►
From YouTube: Status Principles Seminar #05 Decentralization (people)
Description
In the fifth 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
A
So
you
have
this
consensus
problem
and
so
on,
but
they
don't
actually
force
consensus
about
how
yet
how
you
spend
your
money,
money
and
I
think
it's
this
sort
of
an
important
point
in
terms
of
understanding
when
we
actually
need
consensus
and
and
also
thinking
about
like
how
we
can
ensure
that
it
happens
at
the
most
local
level,
because
not
all
decisions
are
global
and
that
sort
of
a
tyranny.
In
the
extreme
case.
A
But
this
also
ties
close
in
to
what
might
one
might
call
it
the
money
problem,
which
is
that
this
or
most
extreme,
if
you
so
just
do
exactly
what
you
want?
That's
that's
great,
except
that
sort
of
a
scoop
in
terms
of
status
and
so
on.
What
is
sort
of
your
to
people
like
what
sort
of
the
payment?
What
are
you
paying
for,
and
this
is
a
tender
module
that
we
have
now,
where
it's
kind
of
a
mix
between
some
sort
of
centralized?
A
You
have
a
boss
kind
of
thing,
but
then
there's
also
a
free-for-all,
but
this
kind
of
tenure
model
is
sort
of
kind
of
untenable.
When
it
comes
to
use
of
the
structural
ideas
we
want
to
have
because
the
money
has
to
come
from
somewhere
and
not
all
also
work,
it's
done.
It's
sort
of
of
equal
value
to
the
network,
so
what's
kind
of
like
a
decent
resolution
to
this,
so
having
the
best
of
both
worlds.
A
Looking
for
existing
solutions
like
if
you
look
at
markets,
it's
kind
of
the
ultimate
peer-to-peer
system
where,
where
you
have
different
agents,
it
can
be
individuals
or
firms
and
so
on,
and
you
use
of
paid
for
different
services
in
a
voluntary
basis
and
there's
a
there's,
no
central
source
of
fund.
Here,
it's
just
sort
of
individuals
or
agents
having
these
contracts
with
each
other.
A
When
it
comes
to
status,
it's
slightly
different
because
the
profit
loss
situation
doesn't
look
quite
the
same,
and
this
is
kind
of
often
seen
as
a
problem
of
funding
of
public
goods
and
it's
a
hard
problem.
It's
not
impossible
and
they're
also
sort
of
models
like
Kickstarter
and
so
on
and
more
complex
models
that
we
can
use
to
look
at
for
this
and
and
one
way
of
looking
at
sort
of
the
status
multi-sig
wallet
which
was
sort
of
their
initial
money.
A
That
sort
of
lots
of
twenty
thousand
people
he
gave
statuses
will
fulfill
the
problems
in
the
white
paper
that
it
can
access.
So
it
kind
of
amplifier
or
sort
of
seed
funds
for
this
type
of
marketplace.
If
you
will,
but
who
already
said
sort
of
agents
in
this
marketplace-
and
that's
not
that's
very
clear
either-
and
this
is
sort
of
a
question
of
scale-
and
we
are
very
different
than
I-
make
some
different
scale
levels.
A
So
you
can
either
look
at
in
the
for
small
groups
like
swarms
and
teams,
or
maybe
sort
of
medium
sized
groups
which
is
status
right
now,
at
around
hundred
people
and
also
beyond
and
in
terms
of
thinking
about
these
systems.
They
they
all
behave
quite
a
bit
different
people.
Have
you
babe
differently
if
it's
strangers
or
the
trust
model
is
different.
A
If
you
talk
to
people
every
day,
but
if
you've
never
met
someone
before
this
or
over
it
costs
in
terms
of
formalizing,
this
like
pieces
of
work
and
so
on
and
just
sort
of
more
on
this
of
scale
thing
as
it
relates
to
decentralization
so
there's
some
examples
from
Nicholas,
nothing
across
Tablas
Talib
and
where
this
of
different
sizes
of
things
behave
very
differently.
So
city
states
they
want
sort
of
trade
and
commerce
and
they
don't
have
the
resources
to
go
to
the
wall.
A
But
if
you
have
an
empire,
you
have
an
army
and
you
probably
want
to
use
it
and
if
you
have
sort
of
in
May
your
local
mayor,
they
sort
of
care
about
sort
of
the
fountain
in
a
village
and
how
it
looks
and
these
kind
of
pedestrian
matters,
but
they
don't
care
about
sort
of
meddling
in
the
world
economy
and
so
stabilize
it
with
bailiffs
and
so
on,
and
there's
also
some
interesting
reading
if
it
was
instead
by
mixable
on
social,
scalability
and
sort
of
that.
This
is
something
that
blocks
is
provide
for.
A
So
you
might
go
sort
of
the
examples
with
the
city-state
and
all
these
things
like
they
what's
inside,
to
do
with
status
scale.
