Ethereum Foundation Ethereum Berlin Meetup May 2022, 25 May 2022

Previous Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: How we can scale up pluralistic capital provision - Leon Erichsen & Kevin Olsen

Description

Slides: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZLdT20HFyMu7E-DxXZfQNHpFetD0OOcp?usp=sharing

Berlin Ethereum Meetup on May 25, 2022:
Leon Erichsen & Kevin Olsen from Gitcoin on “How we can scale up pluralistic capital provision”

Kevin Olsen introduces the social philosophy underlying Gitcoin Grants and presents the product roadmap toward Grants 2.0. Then, Leon Erichsen details some applications for more pluralistic versions of Quadratic Funding programs.

A

B

Do you just pass it back and forth yeah all right? Okay, so we're co-presenting so bear with us, so yeah cool, so we're here to present on the future of bitcoin grants. um I'm gonna take a minute to maybe kind of like define the meta problem a little bit just so we kind of know what we're we're really kind of going for, um and that's really about how we scale up capital, provisioning.

B

Okay, cool, oh.

A

B

We have a slido, maybe you want to take a minute. You can pull this up on your phones, and this is how we're gonna do q a here. So if you want to ask a question, I promise that's a safe qr code. I come talk to leon. If you see anything um yeah we'll we'll use that to like guide the conversation after we get through it, but yeah feel free to answer enter questions in there vote up questions yeah, I'm still seeing cameras I'll wait for you guys to wrap it up. Unfortunately,.

C

Low key voting.

B

All right cool, so do you to do this? One cool go for it, so this is we're kind of borrowing this from glenn weil. um He did a presentation on this, but this is kind of trying to set up these kind of thoughts these camps. I guess that we see is kind of issues that are coming up in the future.

B

um First, one corporate libertarianism- if you want to take this.

C

I don't know yeah, I think it's like kind of the ideology, that's very present in like the bitcoin maximalist community, but even in like kind of very high tier silicon valley, um pita tear-like takes on the future of technology, where, like basically they're, advocating or predicting the end of all forms of social organization that we know like the fall of the nation states, the fall of companies and we'll only have trustless networks like bitcoin and the sovereign individuals that hold their keys kind in these networks.

C

So obviously that doesn't sound so positive if you, if you like and then there's like a kind of other dominant thing, I would say in technology where you have um you know kind of the artificial general intelligence predictors. They give us another kind of vision of the future where they say. Okay, we'll have this super powerful computer that will rule everybody every human being and like we will only have this top-notch computer that controls everybody or we'll have billionaires kind of doing, effective, altruism and like directing like capital to causes and yeah.

C

It's also, I think, not really desirable to like leave all these decisions to um ride a few handful of people governing the planet and the vision that bitcoin kind of is trying to advocate for sees itself in is, like plural democracy.

C

um You might have seen like what the radical exchange movement is up to uh founded by len weil, like basically developing markets and like democracy, mechanisms that are like truer to the richness of you know our diverse lives, because indeed, actually we have so much collective intelligence and like diversity everywhere, like we care about all kinds of communities and the vision here is basically, let's augment these communities, give them tools to make them stronger and foster cooperation between them, and this is kind of what we we want to do with bitcoin too.

C

I just the analogy. There is kind of star trek, maybe where you have this very diverse, like space of all kinds of different beings that cooperate with each other and live in their very particular, but nevertheless like compatible cultures, and basically our vision is to increase social, cultural diversity and foster cooperation between these different groups.

C

I don't know, do you want to add to that.

B

I think that's good so yeah, I guess the last thing we'll say about uh that is a lot of the. I think. Inspiration comes from a radical exchange, but also uh v taiwan, a lot of interesting experiments and digital democracy that we think are yeah kind of helping helping like that that deeper coordination so a little bit about get coin. Everyone knows get coin.

