►
From YouTube: W12 Reward System: Quant preparations and execution, sourcred, allocation distribution and much more
Description
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
B
A
Yeah
good
so
we'll
start
with
the
with
the
status
updates
as
usual,
and
if
you
doing
so
so
we'll
try
to
keep
the
discussion
topics
at
the
end.
If
you're
doing
your
status
update
come
up
with
something
you
need
to
discuss,
we'll
note
it
and
come
back
to
it
later,
so
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
updates.
Before
we
start
the
discussions.
A
Let's
and
liv
is
not
here
she's
still
in
the
stewards
meeting
I
see
so
so.
Let's
skip
her
for
now
and
go
return
to
her
and
go
straight
for
the
first
first
quant
preparations
in
execution
with
mitch.
C
Yeah,
well,
I
just
I
just
finished,
making
the
new
reward
board,
so
that's
done
and
deployed
on
xdi
and
the
people
that
were
in
that
initial
reward
board
list
have
all
been
minted:
reward
board
membership
tokens,
so
that
should
be
ready
to
roll.
I
think,
unless
I'm
missing
something
else,
apart
from
that,
we've
got
roles
made
for
quantifiers
and
reward
board
members.
C
I
think
vivei
did
that,
but
he's
also
not
here
and
I've
started
the
documentation
for
the
reward
board
guides
and
requirements
and
I'll
be
working
on
the
same
document,
but
for
quantifiers
and
that's
my
status
updates
I'll
have
more
discussion
later,
but
I'll
I'll
keep
passing
it
along.
A
Cool
thanks:
do
we
have
a
vive
iv
here
we
don't
have
so
I
can
give
a
short
update
for
for
vive
iv
and
the
meeting
tracker
bot.
We
had
a
meeting
this
earlier
today
and
he
so
he
has
continued
to
dig
around
in
the
discord
api
to
track
track.
The
events
generated
from
the
api
when
users
join
and
leave
voice
meetings
so
he's
his
work
continues.
A
Working
with
that
and
hope
to
be
able
to
have
something
up
and
running
during
the
next
week.
I
think,
and
the
source
credit
pollenbot
I'll
give
a
short
status
update
for
for
that
one
as
well.
If
najas
is
not
here,
and
that
is
the
the
update-
is
that
the
the
bot
is
running
actually
on
on
this
server.
A
As
of
now,
it's
running
on
a
channel
that
we
cannot
see
so
has
has
done
a
great
job
of
of
taking
the
what
I
bought
modifying
for
it
for
our
our
needs
and
for
for,
if
someone
don't
remember
what
the
pollenbot
is
about,
so
it
is
for
source
credit
administration
for
self-serving,
your
identity
stuff.
So
linking
your
ethereum
address
to
your
source,
credit
identity,
linking
your
github
and
discourse,
discord
accounts
to
your
source,
credit
identity,
so
that
you
can
receive
praise
not
not
receive
rewards
from
source
cred.
A
Nebs,
would
you
like
to
say
something
about
the
front
end,
or
would
you
like
me
to
demo
it
yeah?
Maybe
you
can
demo
it
if
you
have
yeah,
if
you
hear
it
running
cool,
I
thought
we'd
just
give
you
a
short
glimpse
of
where
we
are
at
with
the
with
the
praise,
dashboard
and
the
the
user
interface.
A
A
Let
me
log
out
first,
so
this
is
the
the
the
screen
that
greets
the
user.
So
basically
anyone
with
the
ethereum
address
can
log
into
the
the
praise
instance.
A
By
signing
a
message,
do
you
see
my
you?
Don't
see
the
meta
mask
pop-up,
but
now
I'm
signing
a
message
and
I'm
logging
into
the
system
and
the
this
first
screen
is
some
sort
of
overview
screen
where
you
can
see
all
the
incoming
incoming
praise
from
from
all
sources
from
from
telegram
and
from
discord
right
now,
the
the
design
leaves
a
lot
to
ask.
A
There's
a
lot
to
be
done
and
a
lot
of
the
information
you
see
is
also
dummy
data.
But
the
information
you
see
here
is
the
actual
trace
information
taken
from
the
actual
back
end.
So
so
the
the
whole
system
is
working
front
and
back
and
is
communicating-
and
that
is
a
one
of
the
big
achievements
to
get
to
that
point.
A
The
quantifier
pool
is
one
cons
concept
we
have
been
discussing.
The
quantify
pool
is
the
the
group
of
people
that
can
do
the
quantifications.
We
have
added
functionality
here
for
two
for
adding
people
to
the
quantifier
pool,
and
you
can
also
remove
them
from
the
quantify
pool.
