GM. Everyone might be a quick witness. So we have a small group today, but primarily just wanted to give a quick timeline update and don't have too much else to add. Basically hoping to propose the silo view three bit that was shared earlier this week. Call it first half of next week, sometime like that pending UI work. That's the main last step on that front.

And the last word from how born on the base and integration idea is that it will wrap up on the 17th of next month. So as soon as the silo V3 UI is done, it'll be full steam ahead on the UI work for that purpose such that, you know, it doesn't push back any timelines. So hopefully, hopefully we can share and propose that.

BEP Around that time, shortly after the style of V3 that passes.

Frankly, I don't have too much else to share today other than just wanting to have it on the record that I personally won't be taking any payment from Bienstock Farms moving forward. I'm not going anywhere. The BFC is still a structure that exists to fund different work, so there are still devs and audits to pay for for the rest of the year or to implement a lot of the roadmap that I described last last meeting.

Also just shout out that the check out the gem check proposal that we shared under the town square in Discord, it's been a lot of good discussion about how many seats are awarded on the beneath well, which is a worthwhile discussion. So I just wanted to shout that out as well. And then also mention, lastly, that on a related note to not taking payment, I also don't plan on attending these now meetings at a regular cadence anymore.

If folks have questions and they want to drop them in the Barnyard chat and there's a handful and it seems like I'm the person best equipped to answer those questions. I'm happy to join, but I just don't plan on committing to joining this at a particular cadence. So that's really all I had to run through this week. Happy to pause and answer any questions and otherwise, this might be maybe a brief one, but always happy to answer questions.

So we'll pause for a few moments because, hey, guy, any of it. You just said a lot of really good discussion around the temp check. What do you make of all the discussion or do you feel like we're kind of headed in a particular direction? Seems like there's been a lot of discussion. Kind of. I feel like we've we're headed in a particular direction, but it's just hard to discern what the final outcome might be.

And I didn't know if you had any particular thoughts. Sure. So I personally feel like one of the motivations for changing the LP tokens is to reduce the cost of converting one below peg. You know, that was that cost is the very impetus for all the discussion and the eventual inclusion in the sale of V3 BIP to, you know, set the unripe seed rewards to be equal, which does have a cost to be clear, you know, the cost being that when Beanstalk does grow, there's likely to be more upside volatility and excessive minting which, you know, may sound good on the surface but is really not and is that is the thing to avoid and

and be accounted for this is not to say that perhaps perhaps it could be rather than decreasing the seeds for the LP token excuse me rather than decreasing the seeds for the LP tokens, maybe it could make sense to increase the seed rewards for beans, which would have a similar effect. You know, feel like the the point that was brought up around the fact that, you know, unripe asset on unripe depositors have been earning grow in stock this entire you know over the over the better part of a year for not you know, adding much value for for keeping their assets in the system and increasing the seeds per BDB for beans you know potentially

as well as LP tokens would be one way to sort of you know, shift where where the pie is allocated, if you will, because, you know, all that matters at the end of the day is, is the stock ownership not so much the number of stock. So yeah, I mean, that's, you know, hot off the press haven't haven't had a chance to think about it too much, to be frank.

But those are a couple of thoughts. Now, it's fair. And, you know, it's interesting. We've kind of gotten a chance to flesh out all the different angles of this, you know, this discussion. And, you know, I agree again. And have a good how good that discussion has been. And it's cooking. I don't know if priorities is the right word, but it seems like the right word.

And you know, what I appreciate is that it doesn't it doesn't seem like a lot of folks are just saying, well, you know, what can we do to print the most? You know, there does seem to be a really good discussion around like making sure that people are kept whole versus attracting new, new users like that, Like there's a robust discussion around good things.

But it's it's been hard for me to discern where where the discussion is leading at the moment. And yeah, yeah, I guess my even if, you know, go ahead react because you know, they might Yeah my, my real fear is the thing that I mentioned in the chat was just that we end up being delayed because of lack of clarity.

And you know, regardless of the decisions made just on my mind, just to clarify, there are no plans to change what is being whitelisted from, you know, being it to some other asset like that is the thing that would change in any particular timeline. Changing the seeds, post-sale would be three is is fairly trivial from a technical perspective.

And yeah, I mean I mentioned this in the channel, but maybe just say it live here, you know, perhaps some discussion around which liquid staking, you know, which liquid stakes is the derivative if any would be appropriate to the waitlist or not. Certainly worth talking about, but no plans to change the actual asset that's proposed to be whitelisted in the in the Baozun integration, which is great.

Admittedly, you know, I'll speaking personally, I think that's definitely the right option. So that yeah that's that's more I'm thinking through this syncs discussion around seed rewards and you know just making sure that we're aligned. And in your point about it being relatively trivial to change the seed rewards, that's helpful to me because yeah, that was, that was probably the biggest thing on my mind is just essentially taking too long to come to consensus and running into delay because of it.

So that's, that's good to know. I had one of the thing I was gonna add, remember Oh was just that although it will be very straightforward to waitlist, you know, new walls in the silo after business deployed, you know, from my perspective, don't think that that means that the discussion around which assets are appropriate with regards to, you know, liquidity, censorship, resistance, etc., etc. should have any less gravity.

So, you know, this is all to say that I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to get trigger happy, if you will, but, uh, you know, at least from a development perspective, it is, it is much more straightforward now, you know, outside of just considering what asset to white list there is, of course, research that would need to be done in how the well derives the price of the asset that's trading at being either Oracle.

