Add a meeting Rate this page

A

Sorry, just uh we we record these. If you, if you're new to the after town halls, we record them for people who can't participate in them and also to just log what decisions we make and be able to look back at our progress so um great.

A

So we have a really big room today and it's fantastic it's what we, um what we hope and that this group is growing, and it makes a lot of sense since it's assessment time, but um really what the goal is of coming together here is that we work collectively to sense our own challenges and then to make improvements to those and then also it's very positive for us to be able to collaborate with other stakeholder groups.

A

So that is the announcement that I made today, which is that mercy- and I will hold this joint group next time because we're a really important part of the process as the assessors the proposals come in proposers submit the proposals. We provide this feedback and really our responsibilities to the voters. So as we complete this process, we really have to keep that in mind and a lot of the a lot of.

A

What's here now that you're experiencing has been built and added to by cas of the past and vcas of the past, who are they're still vcas and ceas, but it happened in the past. So um hopefully we hope that as you come in and you have enjoyed that you'll that you'll start to join and get involved in creating uh an even more efficient and welcoming and understandable and um accessible process.

A

So um some of this for you, those of you who are new. I remember when I first started coming into after town halls. I was like you know, holding onto my seat, trying to understand what was going on. So if you have that feeling today a little bit when we get into some of the different discussions about the bca process, it's totally fine because you it'll just through osmosis you'll, start to make sense. You'll start to have the experience of it. So don't worry if you don't maybe grasp any everything in this meeting.

A

But what we want to do is continue continue our improvements that we've been talking about over the past funds and also give some space for us to be able to reflect on how this time has gone and what things we could do to make it better for for future groups.

A

um So that's just a little bit of a preface- and it's really tough for me- to talk and monitor the chat at the same time. So I'm hoping that you know, I know everyone who's in here. If you can just like give feedback where it's easy and if someone's question doesn't get answered, please shout it out, because um I have not mastered splitting my consciousness yet on multiple things. If anyone knows how to do that, I appreciate it.

A

So maybe what so, two things that we need to at least give attention to today are well three things really number one is we want to just make some space for talking about things that we've noticed if, if something that you have noticed has been talked about in a channel, that you're, in the odds, are very good that I have logged it because I've been monitoring and logging, those chats, so that we have a collection of these issues, large and small, something as annoying as you click the next button in idea scale, and it doesn't submit your assessment, you lose a draft all the way up to how should we address things like being um thoughtful about assessing individually proposals where there's a lot of different ones or there's similar ones right.

A

So these these are things that are that we're logging. So we have a little bit of space to bring those up here, but I might also out of interest of the time say this is logged and we're going to talk about that further in a future session, and then we're going to talk about just maybe putting the button on the vca guide. The vca guide exists, like all of you, have experienced the community advisor guide.

A

So that's the second thing that we'll address, and then thirdly is we are in a continuing discussion about maybe adding a little bit of a more formalized process for reviewing these flagged and filtered assessments over time, so that we can have fairness and transparency in that process. That's probably the most governance complex conversation that we're going to have today. So um I put all these things on the table to say: maybe what we'll do is spend, maybe the first 10 or 15 minutes just making some space for anything that you feel you want.

A

That needs to be brought up, maybe an open discussion for things that are really important to make sure we have added and then we'll move into some of those other. um Some of those other topics and I'll bring up the agenda here so that we can sort of keep focus on if that works.

A

Okay, does that make sense any questions on that?

A

Okay, thank you. Merrick notes. That idea scale has not fixed a lot of these issues yet so.

A

For next time,.

B

uh Yeah I.

A

I have.

B

A call with them next week, so it won't be fixed by the uh friday. So sorry.

C

Yeah phil.

A

Might never, hopefully we get some of these things addressed the things that we can't change. We try to make a heads up for for the future and the things that we can change. We try to change. So some of those things idea scale is a third party solution. So for any of you who have idea scale issues, we don't have a lot of control over it and making even small changes to it can be complicated, um so that would open a whole discussion about idea scale as a tool.

A

Let's not do that today because it's a much larger discussion, but these small things are not easy to just you know, switch and we don't have control over them so um to marek's point not you're not going to see a lot of these fixes happen immediately for this, certainly not for this one.

A

Okay. So I'm just going to I'm just going to open the floor here and we'll see what happens.

A

Okay, maybe do you want to do you want to bring that up since you're, putting in the chat- oh yeah, uh let's start with william here and then naveed? If you want to talk about that, put your hand up and we'll get you next by.

D

All means if they, whoever wanted to speak, I can wait. That's fine. I'll put my hand.

E

Down.

D

Go ahead.

A

Go ahead.

F

um So um on multiple channels, people would have seen lots and lots of it might be quite boring conversations, but anyway, um about um this particular text. I put in the chat on on um proposals and how they should be how they should be assessed. So it says each proposal should be considered as an individual as an individual piece of work.

F

Comparing one proposal over another is not best practice, so what we have seen in several instances is similar proposals.

F

Therefore, the cas have been asking: what do we do? What.

G

We can do.

F

All we can do is write similar assessments, so we're potentially going to see assessments um that are 80 90, 90 plus similar.

F

So I just wanted to get the vietnamese different views from different people on various chats about how you should how you should how you should respond and whether the ca guide is is a rule or just a guideline and how this might how this might affect their rewards and what vcas might think, where the similarity analysis tool will filter them out and lots of people getting very excited.

H

About.

F

It.

A

So this is sorry phil, just as etiquette for because there's so many of us, if you have something to say, just throw your hand up, do your raised hand thing: try not to physically throw your hand up, but in the bottom, if you're, newer to zoom, you have the reactions button and you just put your hand up and that's how we'll monitor.

I

um I think the intention of that uh phrase is the idea that different people- you might have one problem- that's presented, um but different people will and different projects and different uh teams will approach the solution to that in a different way.

I

Given that we're operating in a you know open and permissionless system, uh two two projects like uh adata that we got presented today and ada handle, can approach the same concept with the two different solutions and the ecosystem over time will continue to grow to cater to those solutions.

I

So the idea behind that the way that's worded, I believe, is that you can present a solution to a problem and your team and your budget and your way of executing will be different to the next one. So, when we're assessing these as cas the fact that there's two projects both addressing the same issue, it's not a judgment of which project we prefer better. It's it's a it's a assessment against the guidelines.

I

So that's what we're doing as cas at this point, you as a voter, can have your own opinion choose which project you like support both support, neither, but that's not what we're doing. As cas.

A

William.

D

Thank you, so I put together a quick list that I wrote just before the meeting that we had. So if you don't mind, I'm just going to share my screen and we'll take a look. Does that sound good to everyone.

A

I'm not sure or.

D

Should I just I'll just read it off, I can I can read it off, you can read.

A

It up, you know what I don't know if you share your screen because- and I can't make you a host from within here so if you could read it.

D

Sure no problem, so just a few things that I've noticed off the bat. This is my first round in being a ca. um The issues that stand out have to do with there being a ton of complexity, a lot of reading having to be done without giving any examples.

D

I'm saying I'm not going to give any examples or point any fingers or anything like that. It's not necessary more, it's more! So it's about the transparency that comes with a minute and a half to two minutes: presentation of an individual that shows how they're going to give deliverables and what they're about what their experiences, perhaps what their accolades are and their achievements. These things show me the green light you know.

D

So if you want to know how to distinguish between the proposals, it's really important to look at how transparent someone's being are they trying to hide themselves behind a lot of resume?

D

You know I'm not saying that's the motive, but it could be if the motive is money and it's often an indicator we're at this point right now, I'm saying I see cardano as a seed and we need to provide all of the nutrients to this seed so that it reaches that tree of life that we saw at the summit in september of last year. It's that really important element, so I'll just go through a few things that I had written down. You know it's the idea that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

D

We all know this. However, all the all the wheels need to get oil to begin with it's. This idea that proactivity is much better than being reactive and if I'm going too long, just stop me in my tracks, because I have a few things but I'll try to deliver this quickly. My profession is I'm a writer, so I'm looking all the time at how can I reduce the complexity of what I'm saying to a level of a third or fourth grade reader, so that it's totally clear?

D

It's totally understandable and I know exactly what this group or individual is setting out to do and accomplish, and that can be done no matter how technical your proposal is. So as I'm responding right now, I'm saying: listen break this down in a video, so I can see your face, so I can see what's going on so I know exactly what you're into right now and what I can expect to see at the end and if someone gives any resistance to that whatsoever, it's an immediate red flag.

D

So I'm looking for that right now to see how people are responding to the way that I'm giving feedback, which is to say just be transparent, give me a video. It takes five minutes. If you got a cell phone or put some audio out there. Let me see your face. Let me see the team and let me see, what's going on with current production, if anyone's coming forward, trying to say hey, listen, I need this cash, so I can buy some equipment red flag right away.

D

Everything should be available right now to produce that, which is that which you're looking to to present at the end with deliverables. So a couple things we're visual learners, so it's important to have a video. I always look for the videos and whenever I see them, it's usually where I start to give the higher ratings, because I know right away, these people have no problem being transparent, and that is actually more important to me than if they've been funded since fund 3. Honestly, it's more important.

D

You want to provide quality products and services, because this will be reflected in the compensation. You're asking for compensation is directly related to service. It doesn't matter how you look at it. What field you're coming from, if you're looking to earn a certain amount of money? That's not the way to be looking at. It should be looking at how you're going to serve cardano the seed that we're trying to build moving forward.

A

Do you feel that these are statements for towards a proposer, because this group is is so it sounds to me I'm hearing, you say we need understanding and visuals and a different level of quality from the proposers.

A

I'm wondering if we shouldn't involve you more in the process of thinking, but which is something that's going to happen after this one too, in the process of thinking of how proposers can be more successful in especially considering your experience rather than in how we are assessing them following because there is the assessment criteria, so help me understand that, so that we can make sure that it is um that it is things that this group can address.

D

Sure, I guess what I'm trying to accomplish and what I'm saying and thank you for your question. I I need to be just more brief with it, I think, is how can we discover transparency versus something? That's a cult right, motivations, there's, one of there's, only two motivations that are going to come in with proposals, motivation for money or motivation for innovation.

D

That's it that's what I'm looking for, if someone's coming in motivated for money, which will happen, I can say I was one with fund four I'll, be totally transparent. I was thinking okay. How can I make a good living with this for the rest of my life or whatever? It is? It's not the right way to look at this, because this is not the season for harvest it's, obviously not.

D

So what I'm trying to communicate right now is how can things be noticed, you know, and if I would rather err on the way of caution than to just give a green light to everyone for the sake of love and abundance and growth, because not everyone's that way, and that just comes from the school of hard knocks. You know uh learning your.

A

Your concern is: how do we make how it's it's really uh beyond a feasibility and impact? It's an intent um thing that you're raising here yeah. I think that's great.

D

Go ahead, I'm sorry to interrupt you nadia! Please.

A

I.

D

Think.

A

That that's something that that definitely this group shares and is is focused on, certainly, and so um do you do. You have specific things that you'd like to raise as far as ways that you think that we could accomplish that, and we also could take that. We also could take that into further discussions, because it really is a process discussion and a preparation discussion at the at the proposals, level. That also will then filter into the how we look at that content once it's created in the proposal.

