Ethereum Due Diligence Committee Call #1

Transcript

can you guys hear me yeah you're crystal clear how's it going kirk i think you might be on mute there's the button there you go hello hi there i see who's here all right good looks like we got to meet derek and call on maybe here today cool what's going on guys hey everybody huh

so we wait a couple minutes then we start 1105. did you want to kind of guide this this meeting or do you want would you prefer me trying to do it this time around i had assumed somebody else was was uh facilitating this call yeah i i that's the assumption that i had as well i just wanted to make sure that you were okay with that because i

would be happy if you wanted to facilitate as well oh very kind of you thank you yeah happy to help sometimes but i think it's actually good that we rotate that kind of thing and i'm certainly not in a position to be a a regular facilitator for y'all i almost ended up with an interruption that i couldn't even made it today so i'm glad you're you're on it awesome um i took notes last time does anyone want to take a step at taking notes this time if not i can't i'm more than happy to take notes i would take notes but i'm not i'm having to be focused on the scheduling stuff yeah yeah i can do it this time no no no problem

i saw that colin made a chat is there a chat room or is it only on screen pop-up you can share the link i'm pretty sure uh no i mean i found it okay there's a an icon for i don't i don't use meetup or google meet uh i just found the chat uh the chat box yes yes yes it's right next to yep the people got it awesome so uh let's go ahead and get started i apologize beforehand that i might not be as uh efficient as kirk if i'm half as efficient then uh i'll be very very happy so um let's let's start off what i did

for organizational purposes i started with an agenda and if you look at uh the the google calendar event you can see uh the agenda you know the last agenda item is other items because i'm sure i missed certain topics that people are going to want to talk about but you know what i suggest is we just go through that agenda and kind of update everyone on what we've been working on um so so the first agenda item is everyone okay with that so far sweet i'll take silence as an affirmative uh the first agenda item is reporting on the mission statement

and what i recommend people do now is if they go to the mission statement channel for um within our discord the ethereum due diligence project discord you'll see that um quite a few people made suggestions about the mission statement in particular so uh the there's about three or four because the fourth one's kind of built on top of uh it was just an edited version of the others and you know if you do you guys want to read these mission statements now and then discuss them uh do you want me to read them out loud uh and then we can talk about it from

there how would you like to proceed reading them out loud would be good and then we can walk through them awesome so i'll read i'll read them out loud and uh you know i'm gonna number them so number one the mission of the ethereum due diligence committee is to increase the reliability of the ethereum staking ecosystem it does that by professionally researching the different actors in the space and making them go through a standardized process of scrutiny and then publishing the results so that was number one number two

the mission of the ethereum due diligence achievement the mission of the ethereum due diligence committee is to fairly and impartially evaluate services in the ethereum ecosystem to ensure the best of our abilities they are safe for the community at large to use then we're going to go to number three the ethereum due diligence project aims to be a trustworthy and above all impartial source of information about the characteristics and security of services in the ethereum staking ecosystem and number four which is similar to

number three the ethereum due diligence project aims to build a trustworthy and above all impartial source of information about the characteristics and security of services in the ethereum staking ecosystem so it would be great if we could either decide on a mission statement now or at least come up with a framework upon deciding a mission statement but i think we could probably just hash it out now i like those just uh kirk posted most recently so that would be number four is that correct the ethereum yeah i put it in

the chat perfect uh is there any any place in the discord that these are already posted that's right so if you go to the mission channel within the ethereum due diligence discord you will find uh you'll see the first two right away top uh top one second one and then you'll have to scroll a little bit further down to see the last two [Applause] okay got him although with the one kirk posted maybe

take the staking ecosystem out of it just ethereum ecosystem i mean that that'll come you know down the road that we start looking at not the staking ecosystem but hopefully one day and i have no problem with that either i think in my case i only changed one word from number three because i wanted to emphasize that the committee is building something the committee is not the source that was the distinction i made in number four otherwise number four number three we're identical and i accept the change that somebody just offered i think that's great awesome so there's already a consensus

starting from merge within the chat so now that enough people have supported number four you know just if you're okay or pleased with number four as an option you just raise your hand right now i like number four but um i i do have a suggestion that i think we could trim it just a little bit could we just get rid of above all what would people think about that if it just says aims to build a trustworthy and impartial source of information i agree people agree good with me awesome so uh we've decided upon number four as the mission statement for the ethereum due diligence committee with the changes of removing above all

