Recordings
Meeting Notes
Transcript
know I I'll maybe kick us off uh you know I found it a little bit uh hilarious that after spending what I thought was a a real chunk of time um on trying to articulate why I feel very strongly that the protocol should be allowed to run its course uh that some of the chat in the Discord was that I want to Market by Pinel uh with the remaining fonts so maybe we just use this opportunity to double down on what I think which is that the the protocol you know there was an open discussion is the protocol dead is it not dead uh where it's like sure short term where 8 million tell to be below Peg uh doesn't feel very uh bullish anytime soon um and at 22 cents or whatever there's great argument to be made for winding down the protocol entirely but from where I sit to do so would be greatly premature that the Arc of history is a long one and we really don't know how all this is going to play itself out and with that in mind feel like it's much more prudent for us to allow the experiment to continue and one of the reasons why I felt like the pinto Fork was far in way a better uh option in terms of how to move forward is that it actually allows for us to continue to see the existing experiment through uh while also allowing us the freedom through restructuring the debt to see the model work again a new and I think where the there is the most Merit to winding this down even though I I don't really see a great way to do it other than to Market by Pinto is the argument that I think mad made or something which is that you really can't support two of these protocols uh on the backs of the same Community or the back of the same community and that that really doesn't work um this is something I'm open to being proven true if you will uh that in it may be in fact that the only way to make this work as if there's really only one sheriff in town um but uh that remains open to me it's unclear to me if that's really true it also it may be true at Grand scale of you know hundreds of billions but may not be true at small scale and particularly given that right now now there is an abundance of data that we still need uh like the model is is truly far from optimal uh from where I sit um it it it doesn't feel like the The Meta to wind down the old one um like in particular where it really rubs me the wrong way is does that mean that every time now that we want to innovate and iterate on the model that we have to come to consensus about winding down the old one uh like that starts to feel like an like a a permissioned Innovation setting where now it's like well you know do we really think this change is important enough to Warrant winding down the whole previous system uh you know and you may say that's a little extreme uh you know you're just shutting you know shutting down the current one because it's not working and to that I would say like maybe but maybe it is working it's just not working nearly as much as we would like it to work right now but in the grand scheme of things it still has tremendous potential to work um so all of this is to say I I acknowledge right now the current bean stock is absolutely in the [ __ ] um but even with that being the case I still feel like the wrong decision would be to just kill it um that just doesn't feel right to me from the perspective of experimenting uh from the perspective of just trying to make money uh probably does make more sense to Market bid Pinto um feel like that is particularly in the short term more likely to yield uh return um for being stock holders so at the same time I I feel quite comfortable in my position of right now system's not doing almost anything and we're better off leaving it uh then we are killing so uh that was something that I think might have been Mis misinterpreted or maybe I didn't properly express myself last time uh so wanted to just uh kick us off with with a a brief statement on that stuff all right I see we've got like a dozen people here um what's on people's minds questions comments complaints concerns I don't have a particular question or comment but maybe to just offer an additional perspective given that you know you did most or all of the talking last time and didn't have a chance to hear from other people who who had worked on beanock previously but uh I feel like I agree and appreciate your perspective Ben that in some you know definition of the word dead in stock is not that uh it felt like you know in listening to the call last week um that what people were really getting at is like is if there's any you know shortterm future uh for the project which I think you know sort of it sounds like we're on the same page that there isn't much of that and yeah I can totally appreciate you know people's ation last week that you know the idea if Pento is to grow significantly you know someone may be interested in you know buying up the bean price one day uh may not be a very satisfying answer um and yeah I feel like in an Ideal World there would be some way even before that time to you know either close it down or redistribute funds or or something to that effect uh you know similar to what Ben presented last week it's very unclear to me how uh how you would go about doing that given that it would require stockholders voting against their own interests uh in some capacity so I remain Unsure how to proceed on that front but are you suggesting that if there was something you know that seemed aligned that you would support winding it down yeah I think so I agree from an idealist perspective it doesn't really support the you know the world you're referring to where it's you know again ideally nice to see them both run to see what would happen if Pinto were to get significant adoption how that would affect bean stock but yeah it does feel like there's some you know cost and I think you know Ben acknowledged which I agree with feel like it was definitely the wrong decision uh that the the pinto crew made you know myself included Do not announce a Pino's existence to the beanock community in the beginning um and it feels like in some sense you know closing down bean stock would be the right thing to do I can't say that I have the most you know rigorous arguments to back up that uh that position um but again just just from a practical perspective had really no clue how he would go about doing it I I don't I don't foresee a scenario where we can really turn it off um it