D

Sure I think we could do this same type of meeting and and vet individual cases so do case studies and to show what has happened over the course of someone getting funding and what has happened with the deliverables or not. So, look at the failures really more than anything else, because from the failures we can start to develop strategies how to to convert those into successes. I want to see success around the board 100, and so that's really where my my focus is.

D

I think we can do that on a case-by-case basis, run a few pilots and see what the result is. So we can all come together and say what is the feedback that we need to give this proposer and really, at the end of the day, it's going to come down to motivating the person to produce a video?

D

I really think that's because that becomes a form of vetting through the interview process and if we need more, we push the person until they either break or they succeed, because we should be reinforcing individuals that propose based on meritocracy not based on nepotism and not based on track record. It's what they can do and and what they're doing now, that's the most important thing. If we can reinforce a meritocracy, we will succeed. That's how I see it. Thank you for listening. I can go on, but I think that's, basically the gist.

A

You're very.

D

Welcome.

A

And I- and I can anticipate that you will be enlisted for future conversations on this, certainly and that it will be really enriching for you as well, because it is, it sits in your heart, so um I'm gonna, I'm gonna, keep keep just uh allowing the rest of the hands here and then please chime in as you as you feel good, and I've noted some of these and we'll make sure we have you involved in the in the continuing conversations about it is.

D

That good, thank you for listening to me and giving me a voice today. I'm grateful to you. Thank you.

A

I also just want to make space I'm going to move on to the next hands here, but naveed. Do you feel like that that we addressed your question? Was there any other comments on what naveed originally brought up there.

A

I'm going to keep going, but if that happens, we can also come back to it. um J-O-A-N and a-doj.

J

uh Yeah, hello, um I'm a proposer, so I'm gonna try to keep this quick and on topic, but uh in the miscellaneous challenge. I had this proposal where I just use emojis and I just did like one dollar and it was kind of supposed to be a ticket for a video also on the proposal, but it got moved to the archive stage instead of assess, which is understandable because it probably looked like spam, but it was an experiment and I would like to keep going with it in the assess stage.

J

But I don't know if that's possible to move it back.

J

I think we we chatted about.

I

This in discord uh a little bit.

J

Yeah but I would like to get a little discussion: okay,.

I

Go ahead, can they merrick's got something on this yeah.

B

Yeah so from from uh idea scale admin, let's say a dsk admin perspective.

B

This proposal was not finished and as a proposal we had three weeks to make it uh make the final proposal out of the the draft- and you know we have this uh prerequisites to allow proposal to get to the assessed stage and then to get to the ballot.

B

uh One of them is requesting more than one dollar uh for funds so automatically. If proposal requests zero or one dollar, it will be put in the archive stage the same for the for the answers. If there will be like uh one word, answers for for uh for questions, auditability feasibility will archive this as well, because it it is not finished proposal. It is not final project, it is a test and we are removing. We are archiving all tests, all placeholders.

B

All I don't know even.

J

I mean there's a there's a whole video, though that's it's a ticket for. Do you see what I'm saying like you're, not gonna, get the video, then I mean that's. I guess that's what it is. You never told me a dollar is not allowed as well. What's the difference between a dollar and two dollars.

B

Makes no sense.

J

Because.

B

No one is basically asking for two dollars: people are putting zero or one uh if they are preparing their uh their projects to to make it a proper value. At the end of finalized stage,.

I

I think with john's example: he he used a bunch of he's kind of testing out the the process right and he's used, icons to say words, instead of actually highlighting words, so there's there's an element of his proposal.

I

That is very interesting uh and it brings up a bunch of issues uh that are beyond just the administration side of this. So I mean.

J

It's in the miscellaneous as well: yeah yeah there.

I

We go and, like I described to you john it it kind of is in line with when, when we were working on the miscellaneous uh challenge, there was a I proposed, a random and wacky they got merged with with with miscellaneous so okay, it it kind of fits within that kind of off the wall.

I

We're thinking what can we do with kadano that that's not in line, but just appreciate that there's a whole system that, by putting that proposal through there's a lot of manpower that would have gone into reviewing it, assessing it voting on it and it's been filtered out because of that system. That would have let, through a whole bunch of proposals. That may not have been a test like in your case, so it, um but um if anything.

A

Here, can we let uh danny's got his hand up danny? You want to comment on this since you're. Looking at it.

K

Yeah just real quickly. I think it speaks to two things and one which we already started to having the conversations on, because I think this is a great opportunity to follow up on what we chatted earlier as well, that we've given a lot of love as a reason to revamping the community advisor guidelines. Now we're focusing a bit about on the vca guidelines.

K

But I think there's a great opportunity to also now jointly looking forward in the next couple of weeks or so to revamp the proposer guidelines as well, so that it's a bit more clear, because I think john is not alone.

K

In that case, I think there were a number of cases in a similar like scenario where you know, they've had different expectations than what essentially transcribed, and I think that that is an important point that we need to address collectively and I think, revamping the proposer's guidelines, which actually have not been really touched for quite a while now, because we've been so focused on the ss and qa and all of that. But I think now comes the time that that allows us to actually start looking into that part of it as well.

K

um So that, like uh cases like you know when john comes along, he has a really good understanding of like whether he should or not spend the time on it, um but like just one one quick, I think just in this specific example, it will be also very difficult to acknowledge what it is. So I open the link. I see the emojis. I see that there is some experiment going on, but even the video which is attached just for your reference, john, is private.

K

So that's on purpose.

J

That that's the point. It's a ticket.

K

Okay,.

J

It's like the yeah, I mean yeah and.

F

Whatever I see why I understand.

J

But hold on, um I don't really care about all the ca, manpower and all that stuff. I'm just want to get to the vote like you guys, could all give it zeros and as long as I get to the vote, I think that's fair. I don't see why I should be archived or archived without any.

J

No one talked to me. I didn't put withdrawal like I understand where you guys are coming from, but I just think why shouldn't I be disallowed from the vote process. Sorry.

I

You mentioned in the discord as well that you were interested in in going through the process. Try to think of this as part of the process. So there's there's a whole I'm.

I

So I'm not saying that what's happened to you is necessarily ideal, but maybe look to fund nine to resubmit it with a new understanding of what's happening, and we can try to make sure that things are better communicated in fun. Nine, so that this sort of stuff doesn't happen. But one of the slides that we get every town hall is things may break. I I would take this as an example of your just.

J

My issue right now I understand, but there's still time left, I don't get it like, there's still two days to assess. Why can't I be moved, I'm asking you guys like.

K

For the video just so that we come to some agreement in here, why that's not happening once? The ss stage begins that produces a fixed set of proposals which are then distributed throughout the ecosystem to all the cas. So it's no longer possible to go in reverse and actually edit those documents, because they're snapshots sort of in time, so that everybody has the same chance and everybody's working on the same set of uh of the information which then sort of transcribes to the fairness and all of that with it.

K

So it's not possible then, to go and insert things, because, even when later on, when everything is more aligned with the chain, we need to get used to the fact that when certain deadlines come across, we need to respect them collectively, because once this will be unchained and there will be really no way of moving things back and forth uh for real. So that's an expectation of having those deadlines being in place so that we can make transition changes from point a to point b and editing.

K

Those databases basically corrupts them and we no longer have the same information spread across all the different people that are um reviewing these documents as such. So it may sound trivial in terms of like. Oh, it's just moving it from one stage to another, we're no longer in ideas scale as such on that stand, and we can't just be moving uh the proposals back and uh back into the the mixed ones. They've been archived.

J

I completely disagree to be honest, but okay, I don't know the technical aspect. So that's why I'm asking I guess um I just like it's attached to my other proposal too, though, is the thing like it's? I don't know I put in some time. I know it doesn't look like it, but it just is pretty disappointing and I don't honestly understand why that can't be moved still I mean your explanation was very wordy and I don't get it.

K

So in couple of words as such, so it's not worthy- it's technically not feasible for us to do it at this present time, because it affects a lot of pieces in the pipeline and all the people which are actually associated with it. So technically, we just can't do that. I'm sorry.

J

Okay, so next time, what should I do different, though? That's the issue.

L

Excuse me: we need to move on, we can't dominate the meeting. I'm sorry, I apologize.

A

So, john, no problem sure that's not the answer that you're looking for, but you are very positively influencing the process here and um well. This will be something that we get for in the coming fund.

J

Yeah I'll submit it next one. Thank you guys. Thank.

A

You um harsha, please correct me if I pronounce anyone's names wrong.

M

I just wanted to bring back the discussion to a couple of things that william uh was talking about about how you need to evaluate the intent behind the proposal, and some things he mentioned was that a four-year-old should be able to understand the proposal and to be fair proposal. Writing is an art in itself, and not everyone is a is a naturally english-speaking uh proposer, so making it simple is not as simple as it seems.

M

So that is one thing and another one is visual. Learning is everyone's thing, but visual learning is not everyone's thing like different people learn differently uh and also creating a video in itself uh is something that people need to learn how to do it's, so there might be a brilliant uh programmer who doesn't know how to make videos. So in that case it's hard to evaluate that um and one more thing I completely forgot. The last thing I wanted to talk about, but that's that's all I had to say.

D

May I respond to that. That's okay, since it has to do with what I said. Yes, okay, yeah. It is a definite challenge. You know it's a lifelong process of reducing something, that's complex to a simple fourth grade reading level, but that is the average lead reading level of everyone on the internet. It's fourth grade and there's there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that's how it has to be tailored if it's going to be well received- and you know this applies to john's proposal- just what he was talking about. I just looked at it.

D

It's incomprehensible. It is for me it's incomprehensible and it's a mess. So I'm just gonna say it. You know it needs to be reduced. So if that's the case, we can talk about this openly and honestly right now, utilize me, I write every day. I do this as a profession and I can help people with the editing process with the clarification process until it reads well- and this is what writers do naturally.

A

So, by all means I have to interrupt you. These are these. Are statements for proposers we're in this we're in the ca group now, so we just I totally I I agree, respect everything that's being talked about here and we this should move, maybe even into next week's conversation, but right now we have. We have a lot today.

A

So I'm just I appreciate those comments and I want to just make space for I'm going to do a last call for have your hand up now, not for you, tom, I'm getting you, but just last call for anyone who hasn't had a sensed issue, because after tom or anyone who puts their hand up right now we're going to move into the other stuff. Okay, so um danny, do you still have your hand up? Are you wanting to say something? Okay, thanks tom. Thank you.

L

Oh, thank you nadia, it's very nice to meet everybody, I'm tom from arizona. uh I got a question. uh That's actually kind of important uh to me. I've read I've gone through all the materials. I've searched online. I've gone through the history of the meetings, but I have a proposer who has submitted multiple proposals uh for this funding round they're in different categories. uh Some some of them are in um doubt um anyway different different categories. However, his proposals or his and hers proposals uh kind of walk hand in hand.

L

So, let's say out of the four proposals that they made that are in different areas in the funding round. um If any one of those proposals are denied, then all of the proposals will fail. So it's kind of like a it's, not a four-legged chair where you could shift your body weight if one of them falls out. uh If the one leg falls out, it's like a three-legged stool. If one leg falls out the whole project crashes, so I'm more than willing to event to to evaluate it.