and also changing from ethereum sticking ecosystem to ethereum ecosystem very nice very nice all right so i'm gonna hand this off to but i can't remember who volunteered to facilitate the scope discussions on the uh ethereum due diligence committee channels i was definitely participating uh kirk it seems it was you know i don't know i just i had one item on the last one just agreed and somebody i think wanted to take ah good my moshi just edited it i noticed he put it in with staking still but he just yet it is so he's got it now i'll shut up i forgot my own suggestion

awesome so uh is uh as i was saying i think the second portion of our or the second item on our agenda is a report on the scope discussions if you're interested in looking at the scope discussions you can find them within the scope channel within the due diligence committee discord um i haven't i've been participating in those but i wasn't uh one of the ones who volunteered to be a facilitator it'd be great if someone who was a facilitator for that a specific channel could kind of give the group an update on uh what was being discussed i'm happy to do it as well but it's probably better if they someone else kind of talks about it um i think the initial scope right now

what we sort of have maybe agreed on is that we reach out to staking pools with the standardized set of questions that we've all produced and get you know hard facts on how like all those different facts on the pools and just publish that as like a minimum viable product are we are we only assessing those who have cleared solutions because there are are far fewer with tools than those who do like a semi-custodial approach i missed the first meeting so i apologize and uh

yep michael's here see what you've just said it was the first priority of this group because this group just couldn't get to everything but it was not at all off the radar screen to be digging beyond the pooling solutions is that right if i'm wrong on that somebody say something yeah that's about okay cool yeah yeah that makes sense so i guess just just as a little background

and a quick introduction because because i missed last week um so um i'm call myers i work in consensus uh i primarily work on a project called activate uh and without going too deep into it but activate basically is a validator marketplace um so during the creation right now today we support 18 different validators which includes take.us and figment and steak with us and steak fish and all those big guys and over the course of the past year and a half i've gotten to know them really well and have begun to already assess their e2 solutions like on the side uh which is why i posted that diligence doc that that we have which is tailored towards validators so i have some like pre-work done and i guess i've uh to some degree have

already kind of sussed out the semi-custodial options or beacon nodes as a service or if you manage your own withdrawal key and we hold the validator key style approaches um so there's been some work done on that so that's kind of just the background as into why i was asking is that um those conversations can be easily set up i've already had them with them multiple times and i've kind of let all of them know that that we're doing this and they're interested in doing like formal formal round tables most of them aren't pooled solutions um so just wanted to make sure that that was relevant to the earlier parts or get an idea about how we're phasing it out are we going to basically go like to each provider and then say let's break down your different types of

solutions yes you say you do pooling well what does that mean yes you say you do beacon nodes as a service but what exactly does that mean uh or are we going to go we're going to talk to everyone who's doing under 32 eve and then we're going to talk to the providers that are doing increments of 32 east you know just kind of questioning about structure is a lot of this research in some areas has has already been completed so just trying to make it efficient so i think part of that question is do we also do we want to redo this research ourselves and ask all these questions uh ourselves or

should we rely on the research that's already been done by other organizations uh for these parties no i'm proposing to completely repeat it right most of them don't have pooled solutions uh so again my question was are we only talking about pooling here or you know or have we not even architected the research study uh because usually when we do these research studies you architect it first and then you walk through kind of uh what questions are you asking and then you you know you characterize it so just wanted to get clear that the design of the research study was to do pooling or under 32 eth only and then from there i can figure out how to best add value to that

so my my suggestion and i'm you know open to what other people think is that uh we do exclusively focus on the less than 32 ethan and for the first round obviously we can expand past that once that's set up and my reasoning on that is that these are the people who are most vulnerable uh have the fewest current options they don't have the alternative of solo staking for example which is like an obvious uh if done properly secure alternative to almost all of the other um greater than 32-bit solutions um and so it's it's in that sense it's kind of like the

the most valuable intervention that we can make especially taking into account like um i i would argue that like the maximum uh decentralization that you get out of something like staking is at the at the lowest end um if if you have the the more you can you can move the minimum bar down the more decentralized the solution you're going to get and i think the primary uh challenge right now getting at the station is that interstating is that lower end so that's that's my pitch for the the lower end the sub 32 ether i think if part of the mission is to

