►
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
Okay,
welcome
everyone.
We
have
the
vca
resolution
process
petitions
session
one
today.
The
second
will
be
held
on
saturday,
the
seventh
at
11
a.m,
utc
for
the
first
one
and
at
12
30
p.m,
utc
for
the
second,
so
we
have
our
first
four
here
in
the
second
six
on
saturday
and
I'm
going
to
just
share
my
screen
here
so
that
we
can
just
have
a
little
bit
of
sense
of
the
process.
A
Can
everyone
see
that?
Okay
all
right
all
right?
Thank
you!
Yes,
all
right
great,
so
I
put
this
doc
together.
I'll
just
dump
this
in
the
chat
for
everyone
real
fast,
and
this
is
just
a
little
bit
of
a
organizing
of
the
process.
This
is
the
first
time
we've
done
this,
and
so
it's
a
little
bit
of
an
exploration
at
a
pilot
as
much
as
it
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
see
if
we
can
learn
more
and
make
some
adjustments
accordingly.
Potentially,
so
I
just
put
the
link
to
the
vca
guide
here.
A
This
has
the
resolution
process
outlined
in
the
bottom,
so
that
will
give
you
a
little
bit
of
the
what
would
have
come
before
this
time.
So,
if
you're,
if
you're
new
to
this
happening,
then
hopefully
this
explains
enough
that
you
can
be
up
to
speed.
So
the
resolution
process
was
put
in
place
for
fund
8
newly,
and
this
is
in
response
to
wanting
to
have
a
process
by
which
people
could
contest
outcomes
after
the
vca
process
related
to
the
vca
algorithm.
That
runs
and
compares
vca
work
following
the
fund
date.
A
So
the
resolution
process
started
here
in
fund
8
to
allow
vcas
to
challenge
the
review
algorithm
results
and
to
raise
concerns
about
issues
with
vcas.
Ideally,
the
bca
work
more
specifically.
Ideally,
each
of
these
petitions
will
resolve
issues
and
hearing
of
these
will
guide
vca
process
improvements
for
future
funds.
A
A
There
will
be
two
more
of
these
and
I
will
actually
I
neglected
to
put
the
zoom
links
to
those
in
here,
but
I
will
do
that
following
this
call
today,
so
that
people
who
want
to
join
can
do
that.
A
A
Nine
minutes
later.
Thank
you
for
pointing
that
out
a
little
bit
of
completion
up
to
the
last
minute
of
this
document.
So
thank
you
for
pointing
it
out.
Okay,
so
here's
the
process
for
today
the
document
will
be
provided.
A
So
I
have
put
this
in
the
chat
here
and
then
next
thing
we'll
do
is
petition
by
petition
I'll
invite
the
petitioner
to
present
his
issue
with
the
explanation
and
any
supporting
data.
So
you
want
to
be
as
thorough
as
possible
there
and
there's
or
create
cases,
there's
an
invitation
to
comment
from
the
petition
supporters.
That
would
be
the
two
people
who
supported
the
petitioner
as
to
why
they
are
supporting
and
and
to
give
feedback.
There
then
we'll
have
an
invitation
for
the
community
response
on
the
issue.
A
Then
we'll
have
a
call
for
a
vote
and
have
the
vote
be
tallied
officially.
So
how
we'll
do
that
is
ask
for
a
vote
we'll
do
our
hands
I'll
count
the
hands,
and
I
will
put
the
just
the
count
here
in
this
document
later
on
from
the
recording
I
can
you
named
it
that's
important
and
then
votes
cast
votes
will
be
cast
by
raised,
hands
and
tallied
okay
good.
So
a
vote
will
be
carried
out.
A
Totally
so
I'll
re
I'll
repeat
this
again
when
we
get
there,
but
in
the
actions
of
the
but
in
your
zoom
controls,
there's
one
where
you
can
raise
a
hand.
Are
you
finding
that.
A
I
just
just
wanted
to
please
no
hi
nadia
hi.
There.
A
So
that
was
an
excellent
demonstration
of
that
process.
Thank
you.
I
was
afraid
you
were
going
to
like
ping
me
on
some
major
technical
issue.
I
was
kidding
okay
greater
than
50,
so
here's
how
the
votes
greater
than
50
and
the
negative
will
result
in
petition
disagreement.
That
means,
if
10
people
vote,
let's
use
an
odd
number.
If
nine
people
vote
and
five
vote,
five
vote
four
and
or
five
vote
against
and
four
vote.
Four
then
that's
petition
disagreement
and
the
opposite
will
be
true.
A
The
what's
next
will
be
determined
according
to
the
vote
outcome
and
what
is
feasible.
So
we
probably
won't
get
that
determined
today,
but
we'll
take
this.
Then
each
of
these
cases
is
a
little
bit
different.
So
we'll
come
away
from
that
and
determine
the
what's
next,
according
to
this
outcome,
and
then
I'm
hoping
that
at
the
end,
if
we
still
have
time
and
stamina,
we
might
make
a
few
points
about
any
kind
of
feedback
or
suggestions,
and
this
can
also
go
further
back
into
the
discord
or
the
telegram
channel
for
ideas.
A
A
Just
a
quick
thing
that
say
well
to
say:
we'll,
try
to
keep
it
to
30
minutes,
but
really
try
to
cut
it
off
by
45
minutes
per
petition
so
that
we
can
get
everyone
in
there
and
have
somewhat
relative
freshness
for
being
able
to
talk
about
them.
And
a
lot
of
this
has
been
in
the
discord
channels
beforehand
and
posted
in
telegram.
So
hopefully
we
can
be
like
succinct
and
direct,
and
then
I
just
put
in
here
the
discussion
is
a
really
valuable
part
of
this
process.
A
So
we
want
to
balance
allowing
the
conversation
and
also
keeping
it
on
track.
Okay,
outcome
limitations,
just
as
a
reminder
this,
this
cannot
change
what
is
currently
in
the
voting.
Obviously,
it's
not
going
to
change
the
work
that
has
been
put
in,
but
ideally
for
the
future.
We
try
to
figure
out
how
we
might
take
that
into
account
a
little
bit
better,
so
this
will
only
affect
rewards
or
things
like
status
for
the
future.
A
We
have
to
think
about
this
as
we
as
we
get
them
and
then
just
a
last
note
on
proactively
improving
the
process.
So
another
hope
is
that
we
use
what
we
learn
here
today
as
an
exercise
to
improve
what
we,
what
we
have
in
place
for
fund
8
and
to
really
think
critically
about
whether
or
not
this
the
review
process
is
one
that
is
furthering
us
on
the
things
that
we
want
to
accomplish.
A
So
I
just
put
in
here
again.
I
always
have
this
call
for
the
voting
on
the
community
suggestions
board.
There
are
a
good
number
of
vca
process
related
issues
in
there,
so
it
would
be
fantastic
if
everyone
on
this
call
would
pop
over
there
and
do
that
if
you
haven't
done
that
yet
and
just
up
vote
for
the
things
that
are
important,
you
can
always
join
one
of
the
working
groups
for
solving
these
issues
or,
if
you
haven't
yet
you
can
join
the
vca
discussion
channel.
A
We
have
a
channel
within
the
server
that
is
made
for
these
kind
of
things.
So
hopefully
we
get
some
great
ideas
as
a
result.
Okay,
last
pages
are
just
overviews
fund
eight
petition
overview.
We
had
seven
filed
six
got
the
two
confirmations
and
then
from
there
we're
going
to
hear
each
of
these
today.
If
you
provided
a
a
document
for
the
your
petition,
I
put
it
in
the
link
here
and
those
will
be
available
for
review
as
we
continue
on
okay,
so
that
is
it
any
questions
on
any
of
that.
A
All
right
great,
I
might
need,
would
someone
be
available
to
help
make
a
double
count
for
me
for
a
vote.
So
I'm
not
the
only
one
counting
the
vote
by
raise
of
hand.
Okay,
scott
great
that'll
work
and
then
I'm
probably
gonna
have
I'm
probably
gonna
have
trouble
monitoring
the
chat.
So,
if
anything
goes
in
the
chat
that
should
be
part
of
the
process,
please
let
me
know
all
right
so
matthias.
Do
you
pronounce
your
name
that
way,
mathias
okay,
good?
Yes,.
F
A
Start
with
you
first
I'll
just
open
the
floor
for
you
to
raise
your
issue
and
talk
about
it
and
then
from
there
we'll
have
the
supporters
that
are
here
for
you
and
then
we'll
have
open
community
comments.
It's
2
15!
So
we'll
try
to
fit
this
by
2
45
or
for
me
it
is
wherever
it
whatever
the
quarter
after
and
the
quarter
up
for.
You
is.
G
A
B
Go
ahead
interview,
I'm
not
I'm
not
opposed
to
that
one
other
question:
you
need
to
be
a
vca
to
be
able
to
vote
correct.
B
A
B
A
We
don't
have
that
as
a
stipulation
specifically,
but
that
is
also
a
good
question,
so
maybe
we
open
it
up
for
that
conversation
here,
the
reason
being
yeah,
that's
going
to
be
maybe
difficult
to
determine,
and
also
this
is
the
the
community
sort
of
affecting
and
thinking
about
the
process.
So
maybe
we
take
a
minute
or
two
here
to
talk
about
that.
C
H
A
Well
done
naveed
phil.
I
Yeah,
I
think,
like
tommy,
it's
I
think,
given
that
it's
the
first
trial
run,
those
that
are
here
can
vote,
but
those
that
in
the
future,
it
is
open
to
problems.
So
we'd
have
to
work
out.
Another
mechanism.
A
Yeah
we've
already
thank
you
for
that.
Everyone,
we've
already
talked
about
a
few
things
that
will
need
to
be
clarified
in
the
future.
Again.
This
was
just
a
pilot
so
that,
hopefully
we
can
make
some
of
those
notes.
Today,
too,
lorenz.
D
A
Great,
that's
a
good
point.
Yes,
it
was
the
case
this
time
that
the
supporters
needed
to
also
be
vcas
in
this
current
fund.
Okay,
excellent
guys,
very
good,
all
right
so
back
to
you,
matthias!
If
you
want
so,
let's
start
here
and
see
where
we
go
and
I'll
try
to
just
let
the
process
unfold
and
find
the
gaps
and
keep
it
keep
it
forward
moving.
So
please
go
ahead.
E
J
K
G
Maybe
take
another
emoji
for
abstination.
A
A
All
right
can
no
one
just
vote
both
please,
so
you
know
what
I
I
I
could
do
names
here,
so
we
could
do
that.
Maybe
if
no
one
could
just
vote
twice.
That
would
be
fantastic
because
that
would
be
kind
of
that
would
cancel
itself
out
anyway.
