►
From YouTube: Principles Seminar Session 10: Resourcefulness
Description
In the tenth session of this 12 part series, join status' core contributors as we discuss and debate to which degree we uphold our principles, how we can improve our performance, and what we're adding to our Wall of Shame.
C
B
B
B
A
D
On
one
second,
okay,
cool,
yes,
welcome
to
the
temp
system
on
resourcefulness,
I'm,
the
three
the
principal,
so
we
are
relentless
resourceful
and
as
we
grow
in
everyday
access
to
capital,
its
obligation
to
token
holders
to
fight
bureaucracy
and
inefficiencies
within
the
organization.
This
means
solving
problems
in
the
most
effective
way
possible
at
lower
economic
costs
in
terms
of
capital,
time
and
resources.
D
D
E
D
F
Yeah,
probably
I
guess
run
like
oversight,
so
you
know,
as
this
hybrid,
it's
not
really
clear
to
me
how
we
make
decisions,
how
much
money
we
spend
on
people
on
things
on
travel
and
I
know.
That's
partly
because
we
don't
have
traditional
hierarchical
managers,
but
I,
just
open,
there's
enough
visibility
or
a
collective
oversight
into
how
we,
how
it's
fitting
and
that
probably
cuz.
That's
that
we
haven't
mentor
tools
today
that
right.
A
D
G
I
miss
like
it's
strong
opinions
on
the
direction
we
should
take,
for
example,
for
roll
the
ENS
user
names
we
I
kind
of
note
they
did.
What
is
the
price
we
should
set?
That
is
an
important
decision
and
seems
like
there
is
not
much
people
that
can
take
an
opinion
on
what
should
be
the
price
or
that
can
analyze
that
and
give
them
a
good
answer,
because
some
people
just
think.
Oh,
let's
ask
the
maximum
price
or
the
minimum
price,
but
maybe
that
should
be
economic
basic
of
people
decision.
D
H
Yeah
you're
next,
it's
hard
to
be
resourceful.
If
you
don't
really
know
what
you're
building,
for
example,
if,
if
I'm
gonna
host
a
dinner
party
for
four
people
like
I
I,
can
kind
of
understand,
okay,
well,
I'm
gonna
buy
the
right
portions
and
I
need,
like
you
know,
depending
on
who's,
coming
two
bottles
of
wine
or
eight
bottles
of
wine.
But
for
us
it
feels
like
okay.
Well,
it
could
be
for
four
people
it
could
be
for
two
hundred
and
they
could
be
vegetarians.
They
could
be
like
meat
eaters.
H
Oh,
it
has
to
be
Thai
food.
No,
it's
Chinese!
Actually,
it's
not
a
dinner.
It's
a
cocktail
party
or
whatever
right
so
I
think
that
the
resourcefulness
really
pay
a
place
into
that
and
greater
clarity.
We
have
around
exactly
what
we're
delivering.
We
can
be
a
lot
more
disciplined
about
their
resources
used
to
get
there.
I
love.
D
D
B
B
D
Oh
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what's
been
said:
I'll
put
myself
as
a
know
up
right
now
and
maybe
change
they
they're
cool,
so
just
very
briefly
go
through
some
slides
here.
D
Right
and
I
think
this
ties
a
lot
in
terms
of
the
idea
of
permissionless
and
not
relying
on
a
forages
of
traffic
just
going
for
it
yeah
through
a
sort
of
no
magic
bucket
of
cash.
There
was
sort
of
a
bull
market
last
year
raised
a
bunch
of
money
in
a
one-time
event,
and
we
have
this
implicit
promise
to
these
20
of
us
and
something
token
holders
which
is
of
the
white
paper,
and
this
is
sort
of
our
duty
to
them.
This
will
deliver
something.
D
That's
like
a
white
paper:
I
wonder:
do
that:
okay,
whatever
well?
What
sort
of
crocodilian
physicists
do
you
see
how
can
be
more
effective
in
solving
problems
at
lower
costs
and
giving
it
a
sort
of
no
traditional
profit
and
loss
and
bottom
line?
We
have
sort
of
a
lot
of
capital
research
for
us--
acquisition.
How
can
we
sort
of
create
a
sense
of
urgency
and
force
us
to
be
rehearsal
and
I
think
this
is
to
Kara's
point,
as
with
that
hand,
over
to
Michael
so.
A
I
guess
my
primary
impression
from
my
time
at
status
now
for
months
is,
is
pretty
much
summed
up
in
the
statement
that
I
made
that
I
think
that
we're
in
inefficient
as
a
company
and
we're
inefficient
as
a
Dow,
because
we
don't
have
one
and
I,
don't
particularly
see
like
bureaucratic
problems
in
that
I
just
see
a
lack
of
understanding
and
a
lack
of
direction,
because
we
we
don't
have
specifically
a
roadmap
to
get
from
here
to
there.