feels like you know the only ethical thing to do with the F you know the F contributions if we're really not going to continue with the experiment is to return either all or the vast majority of funds to the original F contributors or maybe I guess the current F holders um um but I can't foresee a circumstance where the stockholders that get to vote would be incentiv us to do that so I just don't see that happening and even if they were in some capacity it's like there's still liquid Bean holders Etc or unripe holders that you know in anticipation of seeing some sort of proposal like this succeed like why would they not take all value that they're able to like there would have to be some sort of freeze in advance um yeah it's not so simple yeah I mean part of me feels attracted to that position oh if only if only we could wind it down then surely we would all agree to wind it down but uh the idealist in me uh politely uh maybe not so politely refuses it just doesn't feel right to me but I do appreciate your perspective very much what else folks what's up Thirsty Whale long time no see amazing you've been so thirsty for so long and if you made a bunch of money on Pinto would you yourself consider rep pegging uh Bean stuck depends what you mean by a bunch but you better believe it I mean hard to think of anything more like positive EV for my bags than that um I mean yeah it would have to be a lot of money given we're eight million below Peg and I'd expect on the way up to Peg there would be a lot of people wanting to sell and even after Peg I'd expect a lot of people wanting to sell and I don't know how quickly it's reasonable to expect there to be like a big um a big pump uh even after rep pegging so from that perspective um I I think it might be um you know it might be you need a lot of money um but from where I sit absolutely uh that makes a ton of sense and I'm curious uh for any even bean stock upgrade you know over the last year uh whether it was like the gauge system or otherwise if you had at the time that those were going to be a high enough leverage to either reeg the price you know result in some sort of growth over some period of time or and if so that you know obviously like they all if if those were anyone's expectations like they weren't met uh Curious where you stood on that Spectrum the the truth is it's a little hard to put myself back in that head space and say exactly what I was thinking um but what I can say is you know I think they're well first we really have experienced extended periods of time I recognize this is the longest one and at this point the the bean price is also at like an all-time low um so from many different perspectives the system is now at its all-time least healthy um but less than a year ago the system had a a printing cycle um and so I think we we often forget how you know how how on the one hand how close the system has been even over the past year towards being healthy and now sort of how far it is and with that in mind you know I look at the upgrades like the gate system as major improvements to the overall efficacy of the model but not necessarily particularly the way the gate system was parameterized like with a maximum crop ratio of 100% uh to really be a strong rep pegging Factor um or something that we would expect to have dramatic effects uh I think what we're seeing with pinto uh is really interesting where we felt the need to change the crop ratio maybe not a need but have felt the that it's the right thing to do to change the crop ratio from 100 the max crop ratio from 100% to 150% such that now Pinto as a system will be incentivizing quite heavily holding deposited Pinto in The Silo over deposited LP tokens and the way the Gau system was parameterz in beanock of having a Max crop uh ratio of 100% really makes it such that that's not the case in beanock that at all points in time beanock is really prioritizing holding LP over holding beans and we've observed in both systems quite a strong prefence from users in terms of holding LP over holding raw beans or raw Pinto in The Silo and the fact that the crop ratio was set at 100% I think that's something that we can look back on and say like that was highly unlikely to ever really be in a position to reeg the system so I think if we look at the efficacy of the seed gauge it's one thing to look at like how is the distribution of LP tokens uh that's something that played out really with pinto a lot more than with beanock um but in terms of you know how did we affect that how did we think that upgrade was going to affect Peg maintenance you know I can't say that at least from where I sat uh there was an expectation that that was going to magically reeg the system uh at the same time has it been uh a little disappointing to see how little effect it's had on Peg maintenance definitely um but I think it it generally can be quite reasonably chocked up to the crop ratio was set very conservatively and the result is that we haven't had a strong incentive to convert from uh beans to Alp it appears there's only 48k of liquid non unripe uh non Bean token in The Silo so that's only you know not nearly enough convert power to repe it um and so unless you implemented something like negative stock for unripe uh unripe LP then I don't think that any kind of crop ratio modifications are going to be enough to rep the system why is that the system can always rep it can rep incentives to make that happen well I think the what I'm hearing from man is that there's literally not any LP tokens to convert the value of right that aren't unripe that aren't unripe yeah and the unrip already has no seats right correct and so the seed gauge wouldn't really affect the incentive to convert unripe at all yeah as with everything as is yes I think your analysis is generally correct Pizza Man I mean there's no reason that negative seats couldn't have some sort of impact on that in theory um although I'd probably say you know there's so few eyes on the system at the moment or you know people paying attention that it's unclear what effect that would have if any ideas been discussed around like a forced chop for all of on rpe a forced chop yeah it just sounds you're gonna force me to chop I thought we had no like give you six month notice to chop to before Force chop for example and then after that Force chop what's the difference uh the difference is that 98% of the participants are inactive