You know, just in my experience over the last few weeks that there's not too many great options on Etherium. So just wanted to, I don't know, toss that little nugget out there for people to enable on as they think about what assets may make sense to white list versus not. Is there a place guy for some type of document that provides that guidance is I can see that being a question in the future is okay we've got these list of things that are that are important, what's in the list, what might be, what might we not have thought of, etc..

No formal list. I mean, I don't know how long the list is really other than like the assets level of decentralization, liquidity, and then the options for its oracles. But that's you know, don't don't, don't quote me on that. Just just saying it out loud. But yeah, I mean, it's a good shot. That's fair. I guess potentially stability would be another factor.

Yeah, I guess what what's going through my mind is are there any components that wouldn't come up through an organic discussion by the community? And if the list is short and there are things that are usually pretty easy to, you know, recognize them, I suppose it would probably happen organically. Yeah. I mean, there's the one I would highlight that I just mentioned is the the Oracles for getting the price of the Nonbeing asset, which is not obvious, you know, was spending some time looking at options for LAUSD and it's it's extremely limited.

Frankly. I think there was either a Uniswap V2 or V3 pool that had less than eight figures of liquidity. There is a curve pool that has against three curve that is exposed to all the centralization risks of three curve. And then there is a chainlink feed that is not secured by link staking. So I would just shout out, you know, that this Oracle access is something to consider because, you know, it's like LAUSD is the Decentral is the stablecoin that comes to mind when people talk about decentralization.

But if you can't derive if you can't get the price of LAUSD in a manipulation resistant fashion, it makes it tough. So just to provide an example. So the guy may have lost everything, but are you saying that chainlink can be manipulated? I'm concerned. Just in the case of the LAUSD price feed, it is not secured by staking.

And so the parties that report the price have nothing to lose by reporting the wrong price. It's just the honor system. So it's only manipulable to the extent that the parties are reporting the price report, it incorrectly. But I just shout out that it's not secured by staking to say that, you know, it's yeah, it's just an honor system basically, which is not pretty as could cut it, but it's an option.

You know, it is an oracle. Do we know or is there actually any case, for example, of a chainlink oracle that, you know, had or went through something similar to that where there was some sort of manipulation risk or that got manipulated, like you're saying the parties reporting the price, like colluded to report the wrong price or. Sorry, I'm not understanding the question exactly.

Yes. So the concern that you just highlighted is that in theory or did that happen in practice or, you know, that was an example of such a risk? It's a great question. I don't know of specific examples off the top of my head, but it's certainly possible in theory. It's a good question. Now go just go back one more time for now.

Only whitelisted well is going to be the beginning as well. Correct. But all I'm saying is that is the proposal in the Basin integration DEP, which one of which the audit completes in the next couple of weeks. It sounds good. Just, just triple checking. So in other words, in the irrigation team we're talking about how that might integrate with with that project and knowing what those pools are going to be is important.

Beneath this is pretty critical. So amazing. All right. Anyone else have any questions? Yeah. I just want to touch on something you said earlier that you're not going to be attending these calls anymore. First, why? Why is that? And second, what's going to happen to these calls if you don't attend? Right. Like if things start firing, leadership isn't attending these calls.

What is the expectation both, I guess, from you and also this question as to the rest of the now members that are here on this call. We're listening to the recording. What do you guys expect to see happening on these calls or once they stop right. Or if Beinstock Farms leadership isn't attending, I guess I can answer first.

What do I expect to happen? I'm not sure. I mean, I would encourage folks to self self-organize and discuss things that are happening. You know, I know Rex mentioned to me the potential of irrigation, wanting to propose a couple of different things to the Dow. We'll defer to him on what details he wants to discuss. Feel like that would be a great example of something that someone would want to come to the meeting to present and talk about, if not for the fact of just having it on the recording.

You had some other questions I'm trying to remember, but how is it useful if a bunch of DAO members get together to discuss ideas? But the people that are officially in charge of Beinstock, the Beinstock forum organization, are not at that table, are not at that conversation. Well, just to be clear myself, and you know, no one is officially in charge of Bienstock, but right.

What are you. What are you asking? I want to try to answer. Yeah, I guess what I'm touching on is like, there's been over, I guess for it's ever since I've been here, I've been hearing publicists constantly beat this drum of he's not the lead, he's just the guy. You know, they made the thing originally, but now they don't want to be leads.

Anyone can come in, propose things, you know, and this has been the message from Publius. This is kind of the message that being stuck for him has kind of subtly been trying to push out. This is what you're saying now as well, that like, you know, you don't feel like being stuck forms is in charge of the Dow in any way.

And while that technically might be true or it might be true in certain phrasing and definitions of what it is and all that stuff, the fact of the matter is that that's just like a semantic game, because the truth is Beinstock Farms is in charge, right? All of these proposers are to convince based on farms to do things or not to do things.

Beinstock Farms is the actor that acts on behalf of the Dow being stock farms, as far as I understand, was elected by the Dow to execute the Dow's will. So for the leads of being stock farms, which I suppose it's you mostly now or you're you're the front man right to say that you guys are in charge or being staff farms is in charge of anything and you're going to stop attending meetings and all this stuff.

