►
Description
This is Part 2 of a Discussion about the Catalyst Global Participation Solution (GPS) framework and evolving ideas on collaboration between the GPS Team, Funding Categories Team and the Done Collectively Team intending to create a test environment for experimenting with categories and demonstrating the framework.
The Round 1 Recorded Discussion is here: https://youtu.be/zmVkPfIjd-8
Presentation Slides: Here:https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FkIDCC92WFjDVYINywPmCAyNSlVX5QrIcJw8Y3Pj69o/edit?usp=sharing
A
Once
on
the
ground,
everyone
can
see
where
the
the
ship
is
moving
and
all
have
their
comments
and
opinions.
So
randall
is
a
fantastic
organizer
and
has
a
great
technical
background
and
he's
kind
of
come
up
with
some
really
cool
ideas
on
how
we
could
match
this
intention
and
design
with
with
blockchain
transparency
and
kind
of
integrate
that
into
the
community.
So
I
will
throw
that
back
over
to
randall.
B
The
presentation
last
week
from
tommy
was
really
inspiring
to
me,
because
so
much
of
it
aligned
with
the
way
I've
been
thinking
about
decentralized
management
and
the
structure
of
perspectives
and
dreams
and
objectives
that
are
present
in
the
catalyst
gps
proposed
framework
really
made
sense
to
me
it
for,
for
me,
it
arranges
a
much
more
stable
direction
and
helps
us.
I
think
it's
going
to
help
the
community
reduce
the
amount
of
whipping
back
and
forth
between
different
challenges
and
create
more
continuity.
B
That's
that's
really
strategic,
and
that
is
aligned
based
on
not
votes
for
this
big
tech
wall
of
text.
That
is
challenge
brief,
but
to
really
align
on
do
we
agree
that
a
particular
objective
is
important
or
a
set
of
objectives
is
important
and
what's
what
would
be
like
the
ranking
of
those
objectives?
B
There's
a
lot
to
be
discovered
in,
like
the
mechanics
of
how
we
choose
that
and
like
nadia
was
saying
this.
This
is
deserving
of
experimentation,
and
I
was
I
was
so
encouraged
last
week
when
three
count
them
three
different
people
from
iog
supported
this
community-led
effort
to
get
involved
in
steering
our
community
wow.
B
B
All
right
that
should
be
coming
through
for
you
now,
and
so
what
I've
set
up
in
this
screen
is
a
demonstration
of
a
prototype
working
on
my
local
machine.
It's
on
its
track
to
a
production
environment
over
the
coming
months
through
the
through
the
end
of
this
round
that
we're
deciding
how
to
spend
the
catalyst
treasury
we're
going
to
be
going
to
a
production
environment
and
actually
deploying
this
for
catalyst.
B
The
prototype
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
can
obviously
use
some
more
enhancement
in
the
way
of
user
experience
and
design.
We've
actually
based
on
having
funding
from
catalyst
in
fund
8.
We've
been
able
to
hire
a
designer
and
she
and
adam
are
working
actively
together
to
work
on
brand
and
design,
and
so
I'm
really
grateful
for
the
enhancements
to
the
presentation
and
user
experience
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
have
what
I'm
demoing
right.
Here
is
just
one
of
the
organizations
that
are
available
in
my
sandbox.
B
This
is
constructed
as
a
software
as
a
service
platform
and
we're
going
to
be
deploying
just
one
instance
of
this
platform.
But,
as
you
can
see,
we
could
we
could
hit
other
organizations
like
the
organization
for
done
collectively
demiu
a
dow
gimbal
labs.
All
these
sandbox
organizations
are
ready
to
switch
to
and
and
so
there's
a
different
governance
scope
for
each
organization
and
but
right
now,
where
we
are,
is
in
the
catalyst
sandbox
and
on
the
front
page.
B
You
can
see
a
little
word
cloud
of
what
some
of
the
principles
and
values
that
I've
seen
here
in
the
ecosystem
and
that
we've
expressed
on
the
organizational
operating
system.
Page,
hey,
there's
the
mission
maximizing
the
potential
of
human
collaboration,
and
I
I
think
I
missed
adding
welcome
to
the
experiment.
B
B
B
B
B
C
Well,
I
could
just
quickly
comment
about
the
user
interface
like
okay,
of
course,
it's
working
progress,
but
it
would
be
cool
if
it
would
actually
start
with
that
catalyst
map
or
the
gps
map,
where
you
have
all
the
objectives
when
they
are
ready.
So
you
could
just
click
through
that
image
and
then
land
on
this
and
like
drill
down.
B
C
B
The
main
thrust
of
the
proposal
is
is
really
to
create
space
for
experimenting,
and
so
the
plan
that
we've
worked
up
is
to
provide
this
space
for
the
gps
team,
together
with
everyone
in
the
community.
Who
wants
to
be
part
of
that
experiment
in
setting
objectives
and
prioritizing
objectives
to
get
involved
and
have
your
voice
be
heard
and
find
momentum
together
for
more
than
just
these
big
challenge.
E
B
That's
a
good
question:
yeah,
the
the
the
way
I've
been
building.
The
architecture
of
this
platform
is
very
consistent.
It's
api
based,
and
so
there
will
be
ways
for
software.
That's
that's
not
part
of
the
platform
to
connect
in
the
platform
and
find
find
information
that
is
available
here
in
the
platform,
so
it'd
be
conducive,
for
example,
to
connecting
up
with
darlington's
work
and
then
on
the
integration
side.
B
There's
the
the
architecture
in
the
application
actually
also
supports
ui
plug-ins,
so
that
there
can
be
code
and
experiences
added
to
the
to
the
ui,
and
we
talked
a
little
bit
more
about
this
in
the
in
the
proposal
text.
The
the
roadmap
is
essentially
to
enable
developers
to
to
customize
their
platform
customize
their
instance
running
on
done
collectively,
and
also
to
create
plugins
that
can
be
monetized
and
delivered
to
many
daos
on
the
platform
and
that's
part
of
the
architecture.
F
A
Something
that
randall
might
not
be
quite
calling
out
is
that
a
big
reason
this
is
impactful
is
because
a
lot
of
non-blockchain
organizations
work
this
way
as
well.
They
have
strategic
objectives
for
the
year
and
as
far
as
a
technical
capacity,
we
are
also
trying
to
build
the
platform
as
easy
to
use
with,
with
as
low
a
barrier
to
try
to
draw
some
of
those
real
world
businesses
onto
the
blockchain,
including
several
businesses
we're
talking
to
like
charities
and
social
groups.
That's
that's
something
else
to
mention.
B
B
Could
we
bring
more
of
those
points
into
workflows
and
make
them
less
about
whether
a
proposal
assessor
can
type
and
and
compose
really
good
text,
to
show
the
way
that
they're
thinking
really
good
what
if
they
could
apply
their
thinking
to
what
they're
seeing
on
screen
and
then
use
more
efficient
user
interfaces
to
express
how
they
assess
things
on
these
multiple
facets,
like
does
it
hit
this
goal?
Well,
does
it
hit
that
metric?
Does
it
speak
to
the
dream
at
the
top
level?
B
I
keep
saying
goals
and
objectives
because
that's
what's
on
my
screen
and
we're
going
to
customize
that
and
and
like
the
the
gps
terminology,
is
objective
and
we're
just
going
to
center
on
that,
and
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
to
tell
about.
Is
the
experiment
doesn't
stop
there
we've
reserved
part
of
the
budget
for
not
things
that
we've
already
predicted.
We
have
some
guesses.
We
have
some
intuitions.
A
I
I
can
speak
to
that.
I'm
newer
to
the
dunk
collectively
team,
but
I've
got
a
pretty
extensive
background
in
making
web
apps
for
businesses,
and
you
know
direct
direct
to
consumers
as
well,
so
the
design
of
this
is
definitely
going
to
be
mobile.
First,
I
use
almost
everything
mobile.
I
rarely
use
a
computer
unless
I'm
building
anymore
or
typing
long
form,
so
the
design
is
really
important
to
us.
Randall
has
done
a
fantastic
job
of
putting
the
vision
out
there
and
a
basic
framework
all
the
entities.
A
Are
there
the
the
kind
of
subtle
interactions
of
how
things
need
to
flow
are
there,
but
you
know
not
being
a
self-proclaimed
designer.
I
think
that's
why
he's
trying
to
bring
more
people
in
so
yes
design
is
super
critical.
We
want
to
make
this
user-friendly,
easy
flowing
and
kind
of
make
it
feel
modern
and
and
futuristic
a
bit
at
the
same
time
without
losing
the
accessibility
that
that
it
provides.
C
E
B
G
B
Those
those
things
are
exposed
as
specific
api,
endpoints
and,
and
so
you
can
literally
say
goals
for
group,
and
you
give
the
group
id
and
it
shows
you
the
goals
and
similarly,
across
across
the
platform,
anything
that
shows
up
in
the
ui.
There
are
equivalent
api
endpoints
for
the
semantics
that
that
sit
there.
