using CDP’s as you might imagine not just you and we still think about that constantly how it affects player twos and bridges and things of that nature. So maker is definitely top of mind. I think you'll find myself probably coordinating the majority of our communications usually trying to digest what data scientists and developers say into a more human readable format whether it's heat maps or analytics so it makes sense to the rest of us layman's, but that's what we can definitely commit to right now. - Did you have a plan for in terms of communicating why you voted on each proposal? Is that going to be done on the forums or on twitter or something like that? - We do both currently for all delegate platforms. We are actually currently building up an internal policy guideline for all these platforms as well things like asset onboarding and just general guidelines so if you wonder how does gauntlet broadly reason about real-world assets or assets with this sort of market cap or something like that, not to say we won't make a situation judgment call and analysis, but it might be helpful for people to understand our platform more broadly and we'll try to get that more public as we make that a bit more robust. - (David Speaking) I find it so interesting that there's delegates that are proposing themselves as individuals and then there are delegates that are proposing themselves as a team like gauntlet. Maybe the individual who's actually doing the vote changes but the background, expertise, insight and work that you guys do will definitely improve the quality of your activity so thank you i just want to express that gratitude for you guys putting up a delegate platform. - What are the priorities when maker enters into a business relationship with another entity? For example, the protocol centrifuge, (deco?) protocol etc. - So there's parts of that which are qualitative, like community brand building, expansion and growth of dye, which we will broadly abstain from that part. The other part of it, which I think should be taken or weighed heavily in any sort of consideration is how does this risk the core protocol? What risk does it add to the insolvency? what risk does it add to the dai supply et cetera? I think there would be quite a value add that we could bring to the table. Saying that there is you know broader concerns as well, like where there's market risk concern, but you know how the protocol functions also informs market risk, how quickly you can change risk parameters or something like that . we definitely have opinions in around that as those change. Protocol to protocol are quite different, but should it affect how risk is managed whether it's just in solidity contracts, we will definitely be weighing in. - Is Gauntlet compensated at other delegation things for further vote delegation work. Do you expect the same to come true for Maker? - We don't have an expectation to. No, for the most part the vast majority of people who delegate to us i think we have like 150 on Uniswap and 50 or so on compound we honestly do not know who they are, but we thank them very much for their vote of confidence. Presumably they understand what we stand for and that the community and the protocols are looking to build and grow, but for the most part no expectation from us - How do you reason about expanding dye to other layer ones? If we get maybe five gauntlets to be the top five maker delegates, how do you think that would bold when it comes to gradual decentralization as some people are asking? - Quantitative risk management. We analyze all protocols or layer ones um and there's an opportunity, because we are a company and a platform. Think about servicing and helping projects and protocols on those layers, so a lot of that decision making has been done or is consistently updated as solana and polkadot and other ecosystems start to evolve. Hopefully we can bring some of that work we've already done and do internally to our opinions of where Dai should possibly go next and that will add to the considerations of the proposals or the growth strategy.If there were five gauntlets that maybe have a high percentage of the voting share or delegate share, I think we all want something more decentralized, i don't think you would necessarily need five gauntlets. Hopefully there's people with other aspects and i forgot to mention that previously but having individuals and companies as delegates is something you probably don't see very often in (tradfy?) and definitely a unique aspect that could in our opinion add a lot of value (Difi?) and there's definitely a value proposition. Is there a risk of centralization or colluding? Yes, let's not like sugarcoat that. Have we seen that or have we been broached, no. We try to do as much as possible out in the open whether it's forum posts, arts, all of our proposals or try to get ahead of comments and criticisms as best as possible. People should to some extent if you're delegating have some minor involvement and should the protocol not be going in the direction you want, remove your delegation, We think that's prudent to do and hopefully holders of them are incentivized financially enough to maintain watch and do so should they see that. - What do you feel the purpose of MakerDao is? - To create a decentralized price stable currency for everyone and while that seems a little high level or it definitely captures a lot of what everyone has been trying to build for four or five years. Censorship resistance is hard, and I think we can all agree we're not perfectly there yet. There's still a lot of risks and not just market risks that it sounds like the community and the stakeholders are still working on and we strongly feel we have some value to bring to that as you go down this long and winding road. - So you talked a lot about quantitative risk stuff and how that kind of concerns on boarding assets like spreading to other ones. There's a lot of sort of internal dao things that happen as well. Stuff that affects the protocol. right So one of the big things is onboarding core units. So we've onboarded a bunch of core units over the last few months, we're still getting proposals coming in so it looks like we're going to continue to vote on onboarding other core units. Is