►
From YouTube: W17 Softgov WG: SourceCred in depth
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Helping girff :-D
03:15 - Sourcecred
32:59 - Sourcecred Dashboard
49:29 - Sourcecred Code of conduct
50:52 - What do we need to integrate it?
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/DDr5kYU
or say hello on Telegram http://t.me/CommonsStack
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CommonsStack
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
D
B
H
F
D
A
So
a
few
things
that
that
we
discussed
in
this
call
with
santi
is
that
it's
really
important
for
the
whole
community
to
be
informed
about
how
source
credit
works.
This
could
be
like
another
added
point
of
technocracy,
so
we
don't
want
that
and
they're
gonna
write
a
blog
post
with
a
lot
of
great
information.
That
already
exists
is
pretty
much
done
about
how
source
cred
works,
and
we
were
thinking
about
like
how
how
to
measure
the
parameters.
C
Okay,
so
in
a
cute
little
analogy
that
I
found
on
a
github
issue,
someone
was
saying
that
the
source
threat
graph
is
like
if
everyone
has
a
bucket-
and
there
is
at
some
point
in
the
week
that
there
is
raining.
So
we
have
a
an
amount
of
rain
that
will
be
raining
in
that
day,
so
everyone
in
a
bucket
will
grab
as
much
of
water
and
that
the
in
the
moment
that
the
brain
happened.
C
So
following
that
analogy,
I
like
to
think
that
thread
is
all
the
water
that
will
be
flowing
in
a
particular
day
that
we
set
up
how
much
water
will
be
flowing
and
how
wide
or
how
yeah,
how
big
or
how
wide
your
bucket
will
be,
depends
on
how
much
you
have
collaborated
in
the
in
the
system
in
the
in
the
project.
Let's
say
so.
C
The
automation
that
source
credit
is
offering
mainly
decides
how
much
points
or
how
much,
how
wide
should
your
bucket
be
by
the
end
of
of
a
week
of
a
month,
etc
mainly
a
week
in
our
case,
so
for
every
interaction
that
is
happening
in
the
main
platforms
right
now.
This
co
this
course
and
github.
We
are
removing
this
core
for
now
for
some
complexity
issues,
some
main
interactions
there
offer
you
more
points
or
more
of
a
wider
pocket
than
others.
C
So
that's
only
great
credit
decides
how
much
of
of
a
big
how?
How
big
of
a
bucket
will
it
be.
So
when
the
rain
comes,
you
will
grab
as
much
of
the
water.
That's
that's
what
trading
indicates
for
grain.
The
difference
between
grain
and
cred
is
that
grain
is
the
the
currency
value
or
the
token
value
that
we
are
assigning
to
to
a
certain
amount
of
credit.
So
we
can
say
that
for
each
credit
you
will
have
one
tc
token,
for
example.
C
C
This
identificator,
we
can
rename
it
actually
right
now
in
our
implementation,
you,
you
don't
see
grain.
You
actually
see
cec
test
token
a
little
bit
long,
but
the
test
part
is
what's
important.
So
for
a
certain
amount
of
credit,
you
can
turn
that
into
grain.
That's
a
distribution
that,
for
now
we
decided
it's
happening
for
2000
grain
a
week.
C
So
that's
that's
the
main
difference
between
credit
and
grain.
With
your
work,
you
get
a
a
certain
amount
of
credit
that
credit
turns
into
grain.
When
you,
when
we
decide
which
currency
will
it
be.
Turning
in
our
case
will
it
it
should
be
dec
tokens,
and
the
parameters
in
in
this
case
is
what
we
should
decide
as
a
community.
C
So,
in
our
case
of
setting
a
parameter
of
5050
says
that
everybody
is
kind
of
getting
as
much
as
as
grain
as
possible,
even
though
you
did
more
work
two
weeks
ago
than
the
latest
week,
and
we
are
also
considering
the
work
that
that
someone
new
has
made
those
the
latest
days
so
yeah.
I
think
I
didn't
miss
something.
Maybe
leave
and
santi
can
get
something
up.
If
I'm,
if
I'm
leaving
something
outside,
I'm
sure.
G
B
B
Yeah,
basically,
there's
there's
two
types
of
decisions:
okay,
there's
the
parameters
of
the
source,
credit
system
which
we
have
set
and
can
be
changed
anytime
and
we're
going
to
start
with
whatever
we
decided,
because
we
had
to
start
with
something.
Okay,
and
we
understand
that
those
parameters
should
be
reviewed
by
a
group
in
hype.
Is
in
one
hype.
Is
one
swarm?
Okay,
we
can
call
it
a
committee.
B
We
can
call
it
a
group
of
people
dealing
with
source
cred
wherever
we
decide
it's
a
community,
but
we
have
to
have
the
right
to
quickly
adjust
something
if
there's
something
going
wrong
and
if
it's
all
of
us
voting
it's
going
to
be
hard.
So
it's
better
if
we
keep
it
under
a
group
of
people,
a
working
group.
Whatever
way
we
decide.