B
B
B
Good
yeah,
we
have
an
open
source,
aesthetic
and
the
the
issue
is
that
there's
there's
actually
a
whole
bunch
of
code
here.
The
the
track
that
we
want
to
follow
is
to
develop
the
open
source
release,
which
is
going
to
be
a
subset.
That
probably
does
not
include
the
software
as
a
service
infrastructure,
but
to
release
that
for
a
cooper,
basically
with
a
cooperative
open
source
license,
so
that
we
can
encourage
remixing
and
let
let
community
do
things
together
and
not
create
competition
for
our
commercial
dow
platform.
B
G
Well,
maybe
follow
up
on
that,
because
our
plan
as
the
gps
team,
it
is
to
work
together
with
randall
and
gun,
collectively
team,
make
sure
that
we
have
some
kind
of
a
prototype
based
on
this
proposal
which
which
can
be
used
for
a
test
run.
So
there
would
be
another
proposal
which
would
be
we
should
be
getting
funding
for
this
test
run,
and
this
funding
would
be
for
running
several
relatively
small
proposals,
which
would
be
which
would
be
submitted
not
on
the
standard
catalyst,
but
it
will
be
submitted
through
this
software.
G
It
would
be
submitted
through
the
gps
framework,
and
this
restaurant
would
serve
us
and
the
community
to
evaluate
what
works,
what
doesn't
work,
what
needs
to
be
changed
and
we
would
present
the
results-
and
there
might
be
next
next
rounds
next
iteration
until
we
figure
out
what
works.
What
does
not
work?
What
what
I
think
is
good
about
this
is
well
one
thing
is:
it
enables
us
to
test
the
gps?
G
D
It
was
exciting
for
me
in
this:
it's
always
exciting,
to
make
a
plan
and
to
think
about
it
and
to
really
collaborate
on
it
and
take
it
through
and
then
there's
the
reality
of
actually
deploying
something
and
seeing
what
actually
happens,
there's
a
lot
of
questions
still
in
the
gps.
It's
like
a
it's
a
framework.
The
presentation
is
an
idea
and
without
there-
and
there
are
fundamental
things
that
need
to
happen
like
the
funding
categories.
D
That's
part
of
that
discussion,
wouldn't
that
be
a
lot
more
realistic
and
perhaps
more
accessible
for
people
who
don't
have
a
level
of
knowledge
in
those
areas,
not
that
that's
the
total
solution
for
that,
but
maybe
just
requiring
certain
kinds
of
information
is
more
relevant
in
some
places
than
others,
so
the
flexibility
of
that.
So
that's
that's
fundamental
to
this.
It
that
that
shift
needs
to
be
able
to
happen
and
be
tested,
and
so
this
kind
of
then
the
tooling
allows
the
the
space
to
be
able
to
try
these
things
out.
D
D
Additionally,
what
other
things
could
come
to
this
from
from
other
teams?
So
that's
exciting
for
me,
because
we,
otherwise
you
know-
we've
talked
a
lot
over
the
past
funds
of
the
same
problems
occurring
and
not
being
able
to
get
out
of
certain
traps
just
based
on
the
limitations
of
the
of
the
systems
that
we
have.
So
I
think,
that's
all
very
exciting,
and
certainly,
though
this
is
a,
this
is
a
a
big
test.
D
Environment,
so
there's
there's
a
lot
to
learn
and
still
a
lot
of
blanks
to
fill
in,
which
is,
I
think,
why
we're
here,
mostly
so
yeah.
So
that's
that's
from
my
perspective
and
I'd
be
interested
to
just
hear
people's
impressions
and
what
questions
are
there
and
to
have
this
picked
apart
a
little
bit
things
that
maybe
we're
not
saying
that
we
should
be.
You
know,
complications
one
might
anticipate
that
kind
of
stuff
or
opportunities.
Maybe
we
haven't
even
thought
of
yet.
B
C
G
The
idea
is
to
go
in
iterations,
really
so
really
learn
from
every
iteration
break
things
do
things
badly,
so
so
I
believe
it
might
take
longer
to
to
get
the
production
environment
in
six
months,
even,
but
I
think
I
think
it's
really
really
good
that
we
will
be
able
to
see
it
relatively
quickly
in
operation
and
see
what
works.
What
doesn't
work,
because
I
think
personally,
since
I'm
involved
in
gps.
I
I
love
it.
G
B
K
We
we
we
can,
I
think,
we're
putting
a
proposal
in
for
nine
we're
gonna
open
source,
the
stuff
we
did
for
drip
drops
adam's
gonna.
Do
that
and
yeah
let's.
We
can
I'm
happy
to
have
those
conversations
we
talk
about
it
quite
frequently
and
there's
the
they're
good
conversations,
and
what
I
found
is
the
more
people
you
put
in
the
room.
When
you
have
those
conversations,
you
actually
drive
the
solutions,
a
lot
better,
but
yeah
the
privacy
part's
hard.
K
Yeah
that
that's
that's
why,
hence
you
know
catalyst
you
and
if
you
want
fully
audible,
then
it's
hard
right.
Then
you
get
really
hard
like
we
can't.
We
can't
even
fully
audit
our
own
votes
and
catalysts,
so
it's,
but
we
have
the
privacy
right.
So
it's
yeah.
Let's
we
don't
need
to
get
drill
into
that
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
if
there's
anything
distinctly
that
you
guys
need
a
lot
of
help
with
or
whatever.
B
B
C
B
C
Yeah
kyle
there
might
be
other
options
also
like
I
I.
This
just
came
to
my
mind
right
now,
because
I've
been
thinking
about
it
for
a
long
time
that
this
ada
centric
voting
works
for
many
things
like,
for
example,
proposals,
but
maybe
there's
other
things
that
should
be
voted
on
in
governance,
where
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
grant
more
voting
power
for
someone
who
has
more
ada.
So
maybe
there
should
be
like
a
voting
token.
C
K
L
D
K
And
things
like
that
too
right,
so
you
can
set
your
parameters
differently.
You
know
you
can
vote
on.
I
mean,
I
guess
it's
essentially
snapshot
based
right.
Whatever
happens
is
snapshot
base.
You
know
I
would
presume
unless
there's
another
way
to
do
it,
but
let's
say
whenever
you
do
the
snapshot
there's
a
time
element.
So
you
choose
the
epoch
term
when
you
do
the
snapshot,
but
what's
in
the
snapshot
and
what
references
voting
powers
really?
K
K
Just
standard
data
voting
power
right
like
based
on
quantity
of
number
of
assets,
or
you
can
do
it
on
a
number
of
native
assets
specifically
or
you
could
do
a
single
power
for
anybody
that
holds
a
certain
asset,
any
amount
right
or
you
could
segment
it
out
based
on
curves
or
any
type
of
discrete
math.
But
but
what
I'm
getting
at
is
you
can
figure
out
your
parameters,
and
so
you
know
for
deploying
apps
that
are
useful.
I
mean
it's,
it's
you've
also
got
the
transaction
aspect
to
deal
with
too
you
know
so.
K
Ideally,
I
think
I
think
this
should
happen
kind
of
layer,
two
more
than
layer,
one,
because
it's
faster
and
you're
gonna
be
able
to
obfuscate
stuff.
But
it's
that
middle
piece
of
how
you
tie
it
together
to
tie
privacy
and
and
match
it
with
with
not
only
you
know,
cheap
to
no
cost,
but
also
yeah.
You
accomplish
all
the
other
primary
objectives.
You
know
primary
privacy
is
critically
but
critical,
but
you
want
that
the
transparency,
the
full
audit
ability,
that's
everything
and
so
yeah.
K
B
Oh
we're
making
a
dao.
Oh
you
need
groups
we'll
make
a
sub-dial
that
that
really
disconnects
everything
and
like
the
the
voting
protocol,
that
we're
thinking
about
is,
is
to
like
establish
a
plug-in
framework
where
different
voting
protocols
different
token
waiting
mechanisms
can
live
easily
and
then,
whichever
instance
on
our
platform,
wants
to
use.
Whichever
kind
of
protocol
can
just
plug
into
that
and
use
that
token
voting
protocol
yeah.
K
So
I'm
happy
to
talk,
but
we've
got
to
be
somewhat
careful
in
in
that
element
and
then
our
strategy
is
we'll,
go
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
innovate
on
the
front
end
and
mitigate
the
risk
on
the
voting
side
and
and
and
deploy
commercially
and
then
come
back
and
work
to
open
source
that
technology
as
we've
as
we've
deployed
it
and
and
that's
some
of
the
stuff
we're
working
to
do
now.
You'll
see,
I
think,
we've
already
it's
already
public.
K
We've
got
one
proposal
to
do
that,
but
you
know
as
far
as
ideas
I'm
happy
to
share
share
that
stuff.
I
do
know
voting
as
a
service
is
going
to
be
competitive.
We
look
forward
to
seeing
products
from
a
number
of
prominent
entities
in
the
space,
so
it'll
be
interesting,
but
there's
definitely
room
and
a
nest.
Necessity.
K
Absolutely
nice
for
commercial
projects.
You
need
you
need
it.
