►
Description
Link to the vCA Resolution Process Document referenced in the video: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uX9T-oGiiIP7e2cEqqW8VqLguaVcpqAKW_QvMgFNUPo/edit#heading=h.3ow8hkg07zxc
Additional documents reverenced are linked in this document under Michal's Petition information on the last two pages.
A
Okay,
welcome
to
this
hearing
of
the
resolution
process
for
michael's
petition
here.
This
is
part
of
the
vca
resolution
process.
I
will
pull
up
my
screen
here
and
just
very
quickly
go
through
the
to
get
the
document
up
I'll
very
quickly,
go
through
what
we're
doing
here
today,
for
the
sake
of
the
recording
and
I'll
make
sure
that
the
links
for
this
are
in
the
the
recording
description
here
we
go.
A
I've
been
reviewing
the
resolution
process
document,
but
I
will
also
it
will
also
be
for
the
community
to
take
a
look
at
in
the
future.
So
I'll
go
through
it
relatively
quickly
here,
all
right,
so
the
vca
resolution
process,
this
was
implemented
for
fund
8..
We're
currently
in
fund.
Eight
today
is
saturday
may
7th.
A
It
is
12
40
utc,
and
this
resolution
process
is
part
of
the
vca
process
and
follows
in
order
to
prevent
or
provide
an
opportunity
for
vcas
to
raise
any
issues
or
concerns
as
a
response
to
the
vca
algorithm
being
run
at
the
end
of
the
vca
process.
So
there's
some
good
information
on
that
here
and
there
is
a
link
in
the
vca
guide
with
it,
which
explains
both
the
bca
process
and
the
resolution
process
itself.
A
So
just
as
a
reminder
that
we
put
the
both
the
algorithm
and
the
process
in
place
to
deter
abuse
or
misuse
of
the
vca
process
and
not
to
nudge,
strict
dcas
who
are
entitled
to
their
opinion
and
which
is
naturally
solved
in
honest
consensus.
So
our
hope
is
that
we'll
use
this
process
and
hear
these
petitions
to
resolve
issues
within
the
process
and
also
hear
the
cases
to
guide
vca
process
improvements
for
future
funds.
A
We
are
currently
on
our
very
last
sixth
of
six
petitions
raised
here.
This
is
the
last
one
today.
So
what
will
happen
today
is.
I
will
provide
this
document
link,
which
I
did
not
do
yet,
but
I
will
do
right
now
in
the
chat
so
that
we
all
have
it,
and
here
we
go
there.
That
is,
and
then
the
petitioner
who
is
michael
will
be
invited
to
present
his
issue
with
explanation
and
supporting
data.
A
Then
we'll
invite
comment
from
the
petition
supporters
as
to
why
they
are
supporting
then
community
response
to
this
issue.
We'll
have
a
call
for
the
vote.
In
this
instance
of
zoom.
We
will
use
the
raised
hand
so
raised
hand
for,
yes
will
be
a
support
of
the
petition
and
a
raise
hand
for
no
will
be
a
disagreement
with
the
petition
and
the
details
for
how
that
will
be
counted.
Are
here
then,
following
this,
we
won't
determine
what
that
outcome
means.
Today
we
will
certain.
A
We
will
just
take
that
as
the
official
outcome
and
then
use
that
to
determine
results
that
can
be
accomplished
here
in
the
coming
week
and
then
we'll
take
community
feedback
or
ideas
on
any
of
these
things.
The
guide,
the
any
additional
suggestions
that
can
be
made
or
tasks
that
can
be
updated
accordingly
for
the
coming
fund
and
hopefully
we'll
keep
this
30
or
maybe
45
minutes.
A
It's
always
a
challenge
because
we
get
into
good
stuff,
but
we'll
try
to
do
that,
because
we've
had
this
information
presented
beforehand
in
discussion
about
it
in
the
discord
channel,
okay
and
then
next
thing
is.
The
discussion
is
as
much
a
helpful
part
of
the
process
as
the
actual
data,
so
we're
going
to
allow
conversation
but
try
to
keep
it
on
track
as
well.
A
Okay
and
then
just
as
a
reminder
that
the
work
in
the
voting
process
can
no
longer
be
removed
or
changed,
so
the
vote
actually
has
finished
for
those
funds.