L

I've actually been studying it pretty good, but the problem is: is that um how do I relay? I understand that we have to. We have to evaluate each proposal based on its own merits, but, like I said, the problem is: is that if one proposal doesn't get funded and the other three or only two get funded the whole thing's awash?

L

So how do I relay that information to the reviewers that hey? You need to take a look at this one also and this one, because they walk hand in hand with each other.

A

This is a great question tom and mark you have your hand up. Are you going to respond to this? No okay, I'm going to leave some space for the for the vcas and for our for you guys. Phil. Are you wanting to respond to this.

I

Yeah, I can, I can respond to this tom. Oh part of the proposal guidelines is that each proposal has to be out of stand on its own merit, so, if you're proposing across multiple uh challenges each relying on each other, that's not participating as intended.

I

As far as I'm aware, which means that I would say, the feasibility part of that proposal falls down so that if I was assessing such a proposal myself, I would be following that through and then in the assessment. I would link through the various other proposals. If the proposal hasn't done that, then that probably needs to be noted as well.

I

So it's important that each proposal and and all the advice that's given around to proposes- is that- is that that's the case.

I

It's highly advisable to split proposals up where possible, into different challenges and and work independently on various aspects. If that's possible, because that in some ways helps one you could you could fund one part and one fund and continue funding in another fund? That sort of thing? um That's how I understand that the process is is as intended.

L

Perfect yeah, I just wanted to make sure that I could make reference um to that. I mean to that point I'll rank it on it's on its own merits, but if one of the four fails, then we lose something like 120 uh thousand dollars that could have gone to another project.

L

So now I'll.

A

Just also bring up john's writing here. This guideline was not written for this particular case. It's an older guideline that was added after a particular abuse was observed so and yeah. Then ilia just explain it to the explain it to the voters. It would be a feasibility thing if anyone disagrees with that ping me, but I think I think that's pretty well well uh responded to. Thank you, everyone for that. Thank you, tom for the question you like it dressed eric.

B

Hi, uh so the question is as of this as a ca, uh I saw I I'm not a c, but uh imagine that as a ca, I see a lot of proposals that are that are almost identical and have been submitted by the same submitter.

B

So can I just copy and paste my assessments to different uh proposals, changing only one word that that is the basically the difference between the proposals and, if so, will I be penalized for that or uh treated as a bot for posting similar assessments, and can I answer that question.

A

What a great theoretical question merrick! I'm great! You have! I'm glad you have an answer for yourself: go ahead.

B

uh No, we won't be penalized because we are uh we're taking similarity assessments between different assessors. So if you are going to to copy and paste uh the same assessment and then modify them slightly, so it feed proper proposal, then you won't be penalized by the script or similar assessments.

B

Great.

A

Okay,.

H

Jp yeah, I may just challenge that uh that position a little bit because I find as a vca, it's very hard for me to go through the proposal and know that exactly which word they change, as opposed to being able to clearly see that they've cut and paste across multiple.

H

So I'm wondering like what is the threshold of approved, copy and pasting with editing that isn't just using the same assessment but is different like again, for example, let's just take you know, there's some proposals, I'm doing all accelerated identity. There's the same project has five proposals with slightly different aspects of how the proposal meets the objective. Now, if I was in that same challenge just to copy and paste my assessments from each one, to only change that caveat to a vca, I would feel and as a vca, I would flag those proposals.

H

So I'm just nervous that were could be permitting copy and pasting without clear guidance of okay. What is enough to actually be valid for it to be a different assessment versus just a repeat so, and I don't have an answer, I'm just not something that as a vca, I really struggle with and as a ca I've been doing, even though the proposals are the same been doing unique assessments for each one, even though I may repeat some of the things within a different format and a different flow.

H

It highlights different aspects of the proposal as opposed to copy and paste copy and paste. So I just maybe this conversation is there a threshold that people use for that, for example, merrick.

I

Maybe it's more of a question to the vcas right because, what's going to happen, is they're going to use their review judgment over over the proposal. So uh if it's really well written- and it explains why you've copied and pasted, then I'd suggest that it could be good.

I

But if it's just literally copy and paste with no explanation, maybe it's heading towards the filtered out, or maybe it's good. I mean it's going to depend on on the the body of the vcas reviewing these and I think that's how how the process is intended.

I

So yeah.

H

Yeah, I agree with you phil, and I don't think that if they do put in that extra definition, which you know or why they got to this, uh for this proposal versus the other one, you know. Of course they could make that case, but again, barring that case, since that that's not a requirement from what I've heard that before moving it to the next two similar proposals, it still leaves a lot of room for discretion, which isn't really a consistent way for us to apply this logic. So that's what worries me.

A

So maybe I'll give a little bit of context, because I see a lot of the questions in the chat and some of the questions are: why do we can we just limit proposals numbers? So some of these questions are not necessarily for this group. The adjustments to the proposing process, how many people can how many people can be on how many you can co-propose on? How many can you be a mentor, co-proposer proposer?

A

How many of these these are process questions that need to go also in collaboration with the proposing team and to danny's point in the beginning. We we need to think about this from the beginning, so we're further down the line now addressing things that originated further up the line, and so we have to make decisions. One of the reasons for the similarity analysis is because we had um issues in our last in fund seven. This group faced a lot of issues with there being um copy pasted assessments, and we had to talk a lot about.

A

Is this? Is this a novel? um A novel assessment of this proposal? Did someone just take the same criteria, so this is this? Was the origin of this similarity analysis tool so that we could make sure that people weren't gaming, the system by copying pasting over and over again and so look at them?.

I

Sorry and that was across different uh actual assessors right, so it wasn't just copy and pasting inside it was for the same proposal with different assessors, but with exactly the same or very similar um assessments.

A

Sorry phil, so the tool is in place that we could that we can see those as they come through and have an easier time looking at and making decisions about, not look making flagging them and identifying them so that we can look into them further and so that they're that eliminates that way of gaining the system in this round. We have the issue of proposals that are very similar, and so now it's just a new problem that we have here right. That is, that is originated.

A

So some of this we can't solve here in this group, but we don't have any way to make a decision about the proposing process. So that's going to be a bigger discussion, but um these are. These are really relevant for how we do a good job. Assessing now that's what we need to be talking about. How do we? How do we do a good job? Assessing these one of john's point was copy. Pasting must be explained.

A

For example, he says my assessment for the 20 proposals of this proposal will be mostly the same since their proposals are identical in part from x right. So we need to at least have some little bit of group acknowledgement of how we're handling this problem real time and then what we're going to do about into the future is a different difference.

I

The other option, maybe as a ca, is just to consider just one of them and let the other cas do the others, if you're having an issue with the fact that you're going to copy and paste- and you don't want to involve yourself in that- because maybe the only real reason to do that would be well one to identify that this is happening and two to look for rewards. Maybe so, if you're not into that side of things, consider just doing one of them and pointing out that there's a lot of others.

I

And that's why you you are deciding this way. Perhaps.

N

Okay,.

I

I had my hand up early. I just wanted to had a um a point to what william was saying earlier part of this. I really enjoy the ca process, um even though I struggle to actually do a large number of ca each time, because they're really time consuming is that different people have different opinions. So william has his own way of approaching the ca. He looks for a video.

I

He looks for engagement, that's his process, but each of us have our own individual processes and as a collective, we come together and create better decision making, at least that's that's the way I see the process. So I really like hearing other people how they engage with the process, and I love that it's progressing and growing as we go on.

D

Thank you phil. I I feel, like everyone's feedback is totally valuable and it's just multiple measures. You know I used to be a college advisor. We have multiple measures to decide things and it always works. Thank you.

A

Thank you, okay. Okay, guys, I'm going to try to keep us in these next few things we'll try to move through here, they're very important things, so we need some space to be able to get into conversation about it. The first thing is in the um in this link. Here, where did I put it?

A

Sorry guys, let me give you the right length, so here's the after town hall link- I should have put this error in the beginning, but it's okay, because we're coming to it right now, so I'm gonna put in the chat here. The.

A

After town hall, for today there it is so in this we have I'm going to share now my own screen. Thank you for your patience, as I maneuver here.

A

Okay, so is that working? Can you guys see the screen, so we just got this part. uh This part done so the vca guide. Can I can I make a suggestion. Last week we talked about trying to have that done within five or five to seven days, which is now can we put like? Maybe what do you think phil? Is there as one of the primary authors?

A

Can we give it like a end of day-to-day hard, stop on additional comments and contributions, and do you think what do you think is reasonable for a timeline to have this done so that exists for the coming vca period.

I

Yeah, I think, let's, let's do that today. Let's say.

A

Are we getting like tomorrow morning, maybe.

I

Yeah 12 hours from now we're gonna close down and pass it over to danny and his team to to look over it in iog, approximately 12 hours. So if you really want to look into it I'll post, the link in the chat encourage you to go on get on there. Look it over comment. Anyone who's been a vca or is interested in the process, um jump in and start to dig through it and we'll we'll close it down and pass it over for for iog about 12 hours.

A

Okay, great all right, thank you for that. So I'll. Just let that be our conversation on that for now, and then everyone can hop in and we'll get it in the comments. So we don't have to go through a lot here. So uh important for today is now I have on here needs decision and people have been asking me. Why does this need a decision for this proposed process? Arbitration solution? Maybe the words are too wordy right.

A

So what we need to do is just slightly improve the process by which we make decisions about what we do with the the to the point of the the earlier discussion we've had here when things get flagged, so they're we're gonna close the assessment process here at the end of the week and then danny and merrick will run the similarity tool, we'll get a bunch of stuff flagged and then over the over.

A

The process of the vca is looking at this there's two places where it will be helpful to have a we've started to call it an arbitration body, but maybe it's just like decision makers right, thoughtful decision makers who are who are for the most part able to be transparent about this totally able to be transparent about the process and try to figure out a way for that to be unbiased.

A

So you shouldn't be able to make decisions about things that affect your own work. That's what that means. So the first time that that happens is after that tool runs and we have assessments flagged. That means someone wrote yes, yes, yes, in all the three fields, someone um put garble the someone copy pasted the exact same thing over and over again without any kind of changes, the flags that are listed in the ca guide, it's going to find those things and then a human.

A

A person has to look at that and say that makes sense that doesn't that doesn't fit the criteria? Someone has to evaluate that. That's the first step here then the vcas go through and look at everything and then the vcas with their human eyes and their thoughtful review of the assessments and will say: okay. This is good. This is excellent.

A

This needs to be this needs to be deleted from the process and then at the end of that process, we need a second time, a group to look at those, so there's a stopgap who can say: okay, we. This is the list that we're that are in question.

A

We need to evaluate whether these should be passed through or they should be dropped out of the of the process as legitimate assessments, and it's important that those two periods of time are those two sorry that, in those two periods of time that that group is able to have criteria, make decisions and come to a consensus so that it's not just one person unilaterally having to make the decision, which is what we previously had.

A

So I recognize that there's like a great amount of wonderful comments in this document, and some of those comments are this process should take a lot longer. It could be more complicated, less complicated, but what we'd like to accomplish here is an improvement that provides transparency that we can build on, and that would would step us forward from the previous situation. That is insufficient, so recognizing that my hope is that this group can come together and look at this.

A

This um suggestion we go through some of these comments and we come to a consensus on what it is that we can agree upon together here that we can move forward and that we can try to put this into practice here over the next over the end of this fund and then improve on it into the future.