B

I think, uh but you know an example of some of the stuff we've been able to do here, so we've so far: provisioned 60 million in capital total to projects open source, public goods projects. um There's some logos, they're impressive logos. We've recently done some interesting things: we've branched out more into causes too.

B

We've had a climate round some advocacy rounds, we've done some uh longevity uh rounds and then, most recently in our last round, we did uh some humanitarian aid for ukraine, so we're branching out beyond just open source and into some more sort of general public goods.

B

If you want to talk about how it works, yeah yeah go for it.

C

So yeah our core product is a platform called git coin grants and on git congress you basically have three core roles, so you have like a matching fund that usually comes in git coin's case from philanthropic organizations like the ethereum foundation that want to support the ethereum ecosystem and we have all these projects in the ethereum ecosystem right.

C

So it's difficult for them to decide like what project will we give how much capital or should we give them capital at all?

C

So, basically, on git coin, you can create your project and, like say hey, we are doing this new layer, 2 thing and we want support and, and then the community can kind of donate to your project and on the like, the green or white fields on this screen, where it says contribution, are these contributions or donations from the community and then based on these contributions, you see the yellow area, which represents matching from the philanthropic organization like ethereum, towards these contributions.

C

So on the left-hand side you have to imagine like this is a like. This whole square is a total match that a project would get in like the total funding. A project would get in git con grants. So let's say this: is you know this layer, 2 project, then one of these squares represents my donation to it. The other square represents kevin's donation, there's another square that represents leges and one from maurice, and basically you take the square roots of each of these contributions, like the square root of nine dollars, is three.

C

You add up these square roots, so the whole length of that square is basically the sum of the squares, and then you take the square of of that length, and you get this square that you see there the big square and then the the difference, basically between the size of that square and the contributions is a match that will come from ethereum so or like the philanthropist.

C

So what it does in the end is it rewards people if they contribute, because if you like this project, you can anticipate right that there will be more yellow area if you add to it. So we in the first place give people incentive to donate to these projects and, on the other hand, philanthropists don't need to check all these like thousands of projects, but can kind of harness the collective intelligence to distribute the funding that they have available, and this is kind of the graphic and in math on the right hand, side there.

C

Where c, is these contributions but you're happy to go into that further? So we've done that basically, but there are some dangers to git congruence, so one obvious one is that you can imagine like you could set up many robots that make donations on your behalf and because you take the square root of the donation, like many small donations get more matching than like one big giant one.

C

So if you did that you could basically get you know this large amount of matching funding. That's like coming down on these people, thanks to fred from gitcoin for making that meme and um yeah. Basically, we've started working on that.

C

You know, there's all kinds of projects in the space that try to prove that you're, a human like a unique participant in these systems, but I think there are also harder cases- and this is kind of the evolution of git con grants and like one of the next big challenges that we'll need to tackle even like the first problem is bigger than you might think um in a trustless setting.

C

So but but the harder cases are like very natural uh things like family and friends, like you know, should it really be matched if my girlfriend and I support the same project on gig congrats like should I have the same match amount as opposed to me and someone who's very different from me support the same project um because imagine like we do very small quadratic funding thing.

C

I don't know kevin also my girlfriend and I then we'd be like inherently like we. We could dominate the matching funding because we share more interests than the two of us in a way and- and you have that at all kinds of scales right if the city of berlin said hey, we have this matching front tax money to support streets and public parks.

C

um Basically, it's very likely. I don't know that kreuzberg will win, because it has like most inhabitants right, because the kreuzberg people will naturally support everything in kreuzberg, but it shouldn't really count just because they are more or if you scale it really big to like nation state scale or like just five billion participants and get congruent.

C

It's very likely that most of the matching would go to a chinese project, because if you take the square of like one billion, one dollar donations, that's like not gonna, be, I think, there's not another, like very large homogeneous group like that. That shares so many interests, and these things aren't necessarily bad. I don't want to frame it as like: malicious collusion, it's just natural human interest and it's kind of a problem that len weil identified with quadratic funding that or like any economic system.

