►
From YouTube: W27 Rewards WG: New work streams
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/
A
Welcome
everyone
to
the
rewards
work
group
meeting
of
march
23rd.
We
have,
I
always
say
this:
we
have
a
lot
to
talk
about,
but
today
the
list
is
really
full.
Let
me
say
something
about
the
agenda
I
would
like
to
take
if
possible.
I
would
like
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
talk
about
some
new
new
ideas
for
ideas
for
new
work
streams
in
this
working
group.
A
I
think
it's
wise
to
start
thinking
about
moving
from
a
development
mindset
where
we
have
been
building
praise
and
source
setting
everything
up
to
a
sort
of
a
daily
grind
mindset,
and
that
comes
with
perhaps
some
some
some
changes
not
necessarily
changes,
but
clarification
on
who
does
what
etc.
But
before
we
come
to
that,
let's
go
over
a
round
of
status
updates.
What
did
we
do?
What
do
we
plan
to
do
the
days
ahead
and
anything
blocking
our
progress?
B
Yeah
sure
so
the
past
week
we
may
created
the.
B
Sorry,
we
migrated
the
place
commands
for
the
bot
to
add
new
syntax,
but
today
we
decided
to
switch
back
to
the
old
syntax.
So
I'm
just
doing
that
right
now
I
was
also
working
on
making
disc
commands
for
it
that
allows
people
to
disallows
admins,
to
message
all
quantifiers,
a
message
all
drafted,
quantifiers
and
message:
quantifiers
that
haven't
completed
their
quantification
in
that
period.
That's
still
going
on.
B
So
in
the
discussion
I
had
with
christopher
today,
the
like
the
things
we
would
be
focusing
on
going
forward
like
today,
the
rest
of
the
sleep
would
be
setting
up
the
follow
like
forward
command
like
praise.
Follow
that
allows
you
to
praise
on
behalf
of
someone
else
and
yeah
that
that
and
that
plus
switching
to
back
to
the
whole
session
would
be
the
stuff
that
I'd
be
working
on
I'll
pass
it
to
nebs.
B
B
D
C
What's
up
guys
so
this
week
I
worked
on,
I
did
I
kind
of
fixed
the
whole
like
broken
responsiveness,
so
the
the
sidebar
and
the
page
content
are
now
responsive
on
all
are
mostly
responsive
on
all
viewports.
C
At
least
nothing
breaks
allowing
scroll
allowing
the
user
to
scroll
up
and
down,
while
they're
marking
a
praise
as
a
duplicate,
adding
labels
and
descriptions
to
every
setting
to
make
that
a
little
clearer
for
the
users
and
right
now,
I'm
just
setting
up
a
database
migration
setup
so
that
we
can
use
that
in
the
future
and
I'm
gonna
use
it
for
the
labels
and
descriptions
pr
and
then
the
big
one
that
I'm
gonna
take
on.
C
Next
is
settings
per
praise
period
so
that
the
the
people
administering
the
praise
period
can
override
the
default
settings
for
that
period,
and
we
don't
have
any
issues
where
settings
that
are
used
in
calculating
praise.
Scores
affect
past
pre
affect
previous
periods
after
settings
have
been
changed.
A
Nice
thanks
what
have
I
been
doing
in
development
wise?
I
have
been
setting
up
a
new
website
for
for
praise,
so
now
we
have
the
which
will
be
the
production
server
for
now
on
the
right
domain,
with
the
ssl
certificates,
etc.
So
now
it's
it's
empty,
but
the
the
plan
is
to
when
this.
The
third
quantification
has
finished.
When
we
have
closed
that
down,
we
will
do
an.
We
have
the
exports
of
the
database.
A
We
will
import
that
database
into
this
server
and
then
we
will
retire
the
the
current
server
and
also
while
doing
that
this
might
be
interesting
to
people
from
other
communities.
I
I
wrote
an
installation
walk
through
while
doing
that
so
and
that
is
available
on
the
dev
branch
here
installed
on
digital
ocean.
