►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
Okay,
great
so
yeah
town
hall,
number
seven
here
we
are
still
still
growing,
still
learning
and
so
glad
to
have
all
of
you
here.
So
as
usual,
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
the
experiment.
Things
can
break
someone
can
like
documentation.
A
There's
gonna
be
some
a
lot
of
differences
between
the
iterations.
It
can
disorient
overload,
but
also
inspire,
and
for
me
this.
The
image
of
the
week
I
chose
like
for
all
the
work
we're
doing
together
is
on
the
theme
of
pioneers,
basically,
a
group
of
people
going
to
an
unknown,
the
unknown
future,
the
frontiers,
the
frontiers
of
collaboration,
and
but
with
that
you
know
our
little
convoy
of
of
of
settlers
is
also
a
safe
environment.
A
So,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
congratulate
the
un
challenge:
winners,
liquid
finance,
fun
track
and
the
huawei
chain.
I
think
I
think
we're
going
to
talk
a
bit
about
that.
I
think
in
the
end
of
the
monthly
update,
but
I
think
overall,
this
project
wasn't
another
tour,
the
force
of
the
of
of
project
catalysts.
A
I
think
I
might
have
the
I
don't
have
like
precise
data,
but
I
think
that
we
initially
when
this
hackathon
started,
there
was
only
one
proposal
in
the
in
in
the
challenge
once
once
our
community
started
to
get
involved.
I
think
we
ended
up
with
around
15
15
different
proposals,
and
I
want
to
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you,
even
those
who
didn't
who
didn't
win,
and
I
want
to
encourage
you-
and
I
think
that
you
know
we
have.
A
We
have
funds
three
and
fun
four
and
five
five
and
six
and
seven
and
and
I'm
sure
there
will
be
you
know
not
only
not
only
a
continuation
and
ways
for
you
to
to
continue
to
receive
funding
and
support
from
catalyst,
but
also
there
might
be
some
other
kind
of
side
projects
like
this,
like
the
unchallenged
that
are
also
very
relevant
and
aligned
with
our
with
the
bigger
mission
of
cardano.
So
really
thank
you.
Everybody.
A
And
let's,
let's
talk
about
this
assessment
stage
that
we
just
went
by
so
we
have
96
proposals
on
the
ballot.
I
saw
that
content
content
creator
utah
made
an
analysis
and
says
says
that
about
only
75
qualified,
because
many
did
not
include
the
concrete
request
for
for
ada
and
actually
I
think
this
is
something
to
also
take
on
us
that
we
didn't
notice.
That
fact,
so
a
lot
of
proposals
that
are
not
going
to
be
on
the
ballot
actually
got
reviewed
and
all
right.
A
So
it's
like
a
mistake
that
we
made
so
sorry
about
that.
We
should
have
been
filtering
more
carefully
and
we'll
learn
from
this
for
next
time,
so
we
had
673
registered
community
advisors,
out
of
which
well
at
least
at
least
true
for
one
hour
ago,
and
there
might
be
some
more
some
more
assessments
coming
in,
even
as
we
speak
and
there's
even
one
more
hour
before
the
assessment
window
closes,
we
had
127
participating
community
advisors,
which
is
quite
amazing.
A
That's
like
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
people
and
1780
assessments
given,
which
is
a
mind-boggling
amount
of
of
assessments.
You
know
for
for
that
amount
of
proposals.
I
think
that's
great.
Our
community
grew
by
another
about
140
members
this
week.
So
welcome
welcome
new
members.
I
hope
some
of
you
are
here
with
us.
A
We
have
719
on
the
announcement
telegram,
channel
and
340
on
the
telegram
chat.
I'm
sure
steve
would
love
to
share
the
current
numbers
for
the
for
the
discord.
Maybe
on
the
chat
you
can
do
it,
I'm
not
gonna.
I
don't
know
if
you're
wearing
a
shirt
or
not
so
I'm
not
gonna
bring
you
up
here,
but
please
please
share
share
that
stat
on
the
chat
as
well.
A
So
so,
let's
talk
about
this
assessment
goal.
That's
very
interesting!
I
have
more
more
data
to
share
with
you
all,
so
why
did
we
do
it?
So
so,
what's
the
whole
purpose
of
assessments
and
community
advisors,
the
the
high
level
one
is,
we
want
to
help
voters
to
make
impactful
and
informed
decisions
and,
secondly,
we
wanted
to
help
proposers
understand
how
they
can
then
improve
and
give
them
enough
of
this.
A
You
know
like
it's
just
like
just
the
rules
of
the
game,
like
inherent
part
of
the
game,
that
the
vast
majority
of
proposals
are
not
going
to
get
funding,
because
we
don't
have
unlimited
funds.
We
always
have
to
what
we
do
as
a
community.
We
we
have
to
prioritize,
and
and
but
what
we
do
is
like.
We
give
everybody
a
chance
to
learn
and
improve
and
evolve
over
time
and
develop
their
professional
skills
and
and
increase
their
chances.
A
Cumulative
effect
of
all
our
efforts
become
really
really
prominent,
and
you
know,
and
and
while
we're
now,
the
the
biggest
decentralized
organizations
in
decentralized
organization
in
the
world,
we're
also
going
to
be
the
most
effective
one
and
the
smartest
one
and
the
most
collaborative
one
and
we're
just
going
to.
A
I
think
I
I
think
our
goal
is
to
be
at
a
place
where
we
actually
don't
stop,
comparing
ourselves
to
other
decentralized
organizations
and
start
to
actually
start
to
think
about
us
on
the
range
of
you
know.
Are
we
smarter
than
are
we
smarter
better
than
google?
Are
we
smarter
than
they're
better
than
microsoft?
Are
we
smart
and
better
than
a
corporation?
Are
we
smarter
better
than
a
nation,
and
so
that's
that's
the
kind
of
ambitions
that
we
have
and,
of
course,
these
type
of
things
don't
happen
over
day.
They
open
up.