So
I
mean,
if
you
have
any
questions,
or
I
mean
we're
pretty
open
with
how
we
accomplish
stuff
and
we
share
information
across
the
teams
technically.
So
if
there's
anything
that
you
come
up,
you
guys
get
stuck
on
something
shoot
over
and
we
may
have
been
there
awesome.
K
C
K
Yeah
I
mean
I'm
we're
happy
to
explore
that
and
and
and
help
where
we
can
but,
like
I
said,
there's
a
there's,
a
commercial
side
to
what
we
do.
You
know
we've
got
nearly
20
people
that
we're
paying
for
so
we've
got
a
it's
bear
market,
oh
well,
yeah.
Yes,
it's
a
big
team
and
across
the
teams
we
gotta
eat
what
we
kill
or
we
don't
know
what
we
kill.
Sometimes
the
catalyst
is
you
know
it
helps,
helps,
helps
provide
that.
K
K
So
I
mean-
maybe
maybe
maybe
we
set
up
a
meeting
to
do
that
specifically
for
that
or
something
and-
and
we
push
for
that
now-
it's
hard
for
it's
hard
to
commit,
but
I
think
I
think
we
can
do
that.
It's
it's.
You
know
we're
working
like
18
hour
days
non-stop,
you
don't
get
breaks,
we
don't
get
shoved
a
conference,
we
all
get
covered.
It's
so
stupid.
N
K
K
They
they
essentially
used
the
voting
spec.
That
adam
did
for
spock
for
a
way
back,
then
first
on
chain
vote
was
focker.
We
did
for
like
spos
back.
When
so
I
mean
it's,
it's
kind
of
been
in
our
back
pocket.
It's
a
passion
for
adam,
so
adam's
been
on.
The
drip
drops
team
for
since
the
beginning.
So
it's
it!
K
You
know,
that's
just
something
that
he's
he's
really
solid
and-
and
you
know
it's
like,
if
you,
if
you
know
adam
like
he's
known
for
nfts,
he
does
he's-
probably
possibly,
I
think
the
majority
of
nft
volume
on
cardano.
I
know
him
and
patrick
together,
probably
like
75
percent,
but
it
it
his
passion
is-
is
unchained
voting,
so
we've
kind
of
been
aligning
for
that
and
for
us
we
we
move
in
development,
sprints
and
and
so
we'll
do
product
planning
and
figure
out.
K
What's
coming
after
the
current
sprint
that
we're
on
or
thereafter
and
piping,
in
and
voting,
we
had
to
get
voting
out
for
just
operational
stuff.
You
know
we
did
a
really
strategic
vote
for
the
within
the
community,
not
only
just
to
clear
some
things
we
needed
to
do
operationally,
but
you
know
it's
also
good,
a
good,
a
good
push
for
consumption
or
human
utility,
and
but
as
far
as
monetizing
it
it
was
just.
K
K
We
were
disclosing
that
we
were
definitely
working
on
it,
but
decision
product
times
came
like
as
we
probably
rolling
the
boat.
We
knew
we
were
going
to
productize
it,
but
it's
it's
it's
weird.
How
that
team
works?
That
team
is
an
anomaly
it's
they
can
get
together
and
and
and
put
stuff
in
the
motion
and
then
have
it
in
the
production
I
mean.
Probably
remarkably
fast.
I
mean,
I
think
that
was
maybe
the
two
and
a
half
weeks,
but
it
was
based
on
it,
was
based
on
stuff.
K
D
K
K
N
K
Yeah
yeah
I'm
happy
to
help.
You
know
it's
hard.
It's
really
hard
getting
everything
together,
because
you
know
you
don't
just
need
you
need
the
product.
The
market
has
to
be
the
right
fit
the
right
time,
and
sometimes
it
can
be
three
or
six
months
off
and
and
then
you
just
kind
of
linger
for
a
little
while
and
then
you
catch
your
set,
I
guess,
but.
K
And
and
that's
you
know
we're
looking
at
stuff
in
that
scope
too,
but
it's
it's
the
issuing
authority,
that's
a
little
weird.
You
guys
have
an
advantage
being
in
catalyst.
You
know,
because
that
could
potentially
be
something
that's
viewed
as
an
authority
to
some
degree
somewhere
right
and
so
there's
an
angle.
D
K
N
K
K
K
N
Sorry
for
derailing,
tommy
and
nadia
I
thought
randall
had
to
go.
I
did
have
some
things
to
mention
on
the
goals
and
objectives
part.
I
think
this
is
an
interesting
thing
of
the
differences
between
having
goals
and
objectives
internally,
such
as,
let's
say
we're
a
catalyst,
working
team
and
the
goals
and
objectives
you'd
apply
if
it's
the
ecosystem
wide,
and
I
think
this
is
where
obviously
I
spent
a
bit
of
time
on
the
reasons
why
it's
so
good
to
have
the
goals
and
objectives
separate
from
the
funding.
N
There
is
a
never-ending
amount
of
different
perspectives,
cultures
and
people
with
different
goals
and
objectives,
and
it's
generally
much
harder
for
you,
then
to
say
this
subset
of
the
community
is
the
only
thing
that's
important
and
that
is
kind
of
the
problem
we
have
with
when
we
attach
it
to
funding.
Characterization
is
there's
a
finite
amount
of
resources
and
you're
saying:
oh,
we
have
to
pick.
We
have.
Oh,
you
know
we.
N
But
now,
if
you
compare
that
with
the
with
an
internal
approach,
you're
you're
inside
catalyst,
you're
working
on
proposal
assessment,
okay,
how
do
we
improve
that
process?
Well,
in
those
instances
when
you're
working
as
team,
you
want
to
be
very
specific
on
the
things
you're
working,
you
have
road
maps,
you
have
sprint
planning
you.
You
know
you're
trying
to
focus
on
a
very
small
subset.
You
don't
want
an
ever
expanding
kind
of
you're,
not
trying
to
be
inclusive
of
every
kind
of
idea.
N
You
have
to
be
very
selective,
like
your
approach
to
how
you
group
those
things
they're
very
different,
so
I
think
I
think
this
is
the
key
thing.
I've
obviously
been
thinking
about
when
I've
been
looking
at
gps
and
obviously
my
work
on
funding
categories
is
how
we
approach
goals
and
objectives
that
like
how
we're
working
together
and
collaboratively
is
a
bit
different
than
how
we're
trying
to
handle
it
in
the
context
of
funding
characterization
and
trying
to
this
massive
global
catalyst
ecosystem.
That
needs
to
be
super
flexible
to
very
fast
changing
things.
N
C
I'll
just
quickly
comment
on
that.
So
let's
take
an
example
that
we
had
say
20
objectives
that
were
proposed
by
the
community
and
they
were
ranked
in
a
certain
order
based
on
whatever
voting
power
and
and
then
those
would
be
adopted
for
the
next
six
months
or
whatever.
And
then
there
was
some
guy
who
was
left
out
with
the
cardinal
4
plumber's
objective
and
nadia
is
like
yay
another
tommy
example
yeah.
C
So,
of
course
he
could
just
wait
and
see
if
the
timing
was
better
in
another
three
months
time
or
whatever,
or
you
could
just
scratch
that
and
say:
okay,
I'm
going
to
propose
cardano
for
plumbers.
Anyway,
I
have
a
proposal
for
that.
I
don't
need
other
people
to
propose
for
that,
and
they
could
say.
Okay
carter
for
plumbers
would
be
for
outreach
category
or
whatever,
and
they
would
propose
there
and
they
would
justify
that.
C
Okay,
this
and
this-
and
this
reason
this
should
be
funded
and
it's
not
hitting
any
of
the
objectives
that
are
recommended
by
the
community,
but
I
don't
care
about
your
objectives
right
now,
because
this
is
an
awesome
solution
and
here's
the
reasoning.
So
if
the
pas
would
be
like
okay
there's
a
point.
This
is
outside
of
the
objectives
where
most
of
the
proposals
would
probably
go,
but
this
guy
has
a
point
so
it
might
get
funded.
So
I
don't
know
it
doesn't
really
exclude.
C
N
Yeah,
that's
that's.
The
key
thing
is
like
it
doesn't
matter.
It
doesn't
that
extra
people
should
have
proposed
basically
anything
and
it,
and
it
also
doesn't
have
to
even
effort
attached
to
some
goal
objectives
that
someone
has
already
defined.
It's
just
like
you
know,
you
don't
know.
What's
going
to
come
up,
it's
hard
to
predict
out
of
time
whether
that's
kind
of
like
the
whole
point
of
innovation,
because
it
kind
of
usually
comes
from
minority
and
spreads
so
to
say:
oh,
no,
we're
only
gonna
trust.
C
N
I
I
think
the
the
goals
and
objectives
will
become
in
a
separate
process.
That's
a
problem
with
funding
carries
at
the
moment.
Is
I
don't
have
we
don't
have
a
system
for
separate
goal
and
objective
setting
the
the
importance
of
this
ranking
yeah
would
be
both
important
on
an
internal
basis
where
you're
going
to
have
to
maybe
cut
off
and
say
we're
going
to
focus
on
these
four,
but
on
a
on
the
kind
of
funding
categorization
basis.
