►
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
We
have
myself
michelle
lee
or
mosh
juan
finnette
and
dietrich
ayala
here
and
we're
all
here
to
share
something
pretty
exciting
that
we've
been
working
on
behind
the
scenes
so
just
to
set
the
stage
a
little
bit.
I
think
we've
been
here
for
four
days
or
if
you're,
following
along
on
the
videos
you're
in
like
hour,
seven
of
watching
lots
of
youtube-
and
I
think
we've
been
talking-
you
know
going
through
this
whole
journey
of
you
know.
Why
are
we
gathering
this
community
at
this
event?
A
Where,
because
of
this
point
in
time
and
where
we
are
today,
we're
going
to
see
a
huge
explosion
in
the
number
of
ipfs
implementations
in
the
way
that
implementations
are
structured
in
the
way
teams,
build
them
and
the
ways
collabor
teams
collaborate
across
around
implementations
and
standards,
and
if
you
squint
really
hard,
it's
actually
already
been
happening
projects.
A
There's
I
mean
there's
a
bunch
of
projects
on
on
on
the
screen:
right:
durin,
winfs,
iro,
new
spear,
chromium,
plastigalia,
elastic
ipfs
kappulun,
but
I
wanna
take
a
minute
and
ask
everyone
what
do
these
all
have
in
common.
A
A
Right
these
are
not
pl
projects
and
I
think,
as
we've
seen,
you
know
throughout
every
single
one
of
this
morning's
talks
when
we
converge
on
standards
but
encourage
teams
to
come
up
with
their
own
architectures
and
designs,
the
the
project
as
a
whole
can
flourish,
and
so
we
need
to
do
more
of
this.
We
need
maybe
a
dozen
more
of
these
in
the
next
few
years,
and
so
there's
there's
a
structure.
We've
we're.
You
know,
building
right
now
to
support
that.
C
So,
there's
a
a
movement
that
we're
starting
called
funding
the
commons,
there's
a
community
forming
and
has
been
forming
for
the
last
year
or
so
and
it's
the
origins
are
recognizing
that,
first
of
all,
blockchains
and
smart
contracts
operate
at
massive
scale,
already
there's
about
a
trillion
dollar
sized
industry
and
that's
an
enormous
amount
of
scale
when
it
comes
to
funding
structures
and
projects
and
and
so
on.
Most
of
that
industry
is
open
source,
and
so
it's
very
a
couple.
C
There's
a
model
for
funding
and
public
good
generation
and
and
open
source
that
is
coupled
together.
The
point.
The
second
point
is
that
there's
a
potential
to
solve
massive
coordination
problems,
but
we're
lacking
great
mechanisms.
C
So
there's
lots
of
problems
that
we
can
all
point
to
where
you
can
imagine
the
solution
space,
but
there
are
missing
coordination
structures
to
enable
groups
and
at
various
different
scales,
whether
it's
small
groups
or
large
groups
or
mega
organizations
or
whatever
to
coordinate
and
solve
those
kinds
of
problems
and
part
of
a
sub
problem
of
that
is.
C
But
there
is
no,
but
the
experimentation
around
that
is
still
very
early,
and
so
there's
a
potential
here
to
bridge
the
gap
between
the
tooling
that
exists
and
the
platforms
that
are
the
analysis
to
coordinate
large
large
groups
with
many
groups
that
want
coordination
systems
and
coordination,
coordination,
structures
to
fund
public
goods
to
fund
commons
projects,
to
fund
open
source
and
so
on.
So
this
movement
is,
is
experimenting
and
exploring
a
lot
of
different
kinds
of
mechanisms
and
and
funding
structures.
C
There
are
many
things
that
are
at
worth:
making
nature
where
they're
kind
of
deployed
into
into
some
run
time
and
just
can
run.
C
There
are
other
things
that
are
more
certificate
oriented
where
there's
a
funding
structures
that
are
that
are
meant
to
be
instrument
based
or
or
and
so
on,
so
whether
it's
grants
or
impact
certificates
and
and
so
on,
but
either
way
this
movement
is
bringing
together
a
lot
of
participants
to
make
a
lot
of
experiments
and
one
of
the
things
that
has
come
out
of
that
movement
is
this
notion
of
network
funds.
C
So
the
a
lot
of
technology
today
is
funded
by
the
venture
capital
industry
and
the
venture
capital
industry
is
primarily
a
solution
to
a
pretty
complex
signal,
optimization
problem
where,
if
you
think
of
broad
capital
structures,
that's
just
optimizing.