protect which which it really should be at this point um i mean what what we're going to see is and we helped out with the ec launch pad and during one of the like the design philosophies and build behind that and the intention of it was to like protect uh it was to formalize and guide but it was to also protect uh scammers and fishers and putting putting something out there um to protect people so if the intention is to protect first and foremost at least for phase zero which i think the big thing is like there's gonna be tons of people popping up saying we do this we do this we have this solution is there real any technology behind it and and what is it going on so i think yeah if we're going to protect people then those who need the most protection

are those with under 32 eve uh that's for sure i agree with that do other people agree with this that we focus on people sub 32 awesome so i think that's the key kind of uh for our scope that's where we initially start if we exhaust that and can expand from there but that's definitely the most important target group for now so two seconds now does anyone have anything else they would like to discuss regarding scope or within that category is our is our output intention to give

some type of subjective opinion around safety or is our plan to create an objective final list and basically say this final objective list was created subjectively these are the people that that we think you should you should trust or are we gonna you know be very very subjective i guess i'm i have a questioning of uh subjectiveness verse objectiveness right and kind of what what type of message are we trying to give is it a hey here's a final list the things that we've sussed out and some characterizations of their offering or is it uh here's these people they're really really bad stay away from them here's these people they're really really good

um i'm kind of curious about the intention of like the delivery and how we make it the combination of subjective and objective uh my proposal was to first put out the objective list and just present the users with the facts and nothing else and then once we have that done at that point we can move into the subjective and start discussing each of them individually so we are like 10 people in the group it's highly unlikely that we come up to consensus about subjective stuff true okay cool thanks another point

uh it's you know right now this is a committee that's clearly more top down purely for the sake of time regarding all the activity that's going on with staking over time we'd like to come up with something that's a little bit more decentralized a little bit more let's say grassroots driven and when it's going to be more grassroots driven we can probably include uh we'll have to include the greater variety of how to present subjective opinions or subjective perspectives on these solutions i think another factor here is just um we do we do have to give some kind of

indication to the user of just where the bar is at and i think i think my um estimation and i don't know if this is everyone else's estimation is that initially um the situation will not be great uh we do not yet have uh the ability to set contracts and control of withdrawals and that seems like a pretty critical security requirement for a even moderately trustless solution and so all of the sub 32e solutions that exist right now are either you know one person holds one key the other person holds the other key

or some type of key splitting um which are going to rely pretty heavily on some some trust assumptions so yes evaluating the exact uh trustworthiness of a party is a very subjective thing but i think it's relatively objective to be to just state that the trust assumption exists yes um and and i think we're going to want to be clear in the presentation that that the current status is not anywhere near the the low trust goal that we would like to see eventually so like if we think about like like the the uh green light yellow light red

light stuff that we had talked about um i would almost say it it seems almost a foregone conclusion to me that nothing will initially have a green light right like um at this stage there's no technology to provide green lights um maybe if somebody's kind of done the best they can possibly do with the current thing then that's like a yellow light type situation um but that's that's kind of how i think of the framing on this awesome do uh does anyone have anything else to say regarding scope for now or should we move on to the next topic

all right the next topic actually is an update on top level domain so who is uh facilitating the conversation in that channel uh it'd be great if you could report on the updates michael i'm happy to i was just going to say that i i know he has a concurrent work call and he may not be available um so it might be a good idea to switch the order a little bit and get back to that

when he's available um if he becomes available during this call that's a great idea so let's just move on we'll we'll come back to it and if michael arrives um we'll have him go over it and if not i participate in some of those conversations so i can summarize it to the best of my ability a little later um so after update on top level remaining we have a report on the staking pool evaluation framework so when broke i think you were participating in the conversations i think a couple of the others were facilitating as well um regarding evaluation framework and if we could just get a an update for

the group on what was discussed this past week and how we're thinking about the evaluation framework we even hinted at it already with our you know red light green light yellow light system but and i know you posted some questions or that where you should ask each staking group yeah so on the staking pool evaluation channel i uh send two messages the first is what we've come up with um for the the standardized set of questions and the second is a list of staking services that i've compiled the idea was

that we all volunteer to take on you know one two three of these pools reach out to them get a response and then we can just post these answers verbatim on our website and at least then users have a centralized location that they can go to and get the facts on what the pools are how they work what risks they take etc awesome i think that makes a lot of sense uh one thing to think about with the idea of just kind of like posting those