If
you
are
yeah.
A
Yes,
unless
we
decide
otherwise
the
all
the
reward
board.
Members
are
also
praise
administrators,
yeah.
D
So
until
we
decide
yeah
we'll
start
with
that
and
then
we'll
decide
if
how
to
maybe
delegate
that
as
as
needed
or
whatever.
A
So
the
prey
system
currently
has
three
roles:
it
has
users,
which
is
anyone
and
and
users,
basically
only
can
view
their
own
praise
and
they
they
can
view
summaries
for
past
praise
periods,
and
we
have
quantifiers
that
they
can
do
that
and
in
addition
to
that,
they
can
also
perform
quantifications
for
peer
periods
where
they
are
assigned
as
quantifiers,
and
then
we
have
administrators
that
can
view
anything
and
and
change
a
lot
of
stuff.
A
We
can
create
new
ones,
let's
create
one
for
the
december
ends
december,
31st
and
yeah.
So
so
things
like
error,
messaging
messages,
server,
checking
that
we
are
inputting
the
correct
values
and
all
that
stuff
is
is
working.
So
now
the
rule
is
the
period
end.
Date
must
be
minimum
one
week
later
and
the
last
date.
A
I
don't
know
what
the
last
date
was.
So,
let's
make
it
end
of
february
created
so
and
now
this
all
system
also
tells
me,
as
that
I
can.
You
can
perform
quantifications
for
the
following
periods
august
to
september,
because
I'm
I'm
apparently
a
quantifier
for
that
period
as
well,
so
I'll
click
there
there
and
and
then
I
come
to
a
screen
that
that
summarizes
what
what
what
users
have
I
been
assigned
to
quantify.
A
So
in
this
case
I
have
been
assigned
three
users
happy
salamander
standards,
helper
and
daft
punk,
and
I
will
quantify
all
their
phrases
and
let
me-
and
I
see
some
sort
of
summary
saying
like
how
many
items
I
have
have
to
to
to
still
to
quantify
before.
I'm
done,
I
choose
happy
salamander,
and
this
is,
I
guess,
the
meat
of
the
whole
thing.
A
This
is
the
the
main
quantification
screen,
where
you
view
all
the
praise
from
from
happy
salamander
and-
and
you
you
choose,
according
to
this
scale,
that
we
selected
before
how
to
weigh
them
and
and
if
you
choose
to
to
dismiss
them
or
mark
them
as
duplicate
that
is
also
reflected
in
the
user
interface,
so
that
you,
it
becomes
apparent
that
you
have
have
done
that,
and
this
that
looks
like
this.
A
So
if
marking
as
a
duplicate,
you
should
only
be
able
to
to
search
here
in
this
box
for
for
a
for
for
some
part
of
the
text
of
the
the
duplicate
phrase
or
the
id
or
whatever,
and
then
add
it
as
a
duplicate
or
marking
it
as
dismissed.
A
A
A
Hope
so
time
will
tell,
or
we
will
know
after
the
first,
that
the
trial
like
quad
will
know
for
sure.
D
B
Yeah
yeah
we'll
also
be
going
we're
going
forward,
we're
working
on
the
on
the
jupyter
notebook.
We
had
a
good
meeting
yesterday
where
some
issues
some
questions
came
up,
which
we
would
like
to
discuss
at
the
end,
but
yeah
it's
going
forward.
We
had
now
these
days
we
kind
of
prepared
it
the
the
field
to
go
to
get
up
a
bit
more
into
analyzing
the
quantifiers.
B
So
I
just
saw
olivia's
post
and
I
think
that
that
looks
amazing
and
we
definitely
want
to
integrate
that
into
into
the
dashboard
so
I'll
get
in
contact
with
with
this.
I
don't
I
don't
remember
his
name
but
yeah,
so
so
yeah,
so
so
that's
it,
and
I
wanted
to
ask
mateo
if
he's
here.
I
think
he
wants
yeah.
If
I
don't
know,
if
you're
the
right
person
for
this
mateo,
but
do
we
have
some
templates
of
what
we're
going
to
feed
the
the
arrogant
dial.
C
E
A
We
were,
we
were
discussing
the
importance
of
of
making
the
analysis
dashboards,
something
that
could
be
sort
of
read
from
top
to
to
bottom
by
some
a
person
that
is
not
super
technical
and
then
could
follow
the
the
the
flow
like.
This
is
the
the
inputs
from
phrase.
This
is
the
input
from
from
source
credit.