C
Then
you
can
think
of
the
entire
large-scale
capital
system
and
specifically,
the
venture
capital
system.
As
trying
to
solve
this
highly
dynamic,
optimization
problem
with
a
structure
that
enables
humans
and
organizations
to
couple
funding,
scales
and
theses
about
what
to
fund
in
a
highly
localized
way-
and
it
has
an
evolutionary
framework
where,
if
those
funds
succeed
and
are
and
are
good
at
what
they're
doing,
meaning
they
can
integrate
information
in
their
environment,
their
hypothesis,
correct
and
so
on.
C
They'll
likely
be
successful
and
gain
more
resources
and
over
time
grow
and
be
able
to
allocate
more
resources
over
time
and
so
on.
And
if
they're
unsuccessful,
they'll
wane
decrease
their
resources
and
eventually
die,
so
that
larger
experimental
evolutionary
framework
has
enabled
venture
capital
over
the
last
20
40
years
to
build
massive
scale
industries.
C
So
we're
trying
to
build
a
version
of
that
for
public,
good
funding,
so
the
the
private
venture
cap,
the
venture
capital
industries,
is
primarily
around
private
funding
for
slices
of
cash
flows
in
some
model
that
will
be
seen
as
valuable
by
some
some
market
of
participants
we're
trying
to
create
a
version
of
that
for
public
good
structures.
So
things
like
open
source
things
like
science,
things
like
large
infrastructure
projects,
and
so
you
think
of
networks
of
participants
that
want
certain
things
to
be
developed.
C
C
This
problem
domain,
where
groups
with
large
large
funding-
and
you
can
think
of
this
as
like
nsf
as
an
example
or
like
nation
states
themselves-
have
a
very
hard
time,
allocating
funding
well
to
the
right
groups
that
are
going
to
make
a
significant
impact
or
the
right
approaches
or
and
so
on.
C
So
we're
trying
to
generate
an
evolutionary
landscape
similar
to
the
venture
capital
model,
but
in
the
public
goods
space
you
can
think
of
that
as
kind
of
a
networked
grant
program
or
a
networked
systems
and
bringing
the
traditional
grant
model
and
rfp
model,
and
so
on
into
a
model
where
you
can
create
a
kind
of
a
a
network
structure
to
that
model.
So,
where
you
can
have
funds
funding
funds,
funding
funds
and
that
way
scale
the
the
the
the
allocation
of
capital
to
meet
whatever
the
local
region
requires
so
there's
a
whole.
C
I
just
kind
of
compressed
a
lot
of
concepts
about
a
ton
of
things,
there's
a
whole
swath
of
of
talks
in
in
this
movement.
There's
you
know
in
the
order
of
now.
I
think
something
like
close
to
80
or
100
talks
from
many
different
groups,
exploring
this
design
space,
exploring
different
possibilities,
highly
recommend
to
go
check
this
out,
and
I
talk
there's
a
talk.
I
gave
that
talks
about
this
particular
problem
and
and
so
on.
So
what
does
that
mean
for
for
us?
C
And
what
does
that
mean
for
for
ipfs?
So
the
goal
is
to
create
a
blue,
a
network
fund
that
can
fund
public
goods
in
the
ipfs
landscape.
In
particular.
The
large
public
good
problem
of
implementations
of
an
ipfs
implementation
is
a
large-scale
project,
so
it's
a
big
meaningful
contribution
that
ends
up
accruing,
lots
of
important
stakeholders
and
and
dependents
and
so
on,
and
so
we
want
to
create
a
funding
structure
for
ipfs
implementations
that
can
be
kind
of
part
of
this
network
fund
structure.
A
So
we're
working
on
this
concept
and
a
lot
of
things
are
being
iterated
on,
but
I
think
the
the
major
rails
of
the
program,
I
think,
are
you
know
something
that
we
can
share
with
this
group
share
with
the
community
and
start
our
conversations.
A
So
really,
the
purpose
of
this
fund
is
to
accelerate
adoption
of
ipfs
through
primarily
new
implementations
but
related
activities
as
well.
This
is
a
long-term
endeavor,
we're
planning
on
a
five-year
roadmap
kind
of
chunked
into
a
two-year
phase,
one
and
a
three-year
phase.
Two
I'll
go
into
more
details
about
that
later.