answers verbatim is that unfortunately a lot of users will take even the existence of uh a site's answers on us on a given site as an endorsement of kind of a kind so i don't know how we want to anticipate and head that off okay hopefully if we can get you know if we put if we can get pretty much something like every staking as a service company around and there are a lot of them but i don't know we've got 20 some odd people in the group so that's a lot of manpower so to speak i think if we can get nearly every

staking as a service company on the site then that sort of cancels that out well if the initial uh like the first step is going to be the sub 32 category um i'm not sure it's going to be a very long list right and i'm saying we've got 20 people to work on this i think we can actually increase the scope beyond just the pool all we're doing just reaching out asking questions getting reply i don't think it's too much work for us i i definitely i'm definitely in favor of collecting the information and i'm i'm not i'm not saying that i'm concerned it's going to be too much work

um all into the uh it's hard to hear jeff and jeff you also went in and out for a little bit there uh yeah i i was really impressed that my mic was off uh but yeah i can move also sorry sorry we'll try that again i don't know if i'm going through clearly now but you sound good okay so uh basically what i was saying is just

that i think i think the collection of that information is great and there's absolutely no reason to to wait on going ahead and collecting it like we can we can definitely start collecting all that information for sure um i'm just a little bit hesitant about dumping all that on a page that's that's connected with the kind of the project brand just because the presence on that page will be seen as sort of endorsement so for example if you're going to that page and you see like there's two sub 32 e things listed then a whole bunch of staking services listed even that is a little bit of a an implicit uh statement or an implicit endorsement of staking services versus

uh pooled surfaces for example uh do you think that could be mitigated just with some like warning signs yeah so i i one solution that comes to my mind is we have disclaimers making it very clear and then we not only do we have disclaimers saying this is by no means an endorsement we're just listing them here we can walk through you know our approach for why they're listed here and we can even say just because something isn't listed here doesn't mean it won't be listed here because we just might not have had the time yet to go through and ask them and get their answers for example so being very transparent about the process i think would do a really good job of

helping people realize oh this is by no means an endorsement it's just purely a time thing yeah if you want to be inclusive too you could uh make a way to have any sort of service organization easily contact somebody so if they want to be included in that master list someone suggested uh they could be it's just a way to be inclusive that's a great idea i think i think transparency definitely helps i think uh another thing that can help is uh pre-digesting some of the information so like one of the differences that i see between just posting the answers as they're given and turning them into a very kind of like compact table for example that would

just say yes or no for each property that doesn't really let people argue their case so much as it just says yes it has this property or no it doesn't have this property or it's at least claimed to have this property um that that does make it a little bit less of uh sort of an advertisement for for companies i think the more that you let people write the more it's kind of seen as an endorsement of that company as it's kind of like giving them air time so so far can you just repeat that last point jeff real quick

i i think that um digesting the information into uh like a table um is kind of like more objective and and and seen less as an endorsement whereas if you if you literally paste what the the parties have replied it's like giving them air time and that's that's kind of almost an advertisement or an implicit endorsement awesome and so the solutions that we have this problem of endorsement that have been proposed so far is put that information into table form rather than allow it to be in narrative form via the answers of those entities uh number two have a contact button saying uh you know you're not listed here you know would love for you to be listed or you

know you contact us if you'd like to be listed uh and then uh number three being very transparent about uh having a disclaimer saying hey this is by no means an endorsement of these services uh and if a service isn't listed here it's most likely due to the fact that we just haven't had gotten time to speak with them uh so those are the three kind of core tenants i've heard so far would everyone agree with that yeah that seems right speaking intermute yes seems good awesome awesome so

does anyone else have uh other topics they'd like to discuss regarding the sticking pool evaluation framework all right take silence as a negative and so we'll move on to the next topic uh the eddc long term this is more of an open-ended subject a little bit i think a lot of this came from the fact how we discussed uh last time that while we're relatively top-down right now we'd love to eventually move to a more

bottoms up kind of grassroots framework and uh wanting to discuss uh long-term how do we see this group evolving we also made a channel about this called the mini long term within our discord where you can see the conversation and maybe uh kirk you you might want to talk about this in particular very effectively hey i'd like to have a couple minutes but i also will say we're not going to talk we're not going to get any of this result today but i'd like to happened on that channel and how the how it came about i appreciate madison's comments that we may have already decided um to go that way and i don't think we really did