and therefore uh with six months notice I think it's reasonable and they could be Force chopped after that point uh at which point you have if you let me chop if you let me chop or you force me to chop what's the difference I I choose to chop ahead of you chopping me what how is that any different than a force chop maybe swap them with beans but I guess the idea is that they're not participating in any maybe they are they don't want to so I think I think the maybe at least one way I think of it is that the the current unrip holders whether they are actually whether they exist or not um they have a claim or control on the liquidity that's right now Locked In The Silo and if we just like think of like I don't know 10% of them actually lost their keys or whatever then that 10% that's in The Silo right now is just not you know it's just like setting not controlled at all it's ideal maybe one way to do it is to give everyone a claim and you know if you come and claim it you take you get it but we don't just like clock some liquidity for you know forever I'm curious hearing pizza man what it is that you're actually suggesting we we for like I don't understand what you mean by a forced chop so basically the the protocol is is dead as long as all of the unrip holders are totally inactive right uh but the the unripe holders alone could repe the system uh Additionally the unrip holders um hold so much stock that there is zero incentive to enter The Silo because people who actually have no stake uh you know are are holding um all the control of the stock additionally I would make the argument that uh the unripe holders I should note that I am one as well um basically were aird dropped these unripe tokens um and they did not uh post exploit they did not put any new capital into the system to get them uh and so they also have no incentive to um like someone mentioned before uh I wish they would have joined this call as well um that like you know at this point they've basically written it off but just in case it comes back someday uh you know they're willing to basically stick it out and see see if maybe uh the system comes back but in general uh this system needs to like reach a low point and have all the liquidity that wants to exit exit before the system can start to return and reeg and so somehow encouraging that like so-called dead liquidity uh to exit brings us closer to a future rep pegging sure I still don't understand what you mean by a force chop though oh yeah so um like are you proposing chopping and doing something because if everyone chops like the amount of stock doesn't necessarily change uh the am the price doesn't necessarily change so are you assuming some of their action as part of that and if we force chop everyone then what does it even mean to chop like no I would say more of like more of like an optout system so I would say uh like everyone will be chopped in six months unless you opt out and you don't want to be chopped for example or even a year like I don't think that there's any sense of urgency in this community so so call it a year for example um and say you know after a year uh if obviously the stockholders need to vote to pass this as well because nothing can be done without the stockholders due to the government system um but that gives the the system a chance that all that dead liquidity can exit uh in addition when you chop um you you lose your uh stock too although I guess not with convert chop which is not what I was taking into account um so yeah I I guess that they would retain their stock except uh they would only have like a super small uh portion of liquidity under like backing this proportionally relatively large amount of stock um so perhaps convert chopping everyone is not ideal but just doing like a regular chop uh for them um and then all those people that want to exit or that are are inactive as well uh their chopped beans could be swapped for un for uh ripe liquidity so they like actually get something out of it um and then unless they opt out of course uh then from there now you suddenly have um you know the system is freed up it's cleared up a massive amount of debt uh by removing the unripe obligation and it gives some hope that it can be moved forward moved forward and the the F holders and uh you know the rest of the system can continue to work as it was supposed to I mean in practice all this would do is like marginally decrease the amount of unright stuff out there I think right like some people wouldn't be paying attention and they would lose their claim you think only a small percent of people are not paying attention I would say it's a quite a large percent are not paying attention and therefore they should have all their money confiscated like for me one of the principles of a system like this is that you know my money is my money and you really can't take it away from me so I think doing doing something like this would greatly jeopardize the the censorship resistance of the protocol well one counter to that is that uh the value of my or our money has more or less gone to zero so in a way it's kind of already been taken away um what I think maybe one interesting Fram on this is you know what if beanock were to sort of take uh take ownership of conversion of unripe so for example unripe holders might be able to keep their tokens but the protocol is actually converting on behalf of them based on um you know the current position of peg this sort of gets at what I think pizz man is saying around um you know how there's some some latent liquidity that's not converting um sort of an extension of the unripe framework would be to say hey if you want to keep your unripe tokens no problem but in order to help the protocol get out of this um get out of this mess uh it actually has the right to choose when to convert those tokens of course how you how you decide that um is a separate question but something to think about yeah I mean I I'm much more interested in some Auto convert feature versus confiscating value from people um I think the problem with the autocon convert feature has always been one front running um like a sandwich of the convert um um and two It generally does seem pretty risky you know for the protocol at this point to try to rep Peg itself so aggressively but at the same time I I I see a lot of benefit in such a thing um in the protocol basically saying hey you know there's no money coming