So
this
is
just
a
goal
to
reflect
to
affect,
rewards
and
the
vcs
a
bca
assessment
work
in
the
future,
and
then
here
are
some
invitations
to
help
us
proactively
improve
the
process
which
we
are
always
doing,
and
this
is
actually
part
of
the
fund
7
process.
So
we
get
to
implement
new
things.
A
B
So
hi
everyone,
even
though
I'm
being
participated
in
catalyst
for
more
than
a
year.
I
don't
think
anyone
from
you
saw
me
before
so.
Some
brief
introduction,
I
think,
should
be
put
in
place.
So
michael
I'm
29,
I'm
from
slovakia,
but
I
live
in
czech
republic
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
relevance
to
go
about
my
professional
history.
But
let's
say
I'm
having
masters
in
economics.
B
I
have
worked
as
software
analysts
for
more
than
three
years
in
a
small
I.t
company
simultaneously,
I
was
doing
phds
in
nanoscience,
which
was
slightly
off
and
currently
I
am
working
in
deloitte
as
a
financial
leader,
so
I'm
jumping
from
field
to
field,
and
so
I
hope
I
will
be
able
to
switch
my
job
again
because
I'm
quite
intrigued
to
become
a
scrum
master.
So
this
is
a
soft
background
of
me
and
the
reason
why
I
decided
to
make
the
petition
was
that,
even
though
I
know
that
I
might
be.
B
B
C
D
E
B
B
B
Here
is
the
list
of
filter
outs,
my
majority,
which
I
considered
as
good,
and
I
I
could
not
find
any
rational
from
this.
Well,
there
was
like
there's
there's
11
assessments.
I
think
there
are
approximately
four
or
five
filtered
out
rationals
combined,
not
even
one
pair
each,
and
these
deviations
are
mostly
small.
I
was
on
the
edge,
so
it
was.
I
was
not
an
outlier
like
was
one
versus
eight.
B
Might
filter
out
assessments
versus
which
resulted
in
being
good.
I
have
defined
some
categories
which
I
was
able
to
group
up.
My
assessments
and
80
of
these
did
not
provide
rational,
and
I
know
when
I'm
assessing
once
I
find
a
mistake
that
I
think
should
not
be
ignored.
I
just
write
it
there.
Rational
is
missing.
Therefore,
I'm
really
pretty
confident
that
it's
correct
35
is
budget
for
decreasing
score
in
all
this
section.
B
I
know
that
ca
guidelines
are
not
set
in
stone
and
they
are
not
fixedly
given.
Yet
I
believe
if
we
are
having
some
sections
for
some
scoring
criteria,
we
should
we
should
not
overlap
them,
and
here
in
this
35
I
found
that
they
were
the
the
budget
was
actually
used
for
decreasing
score,
which
I
don't
find
correct.
B
B
Basically,
cas
are
going
to
made
up
their
metrics
and
decrease
the
score
for
it,
and
I
am
not
really
sure
if
it's
correct.
For
example,
if
I'm
going
to
have
a
test
in
mathematics
and
I'm
going
to
get
the
question
from
history
because
it
seems
related,
but
I
I
was
not
informed
about
it
prior
any
other
event,
and
I
don't
think
it's
right
if
ca
are
making
their
own
metrics
and
degrees.
Corporate
and
yeah.
B
B
Where
should
I
be
able
to
objectively
access
each
assessment
saying
okay,
this
one
assessment
seems
fine,
even
though
it's
slightly
breaking
the
rules
and
then,
if
I
do
a
different
decisions
for
basically
same
assessments,
it
can
result
in
cas
saying
why
my
assessment
was
filtered
out,
while
another
ca
very
similar
was
accepted.
So
this
that's
the
reason
why
I'm
trying
to
be
straight,
which
is
resulting
in
me
filing
the
petition.
B
So
this
is
this
is
the
impact
assessment
of
the
caa
and,
as
you
go
through
it,
it
just
doesn't
seem
that
positive
here
the
ca
says
it
would
be
better
if
author
would
mention
some
more
information
which
is
elaborated
more
how
and
who
will
participate.
So
it's
like
missing
information
in
the
assessment,
basically,
recommendations
and
suggestions,
recommendations
and.
A
C
A
C
B
B
So
if
you
go
through
it,
it
states,
implementation
bond
is
a
rather
work.
So
it's
not.
It
doesn't
feel
like
a
positive
comment
right
and
there
again
there
are
some
recommendations
and
suggestions
and
how
they
are
mostly
going
to
proceed.