A
So
it's
a
quite
a
detailed
explanation.
If
you
want
to
set
up
trace
to
run
on
a
digital
ocean
and
droplet,
then
you
can
follow
this.
This
guide
no
support
provided
currently
or
minimum
I'll
post.
The
link
here
in
the
in
the
notes.
A
So,
that's
that's
it
for
for
about
praise
development
when
it
comes
to
source
cred.
Let's
see
mate,
are
you
here?
No
you're,
not
so
today,
sort
of
new
information
surfaced
around
source
cred,
something
that
I
had.
A
I
had
a
feeling
that
this
would
be
the
case,
but
it
has
been
unclear
up
to
now
that
you
cannot
actually
do
retroactive
grain
distributions
in
praise.
So
we
have
accrued
gathered
red
over
a
long
period
of
time
in
in
the
source
grid
system,
and
now
we,
the
dream,
would
have
been
to
do.
The
the
praise,
quantifications
and
the
the
source
credit
grain
distributions
hand
in
hand
we're
doing
one
month
by
month,
from
from
last
summer,
up
until
present
time
that
is,
unfortunately
not
possible
in
in
source
credit.
A
You
you,
when
you
do
a
grain
distribution,
it's
the
date.
It
gets
it's
today
and
you
cannot
back
date
them
or
make
you
select
a
period
of
time.
So
that
puts
us
in
a
we
have
to
rethink
how
we
do
source
cred
rewards
distributions.
Basically-
and
I
think
the
current
proposal
is
that
we
perhaps
don't
look
so
much
but
much
backwards,
but
instead
look
forwards
and
and.
B
A
Do
any
source
credit
rewards
distributions
for
stuff
that
has
been
and
instead
start
doing,
source
credit
distributions
for
from
sort
of
now
ish
and
and
going
forward.
A
But
that
is
something
that
will
be
discussed
in
the
also
the
reward
board
forum
and
to
have
some
do
some
advice
process
on
that,
because
that
is
something
that
involves
actually
affecting
how
much
people
get
paid.
A
But
that
is
why
I
wrote
on
hold
for
now,
because
the
the
the
consequence
of
this
is
that
we
don't
have
to
care
about
that.
We
know
for
sure
we
don't
need
to
take
a
source
credit
into
consideration
while
doing
these
retractive
quantifications,
because
we
won't
have
any
source
credit
data.
So
from
that
perspective
we
will
put
source
credit
a
little
bit
on
hold
just
now.
A
B
E
So
right
now
with
the
news
for
the
the
source,
great
I'm
just
running
it
with
an
empty
source
grid
and
for
this
first
version
also
there's
a
lot
of
addresses
missing
so.
E
E
Right
now,
I'm
running
it
with
an
empty
source
like
I
said,
because
we
are
because
of
the
issue.
You
brought
up
christopher
and
yeah.
So
here
you
can
just
set
how
many
tokens
you
want
to
distribute
for
praise
for
the
quantifiers
and
for
the
advice
you
have
in
this
round.
You
can
set
the
name,
and-
and
this
is
just
this-
will.
E
It
will
just
show
you
the
for
example
here.
It
just
shows
you
the
table
and
kind
of
calculates
how
much
well
yeah,
which
percentage
of
the
total
price.
Given
this
each
s,
each
a
single
price
is
and
then
calculates
the
rewards.
E
Then
it
does
the
same
resource
which,
right
now
it
doesn't
and
then
combines
all
the
data
sets
to
a
final
user
list
with
the
total
tokens
right
now.
Like
I
mentioned,
we
are
missing
missing
lots
of
ethereum
addresses,
so
so
this
is
something
we
have
to
get
into.
I'm
not
sure
how
probably
pinging
people
individually
like
dming
them,
or
something,
because
right
now
we're
just
missing
most
of
the
addresses
which
is
going
to
make
it
difficult
to
distribute
tokens
so
yeah.
E
So
then
it
just
also
takes
the
data
and
sources
by
quantifier
and
merges
the
stuff
right
now.