C

If we assume- and it's kind of I know some of you have probably been to like business school like you, you get taught like. Okay, like all our models, only work. If we assume that we are isolated, rational beings, but we're the opposite of that right, like croissant people, care about kreuzberg and their friends and their family and about germany, maybe they're part of the greens party, like maybe they like the ethereum community more than the polygon community.

C

So we actually, you know like not selfish at all, like everything is about love and like being in social networks and what we're trying. Basically, if we ignore that reality, all of the matching funding and even like a complex or like more innovative voting mechanism like quadratic voting or funding, all of that reward from the mechanism will go to the largest homogeneous group unless we could kind of solve that and and there's some things like some early responses to these problems.

C

So one, as I said, is the trust verification where we just try to make sure that you are human, like aggregating, different signals. That kind of show. Okay, you, you might be somebody because you've been through proof of humanity and bright id and some other solutions like that and and then there is something called pairwise uh quadratic funding, which is basically just a different way to compute.

C

The quadratic funding formula I'll quickly show that on this other slide, so instead of taking the the square of the sum of the square roots, we could basically look at. I mean it's like weird up here and uh you could also write. Take the square of this contribution. The square root I mean and the square root of that contribution and then calculate the size of that rectangle. Here.

C

Take it twice, so we have the pairwise match, basically for that pair of people and and then you take that person with that person and you get this rectangle right. So basically, we will just instead of taking the global kind of match. Value will calculate these fields here, like pair by pair and add them up in the end, and and now I show you why this is interesting.

C

So here's just an example of that imagine like kevin and I would both donate to go. Ethereum the guest client, then, like the math version of what I showed there is just taking two times the square root of kevin's donation, to guess times the square root of my donation together and now the cool thing is that for any pair of agents we can give them like an arbitrary pairwise matching weight, given some evidence for the social proximity that they have.

C

So I know, and here's a way to kind of think this through um so kevin is american, I'm german like so he could basically have a soul-bound token or some piece of data that proves his american citizenship. My german citizenship now we're both based in kreuzberg, like um uh you know, so we could have some at a station that proves that we both work at gitcoin and and now like, basically, a very simple try at quantifying.

C

That relationship could be that we just take the number of shared credentials, so in kevin's in my case, that would be two right and take it over the number of uh total question chills or the mean of total credential. So if you calculate that you like basically going back to k, which is the matching weight that we have right um together, we basically could just subtract that proximity. So if we had a very high proximity, like you know, we have the same friends. We go to the same events.

C

We like work at the same place- I know- maybe we have kids together, like you know like it would very likely be like 0.9 or 0.95.

C

You know, and we would have a very low matching weight together this way, but if we would be kind of not cooperating so much and like living in different continents, different countries, different job, different friends, different interests, it'll likely be a very low social proximity. So you get like a low, a high matching weight. So in that case, we'd have two over three credentials in common and um the the matching weight then would be when one third.

C

So, basically, if I don't know the match for kevin and me would be six we'll just take that match times- one third and kind of reduce it that way- and this, although this is like a very simple approximation, like obviously like there's so much room for improving these algorithms and like different contexts, will need different algorithms.

C

So if we do like quadratic funding in the ethereum ecosystem, it might be very relevant what daos you belong to like what pro-ups you hold or like what roll-ups you're using and stuff like that, whereas if you did quadratic funding for courses in berlin would be very relevant like in what neighborhood you live. What school you went to, or you know very different variables very relevant.

C

So basically, we need a lot of innovation and like freaking out how to approximate uh sociality between people, but even that simple thing, I think, could make bitcoin grants way more meaningful in the sense that, even if we just knew, for instance, like what grants you've contributed to in the past and we're calculating the matches that way, we'd have way more pluralistic results in the matching, because we increase gradually increase the matching for like people who have usually contributed to different projects.