A
They
have
happen
over
many
many
iterations
over
probably
years,
if
not
decades,
so
back
to
back
to
the
girls
I
got
carried
over
there,
but
back
to
the
goals.
Concretely,
what
we
wanted,
after
learning
from
the
from
fund
one,
the
feedback
from
fund
one
participants,
we
really
had
two
focal
points,
one.
We
wanted
that
every
proposal
will
receive
at
least
three
reviews.
So
so
there's
like
some
sense
of
fairness,
because
sometimes
just
one
review
can
can
tilt
an
assessment.
A
So
so
there's
just
a
diversity
of
opinions
and
increased
fairness
about
the
review
and
and
also
we
wanted
to
discourage
unfair
and
unthoughtful
reviews.
So
that's
the
reason
for
the
incentive
system
we
chose-
and
I
think
the
question
is
like:
did
we
meet
this
meet
these
this
criteria?
This
chat
these
goals
this
round
or
there's
more
to
improve.
So
I
think
for
the
first
question:
did
we
get
good
coverage?
I
think
it's
a
resounding
yes.
A
A
We
got
what,
like
six
times
more
than
six
times,
that
that
that
the
the
initial
the
initial
need
so
and
just
out
of
curiosity
like
each
each
advisor
gave,
gave
around
the
14
assessments,
which
is
really
interesting.
I
think
it's
a
really
interesting
stat,
because
this
was
surprising
for
us.
We
didn't
expect
so
many
we
thought
people
would.
A
A
So
if
you
look
at
the
assessments
given
and
then
here,
the
number
is
higher
than
before,
because
because
each
assessment
has
a
had
three
criteria
right
so
so
so
it's
like
it's
amount
of
it
says
total
amounts
of
assessment
given,
but
it's
actually
total
amount
of
criteria
given,
so
there
was
like
5
310
specific
you
know,
criteria
were
given
like
a
one
to
five
rating
right.
Each
each
review
is
like
one
to
five
for
impact
one
to
five
for
visibility,
one
to
five
for
a
account
m
for
auditability.
A
So
there
might
have
been
a
lot
of
people
that
have
actually
went
and
and
fought
through,
and
you
know,
and
and
and
tried
to
give
a
thoughtful
rating,
but
because
they
didn't
fulfill
this
criteria
they
won't
be.
They
won't
be
eligible
for
incentives.
So,
and
that's
like
a
very
high
number,
so
I'm
you
know
so
we
need
to.
We
need
to
go
and
reflect
what
what
happened
like.
Why
was
this?
A
There
was
a
misunderstanding
and
and
improve
for
for
fund
three
and-
and
I
think-
and
I
think
for
me
the
the
next
step
is
we're
gonna,
send
out
a
survey
to
all
the
advisors
and
specifically
like
those
who
send
blank
assessments
and
we're
going
to
find
out
what
what
happened
exactly
run.
An
analysis
share
back
with
the
community
and
figure
out
next
steps
like
what
can
we
do
in
fund
3
to
reduce
these
these
numbers
and
and
get
more
assessments
given?
But
I
think
but,
but
you
know
kind
of
putting
that
aside.
A
Even
having
you
know,
looking
at
the
half
gas
full,
you
know
we
still
have
lots
and
lots
of
assessments
that
were
given
the
rationale
and
and
because
we
got
so
such
nice
coverage.
I
think
that,
overall
we
we,
you
know,
we
met
the
challenge
successfully
and
and
and-
and
I
believe
that
each
proposal
was
gonna,
gonna
have
plenty
of
reviews
and
rationale
and
things
to
reflect
and
think
to
improve
and
and
voters
are
gonna,
have
a
lot
of
meets
and
like
a
lot
of
good
advice
to
make
informed
decisions.
A
So,
overall,
I
think
overall
we're
just
in
the
right
zone
right
whether
there's
like
lots,
lots
to
improve,
but
we're
kind
of
good
enough,
and
so
what's
going
to
happen
next
week,
so
we're
starting
now
the
process
of
reviewing
their
reviewers
in
how.
How
does
that
look
like?
So
so
we're
going
to
you
know,
because
of
mostly
because
of
time,
logistics
and
wanting
to
focus
our
efforts
for
delivery
of
voting
registration
and
starting
to
get
voting
done,
and
we
kind
of
deprioritize
that
phase
and
we're
going
to
just
for
the
sake
of
efficiency.
A
A
So,
if
there's
a
blank,
if
there's
a
blank
rating
like
a
person
gave
a
score
but
didn't
provide
any
rationale,
you
know
we
found
it
as
an
unfought.
We
we're
gonna
mark
it
tag
it
as
an
unthoughtful
review
and
we're
going
to
remove
it
from
the
assessment
so
so
that
these
assessments
are
going
to
not
appear
in
the
voting
app
they're
not
going
to
appear
on
the
on
the
public
view
of
the
the
average
score.
A
So
they're
like
out
of
the
out
of
consideration,
but
for
science
we're
going
to
keep
a
log
of
of
all
these
blank
ratings
and
gonna.
Compare
it
to
to
those
who
provided
the
rationale-
and
I
think
a
good
question
to
ask
is:
is
there
a
strong
correlation
between
people
who
who
took
the
time
to
give
a
rationale
and
people
who
gave
a
blank
rating
so
if
it
like?
A
So
I
mean
you
know
it's
interesting
to
see
if,
if
it's,
if
in
the
end
result,
the
rating
is
similar
or
not,
I
think
it's
also
interesting
to
see
if
you
know
the
the
blank
ratings
you
know.
Maybe
maybe
we
have
a
few
advisors
who
just
gave
a
blanket
blank
rating
for
all
97
proposals,
and
that-
and
you
know
they
just
took
up
a
lot
of
space.
A
So
so
they
they
warped
the
statistics
and
actually
you
know,
and
actually
we
have
a
lot
of,
and
actually
it's
like
you
know,
besides
those
those
people
you
know
like
you
know,
we
have
a
majority
of
really
high
quality
reviews.
