---
tags: G&R
---

# Episode #204: August 18^th, 2022

## Agenda

- [00:00](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE): Introduction
- [06:23](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=383): Votes and Polls
- [8:45](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=525): MIPs Update
- [12:36](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=756): Weekly Forum Recap
- [16:54](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=1014): Initiatives Update: July Financials
- [33:37](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2017): Discussion: HVB Legal Funding
- [56:57](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=3417): Discussion: RWF and RWF0x Split
- [1:30:30](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=5430): Conclusion

## Video

[Link](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE)

## General Updates

### Votes

#### Payton Rose


> *Polls:* -- [6:27](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=387)
> *Executive Votes:* -- [7:34](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=454)

### MIPs

#### Pablo

[8:45](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=525)

[Weekly MIPs Update #100](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-mips-update-100/17265)


##### Ratification Polls

> - _Top Level MIPs_ -- [8:59](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=539)
> - _Core Unit Budgets_ -- [9:18](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=558)
> - _Core Unit Offboardings_ -- [9:36](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=576)
> - _Amendments_ -- [9:47](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=587)

##### Proposals in RFC
> - _MIP Sets_ -- [10:06](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=606)
> - _Core Unit Onboardings_ -- [10:19](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=619)
> - _Special Purpose Funds_ -- [10:30](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=630)
> - _MKR Budgets_ -- [10:53](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=653)
> - _Core Unit Offboardings_ -- [11:01](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=661)
> - _Amendments_ -- [11:12](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=672)

> :mag_right: _Important Dates:
> Ratification Polls will close on August 22^nd.
> The last day for introducing modifications in the proposals eligible to enter the September Cycle is August 31^st._

### Weekly Forum Recap

#### Artem Gordon

[12:36](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=756)

_Post:_ [Weekly Forum Recap: July 11^th - 17^th, 2022](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/weekly-forum-recap/16247/5)

- _**News & Announcements:**_
- [Frontier Research Delegate Platform](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/frontier-research-delegate-platform/17298)
- _**Signal Requests:**_
- [[Signal Request] Update MANA vault stability fee to 3%](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-update-mana-vault-stability-fee-to-3/17097)
- [[Signal Request] Changing USDC-PSM fees](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/signal-request-changing-usdc-psm-fees/17304)

:mag_right: Shout-out: DAI-LIGHTS NEWS, MOVES & L2S

## Initiatives Update

### July Financials

#### Adrian

[16:54](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=1014)








## Discussion

### HVB Legal Funding

#### Robert

[33:37](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2017)



[37:12](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2232)

- **Christian Petersen**: Can I add two things to that? Ankura Trust is the third party agent acting as eyes and ears on the ground, and they are the crypto servicer. They did their first posting today in terms of communications to the community. They have approved at least two of the loan participations that HVB has proposed. Over the next few days, the Trust will have its first two loan participations.
- The next point is, when we put this together, the reason why we wanted to put the 400 million in upfront was we provided for (wispis)(38:30)(x?) to invest the balance that is sitting waiting for HVB to use it, in a treasury ETF and those authorized investments income will work its way back to Maker. It was a cheap and easy way to diversify some income by having 400 million deposited upfront.
- Hopefully, soon, coming from HVB, some monies will come back.

[39:31](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2371)
- **Robert:** There is cause for celebration. This forward progress is at the work of many hands, and we should be proud of what we have been able to accomplish. Thanks to everyone that participated in this.

[40:30](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2430)

- **Robert:** I have put a proposal into the forums and am terming a project-based funding request, specifically for MIP65. Some might be confused about why I have done this and the purpose, especially over the special purpose fund. I am using this approach since I am a Core Unit facilitator. I am looking to solve a particular problem in my domain space. First, we want to ensure quick decisions (less than two weeks) and what I am returning professional services and spending monies when dealing with RWAs. A significant component of professional services has to do with legal. In this specific example from MIP65, a lot of it is legal. Other services include things like counterparty risk and doing an assessment. Many times we have questions about the deal terms. Even after our assessments are complete, there is a continuing back and forth in the onboarding process on the team and questions on implementation and what we do next. We need an ongoing relationship for professional services, and it does not stop after the collateral goes onboarded; it continues. On the collateral management side, we have to ensure we are getting paid. We also have to ensure that the risk levels of that particular collateral are still within the ranges we assessed when we first onboarded the collateral. The second thing is that we want to ensure that we involve the community by asking for the ongoing support of specific collateral using a governance poll. The governance poll clearly indicates if the community wants to move it forward.
- So it is a go-no-go decision because that is effective if we decide not to spend additional monies on a specific piece of collateral that we want to onboard, then it is done. There is no more work to be done on that collateral application. The other thing this does; is it helps us with relative priorities, as it relates to the work on the collateral, the index that we follow on all the work in progress. After running these experiments, another goal is that we would like to build this project funding request into the actual collateral onboarding process because it allows us to continue to have the community involved. These ongoing checks are very helpful in filtering out whether or not we move forward with collateral in the system. The last piece is that I believe there is a budget for professional services, so the collateral stakeholders and the domain teams do not need to go back and ask for Dai transfers. Every time we put one of these out, it simply is a matter of this is a go-no-go and spending professional services on this deal. If it is a go, we take that money out of whatever budget might exist and continue moving forward.
- The budget has been a real contention in the community, especially for legal expenses and other things. For this specifically, there would be a bucket of money, but there will be a way to access that money ahead of time to know what we will spend. Of course, we would also want to ensure that where we can, and where applicable and reasonable, and customary, the collateral applicant would be picking up the expenses on their side. We may or may not have been doing this in the past, but we want to ensure it is happening moving forward.
- In working with GovAlpha, we agree that the PFR, this request, and Dai transfer would be temporary until we could develop more of this permanent solution I just mentioned.
- The MIP65 Special Purpose Fund is a particular request for a legal deliverable, which is needed. I have found that every implementation has numerous questions. Therefore, we need advice from qualified third parties to ensure we can do the proper implementation. Many times that is outside of the legal scope. The general, special purpose fund MIP is not designed to do what I propose in my goals. It is not an issue with this special purpose fund. That MIP works great for what it needs to do. I am proposing that this is something different, which does not exist yet, but we also have an immediate need for funding, so I will pause to see if there are any questions with that preamble.