it when i facilitated last week the way i understood it and like i said i appreciate madison kind of saying what he said because it is my position but uh i think what we decided was that we had to be uh get something out there to help this community right away and then that was going to necessarily force us to be in a mode that was more like we are some of the smartest people in the room we're not all but some of them and we ought to help and provide the community this there was a strong consensus that we had to do that first and i just requested that we not cut off the idea that we might not be more bottom-up long-term and i think it's a discussion that we need to have so my short bit for this would be that

i think that now is a good place to discuss it and i would suggest the following framework i've put a bunch of stuff in there significant that i think we have a problem if we don't make some changes long term i suggested that we talk first about the problem see if we have consensus on that and most of you haven't weighed in yet so that's fine number two which would be a week or two later we begin to talk about solutions and we all have them i've already put some out i didn't do it in this channel uh somebody else did in this channel thank you eric might have and i said yeah but let's do the problem first so i'm going to suggest that if you if i could ask with a please please if you have any possible interest in how this things goes long-term and whether

we're robots affecting in the long term please come in and engage with the ideas of that channel which again my suggestion is the guy who kind of kicked it off vanessa but it'd create that channel for for me to to say a few things was that we focus first on what's the problem is there a problem see if we have consensus on that then a week or two later we'll move into solutions that we would propose and eventually i guess get consensus and see how the hell we might build something which is almost a phase three so that's my request is that you all at least uh give it a read take a look at it add some thoughts about the problem first and if we get consensus on that we go elsewhere and that keeps my uh part of this meeting very short i hope in

under four minutes but if anybody has something to say about that that needs to happen in this meeting by all means do it but my invitation is to go over to that channel and engage the conversation if you haven't yeah and thank you for correcting me kirk you're right there was not a consensus on this we did discuss that the people who were vocal seem to be on one's uh one side but there's by no means a consensus and i apologize if i let that uh be the case it was great so that's good we can close that one off madison and just say it to me it's an it clearly is not the hot top priority for the next two or three weeks for us but i think keeping it moving

philosophically and uh is a good thing so if each of you would sometime in the next few days spend five or ten minutes in there and give a comment that would be helpful all right awesome the last topic uh well i guess we can go over top level domain real quick because because uh it looks like michael might not be able to make it but michael's done a lot of work i don't know if you guys have checked out even the website that is created it looks terrific um it's uh he got the coming soon page it's e ethdc.org due diligence committee dot org

you can find that link in the top level domain once again michael really did the heavy lifting uh on getting this website up so i'm sure he'd very much appreciate if you could show your appreciation for him getting it up um there was a little bit of discussion regarding if we needed to change it because we're thinking about changing the name but it looks like we were okay at the end of the day we're keeping it as the due diligence committee rather than the due diligence project which means we didn't have to change the domain name that's how i would summarize the conversation in the past week in that channel if anyone would uh wants to correct me or have different input please feel free to do so

uh there's just a couple things i chime in to add to that um we talked a little bit in that channel about uh hosting on ipfs versus like regular web hosting and i i think the the people present and and michael doing the work uh had the consensus that um like we want to get the the traditional domain set up and then hopefully host something static on ipfs at some point um so just in in like maintaining the possibility for that i went ahead and grabbed the eddc dot eth ens name if we really want to commit at some point we can

grab ddc.e that's a little more expensive but for now i've got eddc in case we want that building they support all applications awesome anything else that people want to discuss regarding top level domain i'm just a thought for michael i love what he put together so fast he had that done in minutes it seemed like um but i was just going to suggest that with us having our second committee meeting

end with us just forming some consensus on both scope mission and uh particularly how staking ghouls is going to get the quick action um it it just occurs to me that this would be a good week even early in the week once that gets boiled down and into statements that he can use to be possibly something where it puts a little more information about what's coming soon as opposed to just coming soon it actually states that what's really coming soon is what this committee just formed a consensus on which i think is um some help on staking staking pools with staking services to follow later anyway i think that's worth doing it'd be interesting to hear others say whether they think yay or nay and

then somebody's got to communicate that to michael but if if we like that or maybe even those of you in charge of the different committees need to get the right wording done because it's not really that clear in the scope of some of the different things or not all clear and final words necessary i think we got mission and final words but so that's my thought sounds good still muted super i was double muted uh so i'll be happy to convey that to michael um i i hope that his recording of this video is is coming through but i can't guarantee that because he had to step away