M
Can
hear
me
now
yep
there
you
go:
okay,
fantastic,
sorry,
wrong
audio
input.
Can
we
just
use
the
yes
and
no
options
rather
than
just
raising
the
hand,
rather
than
like
to
take
out
that
possibility
of
rather
voting
twice?
Just
yes
or
no?
That's
great,
no
comment
or
no
emoji.
L
M
It's
in
the
same
area,
where
the
reactions
are
oh.
L
N
A
O
A
Okay,
anyone
so
when
it
just
is
a
clarification
and
then
next
okay
and
then
forever
hold
your
piece.
Everyone,
so
matias
actually
can
talk.
We're
gonna
get
it,
so
it
would
be
down
under
reaction.
So
if
you
go
to
the
bottom
of
your
zoom
link,
you
have
a
reactions:
little
icon
there
that
has
a
smiley
face
and
a
plus
you
click
that
and
you
either
put
the
green
or
the
red
it
when
we
come
to
voting.
If
you
can't
figure
this
out,
you'll
just
unmute
yourself
and
say
help.
M
A
F
F
Well,
nothing
like
that,
but
maybe
I
should
be
using
the
web
version
of
zoom.
That
would
be
better.
Why.
A
A
Okay,
cool,
maybe
someone
can
do
a
screen
grab
of
it
and
show
it
to
and
show
it
to
him
so
that
he
said
to
keaton
so
that
he
can
see
what
it
looks
like
and
troubleshoot
himself.
That
would
be
fantastic
if
someone
could
pull
that
off.
R
S
Just
it
seems
that
we
can
do
polls
in
zoom-
I
don't
know
it
can
be
done,
but
apparently
there's
a
support
patch
for
for
this.
So
maybe
it
would
be
the
best.
The
best
option.
A
G
Okay,
so
where
was
I
so?
I've
made
a
total
of
11
assessments
which
had
five
goods
and
six
filtered
out.
I
only
made
11
this
time,
which
is
way
less
than
than
usual,
because
of
not
enough
time
at
the
moment.
G
So
my
issue
with
this
was
when
I
went
through
the
details
of
that
I
saw,
I
noticed
something.
There
was
a
high
correlation
with
proposal
flagging
and
being
filtered
out,
but
then,
when
I
went
even
deeper
to
look
deeper
into
that,
I
also
noticed
that
I
had
like
excellent
ratings
on
on
the
same
assessments.
G
So
I
kind
of
like
suspect
that
vcas
were
influenced
by
the
proposal
flag
in
a
way
that
is
not
supportive
of
critical
thinking,
because
my
assessments
were
critical
towards
the
proposal
and
this.
If
the
proposal
flags
that
that's
okay,
I
mean
a
proposer
has
a
right
to
flag,
but
I
think
it's
the
vca's
job
to
determine
if
the
assessment
provides
value
towards
the
voters
and
the
proposer
or
not,
and
that
should
be
a
major
criterion
in
filtering
it
out
or
not.
G
G
Yes,
also,
what's
what's
really
struck
me
was
the
the
length
of
proposal
flagging
now.
There's
also
nothing
wrong
with
that,
but,
as
we
have
seen
with
proposals
themselves,
bigger
usually
is
better
right.
So
I
think
this
might
be
a
correlation
with
this
proposal.
Flagging
then
in
in
in
this
case
you
see
so
that's
what
I
expect
suspect
that
happened,
I'm
not
looking
to
sanction
anyone,
I'm
just
looking.
If
we
can
have
another
look
at
it
and
if
it's
proven
right,
then
that
my
vca
status
is
restored.
G
And
also
that
we
can
iterate
towards
next
fund
and
potentially
solve
this,
this
problem,
if
it's,
if
it
really
is
the
issue
I'd
like
everyone
to
to
read
them,
but
then
I
need
to
share
my
ca
id.
So
I
don't
know
if
this
is.
If
I
should
do
that.
G
Yeah
probably
best
not
then,
okay,
so
I'll,
just.
A
What
does
the
group
think
about
helping
to
to
help
him
evaluate
this
without
this,
without
disrupting
his
anonymity?
What
are
some
ideas.
G
Well
again,
I
once
I've
written
this
down
here.
Apparently,
if
you
voice
some
criticism
on
a
proposal,
then
vcas
are
more
inclined
to
give
a
negative
review
on
you.
Then
that's
the
feeling
I'm
left
with
now.
So
why
should
I
be
critical
next
time?
I'll
just
say:
hey!
This
is
wonderful,
five,
five
five
and
then
I
get
I
get
the
good
rating.
C
C
A
The
recommendation
when
he
raised
this
was
that
this
would
be
a
good
test
of
this
part
of
this
process
and
that
it
has
to
do
with
the
vca
process
as
well,
and
so
from
that
perspective
there
was
there
was
like
a
good
number
of
supportive
things
and
he
was
able
to
find
two
supporters.
So
I
think
in
this
case
of
evaluating
and
thinking
about
it,
it's
a
good.
It's
a
good
use
of
the
petition,
although
perhaps
not
like
the
very
specific
use
of
it,
of
the
process.
J
One
of
my
assessments
was
flagged
by
the
proposer
and
then
five
of
seven
bca's,
all
filtered
it
out
with
no
with
no
meaning
with
no
reasoning
behind
it.
G
Well,
there
was
reasoning,
provided
sometimes
I've
read
those
mentioning
that,
for
instance,
a
challenge
team
isn't
required
in
the
fees
feasibility
section,
which
is
true-
it's
not
required
because
in
the
guide
it
says
bonus.
If
there's
an
established
challenge
team
now
I
did
not
deduct
any
rating
for
it,
but
I
can't
mention
it
right.
G
P
G
I
got
six
filtered
out
five
rated
goods
on
a
total
of
11..
Now
I
do
have
an
interesting
metric.
So
on
the
11
assessments
I
got
150
total
reviews,
25
of
which
rated
rated
excellent
66
rated
good
and
59
filter
to
dial.
A
So
to
clarify
here,
your
intention
is
not
to
have
the
results
changed
which
can't
be
done
anyway,
but
your
intention
is
to
have
us
look
at
the
process
where
someone
from
being
filtered
out
with
out
being
able
to
contradict
that
filtering
out,
would
then
lose
their
status.
To
be
able
to
be
a
vca
in
the
coming
fund.
Is
that.
G
Not
entirely
no,
no,
I
just
I
just
don't,
because
this
is
I
just
want
to
sort
of
like
lay
bare
the
situation
and
so
that
there
can
be
a
thought
process
for
for
vcas
to
be
more
critical
in
their
reviews.
P
I
think
that
there's
a
general
issue
where
vcas
can
mark
good
or
excellent,
with
no
justification
and
filter
out
reviews
that
that
had
justification,
and
so
it's
kind
of
like
not
not
not
balanced,
and
in
your
case,
you
were
filtered
out
and
those
those
that
weren't
filtered
out
didn't
have
a
justification.
P
Yes,
which,
which
then
suggests
don't
bother
to
write
a
justification.
This
is
mixing
apples
and
oranges
just
a
little
bit,
but
that's
some
suggesting
don't
waste
your
time
to
give
a
justification
for
filtered
out.
My
personal
opinion
is
that's
the
time
you
must
give
a
justification
if
you're
going
to
filter
out
somebody's
somebody's
assessment,
but
then
on
the
opposite
side
is
that
is
people
can
mark
good
casually,
never
mind
excellent.
D
I
think
mathis
is
more
referring
to
the
correlation
with
it,
an
assessment
that's
being
flagged
and
the
vca
work
that
they
are
automatically
just
filtering
it
out,
because
there's
a
flag
on
the
assessment,
rather
not
reading
the
assessment
and
just
reading
the
the
proposal
flag
and
seeing
from
oh,
he
might
have
a
point.
D
So
we
can
change.
Maybe
the
way
the
assessments
are
provided
to
the
vcas.
I
don't
know,
if
that's
that's
the
the
option
that
mathis
is
hoping
for
yeah.
That's
it.
A
E
My
reaction
was
actually
quite
similar.
I
from
what
I
have
heard
from
matthias.
I
understood
that
he
wants
to
establish
that
it
is
a
problem
and
I
guess
there
is
a
lot
of
people
who
looked
into
it
and
they
are
feeling
like
it
is
a
problem,
so
maybe
it
could
be
formalized
written
down
and
then
it
could
be
discussed
and
some
people
could
look
into
it
and
start
working
on
figuring
out
some
kind
of
process
or
methods
we
would
apply
in
the
future.
P
A
So
that's
part
of
why
I'm
asking
this
question,
because
when
we,
when
we
vote,
we
need
to
be
specific
on
what
we
vote
and
then
what
it
can
affect.
So
that's
that
is
a
without
giving
that
a
yes
or
no.
I
think
that
is
a
that
is
a
consideration,
certainly
and
a
much
stronger
one
and
then
maybe
we
also
are
considering.
A
B
Sorry
just
say
I
agree
completely
with
matata
sentiment
on
on
the
on
on
his
work.
We
saw
this
more
dramatically
in
in
the
previous
fund
in
fund
seven,
where
anything
that
was
flagged
by
a
proposer
was
very
likely
to
be
filtered
out.
Some
people
discriminately
just
went
filter
out
everything
we
saw.
There
were
seven
or
eight
people,
so
it
was
a
lot
worse
in
fund.
Seven
people
have
learned
a
little
bit
in
this
fund.
B
One
of
the
recommendations
we
did
try
and
put
in
place
for
fun
day
was
to
make
the
vca
feedback
feel
mandatory,
and
we
we
went
with
just
have
a
strong
recommendation
that
it's
completed.
It's
not
ideal
because
it
means
vca's
have
to
do
more
work,
but
it
actually
makes
them
think.
B
So
what
triggered
you
to
put
something
as
excellent?
What
triggered
you
to
market
as
good?
There
must
be
some
word
out
of
that
essay.
You've
just
read
that
trigger
triggered
something
in
your
brain
to
mark
it
as
excellent
or
good
or
filtered
out.
I
try
to
you
know
I
try
to
employ
that
myself
and
fun
and
fun
date
and
get
bored
eventually
because,
but
it
does
slow
people
down.
It
does
make
you
think,
it'll
stop
a
lot
of
the
indiscriminate
tick
box
exercise
that
we're
seeing
still
yeah.
U
Yeah,
I
very
much
thought
about
the
possibility
that
or
the
necessity
that
vcs
could
comment
like
as
a
proof
that
they
read
the
stuff
or-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
I
don't
know
whether
it
should
be
just
mandatory
for
filtered
outs
or
also
for
other
decisions.