But
what
is
actually
good
about
this
proposal?
If
I
would
be
water-
and
I
would
not
open
it-
and
I
would
just
rely
on
this
assessment
solely
which
is,
of
course
no
desire
to
stay,
but
if
it
would
be
that
case,
it
just
feels
like
this,
and
that
is
missing.
B
B
B
B
B
So
to
point
out
something
interesting:
yes,
since
it
was
decreased
by
15,
as
I
said
before,
if
it
would
be
like
equal
each
assessment
equal,
then
I
would
expect
increase
more
than
like
seven
eight
percent,
but
let's
say
some
will
have
higher
deviations
lower
deviations.
So
I'm
pretty
confident
that
five
percent
will
be
achievable.
B
A
A
D
F
F
I
would
like
to
point
out
also
that
it's
not
just
you
who
was
penalized
by
disagreeing
with
the
majority,
but
every
vca
I
mean
that's
the
system,
we're
all
penalized.
But
what
you're
trying
to
say
is
that
you
think
you're
unfairly
penalized.
If
I
understand
well,
I
I
wasn't
able
to
look
through
all
of
them,
but
I
wanted
to
look
as
many
as
I
could.
F
I
looked
at
18.
I
in
john
de
pinet
vca.
The
last
time
we
had
was
it
on
wednesday
in
the
aftertown
hall.
He
raised
a
very
good
point
that
these
things
should
be
decided
based
on
specifics,
like
what
did
you
say?
What
did
ca
say?
What
was
the
proposal
like,
so
I
tried
to
look
at
it.
I
looked
at
18
of
these
cases
in
12
of
them.
I
did
agree
with
you
in
six.
F
I
just
wasn't
sure
that
your
argument
was
convincing
enough
that
the
majority
wasn't
right
and
you
were,
which
is
what
I
understood.
You
stated
so
I
it
wasn't
strong
enough
for
me.
So
that's
just
a
sample.
I
don't
know
how
that
influences
my
analysis
of
18
does.
How
does
it
influence
these
11
and
247
that
you're
disputing
that's
250
a
so
unless
something
changes
I'll
probably
have
to
abstain,
because
I'm
not
sure
it's
it's
a
large
volume
of
work,
it
corresponds
to
a
semi
mini
vca
round
for
all
of
us.
F
A
B
It
will
end
up
whether
I
think
it's
according
to
those
guidelines,
whether
you
think
it's
not
according
to
guidelines,
and
since
we
are
agreeing
that
there
is
more
interpretations
or
various
ways
how
to
judge.
In
the
end,
therefore,
neither
of
us
is
actually
correct
or
incorrect
unless
I
am
breaking
some
rules.
B
G
Yeah,
so
spencer,
thanks,
I'm
sorry,
michael
thanks,
so
much
for
bringing
this
case,
because
it's
it's
really
interesting
for
the
process
and
and
unfortunately
I
I
haven't
had
time
to
go
through
all
the
assessments,
but
I
did
focus
on
my
pet
hate,
which
is
a
couple
of
couple
of
the
assessments
that
you
flagged
around
talking
about
finance
within
and
the
budgets
within
the
auditability
section.
So
I
did
go
through
a
few
of
those
and
and
similar
to
vladimir
some.
I
agree
with
some.
G
I
don't
so
I
think
this
is
probably
the
most
useful
thing
for
me
here
is
is
the
is
the
feedback
into
the
the
the
the
ca
process
and
how
we
look,
how
we
look
at
the
how
we
look
at
the
guidelines
so
we'll
give
you
two
examples.
So
if
if
if,
if
within
the
audit
section
somebody's
used,
a
ca,
is
using
the
argument
that
there
is
a
budget,
therefore
we
use
the
budget
to
audit
people
that
isn't
currently
not
the
case.
We
don't
do
that.
G
Nobody
cares
how
much
you've
spent
you
get
your
money
on
a
monthly
basis.
It
is
not
a
current
audit
function,
whether
you
deliver
the
project
or
not,
you'll
get
paid,
there's
no,
there's,
no,
there's
no
auditing
around
finance.
You
get
your
money
and,
and
so
therefore
that
cannot
be
a
cannot
be
a
a
an
argument
within
within
the
auditability
section.
