►
From YouTube: Status Principles Seminar #01 Openness
Description
In the first chapter of this 12 part series, join status' core contributors as they discuss and debate to which degree they uphold the project's principles enumerated here: https://our.status.im/our-principles/
A
You
might
first
notice
that
the
principles
we're
gonna
go
through
or
not
in
order
we're
starting
with
openness
and
not
Liberty,
and
the
reason
for
this
is
just
that
we
want
to
build
up
to
Liberty
as
we've
trained
our
muscles
and
they've
also
saw
in
some
efforts
in
terms
of
trying
to
pair
them.
So
this
would
make
more
sense
in
terms
of
treating
them
during
the
same
day.
A
As
for
the
sort
of
format
of
this
I
will
give
a
brief
opening
talk
and
then,
if
someone
else
has
some
sort
of
specific
viewpoint,
they
can
also
give
a
very
quick
talk
after
that
and
then,
after
that,
we'll
have
sort
of
an
open
discussion
facilitated
by
some
modern
writer
and
come
up
which
is
of
a
wall
of
shame
and
just
talk
through
these
things,
and
also
just
this
sort
of
opening
remarks
I'm
giving
it
so,
if
not
gospel.
This
is
just
my
personal
bias
of
things
and
you
might
have
a
different.
A
Hopefully,
if
we
do
things
right
so
to
start
briefly
with
the
prelude
in
the
principles,
so
the
goal
of
status
is
wide,
say,
adoption
of
the
dissenters
web
and
its
challenges
achieving
mass
adoption,
while
student
staying
true
to
our
principles
below
so
for
the
plan
today,
we'll
start
with
openness,
have
a
short
break
and
then
the
inclusivity
and
then
we'll
sort
of
tackle
the
principles
one
by
one
over
the
date
started
off
with
the
last
one.
Last
one
should
be
the
18th
of
October
and
off
to
Liberty.
A
A
So,
let's
start
with
the
first
one
openness,
so
the
software
we
create
is
a
public
good.
It's
made
available
via
free
and
open
source
license.
We
don't
want
to
share,
modify
and
benefit
from,
and
we
believe
in
permissionless
preservation.
So
I'll
try
to
break
this
apart
a
bit
and
starting
with
public
good.
So
one
way
of
classifying
these
things,
this
place
dimensions,
I,
could
exclude
the
ball
and
non-excludable,
and
so
on
and
private
good,
probably
goods,
for
example,
food
and
clothes,
and
so
on
or
above
rival,
excludable.
A
So
what's
cool
about
this
is
at
in.
Among
can
use
it
right
and
one
way,
you're
thinking
about
these
things
is,
if
you're
uploading
a
file
to
some
central
service
somewhere
it
it
acts
as
a
stub
part,
stub
pipe.
So
yes,
I.
If
a
lot
of
people
downloading
a
file
you
could
reach,
you
can
also
kind
of
congestion,
and
it
doesn't
function
is
probably
good.
A
You
can
contrast
it
with
something
like
torrent
files,
which
are
more
anti
fragile
in
that
you,
if
more
and
more
people
want
the
sort
of
file
they
actually,
it
increases
sort
of
the
speed
that
other
people
receive
in
just
this
file.
So
that's
a
pretty
nice
property
that
would
be
nice
if
we
could
have.
A
Free
license,
so
this
is
sort
of
goes
back
as
long
in
tradition,
in
free
software
and
open
source,
air
movement
and
it's
sort
of
this
freedom
to
run,
study,
share
and
modify
code,
and,
if
sort
of
there
it'll
see
order
to
car
company
legal
structure
of
status
disappears.
This
software
survives
and
can
be
repurposed,
and
so
on
so
permissionless
anyone's
able
to
participate
in
the
creation
of
status
and
wanted
to
think
about
this.
A
When
it
comes
to
something
like
if
you're
known,
sis,
you
just
need
to
download
the
code
and
run
it
on
your
computer
and
you
don't
need
to
ask
for
anyone's
permission
you're
just
in
the
network
like
that,
you
just
put
it
up,
you
don't
need
to
talk
to
her
and
want
anything
which
is
kind
of
interesting,
at
least
this
of
this
less
coordination.