I
think
that
this
is
a
very
good
question
and
stuff,
but
right
right
now,
I
have
to
say
I
I
didn't
quite
unders
fully
understand
the
tasks
at
hand
are
about
the
petitions
and
also
the
petition
itself.
U
Yeah,
and
also
also
what
what
the
framework
really
is,
I
think
I
I
didn't
fully
understand
it.
Are
we
voting
on
initiatives
and
was
this
an
initiative
yeah?
I
didn't
understand
this
context.
To
be
honest,.
G
Right,
so
this
is
important
because
in
the
future,
if
you
don't,
if
you
don't
solve
this,
then
that
would
mean,
like
people
being
excluded
from
potential
rewards
work
quality
deteriorating,
because
some
things
get
filtered
out
filters,
don't
see
it
even
even
the
voting
phase.
Actually
the
voting
outcome
changes
by
if
this
keeps
happening
at
scale.
A
In
a
broader
response
to
zoe,
originally
this
the
resolution
process
was
created
so
that
we
could
have
an
opportunity
for
vcas
to
challenge
the
results
of
the
script
that
runs
in
order
to
identify
people
who
are
far
outliers,
which
in
fund
7
meant
that
they
had
done
some
kind
of
bad
action
right.
So
it
was
meant
more
to
protect
the
system,
but
in
this
case,
in
that
case,
there
also
was
no
way
to
challenge
that
or
to
come
back
or
even
to
contact
those
people
or
to
have
this
conversation.
A
So
the
creation
of
the
space
for
this
conversation
and
the
ability
to
raise
these
issues
and
really
work
through
them,
both
from
a
data
perspective
and
a
thought
perspective
is
what
were
is
what
was
accomplished
here.
If
you
have
a
minute,
I
might
eyeball
the
the
resolution
process
explanation
at
the
bottom
of
the
vca
guide,
and
that
will
help
you
and
then
I
know
that
he's
not
next,
but
I
want
to
just
come
to
marek
quick,
because
I
see
you've
been
going
back
and
forth
with
matthias
and
you
have
some.
Q
Yeah,
if
I
can,
I
just
to
try
to
clear
things
up,
so
you
are
talking
you're
saying
with
this
50.
Q
You
have
to
you,
have
to
participate
as
a
vca
in
at
least
three
funds
since
inception,
and
you
participated
in
fund
five,
six
and
seven
and
eight
so
four,
so
you're
good
in
in
the
second
formula.
There
is
a
sentence
that
you
have
to
be
in
the
vca
list:
at
least
three
funds
ever
and
you're
in
the
form.
So
don't
worry,
you're,
safe.
F
A
Good
thank
you
mark
for
that,
because
that
lets
us
handle
that
part
of
it
and
that
feels
good.
V
Hi
vladimir
hi
nadia,
thank
you
well,
I
I
think
there
is
something
really
important
in
this
issue
that
matthias
raised
and
even
len
mentioned
about
this
transparency.
Maybe
maybe
there's
a
case
for
because
of
this
issue.
That
naveed
also
mentioned
that
proposed
flags
are
usually
overwhelmingly
supported
by
by
vcas
or
there's
a
trend
to
do
that
that
there
may
maybe
it's
a
case
for
making
the
proposed
flag
really
those
vca
feedback
fields
obligatory
for
whenever
a
vca
rules
on
the
proposed
flag.
V
So
that's
an
easy,
that's
an
easy
fix,
I'm
not
sure
whether
it
will
fix
it,
but
it's
an
easy
way
to
provide
more
information
for
this
process
because
it
doesn't
overwhelm
okay.
That's
point
number
one
and
point
number
two
is
that
we
don't
really
have
to
decide
between
vca
feedback
fields,
yes
or
no,
we
can
introduce
a
rate
or
we
can
even
introduce
a
reward
formula
for
vcas
who
who
do
fill
it
in.
So
eventually
we
can
go
like
we
can
say
in
fund
9.
V
We
would
like
to
see
a
30
completion
rate
or
a
50
completion
rate
or
because
we
don't
want
to
go
from
from
nothing
to
overkill,
but
maybe
we
can
think
about
along
those
lines
also.
Well,
that's
all.
Thank
you.
A
C
It's
starting
to
be
late,
so
slow,
but
yeah.
I
think
it's
in
this
fund.
Specifically,
I
don't
know
this
is
I
guess,
maybe
someone
should
analyze
the
data
and
see
if
it
actually
happened,
but
I
think
especially
now
when.
C
A
P
I
was
on,
I
was
going
to
say
matthias,
you
did
total
of
11
and
six
were
somehow
good
or
excellent
in
five
were.
G
No,
no
six
were
filtered.
P
P
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
the
answer
is
do
more
two
more
assessments
that
are
that
can
be
good,
easy
ones,
so
that,
if
you're
going
to
do,
if
you're
going
to
have,
if
you're
going
to
be
critical
once
then
do
more
that
are
not
critical.
I
mean.
Finally,
that's
how
people
are
going
to
game
these
systems
when
when
the
numbers
are,
are
arbitrary.
I
I
don't
like
this
50
rule
either
when,
especially
when
you
have
seven
total
vca
reviews,
four
are
good
and
three
are
filtered
out,
so
the
filtered
out
ones
lose.
P
Those
numbers
don't
make
sense
if
you
have
10
or
20
fine,
but
many
that
I
saw
you're
talking
about
four
versus
five,
either
way
three
versus
two
wrong
wrong
wrong
way:
to
make
wrong
way
to
make
those
decisions
and
people
are
going
to
figure
it
out.
G
Yes,
so
we
do
not
have
a
a
system
that
is
supportive
of
said
criticism,
even
if
it
is
founded.
A
Okay,
so
keaton,
and
then
phillip-
and
I
just
also
would
like
to
say
so-
we're
we
just
hit
the
little
bit
before
the
half
hour.
So
perhaps
we
could
think
about.
It
seems
to
me
from
listening
to
this
that
the
great
outcome
of
this
would
be
that
we
have
this
as
an
issue
that
gets
that
we
think
about
specifically
and
solve
for
and
that
that
can
be
a
continuous
thing
that
follows
this
session.
A
So
maybe
we
take
the
two
more
that
are
raised
and
maybe
one
more
and
then,
if
anyone
else
has
something
we
really
want
to
contribute.
We
can
take
that
and
then
we'll
come
to
a
consensus
here
and
vote.
F
F
When
proposal
flag
an
assessment,
I
found
several
examples
where
the
proposer
actually
made
a
mistake
by
flagging
the
assessment
and
flagged
the
assessment
while
providing
a
rational
stating
well.
Thank
you
for
this
assessment.
It
is
actually
very
good,
and
I
don't
know
what
it
was
like
by
the
proposal,
but
it
was
a
mistake
by
the
proposal
and
these
assessments
received
a
majority
of
filled
out
decision
by
vcas,
so
just
one
example
of
this
bias.
I
found.
A
A
Okay,
good,
you
earned
a
second
comment
for
a
future
round.
Okay,
so
how
would
we
does
this?
Is
this
more
of
an
acknowledgment
of
an
issue
that
should
be
driven
towards
additional
attention
and
focus
and
and
have
that
created
in
an
official
way
where
we,
where
we
work
on
it
or
how?
How
would
you
like
to
frame
this
boat?
How
would
you
like
to
frame
the
yes
or
no
vote
can
having
talked
about
through
this
here.
P
I
J
A
Perhaps
because
it
doesn't
directly
affect
you
matthias,
we
could
do
I
mean
it
does.
It
affects
all
of
us,
but
in
the
sense
that
this
is
not
specifically
about
your
reward
slashing
or
anything
like
that.
Perhaps
we
could
frame
it
as
a
as
a
the
problem
that
needs
to
be
solved
and
then,
as
we
vote
on
it,
it
could
become
an
official
working
group
problem
and
then
we
would
form
us
together
here
and
and
solve
for
it.
G
A
W
Well,
you
know,
I
think,
yeah
our
mathias
concern's
valid.
It's
a
good
question
to
start
on,
but
I
would
you
know
we
need
to
kind
of
ensure
that
someone
who
who
has
been
active
for
such
a
long
time
and
who
has
been
more
than
once
recognized
as
an
active
member
of
the
community
and
did
the
work
honestly.
W
I
think
we
should
make
sure,
if
not
now,
then
in
the
near
future,
that
of
course
he's
a
vca.
We
solve
that.
That's
not
the
problem,
but
also
that
he
is
rewarded
for
his
work.
The
document
states
that
he
was
eligible
for
1147
dollars
in
vca
rewards
now
for
some
of
us,
that's
maybe
not
a
lot
for
some
of
us.
Maybe
that
is
a
lot.
I
don't
know
matthias's
situation,
it
doesn't
really
matter,
but
it
is
money
that
he
earned
and
he
in
my
personal
opinion
he
deserves
it,
but
not
not
only
for
him
right.
W
A
This
is
matisse's
case,
so
I'll
just
read
it
for
the
record
here
his
he
says
my
case
is
the
exclusion
of
vca
activity
next
fund
due
to
a
limited
amount
of
assessments.
So
it's
ca
related.
The
majority
of
these
assessments
have
been
focusing
on
proposals
from
the
same
entity,
which
has
later
stated
that
they
were
among
the
most
articulate
they
have
received,
yet
they
have
been
filtered
out
when
objectively,
not
as
good
assessment.
Past
criticism
is
needed
in
in
in
a
community
in
out
community
and
when
valid
should
not
be
viewed
as
negative
thing.
A
Therefore,
the
pretext
will
be
gca
confirmation
bias,
so
yeah,
I
think
I
think
maybe
philip
you're
thinking
about
tommy's
and
not
not
matthias,
so
that's
good,
so
problem
averted
is
that
is.
Are
we
so
matthias
if
you're
in?
If
you
are
in
support
of,
I
will
raise
the
vote
as
are
matthias's
current?
Our
matthias
concerns
valid,
and
then
we
will
vote
on
that.
A
A
C
X
X
X
X
A
So
now
we'll
just
take
a
vote,
so
the
vote
is:
are
these
concerns
valid
and
if
they're
voted,
yes,
which
you
can
do
by
coming
into
your
reactions
down
there
and
putting
it
up
then,
and
you,
if
you're,
going
to
vote?
No,
you
can
do
that
now
at
the
same
time
as
well.
A
A
Do
we
know
if
reactions
show
on
the
recording?
I
don't
know
that,
but
I'm
going
to
screenshot
them
here
once
everyone
has
voted
danny.
So
I
have
it
as
a
record.
X
Aren't
you
all
vca
or
cas
or
vcas,
so
you
have
assessor
numbers.
I
don't
quite
know
the
big
concern,
never
mind,
I'm
interrupting
with
an
election
or
about.