We
have
a
hundred
crew
contributors
and
company
structure
seems
completely
fine,
and
maybe
this
in
some
sense
in
that
it's
or
if
there's
also
take
organizations
that
work
fine
like
that.
But
it's
not
really
what
we
want
long
term
and
it's
not
the
sustainable
structure,
and
this
might
seem
for
it
to
go
and
so
on.
A
But
it's
actually
more
important
than
ten
seems
because
right
now,
there's
this
kind
of
tension
and
friction
and
it
sort
of
it's.
It's
not
a
good
idea
to
have
that.
You
want
to
have
some
kind
of
self
consistently,
because
this
is
in
order
to
survive
examples
of
this,
where,
like
practically
examples,
this
years
like
they
did
just
the
fact
that
we
removed
people
leads
and-
and
then
we
had
this
sort
of
compensation
and
a
flee
year
and
we're
sort
of
trying
to
solve
this
money
problem
and
yeah.
A
It's
a
sort
of
two
different
models
that
are
sort
of
colliding
a
bit
and
we
want
to
resolve
that
as
soon
as
possible,
but
also
it's
also
sort
of
beyond
that.
The
blondest
of
honda,
coca
Davis.
We
we
want
to
grow
and
if
you
remember
the
last
presentations,
so
if
the
value
that
we
create
is
in
a
network
and
where
did
that
sort
of
transacting
users
or
contributors,
and
so
on,
at
least
on
the
software
side,
but
also
much
much
general,
more
general
than
sort
of
just
software,
we
want
to
sort
of
be
a.
A
This
is
a
open
system
where
people
can
contribute,
but
just
looking
at
the
softer
side
like
what
would
it
take
for
us
to
get
two
hundred
or
thousand
mph
elective
contributors
and
even
beyond
that,
some,
like
some
of
the
bigger
I
hope
is
probably
have
and
I
think
this
requires
sort
of
a
shift
in
thinking
towards
being
more
like
stewards
and
maintain,
errs
and
sort
of
actively
trying
to
get
people
to
contribute
and
sort
of
posting
clear
problem
statements.
And
when
centralizing
in
this
one
and
if
you've
listened
to
the
last
few
sessions.
A
There's
definitely
no
shortage
of
work.
There's
a
lot
of
things
we
can
do,
and
you
also
have
an
amazing
opportunity
with
SMT
in
terms
of
incentivizing
people,
to
contribute
to
the
creation
of
status
that
we
kind
of
wasting
right
now,
I
would
say
in
terms
of
Dow
and
so
under
some
just
script.
Economic
variables
way
we
can
think
about
it.
So
one
is
sort
of
privileges,
and
this
can
be
like
commit
access
or
decision-making
rights,
various
kinds
and
rewards
which
can
be
just
S&T,
and
you
might
also
have
so
the
flip
side
of
this.
A
A
There's
a
way
for
ways
for
words,
I
think,
there's
lots
of
ways,
but
here's
just
free--free
things
that
I
think
are
something
they're
making
now
potentially,
so
one
is
sort
of
these
sort
of
small
bottom
of
experiments
that
anyone
can
create.
Have
you
seen
around
skin
the
game
and
so
on?
And
this
quick
question
what
sort
of
I'm
curious
to
sort
of
hear
people's
thoughts
on
sort
of?
What's
stopping
people
from
participating
made,
these
further
understand
its
status
or
what?
What
people's
faults
are?
A
Another
is
sort
of
in
terms
of
creating
this
with
decentralized
autonomous
organization.
I'll
have
a
slide
later,
which
sort
of
outlines
what,
whether
one
way
of
thinking,
what
what
that
is,
and
but
you
can
imagine
so
if
there's
the
corporation,
the
legal
entity
is
kind
of
like
an
agent
in
this
and
it
sort
of
it.
A
It
provides
services
to
the
DAO,
and
this
could
be
for
certain
promises
to
perform
certain
pieces
of
work
and
so
on.
So
there
may
be.
The
LLC
would
be
this
more
traditional
model
where
you
have
performance
management
done
in
such
a
way,
and
these
types
of
things
and
the
noses
of
going
further,
with
voting
voting
that
and
so
on,
and
using
it
to
sort
of
soft
signal
for
decisions
which
is
like
also
a
way
of
distributing
this
decision-making
rights
when
we
need
coordination
at
the
certain
scale.
A
How
do
we
have
a
structure
where
that's
something
that
that
is
actually
possible
in
terms
of
sort
of
Dow,
the
sort
of
lots
of
words
thrown
around
and
so
on?
And
it's
it's
easy
to
get
confused.
I
think
that
it's
maybe
the
words
not
so
important
and
I've
seen.
Michael
I
saw
you
using
the
word
now
Network
that
harness
organization,
and
maybe
that's
useful
in
terms
of
getting
people
getting
over.