C

You know when they now cooperate, we'll give them a high reward and uh people who have always supported the same thing would kind of get a lower lower reward, and it's literally like a sometimes called like a ponzi scheme for diversity, because you know, like people are different they'd like support the and they support something.

C

Then, okay, they get a high reward. But now we could issue some token that shows that they supported the same thing so next time they support the same thing. They'll already be like represented that way as like one community, so we always only reward the people who are different and support the same thing and kind of maximize diversity in this very programmatic way, um so yeah kevin.

C

Do you want to talk about how we want to build that stuff? Sure.

B

Yeah, um that was great thanks liam, um I think, maybe just one bit of context. I'm not sure. Maybe this is the appendix or something like that, but um a lot of this thinking comes from the recent dsoc paper that came out. I'm sure I'm seeing some heads nod so a lot of this. I think they're calling this the correlation index. If you go all the way into the appendix they go through exactly how they're thinking about calculating this a lot of this, what leon's saying is about getting this.

B

You know understanding what communities you belong to in a in a way. That's um you know, privacy, preserving.

B

um This is a project that we've got underway, I'll talk about in a second, um but this does let you innovate on other, like sort of evolutions of quadratic funding right, so a little bit about where we're headed with with we're calling it grants2. We don't have a product marketer if your product marketer come talk to us, but we're just calling it what we call it. So these are kind of like engineering terms, um so for grants2, one of the one of the key things is a passport project.

B

So we've actually been building this on top of ceramic with joel's team's help, so weird small world moment tonight, but um so that's actually uh dids and vcs, where, like we saw the trust bonus slide a few bits back. Oh man, it's the way back there, this one! So this, if you ever donated to bitcoin grants, we have a trust bonus, so we're already doing some attenuation around civil behavior.

B

So we've already tried to help like if, if you can prove that you're, a rich human being with many uh different data points and you're willing to link those things to your account, you already can earn a trust bonus right. So this brings your matching weight from starting at like 50 up to 100 past that to 150. If you really fill up your your passport so to speak, so we've decentralized this and we've built this on top of ceramic um launching for gr14, which is like in a couple weeks. So um that's the plan.

B

The interesting thing there is: that's actually going to be self-sovereign, so you're, actually no longer this data doesn't sit inside bitcoin monolith. It's actually going to sit out on ceramic network. It'll be data that you own, you sign it with your own keys and is ultimately non there's no pii contained within it. It's really just that our system as you've gone through this d app sees that you have these different links and will issue you very f, verifiable credentials that you uh can.

B

We can then present later as that passport to other systems around on git coin or otherwhere other places that allow you to prove that you are a unique human being, so this is kind of an anti-civil public good that we're going to be releasing here pretty soon.

B

So, as you look at france too, um one of the key parts of this obviously, is that you, like quadratic funding, quadratic voting. All of these things rely on kind of one person, one vote, so that's that's, what's represented by souls there not to be controversial or anything like that. We're not really dictating how you necessarily need to do that. We've chosen to use this particular system, but grants2 is really going to be a decomposition of what grants on git coin is now.

B

It's really think of it as a tool kit, where you can deploy your own copy of bitcoin grants, uh run it yourself um or you can customize it. So the key components there right that you can identify with people as they vote that they are individuals. So that's that's gonna, be the passport project. We have a project hub, that's coming out also you're if you're collecting uh your donations.

B

uh Sorry, your uh your payout! If you come and claim your payout on a git coin, grant this next round you'll be prompted to add your project to the new distributed registry. um That's a key part of making sure that we're creating the space where again, project owners really own their data about uh the description of their project also gives you a place for that. One project to kind of live on its own again outside of of get coin, you'll, be able to apply to various ecosystem rounds through that. So again, we're kind of inverting.

B

This relationship, where you create a grant application that lives on bitcoin- and uh you know you get kind of selected based on tagging and stuff. What round you belong in, and there's kind of a whole appeals process. It's the other way around. So as these self-sovereign rounds, get sort of spun up in the ecosystem, you'll be able to apply to them through the project hub and then. Lastly, we have this this top, which is the plural capital provision arrangements which is really indicating all of these different ways that people can experiment with it.