A
I
I
And
though,
there's
no
there's
no
strong
guiding
beacon
of
this
is
what
I
should
be
doing,
and
these
are
my
success.
Metrics
it's
everyone's
kind
of
left
up
their
own
devices,
and
if
you
have
a
lot
of
ambition
you
can
you
can
spread
yourself
thin
very
quickly,
because
there's
no
guiding
like
guiding
begin
to
push
you
on
the
right
path.
D
D
I
I,
don't
know
like
I,
like
I,
like
the
rest
of
the
principles
and
the
reasons
why
we
chosen
to
have
an
organization
like
this
and
I.
Think
it's
it's
it's
novel
and
and
worthwhile
for
try
and
figure
this
stuff
out.
It's
just
there.
Is
it
a
good
model
to
do
this
because
no
one's
done
it
before
and
so
like
I
can't
point
to
something
because
it
doesn't
exist.
Okay,.
F
Just
to
jump
in
I
agree
with
Cory.
Why
I
feel
like
there's,
there's
really
good
examples
of
remote
organizations
that
work
well
of
leaderless
and
permissionless
organizations
that
work
well,
but
there
isn't
a
good
example
of
an
organization
that
is
both
of
remote
and
decentralized
and
doesn't
have
managers
or
leaders.
You
know,
if
you
look
at
the
big
examples
they
have
one
of
those
aspects,
so
I
don't
feel
like
there's
a
good,
a
good
thing
that
we
can
just
copy
or
seek
direction
from.
We
have
to
build
ourselves
well,.
A
I
D
One
way
of
thinking
about
this
just
a
lens
that
might
be
interesting
to
entertain.
So
let's
say
that
none
of
us
had
any
kind
of
salaries.
It
was
a
completely
voluntary
open
source
product.
Then,
would
it
actually
matter
if
somewhere,
less
productive
and
some
people
li-like
people
worked
on
different
directions
and
so
on
that?
Would
that
actually
be
a
problem
in
the
sort
of
ultimate
commissioners
no
compensation
model?
And
then,
if
there
wouldn't
be
a
problem,
then
the
question
is:
how
do
you?
D
A
Hasn't
status,
pretty
much
said
it
doesn't
matter
right,
you
guys
can
do
whatever
it
is
that
you
want
to
do,
and
this
is
part
of
what
it
is
that
you
do.
Isn't
that,
like
sort
of
like
actively
encouraged,
are
we
making
a
mistake
and
holding
ourselves
to
a
different
standard
because
people
are
being
compensated?
Should
we
maybe
just
leave
that
behind
and
say?
Okay,
we're
just
doing
what
we
would
all
I
mean
pretty
much
everybody
here
is
it
is.
He
also
would
also
be
here
without
money
if
they
had
their
own
money.
A
C
I
offer
a
better
suggestion
regarding
the
I
mean
to
Corey's
point
with
regards
to
you
can
kind
of
stretch
to
like
this,
too
many
opportunities
arise
at
once
and
just
working
on
too
many
of
them.
I
guess
a
rule.
Let's
call
it
like
a
maybe
a
know
of
cult
contributors
can
only
work
on
one
swarm
or
one
team
at
a
time
that
way,
you're
going
guaranty
in
someone's
100%
dedication
to
to
whatever
swarm
they're
working
on,
but
yet
they
still
have
the
freedom
to
to
leave
and
go
into
a
different
project.
A
Yeah
we're
all
its
classic
startup
territory,
we're
all
wearing
multiple
hats.
You
know,
there's
everybody
that
I
know
in
the
organization
is
doing
things
and
are
not
really
like
their
core
competency
or
that
are
part
of
their
skillset
from
from
different
parts
of
their
lives.
Well,
this
is
that
classic
classic
startup
structure.
I
Well,
I,
don't
think,
there's
gonna
be
a
resolving
to
it
start.
It's
I
think
we're
placing
some
of
these
principles
ahead
of
others
in
the
sense
that,
like
yeah,
we
can
say
we're
gonna
be
as
efficient
as
we
can,
but
not
at
the
cost
of
the
other
principles
and
in
order
to
be
truly
decentralized
and
truly
transparent
and
ultimate
private
like
if
we're
and
if
we're
gonna,
uphold
those
other
principles,
then
we
have
to
suffer
at
the
cost
of
efficiency
and
I.
I
Don't
think,
there's
any
way
of
getting
around
that
we
can
create
the
most
efficient
systems
based
on
this
principle
set
that
that
needs
to
be
well
known
and
and
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
suffer
a
lot
of
like
additionally
think
think
about
slack
slack
was
efficient.
It
may
have
not
been
free
and
useful
sorry,
free
and
efficient
in
terms
of
like
how
much
it
cost
all
of
us
to
have
it,
but
it
was
very
easy
to
communicate
and
we
gave
that
up
on
the
on
the
on
the
on
our
principle
set,
but.
