[DAO Discussion] Wonderland DAO Amendment

[Catalyst]

@MattMacGyver

Do you mean with TMPs? We’re not supposed to be using TMPs. We’re supposed to have a functional system with the elected members, an RO, and a treasury council. You all got placed in your roles a few weeks ago, and the entire time you haven’t had an opportunity to function with an RO, or without an RO but an amendment that would allow you to function with the internal secrecy that you already have.

The arguments being put forward that this organization can’t function like this is accurate, only because it indeed is Not supposed to function like this. You’re not supposed to send everything to a TMP, and you haven’t even had a chance to try not sending stuff through TMP (except when sifu was interim-RO).

To submit a proposal to the DAO, you do not need a TMP. You may begin with a Discussion and progress to a snapshot vote. As far as governance and fund protection are concerned, the Risk Officer has no role to play. I’ll explain again with an example to make this more clear.

Let’s say I am Jeff, a scammer, and I am aware of the flaws in Wonderland’s system. I see a few big players redemeeting next month. It is likely to take a week or two to accumulate sufficient voting power to lock snapshot voting. Then I can initiate a discussion about investing in this seed stage of my project with, for example, 10 million dollars. The first step I take is to make sure that I have multiple bot accounts in order to secure my Discourse campaign, and then with my voting power I will secure the snapshot voting process.

We need a management team that is capable of assessing and blocking malicious actors and will approach all new ideas with caution. There may be an argument that for every point I am making there is also another solution, such as improving our governance. There is always more than one solution to every problem. Here is my proposal to address all these issues, and hopefully it will be only the first step towards improving every aspect of this organization.

@MattMacGyver

Do you get where I’m coming from here? Like, you present the argument that “we just can’t keep acting like this” and “nobody would find this acceptable”, when you’re not even supposed to be doing this anyway - it’s a shitty failsafe that shouldn’t even exist. You’re complaining about having to use the emergency exit stairs instead of the elevator, when the elevator exists but is broken and you could post a proposal to fix it but instead you spend time proposing we just burn down the building and start over with no stairs.

I agree with you that TMP’s should never have existed in the first place and the Team is responsible for that. Moving forward, we must assess all aspects of any proposals to come, both positive and negative, in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

@MattMacGyver

Why not fix the RO WIP to allow for some way to still work the way you are supposed to already? Or put out a new RO call letter and try to get a good person in the position so you all can work the way you are supposed to? Why throw the whole governance system out to fix a problem that’s not actually a problem?

The purpose of this proposal is not to address a single issue.

@MattMacGyver

I always find this argument interesting. Each time it’s brought up why he should be in a position, this is used. Then he doesn’t get the position, and he sticks around to help anyway. He has the deepest internal access of any member of this organization. If he is continuously denied a position, is there any point in which he would not provide insights to the team anymore or help keep wonderland’s vision on track with his unlimited access to internal operations in the discord? This suggestion that we could miss out on his guidance and insights if we don’t give him a position is concerning more than it is motivating, imo.

As a matter of fact, regardless of whether Sifu holds an official position with Wonderland or not, he is always available to provide insight and advice. Is there any reason why he should not be given an official position, recognized for his contributions, and acknowledged for his valuable contributions since Wonderland benefits constantly from that?

According to your argument, since Sifu will remain around regardless, should we exploit this habbit and continue to benefit from his advice, while keeping him out of our official structure? I do not understand that, and in a sense, I find it offensive. To me, it makes sense to engage with anybody who is willing to provide assistance where Wonderland requires assistance. If Wonderland needed marketing assistance, I would include you in the proposal without a doubt. As Wonderland requires guidance and advice, Sifu has been included.

@MattMacGyver

And the best course of action is to further limit avenues of participation? Does this make your job easier or the DAO more secure? I’m leaning toward your jobs easier, as there’s no reason our team should not be able to communicate with the community effectively enough to mitigate trolls and bad actors. I can’t agree that the solution is to force less engagement, just because you believe most people don’t want to engage.

The voting process of the DAO should, in ideal circumstances, address only the most important things and decisions. All investors should be aware that every time we issue a call for action, this call needs to be addressed. It would have been difficult for me to keep up with the voting process if I were not working for the Wonderland DAO. Investing in Wonderland should not be considered a full time job, rather a passive income opportunity where you are receiving frequent reports regarding the fund’s performance and when action is required, you should take part in it because it is critical.

