EDDC Meeting #14

Transcript

[Music] [Music] [Music] so [Music] [Music]

[Applause] so [Music] so [Music] so [Music]

[Music] [Applause] [Music] so [Music] [Music] so [Music]

[Music] [Music] so [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] so

[Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] hi guys how's it going felix very well how are you doing all right [Music] like we got the full hair today huh all on down very nice

it's beautiful here man i wish everyone was beautiful here i'm serious mine's dry and too curly in my opinion like right in between it's like 20 too curly so i'm on child care duty so i will only be half aware of anything that's going on [Music] [Applause] [Music] good to see you [Music] and you got a haircut too right true i uh cut my hair myself

oh it looks great looks pretty yes actually it worked out pretty good that is impressive yeah there is there is a a youtube video um um by is scottish barber and it's actually pretty easy i may have to you need a hat cutting machine but i mean those are i don't know not that expensive i have trimmers i don't know if you've ever heard of a flow bee it's something that used to be marketed in the united states in like the 70s or 80s but it's like you attach it to your vacuum cleaner and it sucks the hair up and cuts everything at a certain length so

that sounds terrifying all right wait a couple more minutes i'm probably i will direct people's attention though to uh the general channel so we can all check out our co-op so a lot [Music] going and then what's the next step

michael you've had more experience do i then contact uh the co-op team in order to like make it official [Music] [Music] perfect so you'll only need to know you'll need to know the event number that you've created hey uh any how are we doing on the uh

[Applause] [Music] if we could expedite but i don't want to make it unfair to anyone all right so thanks everyone for coming in um we'll get started um the the first is uh phil do you want to

give an update on the further due diligence i want to say right away phil that it's looking like it's it's getting you know it's obviously very difficult to do that further due diligence work um i'm going to volunteer uh like let's call it two to three hours of my time more of my time per week for the further due diligence portion so that you know in the future for you just feel free to reach out to me and if you have tasks like asks um like think about you know you're not it doesn't need to be difficult but you're managing me right uh you give me orders i'll follow the orders kind of thing i think that's going to be the most efficient way to approach it but i'm happy to do that as i said two

three hours yeah funny enough i actually would try to not manage anything because i'm actually not good at managing anything so if i could delegate the managing role pm role for this sub project i would be happy to do so would be rather more i would rather see myself more involved into actually analyzing the architectures than managing this sub project of the eddc i don't know um but yeah nonetheless um so far at least from my end there is not much to to update on the

actual progress um though i outlined the next few steps in the further due diligence channel yeah and i think the first step would be to figure out who's actually um able to to um to dedicate some some working hours to this um subcommittees sub project however you want to call it this further due diligence um uh project um and so far i've seen uh three thumbs up four actually

right now um so that's jk madison um and it doesn't show me here's the other one it doesn't show me uh where can i yeah so nonetheless i don't know how to i don't know how to see to show up the reactions i need to figure that out um um so everyone who's willing to help with that oh that would be awesome um yeah phil um so i'm happy to reach out to all the

staking polls um keep track of who i reach out to i'll make sure i hit every single one um and just keep pinging those people i'm happy to do that uh but as i mentioned on like uh the chapter on the refer to due diligence uh channel like i don't think it makes sense for me to get involved more than that um on like evaluation for part or like peer reviews just because again uh you know i'm part of a staking poll so i just want to be cautious on how uh how deeply involved i could get there yeah i mean fair enough i i think we also um had this point in the in the earl in an earlier meeting um whereas um we said it also would be fine if um if uh

forks from from staking pools are part of this further due diligence as the process itself is um as evidence driven effect driven so we at the end of the day we we have something to to point at where um what our evaluation is based on but um yeah totally totally fair um and and awesome if you if you could help um with uh reaching out to to the to the uh parties for for getting the informations um that's actually the second step that i would say is important for for for the further you didn't

to get the spreadsheet that i um created over the last couple of weeks um i don't know whether you've shared on the last um meeting the spreadsheet itself i made a template which consists of the the other spreadsheets i made earlier um uh i made previously and it's now just a single spreadsheet for each sticking pool and yeah it has some some kind of an introduction and section a general and um general um general part general pool information part and um the the more in-depth um architecture and

