Issue Discussion Call - Episode #06: Onboarding Collateral

--- tags: Issue Discussion Call --- # Issue Discussion Call - Episode #06: Onboarding Collateral ## Agenda - [00:00](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc): Intro with Thomas Flitter - [02:47](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=167): Collateral Onboarding - [42:15](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=2535): Open Discussion with Robert Jordan - [53:20](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=3200): Conclusion ## Video [Link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJsmZL6mRcc) ## Introduction ### Thomas Flitter #### Agenda and Preamble [00:00](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc) - Welcome, everybody, to Issue Discussion Call #6, Collateral Onboarding. My name is Thomas Flitter. I am the engagement lead for the GovComms CU. I will be your host for today. - We have a special guest, Robert Jordan (@monkey.irish), facilitator for the Collateral Engineering Services CU. He will help lead us through a discussion of the issues faced with the collateral onboarding process. - We will kick it off today by looking at several agenda items. Robert will help us with the history of collateral onboarding and understand the historical perspective of that process. This allows us to set up the issues the process is facing. We are looking at how the process is understood, how well it is understood, and its documentation from end to end. In addition, we will be covering some new proposed processes, and some of the things in the pipeline will address those issues on collateral onboarding. - I am pleased to have Robert here today. He has some fantastic slides. As a reminder to everybody on board, some of you may know this process and have heard of this before, but some of us may not. We are excited to hear Robert teach us about these issues and some of their solutions. - This session is also interactive. Please send us a comment on the chat feature. Raise your hand or speak up if you have a question, a thought, or feedback on the presented material. ## Collateral Onboarding ### Robert Jordan [02:47](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=167) ![History](https://i.imgur.com/u551T1u.png) - Hi, everyone. This is a collection of information that some may have seen before as a complete process overview. We have encountered this in the past number of months with our collateral. This pertains to onboarding, issues raised in the community, and some future into how this will change and better suit the protocol’s needs. I always like to start some of these discussions because I believe history matters. How we get here is important. - Some of you might have heard of the multi-collateral Dai launch in November 2019. That was right before I started with the Maker Foundation, before the DAO transition. Nobody anticipated the growth we had with the Maker protocol. To support this growth, our collateral onboarding is trying to keep up with the quick pace of our industry. From the MCD launch, we went from onboarding ETH and BAT to asking what else can we onboard? We tried to onboard every EUR C20 collateral we could find. We exhausted those tokens and offboarded some. We created the WBTC market, which was interesting. There was much controversy around that one. However, you can see how much that has grown inside our protocol and its importance. - We experimented with other strategies like LP tokens, adding peg stability modules or PSMs, and institutional vaults. Now, we are experimenting with D3Ms, and RWA and looking into L2 solutions. Some of these processes were not built to handle the evolution of our collateral over the past two and a half years. I want to use RWAs, or real-world assets, as an example. We did not know what it looked like to onboard RWAs back then. Notable community members wrote the initial MIPs and processes to define collateral onboarding. They were not thinking about RWAs, let alone collateral hybrid of what we are turning on and off-chain. History is important and is also easy to forget. However, it is helpful to remember as we shape our future. [5:31](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=331) ![Collateral Management Lifecycle(CML)](https://i.imgur.com/6gkzosL.png) - At the beginning of the year, we publish the collateral management lifecycle or the CML as a holistic view of how the Collateral Engineering Services CU functions. The roadmap involves building two critical components for on and off-chain collateral management. We must understand that there are two types of collateral. Many of the same processes are shared amongst them, but differences are also. - The first component of this is collateral onboarding. We are already familiar with some of the challenges we face as the protocol evolves. We will talk a lot about that in this presentation. We have made progress there but still have a lot to do. This is where we are spending most of our energies today concerning collateral onboarding. However, this will change quickly. - The second component is collateral maintenance. If we look at our collateral maintenance today, it is dispersed amongst multiple CUs and contributors. The goal is to consolidate these efforts and facilitate a stakeholder process where we have regular checkpoints and transparent data. Then, we can make conscious decisions about our collateral. This is especially important with RWAs since we cannot rely on on-chain data to make decisions. Work is already beginning; our program manager, who will lead this effort, starts next week. She will be taking on both the upcoming collateral onboarding changes: not only the ones we just did but also for phase two. I want to be very clear here. This whole area of collateral maintenance and the processes within CES is about leveraging our current work across multiple CUs relating to our collateral. - We have