in or out therefore it doesn't really feel like there's a strong reason to you know not be making progress towards p via converts and if the protocol is unable to incentivize converts because the main way that it incentivized converges with seeds and the unripe assets which are the controllers of the vast vast vast majority value in the system don't have any seeds such that there's no way for the system to really incentivize converts then I could see that I could see that making sense um you know I think maybe one better than autoc converting is some sort of convert bonus um which is something that's been talked about in the context of PTO quite a bit and I'd be interested to see if you know before moving to some autoc convert uh architecture or system uh maybe putting in a convert bonus first uh and just beinging if you're through creating bonuses there's enough people that are still in the system and actively participating that we could find some way to incentivize them to participate um but otherwise I think there's a lot of Merit to some sort of autocon convert I don't see why not I think the thing that's important about the autoc convert which uh pizza man is pointing out is and it really comes down to who's paying attention um and I think it's somebody else here would probably have much better data on this but it's seems like a significant portion of that remaining liquidity has just not paid any attention at all uh you know maybe it's you know funds left over from you know the 2021 cycle who knows but uh it seems like even you know bonus incentives don't really move the needle when people aren't listening and uh frankly I think the perspective is probably that uh you know if you already think your money isn't worth anything anymore then like a bonus thing doesn't really move the needle but um yeah I'm sympathetic to the idea that a bonus could be worth trying yeah I agree that at this point in the state of beanock uh I don't think a convert up bonus would have much efficacy yeah hard to disagree I guess just um for me it does feel risky to just move to this Auto convert thing um now I guess if the premise is the thing is dead anyways who cares um again this goes back to the fact I don't really subscribe to that um but it's like you know if we're converting it does sort of create a really weird game there's $4 million of exogenous value still in the protocol it doesn't feel like um you know from here to Peg my guess is we're GNA have quite a decent amount of chops and outflows and I can imagine the ltsr collapsing even further um but maybe that's okay like maybe this The Meta is just to sort of bleed all the way to close to zero liquidity but also sort of bleed out all of the the UN rpes and get everyone who's still here and paying attention to chop and get out at some price and then at that point they'll be able to you know the system will be finally healthy enough to actually tag if that makes sense I think we something with that as well you do it you complement it with a new pod line and then because you will still expect that there will be once you peg you're going to start P meting giving whatever liquidity you still have left and a new pod line you know takes a claim on that so that will make the field attractive again je new pad line that sounds so intense I mean if you're rep pegging and you're minting again I don't think it makes sense to pay the old pod line well you you mean pay the interest rates of the old pod line or just pay them like you if you if we just got back to Peg system is back again you definitely want to start in you know incentivizing new new credit or the claim on those in defaulting on the old debt or just starting a new pod line as well yeah I think a new pod line that sits on front of the old one so sure if no one ever wants to good yeah if no one wants to if there is no like the new pod line is there's no debt to be paid and we're still minting then pay off the old pod line personally I think that's kind of crazy but you know at that point it's like why not just restart and it's like that's what Pinto is you know Pinto was restart like to me the only real purpose in continuing with the beanock experiment is to see what what'll happen if we're able to pay off this debt you know the protocol has like a billion dollars of debt uh something crazy like what what does it mean what would it mean for the protocol to actually pay that off so the idea of like you know now changing the terms of repayment so significantly that you know I feel like it would already be a pretty significant change in the terms of the payment to add a new pod line that gets 25% am Min right if we did 25% to The Silo 25% to the barn and then 50% to the field half and half to the old pod Line new pod line I like that's already a pretty big uh restructuring on the Pod line uh versus to put a a a new pod line in front of the old pod line is sort of like an egregious uh from a like if I'm A lender if I'm A lender that's the type of uh treatment that I would view as pretty egregious and make it such that I would never want to lend to the system again whereas you know making it so that I receive instead of a 33% cut of mints I receive a 25% of mint you know I I think that's more stomach B uh and less likely to disrupt the overall value of the the protocol which as a credit based system so much of the value of the protocol is just in the debt itself so I think we have to be really careful uh about doing something like that well couple of thoughts there first of all I think that um my view the uh lendability of beanock as it the ability the interest of people to lend to beanock is right now as low as it will ever go right and so any form of restructuring that ends up being uh unsuccessful you're in the same place any form of restructuring that ends up being successful I think you're strictly better off um there's probably some counter arguments to that but in my view this is as bad as it can possibly be so I'm like sympathetic to the idea of of looking at forms of restructuring or adjustment that would um you know potentially allow us to have any shot at all I think it seems like we have basically zero shot at this point um that said I think another way to think about you know you're you're talking um Ben about the concept of beanock as an experiment and sort of seeing beanock as it stands currently um the experiment if you will is you know how can we