►
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).
A
A
So
we
have
a
really
big
room
today
and
it's
fantastic
it's
what
we,
what
we
hope
and
that
this
group
is
growing,
and
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
since
it's
assessment
time,
but
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
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
an
even
more
efficient
and
welcoming
and
understandable
and
accessible
process.
A
So
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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,
maybe
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
bring
that
up
since
you're,
putting
in
the
chat-
oh
yeah,
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.
E
F
So
on
multiple
channels,
people
would
have
seen
lots
and
lots
of
it
might
be
quite
boring
conversations,
but
anyway,
about
this
particular
text.
I
put
in
the
chat
on
on
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
All
we
can
do
is
write
similar
assessments,
so
we're
potentially
going
to
see
assessments
that
are
80
90,
90
plus
similar.
H
F
I
I
Given
that
we're
operating
in
a
you
know
open
and
permissionless
system,
two
two
projects
like
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
A
D
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.
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
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
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
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
learning
your.
A
Your
concern
is:
how
do
we
make
how
it's
it's
really
beyond
a
feasibility
and
impact?
It's
an
intent
thing
that
you're
raising
here
yeah.
I
think
that's
great.
A
D
A
That
that's
something
that
that
definitely
this
group
shares
and
is
is
focused
on,
certainly,
and
so
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
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.
D
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
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
keep
keep
just
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
A
A
I'm
going
to
keep
going,
but
if
that
happens,
we
can
also
come
back
to
it.
J-O-A-N
and
a-doj.
J
Yeah,
hello,
I'm
a
proposer,
so
I'm
gonna
try
to
keep
this
quick
and
on
topic,
but
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.
I
This
in
discord
a
little
bit.
B
Yeah
so
from
from
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
make
the
final
proposal
out
of
the
the
draft-
and
you
know
we
have
this
prerequisites
to
allow
proposal
to
get
to
the
assessed
stage
and
then
to
get
to
the
ballot.
B
One
of
them
is
requesting
more
than
one
dollar
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
one
word,
answers
for
for
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.
J
J
B
No
one
is
basically
asking
for
two
dollars:
people
are
putting
zero
or
one
if
they
are
preparing
their
their
projects
to
to
make
it
a
proper
value.
At
the
end
of
finalized
stage,.
I
That
is
very
interesting
and
it
brings
up
a
bunch
of
issues
that
are
beyond
just
the
administration
side
of
this.
So
I
mean.
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
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,
but
if
anything.
A
Here,
can
we
let
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
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
So
that,
like
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,
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
J
But
hold
on,
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
I
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
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
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
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
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
the
proposals
back
and
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
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
A
A
You
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
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
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
and
also
creating
a
video
in
itself
is
something
that
people
need
to
learn
how
to
do
it's,
so
there
might
be
a
brilliant
programmer
who
doesn't
know
how
to
make
videos.
So
in
that
case
it's
hard
to
evaluate
that
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
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.
I
got
a
question.
That's
actually
kind
of
important
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
for
this
funding
round
they're
in
different
categories.
Some
some
of
them
are
in
doubt
anyway
different
different
categories.
However,
his
proposals
or
his
and
hers
proposals
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.
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.
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
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
A
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
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
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?
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
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
thousand
dollars
that
could
have
gone
to
another
project.
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
responded
to.
Thank
you,
everyone
for
that.
Thank
you,
tom
for
the
question
you
like
it
dressed
eric.
B
Hi,
so
the
question
is
as
of
this
as
a
ca,
I
saw
I
I'm
not
a
c,
but
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
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
treated
as
a
bot
for
posting
similar
assessments,
and
can
I
answer
that
question.
A
B
No,
we
won't
be
penalized
because
we
are
we're
taking
similarity
assessments
between
different
assessors.
So
if
you
are
going
to
to
copy
and
paste
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
A
H
Jp
yeah,
I
may
just
challenge
that
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
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
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
I
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,
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
issues
in
our
last
in
fund
seven.
This
group
faced
a
lot
of
issues
with
there
being
copy
pasted
assessments,
and
we
had
to
talk
a
lot
about.
A
I
Sorry
and
that
was
across
different
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
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
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.
N
I
I
had
my
hand
up
early.
I
just
wanted
to
had
a
a
point
to
what
william
was
saying
earlier
part
of
this.
I
really
enjoy
the
ca
process,
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
A
A
A
A
Okay,
so
is
that
working?
Can
you
guys
see
the
screen,
so
we
just
got
this
part.
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?
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
talking
to
the
catalyst
circle
where
the
origin
of
the
of
the
task
force
idea
came,
then
we
drafted
this
and
then
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
F
Yeah
just
wanted
to
clarify
the
the
as-is
situation
so
in
fund
seven,
with
with
those
scenarios
that
nadia
spoke
about,
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,
but
equally,
in
some
cases
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,
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
The
ones
with
nonsensical
assess
the
nonsensical
assessments
for
those
in
front
of
you.