um but yeah i'll be glad to convey that and i also think it would be a good place to link to the playlist for these videos so that someone who sees the top level information but also wants to dig a little deeper can see exactly where we are um if you all think that's a good idea yeah it makes a lot of sense keep it in one place people can find it easily yeah awesome so last items other items anything else that people want to to bring up does everyone understand kind of what we're going to work on the next week should we talk about what we're going to work on uh for this

following week what we're going to try to get done um or other topics that people want to talk about i could do with the next steps please yeah i i agree so why don't we go you know the same way that we went down and discussed committee by committee um we go down and work we talk about what these committees are really focused on for the next week so uh you know mission statement it's great that you know i'll talk a little bit about that i think it's great that we just finalized our mission statement i think one thing that we can do building off of what kirk suggested is we actually put the mission statement that's one of the first things i think

people should read when they learn about the ethereum due diligence committee on the website do people agree with that it's actually there but in a different form so it just needs to be updated it's in the about flyout gotcha so we work on updating that uh for the website and i think that's you know that can be done for the mission statement and then that issue is effectively closed do people agree with that awesome so let's move on to scope um what do you guys think should be the focus of scope for next week um i guess just getting responses to

those questions getting that posted to the site and from there we can start doing some subjective analysis of it so maybe you know throughout this week we can get that list that i posted in the discord channel answers from all those companies or most of them posted on the website that would be our deliverable for the end of the week awesome so for those this is also talking to myself who volunteered to reach out to those services definitely follow through and do that or

if you have already done relay the responses to the scope channel can i make the suggestion that we add a step in there instead of just going straight to the site uh first step will be put together something that could go on the site so that everybody can kind of see it and be like hey that's good and then if we're all like hey that's good then we can put that up on the site yeah okay i want to make what what jeff just said i think that's really needed and the other thing i got slightly confused on is we were talking about scope and then we've ended up talking about the criteria and the in the actual measurement what i was going to say is scope is more a statement isn't it and it's what jeff just said we want to get it fleshed out

and finalized in that written channel i think i i think that could happen today it could happen a couple hours from now or it could happen with another revision where we're all looking at it but it could happen pretty fast and then that's what goes out those written words and that's a little different than from what when uh when hoshi uh nolan was saying about those of you doing the work and madison was saying about doing the work and making the calls i don't think making the calls and doing the work is really scope scope is about us setting what the scope of our committee is doing the work has to be called something else and i don't want them no thank you for correcting me and jumped the gun and went on to the next topic which is really the report and the evaluation framework versus the

uh the scope but you guys are exactly right that i think uh similar to the mission statement i think that should just be a sentence of what we've decided with it today um and that be added on the website to say this if you spoke with this project does everyone agree with that sounds good yeah it's awesome so uh top level domain i think that's just honestly updating the with the information such as the mission statement and scope that we have now and then uh limboshi and i i think correctly we're kind of talking about answering those questions that uh that

we have that we created getting those answers from the staking pools um and then posting those answers within the discord uh so people can see and be updated what do you think about that limboshi yeah it's good i think we need to uh you know get this show on the road basically right so scope i think we can knock out today right we talked earlier about it it's about ethereum staking with less than 32 eighth that's the initial scope if the pool evaluation criteria are solid and it sounded like they are then yeah we can get into stating fully

evaluation i agree yorick um and and i think the idea that it's initial is good to make explicit and i think in the world right now it is initial focus yes awesome i agree there um we just need to make sure obviously that michael knows about that the wording so he can work on putting it up hey michael won't be here who's heath's taker just joined back sorry guys i'm here now no problem yeah we were commending your work earlier by the way on the

landing page of the website uh great we got a couple quick things we came up with the mission statement we locked down the wording on that uh would be great if we could update that wording on the website and then we are we just locked down did someone posted by any chance the wording for scope i'm trying to throw something together there perfect and we're locking down the wording for scope basically we're going to be focused on uh ethereum staking with less than 32e because those are probably it's probably the most uh kind of vulnerable population and so therefore uh we're gonna also in addition to having a mission

statement we're going to have a scope effective statement on the website saying this is our scope the project okay just posted something there great got it that's good i love that yep agreed does anyone want to change you know you have to go and look at the scope uh channel right now i personally like what was uh what jeff came up with um but you know anyone else has uh a differing line or doesn't think that