A
We
merge
them,
we
analyze
them,
we
calculate
the
distribution
and,
in
the
end,
we
export
that
as
a
data
file
for
for
the
for
doing
the
actual
distribution,
so
that
I
think
that
was
a
good
insight
that
we
we
we
focus
on
on
making
it
easy
and
easy
to
read
thing.
E
Sorry
about
that
yeah,
I
think
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
manifesto.
Let
me
open
here
and
and
just
make
sure
that
we
are
all
okay
with
it.
Thank
you
mitch
for
putting
a
comment
there.
E
I
think
we
went
over
it
last
week.
It
feels
like
we're
in
a
good
place
and
we
can
start
sharing
this
thursday
about
the
progress
and
the
community
call
from
like
the
reward
system
working
group
instead
of
being
mixed
with
sofkov,
and
also,
I
think,
just
just
seeing
next
steps
mitch
is
working
on
the
reward
out
and
how
all
interactions
will
happen
there
and
kind
of
detailing
that
right
in
in
about
in
a
blog
post,.
E
Cool,
I
think
just
what
we
need
now
is
having
the
clear
role
of
quantifiers
and
then
communicating
with
them,
and
I
I
know
writer
wanted
to
collaborate
on
that.
E
A
So
maybe
were
you
done
with
the
the
status
update
for
about
the
rewards
working
group
startup,
but
what's
the
next?
Next
action
is
launching
the
thing
or
the
the
telling
yeah,
like
you
said,
on
the
on
the
thursday
meeting,
started
communicating
from
the
work
group.
E
I
think
only
one
question
that
was
unclear
from
last
call
was
like.
Oh,
is
this
many
groups
inside
of
one
group,
but
the
idea
of
having
a
working
group
is
to
have
all
of
these
work
streams
happening
simultaneously.
A
D
I'm
not
concerned
with
myself.
My
question
is,
as
we
recruit
quantifiers
like
we're
talking
about
who
we
want
to
recruit,
I'm
trying
to
understand
based
on
what
you
just
said.
If
then
we
are
adding
to
the
working
group
when
we
recruit
quantifiers
each
quant,
because
that's
what
I
just
thought
I
heard
you
say,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
understand,
if
that's
what
you
meant
or
if
I'm
here,
if
I'm
understanding
correctly.
E
I
think
they're
welcome
to
this
call
if
they
want
to
to
be
more
informed
on
everything
happening
in
the
in
the
back
end,
but
they
don't
need
to
come
to
this
call.
I
think
it's
just
like
we
will
organize
in
this
call
the
best
on
boarding
to
give
to
them,
and
this
will
be
one
of
the
tasks
of
this
working
group.
D
E
Yeah,
I
think
they're
like
welcome
to
join
their
part
of
their
work.
Stream
is
managed
by
this
working
group
and
if
they
have
any
questions,
if
they
want
to
collaborate
with
the
onboarding,
maybe
there
is
a
quantifier
that
wants
to
like
improve
this
process
or,
and
then
this
would
be
the
space
to
do
all
that
coordination,
but
their
work
stream
is
very
specific,
so
they
and
they
will
deal
mostly
with
the
dashboard
right.
They
don't
need.
A
A
That
is
decided
they
they
get
a
fixed
amount
of
of
the
the
total
budget
being
distributed
for
for
the
period
that
they
are.
Thank
you
yeah.
A
Should
we
start
from
the
top
with
the
discussion
questions
and
we
have
one
two,
three,
four:
five:
six
six
questions.
So
that
means
that
somewhere
around
five
minutes
per
thing,
we
would
need
to
keep
it
there
to
get
to
the
the
the
end,
reducing
the
power
of
the
the
powers
of
the
reward
board.
B
Yeah
yeah.
Well,
just
while
we
were
discussing
the
other
day,
the
whole
process
of
of
how
a
quant
would
work.
We
noticed
that
there
were
two
points
where
people
have
direct
access
to
the
to
modify
the
yeah,
the
price
data
directly,
the
first
one
being
the
quantifiers
when
they
meet
up
at
the
end
of
the
async
period,
to
kind
of
go
through
everything
and
and
sign
off
what
they
will
send
to
the
reward
board
and
then
again
the
reward
board
when
they
review
that
and
yeah.
B
We
were
thinking,
if
maybe
it
wouldn't
make
more
sense
that
the
reward
but
can
only
ratify
or
deny
the
proposal
from
the
from
the
quantifiers,
because
in
a
way
it
also
kind
of
defeats.
The
purpose
of
you
know
making
random
choices,
anonymizing
everything
if,
at
the
end
of
the
process,
you're
going
to
have
a
small
group
of
people
who
are
going
to
be
the
same
throughout
several
periods
with
direct
access
to
modify
stuff.