A
A
And
then
the
poll
I
will
use
in
the
future
because
that
would
be
good
scott's
gonna
help
me.
Okay,
scott
says
23.
Yes,
right
now,
good
all
right,
so
five
seconds,
I'm
gonna
screenshot
here
and
that'll,
be
the
official
and
then
off.
We
will
go
okay,
five,
four
three,
two
one:
there
we
go:
okay,
screenshot
one.
A
Okay,
there
were
no
no's
in
that
one
and
since
there
were
no
no.
A
A
So
the
23
scott
is
that
still
good
glad
to
be
okay.
A
Okay,
so
based
on
what
I
screenshotted
there
at
that
exact
time,
we
will
do
that,
but
since
there
weren't
any
no's,
I
think
we
can
affirm
here
and
move
on
to
the
next
one.
Is
that
good
for
everyone
all
right,
great?
Okay,
nice
job,
nice
job,
everyone,
so
you
can
take
your
guesses
down!
That'd
be
awesome
and
I'm
going
to
see
if
I
can
pull
up
lorenz
here,
okay,
lorenz,
you're!
Next
and
let's
say
tommy:
do
you
want
to
make
a
case
for
going
earlier
for
yourself
since
you're
since
you're
late?
I.
R
C
I'll
be
brief:
okay,
I'll
post
that
once
more
in
the
chat
and
this
time,
phillip,
this
is
my
petition,
not
not
much
yes.
So,
let's
take
that
reaction
out.
Okay,.
C
Is
rodolfo
back?
He
said
he
will
drop
off
and
join
again,
yes,
and
then
it's
still
having
a
sign
on
okay,
anyway
I'll
try
to
gather
myself
facts.
C
This
was
a
new
process
that
was
introduced
to
weed
out
irrational
and
dishonest
behavior.
C
You
know
that
I've
been
around
since
february
last
year
and
I've
been
always
doing
things
that
make
sense
for
the
community
and
I
always
put
the
community's
benefits
ahead.
My
own.
This
was
the
first
time
that
I
got
really
angry
at
the
process.
I
almost
felt
like
I'm
being
rock
pulled
by
iog,
because
we
have
slipped
a
few
people
and
we
have.
We
have
been
paying
rewards
for
some
dishonest
actors
and
that's
a
little
bit
annoying.
C
C
C
Did
very
few
reviews
compared
to
me,
but
he's
getting
actually
more
rewards
than
others.
So
maybe
you
have
some
perspective
why
that
happens
and
then
navid
you
have
looked
into
the
data
a
lot
and
you
got
maybe
five
percent
better
average
than
I
did
and
you
get
pretty
much
what
I
was
supposed
to
get.
C
B
Jump
into
no
problem,
so
so
I've
been
a
vca
for
for
some
time
for
the
last
two
or
three
funds.
One
of
my
focuses
has
been
this
annoying
piece
about
people
gaming,
the
system.
B
So
since
fund
six
one
person
was
caught
out
fund.
Seven
one
person
was
caught
out
but
got
away
with
five
or
six
thousand
dollars.
Another
nine
or
ten
people
also
got
away
with
lots
of
money
and
therefore
this
this
process
finally
came
in
around
around
eight
an
mvp
for
for
this.
B
We
always
need
there's
always
going
to
be
people
on
on
the
edge
people
who
are
a
couple
of
percent
over
and
I
get
a
higher
reward
like
I
did
so
myself
and
tony
did
pretty
much
the
same
rewards
I
got
lucky
I
got
into
91
percent
or
whatever
it
was
and
told
me
was
80,
be
like
below
the
threshold,
so
he
got
thousand
dollars
less
than
me
or
we'll
get
unless
we
change
unless
we
change
change
it
by
this
vote.
B
B
What
and
the
reason
I'm
supporting
terminus
case
is
what
I'd
like
to
see
is.
Is
us
take
a
take
a
vote
on
a
on
somebody,
who's
been
active
in
the
community
and
does
the
best
for
the
community
and
and
just
to
realize
that
we're
not
in
that
position
to
to
to
necessarily
have
to
apply
hard
and
fast
rules.
So
if
you're
one
percent
here
and
there
you
can
make
a
case
for
yourself
and
it
can
be
overturned,
I'm
not
gonna
make
the
case
the
other
way
or
I
should
be
downgraded.
B
But
you
know
in
tomi's
case.
I
I
fully
support
somebody
who
is
who,
who
has
is
always
always
active
in
the
community,
always
trying
to
help
other
people
and
for
for
whatever
reason
and-
and
I
can
go
into
some
of
the
details
of
some
of
the.
If
we
start
to
actually
go
into
the
detail
of
some
of
the
some
of
the
assessments
that
toby
mark
just
filtered
out
and
other
members
of
the
community
marked
as
good
or
excellent.
B
You
would
see
that
tomy
is
correct
in
my
opinion
and
and
and
and
go
and
him
going
against.
The
consensus
actually
means
there's
a
systemic
problem
with
the
vca
with
with
the
vca
process.
So
and-
and
you
find
that
on
many
of
the
experienced
experienced
vcas
where
people
have
actually
taken
a
a
serious
look
at
the
assessment
and
and
have
made
a
critical
review,
made
a
critical
review
of
it.
B
Whereas
we're
still
in
that
position
and
we're
still
building
that
that
vca
knowledge
base
to
be
able
to
to
be
able
to
to
be
able
to
critically
critically
review
assessments
that
are
of
a
good
standard,
so
as
a
collective,
when
we're
not
we're
not
there
yet.
L
Okay,
so
on
the
car
by
park,
so
live
safe.
So
I
have
the
same
view.
L
H
L
Good
okay,
so
what
what
I
did
this
round
is
playing
like
a
data
scientist
and
I
try
to
look
for
those
people
on
the
edge
those
vcas
on
on
those
cas
assessment
on
the
on
the
edge.
L
So
I'm
I'm
ashamed
of
that
and,
besides
that,
I
really
my,
I
think
my
view.
How
we
can
that
be
resolve
is
of
the
the
way
we
we,
we
compute
that
reputation
of
those
rewards,
because
this
is
the
first
time
and
we
put
a
hard
limit.
So
we
have
to
read
this
like
you
have
to
match,
with
the
maturity
like
authority
of
good
and
excellent,
and
this
is
really
hard
for
me.
The
first
time
we
implement
that,
so
we
should
be
more
loose
on
that.
L
I
may
be
doing
that
tommy
and
many
others
wouldn't
have
reached
on
that.
80
like
like
this
slash
status.
L
So
that
that's
that's
my
point,
I
think
we
can
fix
that
by
the
reputation
system,
how
we,
because
every
time
we
implement
something
we
should
start
slow.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
we
should
start
with
it
with
a
hard
limit
on
top,
like
the
same
with
with
the
with
matthias
case,
we
shouldn't
start
so
high
with
a
with
a
50
or
something
like
that.
L
W
Z
Z
Are
they
just
counting
your
your
variation
from
the
average
number
of
good,
excellent
and
filtered
outs?
And
if
so,
how
is
that
accounting
for
we're
not
all
doing
the
same
exact
numbers?
For
example,
I'm
I
did
like
120
and
was
in
the
94th
percentile.
Z
But
if
you
do
a
thousand
you're
doing
many
more
than
I'm
not,
and
maybe
you
by
luck
of
the
draw
or
intent
or
any
number
of
factors
get
more
filtered
out
than
I
did
or
more
legitimately
should
have
been
filtered
out
than
I
did,
and
how
does
that
skew?
These
numbers
that
we're
looking
at
and
are
we
correcting
for
that.
L
F
A
A
Yeah,
so
maybe
I'll
cue
and
then
give
you
some
time
to
prepare
to
say
maybe
mark
or
danny.
Could
you
guys
talk
to
that
since
iog
is
the
one
that
ran
it
and
then
maybe
johnny
can
come
back
once
they're
in
position
to
I'm
not
sure
if
they're
right
there
that's.
M
I
don't
think
that,
ultimately,
I
think
people
gaining
the
system
to
try
and
get
a
better
outcome
disproportionately
is
going
to
be
something
that's
going
to
be
inherently
part
of
human
nature.
Just
the
fact
that
you're
trying
to
like
be
involved
in
the
callous
project
you're
going
to
try
and
maximize
the
results
or
your
rewards
for
yourself
and
gain
the
rules
in
its
own
way
and
that
in
itself
is
kind
of
no
sketchy
but
kind
of
like
in
a
sense
like
the
tax
system.
M
One
thing
I
like
about
crypto,
or
at
least
the
blockchain
as
a
whole.
It
aligns
motives
by
by
giving
an
incentive
to
like
the
people
that
are
trying
to
gain
the
system
like
taking
greed
and
making
that
part
of
the
fundamental
consensus
algorithm.
You
know
people
using
the
tokens
to
do
stuff.
I
feel
like
trying
to
punish
people
for
gaming.
M
The
system
will
ultimately
fail
because
there's
always
going
to
be
more
rules
to
read
through,
I
think,
a
better
approach
with
trying
to
like
set
up
a
system
where
you
encourage
the
gaming
that
also
and
helps
align
the
motives
of
the
overall
catalyst
project.
Does
that
make
sense,
I
feel
I
feel
like
we're
going
down
a
path
that
we're
trying
to
like
witch
hunt,
people
that
are
gaming,
the
system,
but
I
think
gaming,
the
system
is
part
of
the
mechanism
that
will
help
this
catalyst
grow.
A
I
I
guess
if
it's
probably
a
discussion
for
later
how
we'd
actually
explore
that,
but
yeah
we're
here
to
experiment
right.
So
if
you
can,
if
we
can
come
together
and
come
up
with
a
solution
that
can
actually
fulfill
that
and
document
it
and
create
the
system
that
helps
form
something
like
that,
then
let's
do
that.
That
sounds
good.
I
I
Yeah
and
it's
an
iterative
process,
we're
all
here,
so
this
is
the
iteration
of
last
fund
that
was
the
iteration
of
last
fund.
The
vca
thing
came
because
we
had
issues
with
cas
trying
to
do
this
and
that
so
we're
all
learning
we're
all
doing
this
process
here
so
yeah
it
just.
It
needs
some
creativity
to
actually
sit
down
and
work
on
the
system
that
will
actually
be
in
place.
A
This
is
really
an
important
part
of
this
comment
too,
especially
for
those
who
are
maybe
newer
or
came
and
funded
is
that
this
is
an
environment
where
we
aren't
needing
to
fix
things
together
and
also
like
you
can
get
started,
fixing
something
and
making
suggestions.
There's
no
like
someone
who
it's
a
continuous
process
of
of
doing
this,
and
sometimes
we
need
to
make
dramatic
changes.
