- There are two BIPs that will be purposed next week, these two BIPs are the Seraph and Beanstalk Farms funding for the first half of 2023
- The Beanstalk Farms funding BIP purposes to fund Beanstalk Farms for Q1 and Q2 but the DAO could purpose a BOP to withhold Q2 funding. The 400k Beans will fund the current team and allow for some new hires to come on the team
- The Seraph BIP is very similar to the initial BIP
- Core SDK for Swaps + new swap routes https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Beanstalk/pull/287
- Claim and Do X + component redesigns https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Beanstalk/pull/277
- Sunrise Improvements code review https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Beanstalk/pull/292
- ~5 other PRs https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Beanstalk/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
- Wells Halborn commit hash https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Wells/commit/7c498215f843620cb24ec5bbf978c6495f6e5fe4 Aquifers https://github.com/BeanstalkFarms/Wells/pull/5
- Roadmap https://community.bean.money/roadmap
- Finished a prototype for the design around the Field improvements that are coming up soon
- Working on generalizing different charts that the Pod Market will use
- Publius says that they will never directly say how they will vote on a BIP, but they will be active in the discussion. They think that this is a pivotal point for Beanstalk. They think since the two failed BIPs were voted on so closely, there is something unhealthy there. There should be a balance between making it too hard to change Beanstalk and making it too easy. Publius thinks it is very important for people to voice their opinions. The BIPs will be purposed next week sometime, but this is very flexible. Beanstalk Farms has enough funding till the middle of February. Publius has always been against some type of tax on users for funding development, but if there is too much friction to fund development they think it might be worth thinking about some sort of tax in the future.
- Pizzaman thinks the lack of voting is because of the general macro environment, they suggest some sort of scaling Stalk system for voting on governance proposals. They go on to suggest a rework of how BIPs pass. Mod says any rework of the BIP system, would require a BIP so we have to pass a BIP with the current structure
- TylerB thinks that people vote when Beanstalk is minting, Publius thinks this is an issue because Beanstalk should have development work funded and this development work should help bring Beanstalk back to peg
- ALBean asks if it is possible to remove people's emotions on current market conditions from governance, Publius thinks of some type of forking mechanism where you opt into the new version and if you do not you stay into the old version.
- Historically Publius has been against delegation of votes but they think it is something to consider. They would think this should be voted on via a BOP
- Sync thinks that a budget proposal could qualify as a BOP instead of a BIP. The one downside to this is that it lowers the barrier to getting funding someone could request a budget. The way Beanstalk Farms would do this is each department would purpose a BOP. Publius thinks this would just be a bandage for the issue and would not fix the overall governance issue.
- Publius does not want to give guidance on how to vote on BIPs, and they think people should self-govern themselves
- AlBean thinks that there is no clear discussion-making process for turning ideas into BIPs, they also question if there should be a leadership team that the DAO should trust.
- Publius thinks people should make podcasts and other forms of media to share their voice on governance proposals but it is a catch-22 because Beanstalk is having a tough time funding these media sources with BIPSs
Thank you all for joining us today. We can go through some updates or the updates from the farms. And I believe today the meat of or the most of the discussion will be with regards to the two bips that will be proposed. How's everything that's. Am I doing well? Don't have too much to say on this. And apart from the the couple of burps so happy to summarize the summarize those and perhaps after a couple of folks give updates, we can start some discussion about it. But I think I had mentioned in previous weeks that the hope was to repurpose the budget and set up alongside alongside some other being stock upgrades. But I think that, you know, we've sort of done some thinking about our internal processes around, you know, the various stages of having these bips and audit versus internal review and want to make sure, you know, we do those the right way rather than the fastest way possible. So perhaps those are those other bits that have been in the weekly updates for the last couple, couple of weeks, like the sunrise changes and the withdrawal timer. You know, we'll be ready sometime later next month. So with regards to the couple BIP drafts that we shared in the last couple of days, there's first the the Beanstalk farm's H1 budget BIP, which would be bip 33. So this is a little bit restructured from the proposal that was initially put up earlier this month or over the holidays. And I think that the just a couple core differences to point out is, one, this proposes to mint both the Q1 and Q2 budgets for beanstalk farms as part of the same BIP, while also preserving the Dow's ability to withhold funding from Beanstalk Palms on a quarterly basis. So there's a little bit more detail in the proposal that I hope everyone has a chance to read over the next couple of days. But the concept is that the Dow would be able to propose up up to prevent beanstalk farms from using any Q2 funding upon the completion of Q1. You know, if it so if the Dow so desires with regards to the amounts, I think the 400 K that's proposed for Q1 will be able to fund the existing team being so farms through the end of Q1 and the Q2 budget of 950,000 will really allow us to to capitalize on