We're
targeting
double-digit
million
dollars
in
grants,
rfps
retro
and
retroactive
impact
grants
being
awarded
and
pl
is
the
first
of
multiple
funders.
So
pl's
made
a
major
commitment
to
this
fund.
A
We've
actually
gotten
interest
from
nation
states,
and
I
think
this
structure
is
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
we
need
to
catalyze
different
funding
sources
separate
from
protocol
labs.
As
you
know,
it's
a
delaware,
c,
corp
or
whatever,
and
and
to
something
that's
specific
to
our
mission
with
this
community
and
this
project.
A
If
you
squint
at
it,
we've
already
made
investments
in
this
realm.
The
ecosystem
working
groups
developer
grants
program
has
funded
a
lot
of
this
work.
The
you
know,
protocol
labs
grants
have
funded
this
work.
This
is
about
coalescing
some
of
those
pilot
activities
and
amplifying
it
from
here
on,
and
so
we
wanted
to
share
this
with
you
early,
because
this
is
the
community.
I
think
that
will
play
a
big
role
in
in
this
and
help
shape
the
future
of
ipfs
fund.
A
One
is
really
about
kickstarting
major
new
implementation
development
and
demonstrating
how
how
these
implementations
can
quickly
influence
network
level
adoption.
So
you
know
it
might
look
like
five
new
large-scale
implementations,
five
new
pilot
scale,
implementations
that
take
creative
approaches
to
to
the
software
architecture
of
ipfs.
A
We
are
trying
to
pilot
some
retroactive
impact
funding
in
fund
one,
and
I
think
that
those
experiments
will
tell
us
a
lot
about
about
how
we
wanted.
You
know
divert
more
a
bigger
share
of
that
fund
to
that
to
the
that
kind
of
structure
in
fund
two
right
and
and
as
boris
called
out.
We
can't
do
all
this
software
and
have
it
make
an
impact
without
doing
project
and
community
stewardship
specifically
focused
on
this
story.
A
So
some
of
this
fun
may
go
towards
those
activities
as
well
to
amplify
and
land
all
the
amazing
new
work.
That's
done
here
and
then
in
fund
two.
There
will
be
an
increasing
focus
on
maturing
implementations,
maybe
some
new
implementations
as
well
a
heavier
emphasis
on
that
retroactive
impact
funding
and
continued
project
and
community
stewardship.
A
So
the
the
scope
of
ipfs
implementations
fund-
and
this
you
know
probably
will
have
a
new
name-
has
a
few
kind
of
guide
rails.
At
this
point,
I
want
to
turn
it
over
to
dietrich
who's,
going
to
talk
about
the
specifics
of
what
we
think
is
inside
the
fun
thesis
and
what
is
outside.
D
So
this
last
couple
days,
we've
been
talking
about
all
the
things
that
ipfs
could
mean
all
the
ways
that
it
means
something
different
than
just
a.
You
know:
single
stamen,
that's
running
in
a
single
language,
and
this
is
really
the
scope.
Conversation
is
going
to
be
interesting
there
we
don't
know
what
ipps
can
be
in
some
of
the
environments.
Some
languages
we
are,
you
know
clearly
considering,
as
the
name
implies
new
implementations
of
ipfs,
how
deep
how
complex
how
sophisticated?
D
What
for
these
are
all
things
that
we
need
to
figure
out
and
we're
probably
going
to
talk
to
you,
as
the
community
of
practitioners
who's
doing
this
right
now
to
kind
of
figure
out
what
the
right
bounds
are.
But
these
are
the
broad
strokes,
so
you
know
current
and
new
implementations
in
a
given
programming
language.
You
know
they
addressing
a
key
platform
or
market
segment
that
is
currently
unaddressed
where
ipfest
isn't
choosable
for
those
folks,
not
just
implementations,
but
really
expanding
that
scope,
especially
in
the
later
years,
into
tooling
materials.
D
You
know
mosh
mentioned
project
stewardship.
This
is
really
key.
Maybe
even
things
like
the
content
addressing
alliance
could
be
considered
part
of
a
stewardship
of
a
project.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
different
directions
that
we
can
go
here.
Things
out
of
scope
are
things
that
are
maybe
part
of
the
stack
but
not
part
of
ipfs,
so
a
full
complete,
pdp
implementation
in
a
language
that
we
don't
have
an
implementation.
D
Things
that
are
building
on
ipfs
as
opposed
to
building
ipfs
itself
are
going
to
be
out
of
scope,
but
of
course
the
lines
are
always
going
to
be
a
little
blurry,
and
I
think
these
first
projects
that
we
run
through
the
program
we'll
learn
a
ton
about
that
new
languages.
