Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
DTF Governance Standup
Recorded: July 2, 2025 Duration: 0:52:18Space Recording
Short Summary
In a recent DTF Governance Stand Up, key discussions highlighted the launch of innovative projects, strategic partnerships, and significant growth indicators within the decentralized finance ecosystem. The community engagement and proactive governance strategies are set to enhance the overall trajectory of DTFs and their impact on the market.
Full Transcription
Thank you. GM, GM, GM!
Hi Tom!
What's up?
Hi Jake!
Unique, never before DTF Governance Stand Up Space.
We have a hybrid event today.
Jake is actually in the room next to me in Cannes.
and we are looking out over the blue waters of the Mediterranean and see a
lot of people queuing for a beach club event as they tend to do here in the
croissette oh when we have ham here amazing timely hi I am good to have you here. Okay, let's kick it off. Welcome to the DTF governance standup this Friday, 2nd of July.
related to DTFs, both Index and Yield DTFs, to ask any questions around the ecosystem
and to come together to discuss decisions affecting one or more of these ecosystems.
This is an open call. If you have any questions and remarks, please raise your hand.
We'll bring you up on stage and make sure that we can discuss what's on your mind.
I have a little agenda of basically a roundup of what's happening
in governance and then the second part of this call is just like open floor. Anybody
who's interested can just come up and just we can discuss whatever's on your mind. So
without further ado, I'm starting with the first point, and maybe Ham you can say something about that, which is the mandate alignment for base ETH.
GM, yeah. Hey guys.
Welcome back, Ham.
Yeah, I feel like it's been a while. It's been a while since I've made one of these stand-ups, so definitely good to be back. I actually felt
a bit unfamiliar, like logging into Twitter and joining the space, so yeah, good to be back.
And unfortunately, not very med style, though cans is kind of like close is pretty close by but
yeah didn't make it this year so um not very med style calling in from the uk
but yeah i think the the rationale really behind the based eth um mandate proposal was really because I like spend a lot of time in ETH governance
and I really like to adhere to the mandates that these R tokens have.
And they, I think that at the very least the framework that we should use to make decisions
on these R tokens and should we add this collateral asset?
Does it align with the mandate?
That's kind of the first question that goes through my head.
And then we can think about liquidity on chain,
how much of the total TVL are we going to hold in the R token?
But the first thing really is the mandate.
And BaseDeath kind of had a different conception story to the other Artokans.
And that was kind of a partnership with Diva Staking.
And something that Larry Cucumber kind of took forward initially,
and a lot of the conversations weren't on our own forum,
they were on the Diva Staking forum.
And because of that that i don't think
a true mandate or like an introducing based eth really hit our own forum so i just kind of took
it upon myself to develop a based eth or start the discussion on a based eth mandate that really
aligned with the eth plus mandate but, but on base, then also
took a lot of the learnings from the ETH plus mandate and like the conversations we've had
around ETH plus and add them to the base ETH mandate.
So things like not having an allocation of over 50% to a certain collateral asset, not taking too much of the TVL of the class, a total TVL of a
collateral asset and keeping the diversification ratio high,
maybe some conversation around the yield. So yeah, that was
really the rationale for the base ETH mandate. Just having
that framework that we have for all the other R tokens available to
base seed governors.
Excellent. Yeah. I think it's, it's, it's really timely.
And just for other helps to clarify what people can expect. So these,
these are like really, really useful. We have Sean here who raised his hand.
Sean, do you have something that you want to ask to the base to the ETH or the base to ETH mission?
Yeah, I did.
Thanks for having me on.
I've been a long supporter of you guys for quite a while and just kind of getting spun up a little bit more details on the DTFs and the growth in the project and the growth in your direction on the project.
I just had a question and forgive me if this is a little out of place, but what are we doing to what is the plan for really for investors to give a big oversight?
Because I have a lot of people asking me questions about RSR as I'm trying to spread the word.
But the big concern is the circulating supply
and trying to increase the value.
I know you guys had some burns going on.
And of course, as you're expanding
and getting the DTS and onboarding,
that's going to help.