B

So so get coins landed on pairwise, quadratic funding or pairwise matching right. uh It's been good for us right, it's worked, it's! I think it's driven a certain amount of like strong.

B

You know uh signal from communities and people keep giving us money to help them distribute to projects, so it seems to be working, um but we think there might be better things right. So the idea is that if we can kind of give all of these components out there, people can start experimenting and speed running these other things right so already, there's some really interesting projects. Retro pgf! uh You have macy's more privacy, preserving approaches to this, and then what leon was just presenting around sort of the the dsoc approach to quadratic funding?

B

Could be something that could be easily built on top of all of these new uh decentralized registries and tools that we're gonna be releasing on top of this so piece by piece. You're gonna start seeing this come together over the next few bitcoin rounds until, ultimately, this is how we run gitcoin, as I'm going to be on top of this system, cool.

B

So yeah, I think, that's kind of where we're at maybe it's time to start doing, questions yeah, okay, cool! um You can come find us here.

B

Oh yeah. Lastly, if you want to keep on top of this, uh we do have the governance forum for get coin leon. Every monday is taking all the teams updates and consolidating them as gov post, so you're definitely gonna be able to keep on top of what's happening and what's getting built, there's links to everything from design files to the repos to the in progress. Like demo environments, you should be able to get your hands on this and play with it and we'd love. Your feedback um find us on discord.

B

We have a grants2 channel, that's open, we can make it more open. If you are interested um yeah come talk to us. There.

B

Oh yeah and we're hiring sorry. I have to show that too. So one more one more link, all right cool. Do you want to do this lido yeah.

C

I can at least uh try to find it. Let's see if we have questions yeah cool.

C

What do you think are the biggest risks and opportunities with one tokens? um Oh, can I highlight that.

A

C

Yep, thank you for that question. Vincent, um I feel, like soulbound token to me, is more of a meme than a particular technology choice or arrangement so or we're kind of. I think all what it means to me really is like. Let's build something like, let's give you some credential at the station that kind of claims- okay leon lives in kreuzberg, for example right, and it's not easy for me to transfer that to somebody else right.

C

So I feel like there's hundreds of ways to implement that, probably on public blockchains, probably on networks like ceramic, probably even on like most like, I mean think about all the like, even analog kind of stuff that you hold. That is really bound to you like through very rudimentary like 18th century technology. I think, like faking passports, is kind of hard right.

C

um I don't know never tried, but I feel like I'm excited to see that, like more and more projects like after the desert paper drop like try it out to to build some so on token standard or to issue certain tokens, bitcoin will likely like issue more and more tokens into this versifier credentials into the ceramic uh identity that we're building to those joel.

C

So I don't think there's like I'm not really ideology ideological about it anyway, like the risks are obviously that it like I mean if you would design it very poorly and had a lot of power, you could kind of build something like the social credit scoring system in china or whatever, but or like facebook or google.

C

But um obviously, I think kind of two core values that you should follow like two goals is that it should be really accountable and transparent like who has access to what data when and where and then the use of that data or like should be in the control of it, should be really aligned with the people that are bound to it and I feel like if we like, there's, probably not one solution with tons and yeah.

C

The opportunity is obviously to to really use it and make web 3 way more meaningful because we can go beyond like only hyper financialization, but also build like very meaningful social institutions through, like more plural iterations of quadratic funding or like having more plural market mechanisms where, like different people, pay different tax rates based on their sociality relating to some community. I think there's like all kinds of cool stuff. We could build within an idea of.

B

I think you covered a lot of the ground.

B

I guess like the thing that people classically talk about is like the non-consensual soul down token, the like scarlet letter sold down token, that people kind of use- and I think, ultimately, we decided not to go with an on-chain uh concept for our need for, like some sort of a soul right in our system.