Remember
that
the
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
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
cleaner.
And
the
idea
is
that
the
bcaas
then
get
a
a
subset
of
good
assessments
or.
I
I
think
that's
slightly
different
from
this
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?
How
do
I
get
my
time
to
say,
there's
no
process
for
them
at
the
moment.
I
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
too
much
influence
from
the
vca
and
the
decision-making
body.
F
I
I
think
if
it
has
no
teeth,
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
so
either
it
has
teeth
and
it's
it's
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
turtles
down
sort
of
concept.
Sorry
jp
jp.
H
Yeah,
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
blind,
but
I
think
right
now
we're
just
setting
up
bca's
or
whatever.
This
body
is
to
kind
of
be.
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
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
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
arbitration
system
and-
and
it
stems
from
the
fact
that
proposals
may
not-
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
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
and
and
and
work
out
how
to
include
people
to
to
participate
in
that
system?.
A
A
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
F
We
ran
a
script
and
we
found
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
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
the
ca
assessments.
I
Would
the
new
vca
guidelines
be
laying
that
out
so
that,
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.
I
F
So
so,
for
example,
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
run
the,
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
thousands
and
thousands
of
dollars,
you're
getting
paid
without
any
without
any
way
of
challenging
them,
and
that's
that's
important.
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
so,
for
example
like
if
you
are
agreeing
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
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
more
dramatic
in
order
to
cope
with
somebody
who
just
clicks
everything
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.
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
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
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,
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.
E
I
think
that
that
will
be
the
case.
It
is
something
that
it's
already
documented
and
published.
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
and
see
if
it
is
actually
effective
for
everything.
I
I
totally
hear
you
when
you
say
that
kind
of
disagree
with
the
majority.
E
It's
it's
it's
it's
something
that
could
happen,
and
probably
it's
it's
I
don't
know
it
is
not
implies
that
someone
is
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.
C
Yes,
I
was
thinking
that
slashing
the
rewards
is
a
good
thing,
but
I
don't
believe
that's
sufficient
to
control
the
misbehavior,
because
if
you
don't
spend
any
effort
on
on.
C
On
doing
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
C
A
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
not
being
not
using
integrity
in
that
process,
you
still
need
someone
to
address
that
at
that
point.
A
So
and
then
I'm
noticing
what
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
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
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,
wherever
that's
at,
and
I
don't
know
if
the
slashing
I
don't
know,
if
any
of
this
any
of
these
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.
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,
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
H
Jp
yeah,
my
kind
of
builds
on
that
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
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
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
for
the
community
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
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
was
developed
by
alex
and
he's
recently
got
too
busy
to
to
be
involved
with,
with
the
continual
development
of
it
so
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
I
think
it
was
20
or
30
primary
participants
who
who
did
like
95
of
the
assessments
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,
the
final
qa
stage,
so
it
is
about
creating
something
we
we've
got
iog's
version
in
front
of
us
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,
given
that
we
now
have
a
fun
date
process
kind
of
outlined
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
in
his
script,
that
that's
probably
where
that's
up
to.
E
I
I
can
reply
to
that.
It
is
the
the
iog
team.
This
is
the
script
that
was
developed
to
basically
calculate
the
rewards
for
the
vcas,
so
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
to
what
iog
was
working
on
internally.
I
E
P
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
so
a
proposal
how
to
fix
it.
Because
my
mind
is:
could
we
can
I
just
audit
all
the
vcas
and
have
the
chance
of
20
are
getting
caught
and
then
and
if
court,
then
they
get
slashed
completely
and
lose
the
ability
to
participate
in
future
rounds.
P
I
mean
I
mean
just
to
add
so
the
script
is,
is,
I
guess,
was
with
good
intentions.
My
concern
there
is
that
somebody
that
was
said
here
already
somebody
rating
an
assessment
is
good
or
excellent,
and
someone
else
rating
is
as
false
or
inadequate
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
behind
those
ratings,
then
they
have
to
produce
something
meaningful
based
on
which
you
know
the
rest
of
the
vcas
could
vote
or
if
iog
holds,
was
the
parent
of
the
funds
the
iog
could
decide.
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
an
audit
of
say
a
couple
couple
of
couple
of
assessments
from
each
of
the
vcas
is
trivial,
but
assuming
that
a
vca
does
you
know
50
assessments,
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.
P
A
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
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
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
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
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
A
So
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
I
put
that
out
for
for
consideration
and
then
I
kick
it
back
to
scott
and
then
james.