some of the increased increased interest from a lot of devs and working on Beanstalk and particularly in the context of the the Roadmap database that we published a couple of days ago, I think that, you know, we're going to need some more devs and contributors in order to execute on everything in there, particularly in the context of all the, the middleware and interfaces to build on top of all the on chain developments in that roadmap. So that's a little bit about the budget. BIP 34 is almost identical to the initial set up, so don't have too much to say there, but hope everyone has a chance to to read it and leave some questions and feedback in the in the channel when they when they get a chance to do so. Okay. Thank you guys. Is that all from around. Yeah I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. I have some follow up questions maybe regarding the budget, but we can talk about maybe after getting some updates from the development team. So, Chad, how are you doing? Great, Matt. I'm going to send a quick message in the Barnyard Chat with with a list of stuff that we've been working on. But first, I would love to welcome a CXO who's here with us today. He's going to be joining us for the for the month of February to work on a number of projects, starting some some work on wells. So thanks for for being here and for for joining the team. And I think to go back to something I was saying, you know, these from my perspective have seen a significant uptick in interest in in Beanstalk and working on Beanstalk from a development standpoint over the last couple of weeks. And I think we have a really unique opportunity to go continue growing the team and working on lots of new things. So yeah, as always, like if you encounter developers who would like to work on Beanstalk, send them my way. But you know, expect to continue growing over the next the next couple of months. So welcome. So thank you chair them and welcome so Chad, just for those who may listen to this recording, did you want to read maybe quickly your message or would you like me to read it? Yeah, I can I can go through this. So lots of outstanding papers that are being reviewed currently and some stuff that's been shipped over the last week. So just to walk through the message sort of in the on the core repo, we have an outstanding PR that adds basically uses the Beanstalk SDK for swaps. In the Beanstalk UI. And so what this change will allow is to start you can swap between more token pairs straight from from Beanstalk. So for example, if you want to swap between between stables, that's now supported. But what this really does is open up the basically any time we add more swap pass to the SDK, for example with Wells, those will automatically be incorporated into that swap page without any additional work. So super excited about that and this is one of the first big steps of getting some of this SDK work that's been happening over the past couple of months, integrated into into the interface being some has been working on this claim into X feature set, which does two things. The first thing is it makes some upgrades to some of the token inputs throughout the website to make them more clear about what's going on with respect to circulating and farm balances, which is something that we've got a lot of feedback about over the last couple of months. And then secondarily, it enables the functionality to claim various types of beans from around the farm and simultaneously do another action. So an example would be if you have harvestable pods, you can claim and deposit those in one or harvesting deposits rather in one transaction and all of that's pre pre-built for you. And it's just as simple as, you know, flicking a switch that applies to silo withdrawals and principal screws and that kind of stuff as well. So really excited about that. It's, you know, the first major implementation in the UI of taking advantage of what the farm, the farm functionality has to offer in terms of composing these types of transactions. So lots more, lots more to come from that perspective we're bringing in. I are also doing a code review of the Sunrise improvements a bit ahead of that, going out and making some some tweaks and changes there, notably across the across the stack. We've been working really hard to clean up documentation and variable names and all of these different things to on one front help onboard new developers and then secondarily to help auditors like Hal Bourne dig into the code more effectively. So this is something we've been really paying a lot of attention to. And I think if you go take a look at the Wells code base, you'll you'll see a pretty, you know, an improvement in attention to detail. That I think is something we want to embed across the all of the code that Bienstock Farms puts out. There's a link to a list of all the parts that are that have gone out this week as well. So if anybody's curious, you can always go and look at that to kind of see see what's moving. And there's always there's always a lot a lot of little stuff that we're working on in between on the Wells front briefly. So I linked the commit hash that was sent to Hal Bourne. They've begun their review and we did a demo with them again this week to just kind of go through a couple specific components. So they have they have the info they need and are are actively working on this. And then currently we're working on on additional pass on the wells repo related to some of the factories and registries which will deploy wells. Notably this this aquifers is out which is a permissionless well registry. And then we're also working on aqueducts, which is the permissioned form of that. So no timeline for those yet. But if you want to take a look at the code, it's it's on, it's on that PR. So yeah, I think that's that's all I've got for now. Happy to answer any questions about those things but lots of lots of stuff moving. Thank you, Chad Smith. Beans Ahmad I'll keep my my update short this week but finish sort of a prototype for the field Dutch auction adjustments