To me, I don't get it. It just feels like there's no leadership in this Dow or it feels like the leads are walking away, frankly. And this is also further amplified by the recent actions of what genuinely feels like winding down of Beinstock and the fact, you know, specifically with the fact that we've cut employee pay, we've let go a couple of people.

We have never proposed a budget. And you know, the message in that method, in that post or the message in that message that you're is that, you know, in a couple of months, maybe things are going to go private, future based development is going to be privatized or no. But it sure seems like everything's looking like a winding down.

I mean, it really does. Like so is this a correct characterization? Is this what the Dow understands other than myself? Am I just looking at this wrong? Do the rest of people understand that this is happening in my and please correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm mischaracterized anything here because I don't want to like say things that are incorrect.

But to me, it feels like something major is happening and it's not the most important thing being discussed. That to me feels like the most important thing. And it feels like it seems like no one else is kind of either aware of it or or if they're aware of it, maybe it's not having as much of an impact as it is to me.

And I guess I'm curious why that is. Maybe I don't get it or they don't get it. So. So not to to jump in in front of you guys. But I guess I guess my question for you would be, what's your expectation around what a group like being stock firms would do long term? Is it, you know, continue to build out features for the protocol or to just insure it as, you know, to use a term ongoing concern?

Like what what would your expectations for that be? Okay, so let's let's just pretend this is like a normal company, right, with a product, because in many ways we can make that parallel. Being stock is a product and being stock forms is the company that runs that product. And the way I would kind of like take the analogy further is that the Dow is sort of like the board members that elect people to run the company.

In other words, stock Dow has elected in stock firms to basically carry out the day to day operations and entrusts a lot of decision making to stock firms. But at any point, the Dow has the capability to put up for a vote and override any decision made by the being stock forms. Right. So to me, the Dow is the ultimate owner, but the Dow is decentralized.

There's no one person that can make a decision. And you need an executor. You need you need an entity that can or an entity that can basically execute the will of the people, meaning practically like owning GitHub accounts, DNS names, being able to push things, have access to the multisig, although whatever. But all of those actions need to be performed by some entity, right, as well as to some degree some decision making process like the really big decisions get voted on through proposals.

But then there's other decisions that are pretty vague, but they get made internally, right? Product decisions and a lot of decisions get made internally and things like forks. So going forward, I guess my expectation is who's going to be doing that if, you know, what does the Dow expect to happen to the arm up to do the product without a central leadership organization like without some kind of leadership or team to do things?

So I guess I guess what runs Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I guess it runs through my mind. First would be that it might be more accurate and maybe this is you know, this is just the way that I look at it. When I think of when I think of beanstalk protocol, I think of an economy rather than a company.

And that's again, that might just be my point of view. Maybe other people don't share that. And that takes the the the role that Beanstalk Farms plays in it. And it changes it a little bit because, you know, I agree if that's if you're looking at if you're looking at beanstalk protocol as a company and Beanstalk Farms is like, you know, it's its operations team or its product development team or whatever, I think you're, you know, your frame of reference, your your expectations are probably correct.

But I think if you change your frame of reference to thinking of Beanstalk as an economy, then it it takes Beanstalk farms and turns it into a company acting within the economy. And then, you know, so to your point about like the, you know, the DNS stuff and like that kind of daily, how does it run? I don't want to speak for Guy, but I'm under the impression based on prior conversations and announcements that like those functions are still going to exist.

Like I hate to use the word custodial, but they're like it's kind of a custodial function, like, you know, making sure the lights stay on and those functions are still going to exist, as I understand it, because they would have to. And then so if you take that stuff and kind of put it in that custodial basket and then you look at the other group of stuff, which is like product development, new initiatives, etc., I think that's where other organizations are going to step in and in this case AM and going to speak on behalf of irrigation, like I know that irrigation and barrows and other groups are looking at taking on those responsibilities and

saying, okay, what, what's next? What do we build on top of this economy? So if you if you look at it from that point of reference, I think that's why a lot of folks are not as up in arms about it. Like, to me, when I look at this, I say, okay, you know, it looks like we're solidifying for the long haul.

If there needs to be some major change to the protocol, then it's probably going to be important enough where people are going to rally around it. And in the meantime, there are enough folks now that have a pretty vested interest in seeing Beanstalk succeed long term, that there are folks that are working on new products and new initiatives and opportunities.

So as long as the light stay on, product development can move outward. And so, you know that it sounds like those custodial functions are covered, product development is covered. It's just going to look different than how it was. So that's just my opinion. But I think it's probably probably relatively accurate.

Yeah. So you know what you said about the frame of reference being an economy versus a company, right? First of all, those two things don't have to get exclusive, right? Beinstock the application, you know, being that money is the product and it can have an economy around it, right? Whether or not an economy grows around the product that we're building here is neither here nor there.

Let's let's change gears for a second. Right. Earth is a product, but it also has an economy where turning heads of other things have been built on top of curve, right? So we can make the parallel to curve pretty easily. In fact, being a prime make the parallel to a lot of other deals out there. But let's just stick with curve, right?

But Curve still has a team. They still have a product. They still have what looks like a company, basically. Right. And they still make decisions. So I don't think the fact that we're thinking in an economy mindset should change how we've been operating. This is what I don't get for the last two years. Bain Stock firm has operated in this way as if like, Hey, we're building this product that will hopefully launch an economy.

But if other people want to do stuff in this economy, create good for them, go do it. We're here to enable you. We're here to help you with built us the case. We're open. We can help. We can collaborate. Great. But my question is, why does that have to change or how does that change or why is that changing?