various teams that already do a wonderful job. However, we must bring that together into one concise meeting process facilitation. So again, we are making the ongoing decisions for all our collateral within the Maker protocol. The last thing I want to identify is that wrapping these two components are our processes, deliverables, and CU operations that support the implementation of this lifecycle. [8:10](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=490) ![Collateral Onboarding Process](https://i.imgur.com/wvxxQzH.png) - Today, we have a collateral onboarding process. It is real and went through a significant update last week. We use it every day. We have three groups out there. The on-chain collateral stakeholders typically deal with the crypto native collaterals. The off-chain collateral stakeholders deal mainly with the RWAs and the onboarding. The mandated actors are a group of people that have been around for some time. This group includes the facilitators and other recognized people voted into that slot within the community. - This list includes the following CUs: PE, Oracle, Risk, RWF, Growth, our CES CU, GovComms, and GovAlpha. It also consists of the Incubation CUs of LTS(legal) and LOVE, oversight compliance. Luca is proposing to be a facilitator for Love. Maker community members created the process shortly before the Foundation had dissolved. Many of them were notable people within the community during that time. We realize that the process is not perfect, but there is a process and baseline to work from. - From my perspective, our growth opportunities are in transparent communication, prioritization, and commitment areas. The current process may not look like this graphic when we complete the next iteration or phase two. But please know that CES is committed to updating the process to ensure it works for the community, whatever that might look like to scale the supply of Dai safely and securely and in the most cost-effective way possible. - With this background, I would like to look at three phases of the collateral onboarding process: application, prioritization, and implementation. [11:05](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=665) ![Collateral Applications](https://i.imgur.com/YnaYRh2.png) - The first phase of the collateral onboarding process is the collateral application. In the past, there was confusion about this part of the process. Most recently, our collateral applicants got creative to test the governance process by publishing MIP6s, signal requests, and what we term regular MIPs. As a result, it was clear that we had not educated the community on the overall collateral onboarding process. The old status spreadsheet did not communicate the current state of the collateral moving through onboarding. Plus, we had a lot of Greenlit collateral without any progress that needed to be cleaned up. Those are great learnings for our team and the community. To start getting collateral added to the Maker protocol, I recommend the [MIP6 Collateral Application](https://mips.makerdao.com/mips/details/MIP6). - Information goes into the application that could be specific to on-chain and off-chain collateral. I will explain why that is important in a moment. If a collateral type is new to the Maker protocol and community, I suggest the applicant start a conversation in the forums to solicit ideas and feedback before posting the MIP6. I am making some recommendations and suggestions here. Given our governance process, anyone is free to do as they feel. I am simply providing the learnings that I have seen based on our experiences with onboarding our collateral for the past 18 months. Once a MIP6 is posted to the forums, we have a two-week comment period, followed by a two-week Greenlight poll. The poll is designed to allow MKR holders to signal their interest in the collateral for consideration for the next phase of the process. We would like to engage the community where we can, and this is one of the spots where we do that. - Please be aware of the two general categories of Maker collateral: the crypto native and RWA. If you are looking to onboard an RWA, I suggest you look at a MIP67 recently ratified by the community. That will guide you on what information is needed within the MIP6 collateral application. I must mention a couple of exceptions to the MIP6 collateral application for completeness. Some specialized collaterals start with signal requests instead of a MIP6 application. We can discuss this in more detail if you would like. - The three we have identified are as follows. The first is the peg stability module (PSM), where MIP29 ratifies the collateral technology. Second is the institutional vaults (MIP59) ratified to describe the technology behind an institutional vault. The last is adding a vault to existing collateral with different parameters. For example, there is ETH-A, ETH-B, and ETH-C. These distinctions exist because each has a different recommended parameter. However, anyone can file through our single request process. Risk examines it and verifies the parameters. We deploy that new vault type, it has different parameters, and that collateral technically has been onboarded. We are just changing the parameters for that particular vault type. Please keep that in mind. [16:17](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=977) ![Collateral Prioritization](https://i.imgur.com/shw6ruC.png) - The second phase of the collateral onboarding process is prioritization. We learned that the key to prioritization is transparency. Clear communication of the collateral stakeholders’ process and decisions was missing. That was pretty apparent from much of the community discussion. Once the collateral is greenlit, it is two weeks in the green light pole. It means that there are more yeses than nos. Once it is greenlit, the collateral stakeholders will look at the prioritization of that collateral