A
And
denying
the
reward
board
denying
the
the
distribution
proposed
by
the
the
quantifiers
would
also
mean
that
the
quantifiers
would
have
to
have
a
look
at
it
again.
Yes,
in
a
group
in
a
group
setting
the
same
as
that
they
do
the
in
the
post
post,
the
the
the
individual
quant
they
get
it
together
and
and
analyze
together,
and
that
that
would
need
to
happen
again
if
the
the
reward
board
denies
the
the
distribution.
C
C
Like
just
like
less
rules
and
technical
limitations
and
more
relying
on
people's
reputation,
you
know
like
if
reward
board
members
are
gaming,
the
system
it's
like
their
reputation's
at
stake.
B
A
C
A
C
A
Like
at
both
not
necessarily
a
technical
issue
but
but
there's
also,
I
think,
there's
a
value
in
in
making
the
process
simple
it
to
me.
It
felt
a
little
bit
weird
that
first,
you
do
the
quantification.
Then
then
the
group
looks
at
it
and
makes
changes,
and
then
another
group
looks
at
it.
It
makes
the
change
even
more
changes
exactly
right
exactly
so.
C
E
A
E
That
could
be
more
straightforward
is
so
we
have
this
process
where
quantifiers
will
look
at
all
of
so
they
are,
they
are
quantifying
separately
and
then
they
will
come
together
and
look
at
the
overall
results.
I
think
in
this
moment
there
could
be
board
members
that
don't
need
to
be
like
all
the
board
but
board
members
that
also
look
at
that
information
together.
So
it's
a
process
that
only
happens
once
and
from
there.
E
That
is
all
approved
to
go
to
the
dow
for
distribution,
so
the
process
of
the
dow
would
be
mostly
just
like
accepting
voting
for
the
proposal,
and
it's
like
sam
had
said
before
that.
Usually
we
don't
even
need
a
doubt
to
make
this
distribution.
We
just
have
it
in
case
something
extraordinary
happens.
If
we
have
a
bug,
if
we
have
a
hack,
if
we
have
something,
then
there's
human
power
able
to
stop
that
decision
from
happening.
E
This
should
be
like.
We
should
think
about
that.
The
the
board
shouldn't
have
this
like.
Oh,
no,
I'm
not
gonna
pass
this
proposal
like
no
there's
a
whole
process
validating
that
proposal
and
then,
when
he
gets
to
that
point
is
ready
for
distribution.
So
we
just
involved
some
of
the
members
in
this
overlook.
C
So
I
think
that's
a
really
great
idea,
and
so
I'm
just
thinking
like
right
away
when
we
draft
a
quantifier
pool,
we
can
draft
reward
board
members
in
there
so
like
that's,
just
the
no,
not
so
hot
christopher
and
that's
so.
The
only
job
is
to
just
be
a
part
of
that
final
that
final
bit
there,
so
that
it's
better
where
the
responsibilities
are.
I.
D
Like
it's
a
part
of
your
position,
you
know
and
like
if
something
happens,
and
it's
the
same
person
every
time
we'll
talk
about
it
but
like
otherwise,
maybe
we'll
see
if
it's
a
natural
rotation
and
if
it
doesn't
happen.
Naturally,
then
we
make
it
a
you
know.
Then
we
make
a
a
policy
around
a
rotation
or
something,
but
I
see
it
as
like.
There's
a
lot
of
us
and
it
should
be.
We
should
be
able
to
like
maybe
show
up
organically
to
that.
E
Good
now
that
that's
a
mutual
monitoring
process
too,
because
if
the
quantifiers
are
the
only
people
there,
maybe
they
would
have
an
incentive
to
change
something
based
on
like
seeing
each
other's
results.
But
then,
if
there
is
a
person
that
wasn't
there
during
the
quantification
and
can
also
like
have
an
interesting
debate
with
them
on
those
like
cultural
aspects,
then
it
feels
like
everyone
is
looking
what
everyone
is
doing
and
it's
transparent
and
recorded
this.
D
E
D
It's
not
another
consensus
making
decision
it's
just
like
this
is
what
was
come
up
with
y'all
and
then
we
like
do
the
distribution.
Then
it's
just
it's
not
it's,
like
you
said
it's
not
the
another
decision-making
process,
it's
just
service
like
now
we're
going
to
do
the
service
of
the
distribution.
That's
how
I
see
it.
Yeah.
A
A
Doesn't
feel
that
they
can
press
the
approve
button
directly,
some
things
that
have
gone
wrong
in
the
process
earlier.