Of
course
you
can't
couldn't
it,
but
you
don't
have
to
you
just
need
to
contribute,
and
it
opens
up
these
of
unique
perspectives.
So
someone
has
some
kind
of
a
problem.
A
So
tell
try
a
bit
of
an
experiment
here,
the
idea
being
else
you
should
pair
principles
together
and
this
sort
of
way
you
can
see
how
principles
tied
together,
both
in
a
sort
of
positive
way
and
also
in
a
negative
way
and
where
there
are
tensions
instead
of
how
you
can
overcome
that.
That's
a
reason
about
things
in
a
more
interesting
way,
because
there's
sort
of
these
terms
is
that
you
have
to
overcome
for
debate
and
so
on,
so
to
start
with
those
ones
to
openness
and
security.
A
So
the
fact
that
you
can
freely
modify
a
status
and
and
the
CODIS
or
means
there's
a
risk
of
malicious
persons
running
around
they're,
not
good.
For
our
end
users
on
but
Romita
cases
that
you
can
you
mitigators
for
this,
like,
for
example,
you
can
reduce
certain
forms
of
reputation
like
I
was
serving
it
from
certain
URLs
or
more
desensitized
versions.
You
can
also
have
things
like
sign,
their
binaries
from
trusted
sources
and
so
on,
and
so
the
scope
of
Seoul.
A
A
We
can.
You
can
imagine
that
we
used
to
think
about
using
individual
S&T
as
a
form
of
money,
which
is
probably
good
and
Eustis,
and
its
properties
to
sort
of
keep
the
public
good
in
public
and
good.
This
is
sort
of
build
status,
with
status,
idea
and
I
think
we
can
go
a
lot
deeper
into
this,
but
we
haven't
really
spent
a
lot
of
time
cool
effectively.
Thinking
about
this
I
think
nothing
off
anyway,
openness
and
privacy,
so
certain
legal
agreements
might
require
salary,
information
to
be
private
and
it
is
sort
of
an
open
question.
A
A
A
And
how
can
we
sort
of
make
it
work
more,
a
public
good
way,
as
opposed
to
being
in
rival
way,
right
rather
good,
and
if
it
is
rival
good,
is
there
something
we
can?
What
can
we
do
in
terms
of
you
seeing
S&T
and
so
on
sort
of
make
it
work
a
bit
better,
so
yeah?
That's
it
for
this
sort
of
brief
introduction,
I
guess,
yeah,
all
the
only
general
questions
on
sort
of
the
format
and
so
on.
Before
we
have
and
over
to
the
facilitator.
B
B
When
you
talk
about
changing
code
requiring
privileges,
I'd
like
to
raise
the
question
in
the
group-
and
this
would
go
out
to
I'd
like
to
start
with
with
Corey,
how
did
how
do
you
feel
about
the
fact
that
we
that
we
have
sort
of
Guardians
I
mean
political
systems?
We
elect
representatives
power
companies
have
people
that
have
jobs
that
are
responsible
for
keeping
infrastructure
running.
Can
we
actually
talk
about
having
a
completely
permissionless
codebase
Corey.
C
I
hope
we
can
I
think
it's
a
very
difficult
thing
to
say.
If
we
want
a
secure
app,
then
we
can't
just
say
anyone
can
do
anything
that
they
want.
If
you
want
to
build
a
network,
there
needs
to
be
at
least
one
cohesive
piece
of
software
that
everyone
uses
or
élisa
élisa
protocol
that
everyone
uses
that
you
know
is
works
well
and
safe,
so
that
people
have
to
come
together
on
some
type
of
agreement.
Proof
of
work
was
the
was
the
large.