But can you speak to that a little bit
on working towards the reduction on that supply
and to increase the value
as this incredible coin continues to grow in value
and getting the word out to other investors to get more people involved that may not be
aware with RSR.
Sure.
I think there has been a lot of debate about RSR emissions and an emission schedule and what to do with the
remaining or outstanding RSR. And then I think it was around the same time last year after
Monetarium 1, or shortly before, I'm actually not 100% now, but around one year ago, there was a big
discussion about what is the best way forward. And the reserve team decided to, first of all, fix the emission schedule to follow Bitcoin's lead.
So basically have a halving of emissions every four years so that there's like a finite number of tokens
that will be emitted in a determined schedule that everybody can rely
on and that there won't be any surprises.
Because before there was like a huge chunk of RSR that were outstanding and nobody really
knew when they would hit the market.
Now I think that's clear.
And now with the protocol fees, we have the RSR burn.
And so usage actually decreases the amount of RSR,
especially of these index DTFs.
And I think that the more successful these are,
the less RSR there are on the market.
Yeah, I don't know.
Anybody else want to add a word or two to that?
I can just say for the ABC Labs team
that is working on building the protocols
and some other projects in the system,
that our focus is on making DTFs massive that's what our focus is
if DTFs are massive um RSR will play a major part of that as it already does play a major part in our
ecosystem um but you know all of our whiteboard sessions, all of our brainstorming
sessions, none of it has to do with looking at the price of RSR. It has to do with making
the product that we're building, which is index protocols, massively, massively successful.
Everything else will follow from that. If that doesn't happen then then there's no
conversation to even have yeah and i think like from my personal experience i think this is a
really interesting line to to to to navigate i think um when i was still very active in maker
we had the very same discussion like what's what's the North Star of MakerDAO?
Is it, or which now is we're bringing it to the sky, is it the amount of DAI outstanding?
Is it the DAI demand?
Is it the Maker Token price, right?
And obviously Maker Token price matters, but it can't matter at the expense of the other two because even if the demand for the high goes to zero,
then Maker price will follow suit.
So they're all connected,
but I think the token price alone
will not drive the success of the protocol.
All right, I appreciate that.
Thank you for taking the time to answer.
I think it was just, you know, RSR is, you guys have been around for a little while and
the outlook on the coin itself is very high, at least the feedback and things that I've
been seeing online about the DTFs, that's very highly prospect. And of course, you know, but, you know,
the investors, you know,
when we're invested in a particular coin and we see the whole plan, you know,
RSR might, you know, at one point, you know, I mean,
it was in the sense, right. And it was doing really, really well.
And then of course you guys brought in the new plan to,
to bring back those unlocked tokens, bringing it back to like a hundred billion. I think it was what was already there, unlocked tokens bringing it back to like 100 billion i think
it was what was already there but not bringing back to market little by little which in turn was
devaluing the coin but then you guys have the burns and stuff that's trying to help with that
um so i was just trying to get an understanding on well why couldn't you just keep the 50 billion
continued lock until the current supply reduces and then bring it down?
That way, the value of the coin, which in turn attracts investors to the value of the coin.
But now you guys have the DTFs, and that's extremely exciting.
And we're seeing the progress.
We're seeing the growth.
I think there's just an outlook where investors are very excited about RCR,
excited about the plan and excited about the DTFs.
They see the long-term value, but people also, you know,
they can be emotional too, right?
Where you want to see the current value do very well in what we're currently
invested in and that attracts people. But, but I still have, you know,
I have great excitement on your DTFs and I see the progress and the word
spreading.
So I would like to see that continue to grow
along with the RSR coin.
That's the main for me.
But I do see the outlook plan
and I think you guys are doing a great job
and you're working hard.
And hopefully your whole governance
continues to expand and do very well.
And so I appreciate the time.
Thank you for allowing me to speak. You guys are a great team and i look forward to seeing you up and coming yeah thank
you so much for coming on and like um like i think this is exactly what this call is for so i really
appreciate to to to asking you uh to you coming up and asking these questions like i think this is
exactly what this is meant for. And I think these are all
like super valid concerns around the project. And like I said, I think this is like, it's
really an art form to balance all these constraints. And I hope that the recipe that the DTF issuers
and ABC Labs are taking together will be successful.