G
G
There
are
definite
rules
for
me
and
but
they're
also
some
flexibility
and
they're
trying
to
help
each
other
improve
as
a
as
a
as
a
ceo.
You
know
I
definitely
have
to,
but
definitely
a
cas
and
vca
just
trying
to
improve
the
process
as
a
whole
and
and
leaving
a
bit
of
flexibility
actually
helps
in
my
view.
B
Okay
to
well
my
process
of
assessing
it
goes
once
I
support
there
is
missing
star.
I
am
looking
for
a
rational
once
I
find
the
rational
I
somehow
judge,
which
is
good
or
not,
but
if
I
see
a
missing
star
and
there
is
no
rational
so,
and
I
see
there
is
a
budget,
let's
say,
and
it's
the
only
thing
which
seems
to
be
negative,
so
I
did
use
that's
the
reason,
because
there's
nothing
else.
B
So
if
you
I
don't
know
if
you
marked
it
down
which
assessment
it
was,
but
I
am
not
just
no,
it's
not
definitely
enough,
just
to
mention
budget
for
me
to
further
down
it
would
be.
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
thing,
but
once
you
decide
to
decrease
score,
you
should
decrease
it
on
a
valid
criteria.
For
that
section-
and
I
know
that
well
hopefully
in
most
of
these
cases,
I
did
it
that
once
I
spot
a
missing
star,
I
look
for
the
rational.
A
F
Thanks,
michael
yeah
I'll
keep
it
short
yeah
in
those
six
cases
where
I
was
looking,
I
I
agreed
with
you
in
12
and
six
I
didn't
so
I'm
just
giving
it
as
a
sample,
because
I
remembered,
as
I
mentioned
john
in
the
previous
case,
looked
at
the
specifics
said
we
should
look
at
the
specifics
in
those
six
cases.
I
should
have
thought
that
the
other
vcas
followed
the
guidelines
and
that
you
were
the
outlier
in
following
the
guidelines
there.
F
So
I'm
trying
to
say
I
also
have
I
every
one
of
us
makes
mistakes.
The
thing
is
that
I
am
unable
to
project
the
fact
where,
where
I
can't
agree
with
all
of
your
claims
that
you
follow
the
guidelines
exactly
so.
This
is
an
important
case,
because
this
will
this
might
reappear
in
10
10
times
larger
form.
F
A
A
Is
a
is
agreement
on
on
approach
and
decision
the
question
as
far
as
the
as
far
as
the
petition
here
or
is
it
whether
or
not
someone
was
misusing
the
system?
And
what
does
the
group
think
here,
because
I
think
it's
obvious
that
there's
not
agreement
across
the
decisions
made
by
michael's
work,
but
perhaps
if
we
look
at
it
from
the
purpose
of
the
process
and
the
and
the
script,
maybe
that
gives
us
a
different
lens
to
look
at
it
from
I'm
interested
to
hear
what
the
group
thinks.
H
Well,
okay,
I
think
what
this
entire
process,
regardless
of
the
outcome,
what
it
brings
up
mainly
for
me,
is
that,
like
one,
the
rewards
process
for
vcas
clearly
has
flaws.
I
think
we
we
saw
this
in
tommy's
petition
on
wednesday
right
and
then
this
is
pretty
much
the
exact
same
kind
of
a
case
where,
like
you're,
potentially
missing
out
on
rewards
just
because
of
this
script,
that
was,
you
know,
kind
of
just
decided,
80
or
85
or
90.
H
Like
you
know,
0.75
rewards
one
times,
1.25
rewards,
and
so
I
guess
like
I
don't
know
what
the
solution
is,
but
I
think
it's
clear
that
we
need
to
do
some
thinking
about
this,
and
so
like.
Thank
you
michael
for
bringing
this
up,
because
I
think
it's
important
that
we
kind
of
realize
that
these
issues
are
going
on.
So
personally,
I
think
I
can
still
vote
on
it,
but
I
think
yes,
I
agree
that
there
are
still
like
we
need
to
work
on
this.
G
So
I
think,
spencer
makes
a
really
important
point.
I
think
we
just
think
back
to
where
the
this
this
deviation.
Script
came
from,
so
alex
wrote
something
back
in
fund
six
and
maybe
just
use
it
as
a
community,
and
the
idea
was
to
to
flag
real
outliers
to
define
the
gamers.