to decide what collateral as a group can move into the next phase of the process. - Many factors go into prioritization. I have included a few of them on the slide. While I would like to develop a purely objective prioritization model, there are factors to consider. Many of them are not quantitative. Seeing the factors that we use might impact prioritizing a piece of collateral. For example, these factors include the scope of the work, the current product backlog, or the sprint backlog that a team may be working through. - When we do not have the necessary information inside the collateral application, we will spin back and forth and ask many questions. That exchange sometimes becomes adversarial or confrontational. We want to drive that out of the process by providing the necessary information upfront in the collateral application. Understand that we do follow a process, and there is a team that works on this. We use the collateral status index to communicate that. This will be improved during phase two of the collateral onboarding process. I highly recommend you look at the collateral status index, and there is a status called up next. This indicates that the collateral classified as up next can advance in the collateral onboarding process. I will talk about that next. - Thomas: From what I understand, the collateral onboarding in the past was just: “hey, let us get what we can onboard. Let us try to put all this stuff together and find out once we get there.” It was a hodgepodge, if you will. Now, we are in the process of figuring out that from the prioritization. Is that correct? - Partially. When the foundation was dissolving, we published the process, and the DAO picked up the responsibilities. There was a defined and published process followed. As more CUs came on board, the process got diluted. Until CES came along, there was no group to own that process and drive it forward. It sat in a gray area of who was doing this. People would pop in and put their feedback. Some CUs were much more engaged than others. However, there was not a body of people responsible for the process. It took a life of its own. The essence of the process was followed, but it was not iterated on. It was just left to be implemented. However, teams felt it needed to be. I will talk more about what we did in the first quarter to put our arms around this, understand the issues, and then put together a plan. [21:24](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=1284) ![Collateral Implementation](https://i.imgur.com/TpJPXCR.png) - The last phase of the collateral onboarding process is implementation. Learning this phase was internal to the teams. Once we moved to implementation, we found that most collaterals were onboarded. There were cases where, for example, an assessment would come back as high risk or Risk cannot recommend a debt ceiling. At that point, domain teams decided to stop working on the collateral. One of the key learnings was that it is our responsibility to communicate that to the collateral applicant if that is the case. We saw this did not happen in the past. This is a process that we have learned a lot from. We made changes to ensure that communication is a key part of our actions moving forward. - When we enter the implementation phase, we do a technical and business assessment of the collateral. Think of this as a deep dive to ensure we understand all the technical, business, legal, and deal perspective details to onboard this collateral. When these assessments are completed, they are published in the forum. With all the details fully known, we have possibly uncovered new information that would be important to share with the community for their approval. We put it out to the MKR stakeholders to vote in a governance poll that happens on-chain to get the final approval on collateral implementation. - At this point, everything needs to be known. We have struggled with not fully understanding the legal terms of an agreement. This is the time for the collateral applicant and us to invest and ensure that we are clear on what the deal looks like, the legal terms, and providing the actual documents of what is embodied inside those legal terms. For example, things must happen if someone is onboarding an RWA asset using a collateral technology called MIP21 (another ratified collateral technology). This is namely in the liquidations, the emergency shutdown, and other parameters that must be handled in a legal agreement executed off-chain. None of that is on-chain; we do not have visibility from an on-chain perspective. It is critically important that we fully understand the deal and the legal part at this phase. Sometimes that will impact how we do the implementation. - The actual technical implementation is up to the domain teams. This may start before the governance poll is complete. Why? This gives teams the ability to better plan their work, given their development backlogs. We do not want to force work into a process where teams, especially CES and PE, work on a typically two-week cadence. We have a very detailed sprint process. We follow it every single sprint cycle and refine our work beforehand. We know what we will work on during that cycle. If something gets forced into that process, we must either complete the sprint cycle or stop doing work and task switch. Then, we move on to new work. That is a very disruptive process for anyone that has done software development. Any MIPs that has suggested a forced implementation, a prioritization, or blocking impedes that process. It is important to understand that it does not help us. It adds time to the overall collateral onboarding process. - The last part of implementation is the right to spell. The spell is code that onboards the collateral into the Maker protocol. After, we publish the executive vote. The executive vote includes new collateral onboard and various parameter changes to reflect