So
so
you
know
we're
going
to
take
a
take.
A
closer
look
at
this
this
week
and
and
report
back
to
you
and
another
thing
we're
going
to
do
is-
is
going
to
highlight
and
celebrate
high
quality
reviews.
A
So
that's
totally
subjective.
You
know
it's
gonna
be
me
and
anna
and
eric
from
the
from
the
community
from
the
catalyst
team
we're
just
gonna.
Look
at
the
reviews.
Give
us
give
our
kind
of
a
quick
subjective
opinion
of
what
we
find
is
as
high
quality,
so
a
good
articulation,
good
feedback,
constructive
feedback,
and
you
know-
and
we
kind
of
give
a
virtual
kind
of
kudos
for
all
the
people
who
made
the
effort.
A
It's
gonna
that
doesn't
get
doesn't
have
you
know,
besides
social
signaling
and
and
and
gratitude
and
respect
which
is
important.
You
know
it
is,
it
doesn't.
Gonna
have
a
real
effect,
but
but
we
do
feel
that
you
know
people
who
put
like
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
and
trying
to
give
high
quality
reviews
like
at
least
at
this
stage,
at
least
at
least
deserve
some
recognition.
A
You
know
how
we
looked
at
these
things
and
and
share
the
criteria,
and
hopefully
that
that
that
will
help
us
going
forward
when,
when
this
whole
day
reviewing
the
reviewers
phase,
you
know
it
moves
into
happening
by
the
community,
so
community
advisors
reviewing
community
advisors,
and
so
that's
probably
going
to
help
us
think
about
better,
better
criteria,
better
guidelines
and
more
conversation
with
you
all
about
how
to
improve
things
for
fund
three,
how
to
run
it,
how
to
run
it
to
the
crowdsource
process.
A
Definitely,
I'm
definitely
interested
to
hear
your
ideas
and
proposals
how
to
actually
conduct
this
and
and
whether
we
should
just
remove
low
quality
or
celebrate
height
quality
and
et
cetera,
and
so
after
all,
this,
all
this
filtering
and
celebrating
we're
going
to
publish,
publish
the
results
on
id
scale
and-
and
it
will
be
on
the
public
view,
also
in
the
voting
app
like
the
final,
the
final
rating
and
and
we're
going
to
take,
take
all
the
assessment
notes
that
were
given
and
we're
going
to
have
to
attach
them
to
the
proposal.
A
So
they're
going
to
be
a
it's
like
in
a
like.
In
addition,
there's
the
concept
of
annotation
that
you
can
add
to
add
as
part
of
the
proposal
like
some
comments,
so
so
all
these
all
the
notes,
you
know
going
to
be
attached
publicly
visible
on
the
bottom
of
the
proposal.
So
you
can
see
so
as
a
voter,
you
can
see.
A
A
We
have
a
lot
of
voters
that
probably
don't
have
the
time
to
individually
sift
through
all
proposals.
Like
you
know,
we
we
try
to
do.
We
try
to
help.
You
know
we
give
them
in
the
in
the
voting
app
interface.
We
give
kind
of
like
a
summary
view
of
each
proposal,
kind
of
like
giving
them
the
meat
of
the
proposal
trying
to
get
their
attention
to
explore
further.
You
know
we
give
them
this.
A
The
community
advisor
score,
try
to
give
them
further
advice
and
perspective,
but
still,
like
you
know,
going
through
like
for
fun
too.
It's
like
a
let's
say
around
75
eligible
proposals,
I'm
sure
in
funds3
there
will
be
even
more.
A
You
know,
even
even
with
all
the
all
these
additional
all
this
mechanism,
we
added
it's
still,
it's
still
very,
very
time
intensive,
and
so
how
can
we?
How
can
we
help
people
take
continue
to
take
informed
decisions
and
upgrade
it
and
upgrade
our
decision
making
level
even
further?
A
A
It's
almost
like
you,
I
don't
know
you
you,
like
you
own,
a
company
and
you
need
to
hire
a
hundred
people
and
you
hire.
You
know
you
hire
each
individual.
You
know
based
on
the
skills,
but
you
don't
look
at
the
big
picture
about
the
you
know
about
what
roles
and
what
teams
they
have.
You
know
how
they're
going
to
work
together
like
how
it's
going
to
accomplish
your
goals
and
the
strategy.
It's
very
you
know
it's
very
kind
of
a
dumb,
dumb
way
to
see
it.
A
A
A
So
the
long
term
and
and
pretty
much
part
of
the
voltaire
road
map
and
vision,
is
to
have
expert
delegation.
So
that
means
that
I'm
a
voter-
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
time.
I
I'm
going
to
accept
instead
of
me,
sifting
individually,
you
know
I'm
going
to
delegate
my
voting
power
to
an
expert
and
he's
going
to
make
the
decisions.
Okay
and
there's
like,
of
course
in
within
that
there's
a
lot
lots
of
variations.
You
know
I
can.
A
I
can
either
like
delegate
everything
to
an
expert
and
he
can
fill
up
the
ballot
for
me.
You
know
fill
it
well
for
me
in
a
way
and
another
way
to
do.
It
would
be
that
I
look
at
a
specific
proposal
and
I'm
I'm
saying
okay,
this
is
like
a
technical
proposal.
A
I'm
going
to
allocate
a
delegate
the
decision
for
this
particular
proposal
to
a
technical
expert,
and
you
know
expert
and
he's
going
to
make
a
decision
about
this
about,
but,
let's
say,
there's
a
different
proposal:
that's
more
marketing
and
I'm
going
to
delegate
it
to,
let's
say
an
expert
marketer
okay,
so
this
can
be
this.
This
can.
This
can
quickly
become
very,
very
complex
it.
It
requires
really
the
building
of
an
expert
class
and
building
it
over
time
and
build
people
having
a
reputation
system
and
evolving
over
time.
A
There's
a
lot
of
technical
difficulties
to
do
it
on
chain
and
it's
gonna
take
it.