But certainly not guaranteed.
But like for me, like intuitively the approach makes sense.
So yeah, fingers crossed.
And just Sean, just to circle this back to the governance,
there's actually a proposal on the forum
under the ideas and suggestions tab that's made by Nevin
the founder of Reserve
and it's discussing
the RSI emissions for the
second half of the token supply
and that's got over 50 comments
and a lot of
input from Nevin
himself and the kind of direction that
they think that the token supply should go
and where it ultimately went which is following the Bitcoin supply code from nevin himself and the kind of direction that they think that this token supply should go and
where it ultimately went just following the bitcoin supply code so if you haven't seen
that i'd definitely recommend checking that out well dude thank you all good i'll send you a link
actually of the um the forum so you can just hop on your uh twitter messages and i'll send you it
your Twitter messages and I'll send you it.
Roger that.
Cool and the next point of my agenda is also another one for Ham which is a
collateral chain basket change proposal to add origin ETH to DGN ETH.
We've discussed it a bit last week where I tried to fill in for you, but I think it's
much more authentic if you do that.
Oh, have we lost him?
I think we lost him.
Okay, maybe he comes back and can fit us into that. Just to wrap it up shortly, this is a proposal to add OriginEath to DGNEath for more Yield.
Oh, Ham's back. Awesome.
Ham, hi. Hey, good to have you back.
Could you speak to the Origin ETH proposal?
On DGN ETH?
Sorry about that.
I sent Sean that message and then it kicked me out thinking I was a bot.
I sent him the message of the link to the forum discussion.
But yeah, I'm back.
So is that the Origin ETH proposal for ETH Plus?
For DGN ETH.
Oh, for DGN ETH proposal for ETH plus. For TGEN ETH. Oh, for TGEN ETH.
Yeah.
So yeah, this is actually a proposal.
I'm not normally against proposals,
but this is one that I'm against.
So essentially Origin ETH have developed a plugin
for Ethereum mainnet, their OETH plugin for their OETH LST.
And they developed that plugin with the idea that it would be included in the ETH plus
collateral basket. And I think I also did a proposal addressing some liquidity bottlenecks
and actually including OETH in the ETH plus collateral basket
made a lot of sense from a liquidity point of view
because it smoothed out some of the minting and redemption issues
that we were having.
Unfortunately, some of the other governors had some concerns,
and rightfully so, the levels of to optimize the eth plus um collateral
basket we'd have to have a quite high allocation to oeth maybe about 15 and that meant that we'd
take on 30 of oeth tbl which is ridiculously high and um causes quite a lot of dependency risks that we're kind of we're
not outable to currently so there was some there was a question whether we should introduce it
slowly but that also got voted down but that has also led to origin putting a proposal forward for us to include OEth in the DGEN ETH collateral basket.
And while I do like Origen ETH and their yields are slightly higher than a few of the other LSTs,
I don't think that the OEth yield profile really meets the needs for DGEN ETH,
meets the needs for DGeneeth. Especially because DGeneeth follows a two token model. Meaning
that if we allocated any supply of the collateral basket to OE, that means that we'd see a drop
in yield of about 0.7, 0.8%. unfortunately because of this two token model there's a there's
a multiplier effects that's occurring of about 1.6 so the drop in yield from about 8.2 to 7.5
is multiplied by that 1.6 and then actually we see an even further drop in the state dgen eth yield and that that
would drop to about seven percent and because that dropped to seven percent i quite a lot of concern
that um currently we're a very competitive single-sided um each staking product at eight percent but once we go towards six percent and maybe even lower
like six point six point eight to seven percent then we become less competitive and the and i
don't think at that kind of at that yield profile we overcome the inertia that a lot of each stakers
will have um who are staking on other other lsts or other kind of single-sided eth products
because if we're comparable to them or maybe even 0.1 0.2 percent higher then there's not
really that need for them to swap over but if we're kind of one percent higher then um we can
overcome that inertia and actually make them perform the action of
swapping over to our product instead. So I do think the DJ and ETH collateral basket needs to
change. I just don't think the Origin ETH's native LST is the way forward. Maybe if they kind of added another DeFi Lego in there, maybe it was an LP or a supplying it in a money market,
then we could consider it.