It's
kind
of
that's
also
something
we
should
bring
up
right
now,
it's
giving
each
quantifier
the
same
amount
of
tokens,
even
though
they
are
each
quantifier
has
a
different
amount
of
praise
to
quant.
E
So
we
can
see,
for
example,
in
this
example
right
down
here.
It
shows
us
how
much
each
one
each
single
quantifier
quantified
in
this
round,
in
which
percentage
so
we
can
see
there.
There
are
some
differences,
but
for
now
we
are
giving
the
same,
which
we
should
talk
about,
probably
and
then
yeah
it
just
yeah.
So
what
did
the
first
round
show
us?
First
of
all,
sorry,
this
is
the
distribution
of
how
which
score
the
praises
got.
So
we
have,
we
can
see.
E
The
price
has
a
has
a
pretty
heavy
distribution
here,
so
you
can
see.
Actually
we
can
see
that
the
top
50
of
the
price
receivers
have
95
of
the
rewards
so
yeah,
this
kind
of
is
what
we
were
expecting
so
yeah.
We
can
see
from
the
praise
flow.
Of
course
we
have
mount
manu
and
ivy
having
done
most
of
the
praise,
but
because
of
their
of
their
role
as
as
official
praise
did
praise
dishes
for
the
community
call,
but
the
rest
is
pretty
good
and
and
lydia
prays
a
lot
but
yeah.
E
It
seems
pretty
distributed
there,
so
squid
is
empty
for
now,
of
course,
and
yeah,
and
this
is
the
final
distribution.
This
is
just
a
little
bug.
We
meant
we
noticed
a
couple
of
minutes
ago
before
the
call,
because
I
was
thinking
that
the
reward
board
addresses
where
fake
addresses,
but
it
seems
they're
the
real
ones
and
they
are
getting,
they
aren't
getting
counted,
but
yeah
here
you
can
just
see
how
how
all
these
all
the
words
get
distributed
and
then,
at
the
end
you
can
just
download
the
three
to
three
files.
E
E
E
E
E
Okay
yeah,
so
so
this
is
basically
it
a
couple
of
stuff
to
think
about.
I've
noticed
that
on
the
on
the
previous
export,
if
something
was
dismissed
but
just
dismissed
like,
for
example,
say
there
was
one
praise
which
two
people
have
dismissed
as
a
duplicate
and
a
third
one
didn't
and
praised
it
like,
for
example,
with
three
points,
then
right
now
what
the
trade
system
does
is.
It
takes
the
average
and
just
zero
zero
and
three.
E
So
is
this
something
we
want
to
do.
Do
you
want
to
have
do
do
do
prefer
to
just
cut
it
completely.
If
something
gets
two
out
of
three
dismissals
right
now,
there
is
no
way
to
visualize
that
I
would.
I
would
try
to
find
a
way
to
do
that,
but
that's
some
question.
I
wanted
to
bring
up.
A
Yeah-
let's
touch
on
that
there
right
now,
then,
because
that
that
this
is
important.
So
we
get
this
right
and
you
because
you,
you
don't
calculate
any
average
scores
yourself
in
the
you
just
rely.
E
E
A
Okay,
but
let
me
just
try
to
summarize
the
the
rules
on
how
the
the
the
praise
gets
scored
and,
let's
see,
if
someone
opposes
that
or
if
I've
misunderstood,
then
let's
change
it.
A
I
think
it's
like
this.
A
dismissed
phrase
gets
a
value
of
zero,
so
so
give
dismissing.
Something
is
saying
that
it's
it's
worth,
it's
not
worth
anything,
but
so
if
two
people,
if
we
have
three
quantifiers
and
and
and
two
quantifiers
says
this,
this
place
isn't
worth
anything.
It's
it's
a
zero
value
and
the
third
one
gives
it
30.,
then
yeah,
the
the
average
score
would
be
10
because
it
would
be
30.