Really.
The
goal
here
is
about
unlocking
ipfs
and
well
whole
new
audiences
for
ipvs
right.
So
you
know,
python
is
one
of
the
top
programming
languages
on
the
planet.
D
These
are
millions
of
developers
who
currently
don't
have
a
reasonable
way
to
choose
a
functional
ipfs
in
their
environments
that
ones
that
works
like
idiomatically,
so
how
they
work,
how
their
tools
work,
the
whole
philosophy
of
the
language
and
some
of
the
defaults
and
mores
in
their
communities.
Ipfs
isn't
really
there.
Yet
it's
not
a
thing.
They
can
choose
in
a
way
that
meets
their
needs,
and
so
these
are
areas
where
we're
not
just
interested
in.
D
You
know,
checking
all
the
boxes
of
having
ipfs
implemented
in
each
one
of
these
languages,
but
understanding
communities
and
the
opportunities
that
we
can
bring
to
them
in
this
effort.
This
is
really
different
than
how
specific
use
cases
or
different
architectures,
so
you
can
have
a
jsipfest
that
runs
as
a
cli
and
a
daemon
that
runs
on
a
server
and
actually
connects
to
the
dhd.
D
You
can
also
have
an
ipfs
in
js
that
runs
inside
of
a
browser
extension
like
companion,
for
example,
that
is
a
radically
different
architecture
that
addresses
a
very
specific
need
in
a
set
of
users.
Kubo
you
we
found,
you
can
put
it
a
whole
lot
of
places
in
a
whole
lot
of
different
ways.
Sometimes
it
meets
the
unique
needs
of
those
environments
and
those
architectures
and
other
times,
maybe
not
so
much
and
then
with
wasm.
D
You
have
opportunities
to
be
able
to
have
maybe
single
language
implementations
that
end
up
being
portable
to
a
much
broader
number
of
environments.
I
think
also,
I
threw
the
satellite
icon
here,
because
we're
going
to
have
very
unique
constraints
in
some
of
the
environments
that
we
need
when
I'm
operating
if
space
when
it
comes
to
things
like
impact
and
the
verticals
that
we
can
have
ip
fest,
that's
choosable
in
things
like
unity.
These
are
astounding
numbers.
D
These
are
environments
that
are
rapidly
growing
and
really
really
large,
and
I
have
feeders
to
even
larger
segments
of
of
industry
where
ipfs
isn't
necessarily
available
or
it's
available,
but
not
necessarily
functional.
So
we
really
want
to
explore
in
this
effort
of
funding
over
the
last
couple
of
years
how
we
can
make
an
ip
fast,
a
reasonable
and
functional
choice
in
these
types
of
environments.
D
Some
of
the
ways
that
we'll-
and
this
is
definitely
like-
a
work
in
progress,
but
how
do
we
measure
the
impact
of
of
some
of
these
implementations?
You
can
make
ipfs
choosable
in
a
given
environment,
but
if
it's
not
actually
chosen,
then
the
impact
isn't
there.
So
how
do
we
close
that
circle
and
actually
measure
things
like
whether
it
was
actually
used
by
developers
in
this
environment
whether
it
actually
served
the
needs
of
those
of
the
businesses
in
that
environment
and
whether
it's
actually
growing?
D
These
are
some
of
the
different
ways
that
we'll
be
looking
at
and
maybe
even
as
a
feedback
loop
from
some
of
the
investments.
So
you
know
like
the
measuring
fps
track,
the
output
of
some
of
those
those
businesses,
those
open
source
projects
and
those
innovations
will
help
us,
maybe
even
in
measuring
the
impact
of
some
of
the
things
we
find
here,
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
of
retroactive.
A
Model
sure
so
I
think
we
look
at
startup
funding
and
venture
funding
as
a
pattern
not
necessarily
to
emulate,
but
to
learn
from
right,
and
I
think
one
thing
that
that
model
does
extremely
well
is
structuring
startups,
to
reward
outcomes,
not
activity
and
in
grant
making.
A
It's
really
really
common
that
you
know
you
propose
a
grant,
you
propose
activities
and
then
your
grant
makers
really
struggle
to
identify
whether
you
did
the
thing
or
not
or
you
you
you,
you
had
the
value
or
made
the
improvement
or
not,
and
so
you
know
we,
I
think
the
web
3
space
has
seen
some
innovations
in
grant.