C
Push
forward
and
creating
open
networks
that
were
that
were
completely
permissionless,
because
you
didn't
have,
because
you
knew
the
person
who
is
contributing
did
so
in
a
fair
way,
because
the
incentives
were
so
heavily
aligned
in
one
way
that
it
would
be,
it
would
be
worthless
for
them
to
try
the
other.
How
do
you
do
that
in
a
code
base
like
at
whether,
what's
the
equivalent
of
that
for
a
code
base
I'm,
not
very
sure,
and
if
we
can't
come
up
with
something
that's
equivalent
of
that?
C
D
C
B
I
guess
that's
the
point
that
I'm
trying
to
make
is:
is
that
I
can't
really
think
of
an
open-source
project?
That
is
an
infrastructure.
You
know
based
project
where
there
aren't
governors
and
people
that
are
a
final
instance
of
approval
for
for
changes
to
code
bases
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
it's,
if
it's
not
maybe
even
a
little
bit
naive
for
us
to
imagine
that
we
could
do
things
any
different.
A
That
could
yes,
sir
sorry.
No.
That
goes
back
to
the
proof
work
thing,
which
is
that,
just
by
virtue
of
having
a
three
year
license,
it
means
that
anyone
can
literally
do
changes.
So
maybe
the
question
is
a
bit
malformed
in
that
sentence
more
provocative
statement
right,
because
you
can
just
focus
and
run
your
own
version
of
status.
That's
Cori
alluded
to
that.
If
you're
talking
the
same
protocol,
then
you
can
talk
to
each
other
and
then
sort
of
the
protocol
that
has
the
most
consensus
and
so
on.
A
C
That
that
idea
is
great,
like
that's
what
that's
a
fantastic
thing
to
push
out
is,
like
you,
don't
have
to
use
the
official
status
client
to
use
status,
we're
just
giving
you
the
the
main
signal
to
then
go
off
and
do
something
different.
If
you,
you
can
still
contribute
or
participate
and
something
that
you
modify
yourself
as
long
as
you're
performing
to
the
to
the
base
layer
protocol.
C
What
that
being
said
we
have
to,
we
have
to
be
damn
sure
that
that
base
that
our
protocol
is
safe
and
secure
and
isn't
potentially
like
if
you're
good.
If
you
are
capable
of
contributing
to
the
to
the
network
with
your
own
client,
you
can't
do
bad
things
if
you
change
the
client
some
way.
So
you
understand
my
friends
over
yeah.
B
Sure
so
I
guess
one
of
the
big
promises
of
of
blockchains,
for
me
was
it's
basically
hashes
in
Providence
and
so
I'm
really
curious.
What
sort
of
what
sort
of
processes
do
we
have
in
place
for
being
able
to
demonstrate
to
people
that
the
client
that
they're
running
is
secure
other
than
you
know
just
verifying
the
binaries?
Are
we?
How
are
we
presenting
that
to
people
actually
I
mean
there's,
not
really
a
really
simple
user
interface
for
you
to
go.
Okay,
I've
downloaded
this
and
I'd
like
to
check
the
hash.
D
This
would
be
1
1
layer
upper
in
the,
for
example,
in
iOS
or
in
android.
They
should
be
able
to
check
it
because
within
the
app,
if
you
are
running
a
fake
ad,
for
example,
you
don't
want
it
from
unsafe
source
by
mistake.
That
could
just
say:
hey,
I'm,
safe,
it's
up
to
the
programming
inside
of
there,
so
it
needs
to
be
check
it
in
a
level
upper.
We
cannot
do
that
directly
in
the
app
now.
Also
by
the
way
there
is
something
in
Intel
is
developing
us
CPU.
B
B
A
Just
want
one
suggestion,
maybe
just
in
terms
of
audience
this
one
it
maybe
will
be
useful,
not
so
dive
too
deep
in
terms
of
any
of
the
specific
services
for
wall
of
shame.
Maybe
we
can
do
some
kind
of
brainstorming
and
get
why
their
input,
because
I
think
this
is
sort
of
an
odd
topping.
It
doesn't
just
touch
code
per
se
or
so
at
least
at
this
level.
What
do
people
think.