A
The
fear
of
this
of
episode
shift
to
something
crazy
that
doesn't
exist,
but
but
here's
one
way
of
looking
at
it,
which
is
from
no
blog
in
a
TV
room
site
where
it
sort
of
looks
at
if
you
have
internal
capital.
So
you
have
some
sort
of
money
in
a
contract
of
bank
account
and
then
where
the
humans
are
at
the
center
or
a
few
months
or
at
the
edges
and
I
deal
with
those.
A
Is
that
there's
some
kind
of
automation
at
the
center,
which
would
be
a
small
contract,
but
it
could
also
be
some
sort
of
half
automation,
which
is
maybe
something
like
a
distributed
organization
and
drawdowns
right
now.
So
one
example
is
that
maybe
a
Bitcoin
can
be
seen
as
endow
in
sort
of
how
the
miners
and
so
on,
operate
because
they
sort
of
no
manual
intervention,
but
but
sometimes
there
is
kind
of
an
edge
case
and
here's
sort
of
another
slide
in
terms
of
decentralization
and
another
way
of
looking
at
it.
A
Where
you
can
look
at
political
scene,
sensations,
decentralization,
that's
when
it
comes
to
people
and
then
you
can
look
at
if
it's
all
just
actually
centralized
or
not,
and
so
on.
So
just
one
way
of
looking
at
it
and
it's
just
sort
of
four
people
are
interested.
You
can
click.
This
link
I'll
provide
the
slides
in
the
chat.
A
A
B
You
I
don't
mind,
kick
things
I
feel
I
can
my
perspective.
So
the
people
are
clean.
Talk
about
this
topic,
a
lot
so
I'm
actually
I'd
love
to
hear
from
other
people
as
well,
but
I
guess
if
I
think
we're
on
a
base
level
that
we're
with
the
kind
of
a
hybrid
of
some
of
the
things
we
do
people.
Why
is
it
a
decentralized
like
I?
You
choose
your
work
and
what
you
want
to
work
on.
B
There
are
no
managers,
but
other
things
are
very
centralized,
so
things
like
how
do
we
decide
what
work
needs
to
get
done,
whether
that
is
a
bouncy
or
whether
that's
like
hiring
a
full-time
person?
How
do
we
decide
who
we
should
hire
like?
Who
can
make
those
decisions?
How
do
we
serve
to
pay
people?
All
of
those
things
are
still
centralized
because
I
don't
think
we've
come
up
with
a
good
way
of
decentralized
and
without
breaking
things
in
a
serious
way.
It's
like
the
example.
B
You
gave
around
compensation
performance
management,
a
great
examples
if,
if
you
think
about
one
person
here
who
feels
they
should
have
appe
rights,
doing
that
in
a
traditional
ways,
you
know
you
come
to
people
up,
so
you
go
to
your
line.
Managing
you
ask
for
a
pay
rise,
and
then
we
know
we
didn't
do
the
traditional
company
stuff
to
do
that
in
a
decentralized
way.
B
Is
a
lot
more
complex
and
there's
a
lot
more
things
to
think
about
in
terms
of
privacy,
just
think
about
like
who
owns
budgets
and
wallets
and
cash
and
actually
grinds
decision-making
and
I
mean
honestly,
like
a
lot
of
what
people
OPS's
spent
in
the
last
couple
of
months
is
probably
just
focusing
on
how
we
can
work
on
D
centralizing.
Some
of
these
things
and
a
little
support
point
our
like
quite
a
few
people
have
raised.
Actually
is
it
okay
for
some
of
these
things
to
be
centralized?
B
If,
if
that
makes
Fe,
you
know
if
that
makes
things
easier
to
achieve
our
ultimate
aim
of
decentralizing
things?
Maybe
we'd
have
to
be
okay
with
having
some
of
these
processes
centralized,
at
least
for
now,
but
yeah
curious.
If
anyone
in
in
you
know,
people
officer
outside
of
people,
ops
has,
as
an
opinion.
B
And
maybe
maybe
that's
actually,
the
first.
The
first
questions
has
come
up
like
how
how
strongly
do
fit
people
feel
about
people
operations
and
some
of
the
people,
aspects
of
Staters,
being
decentralized
versus
allowing
parts
to
be
centralized
to
you
know,
make
things
easier
or
make
things
simpler
and
help
people
focus
on
getting
their
work
done.
I
guess.
C
One
way
to
think
about
it
would
be
what's
actually
gonna
make
us
more
competitive,
long
term,
and
then
you
can
contrast
like
traditional
company
is
Twitter
decentralized
organizations
and
whether
or
not
these
trade
offs
we're
making
now
might
be
like
good
for
productivity
short
term,
but
maybe
not
for
scalability
of
the
organization
long
term.
So,
for
example,
if
you
look
at
a
traditional
company
now,
one
way
you
often
operate
is
you
try
to
find
good
people,
and
then
you
form
some
kind
of
hierarchy
which
you
hope
to
be
based
on
merit
or
competence.