A
Plus,
zero
plus
zero
divided
by
three,
so
that
that
is
the
intended
way
of
calculating
the
dismissed
score
duplicate
scores.
They
get
the
a
percentage
of
the
quantification,
they
are
a
duplicate
of.
So
if
the
duplicate
had,
if
you
mark
a
price
as
a
duplicate
of
another.
A
E
Understandable,
I
I'm
not
necessarily
wrong,
but
when
we
then
risk
to
double
count
stuff
so,
for
example,
all
three
mark
it
is
a
duplicate,
so
they
are
agreed
that
it's
a
duplicate
and
they
just
take
the
the
the
score
they
gave
it
in
the
original
one.
You
would
have
that.
Second
priests
hang
double
the
price,
even
though
oh
everyone
tells
us
it's
duplicated.
Or
do
I
understand
that
wrong.
A
C
Think
I
can
clarify
it,
so
there's
a
parameter
which
specifies
how
much
of
the
original
score
the
duplicate
receives,
which
will
typically
be
set
to
something
less
than
one
so
it'll
be
like
20.
Let's
say
the
original
score
is
10
and
then
the
this
parameter
is
set
to
0.2.
C
A
And-
and
I
just
want
to
to
point
out
that
that
we
don't
take
the
the
the
full
appraised
score
into
account,
but
only
only
the
quantification
that
I
as
a
quantifier
has
given.
A
So
a
a
a
a
price
that
has
been
had
a
place
that
has
quantifications,
that
that
has
one
one
dismissal,
one
duplicate
and
and
one
score.
That
would
be
a
zero
for
the
dismissal,
a
a
small
number
for
for
the
duplicate
percentage
of
the
original
and
and
the
the
quantification
score
for
for
the
quantification
score
and
add
them
together
and
divide
by
three.
That
is
the
simple
formula.
A
A
So,
but
what
you
should
quantifiers
get
paid
the
same,
even
though
they
quantify
a
different
amount.
Let's
see
if
we
have
time
left
at
the
end
and
maybe
discuss
that,
and
that
is
interesting
to
discuss,
and
we
also
need
to
figure
out
a
way
to
track
who
gets
paid
and
not
and
so
that
people
when,
when
activating
their
accounts
at
a
later
stage,
they
can
get
paid
for
all
the
quantification
periods
they
have
not
been
paid
for
yet,
and
that
is
not
a
super
simple
problem,
so
I
think
we
need
someone
need
to
take.
A
Take
that
on
as
a
task
and
really
do
something
a
smart
spreadsheet
or
something
even
smarter.
But
let's
move
on
rewards
around
three
mitch.
Would
you
like
to
say
something
about
that?
You're
finishing
that
I
guess.
F
Yeah,
it's
actually
pretty
much
all
done
we're
actually
in
way
better
shape
than
we
were
last
week.
In
terms
of
completeness,
I
would
love
love
love
to
get
some
sort
of
like
auto
dm
thing,
going
on,
or
at
least
something
a
button.
I
could
press
that
would
notify
all
the
quantifiers,
because
that's
what's
eating
up
most
of
my
time.
F
Cool
so
then
just
the
rest
of
that
I'll,
I'm
gonna
close
the
quant
end
of
today
and
we'll
have
our
insight
session.
I
think
it's
scheduled
for
friday.
We'll
do
the
exact
same
thing.
We
did
last
week
so
I'll
open
the
next
quant
on
friday
and
then
we'll
at
the
same
time
schedule
the
the
tweak
session
for
later
that
week.
A
And
as
soon
as
you
have
closed
this,
this
quant,
we
can
disable
access
to
this
server
or
I
I
will
move
data
to
the
new
server.
B
A
So
I
guess
that
covers
yeah.
You
mentioned
also
the
plan
for
rewards
around
four
anything
more
to
say
about
that
or
it's.
F
It's
pretty
straightforward,
we'll
set
it
up
for
october
2021.
same
parameters.
I
think
it's
like
250
quant
praises
per
quantifier
and
then,
like
four
people
per
phrase,
seem
to
work
out.