dig out of this this hole and what happens um if you're able to dig out of the hole um after that I think you know one one perspective that I think you you bring is seeing beanock the protocol as sort of its own uh entity if you will that um rather than maybe thinking about the participants in beanock in that context and what I'd say is like another way to think about the experiment is what are participants willing to uh do or to change about their position in order to like you know I guess in you know in one perspective cash out or at least have some shot at maintaining some value um but two also what are they willing to do in order to keep the uh whole protocol Moving And so there's an there there may be more learnings there than there are in just letting it sit for a while and you know more or less have nothing happen at all I appreciate that perspective very much I mean I would just say that the the current meta being run is to move but to move via forkit and you know where from where I sit there is real cost in doing things as radical as a new pod mine or as radical as autocon converting back to Peg um these are things that I think sure may increase and almost certainly increase the likelihood that people get paid back um what's um what's radical about it if people vote for it well I well question what's radical about it what if if uh stockholders for example vote for it well I mean one there's a question of would they vote for it um sure sure for me I do I do feel pretty strongly that this this is an experiment first and foremost and I would put beanock and Pinto under the same experiment which is can we create incentives out of you know basically thin air where we're creating a new game where just through the rules of the game are we able to create incentives where people individually following those incentives uh are able to coordinate to some other goal that isn't really possible to incentivize directly um and it's a tremendous problem it's a fascinating problem it's a grand experiment but given the experimental nature of the task uh for me there is a whole lot of value in getting clean data that I from where I sit the way that we're going to maximize the chances of us eding in the grand scheme of things is by having really pure data and I do view the original beanock as one of the best possible even in theory sources of the data and as soon as we start making changes like an autoc convert for like a new pod line uh wall that will get us new data um which I don't want to diminish and it will almost certainly increase the likelihood that the participants in the system get paid back uh which I also definitely don't want to diminish I recognize like people put their hard-earned money into this thing and people really want to get a return um I I understand that at the same time I think it's really important that we recognize the value of the data even today that we're getting from beanock and I think we could get a whole lot more data uh if we continue to treat the protocol as alive even if it's store to debt and once we decide yeah this thing is dead and therefore the types of risk that we're willing to take on with the changes that we make is uh magnitude uh or or orders of magnitude higher than it was previously I expect that the quality of the data in particular with respect to trying to uh you know win this experiment to find a solution to the problem uh I question whether doing so will help us achieve our ends yeah I can see that to some extent I'd push back in a in a couple of ways so one I think from from what I remember the uh one of the reasons for um you know looking at a fork was in fact maybe the primary reason was that we aren't Gathering uh data on beanock because functionally nothing was happening right and so I think to me to hear that like we're get Gathering we're still Gathering data feels like uh it feels in congruent with maybe I think what the narrative around the time of that pivot um and I would be curious you know materially what data we're Gathering here so that's you know that's one thing we can um we should we should discuss I think a second thing is you know uh I I'm again sympathetic the idea that there's you're you're learning something here maybe you're like you know this is the the biggest possible challenge of an algorithmic uh you know protocol of this of this form could have and let's see if we can dig our way out um that said I think one in the the broader scheme of the experiment right you now have two parallel uh tracks running and frankly most of the investment um both monetarily and otherwise has moved to Pinto right and so Pinto Now sort of has stepped into the position of being that uh data Gathering apparatus if you will um on the beanock front it feels a little bit uh you know I think we may be in that realm now where there's some some some trade harder trade-offs to Think Through um that extend you know beyond just data piece right like we can continue to sort of gather uh gather data if you will on the backs of a bunch of initial uh contributors but I think that um we may need to at some point say hey all right you know we've gathered enough data this thing is kind of [ __ ] let's let's look at um you know what ways we can uh we can try to fix this which might you know create a sort of Step function in terms of uh you know you implement something like automatic convert and maybe you say all right well we can only draw so many conclusions about the beanock experiment now for other things but certainly I think there would be you know a number of interesting relevant learnings um at a minimum for beanock itself uh and very likely for both um both protocols as you think about sort of the you know potential Futures that Pinto might have and then I think second you know secondarily if you imagine um if you play out uh a successful story in the beaw context I think uh in in my view the sentiment um and potential for uh Capital inflows to to Pinto as well actually goes up pretty significantly because I think um you know uh most people at least that I've encountered seem to know that uh pindo is kind of this uh uh is this extension of beanock and and at least in some way see them as uh as continuous so I'm not saying that'll that'll necessarily PR prevent Pinto's growth but I certainly think that uh you know it wouldn't hurt to have um you know to have a happy ending in some ways on on the beanock front well