that are coming up in a future bit. So this is the morning state that Brian has has spent a bunch of time working on as the UI for that is finished at this point. And then I think I mentioned the slide, been mentioning this, but I mentioned this last week that I'm sort of working on generalized saying the depth chart that I've been working on for the pod marketplace to see if we can get the view to work with a different asset than pot. So currently attempting to reuse those existing components to see if we can build a prototype for a Bitcoin futures market. And sort of the goal here is to identify, you know, how generalizable we want to be with sort of the componentry that we're working with. So that's that's kind of it from my end. Thank you. Sorry. TRUMP All right. Maybe we can go back to to the mean or let's say the discussion on Publius, this question might be directed to it is dedicated to you, to important bits. And in my opinion, one has to do with the development of the stock and the other it has to do with security. And maybe the shared topic between the both is governance and how governance decides basically on on those bits. What are your thoughts, first of all, on those bips and how would you recommend or, you know, say the the Darwin general approach approaches the So in general we have always tried to refrain from explicitly supporting any bips in particular and we will continue to to not tell people how to vote. But we do try and throughout the history of being stuck, I guess in varying capacities, have tried to participate in the discussion around specific bips. And with with that being said, as a preface, I really do feel like both of the steps that are being effectively re proposed in that they were already proposed and failed once present a pivotal moment for the Bienstock protocol and for the Dow in that and the two bibs are distinctly different. And perhaps that's one of the reasons why this is an important moment for Bienstock because last last time they both failed in in relatively similar votes and it almost indicates a lack of real discussion or diversity in how bits are being received and people are perhaps just on board or not on board with the general direction that things are going. And it it almost seems like the stirrup bit and the budget gap are so different that the fact that they were voted on so similarly is indicative of something that probably not very healthy about the system at the moment. And this is something that we've spoken about recently, how the governance system does this. These are the types of situations that in practice the current governance system is likely to create. And from that perspective, there's something to be said for a a revamped system of governance in general. And as Bienstock shifts back to on chain governance, this will be an opportunity for the Dow to implement better, hopefully better our system of governance. But at the end of the day, there is a trade off between resistance to change, which, if Beanstalk is to become the issuer of money, it needs to be difficult to change and the ability to iterate or get lost or left in the dust by others that are innovative. And at this point in time, without commenting on these bits specifically, you're like Beanstalk is very far from the place where it can really ossify and change is at the protocol level, become few and far between. And so from that perspective, it is really important that the Dow continues to have meaningful discussions on BEPS and that there is meaningful participation in voting for and against BEPS, I guess for and abstaining from BEPS in practice. But the point is that there does need to be a way to continue to iterate on the protocol at this point in time and have been stock is unable to be changed at all going forward because of lack of participation. That is going to be a big problem. So that's that's where being stuck currently sits and it's really participate in discussion, constructive discussion with both of the PIPS separately. And this is yeah, this is an important time for sort of problems I think you can have towards the end or just last. But I'm not sure it's just me. Maybe others can confirm where did I lose you guys? Apologies. Just just the last sentence. Well, I was just saying that this is a very important moment for Beanstalk, and I really hope that people are treated as such. Okay, guys, can you maybe give us timelines on the on the bits? Right now, the channels are open for discussion. When can we expect them to be proposed? And, you know, tell us again, how long is the voting period? And then lastly, maybe what is the current status of being firms with regards to the budget available and how long, you know, is the amount that it's just basically for if this again, doesn't doesn't pass? Sure. So I guess to address to answer your first question, I mean, the BEPS can be proposed at any time. I think it's relatively good practice to have those discussion channels open for for at least a week and, you know, it's all so flexible. So, you know, if we find that there's a lot of discussion and particular feedback about particular parts of each of the BEPS, you know, sometimes early, sometime early next week, perhaps that would be, you know, grounds for waiting a bit longer. But barring that, I think it would be reasonable to expect the proposals, you know, call it mid-next week or something like that. With regards to your latter question, in the context of the firms funding, I believe that we have enough beans to pay everyone through the middle of next month and partially through the end of February. As my understanding at the moment. Let me know if I didn't didn't answer a part of your question or not. I don't quite remember. No, I think I think this is clear. All right. I'll pause here and see if you know any any members or those that wanted to say something. Also see a problem that you unmuted yourself, maybe that you want to comment. Something worth worth worth saying is that in general, from from day one, we've been vehemently opposed to any