It's
gonna
take
a
while
you
know-
and
we
find
this
is
like
the
correct,
the
correct
solution.
But
it's
it's
a
long-term
solution,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
stuff
that
we
need
to
do,
and
you
know,
actions,
innovations
that
can't
wait
that
need
to
happen
right
now
and
it
will
happen
in
the
coming
funds.
A
So
so
we
have
a
short-term
solution
that
can
maybe
help
us
first
of
all
improve
the
quality
of
decisions
and
second,
the
play
around
a
bit
with
this
expert
delegation
and
like
allow
allow
the
the
emergence
of
this
expert
class.
Okay
and-
and
so
we
call
this
the
expert
ballot
recommendation
and-
and
this
is
the
this-
is
the
bonus
experiment
that
we're
going
to
do
this
week
and
play
play
with
it
together.
A
So
what's
an
expert
ballot
recommendation,
so
it
means
that,
rather
than
as
a
community
advisor,
you
were
like,
you
were
to
look
at
a
specific
proposal
and
kind
of
give
your
recommendation
like
if
it
should
be
voted
yes
or
no
on,
but
now
we
we
encourage
people
to
take
one
step
back.
Look
at
the
look
at
the
challenge
statement.
Look
at
the
community
intention.
Look
at
the
metrics
we're
trying
to
make
to
to
push
forward.
A
That
means
you
know
how
many
developers
and
entrepreneurs
we
can
attract
to
build
on
our
ecosystem
and
really
think
to
get.
You
know
really
think
it
you
can
think
about
it
as
an
individual.
You
cannot
also
go
in
as
a
group
and
and
kind
of
fill
up
a
almost
like
your
ballot
publicly.
Okay,
so
so
you
go
through
the
97
proposals,
you're
saying
like,
for
example,
this
six,
I'm
voting
yes
on
this
50,
I'm
voting.
A
Yes,
no
on
this
10,
I
I'm
decided
on
okay
and
you
can
basically
so
so
that's
the
first
part,
okay,
just
like
a
list
of
all
the
all
the
proposals.
What's
your
what
what
the
concrete
voting
you
are?
You
recommend
the
voting
pattern.
A
The
second
part
of
it
is
a
rationale
so
like
okay,
these
were
the.
This
is
what
I
recommend
for
us
to
like
the
pattern.
I
recommend
us
to
vote
for,
but
why
am
I
recommending
this?
You
know.
What's
the
rationale
behind
and
I
think
this
rationale
can
have
two
parts,
one
one
is
an
overall
rationale.
Saying
like
this
is
my
hypothesis.
Like
you
know,
this
is
the
metrics
we
want
to
to
drive.
A
These
are
proposals
that
are
you
know
addressing
these
metrics,
and
you
know
this.
Is
you
know
these
were
the
criteria
I
was
using
and
I
was
accepting
through
and
and
choosing
my
voting
strategy.
So
that's
like
a
big
picture
rationale
and
then
there's
specific
rationale
about
let's
say
like
the
five
proposals
I'm
voting
yes
on,
I'm
voting
for
them
because
they
meet
this
rationale
in
this
particular
way.
Okay,
so.
A
And
then
you
know
and
then
there's
a
casserole,
and
that
is
like
a
public
express
of
support.
So
as
a
and
this
is
like,
anybody
can
do
it,
you
know
you
can
do
it,
because,
if
you're
a
proposer,
if
you're
an
advisor,
if
you're
a
staff,
member
of
iohk
or
a
cf
or
emergo
like
I
mean
everybody's-
welcome,
okay,
everybody
can
come
and
publicly
express
okay,
this
this
expert
ballot
recommendation.
I,
like
I
read
it.
I
agree
with
the
rationale
you
know.
I
would
probably
vote
in
this
pattern
because
they
made
a
good
case.
A
You
know
and
and
and
and
and
for
those
who
are
writing
this
expert
about
recommendation.
This
can
help
help
them
to
gain
more
more
reputation.
You
know
if
you
can
convince
a
technology
expert,
you
know
to
come
in
and
back
your
back,
your
ballot
proposal
or
or
someone
the
community
like
respects
their
wisdom
and
balance
or
stuff
stuff
like
that,
then
you
know
your
and
your
accommodation
has
a
bit
more
weight
to
it.
Okay
and
so
people
can
so
people
will
be
able
to
to
express
support
or
or
you
know
they
can
even
like
midway.
A
The
conversation
they
can
switch
support.
You
know
they
can
learn
something
new.
They
can
hear
like
some
other
expert
ballot
recommendation.
That
gives
like
a
better
rationale
and
then
they
can
like
remove
their
support
from
this
one
and
say
like
okay,
I'm
actually
supporting
that
one
or
you
can
just
stay
out
of
it.
You
know
and
not
not
not
not
export
anything,
that's
also
fine,
then.
Lastly,
you
know
I
I
this.
A
This
recommendation
is
like
it's
just
the
start
of
a
conversation
you
know,
and
and
and
it
can
be
an
initial
idea
that
someone
has
and
then
we
can
start
to
discuss
and
evolve.
It
together,
like
someone,
can
come
and
argue,
make
an
argument
for
or
against
the
the
rationale
that
the
the
author
gave.
You
know
for
his
recommendation,
and
hopefully
this
would
trigger
a
learning,
learning
and
growing
so
people,
you
know
we
would
get
start
to
inform
ourselves
different
perspectives
and
different
strategies
and
pick
out
the
best
one
okay.
So
this
is
this
is
another.
A
So
two
caveats
to
this,
so
so
one
is.
I
really
think
that
before
we
start
to
go
and
write
our
recommendations
and
share
them,
we
should
probably
wait
for
the
filtering
of
and
publishing
of
the
of
the
assessments,
because
I
think
they're
going
to
help
help
a
lot
like
guide
the
conversation.
So
I
I
hope
that
that
would
be
done
on
thursday
or
friday.
A
So
I
I.