That
needs
to
be
sort
of
taken
taken
care
of
sorry,
sorry
for
being.
C
C
So,
ideally
again,
we
haven't
decided
this,
but
whether
it's
going
to
be
a
percentage
of
the
common
pool
or
fixed
amount
every
two
weeks,
that's
something
we
have
to
decide.
D
A
Yeah,
let's
try
to
to
round
this
off
about
the
the
powers
of
the
reward
board.
Do
we
came
to
to
any
agreement
about
if
we
could
strip
the
powers
from
the
reward
board
to
be
able
to
do
the
changes
if
they
would
like
to
do
the
changes?
They
are
more
than
happy
to
be
a
part
of
the
the
post
quant
analysis
session
to
make
sure
that
everything
looks
good
so
that
they
can
just
press
ok,
but
that
will
not
be
built
into
the
analysis
dashboard.
The
ability
to
make
changes
afterwards.
A
Yeah,
maybe
that
is
probably
a
good
routine,
that,
while
at
least
one
of
the
reward
board
members
are
are
present
at
the
the
post,
quant
analysis
session
and
and,
like
you
said,
take
the
role,
mostly
as
an
advisor
and
definitely
is
it
in
a
minority,
so
that
person
cannot
sort
of
override
what
the
group
has
done.
Yeah,
but.
D
I
want
to
add
that
I
think
what
what
negan's,
also
like
speaking
to
is
like
what
is
being
decided,
as
as
as
it
pertains
to
like
who's
going
to
make
up
the
quantifiers
and
like
how
are
we
and
that's
something
that's
happening
outside
of
the
meeting
at
this
at
this
moment,
right,
led
by
mitch
of
like
how
many
like
noobs
and
how
many
people
who've
done
this
before
is
going
to
be
in
that,
and
I
think
that
that
lends
itself
to
that
more
so
than
it
lends
itself
to
like
who's,
our
delegate
from
because
I'm
I'm
new
to
praise.
D
I've
never
done
it
before.
So,
if
I'm
the
reward
board
member,
that's
there.
That's
not
a
signifier
of
my
experience,
for
example,
so
I
think
yeah,
we'll
we'll
figure
that
out
async
right
in
terms
of
like
how
we're
designing
our
quantifier
set
and
that
it'll
probably
be
great
for
it
to
be
a
mix,
and
then
it'll
also
be
someone
from
the
reward
board
who,
at
the
end
of
the
day
at
least,
has
some
insight
to
higher
processes
and
is
keeping
a
temp
on
the
community
in
their
own
way.
E
C
E
Thank
you
christopher,
so
the
last
point
that
we're
going
to
add
is
the
analysis.
That
is
not
the
quantifiers
analysis
is
the
dashboard
analysis,
and
that
should
be
the
thing
that
offers
insights
to
the
reward
board
to
quantifiers
to
everyone,
and
that
will
happen
every
two
weeks.
So
if
there
is
something
weird
in
that
period
also,
it's
like
oh
we're
learning
from
it
for
for
the
next
period,
and
I
think
this
is
an
important
learning.
We
got
from
the
whole
praise
debate.
It's
like.
E
A
C
No,
it's
done,
but
I
I
changed.
The
vote.
Duration,
you're,
gonna,
hate
me.
It's
it's
36
hours!
Now
it's
very
controversial!
I'm
sorry.
C
Just
do
I
know
it
was
like.
Everyone
was
like
48
hours,
36
hours
and
I
was
like
well.
If
we
make
it,
we
can't
change
it,
and
I
was
like
it
was
such
a
struggle
to
get
people
to
do
something
in
24
hours,
and
I
was
like
okay.
How
do
we
account
for
all
the
time
zones
and
if
we
do
it
on
a
friday
anyway,
it'll
pass
before
monday.
A
It
wasn't,
wasn't
there
an
issue
with
what
do
you
call
it
slippage,
etc?
If
we
need
to
do
interact
with
the
augmented,
the
bundling
curve.
C
I
tried
it
out
and
it
worked
at
least
on
like
a
regular
decentralized
exchange,
so
we'll
see
otherwise
we'll
have
to
find
a
less
elegant
solution
outside
of
using
agent.
A
C
Take
me
10
minutes
to
make
a
new
one.
So
that's
fine,
but
I
was
like
I
just.
I
was
like
thinking
about
what
happened
with
extending
the
comments
upgrade
and
then
I
was
thinking
about
like
how
panicked
it
felt
just
trying
to
get
that
one
vote
through
of
like
changing
the
permissions,
and
I
was
like
well,
I
don't
know
if
24
hours
is
like
is
gonna,
be
enough.