So
that's
where
we
we
we
got
hold
of
near
and
and
glory
and
the
people
I
mentioned
in
in
the
in
the
previous
in
in
the
in
the
previous
chat,
the
previous
petition.
G
It
wasn't
necessary
to
flag
people
who
are
doing
good
work
and
to
diminish
results.
I
think
when
we,
when
we
look
at
the
way
that
that
the
the
approach
to
the
to
the
to
the
to
the
slashing
was
presented
originally
by
iog,
I
think
they
went
at
anybody
below
90
percent
and
would
have
been
slashed,
which
we'd
had
look
back
at
fund
seven.
That
would
have
been
all
of
us.
G
G
Let's
say
which
I
probably
don't
have
time
to
do,
but
in
data
analysis
as
to
what's
actually
happened
and
there's
more
outliers,
there's
lots
of
people
who
probably
could
have
been
petitioning
and
and
yeah
will
petition
next
time,
because
they'll
they'll
they'll
see
these
videos
they'll
understand
the
process
and
they'll
learn.
So
so
hopefully
this
is
not
necessary.
Whatever
the
outcome
today
that
this
is
a
precedent
for
for
a
you
know,
for
for
a
from
a
mass
charge
on
on
judge
nadia's
petitioning
process,
but
the
don't.
G
That's
gonna
be
your
new
nickname
for
now,
but
I
think
we
do
need
to
look
at
the
to
look
at
that
process
as
a
whole
and
see
where
those
boundaries
I
mean-
maybe
sorry,
just
one
last
point
and
maybe
rather
than
iog
just
giving
it
to
us.
It
goes
through
a
and
I
think
it's
mentioned
on
on
wednesday
after
town
hall.
It
goes
through
a
a
a
a
chat
like
this
no
yeah
a
serious
couple
of
hours.
Discussion.
G
A
Desire
to
align
with
what
you
think
is
correct
and
that's
an
important
thing.
What
you
feel
is
most
beneficial
to
the
process.
So
this
is
a
very.
This
is
a
very
great
case
and
I
will
echo
what
spencer
says
about
really
taking
a
deep
zoom
into
this,
this
part
of
the
phase,
so
we
can
think
about
what
it's
actually
accomplishing
that
accomplish
some
good
things.
It's
also
accomplishing
some
complicated
things
for
the
people
who
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
the
system.
A
E
E
A
H
A
So
we
need
to
then
follow
that
conversation
up.
So
I
will
I
I
take
that
myself
I'll
go
back
to
to
danny
and
anyone
else
who
needs
to
be
involved,
and
we
talk
about
what
the
outcomes
were.
What
the
petition
was
about,
what
the
what
the
support
was
and
then
what
can?
What
can
be
accomplished?
And
we
were
accomplished
that
in
this
week,
hopefully
early
in
the
week,
so
that
people
know
what
to
expect
and
also
because
rewards
will
be
distributed
here.
In
the
next
couple
weeks,.
A
A
A
H
F
Yes,
I
I
think
michael
has
a
good
point
here
that
he
could
have
earned
more
and
and
probably
should
have,
but
I
think
that
case
stands
for
many
vcas
at
the
same
time
and
because
the
system
is
designed
that
way,
it
has
been
imperfect
from
fund
three
front.
Four,
it's
imperfect
now,
so
I
know
I
personally
could
have
gone
into
my
own
decisions
and
found.
F
I
think
I
missed,
I
don't
know,
maybe
four
percent
to
the
higher
tier,
but
my
concern
was
hundreds
of
or
maybe
dozens
of
decisions
and
reverting
them,
because
I
think
everybody
could
probably
make
a
relatively
solid
case
for
that
and
then
we're
back
to
square
one.
But
we
have
a
lot
of
more
work
for
everyone.
I.
G
F
E
G
What
what
what
I
do
hope
is
that
these
other
vcas
watching
this
video
do
go
into
michael's
petition
and
look
for
their
specific
analysis
and
look
look
at
where
they
are
be.
That,
with
you,
know,
michael
disagreed
with
them,
and,
and
why
and
either
have
that
one-to-one
discussion
with
him
or
approach
me
or
approach
somebody
else
and
try
and
work
out
how
how
us
as
individuals
we
can,
we
can
improve.
You
know.
G
We
will
we'll
we'll
figure
out
the
process
eventually,
but
to
figure
out
the
process.
Us
as
individuals
need
to
need
to
improve.