Making
quadratic
funding
is
one
example,
but
that
still
is
still
you
know
rewarding
ahead
of
the
activity
and
the
outcome.
A
A
There's
some
other
experiments
going
on
and
it's
about
rewarding
project
outcomes
versus
project
plans
and
through
this
model
you
periodically
look
at
the
landscape
of
the
network
and
and
look
at
some
of
the
most
important
advances
or
innovations
happening
that
have
taken
place
and
what
activity
and
what
impact
that
has
that
has
spurred
and
then
reward
go
trace
and
reward
who
what
people,
what
teams,
what
what
entities
made
the
innovations
that
enabled
that
growth
so
we'll
be
doing
some
pilots
in
fund
one
and-
and
you
know,
probably
increasing
the
the
share
of
that
in
fund
two
and
we
need
to
work
out
those
details.
A
I
think
there's
a
lot
a
lot
of
overlap
or
interplay
with
the
measuring
ipfs
fund,
because
I
think
you
know
things
that
we
can
measure
in
the
network
will
be.
You
know,
good
signals
or
good
good
good
signs
of
what
we
can
reward.
So
more
details
are
coming
on
that
on
that
front.
So
I
hope
this
has
been
illuminating
about
why
we're
doing
this.
Some
broad
strokes
of
what
we're
doing
but,
like
I
said
early
on
this,
is
in
the
early
stages.
A
So
we
really
want
to
you
know,
have
a
conversation
with
with
this
group
and
and
the
ipfs
community
at
large
around
this,
and
with
that
I
think
I'll,
wrap
up
the
presentation
and
turn
it
over
to
you
all.
A
The
thing
I
forgot
you
know
I
should
mention
is
that
we're
planning
to
open
public
applications
at
the
end
of
q3?
Please
come
talk
to
us,
have
conversations
we
want
to
shape
this
together,
and
that
includes
people
in
this
room
and
also
people
around
the
web
and
but
the
date
for
public
applications.
Opening
will
be
end
of
q3
thanks.
C
One
last
thing,
which
is:
we
want
this
fund
to
be
a
good
way
for
allocating
capital
to
produce
good
implementations,
and
that
includes
over
time,
producing
impact,
results
and
impact
reports
of
how
well
the
capital
has
been
allocated
so
that
it
can
become
a
vehicle
for
many
other
groups
to
say,
oh,
like
we
could
either
set
up
our
own
program
or
or
do
this
one
and
and
if
they
can
be
more
effective,
great
go.
C
Do
that
go
set
up
a
different
program
if
it
is
more
effective
for
them
to
just
route
the
capital
through
this
fund,
then
great,
like
that's
kind
of
what
it's
for
so
we'll
tune
in
to
be
able
to
be
over
the
long
term,
have
a
have
enough
resources
to
have
a
you
know:
scope
of
a
multi-year
scope
of
being
able
to
fund
over
time,
but
with
a
goal
of
being
a
good
router
of
capital
for
larger
and
larger
funders
right
so
have
the
right
interface
so
that
you
can
go
to
those
large-scale
funders
like
nsf
and
beyond,
and
round
capital
into
into
these
groups.
E
E
And
besides
this
talk
like
if
we
now
want
to
communicate
this-
or
you
know,
say
I
meet
an
engineer-
who's
coming
into
he's
already
a
like
a
in
a
peer-to-peer
space
and
he
wants
to
start
working
on
this.
Where
do
we
direct
them?
Is
this
somehow
associated
with
our
current
grants
program
or.
C
So
it'll
be
a
separate
thing,
we'll
have
a
separate
website
and
so
on
so
the
goal
so
think
of
this
entity
as
being
a
separate
node
in
the
in
the
network.
It
has
its
own
website
its
own
communication
as
its
own
team
and
so
on.
A
That
doesn't
mean
that
other
funding
for
other
projects
related
to
ipfs
is
stopping.
So
in
the
meantime,
the
developer
grants
program
is
still
flowing.
There
will
be
other
blue
funds,
maybe
focused
on
other
aspects
of
the
stack,
but
for
this
for
people
interested
in
this
program,
it
will
open
at
the
end
of
q3.
C
Yes,
I
think
think
of
this
as
an
additional
structure,
one
other
one
that
was
announced
yesterday
is
the
content
routing
fund.