But as a native raw LST,
I don't think it fits the mandate currently.
Excellent.
Thanks for summing up all the arguments here.
I think that is exactly the context that
I was missing last week. So thank you so much.
Yeah. Then going on, there is the EUSD Fintech revenue share update from 24th of June.
Tom, I think that passed, if I'm correct.
Yeah, that one passed.
And it's on chain.
I think voting started yesterday, if I'm not mistaken.
And let's see here. if I'm not mistaken.
And let's see here.
Yeah, so there's two days left in the poll.
And I think, yeah, so June 24th is the one that's on chain in IP right now.
Yeah, exactly.
And so, yeah, that was brought on Jane on Sunday,
and voting started yesterday, and we have two days left.
So definitely make sure to get out and vote.
Yeah, I'll also rattle some bells to make that happen.
Okay.
But yeah, I think I'll add a little bit more context as well.
We're definitely continuing to see growth out of the fintechs,
especially with ugly cash. And I did confirm that it was week over week growth, about 6%.
And so, you know, one of the things that Nevin said at the conference is
if you have week-over-week growth of 6%
and you do that for a really long time,
that becomes a very significant growth or a number after a while.
Yeah.
Like, I think...
So I think, like, exponential growth is something that's least understood in the world.
In some ways, it's very rare, I think.
Like I think almost all growth phenomena are actually sigmoid.
So you have a slow...
At first you have growth that's kind of exponential or can be modeled as exponential, but then
you enter a linear phase and finally a logarithmic phase.
I think they're doing a great job of growing that.
I think, like, the numbers in the past couple of months have just been mind-blowing.
And I wish that this exponential growth continues for a very, very long time.
Yeah, just, like, really great team.
Yeah, if we start seeing exponential growth, then I think that would be very exciting.
Because then I think Ugly Cash, that would be a sign that Ugly Cash is kind of succeeding in their mission to kind of broader access to banking to global individuals.
Good question. Yes. James, hi. Good question.
Yes.
James, hi.
Hi there.
Hello.
Good morning.
Question about ugly cash and anyone getting paid on the EUSD revenue share.
Could they share some data quarterly? Could they post to the forums on their growth numbers so we can see it in the flesh and the impact on EUSD?
It sounds like I think obviously 6% week over week is tremendous.
week over week is tremendous um but um the eusd market cap is still pretty flat um which is okay
totally fine but but i just feel like you know if if uh ugly cash is kind of getting some some fees
uh some some revenue share like uh would be really nice if they could post some data directly
and just basically throw a bone to the community
to get engaged, to get vested,
to essentially get pregnant in the mission.
Is that possible?
That's an interesting idea. So you you want ugly cash to come to the forums
and and share some data from their i guess what what they're saying in terms of their customer
base or their numbers of customers or what what is it that you think would be valuable for them to share for the
community?
Yeah,
I think they ought to do a forum post once a quarter,
you know,
four times a year.
By the way,
we're doing the,
these,
the rev share updates are monthly.
Is that right?
Is that for USD?
They're biweekly.
Biweekly.
Okay.
Well, the easy version of the proposal is ugly cash ought to do it four times a year.
The arguably more appropriate version is every time there is a change in the revenue share that affects ugly cash. They ought to be sharing
some information, you know, that it's just kind of like a, like a standard operating procedure,
um, in corporate America and, you know, crypto, uh, governance. It's like, you know, you've got
to, you've got to argue for argue for you know the position got to share
something uh and it is a two-way street so i love the sound of ugly cash growing six percent week
over week but um it's not enough it you know like they should be sharing some information or it
should be translating to the electronic dollar market cap,
which it does not appear to be doing in any significant way.
Right.
So in the meantime, you know, just some information disclosures.