C
And
then
you
give
small
amounts
of
equity
proportionate
to
the
power
that
these
individuals
have,
and
this
informed
this
like
creates
an
incentive
for
individuals
to
want
to
see
the
companies
succeed.
And
then
you
use
legal
documents
and
paperwork
to
make
all
this
happen.
But
the
whole
thing
is
quite
cumbersome,
and
so
the
the
question
outpos
would
be
given
using
aetherium.
The
cost
to
distribute
a
type
of
ownership
is
radically
lower.
C
Could
it
be
that
these
types
of
truly
decentralized
organizations
that
find
ways
to
distribute
tokens
to
people
who
are
increasing
the
value
of
net
like
the
value
of
the
network?
They
might
be
much
much
more
competitive,
long
term,
and
so
we
should
be
like
mindful
of
creating
processes
that
have
points
of
centralization
because
they
might
hinder
our
scalability,
and
so
another
question
would
be
like
well.
The
next
Facebook
have
the
same
chain
of
command
and
information
flows.
D
I
think
I
can
add
to
that
I
working
on
the
voting
gap,
I've
been
thinking
about
or
two
things
have
rarely
come
to
mind.
The
first
one
is
just
the
nuance
involved
in
it
that
some
kind
of
governance
framework.
If
it's
set
in
stone,
you
never
know
if
it
can
be
gained
or
if
it
can
lead
to
unintended
bad
outcomes
and,
of
course,
the
bigger
the
thing
becomes.
D
You
run
into
more
kind
of
unknown
unknowns
things
that
you
could
never
expect
so
I
think
the
current
approach
of
of
taking
it
slowly
and
trying
to
take
the
the
lowest
hanging
fruit,
like
something
simple
as
a
signaling
vote,
is
the
right
approach
and
then
the
second
thing
I
think
about
a
lot
is
yeah.
What
is
the?
What
is
the
user
experience
benefit
of
of
a
decentralized
decision
making
like
what
competitive
advantage?
Does
it
have
over
your
classic
hierarchy
and
I've
come
to
kind
of
to
you?
I?
D
Don't
want
to
call
them
conclusions,
because
it's
still
up
in
the
air,
but
I've
got
fields
is
the
first.
One
is
the
legitimacy
of
decisions
in
the
sense
that
people
assume
that
the
decision,
that
is
it's
all
the
information
is
transparent.
The
voting
process
is
transparent
as
well
as
the
results
is
clear
to
everyone.
It's
it's
seen
as
to
be
legitimate
and
if
it
seems
being
legitimate,
people
should,
in
theory
like
go
along
with
it.
So
I
think
that's
one
competitive
benefit
and
then
the
second
one
is
being
able
to
this
sorry.
A
Yeah
to
me,
I
would
I
would
make
a
strong
contrast
between
something.
That's
decentralization
making
ends
I'm
gonna.
Devoting
that
because
voting
that,
essentially
you
come
into
a
collective
decision.
It's
not
if
it's
decentralized
is
something
that
individuals
can
do
straightaway.
I
would
say
well
at
least
make
a
distinction
Metiria,
because
I
think
they're
very
different.
A
A
D
Mean
right
now,
though,
the
voting
gap
is
signaling,
but
I,
don't
think
I
mean.
Actually
there
is
a
pretty
strong
argument
against
it,
but
I
don't
think
it's
impossible.
Then
the
future
voting
is
going
to
be
more
than
just
singing.
That
can
lead
to
a
transfer
of
resources,
but
I
think
the
question
that
you're
asking
is
the
difference
between
groups
of
people
coming
to
a
decision
and
then
there's
opposed
to
decentralization
and
the
using
of
a
network
in
a
permissions
manner,
and
it
is
my
thinking,
correct.
D
D
It's
just
thinking
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
other
methods
I
mean
JB,
mentioned
kind
of
compensation.
It's
something
that
fits
really
nicely
into
that
I've
spoken
about,
maybe
too
much,
but
there's
a
few
Sharky
idea
so,
basically
predicting
when
a
project
is
going
to
hit
it
specific
deadlines
and
if
say,
the
market
thinks
that
it's
really
on
likely
that
this
deadlines
going
to
be
hit.
Then,
if
that
deadline
is
it,
then
it
affects
the
compensation
that
people
get
who
worked
on
the
project?
D
E
E
B
Yes,
so
that's
an
interesting
idea
so
this
you
know
many
companies
out
there,
the
organizations
out
there
when
they
look
at
things
like
compensation
and
how
much
they
should
pay
people
instead
of
having
that
centralized
within
a
HR
or
people
operations
team.
They
actually
elects
a
group
of
peers
and
their
committee
if
you
like,
and
who
are
elected,
to
make
those
decisions
and
that's
you
know
that
kind
of
feels
like
a
halfway
step
to
where
we
might
be
headed,
but
it
doesn't
get
away
from
needing
a
central.
You
know
decision
function.