D
I
just
want
to
say,
like
I'm,
also
a
facilitator,
and
I
understand
when
we
have
an
agenda
and
we
maybe
can't
get
to
all
of
it,
and
I
think,
maybe
to
like,
not
feel
so
pressured
moving
through
these
conversations
we
choose,
which
ones
we're
going
to
talk
about
and
which
ones
we're
not
perhaps
and
even
like.
If,
if
this
isn't
a
synchronous
conversation,
we
should
be
having,
we
have
it
now,
and
we
just
made
that
decision
as
we
move
forward
through
the
agenda.
D
C
Anyway,
please
feel
free
to
comment
if
you
feel
strongly
and
I
will
fix
it
and
I
will
make
it
24
hours
and
I
promise
not
to
change
it.
E
Well,
I
felt
strongly
about
that,
especially
because
there
was
like
a
process.
There
was
discussion.
There
was
people
present
in
the
meeting
deciding
that
together,
and
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
quicker
vote
for
something
that
the
duration
of
the
whole
process
is
just
two
weeks
and
it's
gonna
be
in
such
a
flow
that
people
will
be
prepared
that
that
day
is
the
day
to
vote,
so
we
won't
be
needing
to
can't
hurt
people
and
we'll
have
maybe
like
eight
people
max
and
we'll
just
need,
like
four
people,
for
the
vote
to
pass.
E
So
it's
not
something
crazy.
Like
I
send
a
message
to
any
of
you
guys
today,
you
will
answer
me
max
tomorrow
that
never
happened
that
anyone
in
this
call
just
stayed
like
two
days
without
answering,
and
I
just
feel
like
36
hours.
It's
almost
like
a
third
of
the
I
mean
more
than
that,
but
it's
a
big.
E
That
we
would,
we
would
need
to
have
okay.
A
Okay,
that
sounds
settled
then,
unless
anyone
else
has
strong
opinions
about
this.
A
A
We
won't
be
done
by
8th
of
december
with
the
praise
system,
even
though
I
showed
you
a
nice
nice
looking
screens
now
I
I
I
got
messages
from
from
rudolph
who
does
the
back
end
just
during
this
meeting,
and
he
he
texted
me
earlier
today
saying
his
ass
was
on
fire
from
his
day
job.
So
so
he
he
is
really
busy
with
his
his
day
job
and
have
having
difficulties
finding
time
for
for
developing
the
the
back
end.
A
Just
now,
he
hopes
to
be
finished
with
that
project
very
soon,
but
I
think
it
will
be
actually
difficult
for
us
to
to
make
it
to
that
date,
but
we,
since
the
commons
upgrade,
will
be
pushed
beyond
the
new
year,
we're
not
as
stressed
so.
I
think
it's
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world.
A
Unless
someone
thinks
it
is,
and
I
I
I
propose
that
we
we
start
by
by
moving
the
the
trial
quant
a
week
forward
to
begin
with,
it
would
be
nice
to
have
have
done
a
trial
quantification
before
christmas.
I
think
so
so
moving
it
a
week
forward
would
mean
that
we
have
from
the
15th
until
the
whatever
22nd
23rd
to
to
do
do
a
trial
trial.
A
A
Cool
silence
is
always
agreeing
agreement.
I
read
about
this
new
thing,
other
things
which
turns
that
on
on
its
head,
saying
like
for
every
everyone
that
is
silent,
I
I
disagrees
so
everyone
has
to
say
something
which
is
an
interesting
we'll.
Try
that
sometime.
A
Mitch,
do
you
have
any
anything
more
to
say
about
the
the
trial
quantification
planning
or
could
should?
Could
we
do
that?
Async.
A
D
Want
to
make
sure
I
understand,
because
last
I
heard
about
this
besides,
the
thread
was
that
we
were
like
who
do
we
want
to
ask?
Are
we
going
to
ask
communitize?
Are
we
asking
so?
Are
we
actually
just
taking
this
first
trial
quant
as
like?
D
Let's
see
how
many
of
us
can
be
quantifiers,
maybe
we'll
add
a
few
other
folks
in
there
and
we'll
just
like
trial
this
and
get
a
first
go
at
it,
so
that
we
can
work
on
onboarding
and
make
it
more
available
for
a
broader
audience
in
the
future
to
be
quantifiers.
Is
that
kind
of
how
we're
focusing
it
now.