A
There
were
some
some
some
there
needs
to
be
some
some
clarity
about
the
the
pseudonyms.
I
think
it
seems
like
libby
you,
you
assumed
you
said
that
perhaps
we
had
made
a
decision
not
to
use
them.
I
I
don't
remember,
was
making
a
decision,
and
that
is
something
we
should
do
in
between
the
rounds.
We
should
allow
for
the
change
of
parameters.
You
know
check
that
every
play.
If
we
have
other
opinions
about
the
parameters,
we
should
discuss
that
before.
D
A
I
I
I
think
this
is
important
enough
and-
and
I
think
it's
clear
enough-
that
we
have
different
enough
opinions
about
this-
that
it
sort
of
warrants
and
not
necessarily
a
vote
in
in
the
reward
board.
But
we
having
some
some
sort
of
discussion
where
we
actually
asked
like
who,
how
how
many
would
like
to
see
the
pseudonyms
being
used
or
not.
A
A
So,
what's
next
yeah
launching
of
the
new
playspot
launching
of
the
new
praise
system,
we
had
planned
to
do
do
that
tomorrow
at
the
community
meeting.
But
then,
after
discussing
with
or
first
setting
up,
the
server
took
a
bit
longer
than
I
expected,
of
course,
and.
A
It
also
would
be
really
nice
to
have
something
some,
some,
like
cool
new
feature,
to
show
the
community
on
the
community
meeting
and
that
that
new
feature
that
we
would
like
to
show
is
that
the
pace
forward
where
you
can
place
on
behalf
of
others.
Of
course,
there's
the
the
quantification
and
the
dashboard
and
everything
else
but
but
facing
on
behalf
of
others,
is
so
highly
requested.
A
A
And
that
also
gives
us
some
some
time
to
have
this
new
server
running
a
few
days
before
we
announced
in
the
community
that
we
would
like
people
to
start
activating
their
accounts,
because
the
part
of
the
the
launch
would
be
you
know,
instructing.
Basically,
everyone
on
the
tac
discord,
server
that
go
to
the
server
and
activate
your
accounts.
That
is
the
only
way
you
can
receive.
The
rewards
is
to
connect
your
ethereum
address.
F
A
We
we
said
it
it's
it's
quite
clear
that
that
the
the
the
the
opinions
about
this
is
differ
differ
a
bit
so
so
I
think
it
would
be
we
let's.
Let's
do
a
discussion
in
the
the
reward
board,
an
async
discussion
and
maybe
do
a
small
poll
or
something,
let's
see.
How
do
people
feel
about
this.
F
A
F
A
A
Yeah
we
are,
we
still
have
some
development
work
to
do,
but
we
are
approaching
a
situation
where
it
will
be
more
of
a
daily
daily
business
running
this
work,
working
group
and
source
credit
is
configured
and
the
pace
is
running
and
the
quantifications
yeah.
So
so,
then
we
need
to
think
about
what
what
do
we
use
these
meetings
for
and
what
structure
do
we
have,
and
I
I
I
would
like
to
sort
of
try
to
appoint
some.
A
Like
work
streams,
responsible
people
that
could
it
could
take
a
little
bit
more
responsibility
for
for
different
work
streams.
How
do
you
feel
about
that?
Do
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
in
general.
A
It's
the
it's
the
one
those
I
list
there
below
so
onboarding
education
is
one
you
have
taken.
I
would
say
you
have
to
so
far
taken
on
the
what
what
I
would
name
the
quantification
work
stream
that
you
know
the
the
first
quantification,
pre,
prep
and
execution
has
turned
into
the
just
the
quantification
work
stream
that
that
it's
continuously
happening
every
two
weeks.
It's
a
some
work
is
connected
to
that,
and
maybe
you
would
like
to
continue
doing
that
or
you
would
like
to
hand
over
your
hat
to
someone
else.