How being stock farms operates and the role of being stock firms within this. Now I like and I think the answer that I'm hearing is that everyone kind of expects that things start farms and things like the app so app that being the money is kind of done. This is kind of like the vague message that I'm kind of hearing from the community and some other people is that people think like, Hey, we're done.

We've built everything we need to build now we're just going to keep it in maintenance mode. And maybe if something big comes up, we'll figure it out. But like the main features of Dan were there and to me that to me that seems like nonsense, right? Like we've been building like crazy for the last year that I've been here.

People have been building on this thing for more than I've been here for the last two years. We've been going at like 200 miles an hour, and all of a sudden we're going to hit this milestone it and we can be like, okay, we're done. Everything is off the checklist. The roadmap is really complete and new things can be spun off by third parties.

And I feel like that's a huge risk because to enact that while you're getting rid of your talent, right? Like we've lost developers, we've lost some very high talent, right. That people are winding down. And when the time comes to like fix something or do something or build something else and it will I mean, it's crazy to suggest that after being the money, whether it's the contracts or the UI won't ever need, like some big, big changes.

Sorry, we're still here. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. You're still thinking that that won't happen. And when that does, when that time comes, it's going to be hard to find the correct talent that that is senior enough to do the work. And more importantly, has the context of how all that stuff that has been built actually works because it's very complex under the hood.

And it's it's not like you can just find a a senior developer and they can just hit the ground running. So there's risks and wining things down and just assuming that any new development is going to be done by private companies, because those private companies, they're going to have their own private motivations and private things going on. So if the Dal all of a sudden want something to happen, well, if that desire isn't in line with these private companies roadmaps, then what?

Yeah, I mean, I feel like that's a I feel like that's a fair point. And I guess that the thought that goes through my mind is there may be a place for the Dow to have some type of function or mechanism where problems can be quickly identified because yeah, I mean, I see what you're saying. And in the case of a real issue where we would need to spin up some type of technical support in the, the, the worst part about being in a situations is the speed required a lot of times to to navigate and I think there's a place for you know the Dow to be thinking about how we can do that

in an effective way. But you know I don't know. And it may just be a difference in in point of view, but. Well, the point out being, respectfully, it feels like we're fixating a little bit too much on on the UI, which I would totally agree with you, that that's not it's difficult it would be difficult to call that, you know, done or close to done.

If we take a look at the contracts, I guess I would be interested to know after the the upgrades I described at the last meeting, what you feel is what like what additional upgrades to be in stock aren't just marginal after that, at least in being stocks, current state, you know where it lives and the even and the reason I ask is because you know I'm sure we're on the same page that just doing work for the sake of doing work is not value added.

I want to do the high leverage work. And so the question is, you know, what is the the list of the highest leverage bienstock upgrades left to implement that would put Bienstock Bienstock the piece of software that runs on a theory, nothing else, not the UI, not anything else, just the contracts. What, what, what, what is the, the short list of upgrades that would put bienstock in a position to be very successful for the medium term?

Call it a couple of years to a few years and feel pretty good about the list described at the last hour meeting that once those are implemented, the contracts really wouldn't need to change all that much again in there where they currently live on a theory. And you know, there's a whole, you know, rabbit hole that you know, to get into around what it looks like for, you know, what the future of Beanstalk looks like after that.

But I genuinely feel like at the contract level that not much would need to change after that point. And to be clear, that is not what I'm describing. It's not Mayflower. It's the set of, you know, four or five or six things I described at the last meeting that are not going to be done next month. It is going to take time and from that perspective, nothing is going to change substantially, you know, in the next 6 to 8 months.

And my view so I know you had you brought up a lot, but hopefully that helps address some some surface area. But I can answer that question. Right. So you're asking me like what else is on the roadmap that we need to do stuff like why do we need a team if there's no roadmap? Right. And I'm not asking why we need a team, why we don't need a team.

I'm just curious at the contract level, what, what, what do you feel would be the very high leverage upgrades? Right. So I don't have a list, right? I don't have an answer to that because I have not been involved in creating roadmaps in these discussions. But I would point out that over the last two years we have had a constant stream of upgrades and updates and improvements and new features that we've been doing.

And to suggest that now all of a sudden we've had the Holy Grail and everything's peachy seems odd to say the least. But more importantly, I feel like the conversations around how do we improve things have stopped and they stopped months ago when Publius decided to stop attending these calls and being involved because a lot of those improvements were stemmed from these discussions that we used to have that were amazing, where Polis was involved and discussing various economic topics with Dow members.

And what spawned out of those conversations were roadmap items that we've been working on. So probably stopped attending and these conversations stop happening. And of course now we don't have any more ideas to implement. So it's very easy to say, Well, we're about to finish everything that's on our roadmap. What else is there? Well, sure, there's nothing else because no one's talking about anything else.

And if we're okay with that, then we're okay with that. But it just feels like it just feels like some of the stuff that you guys might have a chip in there. I've been I haven't attended very much, but I do I do listen to the Spotify recordings. I feel like because I've been involved in stuff for maybe like a year or so, I feel like generally there's a very high degree of focus since Publius left on like immutability and centralization.