B
A
B
C
D
D
Sometimes
we
are
having
problems
with
connectivity
connectivity
and
this
problems
should
not
happen
in
a
peer-to-peer
world
because
it
just
depends
in
the
in
the
parties
in
the
people
we
connected,
not
in
the
server
and
also
we
had
some.
We
have
some
people
that
work
in
some
countries
where
there
is
seems
like
a
tyranny
in
the
government,
and
they
lock
them
out
from
from
some
messengers
and
slack
might
be
also
blocking,
because
it's
from
United
States,
so
I
think
that's
the
problem.
We
it
government
can
say,
sir
us.
F
A
Me
the
biggest
problem:
it's
that
permission,
the
fact
that
we
are
not
really
open
to
contributions.
That's
very
concrete
example:
I
was
asking
for
for
feedback
on
some
of
the
slides
and
so
on
and
yellow
who
is
sort
of
part
of
the
staff
community.
But
it's
not
the
core
contributor.
He
was
in
status
and
he
could
just
see
it
and
he
could
even
edit
it
straight
away,
and
there
was
no
coordination
between
us.
He
just
saw
the
link
clicked
on
it
and
could
do
stuff.
It
was
absolutely
no
asking
for
permissions.
F
F
B
G
B
A
Even
I
think
that's
a
interesting
point
because
to
me
that's
like
a
good
example
of
pairing
openness
and
inclusivity,
because
the
reason
for
being
on
Android
and
not
as
for
that
matter
is
because
it
reaches
and
we're
on
as
many
platforms
as
possible
right.
That's
that's
a
the
reason
for
that
is
because,
when
I
read
real
humans
and
that
might
lead
to
not
being
100%
sort
of
anal
about,
we
only
support
these
types
of
things
when
there's
a
choice,
so
he
does
a
good
example
of
pairing.
These
two.
F
C
B
And
seems
to
be
a
pretty
good
solution
that,
because
we
have
threads
there,
you
can
you
can
message
each
other
inside
of
discussing
and
everything
is
visible
and
open
and
available
to
anybody
that
wants
to
either
read
or
to
log
into
it.
Can
we
theoretically
to
see
the
private
messaging
function
of
discuss,
Google,
email.
B
So,
if
I
get
just,
if
I,
just
sort
of
compress
this
part
of
the
discussion
that
we're
having,
because
we
understand
our
together
on
this
whole
team,
can
we
say
that
it's
that
we
need
to
state
clearly
why
it
is
that
we're
using
certain
services
and
I
mean
it
is
part
of
the
wall
which
the
wall
of
shame
I,
that
we're
using
these
services.
But
we
should
just
basically
clearly
state
why
it
is
that
we're
doing
what
we're
doing
with
which
services
I
think.
C
B
So,
let's
get,
let's
put
that
as
an
actionable,
carry
if
you
can
add
that
to
the
notes
that
that
we
described
deserve
decentralized
services
and
proprietary
services
that
we're
using
and
the
reasons
why
it
is
that
we
do
that
and
we
feel
that
they're
necessary
and
justifiable,
although
we're
ashamed
about
it
so
to
speak.
Please.
B
D
F
B
So
these
are
two
issues:
I
think
that
I
think
that
we're
already
seeing
that
we're
in
motion
to
do
that.
I
think
that,
probably
by
the
time
of
the
hackathon,
slack
will
probably
not
exist
and
will
be
will
be
using
status
as
our
chat
client,
but
that's
separate
from
the
issues
of
email
and
documents
and
and
finance
and
and
the
rest
of
the
things
are
used
for
the
Google
services.
I
think
those
are
two
separate
things.
B
Point
is
because
the
reason
it
is
that
I
think
this
is
important
if
we
go
back
up
to
the
ideas
of
openness
and
openness
and
continuance
I
mean
there's
a
certain
amount
of
continuance,
principally
in
using
Google
services,
because
we're
Petru
perpetuating
our
ability
to
communicate
with
people
outside
of
our
network
I.