As of right now, we are providing tools for passive income, such as revenue sharing and active portfolio management by the DAO, but we are also asking for increased participation. There is a possibility that our investors would engage in the market themselves if they desired daily participation.

@MattMacGyver

You’re suggesting we nullify all our past governance, disregard recently enacted governance frameworks without even attempting to try them out as they were designed, restructure our governance framework to provide more centralized control, appoint a member to a new position, and more - that’s a hell of a lot of change and little room for flexibility, to solve some security concerns and increase efficiency in a system you aren’t even using as prescribed currently.

I am not invalidating the current governance, rather I am giving it a guidance aspect that we will follow to a certain extent while continuously striving to improve every aspect.

@MattMacGyver

This is exactly the point I was trying to make. From this statement, it comes across as though the RO position could’ve been designed to get sifu in a position so WL would have his insights. Now that he wasn’t voted into that position, we have this New position that makes the old one not needed anymore. Was it that we needed sifu or that we needed an RO? We never even got to try the RO, except for when sifu was interim.

I am very disappointed if you imply that I drafted a large proposal solely for the purpose of redefining a position and sneaking in Sifu. I have explained in detail why Wonderland needs Sifu and I am very confident about that.

@MattMacGyver

Again, you’re suggesting wiping out all past governance, disregarding recent frameworks without even trying them out, and not even Attempting to amend the RO position and/or try another call letter before you thought it was easier to just scrap it and make a new position that fits sifu so well yet again. I’m sure I’m coming off as a sifu hater here, I’m not. It’s just really weird that you would not even try amending the RO or going for around too before jumping to a new sifu option.

Again, I propose reforming the Wonderland DAO to improve its efficiency, security, and effectiveness. As a result, Wonderland will cease being sidetracked and refocus on providing profits for its token holders.
The main topic of a proposal to reform the whole DAO should not be Sifu, however, he is again the central subject of discussion. Sifu is proposed to fill a necessary role, nothing more or less.

@MattMacGyver

This isn’t described in this proposal, and the logical assumption if all past governance is going to be nullified, would be that there are no TOs or Treasury Council. When you nullify all past governance, it’s all gone - everything you want from there forward needs to be in that starting document or it doesn’t exist anymore. If this moves forward, which I assume it will, I would suggest at the least clarifying a few things from past governance and including them in here, like the TOs and Treasury Council.

Due to the drastic nature of this proposal, it is being started as a DD. During the RFC stage, I will refer to many of the points raised during this discussion.

@Gonzo

Not opposed to the proposal except that a 2% annual management fee on $100m+ of assets seems excessively high ($2m+ a year). This isn’t a hedge fund or private equity fund led by top names with decades of experience that have proven themselves worth a 2% fee.

I’d suggest a much lower management fee to start with (<0.5%) plus a percentage of returns above a certain threshold (a hurdle rate). For example, if an investment generates more than 15% returns for the DAO, management receives 20% of any additional returns beyond the 15%.

With a lower set fee of 0.5% plus an opportunity to share in returns, management is incentivized to create value for the DAO, rather than sit back and collect $2m+ a year with no incentive to create returns.

I will be bold about this point with the confidence of following legal advice on this one. As per legal advice, for multiple reasons while managing any aspect of a fund of this size you need to make sure the management is compensated enough to eliminate the risk of any forms of bribery. It was suggested to follow the industries standards of “Two and Twenty”.

Edit: The management fee is covering all management expenses.

Two and twenty (or “2 and 20”) is a fee arrangement that is standard in the hedge fund industry and is also common in venture capital and private equity. Hedge fund management companies typically charge clients both a management and a performance fee. “Two” means 2% of assets under management (AUM), and refers to the annual management fee charged by the hedge fund for managing assets. “Twenty” refers to the standard performance or incentive fee of 20% of profits made by the fund above a certain predefined benchmark.

In this proposal I’m referring only to the two percent while I’m not including the Treasury Team.

@z0li

Or drop the management fee altogether and keep the 20% over 15% returns only. I would be ok with 25% over the 15, too.
Motto: “put your skin in the game”.

My job is not to manage the Treasury Ser.

@z0li

You, personally will pay for the DAO’s lawyers? Why? If the DAO needs lawyers, then it’s the DAO’s cost, not yours. (I read the proposal, did I miss something?)