Like we're talking about it. The Oracles earlier we talked about, I think in the last hour meeting about Multisig and this sort of different ways we could afford an upgrade without sacrificing immutability. I'm not sure. I think that allows for us to make a decision as to whether they want to go down a path of, like LAUSD or it's fully immutable and like, that's a core value prop and that makes the product attractive to the institutions and the users and the retail people that use LAUSD and other immutable protocols.

Or if we want to be more centralized, right, with a clear path to being mutable and decentralized. I don't know if that's after these upgrades or if it's in a couple of years or if it's in ten years. But I think generally the Dow to make a decision as to whether the core focus should be on getting to mutability as soon as possible or if it should be around bootstrapping, utility and no economic activity.

Sort of like we're talking about curve where there's probably a good amount of work to be done on a non-technical basis, right? Like BD, But we'll probably result in changes in the contracts that are maybe not very large, but probably wouldn't make sense to like create a whole new create a whole new system or fork it. Yeah, I think that, I think, you know, I don't know why Aaron's leaving internal, but generally I think there is risk to becoming immutable and fully initialized.

Too early to like bienstock software. There is no collateral backing, right? So it's a credit system. People have to, you know, repayment is based on future demand coming beings. So if that future demand doesn't exist, this is most likely a function of utility and the whole protocol fails. So I think there is risk, unlike LAUSD, there is risk here to becoming immutable to private equity and not bootstrapping utility because yeah, I mean, I can go on, but I think generally there needs to be consensus over sort of what the roadmap looks like in terms of immutability versus focusing on like product, right, and iterating.

And it's probably more centralized, but that's the risk we're taking today. But the goal of eventually being decentralized, yeah, I guess Aspira I hear that. And I think what what were the conversations leading is the idea of making Beanstalk immutable and solidified and then having other parties come in that are more centralized themselves and built on top. And I agree with you.

I was thinking about USD when we were talking earlier with Al and you know, like that is the that's, that's the best example of immutability and like there there aren't a lot of people that are like there's, there's no AOC roadmap that I know of. Maybe there is, but that is I feel like that is a goal that Beanstalk has established and is working towards and then saying, okay, external parties come in and bring that utility with the work that you're doing in a more centralized fashion.

I see that. But I guess maybe quickly, Casper one agree there's definitely risk of becoming immutable too quickly to feel like the dichotomy you draw between immutability versus focusing on utility feels a little bit vague and fuzzy, and we'd be interested in hearing what you think that means, particularly, as you mentioned, the work require contract level upgrades like protocol level upgrades and what that if you have like examples that you'd be interested in sharing or can think of on that front, uh, on the front of people leaving, I'm not going anywhere and they'll spend.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not going anywhere. And they'll spend nearly every waking moment thinking about being stuck, but primarily be interested in hearing what that means to you in terms of what it means to focus on, quote unquote, product or utility and the development that is required related to that. Yeah, I mean, I think it difficult sort of like I'll deal with saying like it's difficult to forecast what changes will need to be made, but it's generally like even in Web two, you know, product issue this early startup, right.

There's there's going to be a lot of different iterations of product. And I don't think that being stuck in its current state from a contract perspective is going to cut it in terms of bid it to the end goal. I think there's a lot of work that'll need to be done that unfortunately, I can't really support with actual contextual info on like what the upgrades would be and what what we need to change.

But there's I can almost say for certain that you can't just let the system go at this point and then expect there to be utility. There can be like centralized be IT units on top, let's say. I think that's a good start. But if there's no sort of flexibility or ability to make changes at the contract level, I think that just makes the work way more difficult because we necessarily know we don't necessarily know what those upgrades will be and it will limit the beauty side If we can't make changes to the contract side.

So I think some of the thing about is like what is the risk of it not being immutable today, right? And like being more centralized because, you know, it's, in my opinion, a big risk to sort of let the system go at this point. You know, like we we're going to make beneath while and that on the table like zero fee trading and things like that.

But like who who are the takers of that pool? Who is going to be using that product? And sort of I'm sure there's going to be external features at the contract level that we're going to have to build out to continue to find product market fit around that beneath well or other sort of whitelisted pools that come into that.

That's it's yeah, like I'm not going to have discrete updates that we're going to have to make. Obviously, I don't think that's the right way to look at it when you're thinking about, you know, does it make sense to be immutable or not? I think the question is like, what is the risk to us not being immutable today?

There's still probably going to be sufficient demand if we can root trades at zero fees, that should be enough of an incentive from an economic perspective for people to use the protocol, especially if you're just routing trades through it, right? You're not actually like if you're not an LP, you might not be taking custody or you're not you might not be actually taking risk in terms of the centralization risk associated with being in that pool.

So I don't I just don't see I don't see more like a lot of students are really black and white, right? It's like like trade offs. I just don't see the massive downside risk that would warrant us to become immutable and inherently limit the protocol. Right? Limit the work, limit the ability to iterate on product and find utility.

I think it's a this is a big risk, especially under P&G. And people sort of are losing confidence. Like, I think these are the moments where if we can find and maybe there's not really be the effort right now, and I think that might be the biggest hole in the protocol. But, you know, I, I just think it's something we should consider.

And it's not black or white. It's like trade offs. So we have to think about the risks associated with becoming more mutable and not being able to change anything with the contracts. Right. And if the being well, and the silo and the way everything works right now and maybe a gauge system is enough, then I'm fine with that.

But I, I personally don't think it's enough if, according to my sort of long term view of what the stock could and should become at scale. And I totally go ahead. I just I totally agree with what Kasper said. And I fear, like the big question that always comes up is, well, what do we do? Like, what's the alternative?