You know, I mean, put it this way, if any one of us was getting paid by any entity,
company or partner, generally that comes along with the requirement to come in and
give some updates. I don't think anyone here, I mean, maybe for those who've really figured it
out by just maybe hodling Bitcoin, you don't have to give any updates. But usually in a
partnership relationship, you got to give some updates to kind of keep the relationship growing, even though, you know, maybe the metrics are not going the right direction.
I think you've been doing that well, Tom, but, you know, you know, I think Sense and Ugly Cash ought to be doing it, too, at least four times a year.
Uh, but, but again, arguably, uh, if I was putting my professional hat on, it'd be at
the exact same frequency of, uh, the, the potential to change the basket, you know,
every two weeks.
So, yeah.
Okay.
Uh, I'll see what I can do.
Um, I definitely hear you on that and yeah, I'll, I'll see what I can do.
Uh, to, I do want to touch on the point
that you brought up that the USD market cap is not growing, but the balances of ugly cash are
and the reason for that. So for ugly cash right now, it was cheaper to buy USD on the open market, as in swap for it, as opposed to mint and then kind of bridge over to base.
Now, with the 6% week over week growth, I think their current holdings are like 3 million about, give or take.
I don't know what the exact amount is.
Now that's very doable to just buy on the open market. There's plenty of liquidity for that.
However, they will eventually run out of that if they're going to continue to grow. They will
be forced to mint as there will not be an option to buy on the open market.
And so I think Nevin touched on this in a video update he did several weeks back,
but that is something that everyone is aware of.
You know, the growth in EUSD wasn't in ugly cash holdings, wasn't reflected in the market cap.
And I think that's only going to be a short-term issue.
So, but yeah, definitely,
I definitely hear you on that as well.
Yeah, I think I agree with the general sentiment.
I think bi-weekly updates from ugly cash and cents
probably don't make sense,
especially because the initial
like kind of mandate for the rev share is based on their holdings.
And obviously that's on the public ledger.
So we can very easily verify their holdings biweekly, but I definitely think they should
do something quarterly.
And just to highlight that we already do the quarterly reports for the r tokens
so it'd be very easy for them to comment their own updates under that forum post and that's
probably something that they should do um also really nice marketing for them i think right like
it's just i think it's a it's a different giant seal um feel. And I think there are some influential people
also reading reserve Forbes from time to time.
So, I mean...
I hope so.
This is not a bad place to tout your own project,
especially as you are doing so well as they are.
There's nothing to be ashamed of here.
Yeah, I agree with that, Raphael.
And I guess one question that I'm still left with is why evaluate the revenue share on such a frequent basis?
for the electronic dollar stakeholders to do that.
I can see there's a body of work that goes with that.
And in a world of finite bandwidth
and maybe too many bodies of work,
is that really the best use of resources?
It certainly takes up time, but it's,
what's the benefit to the electronic USD ecosystem compared to maybe other things,
uh, that could get that attention. Yeah. Why, why, why do that every two weeks? Why not do that
quarterly or something in between? Yeah, no, that's a good question. And I think in a perfect world, I would see this, the smart contracts and the protocol
be able to handle this.
We would essentially kind of whitelist a few addresses.
And if those addresses grew by EUSD, the revenue share percentage would automatically be updated.
That's more or less like in a perfect world where we
wouldn't need to kind of do this every two weeks. However, there's technical limit capabilities that
prevent sort of that mechanism to automatically detect EUSD changes in a wallet and reflect that
in the percentage automatically. So there's technical limitations to that.
But as to your point as to why, and so like a quick scenario here that if the market cap stayed
the same and at the beginning of the year and the ugly cash, you know, at the beginning of the year
had 1 million and we didn't do a single revenue share update.
But Ugly Cash's holdings grew to $3 million, and we still haven't done a rev share update.
It wouldn't, according to the original proposal by Thomas, the percentage that they hold of EUSD relative to the market cap reflect more accurately as opposed to, you know, if we hadn't done one in six months and the percentage is still reflected, you know, a balance that they held of 1 million and a market cap of 20 million as opposed to like 3 and 20, they would still be at like 5% approximately.
And there would be a lot of delay and,
and it wouldn't be affordable for them to use this,
I guess, proposal.
Yeah, that makes sense.