So
there's
a
small
fund
dedicated
for
solving
the
content,
routing
privacy
problem,
so
not
just
a
performance
thing
or
it's
primarily
about
funding
solutions
that
preserve,
read
and
write
privacy,
that's
a
very
difficult
problem
and
that
primarily
looks
like
academic
work
for
a
few
years.
F
So,
first
off,
I
just
think
this
is
amazing,
like
this
is
a
pretty
bold
step
that
y'all
are
taking,
and
it's
a
very
I
it's
really
neat
to
see
some
of
this.
I
I've
heard
some
of
your
early
talk
earlier
talk
swan
about
this
innovation
chasm
and
trying
to
sort
of
address
this
this,
like
sort
of
grey
spot
that
you
touched
on
in
your
in
this
talk.
How
do
you
see
like
along
that
spectrum?
How
do
you
see
these
funding
projects?
Land?
Is
this
more
blue,
more
green.
C
Yes,
a
great
question
so
yeah,
so
so
the
and
I
should
have
spoken
to
this,
so
the
the
part
of
where
this
comes
in
is
to
try
and
yeah.
This
is
a
very
small
in
there.
You
can
see
a
a
chasm.
I
call
this
the
innovation
chasm,
which
is
that
there
are
good
coordination
structures
at
either
end
of
the
technology
translation
pipeline.
So
in
the
early
part
you
have
the
academic
credit
incentive
system
and
that
works.
C
It
has
all
kinds
of
problems
and
so
on,
but
it
works
fairly
well
and
it
has
produced
a
massive
scale
worldwide
effort
to
develop
science
and
develop
our
knowledge
and,
in
the
other
end
when
once
you
get
to
once
technologies
become
productizable
and
you
can
put
them
into
a
product
and
you
can
sell
them
in
a
market.
Then
there's
massive
scale
incentive
structures
there
that
work
really
well.
So
you
can,
these
days
once
you
have
a
product
that
has
even
an
inkling
of
product
market
fit.
C
You
can
scale
that
into
you
know
billions
of
users
in
a
matter
of
like
a
few
short
years,
and
so
that
that
side
of
the
of
the
customer
is
working
really
well.
C
The
in
between
part
is
a
disaster,
so
getting
things
from
early
conceptual
solutions
and
kind
of
academic
results
into
something
that
can
go
into
a
product
is
kind
of
this
death
valley
where
there
are
no
good
incentive
structures,
there
is
no
no
strong
funding
and
so
on
so
think
of
most
public
goods,
oriented
funding
that
goes
into
r
d,
going
into
the
very
beginning
of
the
chasm
going
into
science
primarily
and
a
bit
into
r
d,
but
not
the
vast
amount
of
like
r
d
budget
that
goes
into
institutions.
C
There
goes
into
kind
of
very
large
scale,
government
contractor
type
systems
that
are
definitely
doing
r
d
through
this
chasm,
but
in
a
very
specific
set
of
domains,
and
when
you
think
about
open
source
and
the
value
that
open
source
has
generated
and
think
of
all
of
the
the
software
out
there
that
produces
our
infrastructure.
C
It
would
require
very
small
amount
of
capital
relative
to
all
these
other
things,
and
yet
the
allocation
problem
is
not
solved,
so
the
the
we
need
better
incentive
structures
and
better
systems
to
allocate
capital
there
and
to
to
be
able
to
both
fund
and
incentivize
and
reward
participants
in
that
model.
C
Now,
there's
a
ton
of
different
potential
solutions
here,
so
in
a
sense,
the
whole
fund
in
the
commons
world
is.
Is
one
group
trying
to
explore
the
space
of
possibility
coming
up
with
lots
of
different
kinds
of
solutions,
things
that
are
that
look
like
just
mapping
credit
assignment
and
doing
retroactive
rewards
or
creating
things
like
impact
certificates
or
different
kinds
of
things
like
quadratic
funding
and
whatnot?
C
Funding
deployment,
a
structure
and
then
making
it
into
a
networked
thing
that
you,
where
you
can
model
out
capital
waterfalls
in
a
sense,
there's
a
staircase
thing
at
the
very
bottom
there
and
like
that,
the
idea
is
like
you
want
to
have
many
different
funds
at
spanning
that
entire
staircase.
This
is
what
works
really
well
in
venture
capital
in
venture
capital.