A

So I hope that gives a little bit of context and I want to just open it up for comments, especially anyone who has commented on this document do. Do we think it? The first question is: is there agreement from this group that we want to make an improvement on this process? It has been brought up in the past few after town halls.

A

I did take it to circle this document and this suggestion is a result of those after town hall discussions um talking to the catalyst circle where the origin of the of the task force idea came, then we drafted this and then um some of the people who originally were calling for this. I went back and talked to them and now it's being served more broadly, so I open it now for naveed phil.

A

Maybe.

F

Yeah just wanted to clarify the the as-is situation so in fund seven, with with those scenarios that nadia spoke about, um it was either just left to the bca's, so we ran the similarity tool and then the bcaas decided whether things should be filtered out or or not, um but equally, in some cases um iog. I don't know I'm jose mourith, but maybe a group of people in iog got together and decided things should be unilaterally filtered out or discarded.

F

So if there were assessments that just said yes, yes, yes, a lot of those got filtered out, but not all of them. So it wasn't. It wasn't consistent based on the similarity assessment. A bunch got discarded, um but not all of them and a lot of those were against that that was done. Post post vca works were against the vca consensus.

F

um The ones with nonsensical assess the nonsensical assessments um for those in front of you. Remember that the uh the internet repair guy, who just wrote gobbledygook they didn't get filtered, they didn't get discarded and they just went. They just stayed through the process.

F

So there was inconsistency, so we're coming from is: we've got currently got iog and and or the vcas um uh um reviewing, and and making decisions on, whether you, naturally or or or a consensus of bca's deciding what happens with these assessments and it's whether we stick with that or or move to something um cleaner. And the idea is that the bcaas then get a a subset of good assessments or.

F

Cleaner assessments to to to assess to review.

I

I think that's slightly different from this um this this document.

I

I think this one's discussing the the idea that, after all, the processes are done, the qa processes, sometimes proposals aren't happy with the results and there's a this is a the history of this. Is that there's a there's been requests from some proposals and other angles that say that they want some sort of body to approach to say we don't agree with this. How do we, how do I? How do I protest? How do I get? uh How do I get my time to say, uh um there's no process for them at the moment.

I

I think we tried a few bits and pieces back a few funds ago, but really there was been no process, so the idea behind this is: how can we create a body out of the community? That's unbiased that can help decide those those issues inside an idea can.

F

You clarify because I think we're different we're on a different page, so this.

I

Is the flag those.

F

Are flags.

F

The tool flagging similarity, assess similarity flags and, and that kind of thing.

A

Yeah, so this is for us to decide here. So this is what we're yeah. This is what we're trying to create so either we can create a body that that either we can create a body that is like a decision-making body for people be able to come to and say. Why was this made? It's helpful. My my intuitive sense is that it's helpful for that body to have been involved in that process, rather than otherwise it's more of a mediator body right. So what is it that?

A

What is it that we really, I think in the in both cases, this process could work of getting a group together and having it. But do we want that group to do the reviews and and look at what has been flagged and make the decisions, or is that body of more of a service body to the community, to provide a to to prevent um too much influence from the vca and the decision-making body.

F

I I think if it has no teeth, um it's just a talking shot, so we may as well just leave it to the bcaas to decide.

F

Yeah, if, if, if you've got a body having a look at assessments and that you know that they've been flagged and that that group, just fantastic they've, been flagged and move on move on to the to the vca phase, bcaas will deal with it just um so either it has teeth and it's it's um it has. It has the authority to take some action or it's just a talking shot.

I

And you also risk the the reviewing the reviewing the reviewing never-ending um turtles down sort of concept. Sorry jp jp.

H

Yeah, um I guess what I was just gonna say is that I think one of the problems with creating this body is that a lot of flags that I've seen on proposals and I've addressed. I have not sided with the proposer.

H

I have said okay, I understand that maybe this is hypercritical and maybe they could have been a little gentler, but I don't think it undermines the assessment, the point the review, and so I would be worried about putting people in the position where then they're actually having to make decisions on the value proposition of the proposal versus what the assessor thinks and that's not really a role that I think we should be taking. I think a way that I would see this solution being resolved would be saying.

H

Okay, we have this flag, you know if it gets to a point where it goes through the ca process, the person's still irate. They don't believe it. They don't agree, then maybe there's some sort of discussion that takes place with that person or it goes to a blind review of a set of vcas. That then say: okay, no, we decided this person over over that side, which is more uh blind, but I think right now we're just setting up bca's or whatever. This body is to kind of be.

H

Weighing in on things that I think are beyond the scope of what we want, it should go to more assessments, more reviews, if the reviews in total say yay or nay, that should be the decision so build it into the process rather than something new.

A

What is the most important thing that the vca group wants to prevent by or accomplish by having a group like this for when we originally talked about an arbitration group? It was, I think, originally, it was ultimately when that list comes, which happened last fun when the list comes, and we have people who who we have identified either people are groups of assessments we've identified and we need to decide whether or not how to address that.

A

We need sort of a third party so that the vcas themselves don't have the power to to do that. um Go ahead. Phil.

I

Yeah, if you look at the long, the long run of this, the fundamental of this is the setting up of a judiciary right for a government system uh to work well, at least in in normal operation. You need a third-party arbitrator or decision maker or negotiator to to essentially rule if you're, using the the judgment system on on a case right.

I

So what, in many ways this is kind of an attempt to say what would a judicial system in voltaire look like how can we start that that exploration of of of looking at a community distributed uh arbitration system um and- and it stems from the fact that proposals may not- uh at least at this point where we're looking we're? The governance is only about proposals and looking for funding in in project callus?

I

That's what we're that's, what that's the issue at hand and all our systems are in place to deal with that, but we can see a future in the that that that's not the only thing we're going to be. Judging on there will be conflicts. There will be disagreements in the future.

I

How do we address those? Who, who decides? Do we just let it laisey fare around the place and and for where things may and have people who are upset and disappear and give badmouthing to to everything, or do we set up a system that we agree on uh and and and work out how to include people to to participate in that system?.

A

I'm just going to read these comments, so we have robert says the appeals process comments on the system that produce the result, not the merits of the proposal. That's a really important point and then lynn says for fund eight.

A

um He doesn't think we have time for this, but for fun, nine and beyond, but not for a fun day. So that's also on the table too by merrick. That's also on the table too. We don't we could. We could leave the process as it is for here as it's been and we could really spend some time focusing on this. We've made a lot of upgrades, so I just put that on the table as well. Maybe.

F

um So I think there were two parts to this. There was a there was this: the ca, the ca group or the ca arbitration body, whatever you want to call them and then the vca um piece. Maybe we have time for the vcap, so just looking back at fund seven, we we we had.

F

We ran a script and we found um we found vca's gaming system very, very easy for bca to gain the system. People people got away with thousands of dollars, okay for four four, four very little work, possibly 20 20 of 20 of the vcas up to 20 vcas got away with thousands of thousands of dollars. If we don't do something this time- and we agree here on a recorded call that that's that's- that's a situation, there's nothing! Stopping me marking all 9 000 assessments as as excellent, and there is no comeback.

F

They'll take.

N

Me it'll.

F

Take me, you know, take me 30 seconds and that's what I'm looking to stop from a vca, but that's where it started and then and then we've got. We've got the ch, so maybe maybe there's something we can do around the vca piece. Okay and and leave the leave the current process in place. Regarding, regarding the uh the ca assessments.

I

Would the new vca guidelines be laying that out so that, uh but then we don't have any judgment of of the vcas right. So is that what is that? What we're referring to that there's no way to decide on.

F

Yeah yeah.

I

Yeah.

F

So so, for example, if we, if we, if we run the, um if we run this, the script that alex that alex wrote and a number of other people right- and we find there's a huge disparity between what this vca is doing and the rest of the cohorts so that they they're so far off, then it's worth a further investigation and that's what we did. We we went in and investigated further tried to understand what this person's doing, and it was in most cases, it's very simple.

F

You know, but there's a spreadsheet, all the vcs there's a current market x copy and paste your x all the way down the spreadsheet and you're suddenly up to um thousands and thousands of dollars, you're getting paid without any without any way of challenging them, and that's that's important.

A

Great great great clarification, danny.

K

Yeah now I think this is where I understand the first iteration of rewards slashing comes in for the vca process, I'm not sure, if that's being considered here or not, but in the fund 8.

K

We are going to be comparing how frequently each vca disagrees with the rest of the lot and experimenting with the first iteration to see how that settles in um so, for example like if you are agreeing uh in general, like let's say, 90 of the time or more then you're eligible for full rewards as such, if it happens that it's like three quarters well, I I think that there was where, like the five five six top bit and then like, let's say, if it's less than what was it less than 60.

K

For example, where would be the case that somebody just says yes across the board? Well, they would automatically disapprove them for actually getting any rewards and any reputation ranking alongside.

K

So it may not be perfect as such, but I think it's the first stepping stone in actually preventing those extreme cases, and I think what we also need to recognize is that something like that? We need to see how it plays out in practice, so to see whether that's sufficient or not, and whether we need to push that lever in in in different direction or maybe introduce something more uh more dramatic in order to cope with somebody who just clicks everything uh as a yes or a proof.

K

So if you do that, you can certainly do that in the current round as a vca but you're risking of actually losing the rewards. If they're, not in line with the majority of opinion of the rest of the vcas, which should sort of come out of the fact that we're using the same ca guidelines and and the process as such. So just wanted to ask. If that's being considered in line of the conversation navid.

F

I think lucio wants to go.

A

There is there is there a response to that is that we're going to talk about lucio go ahead.

E

You're up, okay, I just want to to say what what danny just said, but basically the logic behind the alex script. It's really similar to what is implemented now for the vca rewards. So I think there is a we need to consider this. Like I don't know the first experiment just like that. He said to kind of addressing this issue that we uh we saw in the last funds and also consider that the same logic will be applied for the reputation and in the next funds.

E

This will be another uh variable that will come come come into into account for the final count of the rewards, and this reputation is based on the same logic.

F

Okay makes sense, is it is the intention to implement that reward slashing or fun date? Yes, I think yeah, I think the the risk is. We've got a diverse group of vcas, some some mark things more harshly than others, some some some look at assessments differently to others. There are particular visas who will happily mark things, has filtered out that somebody else marked as excellent.

F

It doesn't necessarily mean one or other is right, so it does need that human eyeball post, I'm just putting a hard and fast rule saying if you disagree, 60 percent of the 60 of the time or whatever the rule is it doesn't need an eye, a human eyeball to do to to validate so whether whether it's actually, um if someone's, actually gaining a system or or or they're, I mean- I think we if we, if we just implement that as a hard and fast rule in fun day, we're gonna upset quite a few people.

F

I think possibly people on this course.

E

I think that that will be the case. It is something that it's already documented and published. uh The thing is probably it's kind of fine to to tune in the right way, the parameters for the future and obviously to test it uh and see if it is actually effective for everything. I I totally hear you when you say that uh kind of disagree with the majority.

E

It's it's it's it's uh something that could happen, and probably it's it's uh uh I don't know it is not implies that someone is uh gaming trying to gain the system. But it's like a lot of things that we are doing. It's just the first iteration of an experiment and we will see how the outcomes will be.

E

Here, yeah.