So
last
time
we
made,
we
had
dramatic
stuff.
We
need
to
make
dramatic
changes
here.
A
It
comes
again
and
the
it
needs
a
broader
perspective
than
just
the
look
at
the
vca,
certainly,
but
there's
obviously
things
that
need
to
be
solved
here
and
that's
the
purpose
of
this
exercise
here.
Is
that
not
only
we
set
things
right,
but
we
we
reshape
this
and
and
reshape
it
as
dramatically
as
it
needs
to
be
so
that
we
can
make
it
much
improved
without
sacrificing
the
things
that
are
established.
Good,
matthias.
G
Yes,
I
I
just
like
to
mention
that
I
I
think
it's
a
bit
of
a
real
weird
rule
that
you
need
to
correlate
with
majority,
because
this
sort
of
intensifies
or
it
strengthens
this
type
of
behavior
among
vcas,
then
so
it's
not
necessarily
something
bad.
If
you
disagree
with
the
mean,
if
you
deviate
from
that,
you
could.
I
G
I
Matthias
this
is
the
experimentation
of
the
prediction
markets
and
there's
research
in
that
space.
So
I
think,
look
it's
all
an
experiment,
so
we
can.
I
think
this
is
iog's
experiment
into
that,
and
some
other
people
were
working
on
various
things
on
how
that
might
work.
So
it
might
not
be
the
case
that
this
is
necessary
for
this
part
of
the
ecosystem,
so
we'll
discover
that
as
time
goes
on,
I
think.
A
D
D
So,
for
example,
if
you
did
100
reviews-
and
you
did
100
good
reviews,
but
the
overall
rating
from
those
assessments
where
only
80
were
rated
good
and
20
were
rated
filtered
out,
then
you
would
have
a
rating
of
80
because
80
of
your
reviews
compared
to
the
overall
we're
the
same.
So
that's
the
okay.
D
Z
Z
In
that
case,
we
need
to
be
pointing
out
the
where
people
are
deviating
and
discussing
those
specific
deviations,
not
general
nebulous
percentages,
but
that
specific
deviation
and
whether
or
not
it
was
merited
yeah.
I
mean
that's
not
about
the
the
your
algorithm
and
stuff
that's
about
this
process
entirely.
Z
Z
A
Yeah,
so
the
script
when
it
runs
shows
shows
where
people
are
way
our
way
off
and
the
reason
the
reason
for
that
is
that
we
had.
We
had
many
people
who
were
way
off
and
we
didn't
have
a
way
to
look
at
them
or
or
evaluate
how
that
was
that's
not
to
say
that
this
is
the
better
way
to
do
it
or
that
there's
not
a
better
way
than
this
to
do.
It
is
just
to
say
that
that
was
the
response
to
that.
Z
But
if
we're
going
to
then
review
people
who
are
slightly
off
of
the
average,
we
need
to
be
looking
at
where
they're
different,
not
percentages
and
nebulous
concepts.
We
need
to
be
looking
at
the
reviews
and
that's
what
I'm
saying
about
this
whole
process
is
still,
and
maybe
it's
too
early
to
really
go
deep,
but
we
really
need
to
be
focusing
less
on
what
the
thresholds
are
for,
who
gets
to
be
paid
and
who
gets
slashed
pay
and
who
doesn't
get
paid.
A
I
agree,
I
think
I
think
everyone
here
most
people
here
would
probably
agree
with
that
and
in
tommy's
case
here
we
were
able
to
look
at
some
of
those,
and
that's
a
little
bit
of
it
does
take
a
lot
of
time
and
effort,
though
so
it's
perhaps
part
of
what
needs
to
be
really
considered.
Is
the
present
our
ability
to
really
do
that
in
a
deep
dive
and
consider
it
so
that
that
is
my
affirming
and
agreeing
with
you,
and
I
think
we
have
a
good
ways
to
go
there
to
we.
Z
P
Okay,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
so
I
think
I've
forgotten
some
of
the
points,
but
one
of
the
points
that
was
made
was
edge
cases.
P
Another
point
was
make
that,
since
this
was
a
first
time
change
or
rule
that
perhaps
the
percentage
should
have
been
more
generous
50
percent-
I
don't
know
what
number
but,
but
maybe
we
should
recognize
that
we
introduce
a
new
concept,
it
be
offer
more
leeway
and
then
the
other
issues
is
that
there
is
education
or
that
there
is
a
way
to
that.
P
There's
a
way
to
adjudicate
an
edge
case
and
in
tommy's
you
heard
him
say
if
if
this
holds
he's
out
because
it's
a
thousand
dollars
that
unfairly
he's
unfairly
or
he
feels
unfairly
penalized
and
and
we
all
value
tommy's
participation
in
the
community,
so
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
I
think
that
a
it
every
time
we
put
a
new
rule
or
system
in
it.
The
first
time
we
have
to
recognize
that
it's,
it's
probably
going
to
break
second,
that
there
are.
P
If
you're
talking
about
percentages,
I
mean
who's
to
say
that
80
is
right
and
75
is
not
right.
So
so
I
think
we
have
to
to
be
generous
in
the
in
the
construct
of
the
rules
and
then
nadia.
You
kind
of
spoke
like
that.
You
were
part
of
the
process
of
creating
this.
This
rule
is
that
correct.
P
Okay,
so
then
the
question
is,
you
know.
My
feeling
is:
is
that
that
when
we
iterate,
I
I
and-
and
we
find
every
time
we
integrate-
I
think
I'm
kind
of
well
known
for
using
the
example
of
whack-a-mole.
Every
time
we
iterate,
we
find
different
ways
to
game
or
different
problems.
Is
that
was
there
enough
discussion
and
danny?
Maybe
if
you're
still
on?
Was
there
really
enough
discussion
about
all
of
these
possible
pitfalls
of
this
new
rule?
P
P
AA
Partially,
and
in
a
way,
if
you
remember
the
document,
there
was
like
initial
stab
at
it,
which
was
publicized
and
circulated
throughout
the
hallways,
and
it
was
open
for
comments
like
for
such
a
long
time.
A
couple
of
weeks,
probably
before
we
actually
implemented
and
one
of
those
discussions
came
in
from
the
comments.
I
think
it
was
also
based
on
navit's
analysis
as
a
helper
tool,
where
I
think
there
was
a
analysis
made
for
fund
seven.
AA
What
the
vca
deviation
was
like,
and
I
don't
know
if
it
if,
if
if
there
was
navit's
document
or
somebody
else's,
and
we
use
that
as
like
an
actual
data
point
reference
to
model
what
the
threshold
could
be
for
fund
8
based
on
the
fund,
7
output,
it
just
so
happened
that
the
results
were
a
little
bit
different
in
some
of
these
edge
case
scenarios.
P
Well,
well,
perhaps
then
a
lesson
learned
is
don't
rely
on
google
documents
turn
more
towards
this
kind
of
a
discussion
where
a
lot
of
people
can
express
views.
I
I
don't
know
how
many
comments
there
were
on
that
document,
but
certainly
there's
I
don't
know
30
40
people
here.
P
If
this
were
the
discussion
about
about
formulating
that
policy,
I
think
we
might
have
a
more
robust.
AA
I
agree
I
mean
I
think,
there's
nothing
that
in
that
statement,
that
no
you
know
that
somebody
wouldn't
want
on
this
call.
It
really
comes
down
to
the
act
of
participation
in.
AA
In
that
sense,
and
you
know,
we've
been
having
those
discussions
not
just
doing
fantastic
job,
activating
the
cas
and
also
vcas
alongside
and
the
help
that
everyone
is
giving
her,
and
I
think
that's
the
process
that
we
need
to
be
piloting,
that
you
know
we're
trying
to
give
more
room
for
the
community
to
start
shaping
some
of
these
rules,
but
it
really
needs
to
come
in
with
a
deeper
thought.
AA
As
you
said,
when
we
do
publish
the
documents
we
you
know,
it
is
a
source
of
the
truth
at
that
point
in
time
that
we
need
to
work
with,
and
we
can
definitely
incorporate
some
options
in
there.
That
then,
can
be
molded
in.
But
we
do
need
that
input
if
there
is
something
that
we're
seeing
on
the
ground
in
real
life,
it
just
needs
to
be
input.
AA
It's
not
enough
just
to
have
those
conversations
on
telegram:
it's
not
enough
to
have
them
in
different
parts
of
the
ecosystem,
but
pulling
it
together
so
that
we
can
prioritize
and
look
at
these
things
and
edge
cases
in
the
different
places,
and
that's
exactly
what's
happening
here
right
now,
so
you
know,
I
think
that
serves
as
a
good
lessons
learned,
as
well
as
we're
trying
to
release
some
of
that
information
and
allow
for
that.
Molding
like
I
said,
there
needs
to
be
really
active
participation,
and
you
know.
Essentially,
this
is
what's
happening
right
here.
AA
P
I
I
think
I
think
the
active
participation
comes
from
yeah,
this
kind
of
after
town
hall,
as
opposed
to
documents,
because
there's
so
many
documents
floating
around
on
so
many
subjects
and
okay,
you
had
a
comment
on
this
or
you
had
a
comment
on
the
other
thing.
This
kind
of
forum
here
allows
people
to
listen
to
other
people's
ideas
differ,
modify
improve.
So
I
would
say
this
kind
of
a
forum
is
the
way
that
that
new
new
rules
be
formulated.
AA
I
I
hundred
percent
agree,
I'm
just
going
to
focus
us
back
on
the
fact
that
when
we
publish
we're
as
as
as
a
company
as
an
I
o
as
a
player
in
the
ecosystem,
is
publishing
a
ton
of
documents
and
we
need
help
looking
at
these
things
from
the
community's
perspective.
So
for
us
it's
an
entry
point
that
then
I
can
take
that
document
and
translate
to
the
internal
teams
that
are
working
with
it.
AA
So
for
me,
that's
sort
of
a
medium
which
is
transferable
and
it
works
in
a
way
that
I
can
incorporate
those
comments
there,
based
on
the
input
which
we've
come
to
learn
a
little
bit
about
the
google
docs.
But
it's
not
to
say
that
that's
where
the
in-depth
conversations
that
should
be
used
as
a
reference
document
based
on
which
in
rooms
like
these,
we
can
have
a
more
coherent
conversation
out
of
which
we
can
prioritize
and
put
another
output
that
can
be
fed
back
into
the
team.
AA
So
I
just
need
to
be
practical
in
terms
of
like
how
that
cycle
works
and
I
think
we're
navigating
it
better
fund
by
fund
and
again,
I'm
just
going
to
point
out
to
exactly
the
blueprint
of
what's
happening
here
that
that
seems
to
be
working,
and
I
think
we
can
improve
on
that.