I
hope
that
we
can
start
it
this,
like
thinking
and
discussion
about
these
expert
ballots,
like
after
after
the
assessments
are
published,
and
I
think
it's
going
to
make
the
conversation
better
and
richer
and
the
second.
The
second
thing
is:
we
still
need
to
determine
the
the
method
that's
going
to
happen.
A
In
the
meantime,
I
really
encourage
people
to
start
to
think
about
the
strategy.
The
criteria
over
our
discussion
channels,
probably
discord,
is
a-
is
a
great
place
to
do
that,
and
just
because
of
its
structure
so
yeah.
I
hope
I
hope
you
you
all
like
enjoy
this
exercise,
and
we
will-
and
this
is
you
know
this-
is
a
wild
experiment.
There's
no
incentive
tied
to
it
doesn't
have
any
consequence
in
terms
of
you
know,
doesn't
have
any
formal
consequence.
A
This
is
more
just
about
our
our
community
cohering
and
engaging
in
a
discussion
that
goes
beyond
the
individual
proposal.
To
like
the
big
picture,
like
what
kind
of
patch
of
proposal
like
what
kind
of
batch
we
want
to
put
out
there
to
the
world
at
the
end
of
fantu,
and
we
also
don't
know
if
it's
a
good
idea
or
not.
I
mean
I
mean
I,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea,
but
it's
an
experiment,
we're
going
to
see
how
many
people
participate
and
engage
in
it.
A
We're
going
to
see
the
quality
of
the
expert
ballot
recommendation
and
and
our
team
we're
going
to
report
back
to
you
and
how
it
went.
Give
you
some
statistics
and
and
and
give
you
some
ability
to
make
up
your
own
mind
about
it.
If
we
want
to
continue
to
do
this
in
the
future
or
not,
that's
that's
the
beauty
of
this
project
that
we
can
try,
try
these
things
and
and
use
our
time
well
and
speaking
about
time.
A
You
know,
we've
been
experiencing
some
delays
and
some
blocks
and
we're
all
we
all
work
very,
very
hard
and
and
the
process
of
making
the
registration
for
voting
happen.
It's
actually
is
like
a
project
that
scopes
four
different
teams
across
iohk.
A
It's
really
a
full
stack.
It's
stack
that
starts
from
the
shelley.
Blockchain
goes
to
the
go
through
addresstia
and,
like
you
know,
the
connective
layer
goes
through.
The
deluse
then
goes
through
the
then
goes
through
the
voting
app
and
then
go
through
the
hormone
gander,
blockchain
okay.
So
this
is
like
an
extremely
complicated
stack
and
we
when
and
we
need
every
every
one
of
these
components
to
work
harmoniously
together.
A
You
know,
at
the
same
time
that
we're
we're
we're
driving
forward
the
you
know
the
we
have
other
priorities
in
terms
of
of
of
smart
contracts
and
and
multi
assets.
You
know
so
these
are
all
like
you
know,
so
we're
navigating
through
all
these
hard
priorities.
So
just
giving
you
a
bit
the
rationale
about
the
delay,
but
we're
making
really
good
progress.
A
I
think
in
in
about
a
week
or
two
we
will
give.
We
will
have
a
definitive
date
when
when
registration
starts,
so
you
know
so
after
this
one
or
two
weeks
of
testing
and
and
and
following
this
testing,
you
know
we
can,
we
can
publish
a
date
about
the
start
of
registration
and
I
think
again
it's
an
estimate,
there's
lots
of
moving
parts
here.
So
I
can't
I
can't
like
make
a
hard
commitment,
but
probably
one
one
to
two
weeks
after
that
happens.
You
know
we.
A
The
registration
for
voting
will
happen.
Okay,
so
knowing
that
and
wanting
really
wanting
to
not
delay
funds3-
and
we
know
one
thing
to
continue
the
amazing
momentum,
we
created
we're
going
we're
going
to
rethink
the
voting
stage.
So
initially
the
voting
stage
was
designed
to
have
to
last
21
days
like
three
weeks
of
voting
and
right
now
we're
considering
reducing
that.
A
A
A
It's
actually
it's
a
bit
more
difficult
to
update
it,
because
it's
hosted
on
this
like
third
party
id
scale,
but
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
get
the
details,
but
going
forward
we're
going
to
have
a
more
organized
process
about
how
we
update
the
timelines
and
inform
the
community
when
timeline
timelines
change,
because
we
know
that
for
you
as
proposers
you
are,
you
know,
waiting
for
the
funding
event
to
be
to
happen.
You
might
have
made
plans
around
it,
so
you
know
we
want
to
be
as
considerate
as
as
possible.
A
A
So
and
next
week
it's
going
to
be
exciting,
we're
going
to
invite
samuel
with
samuel
leathers,
the
head
of
our
of
of
ihk
devops,
and
it's
gonna
do
a
little
workshop
about
how
to
register
to
vote
with
a
cli
tool.
Okay,
so
so
we're
going
to
have,
we
set
up
a
still
an
experimental,
early
stage,
cli
tool
that
allows
the
stackpool
operators
to
to
register-
and
you
know
probably
like
other
users
that
have
some
tech
chops
can
also
use
it
and
for
the
regular
user.
I
I
would.
A
I
would
recommend
using
our
deadlifts
catalyst
version,
but
but
for
those
who
are
look
like
you
know
that
that
can't
use
deadloos.
The
cli
is
your:
is
your
tool
and
he
will
demo
it
it's
like
an
open
source
library,
we're
going
to
encourage
you
to
build
on
top
of
it
and
improve
it.
A
We're
going
to
look
at
the
the
registration
user
flow,
for
you
know,
going
from
data
loss
to
qr
code
to
voting
app
to
and
how
to
complete
your
registration
and
we're
going
to
continue
with
the
idfest
on
twitter
and
continue
to
give
a
stage
to
proposals
and
and
of
course
the
voter
commenting
and
discussion
is
going
to
continue
in
a
d
scale
and
feel
free
to
ask
proposes
questions.