Think
that's
one
to
justify
it,
and
also
you
know,
despite
Google+,
now
that
they're
big
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
state
of
being
exposed,
there's
there's
a
certain
amount
of
security
that
we
have
in
using
OAuth
with
Google.
A
Yeah
absolutely
and
said:
maybe
some
people
haven't
said
anything
so
far
like
what
do
you
guys
watch,
maybe
in
terms
of
Wall
of
shame
or
or
things
that
you
feel
like?
We
are
what
our
trade
offs,
like
other
principles,
have
to
be
taken
account
or
something
else
missing
completely
or
how
do
you
think
about
these
things?.
B
A
Guess
just
what
your
thoughts
are
on
this
this
principle,
and
maybe
if
there
are
things
you
like
things
for
a
wall
of
shame
waste
we
are
in
short
or
maybe
some
specific
things
too.
You
can
be
count
with
respect
to
some
other
principle
or
maybe
around
so
the
public,
good
congestion
thing
or
anything.
Anything
like
that.
A
H
H
So
so
what
I
heard
about
the
openness
and
also
I
like
trying
the
conversation
about
the
how
to
include
more
people
they
have
to
distribute
stuff
and
so
on
later
our
boat
will
be
slag,
like
so
general
thoughts.
In
my
opinion,
I
agree
with
what
Iker
said
about
the
fact
that
we
need
to
use
our
product
to
actually
deliver
it
and
be
sure
that
what's
priority-
and
it's
also
much
better
in
terms
of
openness
inclusivity
for
people.
H
So
that's
the
good
thing,
but
our
point
was
about
distributing
software
and
I
think
this
is
swarm
around
it.
So
I
guess
we
all
know
what
we
want
to
achieve.
Just
taking
about
the
details.
Householder,
but
I
also
agree
that
there
is
no
easy
way
for
people
to
verify
you
what
they
don't
know
that
or
they
use
is
actually
what
they
verified
and
what
actually
should
be
built.
So
there
is
no
easy
way
from
the
UI,
her
feisty
to
figure.
H
Yeah,
they
also
think
that
was
said
was
that
we
want
to
move
to
kind
of
the
centralized
communication,
because
we
are
afraid
that
we
can
be
censored
or
log
on
some
countries.
I
think
it's
it's
valid
point,
but
at
the
same
time,
from
our
perspective,
so
like
from
our
experience
so
far
is
that
the
systems
are
actually
much
harder
to
debug
and
and
figure
out
what's
wrong
in
terms
of
naked
that
those
systems
I
mean
the
peer-to-peer
systems,
then
centralized
systems,
so
I
had
attorney.
H
I
agree
with
that,
but
I
just
also
wanted
to
say
that
it's
gonna
be
I.
Think
in
thinking,
maybe
is
gonna,
be
much
more
difficult
and
much
more
kind
of
harder
to
figure
out
what's
wrong
in
the
system
works
properly.
So
on
the
paper
it
looks
nice,
but
from
the
technical
perspective
is
gonna
be
difficult,
but
at
the
same
time
I
think
it's
the
only
way
here
so
with.
B
H
Ideally,
it
would
be
like
as
open
as
possible,
but
at
the
same
time
I
guess
it's
a
bit
hard
like
generally
from
regarding
the
organization,
openness
of
the
organization
I
think
like
we
should
get
a
lies
more,
this
voting
stuff,
as
well
as
trying
to
encourage
people
to
actually
participate
so
because,
even
if
we
have
some
some
actions,
some
some
initiatives
I
feel
like,
for
example,
discuss
for
some
koalas
and
other
staffers.
Just
like
I
know.
Maybe
five
obviously
I
know
eight
different
people
who
talk
about
it,
but
the
rest
is
not
always
contributing.
A
H
What
the
like,
if
you
do
not
try
to
kind
of
people
or
some
contract
people
in
like,
even
if
you
open,
then
nothing
is
gonna
change,
so
I
think
super
related,
but
yeah
definitely
like
this
is
for
inclusivity.