And
you
know
the
the
document
is
just
a
place
where
that
information
is
first
published,
and
you
know
whether
it's
a
google
doc
or
if
it
will
be
a
github
or
something
else.
AA
A
I'll
just
clarify
two
things
on
the
heels
of
that,
which
is
that
there
were
a
good
number
of
bca
discussions
on
this
and
they
happened.
They
happened
relatively
early
in
the
prior
meaning,
not
right
up
before,
and
this
was
all
part
of
it.
So
it
was
a
lot
of
trying
to
solve,
and
perhaps
now
we
have
things
in
place
like
the
server
and
we
have
the
ability
to
raise
issues
on
the
board,
and
things
like
this
that
are
maybe
put
us
in
a
better
state
to
share
communication.
A
Hopefully
that
improves
a
lot,
and
maybe
it
would
be
helpful
for,
like
me
or
whoever's,
in
the
rep
roll
to
be
really
very
proactive
about
follow-up
sharing
these
docs
and
asking
for
for
feedback,
because
the
people
who
are
in
this
room
are
the
people
who
who
could
make
this
different
and
that
thinking
is
what's
really
really
required
and
and
the
doing
of
it
as
well.
So
this
is
like
a
little
bit
of
a
call
to
action.
We're
we're
at
45
minutes
for
this
so
ellen.
A
I
want
to
give
you
a
chance
and
then
vlad,
and
then
I
think
we
can
vote
before.
Tommy
disappears
completely
into
the
darkness
in
his
space,
okay,
ellen
and
then
vlad,
and
then.
AB
Hi,
thank
you
for
opening
the
space.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
yeah
just
I
would
like
to
move
your
perspective,
a
quick
perspective
from
someone
that
you
know
I
I'm
just
starting
to
to
see
what's
going
on
with
cardone,
so
I'd
like
to
kind
of
congrat
all
of
you,
because
from
all
the
blockchains
I've,
because
I'm
I'm
an
artist
and
researcher
and
I've
been
looking
through
all
different
blockchains
because
of
nfts
and
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
AB
So
this
is
the
most
intellectual
community
that
I
find
and
I
don't
see
any
so
I
see
the
process
is
evolving
and
I
think
cardano
is
going
to
lead
to
to
give
a
legacy
to
to
the
blockchain
for
governments.
AB
So
I'd
like
to
give
you
this
perspective,
because
you
know
this
introduces
decentralization,
it's
it's
not
an
easy
process
process
and
is
you
know
changing
the
mindset
and
many
people
are
just
replicating
gliding
and
saying
you
know
as
a
trend,
trending
laboratory
and
decentralizations,
and
dolls
and
etc,
but
people
have
difficulty
to
practice
it
to
practice.
So
I
think
I
don't
know
is
practicing
it
and
it's
not
easy
and
it's
it's
evolving.
AB
So
I
just
like
to
congratulate
to
acknowledge
you
know
it's
it's
it's
it's
only
thing,
so
it's
it's
a
shame
that
some
people
are
taking
advantage
and-
and
you
know
doing
using
like
this
greeting,
but
it's
all
part
of
the
process
to
you
know.
So
this
is
just
what
what
I
would
like
to
comment
to
to
say.
It's,
it's
a
very
good
process,
that's
happening
here.
Thank
you.
V
Thanks
well
I'll,
keep
it
brief.
I
was
just
thinking
about
this
case.
I
think
this
case
is
important
with
this
hard
threshold
that
that
is
demotivating
for
somebody
who's
active
a
long
time
and
because
the
percentage
is
the
is
the
limit
that
that
changes,
the
outcome
for
the
person
who
we
really
want
to
keep
any
any
committed
person
we
want
to
keep
on
board.
So
I
was
thinking
about.
V
So
I
think
we
took
it
a
step
too
far,
and
maybe
it
should
be
a
gradual
scale
where
we
don't
have
these
mistakes
that
cost
somebody
a
thousand
or
two
thousand
dollars.
That's
it.
A
Okay,
so
fantastic
everyone.
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
I'll
just
point
out
to
the.
I
think
that
the
the
discussion
is
part
of
the
hearing
of
the
petition,
because
it's
as
much
about
coming
to
terms
on
whether
or
not
these
are
viable
and
also
figuring
out
what
why
they
happened.
So
those
two
things
are
a
little
bit
hand
in
hand
I'll
point
out
that
there
was
a
there
is
a
link
to
tommy's
petition
and
also
a
link
to
the
analysis
done
of
it.
That
is
in
this
document
here
under
his
section.
A
P
C
Just
noticed
something
in
the
chat,
what
I'm
asking
is
the
rewards
1x,
not
any
additional
rewards.
A
Okay,
so
and
again
I
think,
as
we
think
about
that,
the
the
filter
is
meant
to
find
people
who
are
not
using
the
system
or
who
are
not
doing
the
work.
It's
not
meant
to
take
out
people's
good
work,
so
I
think
the
that
is
the
argument
from
him
here
and
that
he
has
provided
that
document
and
it's
been
analyzed.
So
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
go
ahead.
John.
Z
So
the
the
big
point
that
I've
been
getting
at
here
is
that
we've
been
talking
about
this
process,
but
we
haven't
actually
talked
at
all
about
whether
or
not
his
work
was
good
and
I
I
know
he's
got
a
reputation
with
the
rest
of
the
community,
but
I
haven't
seen
in
his
work
and
we're
here
to
have
a
hear,
a
petition
about
this
and
then
vote
on
the
result,
and
we
haven't
talked
about
the
work
and
I
that's
the
point
that
I've
been
making
all
along
is
we
really
need
to
be
focusing
on
the
individual
case
and
the
arguments
for
and
against
approving
this
petition
or
not,
and
we
haven't
even
touched
on
them.
C
Yeah,
I
think
this
has
dragged
on
a
bit
too
too
long,
but
if
I
remember
correctly,
naveed
started
with
those
in
his
opening
and
he
said
that
there
were
some
real
evidence
by
the
way.
This
has
all
been
shared
in
the
discord
beforehand
and
it's
pretty
good
to
be
part
of
the
discord.
C
I
wasn't
part
of
the
discord
a
moment
ago,
but
now
I've
left
telegram
and
I'm
discord
fan
anyway.
So
there
were
some
honest
mistakes
where
I
was
cross-eyed
and
my
my
brain
was
saying
excellent
and
I
clicked
filtered
out,
and
that
thing
happens
when
when
you're
super
tired,
but
there
were
many
cases
where
I
looked
really
deep
into
these
things
and
I
found
some
things
that
don't
make
sense.
C
U
U
I
I
think
that
that
those
gaps
are
so
big
in
in
terms
of
reward
differences
and
so
small
in
terms
of
the
actual
numbers
that,
for
me,
it's
reason
enough
to
to
look
at
it
more
detailed
and
how
it's
really,
because
it's
obvious
that
you
have
categories
that
are
not
making
proportional
stuff.
It's
just
categories
and
yeah.
I
I
don't
know.
I
I
think
that
it's
it's
a
very,
very,
very
legitimate
point.
A
Okay,
so
what
I'm
wanting
to
do
in
facilitating
this
is
move
us
to
a
point
where
we
can
come
to
a
consensus
on
voting
here
and
vote
for
tom
and
vote
for
tommy's
case
so
yeah
and-
and
I'm
also
I'm
also
in
agreement
with
this.
So
maybe
we
can
learn
from
this
particular
one
and
address
that
in
the
next
two
and
they
will
go
more
smoothly.
A
I
also
am
aware
that
there's
a
lot
of
comments
and
clearing
of
the
air
that
have
wanted
to
happen
through
this
process
as
well,
so
that
and
that
the
logging
of
that
is
really
valuable.
So,
let's
take
all
that
into
account
and
work
on
gains
which
is
next
and
first
come
to
tommy.
So
your
your
intention
is
to
have.
Can
you
frame
your?
Can
you
frame
your
vote
question?
A
It's
simply
about
the
reward
slashing
and
not
so
we
voted.
Yes,
we
would
support
your
petition
to
not
have
your
rewards
slashed,
based
on
being
a
small
discrepancy
and
also
having
legitimately
done
that
work
and
haven't
been
evaluated
by
others
by
your
vca
peers.
And
if
we
vote
no
in
response
to
you
than
it
would
have
been,
then
we
then
you
would
stay
as
you
are.
Is
that
fair
to
you.
A
Okay,
so
if
so,
let's
bring
this
to
a
vote
here,
if
you
are
in
support
of
if
you
vote
yes,
it
means
that
you
support
tommy's
case
to
reverse
and
not
be
excluded
from
getting
his
rewards.
If
you
vote
no,
then
it
means
you're
opposed
to
tommy's
case
being
reversed
and
having
his
rewards
slashed.
A
A
Okay,
so
we'll
we'll
take
that
forward.
We'll
conclude
it
okay,
any!
I
think
that's
good!
You
can
take
your
guesses
down
and
out
of
requests
by
gaten's
and
the
graciousness
by
lorenz.
We're
gonna
go
to
you
first,
because
you
have
to
go
to
work.
So
let's
do
that
and
let's
see
if
we
can
do
this
in
like
20
minutes,
so
it's
quarter
of
let's
see
if
we
can
do
it,
we
can
see
if
we
can
come
to
vote
sooner.
A
I
think
a
lot
of
these
cases
are
similar
and
we've
had
a
good
amount
of
time
to
talk
about
them.
Pressing
and
quick
zoe.
A
F
Thank
you
nadya,
and
I
think
we
can
be
most
of
what
we've
said
so
far
really
applied
to
my
case
as
well,
so
we
should
be
able
to
make
it
in
20
minutes,
so
I
decided
to
enter
into
the
petition
process.
When
I
saw
that
I
missed
the
bonus,
we
was
threshold
by
less
than
two
percent,
so
it's
about
the
same
case
as
thomas,
but
not
speaking,
of
the
same
threshold,
and
that
was
my
initial
motivation.
F
I
I
also
found
that
my
my
decision
was
obviously
there's
no
perfect
decision,
but
in
some
cases
it
was
obvious
that
the
good
decision
was
the
one
I
made
and
not
the
one,
the
measure
it
made
and
the
example
I
gave
earlier.
It's
not
most
of
the
cases,
but
it's
a
good
example
where
the
proposal
stated
that
he
he
was
thankful.
F
He
thanks
the
the
ca
for
a
good
feedback
and
he
makes
he
makes
a
mistake
and
he
flags
the
assessment
and
most
of
the
vca
says:
okay,
filter
out
without
feedback,
and
it's
obvious
that
he
should
not
have
been
filtered
out.
Even
if
this
assessment
was
flagged.
So.