who doesn't want to happy end you know um I think to clarify the go ahead say to to drive it to a question I would say you know if if beanock should you know we shouldn't Implement these changes or or consider changes for example because it would impact data I think the question is like materially what uh data is being gathered and on what timeline and what conclusions uh can be drawn sure well I I yeah I feel like language here can be you know is very important the absence of data that was felt that Pinto was a response to is that there's all these upgrades to the protocol Allah seed gauge that were not really being uh experimented with because no one was using the system and so from that perspective there was an absence of data because no one was using these new mechanisms uh and there wasn't an opportunity to see how the mechanisms could be further improved and so that led to a stagnant stagnation in the pace of development of the protocol itself um the maybe the wrong thing to say was that we're we're Gathering data about beanock much now um because uh to your point like there's nothing happening like what data could you possibly be collecting right um maybe a better way to present it is there is an opportunity uh there's an opportunity that um basically if we ever are able to fix the system and reeg it and it works again uh that the the more changes that are made to the core of the system itself to uh create that rep pegging or that uh healing uh I I feel it's very important that the changes that are made are in line with the idea that the protocol has integrity and so something like an autoc convert like I guess it's okay uh because we're not really even seeing how the seed gauge works right now this is just the system seems to be at an equilibrium that is uh not healthy and not going anywhere and therefore we're going to introduce a a change that is meant to in a somewhat artificial way reeg it and that's okay like sure it is okay um um I feel Sim IL L about a new pod line like we want to say no more Pods at the end of the Pod line you know new pod line 25% of senior AG going to it and temp starts at zero you know let's see how quickly we can create enough demand to reeg the system uh all possible uh where I get concerned is with these changes you know how much are we compromising the benefit like in the end let's say that bean stuck is able to reeg and is able to go through a major growth cycle and pay off a lot of its debt like to what end you know is it is it just that it works for a short period of time and then nothing has changed fundamentally uh and I to me this is a behavioral system a community-based system so the only way that we're going to be able to get to a point where in stock is sustainable again is if the changes that are made uh in order to try to save the system are still in line with the the values of the system itself so yeah I think maybe the idea of presenting like right now we're getting data is probably not the right way to to present how I'm thinking about it to me it's more like in so far as we're going to try anything even if it's a little desperate but if we're going to try anything what we're trying should be very aligned with the core value proposition of the protocol just wanted to chime in and say uh I generally agree with everything Silo chat is saying and in particular wanted to mention that you know with respect to getting clean data I think you know I don't make needan to make a defeatist argument in any sense and it is a it is a spectrum but feel like that ship sail to some extent uh they cook VTO I'm gonna I'm going to server mute you but if you want to speak if you want to speak up just uh just leave a message in the barnyard chat um shto is Jack uh I feel like to some extent that ship sailed with the exploit in the sense that you know no one's sitting on work you know sitting around a circle coming up with ideas about how to improve Bean stalk or pin is going to come up with the idea that we should have fertilizer in a vacuum or we should have unripe assets you know in a vacuum uh feels like those things were you know obviously and very understood to be you know headwinds uh to the system that only existed as a result of the exploit and I agree that you know in some sense making further changes that sort of Step you know each time step a little bit further away from uh you know the core value proposition jeopardize you know the information and feedback you get from watching the system work but uh resonate strongly with Silo Chad's point that at this point you know think that it is uh a far as far away as it could ever be uh from you know however you want to frame it you know rep pegging attracting more Predators Etc such that doing anything in pursuit of Reser you know reversing that Trend uh uh would get us much more data than we would otherwise and you know the other thing is I don't know I don't know how much data we would get from the idea that uh you know not to pick on you Ben but since that you you you know you have spoken you pick as an advate and you in particular have spoken up as an advocate for you're like you know hey if uh if you if Pinto is to be very successful one day maybe one day you feel inspired to buy a bunch of beans uh I think that's great but you know I'd be interested to hear if anyone else feels similarly uh in terms of what they would do with their money in theory one day in the future but I don't know how much data we can gather from that the idea that uh you know one of the people who created this system feels inspired to to come back and save it uh one day in the in the theoretical future so those are a few thoughts I mean you know I feel like like a fork system future is going to come to beanock and beanock like protocols and so taking you know using beanock as an example of what could be achieved through a fork system you know would give us a lot of data in terms of understanding you know how the market reacts and what you know what a fork system is capable of and the tools that stockholders have at their disposal to use in order to potentially change and restructure the protocol I think there's a lot of value in that but at the same time like keeping beanock beanock and leaving it as you know an original experiment that is not you know that is not ever going to restructure anything and just seeing how that plays out over a very long period of time is also something