diff --git a/TIPs/TIP-133.md b/TIPs/TIP-133.md
index a136cd3..e302b6f 100644
--- a/TIPs/TIP-133.md
+++ b/TIPs/TIP-133.md
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ By using centralized bots for managing odds I estimate we can:
 - Expedite how frequently the odds get updated  
 - Allows bigger batches of paraller updates  
 
-Reducing the gas costs and allowing us more flexibility on how we perform and batch odds updates allows for easier adding of more chains. As it stands now, its difficult to support adding more chains with all the costs and risk overhead. It will also help with considering the costs and risks of adding new sports. Expedating odds updates might also allow us to consider live markets.
+Reducing the gas costs and allowing us more flexibility on how we perform and batch odds updates allows for easier adding of more chains. As it stands now, its difficult to support adding more chains with all the costs and risk overhead. It will also help with considering the costs and risks of adding new sports. Expediting odds updates might also allow us to consider live markets.
 
 In terms of centralization risks, I am only proposing using keeper bots directly for odds, and still using CL nodes for market creation and resolution. Centralizing the odds updates has no risks for end users, as they always see which odds they are getting when trading. However, it does include an additional risk for liquidity providers if those bots are compromised, but should an attack take place, pDAO can cancel the affected markets thus not allowing attackers to take profit. Circuit breakers which we have built in mitigate this attack vector to some extent. Besides adheering to cyber security measures to protect the whitelisted wallets, Council could consider introducing an insurance fund for Liquidity Providers, or using the SafeBox for that purpose. However, at this point the proposed solution is likely a good compromise for Liquidity Providers as it ensures sharper odds and mitigates frontrunning surface.