F
So
I
admire
I,
I
will
put
the
link
also
in
the
chat,
but
in
my
petition
I
provided
all
the
about
50
assessments,
where
I
think
the
feedback
I
gave
explains.
F
Why
and
how
I
made
my
decision
as
a
vca
can
give
some
examples,
or
maybe
it
was
not
what
most
vca
think,
but,
for
example,
in
many
cases
there
was
a
statement
by
the
irrational
by
the
ca,
with
no
negative
comments.
No
criticism,
no,
no
negative
feedback
at
all
and
a
four-star
score,
and
for
me
it's
not
it's
not
compliant
with
the
guidelines.
If
you
do
not
give
the
perfect
score
the
star
scores,
you
have
to
explain
at
least
a
little
bit.
F
Why
and
in
most
of
these
cases
it
was
also
low
quality
assessment,
and
so
for
many
of
these
cases,
when
I
found
no
reasoning
behind
why
no
five
star
scores
or
also
some
reasoning,
not
in
accordance
with
the
score,
I
mean
well.
This
is
perfect,
nothing
to
say,
okay
and
three
star
or
four
star.
No,
no,
no,
no
explanation!
F
Well!
This
is
an
example
of
the
of
the
feedback
I
gave
to
the
ca
some
cases.
I
I
stated
that
I
found
signs
of
automated
assessment
writing
and
stated
where
I
found
this.
F
Okay,
so
I
I
don't
know
if
I
have
much
to
say
much
more
to
say
basically
my
petition
is:
I
can
phrase
it
like
that.
I
think
I
can
show
proof
using
these
feedbacks
that
I
followed
the
vca
guidelines
in
these
52
5.
I
don't
remember
assessments
where
I
was
not
in
accordance
with
the
majority,
and
for
this
reason
I
asked
if,
if
we
can.
A
Great
you
have
to
sit
before
I
have
len.
You
are
a
supporter
yeah
of
this
petition,
so
yeah.
P
Go
ahead,
yeah
yeah,
I
I
my
experience
is
similar
that
that
there
were
many
assessments
that
people
rated
good
in
which,
if
you
looked
more
deeply
into
them,
deserved
to
be
filtered
out.
Issues
like
there
were
mistakes
or
or
whatever,
and
maybe
people
didn't
spend
the
time
to
look,
look
carefully
at
the
assessment
and
the
proposal,
but
I
many
that
I
filtered
out
were
because
I
looked
deeply
and
I
found
there
were
there
were
conflicts
or
things
that
just
didn't
make
sense
in
the
assessment
and
so
in
general.
P
I
I
go
back
to
the
point
that
rating
and
assessment
as
good
or
excellent,
let's
say
not
excellent
rating-
is
easy
to
rate
it
as
good.
I
I
would
propose
we
stop
with
good
and
just
make
acceptable
good
is
a
determination
of
quality
acceptable.
I
think
it
doesn't
doesn't
put
that
that's
another
issue.
So
for
me
I
agree
that
that
looking
deeply
into
an
assessment
can
can
unearth
problems.
That
casual
view
didn't
reveal.
AC
AC
Maybe
some
of
the
reviews
were
rated
as
good
or
excellent
when
he
put
filtered
out
and
his
rationale
I
kind
of
agreed
with
most
of
that.
So
I
just
thought.
I'd
give
my
perspective.
People
are
welcome
to
go
and
give
their
own
conclusions,
but
I
think
that
for
the
most
part
the
majority
of
his
proposal
was
valid
or
his
petition
was
valid.
Sorry.
B
Sorry,
I
just
wouldn't
get
it.
Is
it
possible
that
we
could
go
through
just
to
get
everybody
on
the
same
page,
because
I
guess
not
everybody's
had
a
chance
to
read
through
your
documents
in
detail
just
to
go
through
one
or
two?
Yes
of
your.
B
I
don't
know
if
you
have
a
share
screen,
just
just
go
through
one
or
two
of
the
assessments
and
where
you've
something
is
filtered
out
and
how
come
some,
the
rest
of
the
mob
came
up
with
eggs,
not
something
that
you
think
realized
it
might
be
used
for
just
so.
We
get
down
to
that
specific,
which
is,
I
think,
that's
lesser
known
from
tomi's
general
discussion.
F
Yeah
still
looking
for
the
button
on
share
screen,
but
you
you
added
on
screen
in
ninja,
maybe
you
can
put
it
back,
please,
oh
no.
She
can't
have
it.
Y
F
So
I
choose
one
when
I
like
and
unexplained,
but
let's
take
the
first
one
I
I
was
yeah
the
first
one,
so
consensus
was
excellent
and
I
choose
filtered
out.
So
it's
a
quite
opposite
decision
and
my
feedback
was
that
feasibility
score
was
five
and
it
was
basically
not
matching
the
the
the
ca
rationale.
It
says.
If,
if
my
dart
well
resolved,
I
would
certainly
have
given
an
excellent
score
for
the
feasibility
on
this
proposal.
So
this
is
an
obvious
case
where
I
may
be
just
a
mistake
by
the
ca,
but.
F
AC
F
AC
Could
you
go
back
to
the
the
doc,
the
guitar
petition
analysis
document
and
then
just
people
can
read
that
feasibility
there
we
go.
Okay,.
A
So
they
gave
it
a
five,
but
in
the
content
it
is
giving
it.
It
is
contradicting
that,
as
that
was
your
point
and
that's
why
you
filtered
it
out.
F
F
Maybe
ca
would
have
wanted
to
to
rate
it
four
or
three.
I
don't
know,
but
certainly
not
five.
F
Yes,
you
can
show
the
list
again,
another
one
at
the
bottom,
where
I
have
the
opposite
case
just
scroll
down.
I
pick
one.
F
Yeah,
maybe
those
ones
may
be
less
obvious,
the
good
filtered
out,
whereas
several
cases
I
stated
low
standard
generic
assessments
for
quality,
rational.
F
Do
you
want
me
to
pick
one
or
do
some
of
you
can
just
pick
one
and
we
can
look
in
into
into
one
of
those
as
as
we
scroll
down
you,
you
pick
one
that
you're.
I.
F
AC
A
AC
Z
What
would
the
goal,
as
I
understand
it
here,
is
to
bring
everybody
onto
the
same
page
and
then
enforce
that
that
playbook-
and
this
looks
like
exactly
what
we're
looking
for,
but
he
got
a
low
score,
not
because
he
deviated
from
the
average,
but
because
the
average
was
wrong,
and
so
we
should
be
doing
something
to
encourage
exactly
this.
If
we
have
to
have
petitions
and
review
them
perfect,
but
we
should
be
looking
at
the
the
average
that
he
failed
to
meet
when
he's
clearly
in
the
right
gear.
F
F
I
I
The
behavior
that
you
that
you
desire,
I
think
is,
is
the
correct
way
to
go
rather
than
punishing
so
offering
vcas
that
bothered
to
write
a
rationale
for
their
review
is
probably
I,
I
think,
a
good
way
to
look
at
this
so
starting
to
discuss
as
time
goes
on.
I
think
for
next
fun,
perhaps.
A
Thank
you
phil.
Let's
do
vlad
and
then
maybe
one
more
if
there's
anywhere
else,
because
we
tried
for
15
20
minutes
so
we're
sort
of
in
that
arena
right
now.
So,
let's
see,
if
we
can
do
it
vlad
your
hand
went
down.
Did
you
let's
go
to
naveed
and
then,
if
you
want
to
come
back,
just
put
your
hand
up
go
ahead.
Maybe
here?
Oh
sorry,.
V
Well,
I'll,
keep
it
short.
I
just
wanted
to
support
what
john
said.
He
steered
this
also
in
a
good
direction
to
focus
on
what's
really
happening.
I
I
went
through
all
these
issues
that
gaitan
raised.
I
was
reading
his
rationale
and
I
have
to
say
I
I
work
the
same
way
like
he
did
at
least
if
the
score
doesn't
match.
If
it's
a
if
the
score
doesn't
match
the
rationale,
I
would,
I
would
also
be
strict
and
filter
it
out.
V
V
V
B
To
just
wanted
to
echo
that
I
think
that
the
the
most
important
piece
we'll
get
out
of
this
is
the
not
necessary
for
the
petitioners,
but
every
all
of
the
vcas
can
now
take
these
particular
examples
and
these
deep
dives
that
people
have
done
and
and
looking
to
their
own
work.
B
And
you
start
to
see
those
trends
coming
in
just
to
phil's
point.
I
think
rewarding
good
behavior.
Absolutely
what
we
do
need
to
be
careful
of
is,
if
we've
still
got
this
this
this.
This
wakamol
point
of
we're
still
gonna
have
people
gaming
the
system.
So
we
can't
leave
the
gate
open
for
somebody
to
do
the
just
mark
everything,
good
or
excellent,
and
not
provide
a
rationale
because
they
don't
have
to
I'm
still
for
mandatory
rationale,
but
I
think
to
be
debated
to
be
debated.
I
I
I
think,
if
nothing
else,
this
is
showing
me
how
much
work
some
of
the
people
here
and
the
broader
community
put
into
this
this
process,
so
yeah
it's
very
enlightening
and
humbling,
because
I
don't
participate
at
that
level
in
this
way.
In
this
area,.
P
Yeah,
just
as
a
general
principle,
I
think
the
purpose
is
to
try
to
identify
bad
actors
of
this
review
process.
It's
not
to
make
a
distinction
between
great
actors
and
average
actors
or
whatever,
and
I
think
it's
pretty
easy
to
tell
people
like
the
folks
who
we're
talking
to
they
put
a
lot
of
effort
in
there
they're,
not
bad
actors,
and
so
whatever
system
we're
doing.
I
think
we
need
to
rethink
it
a
little
bit
the
bad
actors.
P
Okay,
sophisticated
gaming,
that's
fine,
but
not
so
many
gamers
are
going
to
put
that
much
effort
into
it
and,
and
let's
say,
a
fine
distinction
of
of
you
rated
it
five.
But
in
your
words,
you
said
you
can't
give
it
a
five
and
that's
that's
that's
careful
analysis,
so
I
think
we
going
forward.
We
should
think
again
about
these
rules
in
terms
of
what
are
we
trying
to
do
we're
trying
to
identify
and
eliminate
or
exclude
bad
actors
not
to
make
judgments
about
great
or
good
actors.
A
Excellent
good
thanks,
lynn,
fantastic
okay,
so,
if
going
to
vote
so
voting,
yes
here
means
that
you
agree
and
wish
to
overturn
this
filtering
out
the
world
slashing
decision
and
voting
no
means
that
you
that
you
do
not
want
to
see
that
happen.