the governance process ratification of changes to the protocol. The spell is executed once the MKR holders approve the on-chain executive vote. Then, the new collateral is officially onboarded. That completes the collateral onboarding process for new collateral. - Thomas: Have you found any concerns with the voters and lack of communication? And your thoughts on being more transparent with folks and understanding the different types of collateral? - Robert Jordan: One of the services that I offer as the facilitator of CES is encouraging applicants to reach out and ask me questions about the process. I am here to help. One of my roles as a facilitator is to help provide a business advisory about the processes someone might go through. The collateral proposer is the expert on their collateral. We are the experts on the DAO process. It is natural to assume that one will want someone to ask their questions. This may happen on the forum, Discord, or any public channels. Or you can reach out to me directly so I can share my thoughts and learnings with the teams that are onboarding collateral. It is nice that I see that happening. I encourage anyone watching this to please reach out to me if you have any questions about the process, how to start the process, and recommendations or suggestions that I would have with that. - I observed that we throw around much technology. We talk about MIPs, which are Maker Improvement Proposals. MIPs are necessary as they define how the MakerDAO governance system works. It is important to be familiar with them. I am not expecting people to be an expert. They can ask us questions or reach out to GovAlpha. - I spent a fair amount of time internally and externally helping individuals and groups understand the difference between the collateral we are onboarding and the technology we are using to onboard that collateral. Like the D3M and the Direct Deposit Module, technology does not onboard anything. It is a set of smart contracts that allows us to do something special, depending upon the use case of the collateral we want to onboard. If someone wants to utilize technology, that is great. However, that may not be applicable based on the type of collateral an applicant seeks to onboard. - I suggest we provide technical advisory service in the CU that will sit down with the collateral applicant to describe what they are trying to do. We can recommend the best fit based on the type of collateral they are trying to onboard. That is something we provide that can happen at any time, preferably before the applicant files a collateral application. [31:41](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=1901) ![Q1 2022 Updates](https://i.imgur.com/ZSrM1cn.png) - It is important to understand the preparation work in Q1 that led to the collateral process updates we published last week. Meetings for the collateral stakeholder alignment calls began for off-chain collateral at the beginning of the year. We did a little work before the end of the year. I appreciate GovComms and CES for coordinating and facilitating these calls, and many CUs are involved in this. Before these meetings, it was challenging to get a cross-functional group together. We had competing priorities and a lack of understanding of overall DAO objectives. I appreciate the initial work of David, Wouter, and Thomas contributed to the organization and facilitation of these meetings. These early meetings had great tenacity. It took several meetings before we got into a cadence for everyone to understand the importance of the initiatives fully. We had initiative work, ongoing work, and implementation work mixed into these meetings during this time. This was odd. It took us some time to figure out the specifics of everything. We joked around that in the centralized world, everyone would have received the marching order in one meeting that would have quickly brought the process together. But this is a DAO, and it works differently. - By the end of the last quarter, it was apparent that we needed a specific meeting for the ongoing nature of our collateral onboarding. Although that sounded simple, it took some work to build the stakeholder alignment and identify the needs of this team and the community. We also published the collateral management lifecycle in early January, which I have reviewed. The goal was to provide this holistic view to the community. As we moved forward and hired new people for CES, this was more of a future state becoming a reality. I mentioned one of those before this presentation. We then moved into onto the assessment and the recommendations of the current collateral onboarding process. Asking for and getting everyone's feedback on time is not easy. Everyone is busy, and I realize I am not the highest priority on people's lists. I am not taking that personally. - We collected what we could, made the recommendations, and started implementing the changes. There were some failed attempts. For example, we looked at a prenup process, but that did not go anywhere. A driving force we did for the collateral process change happened this quarter. We also did work on gaining consensus on modifying portions of the MIP6 and MIP7. As I mentioned, the MIP6 is an application template. If there was a need for an overhaul due to questions not accurately representing what we needed to see inside the application, Nicola and her team worked with cross-functional teams to ensure better questions. We need to be clear on what we are looking for when onboarding collateral from a business perspective. The question organization also needs some work. The MIP7 amendments focused on some cleanup and identifying CES as a domain team as the entity recognizing the collateral onboarding process. There is a legacy here, but after consulting GovAlpha, it makes sense to construct this for CES. [36:36](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=2196) ![Collateral