And I see ugly cash just joined. So I'm going to
say one quick thing and maybe they'll have some cool stuff to share. But the example you used,
Tom, is once a year. I'm definitely not saying once a year. I'm saying more like quarterly
or monthly. But really the frequency at which the people receiving the rev share are providing updates is the frequency at which the rev shares should change.
So, you know, that's really kind of like the logical, straightforward approach to it.
But, you know, I just use an example of, you know, we can over-engineer it.
And, you know, it's like an elevator, you know, an elevator that goes 12 feet per second
versus 10 feet per second. You know, is it that much more beneficial? You know, kind of gets you
there on time. All the other elevators are 10 feet per second. So I don't know if that analogy
works, but just, you know, there's some point of diminishing returns that is eating up resources that potentially could be spent on more creative endeavors, you know, more partners growing TVL and so forth.
Yeah, I say I would probably I would agree with you right now, you know, a $20 million market cap, but if the EUSD market cap
kind of scales up to a hundred million, 200 million, that begins to be, you know, quite a
big difference of essentially money that's left on the table. If we aren't keeping these proposals
very frequent and that could negatively impact kind of ugly cash's business model,
as I think it's been shared that they use the revenue share to pass on to their holders in
their earn program. And so, yeah, right now, there's probably a point to that. But I think,
you know, if the growth is going to continue and we start scaling up, I don't think there's going to be much room for delay as it'll start.
The lag will start being quite tremendous.
Yeah, I think it's just good to know that these protocols are still young and they're still
enjoying their exponential growth.
Like Raf said, they might go on to logarithmic growth eventually and then they're not going
to be growing and increasing their USD holdings every two weeks or even every month.
It will kind of flatline but
right now in the last two weeks um we're allocating another three percent to ugly cash and cents um
so it's quite a significant allocation increase and that's only in two weeks based on the kind
of holdings growth um so while they're in this exponential growth phase, I think it really doesn't make sense that it's bi-weekly. But I guess if you saw in like a year or two's
time, we see EUSD at 100, 200 mil, and we're not seeing any difference in the allocation
towards other cash and cents, then yeah, we could think about doing them less frequently.
But right now, it seems to make sense to do that just playing devil's advocate here but uh it's usd is two years old and about the same
market cap so i i hear you on solving the problem for the future but those are resources that could
be spent on solving the problem of today,
whatever those problems are.
So I get it just kind of comes down to priorities.
But I get it.
If that's the current priority is to prepare for the future as opposed to
growing today,
it just kind of feels like it's not really sort of conceiving of what's
important right now.
I think to James' point, I definitely hear you.
I raised similar concerns in these calls.
From a purely preference expression point of view,
as long as EUSD stakers pass these proposals,
I as a governance facility have to assume that they are on board with that.
So I think that's also something to consider that these proposals every two weeks,
which I agree is actually somewhat high cognitive load for governors,
nevertheless managed to pass week after week after week and meet quorum and enough approval.
So while I completely agree that all of your points raised are valid,
but I think in the overall run of things,
it seems that this is the most viable growth strategy that USD has.
And I think this is what's being honored by USD servers.
Yeah, and I think the, I agree,
like the preparing for the future versus growing today.
Does the revenue share not grow today and prepare for the future?
Just because we're giving this revenue to ugly cash and to cents now,
then it kind of motivates them to hold even more EUSD.
it kind of motivates them to hold even more EUSD
And that should help us grow.
and that should help us grow.
Obviously we haven't seen the market cap change
based on kind of how young these protocols are,
but if this continues into the future
and they hold even more and it becomes more,
it's easier for them to mint
rather than buy off the open market,
then we should start to see that growth.
But I don't know, we'll see.
I mean, to be fair,
the revenue share is proportional to the TVL,
if I remember correctly.
So you kind of have a future proof formula there.
If it's a hundred million TVL, they make more money.
If it's a $25 million TVL, they make less money.
It's pretty
straightforward. So yeah, I think, and to be honest, I've not been voting, but, and I haven't
decided if I'm going to put my diligent hat on, because if I were, I'd be voting against it.