B

If you're trying to prove one person, one vote um as quadratic funding needs that um we opted not to take that on chain and we kept it on the ceramic network so that we're again also using um the vcs as the way to sort of denote your membership to a particular identity, providing system or to a community in the future. So I think it's one of those things. I think that ultimate technology will yeah leon said evolve, but right now I think it.

B

Unfortunately, I think the the name has sort of like steered everyone at a particular implementation. I don't think that that's necessary.

B

Is there any way to like get into some dialogue.

D

B

There follow-ups.

B

I like this question. Okay, so uh is there a risk politicizing the camps of these, these various ideologies that we put forward, um so I so like. I honestly think that the idea is that you should have this kind of multi-polar world right where these these three ideologies actually coexist. I think you want the tension of all three. um I really hope that one of them doesn't just win right.

B

I mean, uh I think, you'll you'll find people gravitating towards all, and hopefully there's some sort of you know virtuous cycle that happens by having ideas moving between them. um I think just where I want to spend my energy, where I think where we, where we uh are building, is more in that um sort of digital democracy, space or or you know, uh pluralistic space. um I think a lot of that for me comes from this interest in building for the people who are alive now and have problems now uh and needs versus.

B

You know the distant future, but I'm glad that people are thinking about the distant future. I just don't want them to only fund the distant future and not people. Now.

C

Maybe uh like one thought that I had is at least the plural democracy or the pluralism vision. I mean explicitly wants to recognize different socio-cultural ecosystems and foster cooperation between them, which is kind of what you said, but it's so I think if, if they cooperate libertarians when we might end up, you know with only one singularity or same with the synthetic ignorancy, but at least there's like pluralism, will kind of win. I think we'll be able to like have like a I don't know.

C

Glenn said what, in one of his papers like a lush rainforest of like interconnected social groups, that like um cooperate through the internet and in person and everywhere um I feel like with these like more innovative digital or, like plural democracy tools. We could really yeah build ponzi schemes for diversity, um which sounds cool.

C

How are you going to compute social proximity for accounts that have no attestations?

C

How do you differentiate a new comer from a sybil um yeah? That's a that's kind of like the second question. Maybe it depends, I think, kind of on when you will do this. um So one pretty cool thing about these meaningful attestations about like who you are like, where you live.

C

What university you went to what high school you went to is actually that, if you imagine, we had like all these other stations about like a 20 year old person, we'd have like okay, the the kids of that person grew up in this place like because they were registered. There right um went to this high school now started studying at that university.

C

If you have like these credentials from like this trusted university government, some peers, like family and friends like proving personal, is actually not very hard at all, because you know like okay like this is obviously somebody right he's like studying. There has this friends that family, like it's, it's very, not an issue then anymore, but and then the funny thing is that, as you grow up, you'll collect more and more of these illustrations so likely at the latest when you're like for a certain age, you'll be able to participate in these democratic mechanisms.

C

If you know basically the way you could do it as an administrator is like query, some random tokens that you trust, like I don't know, you trust german universities and the german government and some dows in the ethereum space, and if you have a bunch of like tokens from these institutions, it very likely means that you're human right like because they won't all like just give certificates to, like you, know, non-humans and yeah.

B

So I I think one one thing uh that I want to say on this one: is uh it's really hard to bootstrap? Obviously like this, this whole sort of soul-bound world right, so I think we have the luxury of having fairly motivated people. People are trying to donate to causes they care about they're. Already there they're, hopefully incentivized to get over the free rider problem and do something to help draw some matching funds to a project that they care about. So in the past, we've had the trust bonus.

B

We've shown that people are willing to go through that and link a few accounts, so I think we're going to hopefully bootstrap a little bit of that just through having just the nature of the grant ecosystem. um There was an interesting thing, the last thing I'll say, kind of piggybacking. What you're saying so the short answer is you can't tell that apart, we're not going to like go and try to like figure out where you came from?