C

Yes, I was thinking that slashing the rewards is a good thing, but uh I don't believe that's sufficient to control the misbehavior, because if you don't spend any effort on on.

C

On doing uh your work, then you don't care if your assessments- or you know your work- is slashed after that. So what I was thinking is that maybe there is a way to forbid to the vcas to to be a vca for the next x amount of funds, and this could be like demote vca as a regular first first time ca, and then you have a parameter that you can increase or decrease, and with that parameter you can you can make it more.

C

Important for the vca to to do what's right at end. At the same time, it's not final! So if the vca starts from the level of ca, he could spend let's say two funds being a ca and then again become a vca.

C

So it's not a final thing, but it and it could be controlled by this- how many funds you should wait until you can become a business.

A

You're calling for a harsher penalty on gaming, yeah.

C

Yeah.

A

So that's that's a possible outcome. Still, let's let me see if I can summarize what's been said here and then we'll go to scott, so I'm here and see, if I'm going to try to do it in fourth grade language. So if what is, if we're so we finish out, we look at.

A

We look at the results that the of the of the vcas and if someone falls far from the collective tree, then we look at that person and that person, that is, it is on them to substantiate why they have made the decisions that they have and that that process of running the running, the analysis on how everyone has responded and how similar those responses are, should have the majority of us reasonably close to each other, give and take some, but there may be outliers and those outliers are the ones where we just need a little bit of further assessment that, regardless of the of the punishment for not being uh not being not using integrity in that process, you still need someone to address that at that point.

A

So um and then I'm noticing what um lynn is saying here about proof of life somewhere through the process, so I guess the question is: if we run this and we find those outliers and that seems like the best place to address it, what is then our? What is then the process, and what is the outcome are those two? Maybe the um did I have I summarized it there am I missing anything that was okay, let's go to scott here and then jp and then phil.

O

Just have uh it's pretty much the same question I've been asking now it feels like for a month or ever since this deviation script was brought up is: where is the deviation script and had like how is it being applied?

O

I have yet to see any documentation on how it's been applied as well on what like pre, pre-script, pre, pre-screened postscreen, um wherever that's at, and I don't know if the slashing I don't know, if any of this uh any of these uh punishments, they'll work, but it's still, it could possibly place more work on the vcas as well, because it depends on how much work, how many assessments have been assessed by the vcas and if we're, if these people's assessments are no longer valid, then are there enough vca assessments for those particular assessments for them to go through or for the the community feel comfortable with that they were properly assessed by enough people.

O

I hope that made sense. That was a lot of assessing and assessments in there. So.

A

Your question, your question that you raised earlier, that's still outstanding is you felt like there was a discrepancy between what you had as far as your your outcome numbers and what it showed having the script run? What we looked at the document last week, does that summarize what you're saying.

O

Yeah, well, that's that's pretty much it as far as the script goes and like it's application, uh because the the numbers weren't just off a little bit. They were off like as far as filtered out. They were off by 55 percent and that's a significant amount and that's why I'm asking these questions about the script. It could be a valid script. 100 valid. I don't know because I don't know it's application, that's all! And then, at what threshold are we considered outside of the norm as well? And when we're applying this?

O

Because right now in the vca documentation or the rewards and punishments or whatever the documents call, it says uh threshold t and and that's it so there. I agree that we need this system how we implement. It needs to be smart, though.

H

Jp yeah, my kind of builds on that uh again and I apologize to danny and lucio for not seeing this before.

H

Normally, I like to see these products in advance, but I'm wondering if uh one way to kind of resolve it for right now, because again, we're also solving a problem in a very reactive manner at this time, when there's not a lot of time left, if there could be some visualization from either the last funder through this one about running the script, showing what the outcomes in versus, if you don't run the script and then showing those deviations for people to truly understand like what scott's saying hey, how are you applying this to the process?

H

What are the differences in the outcomes that we can expect from the script versus individuals or the current existing process um and then kind of use that to to showcase what people can expect? I, I still think, there's a little bit of confusion, at least in my head and from what scott said about how it's applied and then what that actually means uh for the community um yeah.

H

I just I I'm totally in for like reprimanding people who are gaming, the system I just want to make sure that we're not weeding out um people who may be harsher in their assessments or in their review standards on what they expect as a good versus excellent versus filter. Now proposal, which I don't know that this system captures that.

I

I so the script um was developed by alex and he's recently got too busy to to be involved with, with the continual development of it so um and I'm not a data sciencey person, so I haven't taken up.

I

I was I'm interested to see that it exists, but really it needs someone else to to grab it and say here's the script. I've looked over alex's script found where I believe he's. He created it and ran it over the last two funds. So when scott mentions that it's it's got some issues, it's only just been his personal interest and he's been sharing that into the community.

I

But at that point it seemed like an interesting avenue to to help with some of the issues that we're having with the vcas, which is people not intending people not participating as intended in the reviewing of the assessment stage um he's he identified.

I

I think it was 20 or 30 uh primary participants uh who who did like 95 of the assessments um and that's not an ideal situation. Whatever way, we look at it. The fact that such a limited number of people creating the the final, uh the final qa stage, so it is about creating something we we've got iog's version in front of us uh here. I think, which seems to be what's now going to be implemented in fund 8.

I

So maybe we're at the point where the community-made script can can look to develop and iterate on this for fun. Nine, um given that we now have a fun date process kind of outlined um that we're going to be participating under, I'm not sure where we stand now. But the other thing is is that if someone wants to take up that script and check it over, it is on a github account.

I

We can find where that is, and it probably needs just some checking over to make sure that alex's logic is correct um in his script, that that's probably where that's up to.

F

Danny's, based on this document is, is your team and one of your developers developing a script.

E

I I can reply to that. It is the the iog team. This is the script that was developed to basically uh calculate the rewards for the vcas, so um just to clarify this is not the alex script that we will using for this. It's another development was started in parallel, and this reputation and rewards model that you are seeing is based on the research team. So it's kinda, the alex from the community came up with a similar with a similar concept solution uh to what uh iog was working on internally.

I

uh Would it be worth running them both in parallel, though, or would it be better just running the one that the uh that seems to be implementable at this point.

E

I think if it is ready and usable the script, I think there is a there is merit to test test them out in parallel and compare them. Compare the results and also sjp, say, probably uh compare with the old system. It's something already. The the data and the scripts are already there.

E

So it's kind of only you can just basically run everything and see what is the best outcome, and it is always useful to to have multiple data points to compare, but as for now, just to clarify that this is the the official version for fun date and the script is not the one that alex created.

A

uh Let's go dimitri and then back to you with you.

P

um Sorry, it was my first time being a ca, it was fun and I'm very excited to meet you all, and I have to say that what was said here about the the vca game in the system is very worrisome and uh so a proposal how to fix it. Because my mind is: could we can I just audit all the vcas and uh have the chance of 20 are getting caught and then and if court, uh then they get slashed completely and lose the ability to participate in future rounds.

P

um Something sort of fairly simple to manuscripts.

P

That was that was my suggestion. I don't have anything else to add for now.

P

I mean I mean just to add so um the script is, uh is, I guess, was with good intentions. um My concern there is that somebody that was said here already somebody rating an assessment is good uh or excellent, and someone else rating is as uh false or inadequate um can be right in in their own right and facing one against. The other doesn't really make sense purely from a constant point of view, just different different views on of the world.

P

But if you go and then try to just ask those people to justify the motivations behind um behind those uh ratings, then they have to produce something meaningful based on which uh you know the rest of the vcas could vote or if iog holds, was the parent of the funds um the iog could decide. um It's just yeah, I think purely purely just facing excellence and good versus forces is doesn't doesn't bring to light the fact that people can have different opinions and and develop at the same time,.

P

Whereas uh an audit of um say a couple couple of couple of assessments from each of the vcas is uh trivial, but assuming that a vca does you know 50 assessments, uh if he does it randomly and just as a you know, x on all the lines and excel sheets, it should come come out pretty quickly if somebody's.

H

Doing that consistently.

P

I think the problem here is it's not the vca cheating on one or two assessments. It's somebody is doing malice on um across all the proposals. That's that's the one that you really want to catch. um First,.

A

Yeah so I'll make space for for a response to that before I say anything, um scott or phil is your. Is your hand up in response to what dmitry's saying.

O

No, I have one more two more points, just short points.

I

Okay, phil, I know that's right. I got distracted. I forgot what I was going to say.

A

So yeah, so the the goal of this here and by by and large, this is a this is a conversation about creating integrity for the system and creating ways to make sure that we're doing our due diligence and making sure that peop that that the proposals are being fairly assessed and the voters have the right information so far and away the the group of vcas is uh exercises integrity in this process, and so it's not about disagreement as much as you might have someone who and we had.

A

We had some examples where the majority, the the actual number of most most people, were in a range for um good and excellent, and some people were far away. Maybe they were 80 when everyone else was closer to 20, so it does show people who are dramatically uh out and that's that's one of the things that this will find and what we're intending here is to create a process that has even continuously more transparency and more evaluation.

A

So this this um rewards and reputation to jp's point is new and this is has been created in response to this problem. So this was a fun seventh sense problem and now it's being applied, so it could also be that the origin of this discussion was from previous after town halls.

A

When we were talking about how do we make sure that that we that this, we would create a sort of a fortress of a process so that gaming can't happen so that people can't come in with with nefarious intentions, and it may also be that the developments that we have here are, we feel are sufficient and we don't need to add to it before we see it. Work see what it works so that we can have proper learning. So I put that out there as well.

A

The the idea for having a group that would be a little bit of an arbitration group was mostly so that if we find those super outliers there is someone to make judgment about that. Who is not the people who are pointing to that as needing judgment? Does that is that helpful?

A

So um it's also on this group to say we think this is sufficient and we're gonna run with it here and I'm not hearing anyone say that we need to add a lot more to the initial flagging, because we have the similarity tool and it also could be that we're not needing. If, if we're in agreement about how the script runs, maybe we don't. Maybe we don't need a body for either of these and it becomes something we talk about once we see how this goes.

A

So um I put that out for for consideration and then I kick it back to scott and then james.

I

Sorry can I just quickly, I remember what it was dimitri.

I

um I believe some of this research comes back down to what's called prediction markets, so the idea that when people are making decisions, if you get a crowd to decide and say which side they they bet on a coin according to us, for instance, uh and you reward the ones that go right, that that's kind of what's happening here.

I

So uh if you're, if we're looking at the the body of vca's and making the decision uh on whether it's good, excellent or filtered out, then it's the ones that have correctly identified what the group decided are the ones that are getting rewarded for doing that. So it's called prediction markets and and there's research into into those operations quite interesting stuff.

P

Yeah sure, thanks uh yeah, I just um but you'd have quite a few. You might just have a few who have a very different view of the world and they would vote completely against the media and they might be valid as well. So you are, you are rewarding the ones that are sort of.

I

There is an objective set of guidelines that that cas are requested to follow right so and and we we as cas, uh uh are reviewing the assessment to those guidelines so in in a way there's not a subjective measure here it is does. uh Does the assessment is the assessment in line with the guidelines? Is it? Is it good in line with the client loans? Is it excellent, or is it not in line with the guidance? That's that's what we're doing.

P

Right, I'm not I'm not gonna argue much further, it's my first time, so I I appreciate everything I'm thinking out of this. That's it.