Also-
and
you
know
michael
may
feel
hard
done
by-
but
I
think
as
part
of
that
as
part
of
flagging,
this
and-
and
I
could
have
done
the
same
with
with
a
lot
of
with
a
lot
of
my
reviews
and
brought
a
petition,
but
that's
part
of
michael
flagging
this.
It
should
now
highlight
to
those
specific
vcas
right.
G
I
need
to
have
a
look
at
myself
and-
and
they
are
obvious
by
their
you
know-
by
by
not
being
on
any
of
these
pages
and
not
necessarily
participating.
You
can
see
the
same
names
coming
up
again
and
again
and
because
we're
at
such
relatively
small
volumes
of
reviews
per
assessment
it
it
can
hard,
it
can
harm
the
system
and
it
goes
down
it's
not
just
about
rewards.
It
goes.
It
goes
straight
to
the
voting
and
the
influence
of
which,
which
proposals
get
funded
so
until
we've
got
that
quality
and
quantity
coming
together.
We'll.
E
I
was
just
gonna
ask
like
what
are
we
like
going
forward
on
the
petitions
like?
Maybe
we
need
to
get
together
and
figure
out
what
to
do
if
everybody,
if
nobody
votes,
so
I
just
yeah.
What
do
we
do
then?
Since
everything
you
know
the
rest
of
the
process
is,
is
annotated,
documented.
You
know
what
do
we
do
in
that
case,
if
everybody
does
abstain,
so
that's
that
was
all
I
want
to
say.
A
F
Vladimir
yeah
one
one
takeaway
from
this,
I
think,
is
that
michael's
case
is
interesting
and
I
I
don't
want
him
to
feel
discouraged.
I
just
think
that
it
would.
It
would
open
up
a
barrage
of
cases
like
this
with
hundreds
next
round,
and
the
thing
is
that
I
think
these
petitions
should
be
probably
focused
on
very
easily.
F
Proven
material
that
we
can
follow
like
10
or
20,
or
something
that's
digestible,
300
different
decisions,
maybe
michael's
case
would
have
been
even
better
if
we
focused
on
10
and
then
we
found
a
precedent
for
for
something
that
this
way
I
couldn't
devote
enough
time.
That
was
the
problem
for
me.
I
couldn't
go
through
300
vca
reviews
and
I
can't
make
a
decision
to
to
reduce
somebody
else's
pca
rewards.
Based
on
my
unavailability
thanks.
B
Great,
so
I'm,
okay
with
the
with
the
resolution
I've.
I
am
aware
that
this
is
a
pilot
process
and
we
are
still
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
process.
The
only
question,
in
my
mind,
is
basically
what
vladimir
said
that,
basically,
everyone
could
dispute
the
results
and
my
reply
should
be
well.
Yes,
they
should
everyone
should
dispute
if
they
know
they
did
not
break
rules
because
they
made
some
amount
of
work
which
was
reduced
just
because
they
become
an
outlier.
Let's
say
one
versus
two
and
it
ends
up
on
perception
and
judgment.
B
B
F
I'll
I'll
just
add
a
little
bit
to
that.
I
think
yeah,
you
bring
up
valid
points.
I
think
the
the
barriers
are
very
hard
between
multiplier
1
multiply,
125
and
that
if
there
was
a
softer
transition,
we
wouldn't
have
cases
cases
where,
where
vcas
have
to
submit
300
vc,
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
a
big
incentive
to
to
initiate
petitions
now,
and
it
will
be
very
big
because
it's
a
big
difference
so
that
that
is
a
problem.
It
will
come
up
and
I
agree
I
agree
with
you.
F
I
think
that
working
with
your
own
mind
is
great.
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
ramifications
of
of
going
into
300
400
vca
decisions.
We
don't
have,
I
think,
by
the
fact
that
they're
just
six
of
us
here
it
proves
we
don't
have
the
manpower
to
do
that.
If
everybody
would
contest
every
single
thing,
they
think
there's
a
mistake.
B
You
know
I
completely
understand.
I
am
aware
that
we
are
not
having
resources
for
such
a
more
detailed
process,
but
I'm
just
I
don't
know.
I
I
see
the
risk
that
in
the
future,
vcas
can
be
slowly
shifting
and
transforming
in
their
assessments
just
to
fit
the
majority
and
just
because
right
now
we
are
not
having
resources.