What do we build? Right? And this comes back to this question of like leadership and vision, which is something that I think Bienstock is lacking right now. Ever since Paul is decided to leave or take a back step or whatever you want to call it, we don't have a mechanism to like really push the envelope, right? We don't have good product leadership right now.

That's why everyone's asking the questions. What else is there to build? Well, we don't know because we don't have a visionary leader that can like look at the spectrum in Defi and look at the economics out there and look at the whole the whole ecosystem here and just like deduce like what the next chess moves are that that's missing it.

Bienstock I think. And to Casper point, focusing on decentralization and some of these other things which yeah, you could say that there's value there, there's risks of being centralized and we should move the needle more towards those. In my opinion, those aren't priority right now, like buying stocks in a bit of a whole put focusing on decentralization and you know immutability are like putting the cart before the horse.

We need to resurrect this thing. We need to make it popular, we need to make it big. And then we can focus on these other things. In my opinion, maybe it is just a general center internally because there's not really that sort of vision slash PD, you know, part of the conversation because like, yeah, immutability ultimately is like a security thing, right?

So if we have hundreds of billions of dollars of volume being, then it makes sense to focus on security. But if it's just a bunch of regions trying to figure out, you know, how to build a system that would work at scale when it's not at scale that seems less practical, just doesn't like he would probably survive given the structure of the being.

So again, I think LAUSD could survive, given its structure. I don't know if it's going to get to scale. That's a whole another thing. But just from a like a protocol perspective, right, Like a like the way the protocol is set up in terms of incentives and know collateral and things like that, I don't know. There could be like a slight bias internally because most of the team is engineering.

I'm not I'm not actually really sure how the team is structured, but yeah, perhaps, perhaps, maybe we need to do more be like that. Seems like maybe it's a missing poll and that would get more of that sort of like visionary type conversations happening internally and also show that there is a real need to have upgradability at a contract level and there's probably less of a need to have immutability.

I don't know why people are leaving the team. Maybe there's something we don't know, but I have, you know, I don't know. Guy If you have thoughts on why Pugliese is left, I know people always ask this, but like I have one ologist and others in the room. I think there has been more of a regulatory crackdown in the US, and if there is a part of the team or contributors or whatever that live the United States right there is a risk, right?

Like that is there's true risk there. And so that could be a real reason why. Pugliese I'll just address the elephant in the room. Julius might have left because there is that regulatory that regulatory angle now. So that is a real risk, and I don't think we should downplay that. But I also don't think we should just ignore and be, you know, not transparent about why people don't want to be involved in the Dow or on the team, like a core team like been so far.

Look, I can answer to why some people have left. I mean, just hearsay and just anecdotal. It's mainly a they were let go, the salaries were cut and see disagreement with the direction of being that foreign leadership specifically not just leadership but like specifically this this this decision to kind of wind it down and go private. Casper, did you have a question for me?

I wanted to make sure I didn't didn't miss it off. So I would hope that you also don't know why Publius has left and that that's not an an opaque, sort of nontransparent part of the conversation. So, yeah, I guess my question like, you know, do you know and if you don't like do you know anyone else that knows by previous has left?

Well, I guess I would start by refuting the premise of the question. I mean, I talked to Publius several times a week about being stuck, and I'll push back on that. Just because you talk to him in private doesn't mean he's still around, clearly. Okay. So but by leaving, I left. Are you guys just referring to like, our meeting attendance primarily?

I mean, it's a pretty simple question. We don't have to get technical. I don't know why we need to get so technical and definition of leaving, but specifically when I answer your question properly, I don't give it the respect it deserves. But I feel like the spirit of the question is easily understood right? He hasn't been around in the chats.

He hasn't been attending town meetings and internally in the private bienstock foreign channels. I haven't seen him around. He hasn't attended the internal calls. He hasn't been involved in internal conversations as well. So I think that's that's what is meant by they've been great. So just referring to the general concept of not being present in the in the discord.

Sure. I mean, I mean, there are multiple problems and I'm going to do my best not to speak for anyone, obviously, but I feel like the message that it's sent in all around the quality of discussion and how time is best spent developing BIENSTOCK You know, you referred to some of the public discussion calls that we had held earlier this year.

I believe like the dev calls where you'd mentioned we had figured out a few roadmap item things, you know, personally didn't get a lot out of those As far as direction in terms of you know, they did feel like more like, you know, presentations that need that time needed to be spent preparing for rather than in discussion ones where you know there was a lot of a lot of valuable input from, you know, from several different sides.

And so, I mean, that was one of the reasons that we discontinued new does I mean, as far as a down we can go, when I made that about it, just to clarify, sorry, can you say that again. Sorry I wasn't talking referring about the the deaf calls when I made that comment. Apologies. Well yeah, yeah. I mean I don't really speculated don't attend the meetings on their behalf if that's the, you know, primary concern.

I everyone I wasn't able to be here at the beginning of the call so perhaps I didn't I don't know if you've already spoken about this, but there's a there's a certain match up in in the questions on the sort of public non presence of the public eye and the decision as well to push for the protocol to move towards immutability.

Both of the solutions both of those situations seem to be betting on the solution of of sort of inhibit immutability and and contributions by every individual dollar member to move the project forward. And not to say at all that Pouliot aren't busy building. From what I understand, they're continuously putting more and more GitHub comments and and adding code constantly.