P

That's.

A

It- and that is true- and that's a really that's a really solid point, so anyone who is for this is not first of all, it's meant to identify and then not to automatically reject, but to create just an awareness so that it can be, it can be addressed or the person can be addressed in order that they can speak for that. So scott go ahead.

O

uh Two questions uh the first one's to lucio or whoever can answer it as far as iog script. Has it been ran before or is it in beta and then the next question I have is are: is there any uh any method that is used to identify vcas who collude and potentially share their spreadsheet with another vca? That way they can increase their opportunity for rewards and also anyway, yeah, basically collude and and gain more rewards with doing half the work, and thank you.

E

I can reply to the first question it was, it will be officially used in fun date, but it was tested for for a lot of time. I think there is a also probably some testing in the repository itself. I don't know if the repository is already open, but probably it makes sense to publish this script because everything it will be open source so and also considering that the vca's files will be also public.

E

Basically, everything will be will be allowed to run the script and verify the the output and to reply to your second point, I think it's really interesting, and maybe it makes sense for the next iteration to create some similarity for the vca's files. Csv, and maybe I don't know outline in some way some sub groups that act in some strange minor. It is really clever, but maybe it makes sense to to think about it.

I

um Or also about the the second point that you had scott door some time ago and I keep bringing it up and I I'd like to explore. It was daw, brought it up and said that there is um some bias in decision group decision making is actually a good thing um and he shared a paper. I do have it around the place, I'll pop it into the chat somewhere or momentarily it wasn't.

I

It was small groups operating with shared information, creating agreements, I guess led to better outcomes for from the group decision making and- and I think we haven't got to the point where that's that's been discussed at the moment. Vcas are expected to operate in isolation, except maybe pointing out um various assessments that they feel require attention, um but I've. I would love to see the fact that we could introduce that paper in some way, but we're not ready to do that yet, but hopefully, one day we might be able to experiment with it.

O

I've read a similar paper. Thank you, phil and lucia.

A

James trial by fire.

Q

Hey um yeah, I think the you know, the purpose of this script obviously is to you know, address the problem. People are sort of blanket assessing, I mean, there's still going to be outliers, who are doing a good job. um So is there any way of sort of measuring the correlation of their results? So you know if you're, following a sort of laid out criteria, you might always vote a position below or above the majority.

Q

It doesn't mean- that's not valid. So you know as a stage on from the script run, which is going to flag. You know flag these individuals up. Is there a way of then checking the correlation against the rest of the results? So if they're consistently one below the average, that's still valid and they shouldn't have their rewards slashed, um whereas, whereas if it's just a random vote, um then then the uh you can sort of identify that it's not being done in a thoughtful way.

Q

Is there any? Is there any way of doing that? Because you know if um you know if, if you've got good, genuine vcas, do they get their their rewards slashed then you're going to lose good good uh vcas.

A

Well, there's not an anonymity issue, so these people that if, if someone falls in that category, there's the opportunity that we then so the the the last resort goal. Is it's not an intention that people don't get rewarded for their good work or that they or that we put people in people in an outlier category, are necessarily.

A

Doing so intentionally, so the intention is to to identify and make sure that we do our due diligence in in checking.

A

So that's an important consideration because we were trying to avoid the gaming of the system, not the difference in opinion, but go ahead. Phil.

I

um And that goes back to this concept of the arbitration group and- and we could do a simple implementation without too much worry where, because vcas are public figures, essentially they they're, not anonymous.

I

Like lynn mentioned earlier, we've been discussing this concept of proof of life right that across the across the catalyst project, there's various uh proof of life uh opportunities. So if you're a funded proposer, you present yourself, you present your proposal in order to start getting the funding.

I

uh You present yourself and prove that you're, a real person that you know how to interact with others, similar to what william was discussing, I guess earlier, but at a later stage than where he's suggesting we implement it. We could look to implement that in in the vca process.

I

In order, if there is question already, we've like, like navi said, he identified some some questionable operators that there's one particular one from last one. That definitely appears to just be such an outliner that almost certainly he shouldn't have been rewarded, but they probably were, but if we then call call them to just the meaning of of the peers of us of the vcas, the participating vcas and say we request you to attend a proof of life session so that we can present to you and discuss with you various things.

I

So the first step would be if they don't present themselves. Well, then they lose their opportunity for ward, and we can include that in the guidelines and if they do present themselves, then it will be up to the people who are present the vcas that attend and present with various aspects of evidence to discuss amongst themselves and come up with a solution.

I

I I don't know if that's if that like that could be an easy way to do this um and it might solve some of those things you were mentioning, but it's gonna certainly give.

Q

Some accountability.

I

Yeah yeah and that's kind of like this concept of the proof of life for the ones that are the outliners who have done a lot of participation, but maybe questionable participation, because some of them definitely are have gone out and done a hell of a good job and, like william said, if he, if you present yourself, show your face, discuss that adds a lot of credibility, yeah and, if you're not willing to do that, it does the opposite.

I

So we could implement that quite easily and just attend a attend and, after town hall session, attend a call called upon vca session. Does anyone have any? I mean? I guess we? A lot of discussion can happen, but part of all this is that we want to kind of look to implement some stuff in in fun day.

A

Is it is it as simple as an? If then, if someone falls in the outlier category, then in order to substantiate they need to?

A

If if this happens, then this will happen, and this you know, can we can we create like a chain of events, kind of a thing that we don't need to have a lot of bells and whistles for just exactly what you're saying? If this happens then you'll, then we will form a task force and the task force will meet with the person and they rather than it being the vcas who don't agree versus the one vca who doesn't agree.

A

We have a group of people say, have you come to these conclusions and we evaluate it and then a decision is made and if no one falls in the out later character category, then we don't need to form the thing. But if that does happen, then we have a then we have a process. I think we need to put something in force, because we can anticipate that this may happen from our historical experience and because the because this the tool doesn't doesn't solve this particular issue.

A

We need to have something that we can put forward to say: here's how we're planning to solve it if it happens. This is just my initial thought.

I

Mainly because it needs to be communicated, we can't one of the reasons why we couldn't execute anything on the on the outline of vcas in the last fund is because we didn't write down what we were going to do. We didn't communicate to the participators that, if you do this, you're expected to do this right.

I

That's so that this discussion that we're all here for is to try and pinpoint some actual actions that we can put into the uh drafted vca document for fund 8 and implement it and and get some consensus from the people who are attending who are listening. Who are participating.

I

So I guess, um does anyone have any major objections to the fact that if you're, an outlier that you can be asked to present yourself and if you don't, then you're not eligible for funding? And if you do present yourself, then the community members who are interested can come and question you and and request further information about your process.

I

Does that make sense, and is that? Is there any major objections to such a thing existing? I.

C

Have a major objection that uh if the vcas are judging another vca, that's a conflict of interest. So that means that the judiciary group should be outside of the vca circle and is not allowed to be a vca.

I

Right, yes, I remember you brought this up before as well, so that, but the question is, do we have enough time? Can we experiment with it in fund 8 and then iterate on it? Because of that worry or is it? Is that a stopper that says we can't posit? We can't proceed in this manner because because there's this too bigger um conflict of interest, because that that conflict of interest, of course, is that if you can preclude someone from from possible rewards, those rewards will go to other vcas and that's a clear conflict of interest.

I

So, um but can we assume that vcas are participating as intended until otherwise identified in that process? What do you think.

C

What I think is that we can take the group from the cas, but only if this group is responsible to be the judge for the vcas only if they are brought to uh quote unquote justice due to the difference in in their assessments, discovered by the by the algorithm.

C

Right because if the algorithm discovers that somebody is 80 off than anybody else, then that's this could be decided from the cas. But then this group cannot decide if a ca has a problem with a a flagging of his assessment from the vca.

C

He has to have a place to complain to complain about that and then then we cannot take that group from the cas or maybe we can, but they cannot judge on the on the on their.

R

Own flag assessments.

I

But I I think the ca process is already taken care of, because the vca there's no vca deciding of a ca's assessment. It's the group choice of whether it was filtered out or not. So I don't know whether I'd agree that the ca needs a a course of a recourse for a filtered out assessment. Yes,.

C

I agree with you sorry. I.

I

Missed that yeah, so so this case, it's only what we're discussing right now for fun date is a vca if a vca is outside of the bounds of the norm, that that's what we're looking into here and what can we implement beyond what io's already discussed?

I

Can we implement a proof of life discussion.

I

Conducted by vcas keeping in mind that there is a conflict of interest in in doing that,.

F

Nadia, isn't that the discussion he took to the circle and they and they agreed to be the the task force or the.

A

They suggested that we make a task force, because some of the circle are also vcas, and that is what has originated so in this in this previous document. Here that we have. I think this might actually be if we could look at you know here. Here are some ideas for the selection of the task force members.

A

So it could be catalyst, circle plus iog. It could be. um You know, there's some different considerations: randomized selection of cas and vcas, who did not appear on any of the list as assessors or proposers collection of catalyst stakeholders. So I think that this is a very important thing to figure out and to ilia's point.

A

I think it's tough to I. I unders there's a there's, a balance between um reality and perception as well here, because if you have a group of bca's able to make a decision that some that another vca is eliminated, I understand that it's negligible, but I think it will raise community flags and probably should that you have a group that would benefit from disclosing someone making a decision on whether to disclude someone. I think it. I think it has to it has to be a little bit more um a little bit more.

A

um I don't know what the word is less less, that particular group and more filled with other people, but I don't know, I don't know exactly who those people are who their stakeholders are. So um I think it's really important. The part of this is transparency for the for the community as well, and uh you know we can't have a situation where you get to make a decision on someone's someone's outcome where you would potentially benefit from it, no matter how negligible that seems like it would be.

A

Yeah, dimitri.

P

Yeah, I I I really like the idea about the proof of life. I was going to suggest um a way to mitigate or partially mitigate. This conflict of interest is to have the ones who actually hold the pen and the funds decide. So the group of vcas holds this review and challenge session a decision. The decision actually comes uh from it's daniel uh rap river or uh some of someone from iog who makes a decision that way. You sort of you uh create the process you deliver.

H

The process.

P

But you um take yourself away from making the decision and medicate the conflict to to some extent.

P

I don't. Obviously you can influence the questioning which would uh still raise the flags, but the yes or no is not. It's not bca's.

C

I don't understand the proof of life point I mean if somebody can write a good enough, artificial intelligence that can judge and assess the assessments better than human, I'm all for it.

C

So I don't really care about the the proof of life thing.

I

I think the the the creator of that would come and present themselves yeah.

H

And I.

I

Think that that would be okay if they said, look, here's my ai here's, the work that I did. Hopefully it's open source, so someone can check through it or something like this. I don't know. Maybe that then opens things up, but, okay, I.

C

Think there's.

I

Still a person behind everything- it's just I mean we've currently got.

I

There was some vietnam group that was pulling people to do ca assessments without telling them anything about cardano and catalyst, and this sort of thing so there are there are I mean, that's it's slightly different, but there are this thing's going to keep morphing into something so that if we there's a concept called web of trust right where people get to know each other and start to trust each other, so proof of life is kind of a part of that that says, I'm a person I'm here trying to do the best I can- maybe I don't always do so, but at least I'm here and I'm participating as intended um to the best of my ability- and I guess that's what the proof of life offers.