F
D
So
I
was
just
saying
that,
like
we've
got
to
start
small
in
the
sense
that
the
more
and
more
open
you
make
a
system
like
just
the
more
and
more
unknowns
they're
going
to
be
yeah
and
to
that
point
like,
let's
start
with
the
the
lowest
hanging
fruit
like
what
are
the
things
that
we
can
comfortably
open
up
or
the
socialized.
So
okay,
a
perfect
example
is
a
voting
that
and
a
change
that
we
made
is
that
in
order
to
propose
something
new,
you
have
to
be
a
controller.
D
So
your
accounts,
essentially,
arms,
has
to
be
whitelisted,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
if
the
voting
that
becomes
really
popular
and
we
get
a
lot
of
eyeballs
on
it.
The
incentive
to
then
create
a
poll
which
is
either
like
an
IC
o----
advert,
for
example,
becomes
really
really
high,
so
you
can
make
a
system
open
and
there
seems
to
start
scaling
like
you
get
all
these
unknown
kind
of
consequences.
D
B
Yeah
and
I
think
we
are,
and
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
was
maybe
one
of
those
first
steps
is
to
decentralize
some
of
the
decision-making
around
hiring.
So
if
you
think
about
how
we
hire
new
contributors,
actually
the
first
that
is
deciding
if
we
have
a
need
like
if
we
have
a
need
to
make
a
hire
and
commit,
you
know
a
portion
of
our
funds
to
hiring
a
full-time
person
that
feels
to
me
like
that
could
be
a
really
good
first
step
for
up
for
the
voting's
app
so
anytime.
B
You
know
any
contributor
felt
like
we
needed
an
extra
pair
of
hands
full
time.
They
would,
you
know,
create
a
poll
and
say
you
know:
I
want
to
hide
this
type
of
person
to
take
care
of
this.
This
work,
here's
the
reason
why
it
would
need
to
be
a
full-time
position
or
bouncing,
and
then
we
can
have
the
community.
B
You
know
basically
just
vote
on
whether
it's
a
good
idea
to
hire
that
that
type
of
role
and
then,
ultimately,
you
could
look
at
all
of
the
all
of
the
hiring
that
we're
doing
and
ask
and
ask
everyone
to
vote
on
the
priorities
of
its
role,
which
you
know.
While
there
would
still
be
some
centralization
in
terms
of
recruiting
team
working
to
you
know
bring
people
in
there
would
be
a
decentralization
of
the
decision-making
and
how
that
how
that
came
to
be
so.
G
B
I
thought:
okay:
I
will
talk
about
that
in
detail
other
than
like
one
of
the
experiments
we
toyed
with.
It
was
like
asking
people
to
actually
commit.
You
know
funds
the
help
hire
in
a
kind
of
market
prediction
model,
but
yeah
I
mean
on
a
I
guess
the
harpy's.
There
is
education,
so
I,
for
example.
Personally,
you
know,
may
not
know
about
another
team
and
why
it's
critically
important
that
they
make
a
make
a
higher,
so
you
could
I
guess
I
would
keep
it.
D
Where
the
rubber
meets
the
road
in
terms
of
you
gets
this
tough
governance
questions
in
terms
of
like
okay.
Well,
we're
going
to
have
a
vote,
but
who
gets
the
vote?
It's
like
normally,
the
first
big
question
and
I
think
I
think
the
hiring
question
is
is
actually
a
really
great
starting
point,
because
it's
it's
so
cool
to
the
organization,
but
how
we
do
it
and
how
we
approach
it.
I
think
you
to
do
it
in
I.
Guess:
baby
steps.
So
it's
like
it's
not
yep.
A
B
C
B
A
It's
a
way
of
getting
a
pulse
like
how
how
do
people
feel
about
that
type
of
setup
in
general,
where
it's
not
so
much
being
paid
for
time,
but
sort
of
there's
some
value
on
a
piece
of
work
that
might
extend
over
a
longer
period
of
time
and
having
itself
getting
compensated
for
that
piece
of
work
instead
of
time
per
se?
How
do
people
generally
feel
about
that
everyone.
E
E
Think
it's
great,
but
it's
kind
of
difficult,
sometimes
to
measure
how
much
difficult
something
is
to
do
so.
We
need
to
know
some
kind
of
feedback
on
on.
Maybe
in
that
Valley.
Maybe
the
value
is
not
important,
but
I
totally
agree
with
the
idea.
It
seems
like
he's
linking
the
voting
system.
We've
started
open
bounty
that
will
be
great.
I
I,
just
they
have
similar
feedback,
our
thoughts
about
that
it's
just
sometimes
it
can
be
difficult
to
break
certain
work
into
tasks
or
to
measure
certain
work
at
all
so
for
different
subject:
areas
outside
of
like
engineering
design.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
make
that
and
to
work
back?
It's
that
you
can
say.
Okay,
this
person
completed
something
that
was
this
valuable
yeah.