N
When
you
use
it,
it's
important
that
you
have
some
feedback
mechanism
to
get
that
community
consensus,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day
there
will
be
things
that
are
more
priority
than
others,
and
that's
absolutely
fine
and
that
can
be
baked
in
and
influenced
into.
Let's
say
some
voting
infrastructure,
so
the
ones
that
you
know
the
community
consensus
has.
These
are
the
most
high
priority.
Well,
you
might,
you
might
get
shown
first
in
the
sorting
algorithm,
but
it
doesn't
mean
you
know.
At
least
the
other
ones
are
still
included.
N
K
This
is
specific.
This
is
enabling
other
projects
too
right.
It's
not
just
catalyst
specific,
and
I
I
see
the
greatest
opportunity
to
learn
is
is
like
blowing
up
like
projects.
You
know
by
bad
decisions
right,
and
I
mean
in
the
most
extreme
case
I
mean
we're
going
to
learn
in
watching
native
assets
and
and
implementing
governance
solutions
there.
K
So,
if
you
guys
design
a
product
start
engaging
with
those
and
saying
okay,
can
we
work
with
you?
Hey
that
potential
revenue
stream
right
there
that
you
potentially
drive
from
it
but
b
what
it
really
does
is.
Then
you
get
the
nuances
of
okay.
We
have
mvp,
but
here's
what
we
build
next
in
the
next
cycle,
and
that
can
be
your
next
proposal
cycle
right.
If
it's
an
internal
tool,
if
an
external
tool,
you're
running
on
revenue,
you've
got
a
successful
business.
K
A
And
that's
that's
definitely
our
perspective
and
and
style
by
the
way,
just
like
mvp
get
feedback
from
people
find
out.
What's
working
and
and
honestly
the
thing
that
I
love
about
this
approach
and-
and
I
think
george
said
this
best
in
a
call
yesterday-
this
is
like
everybody
struggles
with
this
everybody.
Every
business.
Every
organization
like
this
is
something
that,
as
we
move
towards
more
democratic
structures,
you
know
we.
A
K
A
G
So
there
is
some
kind
of
continuity
and,
in
the
same
time,
that
there
is
this
freedom
to
go
and
do
objectives
which
are
outside
of
the
scope
which,
which
was
prescribed
so
because,
in
any
case,
we
need
to
solve
this
issue,
how
how
to
be
able
to
standardize
and
therefore
be
more
effective
as
a
community
and,
on
the
other
hand,
how
we
will
achieve
the
ability
to
innovate
and
do
whatever
whatever
task
or
goal.
We
need
to
do,
and
there
might
be
a
lot
of
people
all
around
the
world
which
have
ideas.
G
Nobody
else
has
thought
about.
So
this
needs
to
still
be
open.
In
the
same
time,
if
you
don't
create
an
environment
where
people
would
see
what
other
other
are
doing
and
wouldn't
have
the
opportunity
to
align
themselves
to
that,
you
are
missing
the
opportunity
to
get
more
effective
and
more
efficiently
use
your
resources,
because,
whatever
the
number
of
people,
the
number
of
resources
will
be
always
somewhat
limited.
D
D
We
need
to
have
to
definitely
have
the
full,
like
all
the
perspectives
or
funding
categories
in
place,
so
that
that
has
to
happen.
It
can't
be
some
kind
of
hybrid,
but
could
we
hybridize
like?
Could
we
have
a
hybridized
selection
of
objectives?
Do
some
one
funding
category
someone
another
like
what
are
some
of
the
different
ways
we
could
test
these
different
things,
there's
so
many
things
we
can
test
here.
We
could
test
the
fluidity
of
the
funding.
D
E
F
K
F
K
Everybody
and
then,
and
then
that's
how
you
build
momentum,
but
I
still
kind
of
am
figuring
out
what
you
guys
are
trying
to
accomplish.
I
mean
if
I
get
the
concept
of
a
tool
where
we
can
gather
and
garnish
ideas,
but
what
ideas
are
we
trying
to
convey?
What
are
the
big
problems
that
you
guys
are
seeing.
E
So,
instead
of
saying
yeah,
we
need
categories
categorization
in
catalyst
to
be
able
to
run
the
catalyst
we
say,
the
the
gps
vision
of
catalyst
runs
in
this
way
and
operates
under
under
these
parameters.
These
tools,
these
this
this
set
and
let
the
let
the
community
decide
where
they
want
to
exist.
What
are
the
bureaucratic
obstacles.
E
K
Should
probably
have
a
more
broader
discussion
about
this,
because
I
don't
disagree
that
we
should
have
a
discussion
on
who
holds
the
keys
and
for
protocol
parameter
updates
and
things
like
that.
We
should
probably
revisit
that
as
a
community,
because
things
have
changed
a
lot
since
the
inception.
But.
E
I
also
think
we
have
a
situation
where
we
already
can
solve
this
without
asking
for
permission
or
discussing
it
in
more
detail.
I
like
that
more
yeah,
totally
me
too,
so
the
the
solution
that
I've
been
putting
forward
for
a
long
time
is
that
we
put
forward
a
a
chunky
proposal,
not
a
challenge,
setting
an
actual
funded
proposal
for
a
million
dollars.
Let's
say
gps
structure,
or
at
least
a
smaller
amount
to
set
it
up
ready
to
run.
K
E
E
Okay,
cutlass
has
a
way
right
like
it's.
It's
it's
idea,
scale
it's
iog,
okay,
let
that
keep
rolling!
There's
no
need
to
just
rip
that
to
pieces.
At
the
moment
we
don't
have
an
alternative,
but
what
we
do
need
is.
We
need
to
be
building
alternatives,
multiple,
not
just
one,
because
if
we
look
to
just
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
replace
the
entire
cutlass.
With
this
new
improved
version
of
colors.
Well,
then
we're
gonna
end
up
in
the
same
problem.
In
a
few
months
you.
K
K
No
yeah
yeah,
if
you
experiment
with
different
models.
I
understand
the
premise
of
it:
that's
what
we're
here
to
do
right,
we're
here
to
experiment.
So
what
well
yes
and
partially,
but
we
have
a
treasury
to
manage
too
and
there's
an
outside
world
and
chaos
happening
there
too,
and
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
also
have
to
win.
So
we
we're
doing
two
things:
we're
fighting
on
one
front,
but
we're
experimenting.
You
see
we
were
the
rockets
running.
You
know
it's
not
like
it's
still,
but.
K
No,
no,
I
get
what
you're
saying
there
the
point
I'm
making
is
that
there's
a
commercial
world
happening
and
that
we
still
need
to
leverage
treasury
resources
to
compete
there.
So
we
can't
put
everything
into
experimenting
and
not
enough
into
bullets,
so
we
thought
so.
Our
best
bet
is
to
experiment
with
our
bullets.
That's
that's
my
philosophy
in
a
lot
of
ways,
so
does
that
make
sense,
yeah,
yeah,
totally.
K
E
If
we
do
this
type
of
thing,
we
can
have
treasuries
that
are
looking
to
fund
massive
projects
that
maybe
many
people
many
years
of
development,
but
also
other
side
treasuries
that
look
to
fund
six-month
projects
or
one-month
projects
that
are
just
teeny
things
that
people
find
interesting
and
want
to
want
to
work
on.
That
will
add
value
in
some.
K
Smaller
way,
we'll
see
one
of
the
things
that
that's
important
too,
and
that
scares
me
is
like
a
dozier
like
it's
kind
of
it's
built
into
the
model.
It's
going
to
have
a
treasury.
You
know
it's
everything
that
happens.
There's
a
cut,
that's
going
into
a
treasury,
it's
a
centralized
company
now,
but
it
has
to
be
decentralized
and
managed
in
the
future.
K
If
the
model
goes
wrong,
it
blows
up
everything,
screws
up,
right,
it's
done,
and
so
that
type
of
information,
if
we
can
replicate
these
types
of
treasuries,
that
native
asset
programs
can
manage
their
treasuries
are
going
to
be
formidable
formidable
funding
solutions
that
are
different
from
catalyst
itself,
and
we
may
be
talking
about
a
totally
different
branch
of
an
idea
here
from
what
you're
doing
now.
So
what
about
this
isn't
his
credit?
K
What
you're
working
on,
I
think
we're
on
to
something
a
little
bit
new,
and
that's
this
you
know,
let's
not
forget:
cardano
is
going
to
have
its
own
all
season.
All
the
native
assets
are
going
to
go
through
some
crazy
ass
off
season,
just
like
ethereum
did
and
then
all
these
projects
that
are
established
they're
going
to
have
their
own
treasuries.
And
so
you
see
what
I'm
saying.
E
D
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
little
bit
of
the
point
in
the
hope
for
this,
that
we
put
something
together
that
actually
works.
We
get
all
these
different.
We
get
all
these
different
components
in
place.
We
can
look
at
them
and
then
we
can,
we
can
add
into
it
funding,
maybe
in
future
funds
that
we
can
actually
really
test
that
test
as
it
works.