You
know
where
we're
and,
of
course,
there's
going
to
be
the
expert
expert
ballot
recommendation,
so
you
know
so
let's
continue.
A
A
So
just
before
I
conclude,
I
noticed
I
noticed
this
week.
We
got
a
bit
of
a
bit
of
a
feedback
about
community
advisors
and
challenge.
So
you
know
I
want
to
thank
lucky
for
sharing
sharing
this
bunch
of
questions
on
on
our
forums,
and
I
just
wanted
to
take
like
really
a
quick
minute
to
end.
You
know
just
to
address
it
here,
because
I
cuz.
A
I
really
think
that
it's
you
know,
the
whole
purpose
of
fund
two
is
and
catalyst
itself
is
is,
is
is
to
level
up
our
discussion
of
of
governance.
You
know
as
we
as
we
move,
not
not
just
not
just
about
treasury,
but
also
about
you
know,
decentralized,
governance
in
general
and
the
other
domains
that
are
part
of
voltaire,
and
so
that's
really
important.
So
so
I
really
thank
everyone
who
comes
even
if
they,
you
know,
disagree
with
the
process
so
so
lucky
asks
like
who
selects
the
community
advisors.
A
The
question
is
so
right
now:
nobody
selects
the
community
advisors
like
anybody
can
volunteer
to
be
a
community
advisor
who
decides
what
are
good
traits
in
community
advisors.
So
initially
so
so
we
are
bootstrapping
the
system
it
starts.
You
know
it
basically
started
with
a
bunch
of
a
bunch
of
people
from
iohk
that
are
opinionated
about
what
are
good
traits
and
then
in
funds
in
fan
zero
in
fund
one
we
engaged
in
a
dialogue
with
the
community.
We
we
and
and
now
in
fund
two.
A
You
know
we
published,
we
published
an
initial
guideline
and
we
welcomed
like
people's
like
comments
about
it.
If
it's
good
or
bad
and
had
a
dialogue
and
then,
like
you
know,
the
guidance
for
fund
one
was
a
version
and
then
fund
two
we
had,
I
think,
a
better
version,
and
and
and
because
we
got
all
this
feedback
from
the
community
and
for
fund
three.
A
We're
gonna
have
an
even
better
version,
because
now
we're
going
to
learn
more
and
we're
going
to
continue
to
ask
you
and
we're
going
to
have
this
survey
and
so
we're
going
to
iterate
and
improve
so
so
I
would
say
it
started
with
a
small
amount
of
people,
just
making
an
educated
guess
about.
A
What's
what
what
are
good
traits
and
then
it
evolves
over
time
and
over
time
it
becomes
more
and
more
aligned
with
with
what
the
community
wants
and-
and
I
hope
this
process
will
just
keep
on-
keep
on
happening
all
the
time-
all
the
time
from
iteration
to
iteration,
okay,
who
selects
who
selects
community
advisors.
So
so
there
is
not
like
everybody
can
at
this
point.
Anybody
can
can
volunteer
and
I
think,
over
time
we're
gonna
have
to
put
up
some
defense
mechanisms,
as
people
will
try
to
game
the
system.
A
We
have
lots
of
ideas.
How
to
do
that
and
so
far
you
know
so
far.
The
best
defense
mechanism
is
is
is
just
having
like
a
strong
standards
and
then
trying
to
to
enforce
them,
and
then
the
question
of
who
decides
upon
the
future
challenge
statements
so
that
that
would
be
the
community
so
for
fund
2
and
fund
3.
A
A
They
they.
You
know,
we
we
try
their
best
to
to
choose
a
challenge
statement
that
really
aligns
with
the
short-term,
both
short-term
and
long-term
needs
of
of
cardano
and
a,
I
would
say,
the
capabilities
of
the
community
and
something
that
can
get
to
be
engaging
and
we
followed.
A
We
had
lots
of
consulting
and
advice
from
from
id
scale,
who've
been
doing
innovation,
processes
and
challenges
for
10
years
now,
so
they've
been
working
with
hundreds
of
companies.
So
so
we
try
to
to
take
all
this
into
our
initial
challenge
statements.
A
But
all
this
is
just
going
to
be
a
preparation
for
what's
going
to
happen
in
so
during
fund
3
we're
going
to
talk
about
people,
there
will
be
a
submission
process
where
people
can
submit
additional
challenge
statements,
different
challenge
statements
and
also
determine
how
what
what
would
be
the
budget,
okay.
So
an
example
of
an
alternative
challenge.
Statement
in
this
case
would
be,
let's
say,
like
completing
a
certain
aspect
of
of
the
community
roadmap.
A
For
example,
you
know,
and
and
like
you
know,
in
defining
that
you
know
we
can
have-
and
that's
interesting
part-
you
know
for
fund
for
and
onwards.
It's
not
it's
not
clear
that
we're
just
going
to
have
one
challenge.
You
know
we
could
have
maybe
50
different
challenges.
You
know,
and
each
one
is,
has
a
small
amount
of
funds
to
it.
You
know
or
changing
amount
of
funds
per
challenge.
A
That's
going
to
be
determined
by
the
community,
and
but
we
wanted
you
to
experience
at
least
the
two
full
rounds
of
of
of
of
funding
and
to
get
really
informed
about.
The
importance
of
this
is
this
process
liquid
democracy.
Is
that
the
aim
so
right
now
the
process
is
not
liquid
democracy,
it's.
I
would
call
it
direct
democracy,
because
you
know
we
can.
A
We
can
each
vote
on
proposals
directly,
but
that
is
definitely
the
aim
liquid
liquid
democracy
and
the
ability
to
to
delegate
that's
part
of
of
the
bigger
road
map
and
vision
for
voltaire.
A
Okay,
so
so
I
hope
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
spend
too
much
time
on
on
that.
So
you
know
thanks
thanks
lucky.
I
hope
that
helped
give
you
a
bit
more
understanding
about
the
the
process
we're
going
through
and
and
the
fact
we
truly
want
to
be.