B
Then
let's
create
someone,
because
if
we
know
that
there's
a
problem
which
might
be
discouraging
people
or
decreasing
their
motivation
in
the
future,
so
is
it
okay,
just
to
say
we
have
no
resources.
So
therefore
it's
not
going
to
be
solved
or
we
will
have
to
make
some
adjustments
or
find
some
solution
to
it.
That's
the
that's
the
point
which
I'm
having,
but
yes,
I
understand,
and
I
have.
A
H
Well,
definitely
the
reward
system
and
then
another
thing
is
I
it's
the
it's
the
guidelines
in
a
way,
because
there's
no
set
way
to
interpret
the
guidelines
right.
Some
people
are
stricter.
Some
people
are
a
little
bit
more
lenient,
and
so
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
consensus
about
how
we
follow
the
guidelines
as
vcas
and
that's.
A
E
E
It
might
make
a
little
more
difficult
to
reward
and
track,
especially
if
it's
like
vlad
says
and
then
vladimir
says
you
have
300
people
petitioning
and
then
you
know
the
other
que
the
other.
The
question
I've
been
having
during
this
is
so
we
have
the
petition
after
the
voting
period,
but
if
this
does
become
a
permanent
fixture
in
the
catalyst
fund,
this
needs
to
be
before
the
voting
period,
because
essentially
you're
removing
like
feedback
you're,
removing
a
part
of
that
voting
structure.
E
You
know
you're
either
removing
it
and
hoping
that
it'll
be
brought
back
in
the
petitioner
will
bring
it
back
in.
As
far
as
the
scores
go
for
a
particular
proposal,
or
you
know
they
do
stay
out
and
there's
no
effect
whatsoever.
So
I
think
there's
a
lot
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
Moving
forward
on
this
process
here,
the
petition
process.
A
It
would
be
interesting
if
the
treasury
is
funded
for
the
cas
to
have
it
be
like
a
pilot
treasury
draw
kind
of
a
thing,
because
I
would
anticipate
that
with
the
success
of
this
and
and
improving
other
elements.
This
might
be
something
that
gets
used
a
lot
more
and
it
certainly
is
it's
a
tremendous
each
of
you.
You
know,
michael
putting
together
your
petition
and
the
petition
we
just
heard
from
the
read
and
the
other
ones.
You
know
it's
and
then
reviewing
them
and
hearing
them
like.
A
H
So
I
think
in
the
future,
for
this
petition
process
do
we
want
to
set
the
precedent
where,
like
this
should
be
a
guideline?
If
you
want
to
petition
results,
maybe
you
cut,
you
have
to
come
with
a
certain
number
of
prepared,
maybe
like
examples
of
how
your
how
you
were
correct
and
how
maybe
the
majority
was
wrong,
or
something
like
that,
so
that
one
the
petition
process
can
move
more
smoothly
in
the
hearing,
but
also
so
that,
like
I
don't
know
because
it's
hard
to
go
through
it
michael.
H
I
appreciate
that
you
actually
took
the
time
to
compile
all
of
the
the
reviews
that
you
wanted
to
petition.
But
it's
hard
for
all
of
us
to
go
through
that
because
there's
so
many
so
do
we
wanna,
like
in
the
future,
set
a
limit
on
how
many
someone
can
petition,
because
then
someone
could
petition
a
thousand
and
then
you
know
we
can't
go
through
all
of
that,
and
so
it's
kind
of
hard.
A
I
definitely
agree
we
didn't
give
any
guidelines
this
time
for
the
process.
It
was
write,
a
petition
page,
you
know,
so
we
also
had
very
diverse
petitions.
Not
every
petition
was
like
this,
so
michael
and
tommy
both
had
this
kind,
but
others
were
different
than
this.
So
we'll
have
to
think
about
that
how
to
maybe
just
a
few
points
for
for
directing
quality
and
quantity
of
of
those
petitions
themselves
to
give
people
some
sense
of
how
to
how
to
respond.
A
A
I
do
think
we
should
have
given
out
like
trophies
or
something
for
everyone
who
helps
do
it
cookies,
something
like
that
cookies,
probably
better
than
trophies
tokens
figure
out
something
you
know
there
should
be
something
really
nice
for
for
because
it
is
a
it's
a
big
undertaking
of
time,
and
I
really
want
to
respect
that.
Everyone
has
contributed
in
the
ways
that
you
have
and
it's
very
very
important.