G
So,
just
adding
on
to
what
what
Rachel
and
Ricardo
said
was.
It
is
hard
sometimes
to
break
it
down,
but
then,
in
addition
to
that,
how
what's
the
accountability
and
responsibility
of
the
totality
right,
so
you
can
break
it
down
into
tasks.
But
what?
If
the
group
of
tasks
that
is
trying
to
go
in
Direction
X,
you
know
the
going
in
Direction
X
is
wrong
entirely.
G
I
wonder
if
the
voting
should
be
more
on
some
sort
of
a
total
budget.
Let's
say
for
a
team,
and
this
is
getting
very
operational
because
once
there
is
a
voting
on
someone
says
voting
on
some
sort
of
a
budget,
maybe
the
team
or
the
group
of
people,
then
our
then
have
it.
You
know
at
their
discretion.
They
can
use
that
budget.
However,
they
like
to
accomplish
their
goals
right,
so
they
can
either
use
it
to
hire
people
or
just
do
all
the
work
themselves
or
use
you
know,
freelancers
or
whatever.
B
Think
that's
a
super
important
point,
so
if
you
think
about
all
of
a
resource
allocation,
if
there's
a
lot
that
the
decentralization
in
people
or
in
people
funding
is
one
of
the
primary
issues
so
determining
what
funding
goes
where
and
what
projects
were
working
on
and
how
much
resource
we
can
have
is
actually
itself
relatively
centralized.
I,
don't
know,
we've
started
to
kind
of
share
more
about
the
financial
aspects,
but
yeah.
J
Trying
to
I
mean
in
general,
like
trying
to
work
like
in
the
past,
I
tried
to
work
with
this
scheme
with
like
when
you
pay
by
tasks
and
things
like
that,
and
it's
like
practically
if
it's
a
good
idea
in
theory,
but
I
haven't
seen
any
good
implementation
of
that
like
ever,
because
you
don't
know
the
future
you're
like
ideas
like
how
do
you
figure
out
if
this
task
is
really
hard
or
not
hard,
or
it
turns
out
to
be
hard?
How
do
you
like?
How
do
you
measure
research
tasks?
J
How
do
you
like
even
like
splitting
something?
If
you
try
to
do
this
like
waterfall
model?
When
you
try
to
predict
everything,
can
you
try
to
like
break
everything
into
tasks
and
then,
after
there's
like
the
first
week,
it
turns
out
that
it's
something
we
didn't
know
something
and
we
need
to
completely
change
direction.
I
mean
this
whole
thing's
I
mean
there
is
a
reason
that
the
market,
the
market,
like
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
those
of
people
who
hire
like
developers
they
would
love
to
pay
by
tasks
like
in
general.
J
G
G
I
think
sometimes
it
might
be
less
satisfying
for
the
person
who's
doing
the
task,
because
they
cannot
see
the
full
picture
and
the
goals
of
the
full
project
and
necessarily
be
motivated
to
own
the
project
end
to
end
because
it
seems
to
tasky
the
way
they're
being
engaged,
and
so
that
might
avoid
or
like
that
might
minimize
the
on
our
minds,
reduce
the
amount
of
innovation
or
sort
of
creative
ideas.
They
kemp
themselves
come
up
with
as
individuals
to
take
things
in
a
different
direction.
Yeah.
J
K
Of
the
things
I
wanted
to
ask
about
was
like
this
consideration
of
quality.
Do
do.
Does
anyone
have
any
thoughts
on
how
like
maybe
we
might
be
incentivizing
some
ideal
behaviors
in
terms
of
like,
if
you
have
a
discrete
task,
is
it
kind
of
like
a
binary,
completed
or
not
outcome?
Might
that
task
be
rushed
to
like
claim
the
bounty
on
it?
Does
anyone
have
any
concerns
on
that.
A
Just
just
in
terms
of
the
tasking
could
ever
get
in
greenpoint
immediate
salsa
like
this
is
where
it
becomes
a
question
of
scale,
because
the
test
doesn't
have
to
be
a
specific
task
that
you
do
in
in
a
day
or
so
ik
a
task
can
also
be
like
something
that
company
does
or
something
like
this
right.
So
you
could
imagine
that
that's
sort
of
the
milestone
can
work
on
multiple
levels,
so
you
could
have
some
paying
for
time
aspects.
But
it's
more
a
matter
of
here.
A
You
have
some
product
with
some
scope
and
it's
some
individual.
That's
of
doing
this
thing
and
then,
if
it's
going
well,
there's
if
they
receive
funding,
but
it
close
to
be
that
that
funding
gets
gets
removed
if
there's
no
progress
and
then
that
individual
come
work
on
two
other
products
that
have
been
tested
of,
they
can
be
more
useful
in
or
whatever
so
I.
Don't
think
it
has
to
be
a
task
like
and
bound
instead
of
a
bounty,
it
can
be
much
much
higher
level
than
that
and
I
think
that
was
the
challenge.