very valuable as it you know will always be the original but you know it's already somewhat you know had to substantially change things in order to deal with the exploit and it suffered with the exploit and that kyes it to lose some level of Purity if you will and you know totally see an argument for why you know making it further impure might be valid for the sake of data I mean I feel like the barn race was a massive learning experience and experimenting with different tools that system participants have in order to you know deal with situation like an exploit and you know situations where it felt like just restarting the protocol would leave it in an unhealthy state so yeah I think from my end there's a strong argument for both but you know there is massive value in looking at how a restructured future could look like in the form of some sort of yeah I think in in my view the um the fork you know the fork system is valuable but like separate from the decision of should bean stock make a material change right it's kind of like you one of the presuppositions of the fork system is that every protocol is like independently choosing what it is going to do with itself right and I think one one way thinking about that and perhaps the way that uh you guys have swam of late is like every protocol is immutable and you only fork to move uh you know when you Fork you're basically that's your one step function to something uh something new but given that bean stock is not immutable uh I guess Pinos not either but you get the you know you get the the concept um you know like that's uh that's already like it it's already possible for um perhaps baked into beanock that uh the rules can be updated over time right as and in a way that might be part of I guess the way that I see that with respect to beanock is that's that's one form of uh resilience right like I think I think there's a there's a perspective in crypto at large that you know that we're going to try to design a system that works from day Zero and you never touch it again and it's just like the design is so perfect that uh it can it is it is completely antifragile to all all things and you know maybe there's some some context in which that's true and where that works out but I think certainly for protocols as um you know sort of experimental as being stuck I'm not sure that that uh it's possible at least uh with our uh feeble human minds and and limited time and data to to have an exhaustive uh you know an exhaustive view of of what will work and what won't and that to your point like in so far as something is an experiment I think uh you want to be able to you know update your parameters and um and run another test or you know add a little bit more of this chemical or that chemical and so that's kind of the way that I uh I think where we you know how we should move forward from here are you suggesting in the form of a fork system or through an upgrade specifically with respect to beanock I'm suggesting upgrades I'm saying that uh upgrades and Fork system are like two separate things right and I think like if in principle the way the U bean stock community and development you know uh contributors Etc want to want to swim is like Hey we're going to try to design the core functions of this protocol so we can like you know pick up ship out and and you know start something new separately and that fork is like know that forking mechanism is part of the um the structure that's that's you know a design decision that certainly like sympathetic to but with respect to the current situation for bean stock right now as it stands I think uh you know what I'm suggesting is like looking more seriously at um proposed adjustments to the protocol itself whether that's um whether that's like I guess like restructuring or haircuts or however you want to describe it and actually moving forward with those um to get something out of uh what we have now and I guess my my like final argument is you I think if you what you want is data you probably learn a lot more from that than from doing nothing I think my assumption is if we do nothing we learn nothing and we get nothing uh so well I I I don't know if I agree with the binary like we're already getting a lot of data through Pinta so to me the in the be I'm sure one context for me like the the thing about beanock is right now uh you know if you if you sort of cross the Rubicon and excuse me if you cross the Rubicon and start to make changes is that really dramatically Chang the model excuse me and a lot of the core value like and the theory behind the model you may reeg it great but the cost of doing it in that fashion is that I think you may compromise the the value created almost entirely uh you know ultimately what we're trying to do is through the the creation of these incentives create value and create a currency that can hold that value and I I I have a fear that if we just take the most direct approach to creating the value that the value itself may not last that it may be quite shortlived and that the Integrity of the value will be compromised so I I to me I I still see there being tremendous potential uh because again all of this is behavioral and it's uh Community Based like if we're able to do it get both right like both uh honor the system and create value in a way that uh has Integrity like I see preserving the original beanock such that this can be a story like that makes sense I think it has one of the the potential to be one of the best stories in human history and it it through the power of that story be something that has persistent value across space and time and the credit of the system can actually be gamechanging for real whereas you know you introduce something kind of funky like a an autoc convert that's a temporary fix um you know wonder what that gets you and you add a new pod line which I think would be tremendously bullish for the system like I I wonder what that gets you in the long term if now there's the potential to just you know when the going gets tough just make a new pod mine and maybe that's okay like maybe that's acceptable to pod holders that uh or to lenders perspective lenders that the chance that there might be a new pod mine at some point is fear but it's okay because it actually increases the EV of my getting paid back in the first place like that's a totally valid Theory um for me it's just about the cost of really changing the