I
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,
and
you
reward
the
ones
that
go
right,
that
that's
kind
of
what's
happening
here.
I
So
if
you're,
if
we're
looking
at
the
the
body
of
vca's
and
making
the
decision
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
I
There
is
an
objective
set
of
guidelines
that
that
cas
are
requested
to
follow
right
so
and
and
we
we
as
cas,
are
reviewing
the
assessment
to
those
guidelines
so
in
in
a
way
there's
not
a
subjective
measure
here
it
is
does.
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
P
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
Two
questions
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
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
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
some
bias
in
decision
group
decision
making
is
actually
a
good
thing
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
various
assessments
that
they
feel
require
attention,
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.
Q
Hey
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.
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,
whereas,
whereas
if
it's
just
a
random
vote,
then
then
the
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
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
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
I
I
I
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
and
it
might
solve
some
of
those
things
you
were
mentioning,
but
it's
gonna
certainly
give.
I
A
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
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
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,
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.
C
Have
a
major
objection
that
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
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,
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
quote
unquote
justice
due
to
the
difference
in
in
their
assessments,
discovered
by
the
by
the
algorithm.
C
I
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.
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
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
a
little
bit
more.
A
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
I
think
it's
really
important.
The
part
of
this
is
transparency
for
the
for
the
community
as
well,
and
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.
P
Yeah,
I
I
I
really
like
the
idea
about
the
proof
of
life.
I
was
going
to
suggest
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
from
it's
daniel
rap
river
or
some
of
someone
from
iog
who
makes
a
decision
that
way.
You
sort
of
you
create
the
process
you
deliver.
P
But
you
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
still
raise
the
flags,
but
the
yes
or
no
is
not.
It's
not
bca's.
H
I
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
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
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
the
the
any
outlier
with
a
fair
opportunity
to
represent
themselves.
And
then
we
need
to
provide
a
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
F
So
I
think
we
do
need
to
just
dissect
the
iog
document
just
to
understand
at
what
point
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
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.
I
K
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
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
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
just
given
the
resources
that
we
have
on
all
ends
in
this
process,
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?
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.
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?
I
Okay,
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
what
did
I
say,
combined
interests,
so
the
fact
that
the
vca's
have
a
direct
interest
in
it.
I
R
I
If
we
then
look
at
trying
to
trying
to
get
get
to
a
result
of
all
this,
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
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
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.
A
I
Those
that
are
present
no
interested
party
will
decide.
Okay,
so
it
could
come
down
to
literally
a
vote
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
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
and
also
you
know,
like
a
an
agreed-upon.
O
Percentage
as
far
as
who,
who's,
yay
or
nay,
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.
A
A
Phil,
do
you
think,
since
you
have
sort
of
scoped
this
out
in
your
mind,
and
because
you
have
a
lot
of
of
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
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.
K
Yeah,
I
mean
just
just
just
to
clarify
real
quick
for
for
those
sorry
for
those
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
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:
how
to
streamline
the
process
so
really
just
the
real
cases
that
need
the
attention
and
energy
of
everybody
involved.
Yeah.
F
If,
if
we,
if
we
flag
an
outlier,
that
that
we'd
like
to
speak
to
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
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
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
F
F
I
spoke
to
him
earlier
today.
It
needs
something
to
pick
that
up
and
turn
it
into
something.
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
perform
it
as
form
as
needed.
With
the
communication
going
through
the
email
via
iog
fill.
I
So
I
I
think
I
see
there's
a
push
and
a
pull
into
this
task
force
as
we're
calling
it
so
a
as
vca.
That's
missing
out
on
rewards
can
choose
to
petition
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
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.
I
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
G
For
any
type
of
petition,
and
then
there's
also
a
deadline
to
respond
to
that
petition,
that's
it
that's
smart!
Actually,
I
like
that.
K
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.
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
G
I
F
I
I
Everybody
can
attend
it
after
town
hall.
If
it's
in
the
eastern
town
hall,
we
can
send
them
that
way.
I
think
yeah.
A
T
K
Yeah,
if
we
can,
if
we
can
have
it
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
that
would
be
ideal.
I'm
you
know.
If
I
can
have
it
on
friday
ready,
then
there
will
be
we'll.
I
A
I
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
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,
but
that's
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
yeah,
essentially
a
good
outcome.
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
F
Can
I
just
decide
daddy
just
one
point
of
clarification
coming
back
to
the
to
the
the
assessments
so
post
ca
work,
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
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
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.
K
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.
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
across
different
ids
or
things
of
that.
So
that's
important.
E
E
So
it's
like
all
the
one
words
or
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
K
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
A
A
A
A
Okay,
great
guys,
okay,
so
we
got
10
10
tomorrow,
utc
phil.
Do
you
want
to
we'll
just
all
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
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
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.