I
believe,
like
openness
is
Laker
period
because
it
so
interferes
the
first
be
open
and
then
try
to
include
people,
but
my-
and
they
are
always
digging
always
super
connected.
So.
B
I
This
is
yes,
in
speaking,
I
see
actually
two
obstacles
to
opening
up
to
the
finances.
One
is
the
protection
of
the
people's
privacy,
so
people
might
not
want
that
their
salary
becomes
public,
be
it
for
I,
don't
know,
tags,
optimization
purposes
or
whatever
so
I
think
if
people
agree
that
their
salaries
or
public
and
do
that
in
a
way
proven
that
they
approve
that
and
that's
not
an
obstacle
anymore.
I
The
second
thing
I
see
as
an
obstacle
is-
and
it's
probably
bit
more
complicated
to
come
over,
but
at
the
same
time,
depending
from
each
triangle
you
take,
it
is
HR
from
an
HR
strategic
function,
which
typically
is
you
know,
centralized
can
consideration.
Maybe
you
you
have
issues
like
people
start
comparing
their
salaries
and
things
like
that
and
become
you
know
unhappy
about
their
situation
or
or
things
like
that
and
I
think
that
can
also
be
overcome,
but
it
might
be
more
bit
more
etiquette.
I
G
I'd
love
to
see
them,
I
mean
you
know
we
don't
have
to
like
release
everything
tomorrow,
but
having
a
path
to
openness
dislike.
We
have
a
path
to
decentralization,
there's,
a
path
to
inclusivity,
we're
going
in
the
right
direction.
This
in
terms
of
the
finances
as
an
example
like
my
last
company,
was
a
public
company
and
before
that
was
like
a
five
hundred
percent
private
company,
even
at
those
companies
that
had
like
default
privacy
and
secrecy
internally,
the
the
knowledge
was
out
there.
G
They
had
like
dashboard,
so
everyone
could
like
see
like
what
was
the
monthly
revenue.
What
was
the
burn
rate?
What
was
the
run
rate
like
the
headcount,
like
just
kind
of
basic
things
that
don't
give
up
any
into
the
individuals
like
private
information,
but
I
just
love
to
know
that,
like
what
is
this?
What.
B
Is
this
question
is,
can
we
can
we
anonymize
from
this
video?
We
can
have
a
yes,
and
could
we
have
a
list
of
employee
numbers
or
identifiers
that
weren't
correlate
able
with
with
everybody
where
we
just
say,
here's
our
headcount,
and
this
is
actually
what
what
each
individual
contributor
is
getting
paid,
but
not
necessarily
any
way
that
we
can
correlate
that
back.
B
G
I
A
E
I
actually
worked,
the
previous
company
I
worked
at
was
having
this
initiative
to.
There
was
like
a
growing
movement
inside
the
organization
to
make
everybody
saw,
you're
transparent,
and
it
actually
became
a
pretty
contentious
issue
because
yeah
like
like
brought
few
minutes
ago
for
some
people,
salary
is
a
Caprivi,
a
private
matter
right.
They
don't
want
Dennis
Lee
to
be
the
world's
business
and
they
were
debating
this
for
a
while.
B
See
is
I,
mean
I.
Think
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
that
that's
an
issue
that
needs
to
be
respected,
but
I'd
like
to
find
some
sort
of
solution
where
we
could,
like
we
mentioned,
have
line
items
and
not
necessarily
have
that
information
correlate
able
to
individuals
specifically
if
we
could
find
some
sort
of
solution
to
do
that,
we
would
be
moving.
H
H
I
B
B
B
That's
a
way
to
more
radical
shift.
I
mean
I,
appreciate,
I,
appreciate
the
sentiment,
but
I
think
the
reality
is
that,
while
we're
all
striving
towards
becoming
a
doubt
that
we're
going
to
be
saddled
with
having
legacy
companies
for
quite
some
time
into
the
future,
and
so
so
I
think
that
the
dialogue
needs
to
shift
towards
how
it
is
that
we
optimize
our
centralized
legacy
company
and
how
it
is
that
we
build
build
out
into
the
future.