B

If you don't go through and present a passport when you arrive so we're going to, hopefully incentivize people through this sort of trust, bonusing mechanism, at least for get coin, so that's how we're approaching it um in terms of what what lane was saying. There's this moment where I I was someone was talking about this, which is like you know, even when you have these identity systems like passports and ids. If you ever get a job, that's very secure!

B

They're going to do a background check on you, that's actually how any intelligence agency any police, whatever that's! That's how they! Actually they don't really even trust the id that you present them. That's not like the truth. They're gonna go talk to your parents, your whatever spouse, they're gonna, like try to figure out who you are really um so, there's already like a precedent for needing this sort of, like community of attestations, to prove that you're, really, who you say you are when, when it's really trust is needed at that level.

B

So it's a useful metaphor when you think about why this idea of like declaring your sort of community affiliations, is sort of like pre-background screening yourself, uh and if you can do that in a privacy-preserving way, which we think you can. um You should be in a place to actually have a much better trust that that person really is a real human being and are participating. Authentically.

B

um So yeah ran out of water um so to protect the privacy of the souls. This is great, so our our current plan right now is to contain no no personally identifiable information. So all they are right now is a passport. That's connected to a did. Oh thank you.

B

Is a is your passport is connected to a did, which is uh again not personally identifiable.

B

You know it does not track track back to to you in any meaningful way, all of the verifiable credentials that we're issuing are um again contain opi, just that it was issued by a an issuer uh that is a trusted source and that it's observed the connection to that other system. So what we're doing right now is if you're, as you go through, and you create a stamp in your passport.

B

If you open an oauth session to google, for instance, we're observing that connection, we're issuing a verifiable credential that our system saw that connection, and at that point in time you can trust that passport was issued by a trusted system that you can then trust the other person at one point at the point that that was issued, they had a access to that a google account right. So, if you're thinking about all of these pointers back towards a person, these stamps are really just pointing at.

B

We observe this person having access to those systems or belonging to those communities. It really they're outside of being able to completely map all terrain and then figure out that unique footprint of a person. I think this is a pretty safe way to reference, a soul in a way that these systems require so yeah. No, no pii, there's no like encrypted credentials or anything like that that you have to then like present and then get decrypted, we're keeping it just.

B

The observed event is what is really representing the vcs or the stamps that are going into the current passport, so hope hit me up. If you have worries about that.

C

Yeah um yeah, I think, selecting like the credentials for the quadratic funding scoring, for instance, will be very um yeah. It will likely be a unique choice for whoever is administrating that quadratic funding program right. So let's say you were funding creative commons music through like grants 2.0, then you would likely want some data about like what concerts and festivals people go to what music they listen to usually like what kind of disco takes.

C

Maybe they go to, and that would likely be meaningful in the sense that you want to like support or reward the grants that receive donations from both the techno and the like rock community, and not just the big techno community in berlin. So you'd identify these projects that are kind of appealing to to the broad society, not just one large homogeneous group in society and in turn, if you do get coin like, we might very likely, like the grants from that, you know which is mostly about funding open source software.

C

It'll likely be relevant like what github organizations you work with or what um ethereum communities you interact with. So it's really a question of hey what data is available or like how can make that available, and then I think it really depends on what diversity means in in the context of that particular community right.

C

If it's like an open source, community diversity maybe means like what repositories you work with or like make pull requests to, and if you do quadratic funding for like public parks in berlin, it's very relevant like what neighborhood you live in right, so it's like, I, I think, obviously there won't be like, and even even like for one community like, I think every community is unique, so there won't be like, even but even in one unique community that won't be a perfect algorithm.

C

It's just, I think, an up approximation problem of like trying to approximate social distance. In the context I like that, I'm not convinced at all. There will be a perfect algorithm, but what I can say is that the hyper individual is quadratic funding that we do now where we only know you are human, but we don't approximate at all what sociocultural like communities you interact with in that ecosystem.