A
I
think,
speaking
on
the
iphone
all
the
catalyst
team.
You
know
we
really
want
to
be
stewards
of
this
process
and
and
and
be
really
really
listening
to
the
community
and
and
and
make
let's
say
like
a
transition
of
power.
A
Okay,
I
think
another
another
aspect
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
for
us
to
discuss,
and-
and
here
I
really
want
I'd-
really
love
to
get
people
to
to
raise
their
hand
and
if,
if
they
want
to
to
talk
about
it
or
express
their
their
their
perspective,
so
there
was
another
question
about
about.
Are
we
following
the
challenge
so
and
here
that
the
explanation
is
so
world
maps
talks
about
I'm
struggling
with
the
nature
of
most
proposals?
A
Not
only
some,
but
most
he
talks
about
the
challenge
statement
talking
about
encouraging
developers,
entrepreneurs,
but
he
talks
about
that
out
of
out
of
the
97
open
proposals
he
from
his
perspective,
only
about
10
are
are
within
the
scope
of
the
challenge
and
that
he
was
expecting.
You
know
more
focus
on
the
challenge
statement
and
on
his
only
summing
this
criterion
and
that
it
and
then
there's
like
some
all
these
different
types
of
proposals
that,
like
he
finds
not
not
not
following
the
criteria,
and
so
I
wanted
to.
A
If
you,
you
know,
if
you
agree,
if
you
disagree,
what
do
you
think
we
can
do
to
improve
for
fund
three
fund
four
to
to
be
better
with
the
challenge,
because
you
know
it's
not
just
about.
I
mean,
I
think
the
important
thing
here
is:
it's
not
just
about
this
challenge.
It's
not
about
specifically
attracting
developers
and
entrepreneurs,
though
it's
very
important.
A
It's
about
the
tool
of
us
as
a
community,
so
we're
going
to
get
to
a
place
where
we're
gonna
that
the
community
is
gonna,
decide
on
a
challenge
and
then
like.
If
and
if
we
decide
on
a
challenge
and
like
on
a
focused
effort,
if
you
know
if,
if
our,
if
our
strategy
is
going
to
be
like
a
knife,
you
know
rather
than
like
slinging
mud
at
the
wall,
we
need
to
put
up
a
standards
to
to
respect
that.
So
so,
like
our
that
are
two
celtics
toolset
is
sharp
and
effective.
A
A
A
For
you
to
to
write
down
your
your
insights
and
then-
and
you
know-
and
I
hope
we're
gonna
like
kind
of
copy
paste,
then
all
all
these
all
these
all
the
comments
and
publish
them
and
and
reflect
on
them.
A
B
Okay,
good
okay,
now
I
can
hear
you
perfectly
okay,
cool,
good,
hello,
everyone,
hi
door,
hi
anna
hi
community
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
suppose
give
a
bit
of
feedback
in
terms
of
how
I've
experienced,
I
suppose
my
own
pro
interpreting
the
challenge
to
my
own
proposal.
Instead
of
reading
other
people's
proposals,
I
think
a
key
thing
was
obviously
here.
The
focus
is,
I
think,
a
lot
of
people
read
the
challenge
and
just
see
developers
and
kind
of
stop
it
there
right.
B
So
they
expect
something
to
be
quite
code-centric
right,
so
things
which
are
more
sort
of
marketing
related
are
sort
of
not
seen
to
be
of
value
in
some
way.
But
having
said
that,
you
know
the
the
conversation
or
the,
so
what
the
the
criticisms
of
the
podcast,
I
think
are
valid
and
there's
a
conversation
to
be
had
there.
The
key
thing
that
I
just
want
to
highlight
is:
I
think
the
challenge
in
and
of
itself
wasn't
particularly
framed.
B
Well,
I
think
primarily
because
if
we're
looking
to
get
developers
say
you
know
to
build
stuff,
gogan
is
not
out
yet.
So
it's
a
bit
like
saying:
hey,
come
in
build
houses,
we
haven't
bought
the
land
yet
kind
of
thing,
or
you
know
we
haven't,
got
access
to
the
land,
yeah
kind
of
thing
so,
but
I
think
that's
one
of
the
key
things
I
think
is
a
bit
underwhelming
or
formed
some
sort
of
like
conflict
in
terms
of
actually
getting
people,
because
you
know
I
would
love
to
solve.
B
You
know,
get
people
more
people
into
the
ecosystem
and
say:
hey
come
and
build
dabs,
but
I
can't
because
yeah
the
playground
say
milo.
The
milo
playground
is
there,
but
gogan
fundamentally
is
not
actually
released
or
stable
kind
of
thing.
B
The
only
thing
that
I
see
that
people
can
actually
sort
of
come
and
do
is
come
and
delegate
right,
because
that's
something
that
you
know
you
can
buy
ada
you
can
come,
you
can
delegate
and
then
second
to
that
they
can
engage
in
voltaire
in
you
know
in
its
early
forms,
in
sort
of
in
catalyst,
so
and
so
on
so
yeah.
B
Those
are
just
my
thoughts,
I'm
glad
that
you're
actually
looking
to
change
how
the
challenges
have
arrived
at,
because
I
do
not
remember
myself
or
anyone
in
the
community
being
sort
of
engaged
in
terms
of
say,
the
challenge
for
fun
two
or
five.
Three.
So
far,.
A
Awesome
thanks
for
coming
up
on
stage
and
now
it's
all
right.
Thank
you.
Okay,
anybody
any
okay!
So
the
five
minutes
passed
so
we'll
you
know,
take
a
look
through
the
through
the
chat
after
and
if
anybody
else
wants
to
comment,
you
can
still
wave
your
hand,
but
I
want
to
see
yeah.
That's
basically,
that's
basically
it
for,
for
today
I
mean
I
can
maybe
I'll
take
a
few
minutes
and
look
at
the
questions.
A
A
Okay,
first
of
all,
yes,
we're
going
to
get.