It's
a
it's
like.
K
D
That's
that's
cool
too
there's
there
there's
a
super
immediate
need
for
it
here
and
there
there's
a
there's
a
real,
like
the
the
pain
points
are
so
visceral
in
here
we've
been
talking
about
a
long
time.
I
think
we
understand
them.
There's
different
groups
who
have
really
thought
through
these
different
components
and
that
now
we
all
have
this
perspective
of
how
okay
this
could
work.
This
way,
we
don't
really
know
what
things
need
filling
in,
but
there's
there's
all
different
kinds
of
things
that
need
filling
in
here.
D
D
The
people
who
test
in
the
beginning
are
going
to
be
interested
in
whether
this
thing
actually,
whether
these,
whether
these
philosophies
and
these
ideas,
actually
work,
whether
the
what
are
the
actual
mechanisms
work
and
then
from
there,
you
could
add
to
it
and
then
you
could
add
to
it.
So
you
know
that,
actually
you
guys
get
it
so
we
actually
see
if
it
actually
works
and
that
demonstration
then
we
will
know
right
now,
we're
saying
we
think
you
know
we
have
these
funding
categories,
it's
more
inclusive.
That's
not
someone's
natural
perception.
D
The
the
sense
of
freedom
of
proposing
of
proposing
whatever
challenge
that
in
the
uc
is
valuable,
is
so
open
and
and
beautiful,
and
also
really
like
precarious,
which
is
the
actual
experience.
So
we
we,
if
we
can
demonstrate
we
can
say
hey
this
actually
did
happen
and
here's
this
then
there's
a
greater
capacity
for
both
onboarding
and
interest
and
additional
testing
from.
N
You
know
this.
This
is
the
key
thing
of
challenging
holistically.
It
sounds
fantastic
yeah.
This
is
what
I
want
to
happen.
Here's
the
budget
is
that
like.
That
is
what
I
want,
but
in
practice
that
having
that
choice
is
then
impacts
what
choices
are
available
for
who
could
submit
proposals.
So
it's
like
every
system
has
a
set
of
choices,
and
you
know
things
like
when,
when
facebook
introduced
timeline,
there's
uproar
that
they
change
the
system,
there's
always
going
to
be
someone
who's
like
you
know,
they're
used
to
something.
N
That's
like
that,
don't
change
it,
don't
change
it,
but
there's
reasons
that
you
know
to
change
things.
It's
like
that
choice
has
a
cost
and
that
cost
is
yeah,
excluding
like
key
areas
that
we've
had.
You
know:
development,
ecosystem
and
governance
and
different
areas
in
each
fund
that
have
been
completely
excluded.
N
N
It's
like
you
can
have
all
of
those
any
single
for
any
any
single
proposal,
any
kind
of
idea
anything
can
go
into
that
is
kind
of
like
the
whole
point.
So
all
of
these
ideas
could
come
through
that
and
then
expand
if
we
get
because
I'm
like
okay
now
we're
gonna
actually
replace
we're
gonna
change,
how
we
do
funding
characterization,
because
there's
been
some
tests
that
has
replaced
it,
but
the
thing
I
think
we
need
to
solve
really
quickly
is
to
find
a
way.
N
That's
kind
of
stable
gives
access
to
all
of
the
kind
of
right
areas
makes
it
competitive.
That's
a
super
important
thing.
You
know
any
type
of
competitive
explore,
explores
other
models
like
the
contribute
model.
How
can
we
actually
pass
those
ownership
and
authority
to
the
community
in
some
way
to
actually
de-burden
iog?
If
you
can
get
those
things
done
as
quickly
as
possible,
like
you're,
much
more
you're,
moving
much
more
in
line
in
the
tandem
just
chugging
along
there's
a
lot.
There's
everything
going
on.
N
There's
more
tests,
there's
more
this
there's
more
of
that
that
that
is
kind
of
at
the
moment
completely
my
priorities,
it's
just
those
basic
things
like
I
don't
really
mind
too
much
how
people
work
we
you
know
work
with
each
other,
that's
not
a
decision
I
need
to.
I
need
to
solve.
I
don't
really
mind
what
treasuries
and
things
people
test
on.
That's,
not
a
problem.
I
need
to
solve
it's
just.
N
E
So
so
iog's
got
two
problems:
one.
They
wear
all
the
risk
of
this
platform.
So
if
they,
if
it
fails,
we
can
all
just
wander
off
right,
but
iog
is
going
like
it's
their
baby
if
it
if
it
has
a
major
issue
because
of
something
that
they
did
it's
on
them
right,
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
it's
taking
so
long,
I
think
to
actually
work
through
and
pass
things
to
the
community.
The
second
thing
is
is
when
changes
that
we
want
to
see
get
offered
like
this
categorization
thing.
E
Well,
first,
there's
unforeseen
consequences
of
doing
this,
and
second,
who
makes
the
decision
at
the
moment.
We
don't
have
any
structures
in
place
to
to
vote
on
that.
This
is
a
thing,
so
it's
either
iog
goes
ahead
and
implements
it
or
we
run
some
minor
sort
of,
and
this
hasn't
even
happened,
except
for
maybe
for
the
cc
circle
stuff
that
we
run
some
sort
of
low
turnout
vote.
That
gets
a
very,
very
small
percentage.
E
N
N
It's
it's
an
unfortunate
current
situation,
but
it
at
least
it
then
moves
us
towards
the
next
kind
of
step
of
just
like
having
a
way
to
pass
some
kind
of
thumb.
Well,
the
funding
categories,
don't,
but
things
like
the
contributor
model.
Does
that
that's
one
of
that?
That's
actually
kind
of
what
got
me
into
the
funding
categories.
N
Things
like
how
can
we
have
a
recurring
repeatable
way
to
start
to
pass
over
and
de-burden
iog
in
some
capacity
like
responsibility
like
you,
do
the
documentation
you
do
this
we
go
to
use
for
that
like
they
need
to
have
a
way
to
do
that
as
soon
as
possible,
because
then
they're
not
going
to
expand
to
be
able
to
cater
for
all
of
the
growing
and
catalyst
things
that
is
actually.
You
know
that
was
the
that
was
the
catalyst
itself
for
funding.
Characters
like
it
has
to
be
recurring.
N
It
can't
just
be
on,
and
off
on
and
off
on
and
off
it
has
to
be
continuous.
It
has
to
be
like
we
have
to
have
some
sort
of
base
of
people
who
are
working
to
support
this
ever
growing
and
changing
and
expanding
ecosystem,
and
they
can
work,
however,
they
want
to,
but
this
needs
to
be
a
system
that
you
know
you
can't
expect
it
to
work
for
free
and
all
that
kind
of
thing
that
doesn't
work.
N
That's
those
are
the
those
are
the
flaws
we
learned
from
catalyst
and
stuff
that
needs
to
be
recurring
needs
to
be
paid.
You
need
to
have
a
diversity
of
skill
sets.
You
need
the
developers,
you
need
the
coordination.
You
need
that
once
you
have
those
mixture
of
skills
when
you
have
a
sturdy
base
in
which
to
start
de-burning
and
doing
all
these
tests,
these
working.
G
Tests-
all
of
that
I
would
like
to
reiterate
what
kyle
mentioned
the
moment.
You
make
it
decentralized.
That's
it!
That's
it!
Nothing!
Nothing
else,
matters
after
that,
because
if
you,
if
you
set
up
the
wrong
system
and
put
wrong
people
in
there,
then
it
goes
it
goes
sideways.
So
I
think
that's
what
is
making
it
really
scary
for
for
iog
or
for
anyone
who
kind
of
has
some
kind
of
control,
and
what
is
great
about
catalyst
at
this
moment
is
that
everything
can
be
tried
right.
G
N
Just
wanted
to
reiterate:
hey
yeah,
that
that
still
applies
to
you
know
whatever
mod,
whether
it's
circle
counter
sponsors
whatever
model,
but
at
the
moment
iog
haven't
passed.
So
the
parameters
keys
this
out
the
other,
and
nor
will
they.
That
would
be
one
of
the
last
things
they
do.
It
will
always
be
a
build
up
phase.
It
will
be.
You
know
it
will
be
the
simplest
things
the
documentation
like.
N
Maybe
you
host
these
meetings,
you
do
these
things
that
you
give
them
and
they
learn
those
processes
in
what
is
a
continuous
recurring
compensated
way
to
do
that
you
build
that
up
and
as
that
becomes
more
mature,
that's
when
you
know
you
can
increase
the
risk
profile.
You
can
do
the
processes,
and
this
is
you're
all
all
of
these
failures.
You're
doing
experimentation,
you're
doing
you're,
not
you're,
not
you're,
not
just
trying
one
thing,
you're,
saying:
here's
the
options,
there's
a
way
to
do
those
things.
G
I'm
thinking
something
similar,
something
like
investor
little
part
of
the
budget
into
something
else
into
something
just
a
standard
catalyst
say,
let's
say
start
with
one
percent
right
or
two
person
and
let
it
mature
and
learn
from
its
mistakes
and
have
some
fail-safe
mechanism
which
will
tell
you
okay.