But if that's the case, then it would seem that the way forward is for everyone to contribute, contribute to building, stacking things on top of being in their own way. And if we succeed at that, hopefully at some point in the near future it will be possible to make Bienstock immutable without having to take on the current risks that that would involve low morale, not so much usage, etc. But if we could get bienstock into a different place before making it immutable, then that might be a winning strategy.

Well, I certainly don't agree with anything you said in particular, says Obra. I would just add that, you know, there seems to be this undertone of people feeling like it's the primary motivation. It's like offloading responsibility. And to me that's not what it's about at all. In the list of upgrades that are described at the last hour meeting.

Amir Stability is one and you know, it logically follows that it would be the last of the upgrades I described and in my opinion and it's it's clear the value add of the upgrades that would proceed any removal of governance that. The list is still being worked on. But for the most part includes all the upgrades to be in stock that aren't marginal improvement elements and you know, it doesn't really feel like an appropriate response to what our other changes would be.

The answer to include before removing governance that I'd just like. We don't have enough leader, ship or vision. I would just implore you to read it first. Principles about which upgrades are important to include and which ones move the needle and which ones are necessary for and if there were ever to be a time where governance is removed, then it would be necessary implement all of those things before then.

So for I, I spent a lot of might what that list is. I'm here asking people to think about what should be on that list as but certainly don't feel like the answer is, you know, we're out of ideas so we're screwed. I mean, frankly, I've never been more optimistic about the future of Beinstock and I. Go ahead, Eric.

I just wanted to add that that I agree entirely with you. And and I didn't want to give the impression of of claiming that it's an abdication of responsibility in any way. My impression is just that seems to be the way the group is responding, is that the group is saying something like whereas whereas the king, whereas the father.

And when that happens in groups, it's a fairly fun excuse me, it's a fairly common phenomenon. And usually the solution is just to get back and make those little workgroups and start adding on and as you're saying, to brainstorm on all the different ways that we could improve bienstock and build on top of it. That's the key. At least that's what we're doing at the irrigation at the moment.

We're trying to look for any different component we could add to the beanstalk ecosystem that would make it smoother, improve, offer more features, etc. and something wonderful about that is it gives the kind of optimism and it removes the concern or any worry someone might have about being stock price or being start coming back or when and the discord, etc..

And I wholeheartedly recommend that solution for everyone because I believe you'll notice that the the morale of the group changes dramatically as everyone gets to work. But I sort of what I had a little bit further to offer please, sorry, but for an opposing point of view there that it's easy to have this mentality that yeah, we can just break off into little groups and people could just add on to the protocol and everything be great.

But first of all, that can happen anyway and has been happening proof of the matter being that there's a couple of companies building on top of Stuck as we speak. So irrespective that's happening anyway, right? What we're talking about is paying stock itself, not what other third parties just to build on top of it. So to go back to my curve analogy right, the curve team didn't necessarily disband, shut down governance, locked the protocol up so they can go off and and build comebacks and build volume and build over whatever all these other things.

There's still a core company or team that is responsible for Curve and they're still innovating in that space and maintaining and innovating and pushing the envelope despite the fact that there's, like you said, using the same words, different groups building on top of it, those being different. DALS So like, it's a very important distinction to make here because we don't have to disband this team and this that well, not to now, but this team in order for other companies to be to start and build on top of being stuck.

Right. Unless the decision is, hey, we no longer want to innovate on Beanstalk, we'll take the innovation and privatize it all. And if that's what we're saying, then that's what we're saying. But let's just be clear with that. I can't speak for the the Beanstalk team, but my understanding is that the movement is gently in that direction. They have built sort of the the underlying fundamental structure of the beanstalk ecosystem to add on all the essential features that are understood to be completely necessary and then to begin incentivize using third parties to build on top of it.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that's the general push off of strategy at the moment. And of course, both of the solutions could work quite well. As you mentioned, the curve structure, it's phenomenal and curve continues to be a monumental player in device space. And I guess the counterexample would be tornado cash, where they they did have a few modifiable aspects of the protocol that some governance aspects.

But I believe the core portion of the protocol was immutable for generally speaking, protection reasons, for legal reasons. And so eventually that that may be the end goal of the fundamental core of Beanstalk to have it becomes some sort of unchangeable aspect of the ecosystem, much like tornado cash. My $0.02 is that if that is the case, we just make sure to optimize it as much as possible before doing that.

Hey guys, I'm getting a bit of some more talk on the emitter or the idea of making committed, but I'm not sure exactly what the plan is This how were you thinking of doing that? But achieving the while, Maybe there's something I'm unaware of. No, no worries. The tldr is at the last hour meeting talked about a list of five or six upgrades that we hope to work on for the coming year.

For the rest of the year and have that list be as complete as possible. As far as the things that really move the needle and leaving, you know, marginal improvements out and potentially removing governance after that, I don't think that's is what you're asking about. But just to say anyway, implementation wise, it'd be very simple. The BCM would just transfer ownership to, to the whole address.

But, and just to confirm. So my question is going to be the seed gauge with the rest of the season. Yes, I would be going to the reverse governance that would be implemented by then, but there will still be a way for people to vote for. The scheme is correct or when I'm no. So the current thinking around the seed gauge system is is to have it fluctuate totally autonomously based on, you know, the on chain values theoretically, but primarily the liquidity to supply ratio seems like one such that the ratio between the CS rewarded to LP tokens versus beans fluctuates in response to that.