J
Research
task
you,
you
have
no
idea
when
you
get
any
results
and
you
have
no
idea
when
what's
the
progress
with
the
most
of
the
research,
so
it's
a
huge
issue
and
again
hey.
If
we're
talking
about
my
team
set
up
in
the
East
in
his
first
book
here
or
in
his
second
book,
their
black
backs.
Once
you
write
about
any
of
like
research
breakthroughs
and
none
of
them
were
plans
like
and
like
you
don't
know
you
have,
you
can
have
zero
progress
for
like
a
year
and
then
on
the
day.
A
A
It
can
still
be
the
same
general
framework,
correct
where
it
can
be
an
individual
who
sort
of
wants
to
see
work
on
mesh
networks.
Let's
say
maybe
there's
some
early
bit
economy,
linear
living
somewhere,
and
they
want
to
really
want
to
see
mesh
networks
and
they
also
like
hate.
Someone
wants
to
work
on
this
general
problem
and
and
then
someone
works
on
it
and
they
find
out
some
other
new
invention
or
whatever.
That
could
totally
happen
right,
I,
don't
think
it's
a
position.
Yeah.
J
F
Well,
that's
kind
of
what's
happening
with
status,
though
I
mean
there's
a
bunch
of
people
that
funded
an
organism.
It's
working
to
achieve
an
outcome
and
what's
happening
when
inside
that
organism,
world
I
bet
the
ones
that
hired
it
from
this
long-term.
Through
the
initial
token
sale,
don't
really
care.
D
J
I
mean,
but
there
are
two
different
types
of
like
projects
usually
like
for
some
projects:
they're
relatively
safe
and
understandable
and
boring,
and
then
you
actually
want
to
return
on
best
one
like
imagine
if
you,
if
you're
building
some
here's
another
theorem
system
for
some
company,
this
one's
that
to
have
it
like
built
for
their
own
employees
and
things
like
that.
So
that's
one
type
of
project.
Another
is
a
venture
model
when
you
just
like
spread
your
money
and
hope.
That's
one
of
100
project.
J
J
D
L
J
But
that's
essentially
what
angel
investment
is
about
like
in
in
a
real
start
of
all
right.
So
when
you,
when
you
find
it
when
you
like
you
and
your
friends
in
your
dorm,
oh
you
have
some
idea
and
you
build
some
something
super
small
like
with
no
funding
required.
Then
you
go
to
some
guy
with
the
money,
nothing
the
money
and
he
probably
gives
it
to
you
and
hopes
that
out
of
this,
like
a
lot
of
people
home,
this
is
like
a
little
mean
of
money.
L
Is
that,
then,
that's
like
kind
of
the
dowel
model
right
where
we
would
intend
to
go?
Is
that
if
you,
you
basically
remove
kind
of
this
employee
structure
and
in
some
cases,
because
the
output
is
not
the
same
as
what
you're
investing
in
in
some
cases,
whereas
if
you
remove
it,
you
could
then
just
directly
pay
and
streamline
the
process
to
what
you
need.
J
A
L
Mean
or
I
mean
it
it
actually,
whatever
the
organization,
that's
funding,
you
thinks
is
valuable
right.
So
if
you
come
up
with
a
bunch
of
ideas,
they
could
just
be
like
oh
yeah,
that
sounds
that
could
be
valuable
to
us
like
it
could
be
valuable
to
build
a
piece
of
hardware
or
investigate
that
will
fund.
That
idea.
J
J
L
And
then,
if
I
mean
the
core
contributors
that
are
in
that
model
would
would
definitely
get
funded
because
yeah
they're
the
core
contributors.
So
it
wouldn't
look
so
good
if
we
weren't
funding
their
ideas
and
maybe
they
would
be
undervalue
like
definitely
undervalued
a
little
bit
and
we
would
definitely
fund
those
ideas.
I
don't
know,
I
mean
I
was
having
this
conversation
with
Carl
Weathers.
That
thought
it
was
really
interesting
with
those
open
markets.
J
C
J
A
Would
you
can
fund
it
the
same
way
and
another
way
would
also
be,
if
you
imagine,
sort
and
a
traditional
company
being
is
of
service
to
the
Dow.
You
coulda
man,
that
that
traditional
company
is
in
sort
of
responsible
for
sort
of
these
maintenance
and
and
sort
of
these
sort
of
things
that
all
there
has
to
be
running.
A
L
Could
also
be
that,
like
that,
so
essentially
that
company
kind
of
just
funding
that
Dow
right,
like
it
acts
as
a
support
when
it's
needed
and
puts
the
money
into
there,
that
you
can
trust
it,
and
then
you
have
those
contributors
or
anybody
actually
just
saying
hey,
we
can
build
this.
We
want
to
build
that
I.