sort of tax or something that would perpetually fund development of the protocol. But these types of frictions around paying for development, like hearing guys say that Bienstock Farms can only pay people for another couple of weeks. That is far and away, in our opinion, the biggest existential risk to bienstock that all the people that are currently working day and night on Beanstalk suddenly lose funding because of lack of agreement of the Dow. That would be that would be horrible. And so at the at the margin, we've always been proponents of the idea of having a quarterly report at least regularly. But in practice it's been a quarterly budget such that the Dow really has a close eye on what is being worked on and how much money is being spent on it, which is really important from a checks and balances perspective. But these types of frictions and dangers that are introduced from that type of system make it make it certainly worth considering some sort of percentage of all future being minutes or up to some number of beings go towards funding development and that may be one or multiple organizations that can access that funding. But if you think about, for example, the work that the Imperium Foundation is doing within the Imperium community, if the Imperium Foundation was uncertain about funding on a quarterly basis, it's impossible to imagine them being nearly as effective as they have been in practice. So this is a a larger discussion. I think that the shift towards a five month proposal for funding for being stop arms is is a significant change from what's been happening, which is quarterly funding and in general would would really encourage people to participate in discussion on the best way to fund development going forward and see that thus far there really hasn't been any any discussion on that thread and think that's a problem. So we're just really encourage everyone to figure it out together. So it's really important. Thank you for this. And I would maybe add, is that what I want, for example, personally? Well, there is no doubt that, you know, the developments have been so cold and stock where they will have developed contributors who, you know, would continue to send them there. And we've had that experience before where we've seen it happen. Well, we may not want to take, you know, things like that for granted. It's also a bit, you know, unrealistic. We also don't want, you know, those who are contributing or developing to, you know, have to worry and think about things like that is like, how much longer do we have a budget, How much longer does nothing? And it it's more ideal or, you know, the better, let's say, for us to have all of that focus put towards, you know, developing and not have to worry about, you know, other things such as what we're talking about, you know, the budget and hold on the budget as there. Okay. I'm going to pause again here to see if there are any comments or anyone who would like to join the discussion. And we can talk more about it. The last thing maybe that I wanted to mention is that there are office hours that are proposed that you want to maybe remind or mention them one one out of those there. You know, what other one, some others like join and ask maybe, you know, more questions or other questions. Sure. How to quit that before before getting to that, just thinking about, you know, the amount and quality of the discussion, not just with regards to the budget, but but also with regard to the the roadmap. And for those that are listening, the link is that community being that money slash roadmap. And, you know, it's not as if we've had the opportunity to write paragraphs and paragraphs about each, each item in there and feel like, you know, it is sufficiently dense and technical such that it's not totally possible to, you know, read, read that once or twice and completely understand what's going on. So feel like that document in particular is really important to ask questions about what it is. Each item that, you know is hoping to get worked on and and why, you know, both both here in the meetings and in class and in discord. So just want to just want to highlight highlight that as well. But to answer your question, yes. So, you know, hopefully it's clear that all of us want to make ourselves as available as possible to answer questions both, you know, live over voice and think over over discord chat. But myself. So we are Bains and Silo. Chad will be sitting here in the barnyard for a couple different times over the next week to to answer any questions of folks in listen to this recording later and make this time hopefully hopefully there is a time that you're able to make over the next next few days. So I think in Pacific Time, those times would be noon tomorrow myself, Chad and Red Beans will be here and then 7 p.m. on Monday. And those those times are timezone adjusted in the the announcements channel. So you can, you can check out when, what time that would be in your timezone. And so hopefully those are, you know, just serve as ability to serve as more off the record conversations. If folks want to come ask questions that you know, for whatever reason they don't feel comfortable asking here or anything like that. Thank you guy Pizza man says that maybe the problem is just the general lack of voting or participation and that, you know, people forgot about crypto for a while, just given given the conditions, let's say, of the market and they suggests or maybe they're thinking about having a system where a smaller percent of stock is required to pass MIPS, what would count towards reaching the threshold for future votes? And I think this is something or a point of progress, you know, mentioned, and that is that you had two bits that were completely separate. You have both of them have the same amount of voter participation. Any any thoughts maybe on how you would we would want to maybe spread, you know, the word around or raise awareness on the on the gaps. I guess one thing is to encourage, you know, those who are with us or those who