Y
A
All
right,
10
seconds
I
should
know
if,
if
you
are
newer
to
the
room
and
you
want
to
join,
thank
you,
someone
posted
that
in
the
comments
I
can't
remember
who,
but
thank
you
for
doing
that.
If
you
you
can
vote
if
you're,
if
you
joined
and
you
can't
find
those
under
your
reactions
same
place,
you
would
raise
your
hand
that's
under
the
reactions
button.
So
yes,
or
no
there,
okay,
five,
four,
three,
two
one!
Here
we
go
scott!
You
got
your
count
down
there.
A
A
Okay,
that
looks
overwhelmingly
positive,
so
that
is
that
outcome.
Thank
you.
I
think
we
did
a
better
iteration
there.
Maybe
better
is
a
tough
word,
but
we
did
a
more
succinct
and
focused
one
there.
So
thank
you,
everyone
for
that
and
for
your
input
and
laurence
you
are
like
you
get
the
you
get
the
prize
for
most
gracious
of
giving
up
your
time
spot
repeatedly.
A
So
you
are
up
and
we'll
keep
it
going
here.
We'll
try
to
accomplish
the
same
thing
and
have
us
down
here
shortly.
D
Okay,
yes,
thank
you
a
brief
note
on
the
petition.
It's
I'm
doing
this
as
a
ca
to
get
a
review
removed
from
one
of
my
assessments.
D
D
D
He
provided
feedback
on
the
filtered
out,
but
it
didn't
match
my
assessment.
He
he
did
it
more
of
an
assessment
of
a
normal
challenge
challenge
rather
than
a
challenge
setting
from
the
fun
line
so
yeah
as
since
I'm
not
really
one
wanting
to
review
my
my
assessor
id.
D
My
id
is
already
shared,
it
seems,
but
yeah.
My
petition
is
to
get
the
review
removed
from
my
assessment
so
that
I
get
the
rewards
for
the
that
assessment,
because
I
have
one
excellent
one
good
and
two
filtered
out.
AC
Sure
I
can
so
yeah.
This
was
an
honest
mistake
on
my
part,
I
think
I
must
have
either
just
been
tired
or
misread
it,
and
I
missed
the
fun
nine
challenge
setting.
So
I
reviewed
it
like
it
wasn't
as
good
answer
or
as
lauren
said
sorry
I
reviewed
incorrectly.
So
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
whole
lot
else
that
needs
to
be
said.
I
already
talked
to
lorenz
and
we
discussed
so
like.
AC
If
you
know
the
results
of
this
vote,
can't
get
those
results,
get
those
rewards
back
to
him.
I
would
give
some
of
my
rewards
to
him
to
compensate
for
that,
but
hopefully
we
can
get
that
result.
AC
I
think
this
process
does
raise
the
question
of
like
these
edge
cases
right,
so
that
this
was
an
unfortunate
edge
case
where
my
incorrect
mistake
resulted
in
his
review
getting
filtered
out,
and
so
I
think
it's
good
that
we're
kind
of
going
through
this
process
to
make
sure
and
to
like
I
used
to
be
able
to
dispute
these
things.
So
I'm
glad
that
we
were
able
to
have
this
discussion.
I
A
D
I
well
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
a
possible
outcome
or
not,
but
the
question
would
be
if
the
majority
is
agreeing
to
remove
the
review
from
my
assessment,
so
I
would
potentially
get
the
rewards
for
that
assessment
if
that's
possible
or
not,
because
I
don't
know
because
this
is
more
for
the
vca
rewarding
rather
than
the
ca
rewarding
but
yeah.
Since
it's
a
petition
and
it's
a
first
trial,
my
daughter
would
give
it
a
go
and
see
if
this
works
or
not.
B
AC
Yeah,
I
would
be
okay
if
that
one
vca
review
was
discarded
from
my
total.
D
And,
as
john
said
in
the
chat
as
well
due
to
the
low
numbers
of
vca
we
have
and
the
reviews
we
had,
I
only
had
like
three
or
four
reviews
on
this
assessment,
which
is
quite
low,
which
changes
it
it
up
with
just
one
review.
I
A
Okay,
so
the
vote
would
be
more
of
a
situational
vote
here.
It
would
go
to
a
question
there
as
far
as
what
could
be
done
on
the
back
end.
So
that's
not
something
we
can
answer
here,
but
the
question
would
be
more
about.
It
would
just
be
more
about
creating
a
case
example
that
had
a
response
to
it
is
that
sort
of
where
you're,
what
you're
hoping.
D
A
D
D
A
Okay-
that's
a
really
that's
a
really
interesting
vote!
Okay.
So
if
you
vote
yes
to
this,
then
it
will
accomplish
that
we
make
that
request
to
create
future
circumstances
where
that
repair
can
happen
prior
to
the
when
something
is
really
recognized
like
this,
but
there's
a
process
that
that
repair
can
be
adjusted
prior
to
the
payout.
A
Y
A
Okay,
that
is
a
positive
all
right.
So
what
we'll
do
from
here
is
take
these
results
and
work
directly
with
those
who
petition
to
further
the
outcomes
and
in
the
first
case
in
matthias
case,
we'll
take
this
to
actually
be
a
working
board
issue
and
and
develop
a
group
around
it
so
that
we
can
raise
it
as
a
as
a
challenge
that
needs
direct
resolution
and
fixing
for
for
fun
nine.
So
that's
an
outcome
of
this
process.
I
know
if
you
guys,
are
marathoners
and
we
really
went
through
a
lot
here.
A
Let's
is
there
any
other
comments
that
want
to
be
made
here.
I
know
we're
we've
been
going
for
a
while,
so
I
just
want
to
make
space
for
reflections
in
the
process
that
maybe
haven't
been
raised
yet
or
any
suggestions
or
feedback,
and
maybe
give
a
minute
or
two
for
that.
AA
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say:
I
really
really
appreciate
the
work
that
is
being
put
into.
You
know
I.
I
know
this
is
hard.
I
know
this
is
complicated,
overwhelming
everybody
is
trying
their
best.
I
know
the
process
may
seem
quite
unfair
in
certain
instances
and
it's
the
learning
points
like
here
that
will
essentially
allow
us
to
learn
from
them
and
account
for
them
in
the
future.
AA
So
we
can
adjust
the
system
in
a
better
way
that
actually
takes
into
account
all
these
different
things,
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
it's
seen.
It's
appreciated
and
you
have
all
my
all.
My
heads
are
down
to
to
the
process
that's
been
put
in
here.
So
just
wanted
to
see
that
say
that,
like
you
know,
I
appreciate
you
all
for
spending
the
time
and
especially
the
some
of
the
petitions.
AA
A
Thanks
danny,
it's
very
late
for
you
as
well
so
very
late
for
a
lot
of
people
on
here.
So
thank
you,
everyone,
john
and
if
you
need
to
sign
off,
please
feel
free
to
do
that.
I
don't
feel
like
you
need
to
say
it
again.
Go
john.
Z
So
I
just
want
to
say
that
I'm
really
liking
how
that
this
is
turning
out
now
that
we've
kind
of
hashed
through
the
initial
issues,
but
I
would
like
to
bring
some
focus-
and
maybe
some
thought
for
the
future
on
the
average
that
everybody
is
being
compared
against
here.
Z
A
I
I
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone,
who's,
attended
and
voted
and
participated
in
this
and
watched
on
twitter
and
wherever
else
things
of
people
doing
things.
The
petitions
have
been
amazing.
The
process
has
been
enlightening
and
I
think
we
can
all
learn
and
help
develop
it
further.
I
Obviously,
nadia
you're
doing
an
amazing
job,
posting
and
organizing
and
communicating
and
doing
all
this
sorts
of
stuff
I'd
just
like
to
say
as
well
dan.
We
love
your
work.
We
love
how
you
do
things,
but
let's
also
keep
in
mind
how
we
can
keep
this
agency
in
the
community
and
not
have
iog,
come
and
and
adjust
the
process,
but
instead
work
how
to
keep
passing
agency
to
us.
I
So
that
would
be
my
comment
about
this
process:
how
how
can
we
keep
developing
our
own
processes
and
and
and
taking
on
more
responsibility
as
a
community?
So
thank
you
to
everyone.
Who's
participated
in
in
this
process.
A
Yeah
good,
this
is
a
great
example
of
it
guys.
You
know,
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
improvements
here
that
we'll
figure
out
a
lot
of
them
are
just
the
exploration
and
a
lot
of
things
didn't
work
better.
So
that's
that's
part
of
the
part
of
the
emerging
of
a
new
way.
So
I
think
you
all
know
that
I
just
reinforce
it
here
and
support
navi.
Go
ahead.
B
Yeah
just
want
to
say,
I
think,
massive
improvement
from
where
we've
come
from
last
two
funds,
so
fund
six
fun
fund.
Seven
was
pretty
much
non-existent
at
this
stage.
This
has
been
a
good
step
forward
and
for
me,
the
the
the
feedback
loop
now
goes
back
into
not
just
the
vca
process,
but
the
ca
process
and
the
proposals,
which
is
the
most
important
bit
right.
So
that's
what
that's
where
that's,
where
the
value
of
this
will
come
there's
for
things.
A
J
A
If
you're
on
a
discord
server-
and
you
want
to
know
more
about
these
petitions
or
anything
else-
it's
a
great
place
to
come
good
conversations,
and
so
I
will
take
it
on.
I
will
take
it
on
me
to
follow
up
with
each
of
the
groups
here
and
figure
out
next
steps,
so
I
will
be
usher
of
that.
So
each
of
you,
some
of
you,
aren't
here
anymore,
but
those
of
you
who
are
will
reach
out
to
you
and
make
sure
that
we
get
the
next
steps
figured
out
and
that's
it.
A
I
think
I
think
we
did
it.
V1
attempted
so
appreciate
everyone
we're
like.
We
really
appreciate
all
of
you
being
here
and
your
feedback,
it's
like
hard
to
keep
a
room
for
this
many
hours
with
this
many
people,
and
I
think
it
just
reflects
how
much
interest
there
is
in
making
this
better
and
recognizing
what
needs
to
happen
and
just
contributing
to
it.
A
So
big,
thank
you
to
everyone
and
we
will
catch
you
next
time,
I'll
put
the
recording
on
the
I'll
put
it
on
the
swarm
channel
and
the
youtube
channel
as
well
to
see
a
youtube
channel.
So
that'll
go
up
in
the
video
drops
and
we'll
try
to
get
a
nice
succinct
sort
of
capturing
of
this
meeting
itself.
So
I
look
forward
to
what
comes
as
a
result
of
what
we
planted
here:
cool
phil.
I
don't
know
how
to
do
fireworks
on
there,
but
that's
now.
I
know
how
to
do
yeses
and
no's
and
fireworks.