A
Yeah
yeah
that
reminds
me
what
what
do
people
think
of
this
model,
where
more
cookies
are
more
sort
of
stewards
and
and
maintain
errs
in
a
way
and
they
sort
of
part
of
engineers
and
I?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
feel
about
that?
And
what
do
you
think
that
it
would
take
through
for
us
to
actively
encourage
people
to
submit
patches
and
so
on
and.
D
A
The
stewards
would
still
be
responsible,
but
just
in
terms
of
less
focus
on.
Oh
there's,
like
ten
things
that
we
can
do,
I
want
to
do
them
and
more
about
this
10
things
that
10
ideas
for
things
to
do
like.
Let's
put
up
sort
of
problems
for
them
and
encourage
people
to
work
on
them
and
then
send
welcoming
people
and
zuv
reviewing
the
patches
are
making
other
people
better
contributors.
Would
we
be
Palin
yeah?
A
J
A
J
D
Think
the
important
distinction
either
is
with
something
line.
X
or
many
other
like
piece
of
open-source
software
is
that
people
are
actively
building
businesses
on
that
software.
So
it's
in
their
best
interest
to
be
incredibly
knowledgeable
about
the
codebase
and
as
well
contribute
to
that
code
base
because
it's
going
to
help
their
their
profit
margin
at
the
of
the
day.
D
A
A
G
To
to
correspond
I
think
there
is
a
philosophical
bridge
that
we
need
to
make
between.
You
know
we
are
open
source
and
the
let's
say
the
whole
planet
and
the
community
are
contributing,
but
in
addition
to
that,
enabling
that
somehow
tactically
operationally
is
also,
in
my
mind,
really
very
important
for
scaling,
because
this
is
this
is
the
one
thing
that
I
found
in
my
past
roles.
Is
you
just
can't
I,
don't
think
we
can
scale
to
the
level
and
with
the
speed
that
we
want?
If,
if
we
are
relying
just
on
core
contributors,
I.
H
Think
this
conversation
kind
of
ties
in
with
that
shot.
We
had
yesterday
about
making
the
protocol
more
accessible
and
transforming
stereos
the
network
into
a
platform
of
sorts,
because
once
it's
a
platform
that
people
build
on
our
in
some
ways
dependent
on,
then
they
have
the
incentive
to
actually
just
like
Linux.
There
have
been
sets
actually
actively
contribute
and
a
good
knowledge
of
the
codebase
and
actively
contribute
to
because
then
it's
in
their
best
interest
system
or
they
use
that
platform
and
are
dependent
on
it.
Yeah.
L
J
Yeah,
but
it's
only
like
our,
like
only
us
are
using
this,
so
it's
maybe
the
one
of
the
big
things
might
be
to
actually
prepare
documentation
and
have
some
like
promotion
that
other
people
who
use
this
accept
our
project
and
will
probably
get
something
we
get
some
contributions
on
there,
for
instance,
components
that
we
like.
We
have
Alex
developer
here,
the
components
about
HTTP
bridge
and
where
there
are
some
questions
and
contributions
to
this
one,
because
this
is
the
components,
react
native
that
people
are
using.
L
Wanted
to
just
comment
quickly
on
that
on
that
thought,
about
the
components
and
these
collaborations
and
contributions,
because
I
had
just
had
a
got
off
a
phone
call
with
Beltran
from
web
3
and
they're
actually
doing
a
lot
of
this
same
research
and
of
course
it
was
in
their
their
best
interests
to
want
to
collaborate
with
us
they're
looking
to
build
the
exact
same
kind
of
toolset
to
be
able
to
scale
across
everything
agnostically,
and
they
also
were
fully
into
like
asking.
Can
you
guys
do
you
want
to
be
involved
in
this?
L
Can
we
be
involved?
What
you're
doing
but
I
see
it
exactly
that
there's
a
lot
of
the
same
kind
of
trains
of
thoughts
happening
around.
You
know
scaling
in
terms
of
empowering
these
people,
so
yeah
I.
Think
it's
a
really
interesting
way
forward.
Is
that
when
we
have
our
thoughts
also
aligned,
we
can
approach
these
other
people
that
are
fully
up
for
it,
because
everybody
seems
to
understand
that
our
value
is
the
value
we
put
in
ourselves
right,
the
more
we
can
spread
this,
the
more
valuable
we
all
become
from
it.
E
Just
wanted
to
do
such
a
dystopic,
that's
about
governance
again,
what
is
fair
in
the
in
your
governess,
in
my
opinion,
especially
about
the
allocation
of
the
funds,
is
that
who
invested
in
the
first
place
is
who
should
vote
about
it?
I
think
this
would
be
the
most
fair
for
the
governance,
but
we
just
need
to
find
a
way
to
make
like
this
did
not
kill
the
creativity,
not
cue
the
product
productivity,
because
it
should
not
be
something
all
by
themselves.
We
need.
We
need
a
road
map
to
follow
and
keep
the
creativity.