operational part um we would need to create um an evil evaluation guideline for the further due diligence and that's something that i would like to work on um in the meantime getting the the general information by the volunteers and sticking pools um i don't know whether anyone is willing to to help out with this as well it's just the idea that for every aspect that is in the in the spreadsheet that we have a short criteria how we do how do we evaluate this specific

criteria and then what what i had in mind was um to to have sections with different aspects fall under and sum up all the different um green yellows reds and then have for each section an evaluation basically um and that could could be put on on the website in a style that is similar to um there's this vpn comparison site the by the one privacy guy or i don't know what the i shared the link on the in the general chat um

and i think the the um it's a style and a format that it's pretty good for for for comparing these different kind of sticking solutions where each stacking solution has its own benefits and um yeah advantages disadvantages over the other um yeah um and after the evaluation guide um they need to work that needs work to be done on the um actual architecture analysis which is um the the other spread which is the other um sheet in the in the spreadsheet

um and then there's this peer review and and cross uh fact checking and uh at the end there's this um evaluation part um and yeah we need some some uh so certainly we need some help um for with for for all of the different tasks and steps involved in further determinants so that that's the idea i i have in mind for for what are the next steps for for the further due diligence um although i might say um scope has increased over time i don't know

whether um whether the current um support is is enough for that to to be uh managed within a reasonable timeline i don't know yeah so you know the work you've been doing is is amazing my biggest concern is the man hours right we don't want you drowning in this we don't want you burning out because you know you keep on you know more things have been added to make this process perfect um we just need it to be uh good right in my opinion especially right now that's also the part where i said i'm not good at managing this uh stuff because i mean there's this scope creeping

yeah it's that's um apparent so so you know i think the intent is literally you know we need a way to check the validity of the answers that the initial staking providers gave us and you know i think just first we should just focus on that and only that right so i saw some additional things in your excel sheet um i think it's great it's very well organized but some of the things have kind of emerged beyond just that function and you tell me if i'm wrong i think it'll make your life easier and uh dramatically easier if our goal and i'll work with you on this is only to kind of fact check the answers that these staking

pools provided us um period what do you think about that it would be mostly i think i mean in a different in a different format all these different um questions we asked to the staking pools are within these general information uh sheet all the different aspects are in there so that is on the agenda one of the priorities to to get there to get these information and to fact check these um so so it is the the priority right now um but i feel like

it's for a due diligence committee i think we need to go further than just looking at what is what are the the basics of what what this is service is about but rather looking at is the actual service they're providing is it safe to use is it something that uh where where certain risks are involved or not and i don't think that we can we can find those without looking at the architecture at a more deeper level i don't know yeah so i 100 agree with you but to me i view this very much

as an injured and iterative process and if we go too deep into the architecture and spend all of our time there that sort of work will take a very long amount of time to do it correctly which i 100 agree with but my my um my suggestion is maybe we just start with kind of fact checking the answers that they provided us through the kind of uh framework that you created will get through all the staking pools right um they'll have their little ratings on there i will will amalgamate that you also you like uh through super physics tool how many times they've been slashed and then once we've done that for all the staking pools then we go through and look at it architecture by architecture in order to

really understand the nuances here and uh where things could go wrong uh beyond just those basic answers i think that might be a an approach that gets us to a point where we have something online uh relatively quickly and then uh it also allows us to kind of build out more materials for people to consume over time what do you think about that yeah some sounds good um for me and so and so phil uh i'm i'm here for you so i'm i'm here for you i'm gonna step up and help you with this due diligence uh and i understand you you don't like managing but there's gotta be certain questions on there that you could say okay madison who is

not you know a technical genius here he can like go on google and figure out is this actually headquartered where they say they're headquartered right or madison can uh can go out and uh go and look at the backgrounds of all these individuals and and manually check okay uh what they say is true right uh and so what i'd suggest in you what would be i think best is you tell me those questions there's those you know non-technical based questions and even some you know i can handle like the low-hanging fruit technical questions and you give them to me and say look i'm gonna handle the technical side in checking

that they're doing what they're saying they're doing um you need to go handle these non-technical questions uh here are the non-technical questions um go after and go verify the information that was provided if you do that for me i will go ahead and execute those steps right and it's not too much managerial expectations here it's just literally identifying the things that you want to do for the further due diligence and then basically saying here the ones that you know uh madison could do and i'll go ahead and do them what do you think about that approach and just to add too i can i can help take on the more technical aspect questions as well and and and then we can kind of tag team it there happy to jump on calls with the