I
A
On
this
seminar,
discussion
is
part
of
that
of
us
doing
these
these
balancing,
or
do
you
guys
all
feel
that
we're
being
resourceful
with
our
use
of
time
in
doing
this
this
this
last
two
weeks
because
Oscar
had
mentioned,
you
know
it's
how
many,
how
many
work
hours
it
is
for
the
combination
of
people
that
are
that
are
contributing
to
this?
Are
we
being
resourceful
in
doing
this
exercise?
I?
Think.
I
A
A
H
D
What
so
one
way
of
tracing
is
full
of
shame,
depending
on
your
you,
like
sticks
or
carrots,
but
you
could
also
see
it
as
a
book
of
opportunity,
so
people
prefer
that
that
would
be
another
way
of
thinking
about
it.
As
for
how
to
do
it,
my
ID
I,
don't
know
what
people
serve
that
we
could
have
this
sort
of
longer
system
like
seminars,
as
well
as
our
collective
brains
and
so
on,
gets
upgraded.
D
We
could
do
it,
maybe
totally
or
half
a
year
or
whatever,
but
then
maybe
there's
there's
room
also
for
having
it
more
regular
follow-up.
So,
for
example,
when
it
comes
to
transparency
or
inclusivity,
and
so
on,
it's
often
maybe
it's
not
the
most
first
sort
of
job
or
responsibility
or
so
on.
So
we
miss
opportunities
to
to
improve
on
a
weekly
basis.
So
maybe
that
could
be
something
I,
don't
know
what
structure
that
would
look
like,
but
having
some
some
format
where
we
could
have
these
types
of
discussions.
Okay,.
A
D
All
right
cool,
so
so
just
some
background
see,
can
you
guys
him
see
my
screen?
Yes,
yes,
yeah
awesome.
So
so
this
is
document
right
and
essentially
what
we
did
back
in
Basel
is
that
we
had
people
because
of
come
up
with
one
same
stuff
as
before,
but
then
we
entered
this
live
round
where
people
could
say
like
well.
These
are
actually
the
same
thing
and
here
are
some
more
details.
I,
don't
understand
what
this
one
is
and
so
on,
and
then
we
voted
on
them.
D
So
it's
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
vote
on
this
in
person
with
a
wider
group
of
coca
tributes
and
community
members
in
Prague.
But
in
order
to
that's
revolting
to
be
meaningful,
it's
not.
You
know,
afters
of
just
have
this
brainstorm
kind
of
list,
and
that
were
here
right
now.
So
what
I
was
thinking
is
that
we
have
these
sort
of
sections
that
we've
come
up
with.
D
We
have
openness
and
inclusivity
and
so
on,
and
my
thinking
is
that
we
have
a
set
of
people,
like
maybe
two
three
people
personal
section,
and
then
we
sort
of
take
5-10
minutes
because
I'll
rewrite
these
and
add
some
clarity.
As
an
example
of
this,
you
have
this
sort
of.
You
have
some
sort
of
brief
title.
It's
like
actually
a
problem.
It's
clear
what
success
looks
like
it's
understandable.
It
doesn't
sort
of
conflict
with
other
ones.
Maybe
it
violates
multiple
principles.
It
maybe
some
details
anyway
because
of
the
time
box
set,
and
we
can.
D
We
can
rotate.
So
each
sort
of
person
touches
multiple
sections
and
what
we
can
get
from.
That,
then,
is
that
we
can
have
sort
of
this
detail
thing
and
do
some
kinda
presentation
a
prog
and
I'm
both
for
it
and
just
an
example.
I
pulled
out
the
top
ten
principles
before
from
bustle
and-
and
you
can
sort
of
imagine
visualizing-
is
this-
you
don't
have
to
go
overboard
like
this,
but
but
just
in
terms
of
how
we
can
sort
of
think
about
this
and
make
this
more
accessible
to
people.
D
D
A
D
D
A
I
H
D
So,
first
for
continuous,
we
need
to
move
over
over
there's
of
documents.
The
tender
sort
of
add
some
more
colors
is
an
example
template
here,
just
in
terms
of
adding
a
bit
more
details
on
it
and
making
clear.
So
what
success
might
look
like
and
so
on,
and
it
can
just
be
a
draft
right.
We're
not
going
to
get
this.
This
sort
of
roughly
get
started
on
this,
and
so
people
can
understand
what
what
these
items
mean.
D
I
D
Exactly
so,
essentially,
you
see
right
now.
We
just
have
one
like
some
like
a
brainstorm
thing
that
it's
just
like
a
line
right,
but
we
want
to
have
it
be
more
like
the
sort
of
example
template
where
there's
some
title.
There's
some
elaboration,
it's
clear
that
it's
sort
of
understandable
and
it's
actually
a
problem
and
not
just
like
some
some
thoughts
and
and.