are in the and the within the communities to reach out to other members who you know of and tell them, encourage them to vote, tell them that, you know, the bits that are there and you know, encourage them to encourage others to to vote. I see Tyler being pizza, nanos typing, so we'll wait for the comments or questions. Tyler He says that maybe people are not as interested in voting on things as as before, and we should listen to what the DA wants the forum to work on possibly and have compromises. So go back again. Tyler be with the notion is that, you know, you had to that were separate yet they had the same online participation nevertheless what what do you think is you know what what are the things that you think the forum wants or what what do you personally want? For example? Yeah, just to bring it back to the discussion about the level of discussion, it's really, really impossible to know what those things are without people talking about it. To Tyler B's comment and the Barnyard Chat amounts to suggests maybe chain changes on how bips pass or pass. But keep in mind these are amends for any change to happen anyway. You need a bit to pass with with the current, you know, status or requirements. Nevertheless, even though some of these changes may happen, the idea is to still make it relatively difficult for for being stuck to chance. So that is by by design. But going back again to it is that even if we want to make changes to governance, we still have to pass that with the current, with the current requirements. Mr. MOORE She has some comments and they're thinking some ideas on top of their have. So A, the participation should be rewarded. So stock voting power should start low and game with each participation until I haven't seen the ceiling if I understand this correctly. So the more you vote, the more you know your stock counts. Is that correct? Maybe you can correct me, if I'm mistaken, be an active voting stock should receive less weight and quota. So this is the opposite of the previous point. C Within each voting epoch, last minute votes should receive less voting power to prevent something sways the election and the abstain s change to against. So I can maybe share a couple thoughts on on a few of those that I might have off hand with regards to the comments about or questions about, you know, having bips pass as a function of the majority majority vote or participation being rewarded. You know, we'd have to think about it more. But, you know, the attack factor, I think of as you know, once there is a more on chain governance structure, how do you mitigate someone, you know, proposing 10,000 bips and just at the cost of gas to dilute others voting powers or voting power, rather? So that would be something to think about. Think voting power tapering off later in the voting period is an interesting thought. And with regard to the the voting choices, as you know, per the feedback that some folks had in the community, the seraph, but does add against as a voting choice for bips, although it, you know, serves no function other than someone indicating their dissent in the sense that not voting, voting, abstain or voting against has no effect on the outcome. Currently, that is my comment on the that the the voting power dilutes with time is that this is part of the voting. So expect everyone that votes and participates to to have that expectation that at the last minute you know everyone can come in on vote and expect them to vote as is nevertheless much of the you know, if such a system is implemented anywhere to do, do you know who or someone that use such such voting system and what were the outcomes that and just one last reminder again is that these while these topics are interesting for us to think about, you know, governance in general, it still does not change the fact that for any changes to be made, to still have to abide by the current, by the current rules totally says and that's a response to what what what is it that you think or want the forum to work on. So they say that they're not sure what everyone wants, but their guess is that people are losing that interest because most people are expecting being to be about that content being. It hasn't been the case in a while and they're personally happy to see what's going on. But most people are impatient, so I'm not sure they're going to be that there substance here like this. These are not things that you can act on or there is nothing here. But there is a point here, which is that if if Bienstock is is unable to survive periods of time where it doesn't print beings for months at a time because funding dries up, that is a major problem with the system. So given that Bienstock is designed to function around human nature, this is something that really does have to be factored into the to the to the governance model and the development funding model as a whole. This is a very, very important point. And in appreciate Tyler for shouting it out, although agree it doesn't point to what should be worked on on that front. Feel like putting out a roadmap of the detail that was recently put out as an important step in facilitating discussion around what can and should be built. But yeah, this is a Tyler Bridge highlighting a major problem with the current system, which is that if people are just going to vote based on daemons, that that is a big problem, particularly if it means there's not going to be funding for development, which in practice is necessary or if not necessary, is certainly highly likely to help get to a point where the system is printing again. So it's a big problem if if the positive feedback loop stops stopped. Thank goodness Moshi expands a bit on their on their thoughts. So they're thinking that there's a or what what they were saying before it is that the voting power or the or or the say know stockholders voting power increases with regards to their participation. So the more you participate then you know, the more active or free power that you have up to a ceiling as a sub. The other point with regard is with