(Also, did you find a law firm that accepts payment in crypto? )

There will be many more steps to be taken after this proposal. With the approval of this proposal, we will dynamically define budgets for each expense of the DAO, and these budgets will be communicated frequently to token holders through the Treasury Reports.

@z0li

I still don’t get it. My understanding is like the management needs “salary” to pay another employee’s (the lawyer) salary? Shouldn’t the DAO pay every employee’s salary? What do I miss here?

The management fee is the compensation instituted to the management team.

@Diazalon

What I don’t understand is, why does Sifu not just take the RO position (we can still call it ‘the Visionary’) and we eliminate most every problem that has just been brought to light and can just continue on the course we’re on without the lengthy delays and security/front running risks?

In my opinion, the Team lacks the experience necessary to manage a multimillion dollar fund in a secure and efficient manner. Sifu’s contribution is necessary not only to identify the risks of possible financial investments, but also to all other aspects of the organization.

@bottlecapman

I love the idea of expanding the team personally, I believe it would be wiser to focus on expanding the current roles in place rather than redefining them.

In my proposal, I state that a detailed report will be provided within a month for every position and the tasks they are assigned. As new requirements arise, this process will also be dynamic. The delegation of tasks should be done dynamically, rather than sending a new proposal every time a change occurs to redefine a role.

@Kingmaker9999

I don’t care about the team getting juicy salaries as long as they’re making the holders money. On the other hand I’d say a clause needs to be implemented that the management fees should never be allowed to exceed the profits made. Otherwise you’re just Rugging the holders. How to measure that as people need to eat and buy diapers each month is another question and I’ll be happy to come up with a solution.

Please refer to my reply above to Gonzo.

[Diazalon]

@Catalyst

In my opinion, the Team lacks the experience necessary to manage a multimillion dollar fund in a secure and efficient manner. Sifu’s contribution is necessary not only to identify the risks of possible financial investments, but also to all other aspects of the organization.

Sure, I’m not in disagreement. But that issue will still exist with the proposed changes, and Sifu’s role can definitely be expanded to include that what you propose here as well. I don’t mean to limit him purely to RO, I agree he should be on the team as one of the founders and cringe visionary, I’m merely pointing out that by including RO responsibilities in his role, we eliminate a good chunk of the problems raised, i.e the frontrunning and time/react delays

[Catalyst]

@Diazalon

Sure, I’m not in disagreement. But that issue will still exist with the proposed changes, and Sifu’s role can definitely be expanded to include that what you propose here as well. I don’t mean to limit him purely to RO, I agree he should be on the team as one of the founders and cringe visionary, I’m merely pointing out that by including RO responsibilities in his role, we eliminate a good chunk of the problems raised, i.e the frontrunning and time/react delays

This is a good point, I’ll make sure to elaborate more on that in the RFC.

[ruian11]

I think it looks good overall but a few things are unclear.

@Catalyst

Due to the out attempt to be a DAO that wants to have all decisions run through the frogs, it operates as

I think you meant to say “Due to our attempt to be a highly transparent DAO wanting all decisions to run through the frogs, it operates as…”

@Catalyst

Responsible for the preparation of quarterly Treasury reports for the holders, oversight

Doesn’t seem to line up with:

@Catalyst

or they can opt to follow the quarterly performance reports and our monthly treasury reports instead.

So which is it? Monthly, quarterly, or both for treasury reports?

In the No-confidence section:

@Catalyst

A No-Confidence Vote (NCV) can be proposed by the DAO at any time as a DAO Discussion [DD], with solid reasoning, to replace any member. Since this is a significant subject that might potentially disrupt current operations, the proposed DAO member should bring this matter to the attention of the Team. The Team will undertake an internal inquiry, and the results will be presented.

This is confusing because the six people in high level positions are referred to as members now. So Discord user JohnDoe#1387 wants to remove Catalyst and so he posts a DAO Discussion for removal? The proposed DAO member (Catalyst) brings this to the attention of the Team. Who is “the Team?” The six members?

Other than that I think it looks good.

[MattMacGyver]

@Catalyst

In my opinion, the Team lacks the experience necessary to manage a multimillion dollar fund in a secure and efficient manner. Sifu’s contribution is necessary not only to identify the risks of possible financial investments, but also to all other aspects of the organization.