I
mean
I
just
need
to
add
it
to
to
our
process
to
give
a
regular
data
dump
over
this
scale
and
api
access
is
a
bit
problematic,
because
then
we
might
violate
the
user
privacy
and
you
know
not
everybody
consent
that
everybody
knows
their
emails
and
stuff.
So
there's
no
limitation
on
that,
and
so,
if,
if
there's
a
way,
you
know
we're
gonna
look
with
a
disk
if
there's
a
way
to
to
to
give
partial
access
to
api
that
doesn't
violate
privacy.
We'll
do
so.
A
If
not,
you
know
we're
going
to
do
a
regular
data
dump
and
we're
just
going
to
add
it
to
our
process
I'll
start
to
follow
up
and
give
you
an
updated
one,
especially
now
that
we
have
finalized
proposals
this
week
or
the
next.
A
A
Not
that
I'm
aware
of,
but
I
think
the
more
if,
if
like
you
know,
but
but
a
lot
of
things
can
be,
you
know,
once
you
aggregate
data
and
analyze
it,
you
know
you
can
have
lots
of
amazing
insights,
so
maybe
that
can
can
constitute
as
more
information
as
we
analyze
it.
A
If
someone,
if,
if,
if
through
the
filtration,
you
know,
if
you
feel
something
is
really
some
comment
you
received,
you
think
is
like
you
know
not
just
like,
like
a
small
disagreement,
you
know,
but
you
feel
like.
Okay,
this
person
is
like
completely.
A
It's
really
demonstrated
from
his
comments
that
he,
he
didn't
read
the
proposal
and
we
will
try
to
set
up
some
process
for
you
to
to
flag
that,
okay
and-
and
let
us
know
so.
I
think
I
think
that's
like
a
fair
thing
to
do,
and
even
if
we
can't
really
address
it
directly
in
front
too,
at
least
we'll
get
some
information
about
how
common
that
happens.
A
A
There
will
be
yeah
yeah,
it
will
be
it
you
will
have.
You
have
the
ability
to
to
say
yes,
no
and
abstain,
and
you
know
ideally
what
we
want
to
you
know,
ideally
what
we
want
like,
let's
say
by
the
way
like
if
let's
say
this
experience
succeeds,
we
get
amazing
expert
ballots,
lots
of
engagement,
really
great
insights,
and
actually
people
follow
it.
You
know
we
can
actually
down
the
line.
We
can
integrate
it
in
the
voting
app
and
you
can
actually
like
you
know,
import
into
the
app
the
the
expert
ballot.
A
You
know
and
it's
just
like
all
pre-filled
for
you
and
then
you
would
be
able
to
you,
know
customize
or
modify
you
know
if
you
disagree
or
disagree.
So
so
I
guess
so.
I
guess
the
the
goal
is
that
it
will
be
that
the
final
interface
for
for
an
expert
ballot
would
look
very
similar
to
to
the
interface
in
the
in
the
voting
app.
A
A
Yes,
you
know,
first
of
all,
project
catalyst
does
not
have
a
monopoly
on
governance.
You
know
we
we
just
like
you
know.
We
have
a
certain
capacity
as
a
team,
you
know
and
we
try
to
prioritize
basically
according
to
what
we
think
would
bring
the
most
impact
and
what
processes
are
super
necessary,
but
each
each
and
every
one
of
you,
including
you
will
yammer,
is,
is
free
to
set
up
like
you
know
the
same
way
that
this
discord
was
set
up
completely
bottom
up.
A
You
know
we
can
find
additional
platforms
in
the
in
in
in
the
way
that
there's,
like
the
gauntlet
and
like
other
podcasts,
are,
are
published.
Publishing
give
giving
a
stage
to
proposers.
You
know
they
can.
We
can
think
about
many
many
more
formats,
and
I
would
say
this
like
even
having
like
a
small
prototype
starting
up
by
the
community,
and
you
know-
maybe
it's
not
100
how
you
would
like,
or
maybe
you
can't
100
support
it.
A
And
if
it's
like
a
really
great
idea-
and
it
needs
support
additional
support
from
the
from
from
the
project
team.
You
know
we're
going
to
give
it
to
you,
because
that's
actually
the
most
exciting
stuff
stuff
that
comes
a
bottom
up
and
not
not
not
up
down
and
that's
just
a
sensible
transition.
So
strong,
yes
to
to
your
proposal
and-
and
it's
like
a
real
need-
and
I
think,
there's
like
a
much
broader
community
in
cardano
that
are,
you
know,
don't
come
to
the
town
halls
and-
and
we
face
that
every
weekend
and
we
can.
A
A
A
That's
like
recognized
internationally
and
at
the
same
time
allow
pockets
of
autonomous
governance
for
each
community
in
each
organization
to
to
define
for
themselves
governance
parameters
and
how
they
would
like
to
be
governed.
So
I
would
say
I
would
say
both,
and
I
also
would
would
encourage
you
to
ask
this.
A
More
so
I
think,
unless
other
people
have
any
closing
comments,
I
think
we
can
we
can
wrap
up
for
today.
A
So
as
usual,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Everybody
like,
I,
really
appreciate
you
coming
and
spending
time
with
us
and
this
project
and
kind
of
setting
a
new
standard
for
decentralized
governance
and
see
you
next
week.
Next
week's
gonna
be
very
exciting,
with
the
cli
tool
and
and
also
the
revealing
of
the
assessments,
and
why
only
two
votes
or
more
because
it
means
that
it's
interesting
for
more
than
one
person.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
the
best
way
to
provide
this
feedback
is
that
we're
going
to
send
all
the
all
the
community
advisors,
the
feedback
form
about
their
experience,
and
you
should
you
should
include
it
there
and
then
we
can
process
process
all
this
feedback
and
prioritize
it
for
funds3,
so
so
hold
on
wait
for
wait
for
that
survey
and
and
will
take
that
will
take
this
into
into
account
all
right.
That's
it
for
me.