regards to, you know, the looting on this, the opposite of the first one. And the reasoning is that, you know, you may have stockholder of people with beans that they just like lost them so they're inactive or lost and then that becomes problematic with regards to reaching reaching quorum and see with with the last question what my point was with with your suggestion that those will vote towards or just before the voting period ends, that that vote gets diluted. And my question was, if you have seen this being implemented and you know, somewhere that, you know, we can we can look into maybe model or see if there are any lessons learned there, Albion asks, Is there any way to decouple people's emotional reaction to market activity from from governance participation? Well, you can't really affect how people vote, but what you can do is create incentives for them to vote or cost if if they don't participate. A concept that we've been thinking about is having the system have like a built in forking mechanism where people have to signal for each dip whether or not they want to stay on the old version or move to the new version. And if they don't opt to move to the new version, they just stay in the old version. And that is problematic in the sense that the system may split up many times, which is not healthy for the network effect of the system, but is in practice closer to the L1 Fork model, where if there is a disagreement on how to proceed, the system ends up separating into two systems, and that may be the direction that being start has to go. If there is no way to create a governance system that is both resistant to manipulation and able to iterate or maybe balance iteration and ossification much better published, would you think or say that delegating votes or having the ability to delegate to the vote would be an approach to consider before that? And Jared, what are your thoughts about delegating votes? So historically, we have not been proponents of delegation because we prefer a wider distribution of governance decision making. But it's it's worth considering when it comes to participation. If there are smaller that simply don't have the bandwidth or don't, for whatever reason, pay attention to governance that want to still participate with the community and signal voting for a support for, you know, maybe someone that they nominate to vote on their behalf, that that is that's reasonable. And I think that snapshot supports that already. So in theory that could be implemented at any time. But I think it would probably require a BOP or should should first go through some governance before it's implemented, although technically don't think it would require any sort of change to be in stock to actually facilitate at this point. But it's definitely worth considering and sync share the link to a previous post. So there is about vote delegation for others or interested in the topic. I'll be not sure if you're out of make but feel like it would be would be awesome. If you want to want to ask like yeah, yeah. So I don't know if this has been discussed before already or not, but basically the group, the grammar of the BEPS is effectively saying, should we do X? And then there's a minimum amount of votes required to make that happen, right? And then if there's no participation or not enough people participate, nothing happens. Conversely, if people are really against it, all they can really do is hope that their lack of participation outnumbers people that participate. Right. Versus. Switching the grammatical question of the of the BEPS to something like hey, pick between A and B and then a or B must happen is just which one will happen depends on the vote. I mean in practice or that is already what happens and so I guess that's why you're saying change the framing of the questions of the BEPS. It is worth saying that the reason why there was only ever an ability to vote for BEPS is because that is the simplest, like logical implementation of the system. But if in practice there is a desire to lower the quorum such that people have to vote in favor or against the BEPS, or as you're proposing X, Y. Yeah, I mean, it's it's not really so much the framing as the logical implementation of it that will matter in practice, but I think what you're really asking about has to do with whether or not there should be a quorum of some sort, right? That that's why not just implement a simple majority, you're saying without a quorum, correct? Yeah, it's definitely worth considering, or at least lowering the form significantly. In other words, the people that are interested in DAO governance are the ones that are actively showing up to the votes. So let the majority between that group dictate what happens. Saying this goes back to the point of intentionally making it difficult to past ups, but maybe, maybe this is an approach to be considered at a later stage of being stocks like and I'm not currently event sense so lower it now and then raise it after some some point in my this is sink I had a question I was thinking about this a few weeks ago and I think I posted in the governance channel too so a copy of my understanding is bits are a 60% quorum because there's an execution of code and in terms of budgets, the green beans that you know, you know, you're you're doing a diamond cut to mint the beans, right. So but I suggested that perhaps the Dow reframes how it looks at budget proposal specifically because. You know, if we look at a budget proposal as a BLT, hypothetically, the GOP has a 35% quorum requirement and it's not easy to get 35%. But given the engagement from stockholders at the moment, there seems to be around where we're at 35, 40%, give or take, some of these recent votes. So in terms of from an operational perspective, one of the things I was thinking about is can we allow for certain types of budget proposals to qualify as binoche's with a 35% quorum requirement if the budget proposals under a certain amount? So I don't know what that number what that amount would be thought, you know, to guys