B
I
Think
this
could
be
solved
by
having
setting
up
boundaries
and
then
depending
in
which
jurisdiction,
people
working
towards
that
out,
take
residences
for
themselves
in
their
jurisdiction
could
be
approached.
They
could
still
pull
up
and
then
together
set
up
a
company
to
face
off
versus
the
DAO.
But
the
tao
goes
largely
without
legal
entity.
Footprint
attack.
F
So
many
things
like
the
salary
because,
first
of
all,
like
taxes,
tax
level,
are
very
different
in
different
countries.
That's
one
thing:
that's
in
we
are
distributed
in
likewise,
the
different
tax
base
things.
Second,
the
cost
of
life,
the
cost
of
living
bike,
rental
prices
and
all
that
stuff
is
vastly
different
between
the
countries
with
even
and
yeah.
There
are
so
many
question.
D
The
the
transparency
it
can
be
I
mean
if
we
make
smart
contracts
to
pay
the
employees,
for
example,
let's
say
someone's
going
to
be
hired.
You
make
a
smart
contract
that
is
basic
baby,
maybe
and
I
stable
coin
or
eater,
don't
know,
but
I
think
it
should
be
died
and
and
then
every
month
that
that
person
can
withdraw
with
it.
But,
of
course
the
person
can.
D
A
Yeah
a
great
discussion
but
I
think
we
should
maybe
we
came
out
a
bit
and
I
would
laugh.
We
have
like
maybe
5-10
minutes
whenever
break
for
the
next
one.
So
if
you
could
come
up
with
like
maybe
like
a
wall
of
shame
and
things
that
we're
falling
out
short
right
now,
it
may
be
a
sort
of
a
trigger
for
that
like
in
what
way
do
people
feel
like
they
have
to
ask
for
permissions
right
now?
We'd
have
seen
other
people
ask
for
permissions.
A
B
G
F
So
it's
a
bit
contradictory,
so
openness
essentially
versus
what
what's
the
balance
between
openness
and
certainly
well-being
of
our
liked
users-
and
maybe
that's
it's
probably
obvious,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
just
keep
that
in
mind
that
if
something
that's,
if
we
open
something,
but
it
will
hurt
our
users
because,
okay,
there
is
a
really
serious
vulnerability
that
we
don't
want
to
spread
before
we
fix
it,
and
things
like
that
that
it
probably
should
shouldn't
be
this
kind
of
information.
I.
D
Think
is
now
a
fear
in
s,
audit
and
I.
Think
yes,
this
kind
of
openness
is
like.
We
are
not
being
like
that.
We
want
a
secret
there.
It's
just
that
is
needed,
like
we
are
honest
about
it,
it's
just
we're
going
to
delay
the
information
need
to
be
honest,
like,
for
example,
some
some
information
that
might
impact
this,
the
the
value
of
s
NT.
We
cannot
like
share
with
just
some
people
if
that
information
must
be
secret
for
some
time
to
releasing,
because
that
will
impact
the
price
of
s
energy,
for
example.
D
J
Wanted
to
make
just
another
point
about
openness,
more
related
to
unmask,
adoption
of
the
market
and
I
speak
as
a
non-technical
person.
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
have
to
be
really
careful
of
is
is
kind
of
using
language
and
knowledge
that
we
is
a
small
group
of
individuals
that
are
really
passionate
and
focused
on
this
house
versus
the
rest
of
the
world.
J
So,
in
terms
of
like
a
lot
of
the
discussions
that
we
have,
you
know
having
here
and
a
lot
of
the
tools
that
we're
talking
about
using
comes
back
and
B
and
other
more
decentralized
tools,
they're,
actually
having
harder
for
the
general
public
to
understand
and
harder
for
the
general
public,
see
the
dots
like
if
I
were
to
you
know
and
what
I
do
kind
of
sorts.
My
friends
about
this
stuff
I
feel
like
in
terms
of
being
open.