[45:57](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2757)

- **Juan:** I agree on something, and it is that this does not exist. We cannot just make up things and make them go through governance because MKR holders voted for the governance process and ratified the process that needs to be respected. I am happy to create a new tool if the SPF is not working, but if you are using your facilitator powers and calling an urgency, I think it should be called like that. And then, we should discuss if it is urgent or not instead of like a new cool feature called the PFR or something. My main concern is that either this is an urgency, and you are in all your rights to use your powers as a facilitator domain, or it is not, and then we should call things by their name.

[47:44](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2864)

- **Juan:** The question is not if it is temporary. The question is: Is it an urgency or not? If it is not an urgency, is the SPF for temporary things that need funding, such as a project or a special purpose? Otherwise, if it is temporary or not, that is different.

[49:02](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=2942)

- **Raphael:** Do you think you or the DAO will get this budget back from the parties who now have the mandate to do that work?

## Discussion

### RWF and RWF0x Split

[56:57](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=3417)

- **Payton Rose:** Kianga had a good comment in the chat, saying, are we going to talk about the RWF wallet? Most specifically, what is going on with those funds and communications? It seems like a good starting point, considering we are discussing the need for funding and financing.

[57:38](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=3458)

- **Raphael:** There seem to be two proposals for budgets for legal fees for the same collateral. I think we have all the actors here in this call. Should the community now decide which one it wants? How are they thinking?

[1:01:56](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=3716)

- **Juan:** The auditor's role is not to judge the performance of the Core Unit but to make sure that the Core Unit is reporting on what they are expending the money on and that they fall within the lines of the MIP. If they say we will spend 30k in trips, and they are spending more, the auditors would issue a report saying they spent 40k instead of 30k. The auditor's role is to pass the funds to the operational wallet once this report is out for the MKR holders/delegates to review. Anything that changes that flow would need to go through governance. It is not up to the auditors to judge Will's performance and say, hey, you are not communicating enough, you went MIA, etc.

[01:04:21](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=3861)

- **Payton Rose:** Can someone clearly state what is not happening with the real-world finance law that folks are trying to solve?

[1:11:02](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=4262)

- **Christian:** The proposal we put into splitting the CUs was to ensure execution. We did the HVB deal in under three months, which is a record for any real-world asset. We had a high-quality counterparty that was ready to move quickly. They were professional: we were able to get it done quickly, and they will put their first loans in. The team and the proposal to have our RWF0x were about execution and transparency. On our own, TJ and I have been making weekly postings, both on the deals that we are working on and the like. And if you look at the Core Unit itself, I think the last posting was in May.

[1:14:20](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=4460)

- **Justin:** We need to distinguish between what we intend to do and what is actual Maker policy and approved governance. Right now, Maker as a whole has not made the decision. As a delegate, I have a few priorities. The first thing I want to do is start to free up the mandate: that is also why an off-board proposal has gone live tonight. We should suspend any green lights until we have a more permanent solution. That will have to go through a governance process to be instituted, but that is my intention: to support either of the two proposals to ensure continued operations and maintenance of our existing obligations. Of course, it has to be approved by the government process before its Maker policy. Finally, we need to sit down and determine the long-term solution. That one is probably going to take a little bit more time. We need to figure out if a Core Unit or a meta DAO or whatever is the best path forward so that we can have something solid, and do not have to change it up every two or three months, because that is not good for the people involved.

[1:19:28](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=4768)

- **Justin:** There are aspects of this situation that are very different. You talk about why we have an incubation program to incubate a Core Unit. It is not being paid. It goes through the normal governance process. This is similar but different. You have a Core Unit that did a year of work for Maker and, prior to termination, which one could argue fairly convincingly was baseless and vindictive, would have continued and been paid. This is different. Then you have to deal with issues of given the work they put in, is severance or some recompense reasonable? Was the termination even legitimate as per the principles of the DAO? It gets complicated. Whereas I appreciate that you are comparing historical situations to route everyone in historical logic, there are some very, very clear differences. As a DAO going forward, if we will be effective, we need to develop a framework for dealing with situations like this such that we have a precedent when it happens again in the future.

[1:27:20](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=5240)

- **Payton Rose:** We have also seen proposals for retroactive MKR. One of the beautiful things is when you can propose anything, which means if you want something, you feel it is due to you, and the Maker holders agree, it can be funded.
- The lack of shared information has been challenging to have a full conversation about all this. I appreciate everyone sticking with this and providing their insight and testimony, perhaps as to what they are experiencing. [...]

## Conclusion

### Payton Rose

[1:30:30](https://youtu.be/Rv-lBWmiBLE?t=5430)

- We will be back at the same time, at the same place next week. Let us keep the conversations going on the forum and in the chat.
- Thank you for your presence, attention, and being part of this wonderful community.

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

## Credits

- Andrea Suarez produced this summary.
- @Larry_Wu produced this summary.
- Kunfu-po produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call.