A

Someone needs to be able to to stand for the work that they've done. That's the point someone will say this. This is this is how the work was done, and why- and you know it needs to be able to be um constructed, deconstructed and still hold weight. So.

O

If someone, if a vca is, is like an outlier shouldn't like they should be notified of that, and then it should be up to them whether or not they want to challenge that through that proof of life. Like phil was saying like get in front of your peers and, however it's done, but if they don't challenge it then that's it. I mean they should know the consequences, though it shouldn't just be like you didn't show up now, you can no longer be a vca.

A

We we need to set forth the. If, then, we need to set forth and if then as preparation and then allow people to go through it, and I think this is really one. Probably. This is such a strong discussion and I know it's a long discussion, but really it's like nice job, everyone for hanging in there and continuing to to put input into it. What I'm hearing and can we can?

A

We is there a consensus that what we need is just simply a a process by which someone we process, by which we can evaluate and provide um the the any outlier with a fair opportunity to represent themselves. And then we need to provide a um a group of people or maybe not a huge group, but we need to provide a way for that to happen such that there's not conflict of interest, and that there is outcomes we can expect either they can validate what they've done and they did a good job.

A

And we say: okay, you didn't necessarily agree, but you did good work and you followed it and you you you've done it according to this vca guidelines or you, for whatever reason, good or bad have not done that, and therefore these will not be counted, but there was a due process by which that was evaluated.

A

Do we do we think that that's what we need here? Is there agreement on that and if there is, can we start to put it together here and.

F

So I think we do need to just dissect um the iog document just to understand at what point um your your you become an outlier 10, 20 30. At the moment. That document says that slashing rewards, if you're, if you're, if you're 10 out.

I

I think, like lucio said, though, that we can run our own vca process in the guidelines, a the alex script um that that outlines what an outlier is like. We don't need to look to iog's script that can be sorted out with the reward system and the reputation system that I've developed, but we can actually run run the script ourselves I mean, like I said we need someone to to hold up that script.

F

I think so, but I I think what I heard earlier was the reward slashing based on based on the iog script is going to be in place for fun date.

F

It is going to be implemented, irrespective of us running the alex script or or having.

I

Any other discussion- I I think it's a classic iog, where it's going to happen, whether we think it shouldn't or not, and we can look to fund nine to change it at this point. Unfortunately,.

K

Just to be fair, like this conversation about this document has been out and about for quite a while, I think it's. I just looked at the telegram when I first shared in this format, and I think it's been since march 11th.

K

So I just would like to push back, and I know I know you mean all well phil, but it's not like no longer in a sense that it's just like our way or highway, but it's been sitting there for a while awaiting some of those comments, and I know we're quite extremely busy.

K

And yes, I can confirm that, like we're going forward with this one and we're just trying to see how that settles in and based on those outcomes and also, as lucio said, a couple of other great ideas that we can run other scripts in parallel see how they compare, maybe even to look at the previous funds. If there is a compatibility of data, so we can have a like a very good understanding of spatial awareness of like how these different things may have worked out.

K

Maybe we can also do that for the current one as well, that, like we applied this script and we apply alex's or something else, but we still need to have a clear decision path so that we keep on moving forward. So we know like the one that the I o uh has put forward like that's the one that we're rolling with it. I think it's still quite forgiving. I see john made a very good comment about.

K

You know that maybe the deviation about 10 percent might be quite common, that he had a bit like a 19 from the crowd or something like that. But I think, like the slashing is quite um forgiving just to see like how that works out these funds, so that we can catch those outliers but still allow for proper work to be done as such, and then we can iterate on it.

K

But I think it's it's an improvement on the state that we've been before, and I think the goal is to bring that incremental value of moving our needle in generally right direction, rather than getting everything perfect, because I think the drive and everybody's passion is just to get everything right and get get all of those possible scenarios.

K

But just given the resources that we have on all ends in this process, uh we still need to move forward with some sort of mvps incremental value so that we can sort of see how the system reacts or not, and it's fully open to to discussions and what? uh What not. If, if we find out that things don't work or if there's things we can implement from the discussions coming up just like today and they're quite fantastic by the way. So thank you. Everyone.

I

Then do you have a way to deal with someone who doesn't agree with the outcome.

K

So that's that the last paragraph to it- and it was like alluding to the comment I put in a chat as well- that that's basically, I think what sparked the initial conversations when we had with nadia and everyone else that that would be a great pilot to see like what is it that we can actually work on. It was one of those few areas that I think the community's involvement needs to come in in the shape and form, as it did today to start discussing these things.

K

So it's not only pushed from one end on our side and I think it was also sort of suggested in those commitments. What are the areas that io can drive like those things and what are the different things that the community can drive and what are the things we can do collectively together and that dispute resolution and figuring out what are the avenues for the vca process?

K

Right like we haven't, talked about the ca, because I think that brings a lot of complexity and I don't think that's actually viable for fund 8 to have that sort of education for a c8.

K

If they disagree with this stuff, but I think we can start playing with some very simple version to the tune of what you guys were and gals were discussing about the vcas right like if, if somebody is marked as an outlier and they have an issue with it and they want to challenge it, what the process can we offer them in this pilot version that could test drive that and maybe maybe they don't get the answers, or maybe they don't get the outcome they would hope for.

K

But it allows us to see collectively what is at play and how that actually, you know played out and whether that's sufficient or whether we need to look into some different options in terms of that so.

I

Okay, um so now do you mind if I go ahead: yeah, yes, so elia. Your main concern with this was the concept of conflict of interest. I did post a poster post many posts there, something I wrote in telegram earlier today about that. Currently I don't see them as conflict of interest. I see them more of uh what did I say, combined interests, so the fact that the vca's have a direct interest in it.

I

I would prefer to imagine that the participating vcas in that process aren't there to try and increase their rewards and, if we think about it and take it from that position until otherwise proven. um I think that's fair enough. I agree with that. Yeah. Does that solve that.

R

For now, for now I agree with that. I'm just saying for the future. We should be refined, aware of it yeah for sure so.

I

If we then look at trying to trying to get get to a result of all this, um is there any other major concerns with so one of the?

I

What I would like to see is is that an event is called uh no specific task task force members are identified, but there's a community called to say if you're an interested party in this matter, which is these outlying vcas.

I

Please attend at something like this right that there are people in this group in this chat right now that have done analysis of of the vca process and could present their work in in a group setting to to an outlier to ask for an explanation of how that's happened and that outlier can then discuss and inform us of their thinking of their process and how they participated.

I

And then we, as the the group present, can can can discuss the outcome of that. So that that's how I imagine would be the easiest way to implement something. So, instead of having any specific members call have a call to action of interested parties, and- and this is just for fun date for fun- nine- we can look into other things, but that's my suggestion. That's how I'd like to see it happen. So, let's discuss disgusting.

C

That sounds good to me.

S

I like that.

A

Too,.

S

Though the question will come, then, who decides.

I

Those that are present no interested party will decide. Okay, so it could come down to literally a vote um and if it's a tied vote, it goes in the favor of thing or we could have three two third majority, whatever we could just literally discuss it right now. Is it full majority? Half two third majority whatever makes sense, but that the those that are present interested parties they they decide together.

I

Scott.

O

Yeah so yeah, I kind of agree with phil on that, but I do think we need to have a minimum threshold, at least um and also you know, like a an agreed-upon.

O

uh Percentage as far as who, who's, yay or nay, um my other, the other concern I have is the dissemination of this information itself. If it is only posted in telegram, I mean I'll, be honest. I don't spend a lot of time in telegram because finding information, unless you're on there like, if that's your main communication tool, if it's not, then you lose information.

O

So I mean that's my concern as far as how do we inform the community of this, like recall, so to speak, or this call to arm.

A

Can we put it, can we put it as a just a procedural thing like we have the community advisor after the assessments this this this? Could we have in the vca guide and say in the case of this.

N

This is what's going to happen, kind of a thing, naveed yeah. I think I think that needs.

F

To be documented, that process and the the practical process of who communicates and how we communicate so the the the the issue we had in front six and found seven with trying to get a hold of a vca and trying to challenge them is one they stuck fingers up at us and said who the hell are you I'm not talking to you and, and so that iog is the only true source of contact, so they're they're, the email they put in idea scale is the point of contact to the to the bca, so it needs ing to either share those emails or contact them on on behalf of the uh task force.

F

Okay, let me just need to document that in here doesn't document that in the vca code.

A

Phil, do you think, since you have sort of scoped this out in your mind, and because you have a lot of of um content in the guide already? Do you think you could put this in like a little bit of a draft form within the guide and then that we'll all agree? I know we gave ourselves a tomorrow morning, but could we do maybe like uh what, if we did tomorrow's thursday?

A

So what if we did tomorrow at like 10, utc, 10 pm utc, or something like that, so everyone would have a chance to look at it. We could weigh in on it and come to a consensus and add comments and then at least have a a written like digestible process for this moving forward and that that could put a button on. We have these great new tools. The tools will work, the tools have expectations and this will provide.

A

This will create that little extra bit of a opportunity for us to understand how we address it and for that person to understand how they will be addressed.

A

Does that feel like a doable takeaway here.

K

Yeah, I mean just just just to clarify real quick for for those sorry for those uh dispute resolutions. I understand that we wouldn't be actively seeking out and investigating every edge case, and it will be only brought forward if somebody raises an issue that they want that to be addressed right because I'm, I also want us to be mindful of like how to scale these things.

K

um So as long as it's in a way that we give somebody an opportunity to challenge the decision, but I don't think we have a capacity to go and inform everyone about like.

K

Oh, these are that so, and I would assume that, as a vca, you are participating actively in the process that that probably comes with an expectation that if there's results are out, you understand, and if you disagree then you're able to engage, because you know where to seek that engagement through that suggestion that you know that we would formulate and perhaps use as a guidance for the dispute resolution and maybe in the future- and I just threw an idea in a chat earlier- is to ensure that not everybody just goes and raises their hands, because again, that creates a lot of workloads.

K

So thinking about scaling this down the line is that perhaps in order to actually bring a matter to that, maybe you need some other humans to sort of like agree that, okay, that seems weird, and you have some case.

K

You know that you can bring forward to some task force that could form around that as well, which could be a very natural filtering option, just simply through the means of a petition. You know like hey, get another two or three humans at least agree with you and it could be prescribed like who could that be? Or something like that?

K

Just so that it's that we don't have a spam like that, everybody will just challenge something just simply because they can and I'm just looking at it from what I'm seeing in different parts of the ecosystem. If there are no checks like that, it can be quite overpowering, and maybe that's not needed in this version, but something to think about down the line: uh how to streamline the process so really just the real cases that need the attention and energy of everybody involved. Yeah.

F

I agree danny d. Do you agree? We would need iog to initiate that discussion with the vca.

K

um Sorry, meaning.

F

If, if we, if we flag an outlier, that that we'd like to speak to um the only way we can officially get hold of them is, is through the email that you'll yeah.

K

I think initially that that's a good place to do so. Maybe then we need to also think about you know uh and then, in a sense of like all the other conversations we're having with the d-reps and whatnot, perhaps we'll be able to do and have like vca profiles that could be living, that there will be a way to really connect with these people that they have some publicly available information that you can like reach out to them. You know it may not necessarily be email.