D
C
A
We
are
only
quantifying
the
the
the
last
month
worth
of
data
and
then,
when
we
have
set
the
process
recruited,
sort
of
new
quantifiers-
I
I
guess
many
are
in
the
reward
board
would
like
to
be
quantifiers
in
this
first
trial
quant,
which
is
a
good
thing
to
to
try
out
the
process
etc,
and
then
we'll
do
it
all
over
again.
But
then
we'll
start,
of
course,
with
the
the
oldest
praise
first
and
then
work
our
way
through
the
backlog.
Until
we
reach
present
time.
D
Am
I
the
only
one
that
would
find
it
helpful
to
spend
five
minutes
talking
about
this
now,
instead
of
doing
it
in
the
thread,
because
then
that's
fine,
but
otherwise,
I
feel
like
I
keep
being
like.
Oh
we're
doing
this
async
and
there's
a
thread
and
like
that's
not
helpful
for
me
like
I
need
to
talk
and
understand
where
we
are
at
real
time,
and
that
will
be
useful
for
me
and
if
it's
useful
for
other
people,
I'd
like
to
do
that
with
our
time
with
some
of
our
time
today,.
A
C
A
Yeah
yeah,
the
main
thing
here
is
what
is
the
deciding
on
on
the
schedule.
So
so
we
know
what
what
we
are
planning
for
and
the
process
of
onboarding
or
we
will
need
to
have
like
separate
meetings
for
for
this,
where
we
can
discuss
all
this
in
depth
and
not
only
doing
it
async
in
a
thread
but
but
I
think
most
wise
would
be
to
do
it
all
at
once.
I
think
like
now
we
are
starting
the
trial
quant,
the
system
is
filled
with
information.
A
A
Yeah
I
propose
that
we
we
move,
we
push
it
forward
a
week
and
and
no
no
one
seemed
to
object
right.
D
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
I'm
before
this
meeting.
I
I
had
the
idea
that
maybe
we
we
should
talk
about
the
not
only
the
starting
date,
but
also
what
happens
after
the
starting
date
is
like
we
we
get
together.
We
talk
about
the
the
process,
we
look
at
the
system
and
then
we
say:
okay
now
now
it's
quantification.
So
now
you
all
go
back
to
to
doing
the
quantifications,
and
then
we
meet
again
in
three
days
or
five
days
or
whatever.
C
Yeah
so
then
we
could
say,
since
it's
changing
now,
because
we've
removed
this
this
modifying
thing
from
the
reward
board.
So
then
we've
we've
cut
the
decision,
time
needed
from
the
reward
board
and
maybe
added
it
to
the
quantifiers.
But
I
think,
like
it'll,
be
sweet
if
we
could
get
this
leg
done
in
five
days
so
like
monday
to
friday.
C
So
then
that
would
mean
for
every
two
week
period
of
quantification
or
like
a
two-week
period.
Where
we're
looking
at
praise,
then
the
quantification
period
would
be
the
the
following
week.
C
C
A
C
A
Because
then,
then
we
we
could
do
do
do
like
like
this,
that
we
use
the
the
work
group
meeting
on
the
15th
as
a
start
meeting
for
for
the
trial
quantification.
And
then
the
quantification
runs
until
like
monday,
tuesday
monday,
something.
And
then
we
have
the
post
quant
analysis
session
in
an
extra
meeting
on
the
monday
and
tuesday.
And
then
we
use
the
the
wednesday
meeting
the
week
after
which
is
the
22nd
as
the
the
reward
board
analysis
and
distribution
discussion.
A
A
Let's
see
we,
we
have
more
things
and
unless
mitch,
you
would
like
to
talk
something
more
about
the
trial.
Quant
planning.
C
A
B
Yeah
mine
is
going
to
be
short
at
params.
B
We
are
offering
the
chance
to
do
some
special
param
parties
just
for
each
working
group,
so
everybody
gets
the
chance
to
play
with
the
dashboard
and
make
a
proposal
and
and
kind
of
have
a
look
and
well
mainly,
we
would
have
to
find
a
date
which
works
and
I
just
wanted
to
propose
if
it
would
be
if
it
would
generally
work
to
just
do
it
after
this
meeting
next
week,
just
make
a
brand
party
and
the
people
who
can
stay
stay
or
if
there
is
some
great
disagreement
now
I
could
open
up
a
doodle
and
we
can
look
for
for
some
day
where
everybody
can,
but
maybe
it's
the
easiest
thing
so
just
fast
approval
disapproval
of
that.
A
Who,
who
who
can
do
a
program
party
after
next
week's
meeting.
C
A
A
Identities
yeah:
this
is
the
last
topic,
but
this
is
potentially
a
huge
topic,
though
libby.