C
You
have
the
entire
staircase
in
a
very
kind
of
graded
level,
where
you
have
very
small
amounts
of
funding
and
angel
funding
to
like
seed
funds
to
serious
a
funds
and
so
on
all
the
way
to
large-scale
markets
and
in
the
public
goods
space
like
that's,
not
quite
there
like
there's
once
you
get
further
up
into
the
staircase,
there
are
fewer
and
fewer
and
fewer
entities
that
are
able
to
fund
and
the
pots,
get
much
larger
right
so
that
you
enter
the
realm
of
nation
state,
allocating
500
billion
dollars
through,
like
some
massive
package
in
a
government.
C
It's
kind
of
like
what
the
thing
like
the
chip
making
the
chips
act
is
like.
I
think
connor
really
is
like
some
insane.
Maybe
it's
50..
I
don't
know
in
order
to
mine
to
it
off,
but
these
funds,
like
the
advertising
implementation
fund,
is
a
blue
fund.
Now
one
important
thing
here:
it
doesn't
mean
that
blue
fun,
blue
entities
doesn't
mean
that
they
can't
generate
revenue
over
time.
C
C
We
want
to
be
using
like
new
technology
in
terms
of
coordination
and
and
funding
structures,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
like
kind
of
like
limit
it,
but
you
know,
for
the
most
part,
is
think
of
it
primarily
as
a
grant
program
and
for
many
years
like
that's,
that's
likely
what
no
sorry
grant
program
kind
of
undervalues
the
the
innovation
here.
C
What
I'm
saying
is
like
it
is
not
a
requirement
for
us
to
figure
out
this
back
backflow
of
value
propagation
like
we
just
want
to
kind
of
out
with
this
particular
fund.
C
We
want
to
allocate
capital
much
better
and,
and
we
think
this
is
a
good
model
to
do
it
now,
if
that
turns
out
into
good
revenue
flows
that
can
turn
it
into
a
much
more
regenerative
structure
that
can
like
scale
with
its
success
great,
but
but
we
think
that
we
can
make
that
argument
through
impact
like
basically
showing
the
impact
and
then
making
that
argument
to
large
funders
that
have
an
interest
in
in
that
downstream
downstream
effect.
G
So
this
is
like
kind
of
yeah
about
like
the
model
all
together,
but
we
can
talk
around
the
context
of
ipfs
and
the
question
is
basically
like
how
do
these
mechanism
design
things?
How
can
we
optimize
not
just
for
like
impact
or
efficiency
or
like
return
on
capital
or
something
but
also
diversity,
inclusion
and
stuff,
and
make
sure,
like
the
impact,
doesn't
just
exacerbate
inequality
or
something
if
that
makes
sense,
because
the
people
doing
the
impact
are
just
benefiting
themselves
versus
like
everyone
and
so
like
yeah?
G
A
Sure
I
think
that
comes
down
to
the
nuance
and
you
know
conscious
consciousness
of
the
designing
the
impact
metrics
right
so
earlier,
dietrich
talked
about
unlocking
ipfs
for
people
who
are
primarily
offline
or
don't
have
great
internet
internet
connectivity,
and
so
you
know
some
of
that.
Unlocking
the
total
addressable
market
is
directed
towards
unlocking
the
market
of
people
who
have
you
know
less
consistent
or
spotty
or
slow
internet
access.
Sorry,
I
think,
that's
porous,
then
I
think
that
will
ensure
we're
rewarding.
A
G
Train
of
thought
started,
especially
in
the
context
of
like
retroactive
funding,
and
I
know
that's
like
one
of
many
mechanisms
here,
but
that
seemed
just
for
my
own
psychology.
That
seems
to
be
something
that
I
would
only
like
be
interested
in
doing
if
I
was
already
sort
of
like
rich
enough
to
take
the
risk
of
not
getting
the
retroactive
funding.
A
I
think
that's
why
we've
designed,
especially
in
fund
one
for
the
majority
of
activity
to
come
in,
you
know,
find
still
funding
the
activity
and
then
you
know
like
in
a
startup
where
you
may
reap
outsized
rewards
if
you're
super
successful
the
impact
is
kind
of
the
you
know,
the
the
retroactive
rewards
kind
of
act
in
that
fashion,
so
the
the
fund
will
fund
the
the
building
of
stuff
and
then,
if
you
do
a
fantastic
job,
that's
where
the
retroactive
grants
will,
you
know,
will
reward
for
that.
B
Okay,
two
questions.
What
one
is
is
there
an
interest
in
funding
specific,
like
areas
of
innovation
within
the
context
of
the
overall
stack
without
like
having
to
produce
a
complete
new
implementation?