point about, you know, you don't want to make it easy for any and any joblo to come in and ask for half a million beans. Right. That that's a valid point. But what would you know what does the Dow think about that since operationally to what Publius was saying earlier, it doesn't really work for the protocol to have to operate in this manner where every few months, you know, you need 60% stockholder engagement to keep things running. So I just I just wanted to throw that out there. I don't know if that is something people have thought about, but, you know, it may require like these badges to be framed and, you know, all the parts that each, you know, like the engineering team's budget would fall under is it falls under a certain amount, you know, or maybe you can even, you know, that would qualify as a BRP. You know separately the design team budget and you know, until we get back to that point where, you know, we have stockholder engagement actively, you know, maybe then at that point, you know, when there's 50% plus people showing up at these votes, then we can, you know, lump all these proposals back into one proposal as a bit. So that's just my you know, I wanted to throw that out there. So from our perspective feel pretty strongly that it's it's much better to come up with an overall governance solution or implementation that handles every situation as opposed to creating specific governance parameters for different types of things. But but, I mean, it's certainly worth discussing or considering, but but in general, have a a negative reaction to that type of proposal. Now, worth mentioning that that may solve the budget, but it doesn't solve, for example, the set of the set of the pizza man suggested that, you know, we have we spearhead the discussion of, you know, changing the people. How are there and probably suggests that we have a call dedicated to discuss this next week so we can we can either have it a dedicated call it could be it could also be maybe it in class or during the next town meeting. We'll see what what folks think the best time to have that call is and would schedule it. And also, I have a good question. Can we clarify what the process is for change with regards to BEPS? Because there's a lot of people proposing things, there's a lot of ideas. And I personally have this feeling that most of the daos are looking to the leadership team. If there is such a thing to basically say, Oh yeah, that's a good idea, we'll move forward with that proposal and submit it. And I also have another sneaking suspicion that the quote unquote leadership team is constantly pushing against being a leadership team. And once the doubt kind of self-govern. And I want to just raise this question to make sure that, you know, we don't have two camps looking at each other, waiting for the other one to act. Does that make sense? It makes a lot of sense and feel like this is a you're highlighting a major friction point for us, which is that people are obviously looking to us at Publius for guidance on how to move forward here. And we ultimately don't want to be the provider of the answer. We are happy to participate in the in constructive discussion to get to the answer. But to your point now being, it really can't be that we or silo chad or Moji or mod are or or anyone in particular is responsible or viewed as responsible for coming up with or even indicating support for a given solution and instead really challenge everyone to step up and participate in the discussion. And we will we will participate in the call. The pizza man suggested and hope that many others do and come to bring bring their ideas and bring their ideas and their opinions and engage substantively. And hopefully we can together come to some sort of conclusion or at least an answer for now. And unless less concerned about someone actually drafting the proposal, feel like at the end of the day, either Bienstock farms can or another community member will. But the real the real thing that needs to happen is discussion around how governance should, should function. And that that is something that I think, yeah, to your point, it's worth getting something that's specified on the calendar for, for having this discussion or starting continuing. And I guess yeah, because I see two problems here. One is we don't have a clear decision making process, right? People throw ideas yet there's no clear like path towards making a decision and taking action. No one knows who to go to. No one knows how to like, take an idea and validate it and move it forward through the process of making it come to fruition. So that's problem number one, the decision making process is not defined at all. And then problem number two, I'm going to guess here, because I can't speak for everybody, I'm speaking mostly for myself and I'm just kind of guessing. Other people have a similar view. Is that there should there be some kind of leadership in some sense? Should there be people that whose opinions or whose experience matters more, both in or mainly in helping to drive the decisions and in picking between options and doing something like that? Right. Or are we purely 100% totally democratic, you know, where anyone can propose, like, hey, you know, here's here's an option, here's another option, here's another option, And then everyone is just the whole down, just to vote for whatever they think feels best, I guess, weigh what's happening on these houses. So I was going to say what's happening on these meetings is that there is some discussion about the options from really from you and I think from all of you guys pool this, which I think most of us look to as a source of of of of good thinking and experience and and opinions that we could trust. Right. But I just wanted to see if that's the right process, if people are aware that that should be the process. If you know, feel very strongly that in practice there should never be some council or group of people that have the ability to change the protocol explicitly. But it is really important to recognize that