So if liquidity is high and but debt is high, for example, being sought to be more willing to reward converters than source, for example, I mean, it's still TBD, basically, but the long and the short of it is that it would be autonomous and then upgradable. So whatever the logic is, you know, the idea you know, the logic, as you said, which are just the seeds and so on, then that's complicated.

But I am an advanced of the governance and governance were to be if governance were to be removed, yes, that would be the state of affairs. And on a related note, yeah, I mentioned this as a last minute thing, but happy to talk about it, which is that it seems like the list of, you know, potential assets that are compelling to white list is pretty short, really.

So it doesn't seem like, you know, in the short to medium term, there needs to be a way to react to changes in terms if it's just, you know, for example, ether and a couple different stablecoins. I mean, just to be clear, I'm firing at the head when I get those examples. As far as what should be whitelisted, it doesn't seem like there are, you know, ten plus assets that would be compelling to white list on the sale.

Well, how would you list further assets once the protocol is immutable? You wouldn't. Are you saying that That's the point? Yeah. I think what Austin or Guy is suggesting is that we pick one, but that but inevitably some new things are going to come along with that everybody's going to want whether it's in six months or a year or five years, it's going to happen.

So then we have to fork the whole thing. Everybody. You have to migrate everything to the new being stock while on the order of five years. Yeah, definitely, definitely something about although that's, you know, the time horizon on which you know after these upgrades that it seems like bienstock would be relatively set would be you know call it a couple of years.

Now if you're talking about before that, I guess I would challenge that there. You know, a new very decentralized and liquid asset presented itself that does exist today in the next year or so, but it's not impossible, I suppose. But just even theoretically, it's it's hard to imagine. So if let's play this out, if that were to happen, how would you for being stock, who would do that?

So what entity would develop the changes and then what you know, where would the vote be to change the UI to point to the new contracts, to the new contract contracts, where that take place? Or is the expectation that this new entity, maybe it's a one of these private companies, they would develop that change and they would deploy new contracts and they would deploy UI and they would deploy and you do this name.

I don't have answers to any of those questions. But I guess something else to think about this is whether or not valuations Well, before we talk seriously about immutability, I think it would be good to have all these things spelled out that way. People can get a clearer picture of like what that world looks like because it might be easy to like share the carrier and say like, immutability is great, makes everything safe.

BLOCK But then once the reality of the implementation plays out, it could be a massive part of a language clusterfuck of like five, ten different versions of being start with different UI. The liquidity is just split among all of them. No one knows really which ones, the right one or the correct version or you know, unless unless the stuff is figured out ahead of time and clearly laid out.

So it's a that's a really good point. As it becomes more and more immutable, it's more likely to follow the same sort of evolutionary path as Bitcoin, where there are all these different versions of Bitcoin and I would I would hate to see that happen with being stuck. Well, just to highlight again the point of the roadmap, pre, you know, this discussion around removing governance is to make it such that if governance is to be removed, it is not compelling to go do that because any upgrade to stock would be marginal.

Which again brings me back to the discussion around what include pre that removal. But you know, point taken, don't think anything you said is inaccurate, meaning technically to remove governance like there's no more voting for things or that you're just that the ownership of the contract to annul address because it's one thing to make sure I understand I mean it's one thing to me to multiple perspective it's the latter sorry, the latter being the latter being transferring ownership of the contract to the node address.

Now, if you're asking there going to be voting from a community social consent perspective on what to do with the DNS and some of these other things that you describe. Who knows? Maybe that's how it should work. Well, isn't that governance? I guess By the literal definition, yes. But because Bienstock would be immutable, like Bienstock would not have governance in stock, the smart contract, it would is more than just the smart contract.

So like if we say there's no governance, we're literally saying there's no more decisions for all of bienstock not just the contracts, DNS code, front end UI, everything. I think I think I'll be in here when we talk about music. We we're only talking about the smart contracts or just the protocol, not multiple things that I don't know that I understand the importance of how you I mean that extent, I understand the importance of the UI and all of that.

But it's not necessary or not fundamental to interact with the smart contract. So people are deciding on voting. And I'm like, I'm not saying this is what I think. That's what it makes sense to. You don't have governance to run a UI, but doing all of that thing won't impact the protocol itself. But I'm just saying, I'm saying governance in my head is strictly only about, you know, smart contract changes, not the UI or the dress and the things I but yeah, I think that's a mistake to continue if the content, if the community wants to continue to vote on the assets that you described great.

Well I think that's a deal that has to be voted. Someone has to own the DNS, someone has to own and manage maintain that the front end, if a new Bienstock app is that the contract is deployed but it forks I think it goes without saying that the same DNS name in the app should point to the new contract.

If you if you're going to change the DNS name too, then frankly that's a crazy idea. I think you can take liquidity as an example. So who manages, you know, the liquid or the front end? And then there are no different front ends and there are still people who manage all of that. But, you know, the smart contracts are invisible.

I have you know, we are all thinking together here about the idea of and I'm just highlighting the point that, you know, which just a few days ago. But in my head and my definition, when we're talking about invisible, I'm only thinking about the smart contracts. I'm not. All right. I do have to run to my next one.

But thank you, everyone who, you know, surface questions and feedback. That's what it's about. Thanks, everyone. Take it easy. Thank you for running this guy. Have a great day.