providers or do it async um yeah yeah i think what would make sense is um for everyone who's um willing and have some time to to to dedicate to this subcommittee um that we have a call for for that group and figure figure out everything um in in in in this in a smaller group um because i i think there there's some some some aspects that i don't know whether it makes sense to cover here but um certainly there needs to be some some coordination um within this uh subcommittee or i don't

know what we want to call it awesome so it looks like june uh jk chris and myself have offered in some capacity to be a part of this group at least for this initial discussion and so we'll organize a call around that uh afterwards and jk this is a little bit separate uh well obviously you know obviously continue to reach out to the staking pools for the initial answers to the survey that we send out that's very helpful um we i we discussed it before there's only so many people with the technical skill set to understand some of these answers uh and to really really it's more than just understand them to fact check the answers

and to have the the ability to uh basically say this is true or this is not true um we as phil said we're okay with it with with you even though you have a different uh sticking pool entity than some of these other ones doing performing that function alongside chris alongside phil um if it's a time thing that's a completely separate issue and like we want to be very respectful of your time but from a conflict of interest perspective we've made the decision already that it's better to have that technical skill set there so we just have the people who can do it uh rather than uh try to find people who can do it with with them not being part of any sort of

staking pool because there's not that many people that exist like that yep gotcha understood um just one thing um because i know phil has been asking for feedback on the forums uh and i think i i i gave the thumbs up i think it looks good but i think it'd be good if um there could be at least two more or two or three more eyes who could take a look at it and give a thumbs up and then um i think that's what phil was looking for as well uh and then afterwards we could carry that out and then um i could like you know take the link and just run with it and just you know start spreading it to everyone yep so i looked at it a little bit before i think it was even a little bit before you joined i think it's fine but i'm

probably not the right guy uh chris it it would probably take five minutes uh i don't know if you've done it already but i think phil would really appreciate him we'd all appreciate if you could just take a look at that that link that uh phil posted to to kind of evaluate yeah so um i posted the link to the um to this spreadsheet which consists of three cheats the one the introduction sheet the general information and the architecture and operational part um yeah it would be would be awesome if some if anyone can can can look in it give a thumbs up so i already created dedicated spreadsheets um for each pool

out of it but if there is any change i just simply um create them um again so that's not a big deal um but yeah it would be would be good to to to have the confirmation by the group that this is the that this is the actual spreadsheet we're working on otherwise we would need to change them all again that would be yeah that sounds good i'll run through this i actually took a look at this i think a couple weeks ago but i'll go through it again with um with the more fine tooth comb and yeah some some some small parts have changed um i worked in some some some feedback um by jk um and um yeah

but yeah so far it evolved over time and it looks similar to to the previous ones here awesome i appreciate i appreciate that chris uh we appreciate that i'll also go through it again um and provide feedback uh anything else on further due diligence takeaways here is jk chris and phil we're gonna have a call um i'll go through it again the the kind of uh the sheets that you posted chris will go through it again and then we'll go from there perfect i think all the other aspects that i have in mind um are somewhat linked uh related to how do we present the results and how do we

so that that relates somewhat to the website um or other stuff um so i don't know at least that's from only for the students i think or at least from my end and that's a good segue into uh the website so i was a little late i apologize i ended up sending the information regarding the uh how i think the design could look about a day after i said i would um and so michael i i don't know if you've had a chance to kind of work on that or not because it's definitely been a short turnaround for you so it's completely understandable if uh if you happen to have time to integrate

some of those changes uh you guys can find by the way the rough outline of what we talked about last week for some of the changes for the website in the top level domain discord by looking at that eddc rating.pdf so i've actually got um do i have share privileges no i don't think so can i be a call stroke yeah let me edit that i gotta remember how i did this last time i'm just gonna make you host i think

this will work okay try uh sharing now can we see a let me get this for the stream here one second uh okay so real quick what i'm gonna do here for this site is i'm just going to do this for the staking pools where we just have the simple numbers in their respective categories is this uh okay for the time perfect okay looks a lot better than the basic design i made and then what i'll do is um these tabs were just placeholders but i