would be the right wording to put on the website feel free to chime in now or post in the discord i guess the only kind of question that i have on this as i phrased it is related to that that earlier question we had of like kind of the implicit endorsement of being on the site which is like i think a good test case to think about here is okay so there's a project that is an outright scam we 100 know it's a scam do we still list it do we just list it with x's and all the categories or do we do we want to have some type of flat cut off criteria that says for this reason this will not even be on the site because if so we should probably slightly tweak that comprehensive property that's a good question i think also the

question is um if we know something is a scam do we list it under do not trust yeah i mean if it's a scam it's it's kind of our duty to tell everyone that it's a scam uh to some degree or or at least highlight that in red and yeah it could be correct simply as uh these are the providers that we ended up not trusting and these are the reasons why but yeah they should if something's fraudulent that's probably the best case is to list it so everyone knows right i think it's very important very important colin mentioned this is to say it's not really just called a scam we have to describe what's actually wrong with the project and like

why we think it's a it's fraudulent why are they misrepresenting why you know you know could there be technical issues do you not want to work with them and deposit with them because they could take take the e it's like that sort of we have to really outline that component and since that gets to be you know subjective i'm sure we're going to have um discussions about that and that gets into kirk's in our longer term how do we come to consensus on these things so for example if it is uh there's a higher third party risk here that might not rise to do not trust it just means there's a higher third party risk be aware right but if it is now this whole thing looks

completely like they're just going to take you ethan run then that's a whole different story well and even worse in my mind because in some sense that's easy to just be like oh well this is a scam you don't even feel bad about it even worse is what if you look at all the evidence and you're 50 50 on it yeah okay let's let's take it on a case-by-case basis i think we have an idea that we want to do something but it's hard to say in the abstract what that's going to be one of the things that's interesting about this is um we're not going to have historical evidence of scams scams are going to be when an otherwise appearingly trustworthy collector collects and

collects and collects and when they get done they're going to disappear and it's it's not as if you know that'll be very public and it'll be very big so we're not going to really know in advance if they're not trustworthy we'll only have a very big indication afterwards that we should not have trusted them so um calling something a scam is almost too late because they've already left with funds and they're probably not doing business anymore i think that's definitely a scenario i think there's another scenario too which is that if we're literally just dumping everything in the list someone will just dump a scam link in the list so the process by which we decide will kind of determine

uh like what types of scams we need to watch out for so i think the the big question jeff correct me if i'm wrong here is do we do we list everything that comes our way or do we even apply an initial filter and not list things that we view as scams right away well if if our mission statement is to be trustworthy and impartial right we have a necessary tension between those two words and that's okay that's allowed um so we need to do some filtering or we're not trustworthy if we filter too hard we're not impartial yeah i think one one strategy in there

is is um to uh have some sort of delaying and and qualifying tactics when people contact us so if someone contacts us and uh you they haven't really proven that there's anything substantive to the project yet you don't have to call the person a scam you can say oh okay uh it looks like we would we would need we need a little more detail from your project and if you if you kind of give that feedback like basically think of it like uh you get a phishing phishing phone call or something um and you say oh well i need a little bit of a little more detail about your project before i'm gonna give you any personal information and if they just disappear at that point then that's on them and you haven't even

had to call them a scam right i like your child dispenser in the background by the way super that was pretty cool [Music] i wasn't aware of it sorry thank you all good i agree with what jeff was saying what do people think yep yeah so i really agree with jeff said but secondly it's a privilege to work with a number of you who are bringing such good stuff to this um spirit and i mean we're a big community but

we're a smaller subset of that and it's just a privilege to work with people who have the kinds of concerns that jeff and yorick and superfiz and all of you i'm talking colin have already been bringing to this about what we want to do because in a way when the community is healthy then the competitors even at the institutional level uh where we're calling and jim mcdonald work or etc can all do better when we're helping identify the scam so it's just a privilege to work with you awesome we got four minutes to spare fun facts what do people want to do here i'm gonna jump off everyone uh so i can

eat before my next one um thanks everyone for for setting this up happy i was able to participate this week and uh i'll start getting some calls on my side set up uh some people and i'll start dropping some info into the channel so appreciate it everybody i'll talk hey i'd like to thank both of our hosts you guys so kirk you did an awesome job last week and madison i it was awesome to see um your skills in place so um i'm i'm happy and proud and excited that i know uh with the leadership you guys are showing that i know you could put the skills in the

right place so i'm really excited about the future of this thing okay i'm out as well thank you guys and have a great one guys thanks for for running with us bye-bye