This comment sums up my issue with believing that this Huge restructuring initiative will close more loop holes and solve more problems than it will cause. I appreciate the goals, but I am not confident the team can make such sweeping changes securely (so quickly) and I not confident the solutions will yield the results expected. I don’t go to students to draft my new all-encompassing legal bylaws, I hire lawyers. I’m not confident this initiative will put wonderland in a position to have the necessary checks and balances that would be responsible for this Growing Team.

If this was pitched to me by industry pros who had the experience of foresight to be prepared for what they’re trying to accomplish, or have a team of lawyers representing the org that was preparing all this - I wouldn’t even comment here. But every member of our team was a community member months ago and it is not reasonable to assume you’ve all got this button up and ready for lift off - especially when you openly recognize that you all are not industry pros and you “need” sifu’s help.

And your example of an individual using bots to force investments through forum engagement could have used a different analogy; like say an individual incentivizing actual humans with power to push initiatives that benefit that individual. This is a security risk too, one I think is not equally considered.

[MattMacGyver]

@Bamchicka

Management does
And no, not paying in crypto - legal onboarding will include Wonderland being able to have a bank account and pay stuff

Which multimillion dollar hedge funds or investment funds don’t pay for their own lawyers and make the management team provide the corporate legal funding out of their pay?

This comes across more to me that Management will be hiring lawyers to represent their work in the DAO. The DAO need to be represented, it is quite ordinary for a firm or organization to supply a legal budget for themselves.

[MattMacGyver]

@Catalyst

According to your argument, since Sifu will remain around regardless, should we exploit this habbit and continue to benefit from his advice, while keeping him out of our official structure? I do not understand that, and in a sense, I find it offensive. To me, it makes sense to engage with anybody who is willing to provide assistance where Wonderland requires assistance.

No, as I mentioned I believe we can benefit from his insights and I would support him having a role that would provide us that. I’m saying the argument that he would stop offering insights and guidance while also enjoying the benefits of having the deepest internal access of any member of this organization is questionable, at best.

The issues I have, as I have articulated, arise due to the process in which you all have taken these steps. You invented a role that would fit sifu - the RO. This role was actually necessary and could be fruitful, but instead of trying to actually use this role that you all, sifu, and the community believed was necessary enough to vote for and stick us in this position we’re in now, you just throw it out and make a new role for sifu.

My problem lands on you all just scrapping the idea instead of trying to make it work - that leads me to believe you put more import on just having sifu involved than you do on the roles you are suggesting. Which then leads me to believe This specific proposal wasn’t considered fully and why would I think that- you all keep flip flopping on what you want until sifu lands in a role.

I want sifu involved.

I also want you guys to stay on track and actually try to make stuff work, not give up because it doesn’t work exactly as you’d originally planned immediately.*

Those are not mutually exclusive.

I want to see many of the changes called for within this proposal happen, I just don’t believe we’re in the best position to make that happen securely right now. All my pushback is in hopes that I point out things that will end up being resolved anyway. If a legal firm representing the DAO writes up our bylaws, I’d actually be thrilled about that. But if our new managers with limited legal and regulatory experience write up our new bylaws (even when “chatting” with lawyers) I will highly doubt that the new governing documents will be sufficiently secure and we will end up needing it rewritten by a legal firm anyway - so why not have them do it the first time and avoid missing anything.

I know my lengthy response may come across as not wanting This initiative, but that is far from my intentions. My problem with it is that I don’t have enough history of experience with the team to bring confidence that it will all be handled securely and adequately to abolish all past governance. I’d probably say the biggest thorn for me is that phrase, it’s just not necessary. It would be more productive and secure to sift through the past governance and figure out what will stay and what won’t, and Include that in the new starting document. The fact this did not occur already is an additional thing that drags confidence out of me in this initiative. You can Say it’s all still there and will be used as guidance, but that literally means it doesn’t exist unless you want it to exist. That’s like saying you spoke to a lawyer and I should be fine if I get sued for taking a candy bar from this house. Okay, cool, you spoke to that lawyer, but they aren’t representing me if I have trouble after stealing the candy bar, and their advice means nothing when I mention in court that some lawyer told my friend I should be fine. I Need A Lawyer and I need them Representing Me.