What
did
you
have
in
mind
with
the
identities.
E
Which
we
we
just
have
been
having
a
lot
of
great
ideas
about
that,
and
I
think
it's
a
combination
of
some
of
the
identity
solutions
we
need
in
the
tc,
for
governance
and
and
since
we're
looking
into
identity
aggregators
here
for
all
the
data
we
need.
Maybe
we
could
use
the
same
solution
for
both
so
christopher,
and
I
were
discussing
this
week
if,
like
we
could
set
up
this
praise
validation
of
identity
and
and
meant
a
po-op
or
for
people
who
have
this
validation
and
then
add
this
po-op
to
snapshot.
E
And
then
people
could
only
vote
if
they
have
both
tc
tokens
and
that
pull-up-
and
maybe
I
don't
know
how
feasible
that
is,
but
that
could
be
implemented
in
conviction.
Voting
too,
I
don't
know
griff.
If
you
have
any
idea
and
then
we
could
create
some
sort
of
like
not
a
reputation,
yeah
kind
of
like
a
proof
of
existence
based
on
praise
and
and
use
that
for
governance,
while
the
financial
aspects
of
the
token
can
be
going
wild
and
not
hurt
us.
C
A
I
think
that
the
general
concept
is
super
interesting,
like
verified,
by
praise
to
use
the
the
praise
information
in
in
new
and
novel
ways,
but
when
it
comes
to
identity,
there
are
so
many
interesting
and
important
things
about
identities.
We
need.
You
know,
reputation
system
with,
like
verification
that
you're,
a
human
or
or
that
you
are
a
sort
of
an
active
member
of
the
community
is
another
thing.
A
The
the
the
common
identities
in
in
itself
is
something
to
to
to
work
for
to
to
create,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
manage
your
many
identities
over
over
the
different
systems.
So
it's
a
potentially
a
huge
project
taking
all
that
on,
but
but
I
think
that
this
this
pull-up
thing
it
could
be
done
without
having
to
write
a
single
line
of
code.
Actually,
it's
now
it
and
again
in
the
analysis,
or
maybe
it
would
have
to
be
like
a
separate
analysis.
A
We
would
have
to
do
another
to
analyze
who,
which
members
have
sent
like
10
10
praise
during
the
last
six
month
period,
at
least
his
10
praise,
and
have
also
received
at
least
10
praise,
or
something
like
that,
and
we
we
would
count
those
members
as
active
community
members
and
we'll
get
there
at
their
mattresses
and
and
meet
them
a
pull-up
token.
That
will
give
them
access
to
the
snapshot,
votes.
E
B
B
Yeah,
for
example,
I
don't
know
there's
this
whole
problem
of
civil
attacking
like
making
a
discord,
is
easy
if
somebody
starts
to
praise
yeah
with
yeah
out
accounts
or
changing
the
addresses
and
kind
of
trying
to
game
the
system.
B
These,
I
I
don't.
I
I'm
not
an
expert,
I
don't
know,
but
I
know
that
people
at
git
coin
at
are
making
a
lot
of
research
in
that
direction,
and
so
I
think
I
know
that
it's
a
hard
problem-
and
I
I
like
it
very
much-
and
I
yeah-
I
think
it's
cool
to
kind
of
think
of
it
and
poke
ups
are
great-
are
always
a
great
idea
but
yeah.
E
Yeah
on
that
point,
maybe
I'm
being
naive,
but
on
that
point
I
thought
that
praise
would
solve
that
in
the
sense
of
like.
Oh,
it's
very
qualitative
praise
that
you
need
to
give
to
someone.
So
it
comes
from
a
subjective
interaction
and
it
wouldn't
be
just
like
one
people
praise
you
and
then
you
have
that
co-op
status,
but
it
could
be
maybe
like
10
people,
praise
you
and
you
praise
10
people,
and
maybe
those
people
that
you
praised
have
to
have
verified
identities.
E
A
And
it
has
to
be
a
weight
against
the
the
I
guess,
the
current
situation
or
the
the
future
situation,
where
the
tc
token
is,
is
live
on
on
the
open
market
and
anyone
can
buy
the
token
and
just
ownership
of
the
token
will
give
you
vote
access
to
to
to
vote
on
the
snapshot
so
that
I
and
a
system
like
this,
the
tc
token
ownership
com
combined
with
the
pop-up
or
ownership.
A
B
A
Cool,
maybe
that
that
would
have
to
be
the
last
words
for
today
then,
because
now
it's
nine
o'clock,
my
time,
which
means
we're
out
of
time
and
thank
you
for.