Onboarding Phase II](https://i.imgur.com/0bSLFVC.png) - I want to discuss our collateral onboarding phase two in this last slide. Q1 was about learning and building the foundation for working to Q2 and beyond. We have done much internal work between the CUs, and much more work remains to ensure that all the key stakeholders are aligned. It is important to understand the difference between alignment and agreement. Alignment ensures that the community understands and has input in making decisions. When there is an identified issue and a defined process, my first step is to take a big step back, collect information, and move forward again. Feedback is a critical component to surfacing a solution that will bring alignment related to our collateral onboarding. - The goals for collateral onboarding in phase two will be what I am calling the big four: transparency, communication, prioritization, and commitment. Blending change with some of these is straightforward. For example, one of the first deliverables in Q2 was revising the collateral status index. This is the basis for communicating the status of the next steps for all collateral in its onboarding process. From this, we published a new weekly forum update. We changed it to include a summary of collateral by status for easier consumption. As we build on Q1, we verified the statuses of the collateral greenlit using the new collateral application template ratified on Monday and the MIP6 guidelines that Nikolai published last week. We are still waiting for input on a couple of collaterals, but that work is essentially complete. It cleaned up the list a lot. - For the off-chain collateral, the team will be updating the applicants on the other remaining greenlit RWAs due to the ratification of MIP67. Please note that the collateral status will remain greenlit. We will ask the applicant to indicate if they want to continue to move forward with their application. Will, Rema, and his team will be making those posts shortly to those applicants to get a read on how they would proceed. This cleaned up the collateral status index tremendously and provided us much better guidance on where the collateral is in our process and the next steps. - Education is also a key aspect of supporting our Q2 goals. This is one of those meetings. From the forums and talking with prospective collateral applicants, I realized clearly that very few people understood this process. As I mentioned before, in our current business and technical advisory work, we do community outreach to better explain the collateral onboarding process and gather feedback. We will continue to use this input to modify the process. This must work to support the needs of the Maker protocol. - I also want to call out prioritization and commitment specifically. The collateral status index published in the form has a prioritization system. That was one component to assist us, the collateral stakeholders, and prioritizing the collateral. I want to reinforce that we will continue to make improvements in that area we work through the feedback and process changes. These changes also include MIPs changes over time to be a significant overhaul. - Last, and maybe most important, we need onboard collateral. This cannot just be any collateral. It must have the potential to make the most significant impact on the protocol and grow the Dai supply in a stable, secure, and cost-effective manner. Regardless of what the process looks like or the participants involved, SES is committed to doing this. ## Open Discussion [42:15](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=2535) - Thomas: Thank you, Robert. That was great information. Thank you for sharing where we have been and where we are with collateral onboarding. I want to encourage any comments or feedback if anyone has them. I want to leave a few minutes for an open discussion. Please look at the latest information on the forum related to collateral onboarding as part of the alignment stakeholder calls. From someone who does not necessarily understand the process, I can say they did a good job putting that language in layman’s terms, getting more folks to understand the need for it and how things can transpire. Robert, thank you again for your presentation. Let us open the floor up to any comments, discussion, feedback, or thoughts. [43:08](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=2588) - David Utrobin: I am curious about the difference in experience between the first version of collateral onboarding and the second version from the perspective of a collateral applicant. A collateral applicant would have put up a MIP6 proposal for the last few quarters. After, it was streamlined into the collateral greenlight process. Then, depending on its merits, it would either get put on the backlog forever or get picked up. It would get some assessments and progress to a governance poll before the implementation resulted in an executive fully implementing the collateral. In this experience, you put in the application and then no communication unless something happened. What is the difference in the process now for a MIP6 applicant? - Robert Jordan: This process is the same that we had. We are going back and following the process. The big piece about it is communication. When trying to understand how it works, one must ask what is working and where am I at? Those two pieces are the huge improvements that we made in the clarity of communicating to the community where we are specifically at with collateral. Those are the pieces of improvement to the physical process changes in phase two. There are three main categories: the application process, prioritization piece, and implementation. Each section needs to ensure that we follow a process that makes sense for the business, the community, and the collateral we are onboarding. - There is a need to fast-track certain types of collateral in the