[NalX]

Just a reminder that DAO Discussions are meant to discuss ideas and it should be expected that these ideas have holes or are not fully detailed/completed proposals with the whole work done ahead of time.

Doing good so far, please continue

[MattMacGyver]

This is a mistake I am making here, for sure. I shouldn’t say that the final resulting document of this initiative definitely won’t include all past governance that would be required to make it sufficient. That is an assumption that the team will not sift through everything to ensure necessary language is included by the time this gets to WIP.

Also the assumption that this starting document won’t simply be handed to a lawyer along with all our past governance and the team ask this lawyer to rewrite this document with all the necessary variables that would make us truly more compliant with corporate law and regulations.

These insinuations, where I have personally applied them, I would actually believe at this moment that I am probably wrong, knowing the team as closely as I do. These assumption, while they are concerning that they Could happen, it’s important to keep in mind that the team understands these issues already and would be having things fleshed out appropriately.

I apologize for those assumptions. It’s difficult for me to get on board with changes that further closes the loop on transparency in these early stages of development with our organization. We have two histories - one with Dani and Sifu during the hype-fueled fire fest that amassed a ton of “stake and chill” people, and another history through the community driven, extra decentralized, steady growth that gave the community a voice to even take back control when it was lost, to start initiatives in areas “management” may not have agreed with, and put all of you in your positions today. I think it’s a little premature to assume that we need less engagement, less participation, and less transparency. I’m all aboard structure, I value sifu, I agree with security issues in the forum. I’d like to see a proposal to revise our structure. I’d like to see a proposal to bring sifu on board. I’d like to see a proposal for resolving the security issues in the forum.

This is why piecemeal stuff works more often than not, because pushing a huge all sweeping piece of legislation through like this makes it inherently more difficult to support the entire initiative. I sincerely hope this is going to be a highly detailed and somewhat lengthy process before it finally is allowed to be voted on. Can this proposal be broken up into 1.1-1.9 so each piece can be discussed separately in its own thread, and then when each has been ironed out we bring them together for the final WIP? Some may fall off as not necessary, some may be expanded and reworked by different groups (lawyers), no one will have to feel like they have to express themselves as not supporting the entire initiative when they find certain aspects unsatisfactory.

[0xSifu]

@MattMacGyver

We have two histories - one with Dani and Sifu during the hype-fueled fire fest that amassed a ton of “stake and chill” people, and another history through the community driven, extra decentralized, steady growth that gave the community a voice to even take back control when it was lost, to start initiatives in areas “management” may not have agreed with, and put all of you in your positions today.

Feels llke I was here every day, not only supporting the community but also leading the charge, during both histories.

[MattMacGyver]

Indeed. I wholeheartedly appreciate your assistance and would support a proposal offering you a position. I even find this visionary role suits you well. My issues with this are not You, you bring immense value to this equation. I legitimately find it concerning that no effort has been made (with the community) to try and work with the RO position. One hiccup and it’s in the trash.

My comment on our two histories is a pushback on the assumption that we are our best org as a stake and chill org, thats not the only possibility.

[MattMacGyver]

If the team feels we’re ready to move in the direction of further corporate structure and compliance with a sweeping overhaul such as this, I would like to suggest including some of the standard articles in this initiative. It is standard operating procedure when forming an investment company to include various disclosures and for the rules of engagement all the way down the chain to be thoroughly fleshed out within the governing articles. A PPM would be tits, even though I know that might scare some or be excessive to others, but they would be SOP for a fund.

Also, a Limited Partnership Agreement for managers and members would be good too. Finance and Corporate Lawyers would know what this is, and have experience in drafting them. It should include:

• a thorough description of the powers, activities, and compensation of the general partner and the management of the partnership;

• a thorough discussion of all fees and expenses, including management fees, performance incentives, and other potential fees the fund will pay and, ultimately, the limited partners will indirectly or directly pay to the general partner, the fund manager, and other third parties;

• an explanation of the allocations and distributions of profits and losses to all partners, including how profits and timing of redemption are calculated;

• a description of investment capital requirements, withdrawal and redemption provisions, processes and requirements, including notice requirements, lock-up periods, gates, and distribution dates and processes, and any other pertinent terms;

• a description of the fund’s formation, purpose, term, and termination (whether voluntary or involuntary);

• a description of the fiscal year activities that will be completed, including reports, accounting activities, statements, audits (if any), balancing of the capital accounts, books and records;

• limitations of liability and indemnification provisions available to the limited partners, the general partner, and investment manager;

• a designation of power of attorney, which authorizes the general partner to act on the limited partners’ behalf for such purposes as buying and selling fund investments, admissions of new limited partners, and amendments to fund formation documents and other documents necessary for continued fund activity;

• a description of any other items the fund will require of its partners.