A
But
it's
good
to
you
know,
identify
these
work
streams
and
and
connect
them
to
a
name
so
that
we
know
that
the
things
are
happening,
and
I
I
think
the
reward
board
would
should
be
a
standing
item
on
the
agenda
and
that
someone
from
the
reward
board
sort
of
reports.
If
there
is
something
to
report
like
we
changed
a
parameter.
A
For
instance,
we
we
decided
together
the
reward
board
to
change
the
pseudonym
setting
for
transparency,
so
that
we
have
a
clear
connection
about
what
goes
on
in
in
the
reward
board
and
the
working
group
and
inform
the
community
about.
What's
going
on
going
on,
we
have
been
talking
about
onboarding
and
education,
so
that
is
sort
of
a
still
a
white
area
on
the
map
that
needs
to
be
explored
further.
What
does
that
mean?
Who
needs
to
be
on
board
and
how
and
what
kind
of
education
should
we
do
and
when
and
in
what?
A
What
working
group
etc?
We
have
the
the
stuff
that
happens
after
quantification,
the
the
post,
quant
analysis
that
are
also
bunched
together
with
communications.
A
I
don't
know
if
that
is
a
valid
grouping,
but
you
know
analyzing,
not
not
a
tweak
session
that
we
do
with
the
quantifiers,
but
like
nagan,
did
now
actually
doing
the
analysis,
and
we
have
discussed
that
we
should
write
a
small
report
after
each
quantification
is
finished.
Maybe
that
is
quite
standardized,
so
it's
mostly
cut
and
paste
stuff,
but
still-
and
we
need
to
promote
the
the
work
that
goes
on
in
this
working
group,
that
we
promote
the
quantifications,
promote
the
payouts,
etc.
So
raise
awareness
about
what
we're
doing.
E
A
D
A
D
Well,
there
are
interesting
ideas
for
metrics
to
add,
and
some
of
them
are
somehow
fleshed
out
by
the
researchers,
but
I
don't
have
the
technical
understanding
of
what
would
mean
to
implement
them.
So.
B
D
B
A
Have
I
missed
some
some
area?
I
I'm
a
little
bit
uncertain
about
this
post,
quant
analysis
and
communication,
but
maybe
there's
some
sort
of
communication
that
this
group
does
directly
to
the
rest
of
the
community
that
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
the
post
quant
analysis.
Maybe
the
rewards
group
working
group,
like
communications,
should
be
a
thing
in
itself.
B
A
It
is,
I
think,
this
that's
a
real
fun
thing
actually.
A
Yeah
libby,
what
you
mentioned
with
the
quantifications,
that
is
also
the
the
the
tweak
session,
is
sort
of
part
of
the
the
quantification
work.
So
maybe
that
should
be
treated
as
a
separate
thing
and
not
be
done
by
by
this
group,
or
maybe
it
could
be
communicated
by
this.
This
group,
as
well.
A
B
I'd
be
interested
in
education.
What
does
that
exactly
indicate
like
how
to
place
only
how
to
quantify
data.
A
B
A
So
yeah
the
the
the
the
actual
the
result
out
of
this
is
that
next
week,
I'll
be
asking
in
the
status
update
section.
You
know
libby
and
logan
et
cetera,
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
these
new
new
work
streams
or
maybe
we'll
book
a
one-on-one
or
a
small,
separate
session,
if
needed,
to
identify
issues
etc.
A
D
A
I
think
we
will
have
lots
to
lots
of
stuff
to
talk
about
if
it's.
If
we
have
the
the
onboarding
education,
we
have
the
post
content
analysis
to
talk
about.
We
have
some
some
reward
board
stuff
and
quantification
there.
We
will
easily
fill
these
meetings
with
the
just
the
ongoing
the
ongoing
stuff.
I
think.
B
A
D
A
Now
yeah,
I'm
sorry,
but
I'm
being
unclear,
of
course,
not
that
that
is
not
what
I
meant
to
just
to
find
some
new
new
structure
to
support
us
during
these
meetings
and
the
work
going
forward.
A
But
maybe
maybe
this
is.