I
heard
something
about
that.
But,
like
you
know,
I
mean
I've
been
in
a
track
for
two
days
where,
like
the
net
result,
was
like
wow,
we
still
have
a
lot
of
ways
to
go
here
like
would
there
be
an
interested
funding
whatever?
That
is,
I
assume
that
was
the
result
of
all
the
tracks.
B
So
that's
question
one
and
then
the
question
two
is
like:
what's
the
structure
that
you're
funding
like
for-profit,
non-profit
public
benefit
individuals,
all
of
the
above
yeah.
D
I
think
for
question.
One
like
critical
innovations
inside
the
ipvs
framework
are
totally
within
the
scope,
and
certainly
should
talk
about
that,
especially
if
it's
going
to
affect
any
one
of
these
kind
of
you
know,
dials
of
impact
that
we're
interested
in
for
a
structure.
C
And
practically
to
like
the
structure
question,
this
is
one
where
the
current
tooling
for
building
public
good
oriented
funding
structures
is
super
high
friction.
It
introduces
an
enormous
amount
of
friction
to
trying
to
do
something,
and
this
is
one
of
the
areas
where
web3
systems
are
able
to
do
things
much
faster,
because
they're,
just
coming
up
with
new
weight
like
way
lower,
friction
structures.
C
We
are
not
super
tied
to
any
one
structure.
I
think
we
would
end
up
with.
We've
explored
a
number
of
different
ones
and
we
had
a
particular
plan
and
we
just
ran
into
like
all
kinds
of
friction
and
slowness
in
implementing
that
plan,
so
we're
like
shifting
so
it'll
it'll
it'll
likely
be
whatever
the
underlying
infrastructure.
Tooling.
We
use
provides
like
the
the
like
easiest
way
to
succeed
with
the
goal
of
the
fund.
That's
what
we'll
use
we
don't
want
to
like.
C
C
But
when
you
look
at
the
the
the
meta
structure
around
that
model,
it
ends
up
hindering
the
organizations
that
are
trying
to
provide
impact
through
that
model
in
in
a
ton
of
ways,
and
you
end
up
in
in
a
highly
restrictive
environment
where
you
are
not
able
to
to
operate
nearly
as
well
as
other
groups
that,
like
do
a
pvc,
for
example,
and
so
pbc
might
actually
be
way
more
successful.
C
That
said,
like
the
the
underlying
kind
of
like
different
nation
state
structure
is
less
less
of
important
to
the
to
the
entity
structure.
Here
we
want
to
pick
whatever
works
and
then
move
if
it
doesn't
work.
So
one
model
that
we
validated
was
a
swiss
variant
for
example,
and
like
that
was.
That
was
like
an
example
that
could
work
but
we're
like,
but.
H
I
have
a
quick,
more
more
of
a
comment
which
is
basically
we're
unblocked
from
pooling
capital
today
and
collaborating
these
are
structures
to
scale
those
things
in
different
ways.
I
didn't
put
anything
on
the
schedule,
but
perhaps
this
is
sort
of
an
extended
thing
tomorrow
or
other
things
like
that.
There's
things
like
open
collective,
which
is
very
much
on
the
fiat
side
of
the
house
as
an
example
that
I
think,
would
work
at
a
small
scale.
H
We've
had
some
experiences
and
are
doing
that
today,
so
we're
gonna
do
some
of
the
things
that
we'd
love
to
create
a
template
for
other
people,
ideally
all
the
way
down
at
the
like
pl
group
level,
not
big
level
group
level
or
like
oh
yeah.
That's
really
awesome
we'd
like
to
throw
five
thousand
dollars
at
something
right,
very
small,
end
of
things
so
and
ideally
that
may
even
be
like.
Oh,
this
is
interesting.
It's
working
for
small-scale
grants,
so
we'll
ask
for
a
grant
from
the
larger
org
to
scale
those
efforts.
H
Kind
of
thing
like
that.
So
let's
remember
these
are
networked
org
models,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
it's
always.
This
fractal
of
things
that
that
fit
into
each
other
in
different
ways,
and
you
go
like.
Oh,
my
god,
that's
scary
version
swiss
for
ryan.
That's
not
me,
sweet
glad!
You
guys
are
figuring
it
out.
Amazing,
thank
you
and,
let's
continue
just
collaborating
together
in
different
ways
of
of
this
pooling
model.
Thank
you.
So
much.