But your point is well taken, Raphael. And I know other people have expressed this in the past
and I think there's concerns about the wallets that are voting.
You know, there's some very, very large wallets
that kind of discourage governance participation.
So, you know, it's probably just going to be food for thought,
you know, if people think it's important or not
and just leave it to that and, you know,
see how governance goes about it.
Yeah, I think definitely important to ask these questions
time and again.
Because the proposal is not time-limited,
I think it's really important for EOSC stakeholders
to check in from time and again and say,
okay, do we actually still want to continue to do this or not?
And I think this is a very valid question.
And this brings me to the last point on my agenda, which is that the Open Snapshot has finished.
James, can you say something to that? Yeah, will do. So for those that are listening, the Open Stablecoin Index is a DTF on the Reserve Protocol.
It currently has eight different stablecoin projects in the basket, including Reserve.
So it's kind of like a double whammy. It's got Reserve in the basket and it's got Reserve
under the hood. I did share a spreadsheet link in the comments of this spaces.
So you might be interested in that, given some of your questions earlier.
So definitely check that out.
It's a Google sheet.
It's open to anybody to look at.
And so we've just done a snapshot vote with thank you, Starlex, for facilitating the snapshot.
Really appreciate that.
It concluded earlier this
morning. There were 12 options to choose from, and the top 10 will move forward into the Q3
basket change. So what I'll be doing is working on an on-chain proposal for Sunday.
We'll push that on Sunday night, in theory theory so that it can sort of follow through
its time delays and on-chain
voting for Monday and Tuesday
and then execute on Wednesday
so yay
excited to
just get under the hood and play with
these DTFs and play with governance
hopefully build a really cool index
of stablecoin projects for people to track the ecosystem.
Excellent. And congratulations on the Google feed.
This is really high-class analysis.
I think exactly what I would expect from a DTF issuer,
like this kind of rigor and transparency.
So that's awesome.
Yeah, that brings us to the open question part.
If anybody in the audience has anything they want to share
or any questions they want to ask, please raise your hand.
We'll promote you to speaker.
I'm happy to hear from you.
Okay, seems we be good for today. Thanks everybody for coming and bringing you good insights and questions to this high-class
space that I always enjoy.
Now Wednesday, not Friday.
New time feels pretty good, I have to say.
And wishing everybody all the best.
We have Jack, Jack Hurley. Hi.
Hey Jack, it seems you want to share something.
Hey, yeah, how are you guys? Thank you so much for taking the time. I really appreciate it.
I just wanted to ask a quick question, just more momentum driven in space. The hood Robin Hood announcement around tokenizing
different private assets. I want to ask that has any read
through positive for RSR and its relative ecosystem and and
applications. And if you could just talk a bit around that
and uh if you could just talk a bit around that that'd be helpful thank you
that be helpful. Thank you.
um i i'm not sure there's gonna be a strong connection to ours our performance um but i'm
not not not a financial analyst maybe somebody else said something that they could i could take
a stab at it um hey uh jack yeah i guess the premise is really just tokenizing public or private stocks or SEC-related securities,
or, as you guys do, more asset-backed tokenization.
I'm just wondering if those two have any correlation.
I'm sorry.
Hopefully that simplifies the question.
Yeah.
So, as you probably know, Jack, have you been tracking the reserve project for a long time or just recently?
I'd say at a medium amount of time at a very high clip.
Sure. So kind of like the first version of the protocol on chain were for asset-backed currencies, stable coins, flatcoins, yield-bearing stablecoins, stuff like that.
And then, as you may have also heard, they launched a new version of the protocol back
in February, which are index products on-chain.
And so where does tokenized equities play a role in what Robinhood is doing versus Kraken
and a few others?
Well, the answer is, you know, and a few others? Well, the answer is,
you know, and so one of the arguments, and I guess, and sadly, I missed this,
the Reserve team did a conference called Monetarium in Washington, DC about a week ago.
I think they're posting the videos, by the way, on their Twitter account. So I'm going to be
catching up and watching those videos. But I remember they kind of structured the agenda as,
do we try to fix the current fiat system
or do we try to build a better one?
And I thought, oh, that's a really cool hook right there.