i believe if i'm remembering correctly from the last meeting it was decided the best direction was to maybe put the categories of pool types up here so it'd be like custodial non-custodial ssv whatever we want to put up there are we still have a consensus on that that's a good direction can you just repeat that one more time right so the these are just category tabs up here and i'm thinking of doing is um right now all the staking pools are in a general pool they're they're all in the same category what i'm thinking of doing is separating by pool type so if it's a custodial or non-custodial or

however we want to divide these up is that a okay direction or do we want or do we literally want these all sort of in in one giant pool and just randomized when someone logs on i think creating two categories for custodial and non-custodial might be interesting my biggest concern is if we create too many categories it's going to make it more difficult to navigate right sure my greatest concern okay um i think i also think that as long as um i think what we could do is instead have like a pill um on um what i mean a pill like a little badge

on each section that might say like custodial or non-custodial rather than separating them out into different sections but if you want to go the two different sections approach just make sure they're not hidden behind tabs they're just uh like this is the custodial and then they're below if they keep scrolling down is non-custodial or vice versa um but i think the badge approach might work too if we just like throw a badge in each like next to the rocket pool name and um staking facilities name that can work too okay uh so that's i mean there's really nothing more to look at here but i do have some questions in regards let me stop sharing this one and share a different one i've been working on a mock-up for the actual individual staking pool

evaluations and i think i've got a alpha version here but i really like the group's opinion on some direction so let me share that here where are you let's try this once sorry one second

okay um so what i'm thinking here is i'll just go over in a general term sense what the logic was here but there's already some stuff i'd like to change um and that is so just uh when someone lands on an individual rating they'll see the actual like live status of what the pool is is it down is it not are there issues uh what their efficiency rating is based on like uh you know beacon chain uh we'll have just sort of their baseball card up here where they're at are they insured just basic uh one answer um to their questions we'll have their overall evaluation which is

the two to three paragraph synopsis of what we've as a committee established as the pool and goes into the actual uh q a based on what we sent over to the staking pool and then i was thinking of a tabbed section below this is sort of where it gets into the deep dive stuff um reports things like that and then just an overall rating card what's the good bad and ugly and then just the overall rating having listened to some of the discussion on phil's deeper due diligence i'm sort of second guessing the the way in which this is laid out i

think phil's example of the vpn site is a is a really good example i might take some of the visual aspects of that specifically so so here are my two questions um one is just setting the overall data priority so is in in the sense that i like this general layout where we just give an overview of the pool and then we dive into the q a section and then if someone is interested the sort of deep dive and the real beef of the information is at the bottom is that overall priority okay or do we want something to be more front and center first in terms of what we provide to you know a customer i guess

because the reason i'm asking is i i think this is probably the wrong direction and because i the i see the the deep dive of the due diligence to be very data-heavy so i see there being a lot of content to relay and i don't think this is going to facilitate at least in an easy digestible way for anyone reading it to be enough space like visually i think it's gonna be too cluttered and there's gonna be too much information to relay so i'm wondering if we do more of a tabbed section where it can have more real estate like this q a section but i'll open up to the group here

uh yeah so i think the tab section and from my understanding it and you click this tab well i there definitely needs to be this information somewhere maybe having if you click the link of the the names the staking pools it takes you to their individual pages like this one uh um that's one way to do it um even by the way even like a drop down where there's a carrot you click the carrot and then it just opens up with the questions and answers rather than having some stuff at the top that could be one way to do it what do you think about those options and this also works i'm completely fine with this as well no i think that's a that probably solves a lot of problems just doing it that way

too and then what what i'd like so priority for me uh is i'm going to refine the q a section here and inject a little bit of the um kind of the same visual references that uh phil shared with the vpn link so there's some sort of the color rating is associated with each question and answer and then um play around the ui a little bit here so there's probably to extend what you just said there um madison maybe i'll put a drop down menu after the overall evaluation with the different options maybe whether

that's q a deep dive slashing reports whatever it is and it just populates on the bottom here okay i wonder like basically the the location there right it's it's based on this core development team or what we ask here or because like basically right rocket pool the operators could be anywhere i think even in lido like the operators are actually all over the place i wonder how useful that is to have that like so centered it seems like it's like the main thing right here australia um yeah or what kind of data do we want in the very top you know is it is it just like i think