C

I think that is doomed to fail, because you implicitly give rise to the like largest homogeneous group right. So I I think it's like probably a never-ending research problem that hasn't been researched so much. I guess like facebook and google research it but kind of for the opposite purpose. To kind of like grow eco chambers or, like chinese party, tries to make society homogeneous, as opposed to diverse. So I think there's like some algorithmic research going on and like mapping out social graphs like for sure, but it hasn't really been applied to like nurturing plurality.

C

Really, I think or like nurturing diversity.

A

Yeah, normally you have two more minutes, so maybe one one or two questions more.

C

It's a tough one.

D

It feels like you were talking a lot about like we have this ideology and we need the tech and now we're trying to like get the tech to line up with the ideology. But it's like you know like. First of all, that's a really difficult concept because, like we had this entire conversation around like how do you say what is diverse, uh you know because for me I know I have the same background as my family and we're all totally different people. So.

A

D

Nationality language, school and all of that does not apply to me uh to show a factor of diversity so like first, uh which is, you know like how to how do you know, you're on the right track uh to to go into diversity, ideology direction and second, like to see? Is there some kind of trying to get a feedback? uh You know from the projects and see like okay? Do we get a lot of diversity for from people?

D

We just saw twitch from elon musk on twitter and now they're all like kind of just doing this thing without having any background knowledge and we have a diversity, but we don't necessarily know if we want to listen to those opinions of people who not really interested in the topic or like do do. We have like some kind of research behind what what is the result that we get from this kind of funding, uh opposed to something that has a different method of like uh you know, selecting the funding like classic crowdfunding.

A

C

Yeah, I feel like just one notice that we haven't experimented with the like explicit plurality, algorithms at all. Yet it's like two-month-old kind of formal idea and we oh and one is a bit outright.

C

I see um but yeah. We haven't really tried that out and but it's an interesting question like how do you verify good results here or like satisfying results? Right because, like.

B

I think I mean this is going to sound, like maybe a cop out, but the answer is, I think, um is: is opening it up to some experiments. So what we have right now is one way of doing this in bitcoin and we run it for all of our different causes, which I think is somewhat limiting right.

B

uh The idea is, as soon as this is opened up and folks can start kind of spinning out their own funding mechanisms, you're going to see people who can point at a better sort of capital allocation, they're happier with the results, the projects that got funded, I think also keeping the sort of feedback loop in somewhat smaller communities, meaning not not the global bitcoin ecosystem. But if you had a small cause round, your community was donating to that and your results were.

B

You know good for that community, hopefully you're in that feedback, loop and you'll learn. So our hope is that we can keep all of these different. You know funding rounds that are getting stood up on top of the new platform uh protocol, rather that we want them to be sort of feeding. Some of those findings back into each other right so that we can all kind of speed, run this and find a global maxima, not just the local maxima that bitcoin might have found.

B

That makes sense.

C

Maybe just um anyway like the traditional quadratic funding like which is just individualist like not measuring really the like sociality of the people, I think even that kind of works, and we validate that because you know we give people incentive to donate every quarter to these projects that they care about through the matching fund and and even making these small donations, which is kind of like the cool quadratic twist of quadratic funding and the same time. It seems to also give some good signal in terms of collective intelligence.

C

So one of the projects like some of the projects that were like the top recipients in our early grants programs like two years ago, were like uni swap, which is now probably you know. The seed funding from uni swap basically came through gitcoin grants.

C

The seed funding of the prism client, which is now like leading the research on eth 2.0, was one of the recipients there. The zktec community uh podcast thing so, I think, like it is like definitely good tool to harness collective intelligence and with these diversity things we might make it even richer. In that sense, but- and I know we don't have much time left, but this one is a easy one, so, basically we're building this whole grand 2.0 suite kind of evm compatible in the first place.

C

So our goal is to make it competitive with any evm and from there. I guess we could expand to other.

A

All right, thank you very much guys.