If
this
does
not
work,
we
cancel
it
and
we
will
start
over
something
like
that.
E
E
So
the
reason
why
we're
all
here
is
to
work
out
how
voltaire
will
work,
because
volta
is
going
to
be
the
governance
of
kadano,
whereas
we're
in
this
little
space
of
the
governance
of
the
treasury
right.
It's
an
interesting
space.
There's
money
there
available
to
do
things,
but
the
idea
that
we're
all
here
is
to
work
out
how
voltaire
will
operate
and
volta
is
probably
not
going
to
be
solved.
Just
like
I
said
we
shouldn't
be
trying
to
solve
catalyst.
E
Last
week,
we're
not
here
to
solve
the
problem,
we're
here
to
work
and
continually
iterate
and
develop
and
create
improvements,
but
once
we
solve
it,
it
ends.
So
we
don't
want
to
solve
it.
We
want
to
make
it
better
all
the
time
making
it
better.
So
I
think
that's
the
cool
thing
about
what
you
guys
are
working
on
on
gps
is
that
it
is
it's
it's
putting
out
there.
E
The
structures
based
on
existing
structures
that
are
already
used
and
implemented
well
and
looking
at
how
we
can
bring
them
into
this
space,
but
it
still
is
only
a
solution.
We're
not
trying
to
solve
the
thing,
so
it
might
become
a
very
popular
wing
of
the
catalyst-
and
you
know
I'm
here
to
support
that.
But
I'm
also
here
to
make
sure
that
someone
else
who
comes
up
with
a
different
framework
can
still
operate
that
and
they
might
come
10
20
100
years
down
the
track.
E
C
Yeah
that
already
came
true
last
week
that
it
has
to
be
inbuilt
into
the
system,
how
you
can
change
it
and
how
how
you
can
evolve
it.
I
think,
what's
going
to
tip
the
scales
in
our
favor,
and
when
I
say
our
I
mean
catalyst
community
is
that
we
need
to
show
iog
that
things
can
be
done
very
easily
from
their
side,
because,
right
now
they
are
so
burdened
with
nitty-gritty
details
and,
and
it
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense.
Always
so.
C
That's
why
I'm
in
love
with
the
funding
categories,
idea
from
george,
that
you
could
basically
have
these
recurring
broad
categories
where
basically
id
iog
just
tops
up
the
money
every
three
months
and
that's
it
and
then
lets
the
community
figure
out
how
that's
going
to
be
handed
out.
So
that
would
be
like
the
ideal
scenario.
C
O
D
That's
what
that's
even
more,
that's
even
more
disturbing.
Actually,
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
to
kyle's
early
question.
Devoting
the
voting
piece
is
something
participation
is
going
to
be
a
big
thing
in
the
beginning,
like
we'll
have
we
have
a
sandbox
for
people
to
come
play,
and
then
we
can
put
this
together.
D
We
need
a
variety
of
people
right
and
people
who
are
really
and
and
the
ability
to
convey
what
we're
what's
being
practiced
and
thought
about,
and
the
ability
to
refine
that.
So
we
don't
have
too
many
different
things
going
on
that
we
can't
really
learn
from
what's
happening,
but
the
actual,
the
actual
the
people,
the
people
is
the
most
the
most
important
part.
You
said
that
at
the
beginning,
tommy
that
we
need
to
think
about
that.
D
So
that's
an
area
where
building
building
a
community
within
this
little,
the
small
play
area
at
the
beginning
is
going
to
be,
is
going
to
be
a
piece
and
then
thinking
about
how
to
bring
people
to
it.
So
we
don't
have
a
just
a
collection
of
people
of
one
kind
like
people
who
are
only
interested
now
reach
an
impact
or
only
interested
in
systems.
Right
there
needs
to
be
distribution
of
of.
D
I
guess
interest
might
be
the
way
to
say
it,
but
enough
in
there
that
we
can
actually,
we
can
actually
see
it
work.
I
guess
there's
always
the
benefit
of
learning
from
something
that
doesn't
work,
but
that's
something
that
I
think
we
can
plan
for
ahead
of
time
and
really
consider
in
the
same
way
that
we're
considering
the
tooling
itself
and
the
processes
and
all
that.
N
All
right
so
to
continue
on
phil's
thing
is,
I
think,
I'll
reiterate
and
say
it's
still
in
funny.
Criticism
is
never
a
final
solution.
Things
I'm
suggesting,
although
I
think
it's
an
absolute
massive
improvement
of
challenge.
Sayings
absolutely
leaps
and
bounds.
Isn't
absolutely
not
something
I'm
suggesting
is
the
solution.
It
is
just
I'm
just
looking
at.
How
can
I
make
sure
that
you
know
there's
always
progress
going
on
in
each
of
the
areas?
How
can
we
start
learning
about
new
things?
N
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
budget
waiting
is
more
important
than
attaching
goals
and
objectives
to
funding
characteristics
and
being
able
to
actually
have
this
kind
of
conversations
about
how
that
works,
and
can
it
be
automated,
like
you
know,
this
is
the
thing
if
we
have
all
these
demands
like
demand
side,
which
is
the
goals
objectives
that
kind
of
thing,
and
you
have
all
the
data
about
supply
side,
how
they're
actually
getting
used
well,
there's
ways
that
we
can
actually
think
about
automating.
All
of
that
that
could
be
the
next
improvement.
N
The
thing
with
voting
and
the
things
that
we
put
in
place
for
that
is
that
every
single
minute
you
add
for
the
person
that
needs
to
vote
the
more
centralized
it
becomes
because
you're
increasing
the
effort
for
them
to
participate,
so
making
that
efficient,
where
it
can
be,
is
really
important,
and
it
is
a
system
design
thing
that
is
very
costly
to
you
know.
Just
like.
N
Oh
yeah,
you
know
it's
fine
if
they
spend
an
hour
doing
this
like
it
doesn't
matter,
you
know,
because
that
you
will
see
the
cost
of
that
very
quickly,
and
you
can
actually,
you
have
to
do
just
apply
some
simple
math
like
what's
their
you
know,
what's
that,
what's
their
worth
timeline,
and
I
think
you
multiply
that
out-
that's
how
expensive
it
is
to
get
to
10
million
users
to
participate
these
these.
There
is
obviously
the
experiment
side
and
there's
also
it's
like
you
know:
how
do
we
analyze
it?
N
Maybe
the
categorization
changes
twice
and
it
becomes
this
form.
That's
like
it's
very
hard
to
beat
it
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
There's
nothing
wrong
with
it
staying
stagnant.
It's
mainly
like.
Does
it
work?
Is
it
what
are
the
properties,
we're
analyzing
analyzing
against,
and
why
is
it
fantastic?
N
If
we
can't
say
that
of
any
certainty,
then
you
should
obviously
completely
be
constantly
testing
it
and
experimenting
and
what
we
know
what
what
haven't
we
tried?
Why?
Why
are
we
wrong
and,
I
think
that's
you
know
that's
the
same
with
any
kind
of
tech
companies
you're
always
trying
to
prove
yourself
wrong.
What
how
do
we
get?
You
know
that
99
to
100
101?
N
You've
been
talking
to
them
a
bit
about
it
yeah
I
mean
daniel's
here
and
he's
aware
just
just
spam
them
and
send
them
emails
and
hope
for
the
best,
as
well
as
push
it
to
the
community.
I
mean
I'm
doing
anything.
I
can
there's
no
process,
it's
just
you
know
I'm
going
to
continue
making
documentation
for
me,
it's
the
most
important
thing
right
now,
because
it
impacts
everything
else.
I'd
like
to
work
on,
so
I'm
going
to
continue.
I've
got
more
announcements.
I
can
do.
N
E
N
N
C
Yeah
earlier
I
mentioned
that
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
what
george
has
been
doing,
but
of
course
he's
not
a
prophet
and
he
is
wrong
in
some
some
parts
and-
and
he
just
doesn't
realize
it
yet,
although
I
keep
pointing
it
out
to
him
like
this
contributors
part,
I
don't
really
understand,
because
you
can
have
contributors
in
all
of
the
categories
and
the
same
way
the
nurturing
ideas
and
teams.
I
don't
understand,
because
you
can
have
the
misc
part
in
all
of
the
other
categories.
N
N
That
is
a
key
kind
of
part
of
it
because,
like
because,
at
the
moment,
iod
doesn't
have
a
recurring
way
to
do
that,
where
people
are
paid
that
it
hasn't
solved
that
problem
that
is
needed,
whereas
it
it
simplifies
the
process
a
lot,
because
if
I'm
just
like
a
dev
or
a
designer
that
at
the
moment,
the
way
that
I
have
to
participate
in
catalyst
is
I've
got
to
think
of
an
idea
for
joining
this.
Existing
team
and
catalyst
is
basically
to
be
one
of
those
teams.
N
I
just
want
to
work
in
catalyst,
and
I
know
I
haven't
proposed
it
yet.