application process. One example is a new vault type based upon different risk parameters. That makes much sense. When we look at the questioning inside the MIP6 application, a lot of that does not apply. Then, what does apply inside of our collateral application? How do we quickly move certain types of collateral through the system, as we have already done a lot of the work? - We also want to match the MIPs. Right now, we have MIPs 6 through 12 that technically define the process of collateral onboarding. Much of that is outdated or references things that do not make sense. We want to make sure we have a complete update on that. We want one process that is defined. This allows us to say, “here is this type of collateral and the opportunity. Let us move it this way through the application process.” We want to be consistent and clear, so no one has to guess: do I do a MIP? Do I make a signal request? Do I make a MIP6 application? What is the process here? There is one process. Right now, it does not feel like we have that. I added a little bit of color there, David because that is important for phase two. - David Utrobin: That is part of the challenge when there are new collaterals we want to onboard as a protocol. There are also new products that might be a remix of existing collaterals like ETH-A, ETH-B, ETH-C, WBTC, stETH, etc. In addition, there are things like D3Ms, which are also new collaterals. However, they are separate and involve an entire pool of collaterals from a separate protocol. Then, there are institutional vaults, which again take existing collateral. It is more of a client relationship where you get favorable terms for a promise to do a specific size of Dai generation. We need to be able to communicate to the public the process of becoming an institutional ballpark. What is the process of proposing a D3M for your protocol and differentiating that from getting my collateral at the base level into the protocol? Those are three separate things. - Robert Jordan: You mentioned something key there. You asked how I do onboard my collateral using the D3M? I want to take the discussion to a different place initially to say here is the collateral I would like to onboard. From a business perspective, we need to ensure the due diligence to know why we are onboarding that collateral. We have plenty of technology. We can find the appropriate technology or, in some cases, develop new technology if there is a product-market fit. One of the key aspects of this CU that I proposed from the very beginning was having a productized model for collateral. You will be seeing more about this. The person leading this effort is Miguel, our product manager. - How do we decide what markets we want to be in? Is it in or out of the market when collateral comes into the protocol? How do we signal to the community that we are looking for these types of collateral? We believe they have the highest impact on the supply generation of Dai. Of course, we want the demand too, so we have worked very closely with other CUs. There is a product piece that we have not yet addressed. Discussions will roll out to take a concerted look at the market, what we believe is needed, and publishing those guidelines with hopes of attracting that type of collateral into the Maker System. This will be similar to the Real World Sandbox that Luca did. We want to say, “there are market opportunities we would like to signal to be part of the Maker protocol.” - Anyone can propose anything at any time. It is a completely open governance process. But if we are looking to operationalize collateral onboarding and scale it (the key here is scaling), we need to systematically assess onboarding collateral. We need to target places or specific types to signal and go after. CUs can even write the applications internally. You are probably going to see some of that coming up. [51:05](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=3065) - Thomas: One of the key points there was onboard collateral. What would you say are the key communications for someone not in CES, does not have someone to communicate with to onboard collateral, or is not on your CU? How can they systematically go through the process and say, “someone has communicated with me; what steps would you recommend?” You have already mentioned them, but I think it is important to reiterate. - Robert Jordan: One of the resources I recommend to people is documentation. You can start there with any questions you have about the process. There is a public channel for CES on the MakerDAO official Discord server; you can reach out to us there. You can also join the CES Discord Servers, and we have public channels there. I will generate an invite here. If anyone would like to join that, please do so. You can reach out to us on our Discord channel. We can take the conversation from there. You can also post your idea on the forums and get feedback from the community. Being self-driven is great. - I have a much longer history; almost three years’ worth of history can provide assistance and suggestions to leverage your learnings. One of the processes that I initially designed at Foundation with internal teams was the collateral onboarding process when multi-collateral Dai was first launched. We have the same problem internally. We had a bunch of collateral; which ones do we onboard? I have been doing this for a while; I would love to share the learnings with anyone that might need help. ## Conclusion ### Thomas Flitter [53:20](https://youtu.be/NJsmZL6mRcc?t=3200) - Thank you, Robert. Thanks to everyone for being here today. Robert gave a valuable presentation, and we look forward to continuing the discussions on forums and Discord. If you have any questions, please reach out to Robert Jordan or @monkey.irish. ## Credits - LarryAG produced this summary. - Kunfu-po produced this summary. - Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.