bienstock exists in a social environment, in a human environment, and it is the natural tendency of people to organize themselves in in social structures where there is de-facto leadership and de facto leaders. And I think that in practice, having a well defined governance system whereby to your point I'll be in, there is no confusion about how someone can actually proposed changes to the Dow. And there's a whole well defined process to go through such that people there's this little friction as possible for people to participate in providing an answer. And separately to the question around delegation and just more generally having leaders in the community feel comfortable speaking about what they think and actually participating in that discussion is important. And perhaps we also need to do a better job of actively participating in discussions more than we have. And to the comment we made earlier in the meeting about how we've really steered away from making explicit recommendations on how to vote for BIPs while participating in the discussion of them, perhaps that's something that should change and perhaps we should actually express explicit support or or not for for given changes to the protocol on Eurasia is a very interesting question that is worth considering more deeply. I wanted to comment maybe a bit on the, you know, Democratic or leader leadership or leaders, and I think both can exist. So the vote delegates is one of those scenarios where you have factions or people that, you know, would basically appoint a leader for them. And those are the ones that they, you know, delegate their votes to. But it's not necessarily a leader for the for the protocol itself that makes sense when I'm just looking at the past like year that I've been around the stock. Right. And I've watched and listened to a lot of conversations. I've seen countless examples of people proposing ideas for various things. And the ideas sound great at first. Tons of them even. I was like, Wow, that's a brilliant idea, right? And then inevitably, when they're discussed on a down call, you know, whether it's an engineering thing or whether it's an economic economic thing, once you have the subject matter experts like the polices or few other people weigh in, then you see what it put an awful idea it really is or or not necessarily an awful idea, but like some side effect that that thing could have when seen through the lens of someone with experience. Right. So that's where I always lean towards having someone with that subject matter expertise have a louder voice. They don't have to have the deciding vote, but they we really need those voices to be louder than everyone else in some way, shape or form. And I think that by going back to the original point about some of the work that the Opinion Foundation has done for the community, creating podcasts and other platforms for some of those voices in the Bienstock community to really shine through. A lot of the noise is important and this is sort of an iterative problem, which is that currently there isn't enough support for funding those types of things. So it's a little bit of a catch 22 that ultimately the Dow needs to get itself out of through at least one bit, passing that re-implement or implement new governance. So this is what we will see in practice how these two bit proposals work. But to Pete's immense point, it's probably really time to try to figure out a new or amended governance system such that this is not a perpetual problem for the Dow. We are on top of the hour, but we can we can continue this discussion or this meeting for as long as it takes. So we will pause here again and see if others have any comments. As always, feel free to just unmute yourself and join the conversation. Mr. Moshi goes back to the comment on the Sierra Foundation, and they say that the Sierra Foundation, you know, to their point, they have some sort of a committee that reviews or comments on Ethereum improvement proposals and then they're asking their thinking is that they imagine being struck with have such a committee as well. At some point have been asked what was Ethereum's foundation that they've been around for nine years? What was it like after after the first years? And I think as a fan fan of that bit of history and I seem to think but I believe it was pretty messy at the beginning. And maybe also not to mention that doesn't mean that maybe Etherium has the best governance or the perfect governance. So we may look for inspiration, but will also want to, you know, maybe think, think for ourselves. Of course. Okay. Any any closing thoughts, Publius? And did you want to maybe expand a bit on what do you think is the right time to have conversation on on governance? Do we want to have that as these bips are being proposed or being voted on or or would you would you want to have them maybe after it, after the fact? Nothing else to to add to the discussion at the moment. But I think we should the governance conversation needs to happen independent of our needs are voted on and therefore feel like in the next couple of days that that that caution can happen and it's probably going to be the first of many. So if if this one wasn't the first of many, then that one will be so sooner is definitely better than later in the office. Okay, I'm going to set something up next week. Yes. Great. So I will look into maybe scheduling that, whether it's sort of coding or one or of a ticket meeting by meeting, and it will be announced to the rest of the of the community. Again, with that, thank you all for joining us today. As a reminder, again, the there are two channels open for the discussion of the forum's budget and the set up that I encourage everyone to join and join a discussion of the office hours where you can talk to contributors and ask them questions about those proposals. And lastly, you know, talk to others, other farmers or or community members that, you know, encourage them to vote, ask them to encourage others to also vote. Thank you all for joining and we'll see you next week.