But
I've
been
mentioned
to
a
few
people,
and
I
and
charles
actually
mentioned
this
in
a
an
am
chat
recently,
but
this
community
could
contribute
as
idea,
I
need
to
do
the
analysis
on
it,
but
you
know
I'm
a
designer
and
I
just
want
to
work
in
in
the
community.
I
was
really
paid
by
the
protocol,
but
I'm
going
to
help.
You
know
I'm
going
to
go
into
maladex
talk
to
mel
talk
to
these.
You
know.
N
Obviously,
they've
said
that
they
could
do
some
help
here,
I'm
going
to
go
and
help
them
and
I'm
paid
by
the
protocol.
No,
you
know
I
don't
have
to
join
the
team.
The
incentive,
then
there
is,
is
very
different.
I'm
just
paying
to
contribute
and
provide
value
like
I
don't
have
to
it's
less
competitive.
It
becomes
like
a
collaborative
blue,
so
I
think
the
contrary
model
is
really
really
important.
It's
a
different,
whereas
ideas
and
proposals
it's
much
more
competitive.
It's
like
my
idea,
like
I
need
to
get
my
if
I'm
funded.
N
This
is
my
project.
This
is
what
I'm
doing,
whereas
if
I'm
just
paid
my
skill
set,
it's
like
well,
you
know.
I
just
all
I
have
to
do
is
prove
that
I'm
valuable
and
provide
you
know
make
as
much
impact
as
I
can
and
for
a
community
country
that
could
be
many
thing.
It
could
mean
doing
a
bit
of
solo
research.
It
could
be
mixing
between
a
mixture
of
groups.
It
could
be
helping
moderate,
10
different
groups.
It's
like
that.
The
flexibility
is
really
important.
N
I
think
because
then
people
do
exactly
what
they
want
to
and
when
you
do
what
you
want
to
you're
going
to
provide
the
most
value
that
that
is
a
really
key
thing.
So
I
think
the
contributing
model,
I
think,
is
essential,
like
there's
lots
of
complexity
hidden
in
there,
for
instance,
how
the
community
votes
on
who
you
know
who's
going
to
be
countless
confusing.
That
kind
of
thing
is
is
hard
to
scale
to
a
global
audience.
It
has
to.
It
will
be
a
subset.
N
I
don't
know
how
to
solve
that
problem
at
the
moment,
but
you
know
that's,
that's!
That's!
That's
going
to
you
know
something
else
we
have
to.
We
have
to
you,
know,
learn
and
solve
all
the
time.
I
can't
solve
every
problem
for
sure,
but
there's
there's
very
good
reasons
why
contributor
model
is:
has
some
simplicities
and
beauties
to
it
in
how
it
can
incentivize
that
collaboration
the
glue?
Then
you
know
the
maneuverability
very
different
than
me
joining
facebook.
C
Maybe
they
are
trainers?
Maybe
they
are
consultants.
Maybe
they
are
developers?
What
not,
but
maybe
they
should
also
focus
and
not
just
do
everything,
and
maybe
they
have
their
special
talent.
So
maybe
they
can
say
that
okay,
I
am
going
to
work
for
the
next
one
year
in
the
area
of
people
and
culture
or
collaboration
and
engagement
or
leadership
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
that
point
and
then
the
same
way.
Someone
can
say
I
want
to
work
on
structure
and
processes.
I
want
to
work
on
the
blockchain
part
of
it.
C
K
I
mean
honestly,
I
think
we
need
to
separate
the
front
office
from
the
back
office.
I
don't
think
ca's
people
reviewing
proposals
should
be
submitting
proposals,
so
I
think
we
need
to
clean
that
up.
First,
there's
processes.
We
need
in
place
mark
stock
he's
hard
guy
to
get
to
know,
but
once
you
get
to
get
past,
his
is
a
brief.
It's
a
really
brilliant
guy
he's
got
a
lot
of
ideas
on
processes,
and
so
I
think
that's
the
first
thing
that
needs
to
be
put
in
place
or
processes.
K
I
think,
honestly,
this
idea
of
paying
individuals
to
come
and
work
for
the
protocol
is
it's
amazing,
because
I
mean
it's
really
what
I
what
I
what
I
essentially
tried
to
do
within
the
framework
we
had
find
talent,
keep
them
employed
long
enough
to
where
they
could
find.
You
know
commercial
viability
and
sustainability,
and-
and-
and
that's
that's
very
important-
you
know
people
coming
to
the
ecosystem.
The
talent
coming
from
the
outside
needs
time
to
to
to
finding
their
footing.
K
I
guess
you
know
that's
it's
it's
hard
to
do,
and
so
I
don't
think
it
should
be
catalyst
specific
in
that
regard.
So
I
think
people
can
come
and
work
on
whatever
you
know.
That's
that's
not
catalyst
community
specific,
but
I
do
believe
that
there
are
people
who
need
to
be
supported
by
the
treasury
who
work
here
full-time
in
that
regard,
but
we've
got
to
figure
out
how
those
individuals
are
compensated
and,
like
I
said,
I
believe
we
need
to
separate
the
front
front
office
from
the
back
office
in
that
regard.
K
N
It's
kind
of
like
the
same
thing:
it's
not
it's
just
a
doubt,
relations,
whether
it's
a
catalytic
is
the
biggest
star
you
can
get.
Then
whether
it's
drip
drops
it's
kind
of
its
own.
You
know
what
it
can
become
a
dow
and
then
how
are
you
going
to
fund
yourself?
Ideally
if
it's
a
protocol
and
what
you've
made
is
generating
revenue,
because
you're
paying
yourself
from
that
and
what
you've
mechanisms
you've
created
is
those
decisions
of
how
it
gets
disappeared,
same
kind
of
concept,
with
catalysts
and
developments.
N
K
The
program
we
have
to
get
we
have
to
get
there,
the
back
office
or
whatever
is
driving
and
managing
the
government.
Governance
of
cardano
should
be
paid.
You
guys
should
be
compensated.
You
shouldn't
have
to
worry
about
where
the
hell
you're
going
to
get
your
money
from.
So
that's
what
I
mean
by
separating
the
front
office
in
the
back
office.
You
know,
like
the
operational
side
of
this
shouldn't,
be
having
to
submit
proposals
to
maintain
the
operational
side
of
it.
We
should
you
know
if
we're
sick,
we're
doing
20
towards
the
governance
side
of
it.
D
K
Figure
out
how
that
is
and
because
then
you
get
you
just
get
weird
interests
that
are
crossing
now
now.
Even
this
you
know,
even
the
categories
that
are
putting
up
are
probably
influenced
by
special
interests
or
whatnot.
You
know,
I'm
just
I'm
just
totally
presuming
from
a
game
theory
perspective,
not
an
accusatory
perspective
right
just
about
how
it's
architected,
you
know,
even
even
how
the
incentives
are
done.
I
mean
ca.
It's
there's
game
theory,
sprinkled
into
the
the
proposal.
K
Incentives
like
that
that
that
that
shouldn't
shouldn't
have
to
exist
if
the
back
office
was
structured
appropriately
right.
So
there's
there's,
I
think,
there's
some
applications.
We
should
apply
towards
running
the
business
group,
but
for
now,
like
the
spirit
of
experimenting,
we
don't
want
to
screw
that
up
either.
So
maybe
this
this
more
professional
entity
needs
to
emerge
from
this,
while
still
allowing
for
that,
because
the
exp
messing
up
now
is
the
best
thing
we
can
do
screwing
up
now.
Learning
now
is
the
best
thing
we
can
do.
K
K
N
Like
both
both
catholics
and
cardano
need
people
who
are
working
for
the
protocol,
they're
very,
very
highly
skilled,
so
like
those
roles
could
be
very
well
paid.
I
I
know
the
moment
why
I've
kind
of
added
it
as
the
guidance
in
the
budget
ranges
at
the
moment
are
based
on
this.
You
know
a
bit
of
research
that
makes
sense
for
now,
but
it
is
nowhere
near
what
it
could
be.
You
know
it
could
quite
easily
be
kind
of
facebook.
N
You
know
top
level
kind
of
salaries
if
you're
you've
got
a
couple
of
people
that
are
like
working
on
some
of
the
most
important
things
within
carlos
okadano.
Well,
you
know
it's
like
you
want
to
have
the
brightest
mindset
like
it's
it's
a
case
of
who
has
the
best
talent
is
going
to
make
the
best
stuff
well.
K
It's
hard
because
even
the
most
money
you
know
like
the
guy,
you
know
and
take
andrew
westbrook,
for
example,
andrew
brilliant,
brilliant
dude.
You
know
he
left
a
really
high
paying
job
for
walmart
labs
to
come
and
build
full
time.
So
even
money
isn't
interesting
to
him
in
that
regard.
The
thrill
is
building
and
being
on
the
edge
and
doing
new
things,
and
things
like
that
so
but
you're
right
to
attract
that.
So
this
is
so.
I
think
the.
K
Edge
building
are
going
to
be
really
hard
to
pull
into
the
governance
side,
just
just
for
that,
just
because
there's
so
much
on
the
edge,
that's
just
too
fun,
but
there's
a
lot
of
talent
that
is
coming
to
cardona
like
we
got.