—

It is mentioned in this proposal that management will receive a 2% management fee. It would be beneficial to further flesh this out to describe which roles are receiving which amount, and which expenses you considered including in this figure. Putting together an Operating Agreement would also be a great place to provide those details. A good corporate law firm should have these in template form already even, just fill in the blanks with names and figures.

It’s difficult for me to express what I would suggest working on in this proposal because it’s just so much all bundled into one thing that has such extensive impact on the entire protocol. I fully expected this DAO to head for the corporate structure eventually, heck I’ve advocated for it quite a bit. But I expected we would work out these standard articles with law firms before we submitted new governing bylaws to the DAO. It just feels like putting the cart ahead of the horse.

[jclemons]

Funny you say that but isn’t the premise of this proposal to do away with all future DD and the mgmt team gets to arbitrarily make all decisions without any community input? Not really a DAO at that point.

[NalX]

Right now the current framework is is in effect, so I’m not sure what your point is ?

But, no the premise of this proposal is not to do away with all future DD.

@Catalyst

The DAO Discussion section (DD) may be used by any member of the DAO who wishes to post an official proposal for review by the management team.

As for what’s a DAO, there is more than one structure. Some would say we are not even a DAO currently. I guess that is up to you to decide based on your views of what a DAO is.

[jclemons]

“The management team as whole or any member of the management separately can edit, refine, and promote the proposal to WMP, if the proposal is deemed as beneficial for the DAO and enough participation is reached.”
Has new requirement where someone gets to decide if it’s beneficial to the DAO. This is arbitrary and can be exploited to move nothing forward regardless of participation because it lacks any clear definition with the added clause.

[Bamchicka]

Think that‘s rather a misreading/misunderstanding then. The fee is for all departments, not just a salary for the team.

[Bamchicka]

@MattMacGyver

But I expected we would work out these standard articles with law firms before we submitted new governing bylaws to the DAO. It just feels like putting the cart ahead of the horse.

As discussed this morning on discord it is meant to do the opposite, actually. Enable the team to work efficiently, on all the thing needed as well as make the decisions, without previous 42069 amendments to even have a sort of half working, but still very abusable and confusing system.
All the steps you mention happen after. We do not define details on everything on purpose, it’s more asking to be enabled to do all that, without wasting months and months in the current and very inefficient way to run the protocol.

Cuts out all the in between delays and makes it way more straight forward. Stops waisting time as well, cause we are - because we’d need to run governance processes on pretty much all previous voted things to enable and/or amend. Instead of directly setting up the structure and make the decisions, under consideration and guided by our previous established governance, but not bound by it so it’s instantly efficient and not reach that level of efficiency after votes and votes and amendment over amendment.
Also think the specific team members have a certain long term supporter stand within the protocol to be given this trust, as we are some of the few that have been here, standing up, every step of the way and fighting for exactly that common goal. Adding Sifu to guide and help is ofc a big win as well.

Our goal is the same, just the two ways to get there and the amount of time it takes to get there - that are different.

[Bamchicka]

@jclemons

Has new requirement where someone gets to decide if it’s beneficial to the DAO. This is arbitrary and can be exploited to move nothing forward regardless of participation because it lacks any clear definition with the added clause.

Is pretty much what Nal is doing himself now.

[Catalyst]

@Bamchicka

Think that‘s rather a misreading/misunderstanding then. The fee is for all departments, not just a salary for the team.

There will be extended clarification on this part with the RFC as it causes confusion.

@jclemons

Funny you say that but isn’t the premise of this proposal to do away with all future DD and the mgmt team gets to arbitrarily make all decisions without any community input? Not really a DAO at that point.

In the same manner that management would seek community participation on some significant matters with a WMP in the future, I am seeking community participation with this DD now.
If I didn’t think community feedback is important, I would ask GO to post it directly as an RFC and skip this stage.

[Catalyst]

I will address all points with RFC, thank you.