model so significantly I think is it's worth saying it's a it is a crossing of the Rubicon once we do it we we do lose we do lose something for forever um so for me that's where the hesitance comes from but what what what what is the path for this like you know happy ending the only path right now is for either eth to go to like you know 50,000 or 10,000 or as the other story said someone comes and saves it but I think we we're just like leaving it now just goes to a billion like to me that's already pretty good now you you could say like well if pindo goes to a billion and saves beanock great then why do we even need to keep the OG being stock around in the first place why not just experiment with it heavily and I think there's a lot of validity in that perspective I mean another fear I have is you know if we're really going to get experimental with this thing not that we're not already deeply experimental but uh further out there on this spectrum of experiment uh and of the the the boldness of each you know leg of the experiment to do something like an autocon convert you know I have fear that the people in the community that are already angry uh that things have not worked out will be even angrier and in many ways be more Justified like how dare you take a such a rash uh you know uh strategy to try to fix this thing you know for me there's the hesitancy of being uh so risky with our strategy given the lack of uh widespread support or even not support but acknowledgement of the experimental nature of the thing uh that makes it to me less attractive to you know sort of throw [ __ ] at the wall people are already very unhappy despite our historically like really rigorous approach to all this so it's like now we're gonna we're gonna take on and we're GNA do things that are even riskier like I for me it's hard to know how we could even go about getting sufficient buyin from the participants in the system that that would be a an acceptable Act action to take and I get it you can't make everyone happy um and we shouldn't let a few you know sour grapes prevent us from acting wisely um certainly not but I question the Integrity of such actions given how uh you know how widespread the unhappiness has been sure I think you can imagine at least uh you know following through with a proposal to to the extent that you could figure out if that was actually a blocker right repeat that's a very like it's a very real potential problem but it's not a problem yet that is true all right I feel like there's a lot of food for thought here um I don't know if there any if anyone has anything else they want to add here um we've already been at it for like 75 minutes um but I think the intention is to have these bean stock calls more regularly so uh there should be an opportunity for us to resume our conversation after sitting on it for a little while uh you know within the next week or so yeah Ben there's a question in the chat um from classic hold on let me go try to find like I feel think Food For Thought is trying to figure out you know what like the structures people would be willing to consider and what are some what is the power that you know what kind of tools can we have If people really think we should try to make things you know change things in order to have have a meaningful impact on the system what was your question Brendan I I missed that it wasn't a question it was just you know some something to think about is ways we could restructure the system I see classic uh is asking about they say there are still trades here and there uh through the system is it possible to add a trade fee within there a simple way to burn 0.1% of the bean side of the being traded every time there's a trade um short answer is yes this is possible uh it would be a significant amount of work uh architecting the pool the the amm function in the pool migrating the liquidity over um definitely possible uh given the amount of volume we're seeing in the system hard to imagine any sort of fee that would be reasonable uh would have any effect on the overall health of the system uh but it is possible and I think there is a movement uh in the pindo community to implement a fee on the trades um so maybe at that point in time it will be less overhead to copy the change over to beanock but see it as a not such a loow hanging fruit and with very limited benefits in practice yeah I I got a question uh John here so I haven't really been keeping up with a lot of stuff so I just wanted to know are you guys going to be releasing like some sort of white paper or something that kind of explains what what's been going on for the people who are out of the loop I'm sure if you just look through Discord it a lot of comments are being thrown around and I don't know if other people are keeping as close an eye as I am or or as not close as I am so just seeing is there some documentation or something out there uh it's a great question and great Point John um I don't know exactly what the plan is honestly we're just now starting to come back and talk with the community on a regular basis uh definitely see there being some benefit in creating a document to sort of explain to people what's going on uh for those that have been tuned out uh don't think it would be a white paper per say but could definitely see the value of a document like that doesn't yeah I didn't mean necess neily a white paper white paper just some something almost like hey you know we've been gone for x amount of time this is what's or you've been gone since x amount of time this is what you missed type thing cuz I'm hearing you guys talk about another coin now and I have no idea what what is what anymore so great this is great feedback thank you yeah doesn't know what's up uh do you know what P nope and that that that's that's also like part of the reason why I'm mentioning maybe there's some value there to uh to actually explain to people what Pinto is and or what what's going on with Bean CU if you just read through the server pretty Doomer uh out Outcast or something just it looks yeah what's up with all these doomers John did you let them in the Discord it's your server not mine you tell me ah thank you very much John this is a great input yeah I think that's the new T andala album that just got announced humorism all right anything else anyone wants to add before we hop great all right thank you everyone for the time we'll we'll be back soon