We
picked
up
a
couple
spacex
engineers
on
the
doji
team
now
and
they
came
in
nick
and
you
know
had
no
clue
what
he
was
doing.
K
He
was
making
trying
to
make
nft
chicken
wings
and
it
was
crazy,
but
they
show
up
and
they
see
the
mission
and
the
vision
and
that
that
you
know
there
needs
to
you
know
we
want
to
have
a
place
for
everybody
who
wants
to
participate
and
I
think
that's
that's.
The
challenge
is
right.
Now
the
entry
point
to
catalyst
is
bsca
and
that's
it
and
it's
it
and
it's
it's
it.
That's
what
it
is.
It's
with
the
work
we
have
available
today,
but
it's
it's
also
an
interesting,
funnel
point.
N
It
is
a
key
kind
of
difference
that
we
have
with
the
web.
2
side
of
web
3
side
is
there's
more
choice
in
not
just
the
skill
sets
you
want
to
apply,
but
it's
also
do
you
want
to?
How
deep
do
you
want
to?
People?
Are
the
governance
and
responsibility
and
accountability?
So,
let's
say
yeah
catalyst
contributors?
Is
you
really
need
to
be
looking
after
the
catalyst
system
and
processes,
so
those
that
kind
of
cohort
is
given
a
lot
of
responsibility
and
kind
of
accountability
to
do
things
properly?
N
And
it's
like
no,
that's
not
for
everyone,
because
you
know
you're
instead
of
ig
getting
the
now
you're
gonna
get
the
and
that's
that's
the
reason
why
it
needs
to
be
paid
well,
because
you
know
you're
going
to
start
dealing
with
the
and
there's
some
people
who
just
would.
Rather,
they
love
working
catalyst,
but
they
just
want
to
be
a
full-time
contributor,
but
they
don't
want
to
necessarily
have
to
do
of
the
the
government
side
like
you
know
the
politics,
because
they
will
be
politics,
I
mean
you
can
already
see
it.
N
It's
unavoidable,
so
it's
like
it's
like
who
wants
to
get
you
know.
There's
different
people
are
interested
in
different
things.
People
have
got
different
tolerances
for
different
things.
That's
the
key
thing
that
we
need
to
provide
for.
It's
like
make
it
easy,
so
people
can
work
full-time
just
as
a
deaf,
but
I
just
you
know.
I
just
want
to
make
this
thing
and
that's
it.
I
know
I
just
like
this
tech.
K
Yeah
even
another
suggestion
just
to
say
you
know,
I
don't
get
the
opportunity
to
come
to
town
halls
a
lot
but
even
sitting
through
it.
There
was
a
good
45
minutes,
I've
seen
before,
and
so
maybe
maybe
maybe
maybe
we
do
a
parallel
like
catalyst.
Boot
can't
zoom
like
once
a
month
or
something
for
all
the
newbies.
K
Some
people
can
come
up
to
speed
and
I
don't
know
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
heard
these
suggestions
before,
but
it
was
just
a
very.
It
was
that
I
really
liked
seeing
the
projects
present
that
was
cool,
seeing
what
everybody
was
doing.
Real,
quick,
it's
good
to
update
their
clothes
out.
That
was
that
was
good,
but
the
rest
of
it
was.
It
was
almost
kind
of
like
okay,
maybe
there's
new
sprinkle
stuff
in
there,
but
I
think
that
there's
it
was
almost
like.
N
E
M
K
We
we
could
argue
this
all
day,
anecdotally.
I
think
this
is
a
fight
that
we
need
to
have
with
data
just
raw
data
at
the
right
time.
Okay,
you
know
like
this,
you
know
this.
Is
I
get
it?
We
can
debate
this
all
day.
I
I
think
that
it
needs
to
be
separate.
I
don't
disagree
with
you.
It
is
early.
I
think
everybody
who
shows
up
should
find
a
way
to
to
keep
being
able
to
give
to
the
mission
and
there's
different
ways
to
do
that.
K
N
N
Debate
all
right
it
it.
You
have
full
optionality
if,
like,
for
instance,
if
you
became
a
contributor
in
any
capacity
catalyst,
cardano
community,
it's
just
a
general
one.
If
you,
if
you
after
three
months,
say
actually,
I
found
a
team
that
I
really
want
to
work
for
full-time
or
I
want
to
do
this
proposal.
You
should
just
be
able
to
cancel
and
say,
yeah,
stop
stop.
I
don't
want
to
contribute
more
now,
I'm
being
paid
for
this.
You
you
you
being
able
to
move
around.
N
I
think
it's
really
important,
maybe
there's
different
if
you're
becoming
a
cat,
this
country-
maybe
there's
a
different.
You
know
like
you,
if
you,
if
you're
saying
I'm
taking
on
responsibility,
maybe
it's
a
different
like
offloading
clause,
so
it's
kind
of
like
you
know
you
do
want
at
least
replace
you
or
something
like
that.
If
you've
got
responsibilities,
but
in
most
instances
you
just
want
to
offer
flexibility.
It's
like
you
know.
N
Something
is
a
super
nice
way
to
do
that,
and
then
let's
say
they
were
the
designers
that
walked
around
and
helped
people
you've
then
just
met
loads
of
people,
and
then
you
get
closer
to
knowing
exactly
what
you
want
to
do
and
that's
just
very
attractive,
because
you've
just
had
the
capacity
to
be
full
time
just
to
spend
the
time
because
it
takes
time
to
meet
everyone.
Like
you
know,
I
I
still
you
know:
I've
not
talked.
I've
only
talked
to
kyle
on
telegram.
N
K
K
That's
really
it
really
is.
I
mean
that's
how
we
had
a
different
form
when
I
first
showed
up
it
was
it
was
a
state
pool
telegram
channel
right,
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
the
nodes
up
for
test
net
and
all
that
stuff.
But
it
was
those
collaborative
environments
where
you
meet
people
that
you
can
trust
in
the
bear.
Markets,
honestly,
is
where
you
you
get.
K
You
know
just
kind
of
like
doing
what
you
guys
are
doing
now,
you're
engaging
when
you're
talking
and
you
have
video
conversations
over
time
and
that
and
then
the
team
was
formed,
but
it
was
the
right
talent
where
we
didn't
need
the
funding.
We
put
it
together
in
about
six
weeks
and
it
wasn't
there.
It
was,
and
it
was
just
boom
time,
market
product
fit
and
execution,
and-
and
that's
what
I
mean
by
like
you
know
as
far
as
bear
market
meeting
team
members
who
can
build-
and
you
know
like
funding-
is
it's
important.
K
But
honestly,
I
don't
think
we
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
do
it
without
the
stake
forever,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
the
guys
on
the
team
were
guys
who
had
showed
up
and
got
some
state
pool
revenue
and
it
gave
them
the
ability
to
be
able
to
work
for
a
few
months
without
having
you
know
to
worry
about
the
income,
and
so
that's
the
hardest
part.
You
know
maybe
like
even
two.
K
You
know
I
thought
about
like
there's,
some
junior
guys
that
are
showing
up
that
are
really
smart
and
by
junior
I
just
mean
junior
to
cardano
they're
they're
by
no
means
junior
to
their
technical
capabilities
whatsoever,
very
advanced
senior
guys.
Maybe
we
can
create
incentive
programs
that
pay
them
like
a
5k
or
whatever,
depending
on
geographical
appropriateness
right
skype
in
the
month,
but
part
of
their
requirement
is
to
pair
them
up
with
a
veteran
ca
and
help
them
review
and
assess
stuff
from
a
technical
perspective.
So
we
can
actually
get
some
good.
K
You
know
assessments
coming
into
place
as
far
as
just
a
better
structure,
but
only
in
a
micro
category,
maybe
just
for
gaps
and
integration,
or
something
like
that.
It
makes
sense,
but
the
whole
idea
doesn't
matter
how
we
do
it.
The
idea
is,
you
could
put
people
to
work
for
the
community
and
require
that,
in
exchange
to
give
them
an
opportunity
to
find
commercial
viability
in
the
community.
E
The
d-rep
might
sort
of
be
able
to
help
with
some
of
that.
I
think
if,
if
some
d-reps
who
come
and
hold
themselves
to
be
experts
and
can
prove
that
in
the
space,
I
think
they
can
create
that
voter
block
that
can
help
so
it
it
needs
work,
obviously,
but
I
think
it
can
iterate
that
way
or
partly
in
that
way,
yeah
so
yeah
I
mean
there
was
some
early
work
back
in
the
early
funds
about
having
expert
ballots,
that
this
was
the
concept
of
people
sharing
their
voting
methodologies
based
on
their
expertise.
C
Okay,
guys,
I
think
it's
time
to
wrap
up
and
finish
the
recording
and
then
whoever
wants
to
stay
can
stay.
I
I
actually
want
to
go
and
check
the
other
room
also
because
there's
a
bunch
of
people
there,
I
don't
know.
Why
must
be
interesting,
so
nadia
and
andre
do
you
have
any
last
words
and
next
steps.