Because one of the arguments for the future of currency
is a basket of inversely correlated assets,
including tokenized equities, bonds, crypto, commodities, real estate,
et cetera, et cetera. And so I think the very good news with the Robinhood announcement is
you've got a major player leaping in and prioritizing this initiative to tokenize
equities. And so that's good, right? Like it's always good for
people to, you know, for big players to sort of jump in and push the ball forward. Now, one of
the challenges is Robinhood is doing it and you'll have several other projects doing it, and they'll
all be doing it under different standards and different legal regulatory frameworks. And so what does that mean? Which of those assets will
start to make up baskets of on-chain index funds first or make up baskets of asset-backed stable
coins first? And I'd say that's probably a little less clear because there's a lot of nuance in what's tradable, when it's tradable.
I think some of these...
That's exactly what I was going to say, James.
Yeah.
There's a lot of nuance to the technical details of the implementation
of these new tokenized assets that are coming online across the board
and how they can be integrated and how or if they can be integrated
into permissionless DeFi systems, et cetera, et cetera.
There's just a lot to unpack there.
And internally with friends, whatever,
we could have lots of conversations about the relative merits
of kind of like
design decisions that teams have made so that's one thing and then on the other hand anybody that
is a big player tokenizing anything is bullish for the long-term vision of reserve so those two
things can be true at the same time is kind of how I would put it.
Got it. Thank you. Thank you so much. That's a great takeout.
That's highly valuable input and I appreciate your time. Thanks guys.
Hey, Jack, I just put a tweet in the comments for this spaces from Rob Haddock.
I was reading it this morning. He's from Dragonfly Capital.
He had a really good breakdown on your specific
question that kind of, you know, I think I had, we had responded, you know, it's kind of like the
dirt roads era. You know, it's kind of like if you go back to the 20s or whatever, everybody's
got horses, but now a few people have cars, but the roads are all made for horses. They're all
dirt roads. And I think that's kind
of like the same thing for these tokenized equities right now. We're in this dirt roads era.
But Rob Haddock's post was really good on this topic, and I think he really frames it well.
I don't know. I'll be sure to take a look.
It's really interesting, Reid, actually. I was kind of under the impression that these are actually not tokenized stocks at all,
but are actually like CFDs basically.
But it seems to me that they actually are in stock.
At least the cracking version does.
Super cool discussion and thanks for the tweet, James.
This is cool.
Thanks Jack for coming on and asking this question.
Any other questions? I see one more request.
Oh, Ham is back.
Link to the digital securities initiative.
It's like an arm of reserve that is working with US lawmakers and regulators to digitalize securities in a safe and sound way.
So check that out as well if you get time.
Absolutely, will do.
Okay.
Actually, hey, I did have one more question. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you.
Actually, hey, I did have one more question.
I'm sorry.
A while back before Paul Atkins became the new SEC,
I had saw from the reserves that it could have been a throwaway comment,
but said, hey, we look forward to potentially working with Mr. Atkins
once he becomes a new SEC, you know, chairman there
in helping to develop legislation here in the U.S. Is there any potential workings or any efforts
there that you guys know of that may be being made in working with the new SEC chair, Paul Atkins?
So, Sean, you can actually, in the tweet, the short answer is yes.
Here's the long answer.
The entity that Ham just referenced, the Digital Securities Initiative,
is like hardcore working on a project to tackle the issue of regulation in the USA and have met
with the SEC. It's not a secret. The current SEC, you can actually go and find the public
logs on the government website. You can read kind of what they're proposing.
You can see all that stuff. And so we are actively trying to facilitate this conversation
and kind of lean into the current regulatory environment
to forward the space for everybody, of course,
and for indexes and for all of the things
that make reserve you know reserve reserve
that's fantastic great stuff thanks so much guys
okay just gonna wait a couple more seconds if there are more comments
then thank you all for this very entertaining and highly educative
dtf governance stand-up hybrid format can edition and um looking forward to seeing all
you all again next wednesday have a good one
Bonsoir
Bonsoir
Yeah I think this new time works
Lots of information
Yeah nice guys
Catch you next week
Bye bye