seems like good insured yes maybe it's like number of operators or like you know like i think on top there should be like the really the most most important info in in this small space and i'm not sure if location is actually one of them or or how we think about that yeah i i um i would agree that particularly location they're different kind of aspects to it i mean whether where do you run these servers um is where is the the headquarter what is the jurisdiction of that so they're different kind of locations and it is not really clear what what is the the one that sticks out there

what i would say is one aspect that at least from my opinion we should strive towards is at the end of the day all the different kind of sticking solutions they all have um uh they they all make different trade-offs and the one solution is good for the one user and the other one is good for the other so one way to to look at is that we could end up with general recommendations what is the targeted group of this poor what what user group should what is the recommendation of the

for a certain user group for example um i don't know um for example lido or rocket pool you you actually you stake your earth but you um they just to some some degree still liquid so that might be appealing for someone who's in d5 or something um so that could be a recommendation for them but on the other hand they um use smart contracts so that involves smart contract risks um in so at the end of the day i think we should

end up with recommendations um rather than uh so that that's let's say that's one important aspect that i did that i see there sorry no i would agree and i and that's partly what i was hoping to get from the group too is the sense that i i think that section and sections of for the individual layout is are important i think it's good to have there i just didn't necessarily have direction in terms of the actual like what is the data we actually want to display there and what's what's actually important to a respective user so that that's good i can i can sort of

flesh out and mature some of those data types for the card there for the next meeting so what i'll do um if the group is good with it is i will for the front page the landing page i'll implement the um numbering section so we have the ratings on the home page and then i'll make that live but i'll hold off on this template yet until there's maybe a little bit better of a design layout before i actually start coding it and then once we have a consensus on that i'll make that live for the next meeting if that's fine awesome okay um by the way what's

everyone's opinion on on how do we what kind of format do we use for rating so um in this um michael you you had this numerical rating um what is it so so uh michael would you mind just showing phil the the one so we we actually discussed it last week and then i made some suggestions that it seems like the committee was for and then i showed these suggestions to michael we've changed the the look of the the ratings there there aren't any raw numerical score now it is a it's based on effectively like you know

if we gave someone two yellows it's two warnings if we can see what i'm saying yeah but um so so as far as i understood this um there are two s two there two um sections there's the one where you compare where you have this overview and where you can compare between all the different sticking solutions and then there is this baseball card um like um overview page where at the end there was this at least in this um in this draft that was um the version um there was this numerical rating and i i think that does not make sense for for sticking pools in my

opinion um but yeah that that's just my opinion it would be eager to hear what everyone else think about that i'm glad you brought this up because michael one thing that would be good on that individual page with the questions and answers uh if we could have like a rating next to those questions and answers of how we rated them that could be useful information to provide there so the yellow or green or red or whatever yeah that's kind of what i was maybe i wasn't clear in that that's kind of what i was thinking for the uh when i was referencing the link that phillip shared in the chat where i think that from a visual standpoint i might bite that and inject it into our template where uh it does give that rating right so

it's we have the actual information provided by the staking pool but then we actually have our um from individual answers question perspective we have the rating from in color terms of how we like that right that's what yeah you should share the link once more and i think that that format is particularly good in actually comparing the different sticking pools to each other so seeing the different trade-offs they make i don't know how one could apply this to the individual solutions um yeah i'm going to get a little it's not yeah i'll have to bend it a

little bit to work but um we'll see how it goes yeah also i like um on this vpn um side um the different kind of badges um yeah i was just looking at those two and and we can we could can we could come up with different kind of badges that picks up the idea of this recommendations and also this um showing an in an easy way whether it's in custodial or non-custodial or that that could be something to work with yep absolutely all right cool then i'll uh i'll go that direction then

awesome so i i think we covered everything in the meaning that we wanted to cover does anyone else have any other topics michael really appreciate the work everyone does i'm sure you can do it on the website uh yeah the core group right it's uh it's good um phil same same with you with the further due diligence i'll step in i'll help a little bit more there uh see you guys at the next meeting all right cool uh when will be the next meeting i think it's alternating i think we're going to 11 p.m but i got to talk with superfist supervisors the count guy now then we'll most likely see

you in two weeks all right talk to you later bye [Music]

all right c

let's see here oh

uh okay

guys yes

is like quick round of intros of everyone

on of the people attending my name's mara um dialing in and and working over at bison trails um and i'll be moderating moderating today's fireside chat i'm