K

It may be some other different version, but we would have a public database, maybe as a part of a proof of life that allows for that by communication, and that would be sort of like used for communicating like the results and the invites and everything which we sort of assume that people are checking in um and that maybe there may be some kind of just like a ca address that everybody would need to make a spam address or something like that if they wanted to preserve extra privacy or whatnot.

K

But initially, I think, that's totally reasonable, as you said, naveed, but down the line again. I'm thinking, maybe that war runs some creation of vca profiles or something along the side as we mature the system as such.

F

Okay, so- and I just want one other minor gaps, so we spoke about running- let's call the alex script that we keep referring to it's written in python. We need somebody who knows how to handle these pythons and he's going to share his script on friday.

F

um I spoke to him earlier today. It needs something to pick that up and turn it into something.

F

Where is where's, the fear gonna happen.

C

He's putting in github, he said.

F

He'll share the links somewhere, probably on discord or or to me, but I can check with them again on friday, so it'll be in github and then and then it just needs somebody who knows python to pick it up and and implement it somewhere.

A

Okay, so we need a call for that still volunteer.

F

Hands up.

E

I can run it, I can.

F

Run in a spreadsheet, that's fine, but take me a day to figure.

A

Okay, good, okay, so to to summarize all that we're going to make a process by which someone who wants to self to throw their hat in the ring for having a second look at them being eliminated from the counted process.

A

That person needs to do their own petition. We're not reaching out to everyone and saying hey, come over here and talk to us about it. If they want to, they can they have there's a process by which they can make a counter argument and we're going to flush that out and make it clear and then um perform it as form as needed. With the communication going through the email via iog fill.

I

um So I I think I see there's a push and a pull uh into this task force as we're calling it um so a as vca. That's missing out on rewards can choose to petition uh like build a small petition of two or three other vcas, that they've convinced that there's an issue and and ask for this task for them to to rule on this or somebody such as alex's script or a vca, that's participating or a community member. That's participating in in checking gov oversight.

I

Let's call it um of the vca process can also run a petition and and do a pull and and request that a vca attends this session. Is that that's how I'm kind of seeing this fault unfold?

I

And if, if that's the case, then we will pass that to iog to contact that vca and if they choose not to attend, then they miss out on rewards. If they do choose to attend, then we'll run the process of those that are present. We'll we'll make a judgment. Are we okay with 50 50 greater than 50? Is that, like simple majority at this point, does that make sense or.

A

I think that feels good and we should obviously have an odd number.

I

uh At this point I always like to ask: is there any, does anyone have any major objections or even objections that that they can see issues that they can see with what we're kind of coming with? Because it's hard to then, like it's hard to say, let's vote on this, because I assume that if people are quiet with they in agreeance, so that's kind of the way I like to run these things. So if you have issue yeah go ahead.

O

I was going to say I can bring up a couple more, but I don't want to drag this meeting out any longer.

Q

Than it is.

O

And.

Q

That's that's like.

O

Is there going to be a deadline? Is there going to be a deadline.

G

For any type of uh petition, and then there's also a deadline to respond to that petition, that's it that's smart! Actually, I like that.

K

um So that we don't keep coming back something that somebody brings up, you know three five, six, eight ten weeks after so that, actually that makes a lot of sense. Scott very good point.

A

What, if what if we do something like seven days and seven days, because that will put us within the three week funding when yeah.

K

We have to do it essentially before we distribute the funds as well, so practically speaking, any any time before that it allows us to actually do the calculation prepare documents and ship out. Those first rewards, I think, that's great. So if, like seven and seven or something like that, puts us within the two week frame and I think we're funding in a third week give or take you know, it's still a moving target fun to fund, but.

I

So that.

K

Allows us to move.

I

What's the seven and seven just 14 days or.

F

Seven days to flag somebody and then seven days, seven days to respond or we just gotta, be conscious of time zones and people are busy and.

K

Reach a conclusion really because then we really need to spread out the rewards and move on so.

G

Yep I've got one last uh one. Last.

O

Question about this, and what, if just what? If no peers, show up during this?

O

What if none of the dca show to actually provide their input on whether or not this person should be.

I

You disappeared there, scott, but I would even suggest that we run it at an aftertown hall. Maybe I don't know if that's yeah it could cause.

F

Issues.

I

But at least as the first as the first one we can, because we we're then guaranteed some level of participation. I think.

F

It depends on the time zone the the the vca is in.

I

Everybody can attend it after town hall. uh If it's in the eastern town hall, we can send them that way. I think yeah.

A

Great point: yeah perfect thanks, okay, and I think we should maybe have it. I don't know what do you think should we have it recorded.

T

Yes,.

A

Great all right phil, so you have that written already is what I'm saying.

I

Yeah sure.

K

Yeah, if we can, uh if we can have it um formalized within the like the next day or so so that on friday, I can include that information in those emails being distributed just so that again, if we have to do something, everybody is clear on what the engagement is and, and everybody has, that solid information going into the process. So there's no like second guessing, and um that would be ideal. I'm you know. If I can have it on friday ready, then there will be we'll.

I

Finalize it end of.

A

Let's do 10 pm utc tomorrow.

I

Yeah.

A

Okay,.

I

um So and we're going to include this fun date, vca incentives requirement as a link to the in the document: yeah yeah, okay,.

F

Yeah, I think it's it is it linked in the in the vca draft already is. It is already okay, yeah.

K

Yeah and this document is finished, the only thing that also scott has asked about and that's a relevant question.

K

We have still a tpd item on the minimum threshold at which, like we expect the vcas to be actually rewarded at all, but I think that will very largely depend on friday seeing how many bca's are actually eligible, because on friday, we're going to find out as far as park told me so because we were looking at understanding how how many of vcas we actually need to have to participate to achieve some kind of good spread out, and I think who was it mike. Let me read his comment: real quick.

K

The idea was like, for example, that if we have a 1500 proposals- and we have like three assessments per each, which is like a 5k- let's say right now we have about 8 000.

K

How many do we want for each assessment to be and in that range calculation was that the minimum would be to at least evaluate 100 assessments as a vca? I don't know if that sounds too much as a bare threshold or seems reasonable to the group here.

I

I haven't done that in the past, but.

K

No, I mean like it's just you know. It just was looking at like how to incentivize to really at least get some kind of a good workload. It would mean essentially that if you reveal anything less than this number, you will not be rewarded whatsoever, so you need to reach this threshold and then you start being considered for rewards and whether that's 50 or 100, um but that's uh the latest. The conversation that I saw in the comments that it could be around 100 we're looking at it like.

K

If you invest at least 10 hours, 100 rankings, you know, and you earn thousand dollars like that seems like uh yeah, essentially a good outcome.

I

It it makes sense to have that sort of progression, because then you get you start building the quality, vca participation right, but it makes sense to have it yeah.

A

I agree all.

K

Right, so that's just for the expectation of where that is because I know scott has asked and- and I know it's not clarified there yet as far as all the others, just like we've said for those thresholds like the k and n those are not going to be effectively active in this round, but we're gonna see how they may be needed in the future. As we address one of those points that somebody else mentioned, you know, like somebody, you know a couple.

K

People assess majority of those vca outputs, so actually, in the long run we wanna spread that out a bit all right. That's me.

I

Think that's all of us.

F

Can I just decide daddy just one point of clarification coming back to the to the um the uh assessments so post ca work, um so the only piece is that iog will filter out before it gets to the bca is a blank, a blank assessment or where somebody is assessing.

F

um Where a ca's assessed some of their own proposal. Everything else will be left to the vcas. Is that correct.

K

I'll, let lucha confirm um as well, but essentially what is the the cases you said, but I also think if the, if your output agrees with somebody's else's assessment as a copy across different assessors, I think that is filtered out as well right, lucha, exactly.

E

Yes, correct.

K

So let's say like you as an avid and scott work together and all of your assessments are the same or you've been copy pasting between one another or having like multiple accounts. Well, that would invalidate you before it actually gets to the vcas. What is really cool? Sorry.

E

To the proposal before they go to the proposal.

K

Even proposer yeah, okay, so that sort of like helps us filter out that way, but what's really cool, then the vca's output on those like similarity scores and all of that they will be highlighted in a different color. I believe so. That will also ease the work for the pcas to actually see like oh okay. This was flagged by the the script, so I can pay special attention to it and it will be highlighted in different colors. So I think there will be a productivity boost as well to a degree where you.

F

Where the.

K

Ai suggests that you need to pay special attention, potentially yeah.

F

So it's across cas, rather than just an individual ca, which is a conversation we had right at the top of this.

K

Yeah and we're going to be looking, I think it's backwards as well. Is it that, like it's not only the current fund, but also the cas assessments which were made in the past? So if you try to recycle something that you've used, let's say three funds ago: you know that would be sort of a no-go in a way as well. If you were to reuse some of those uh across different ids or things of that. So that's important.

F

One other scenario: so the yes, yes, yes, scenario, so that the less than 150 characters that we also feel also discarding those yes.

E

This was also discussed with mark and we will filter out all the assessments.

E

Smaller than let me check, I remember 100 characters. If I recall correctly, I can. I can configure tomorrow.

E

So it's like all the one words or uh short sentences will be already filtered out, and also again, this filter will be will happen before the assessments will go to the proposals. So it's kind of also the proposals will not see them.

E

And just what the similarity script will be run, we will create one document within fund date and another one against the previous funds. So we, you will have basically two similarity scripts uh similarity uh documents, not just one.

K

Lots of changes, lots of toys, I'm really curious to see how things change you know. I don't know the last last round was like turbulent inside and out, and I think also what's really cool. That community is looking at us from the outside in how we've coped with this.

K

So I think it will be really big test next couple of weeks how this actually plays out in real life compared to the last fund and whether we can prove them semi wrong in a sense that, like that's what catalyst is about, it's rating trying, pushing the boundaries and then adjusting to it. So I would just like to say really big thank you to everyone who's actually. Still on this call. I know we were quite a lot before and this went in the distance.

K

Thank you nadia for leading all of that, because it's quite a huge job and you know, like especially you know, I've done my first ca work in front two, so I think we've come a huge huge long way, and I think you should be everybody proud for putting in the hours. So I really appreciate you. If people don't tell you enough, everyone on this call that your work is greatly greatly appreciated.

I

Well,.

A

Said.

I

Dan, thank you as well.

A

Yeah, sam.

I

Your work's very appreciated.

A

Yeah, it's fun. It's gonna, you know we're gonna, we're gonna learn a lot. So that's always that's always like a leftover positive outcome at the end of the day, and hopefully we learn a lot of stuff. We are happy to learn.

A

I'm.

F

Sure it is but.

A

Okay, um great guys, okay, so we got 10 10 tomorrow, utc phil. Do you want to we'll just all uh come in and and work on that document together and maybe we'll make cut off for comments like maybe like eight utc, so we can just clean it up and then have it over danny.

I

I might just ping everyone in the uh ca channel when I'm having to work on it and if anyone wants to join a call, so we can just discuss things as well as we go through it right um that might work. Well, that's awesome. Okay, but I'll just have an open, open mic. I guess until we see where we go. Okay, thank you. Everyone, it's quite late here, so I'm gonna jump off.
youtube image
From YouTube: CA After Town Hall Meeting - March 23, 2022

Description

No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).