that an area where gauntlet will abstain as you've kind of described or is that something you guys will attempt to quantifiably analyze and sort of figure out how valuable those core units are to the protocol? - Probably a little of both from the sounds of it. From what I’ve seen in the forum so far, we try to lean and make our reasoning understandable before what might seem like a judgment against some person to be on a core unit. Getting ahead of just a broad core unit as a concept would probably be most important. We understand that they're extremely important for the function of Maker and how they have function past and to the future and as you bring more on we definitely want to help assist in any way we can. - I saw the delegates on other calls, their opinions on pay for delegates and the potential development of political parties in Maker Dao. I see a lot of potential benefits certainly but I think there's some risks to keep an eye towards as well so how do you think about these topics and is there anything in particular you see yourself doing on your own or working with other delegates to mitigate these risks - Not particularly working with other delegates, but on our own as i sort of alluded to previously is internally we're building out policies and guidelines of generally what we do, for example: for acid onboarding and for ltv changes. That gives us a high-level heuristic framework to where we then can kick off modeling and where we go so it helps. Generally we abstain from these kinds of votes and the more we can build that out internally and then make that externally focused, people can hold our feet to the fire and make that a bit more predictable in our platform and then votes we will participate in or abstain from. Have we seen a person or as Gauntlet have we seen political parties form in and around other protocols or do we think that's a risk in the short run, probably not. Its definitely possible, politics is politics. We'll see how long (Difi?) or crypto convey that at a at a high level, but at the end of the day gauntlet is a business we are incorporated in Delaware and we have revenues and things of that nature. If political interests sort of side track that we'd be very concerned personally from revenue perspective or product perspective or scaling perspective and would probably step away. Delegating or and having delegation platforms is quite secondary to the core focus of the business, but we think it helps grow the ecosystem and that's why we participate in it. - What is that you do for revenue? How do you make profits? And do you think any of these things will conflict with voting and MakerDao. - So as a risk management platform, we do parameter optimization for trading fees and token emissions as well, for example decentralized exchanges. we find that as objective as we can get or as we can make our models as objective as possible, we can reduce any concerns for conflicts of interest. (Dfi?) is far from zero sum and we definitely want to see these platforms grow and protocols grow. We can work with competing platforms for the reasons that we're not making these subjective claims or trying to make claims of what the growth strategy of Compound should be or Unit Swap or Makerdao. Hopefully that helps disentangle a any sort of conflicts of interest. - Would you be incentivized to vote to do things that's the maker protocol might employ you to audit? Is there anything you want to say with regards to that? - We don't want to block ourselves from having any sort of commercial arrangement with Maker Dao now or in the near future um and hopefully our past performance will help facilitate something like that should the opportunity arise. No firm stance on anything. We sort of take everything situational as it comes .We know the protocol is growing quite fast with the rest of Dfi and hopefully it can help touch on or help provide that lens that I sort of highlighted in the core values. - Could you describe how you might apply the modeling to issues around governance? - Absolutely so think of protocol upgrades and a lot of protocols are starting considering what maybe Maker has been ahead on for quite a while, like how to think about the risk or unit and how you should think about parameter changes and how to have a risk framework. A lot of those protocols are also considering you know risk admin roles where there's functions for fast and slow pass of governance whether if there's large protocol upgrades that drastically change how the protocol functions or new assets come on board, that would be an obvious slow path. Maybe something like an ltv change or something small should a market risk arise or we see something like that, would maybe warrant a faster path. We definitely like to weigh in on those decisions, we have opinions of how you can de-risk the protocol based on governance especially in and around those, so hopefully we as maker and the community and the protocol consider those in development we can add that lens and opinion. ### Conclusion #### LongForWisdom [55:58](https://youtu.be/PbdUe4diPjg?t=3358) - All right so any last thing from Gauntlet, what sort of highlights you wanna finish off? - happy to sort of layout this platform for us and feel free to ask us any questions in the forum, im looking to moving this foward to get governance, more active participation from gauntlet for sure. - Cool any preferred methods for contact, bes way to get in contact wiith you? - you can in touch everywehere in the [forum](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/gauntlet-delegate-platform/9675), rocket chat[](https://chat.makerdao.com/), [twitter](https://twitter.com/inkymaze). - Thank you so much Nick for coming and thank you to Monet-supply as well, you're looking forward to you to sort of discussions with you both in the future. Hopefully, see you in the next one. ## Common Abbreviated Terms `DAO`: Decentralized Autonomous Organinization `RWA`: Real World Asset `DeFi`: Decentralized Finance ## Credits - Artem Gordon produced this summary. - David Utrobin produced this summary. - Gala Guillén produced this summary. - John (last name) produced this summary - Sonya (last name) produced this summary - Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.