This
is
a
good
start
and
we'll
see
how
it
evolves,
and
if
you
there
we
are,
we
have
10
minutes
left
or
either
we
close
early
or
we
discuss
something
else
like
the
bright
id
integration,
or
we
had
also
the
stuff
the
thing
that
I
said
that
we
should
go
come
back
to
should
quantifiers
get
paid
the
same
amount,
even
though
they
quantify
different
number
of
plays.
F
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
a
really
easy
solution
like
if
you
just
calculate
the
the
total
praise
and
then
like
their
share
of
the
praise
like
you
could
just
give
them
that
portion
of
the
rewards
and
you
just
calculated
by
praise
they
actually
done
so
I
mean
right
there.
We
have
a
solution
as
well
like
people,
don't
finish
the
praise
that
they're
assigned
you
know,
they're
getting
less
rewards.
E
Yeah,
I
agree
I
was
just
more
of
a
political
decision
but
yeah.
I
think
I
agree
also
that
since
it's
so
easy
to
see
how
much
praise
everybody
quantified,
I
think
we
can
do
it
like
that.
A
Yeah
I
I
was
about
to
say
that
the
the
the
the
distribution
is
is
more
even
this
one.
Now
we
looked
at
the
the
first
quant,
where
my
old
algorithm,
what
produced
a
quite
uneven
distribution
and
the
current
distribution
is
better,
but
still
if
three
of
the
or
four
of
the
quantifiers
get
substantially
less
than
others,
and
additionally,
a
few
of
them.
Don't
finish
at
all,
and
I
I
plus
one
for
me
as
well.
C
A
A
A
A
So
when
we
do
the
payout,
some
number
will
not
get
get
any
rewards
because
we
don't
have
their
addresses
and
that
can
can
go
on
and
on
for
for
quite
a
few
periods
and
then
after
five
periods,
maybe
as
someone
decides
to
activate
their
account
and
then
we
need
to
remember
that
not
only
should
you
get
paid
for
for
this
latest
quantification
period,
but
you
should
also
get
paid
for
all
those
four
previous
periods.
C
I
I
think
maybe
we
should
have
some
people
assigned
to
like
think
about
it
and
present
architecture,
because
it's
a
big,
complex
problem
and
we
only
have
a
couple
minutes
yep
we
might
want
to
have
the
people
from
gnosis
dow
talk
a
little
more
about
what
what
they're
looking
for.
A
A
Not
really,
I
think
it
would
need
to
have
it
would
need
to
have
a
separate
memory,
a
memory
separates
from
from
the
the
individual
quantifications
so
that,
but
it
the
data
would
need
to
be
stored
in
in
a
place
where
it
cannot
easily
be
tampered
with
without
leaving
any
trace,
but
maybe
storing
it
on
github.
It
would
be
good
enough
where
you
can
have
some
some
traceability,
etc.
But
let's,
let's
shelf
this
for
for
now
and
and
ask
gnosis
dao.
B
Sorry,
so
we're
still
in
the
early
stages
of
all
this
and
we're
still
brainstorming
what
type
of
reward
system
we
want
to
implement
from
the
very
cursory
discussions
we've
had
so
far.
If
we
only
had
two
one
really
we're
leaning
towards
a
more
simplistic
model
that
doesn't
include
the
quantification
mechanism
as
of
yet-
and
I
think
as
for
if
and
when
things
pick
up,
we
can
increase
complexity
at
that
time.
B
I
think
the
general
sentiment
is
that
we
want
to
roll
out
something
simplistic
at
first
test
that
out
and
then
and
then
go
from
there
libby
and
he's
the
one
that
referred
me
to
here
and
libby
has
expressed
an
interest
to
help.
I
think
she's,
already
kind
of
started
on
this
before
I
submitted
the
proposal
on
the
gnosis
style
forums
and
then
john
who's,
a
part
of
gnosis
will
be
joining
us,
so
I
I
think
we're
going
to
coordinate
a
time
for
the
four
of
us.