Okay,
but
that's
that's
another
issue
now,
on
top
of
that,
there's
the
decision
of
the
50
50.
B
and,
depending
in
on
that
parameter
everything
changes
right
now
we
have
50
previous
periods
50
recent
period,
no
matter,
if
that's
a
week,
if
it's
two
weeks
it's
whenever
we
decide
to
give
a
period
because
initially
saying
every
week,
maybe
it's
not
the
best
way
to
start,
maybe
for
whatever
reason,
especially
at
the
beginning.
We
have
issues
here
and
there
and
one
week
becomes
10
days
whatever.
Let's
call
it
a
period.
B
Okay,
although
it's
good
to
think
that
it's
going
to
be
regularly
distributed,
and
finally
is
the
grain,
the
grain
is
what
we
distribute
and
we
can
decide
if,
when
we
give
in
if
one
week
we
give
us
a
whole
10
dc
tokens
the
next
period,
we
give
one
the
next
period
we
have
die
because
we
have
the
donation
of
the
eyes
and
we're
going
to
give
diamonds
as
grain.
Okay,
we
can
decide
whatever
we
want
to
distribute
and
whatever
the
amount
we
want
to
distribute.
B
But
what
we
think
is
that
there's
going
to
be
a
way
first,
to
request
funds
for
source
credit
from
the
main
dial,
okay
and
to
decide
how
much,
which
periods,
how
we
tweak,
how
we
change
all
right.
So
everyone
should
have
the
right
to
request
a
change
or
request
a
suggestion
for
a
change
in
the
community.
But
I
think
that
the
decision
should
be
maintained
between
a
group,
a
smaller
group.
B
Otherwise
it's
going
to
be
too
hard
to
manage
and
we
propose
with
libby
that
maybe
because,
at
the
end,
we're
dealing
with
money,
okay
with
money,
we're
dealing
with
distributing
money.
So
the
people
taking
care
of
these
maybe-
and
these
involve
swankier-
maybe
needed
to
go
through
some
kind
of
whatever.
B
I
don't
think
they
have
to
go
through
a
graviton,
but
it
wouldn't
be.
It
would
be
nice
if
that
if
they'd
be
gravitons,
also
because
you
know
it's
people
that
under
their
decision,
it's
moving
money
here
and
there
and
touching
one
lever
can
chase
things.
And
I
don't
I-
I
prefer
you
know
to
make
sure
that
whoever
joins
that
team
has
gone
at
least
to
a
code
of
conduct.
Course
or
graviton
or
whatever
we
decide
that
they
have
to
go
through.
So
it's
something
to
think
about,
so
those
are
basically.
A
A
I
also
wanted
to
add
that
these
are
the
points
where
we
started
to
touch
the
tangent
with
praise,
because
we
thought
praise
so
much
already,
and
there
are
some
of
the
solutions
that
we
already
have
so,
for
example,
for
praise
quantification.
We
found
a
a
temporary
solution.
That
is,
the
people
that
have
more
praise,
are
always
invited
to
be
quantifiers,
and
this
adds
a
layer
of
trust
and
it's
transparent,
and
anyone
can
arrive
to
this
place
of
having
more
praise.
A
So
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
we
have
now
is
how
to
distribute
the
praise:
how
to
distribute
the
impact
hours
post
hatch,
because
because
each
proposal
can't
have
multiple
addresses
to
distribute
all
at
once
and
some
of
the
solutions
that
we
gathered
from
from
last
last
time.
Most
of
them
include
someone
handling
someone
else's
rewards.
A
So
we
thought
oh,
what?
If
the
impact
hours
could
also
enter
as
a
parameter
in
source
cred
and
be
distributed
by
the
distribution
engine
of
source
cred.
So
this
would
solve
a
huge
problem
of
the
post-hatch
distribution,
because
source
cred
would
have
all
of
these
addresses.
To
do
it
in
an
automated
way
and
we
could
still
use
the
same
committee
for
source
grand
parameters
as
we
use
for
praise,
and
then
those
would
solve
like
many
things
at
once
and
just
to
add.
Yeah.
I
A
A
A
A
This
will
be
a
system
to
inform
cad
cad.
Even
that
will
be
building
simulations
for
other
comments
and
for
this
comments
or
for
like,
where
are
the
data
they
are
gathering
so
now
we
don't
really
have
this
place
for
all
this
data
to
exist,
but
then
having
this
like
praise
that
rewards
very
soft
contributions,
so
all
types
of
contributions
and
source
cred
that
rewards
more
like
on
the
grid
contributions
will
will
have
this
like
great.
G
I
was
just
going
to
clarify
on
two
things,
so
I
part
of
my
my
kind
of
misconception
is:
I
don't
have
a
real
good
understanding
of
how
impact
hours
are
derived
and
it's
kind
of
been
an
issue
since
I've
gotten
involved
with
the
tec,
I'm
not
sure
how
they
relate
to
to
praise
and
how
you
want
to
integrate
it
into
source
cred.
But
the
the
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
was
what
santi
was
talking
about
earlier.
Was
the
the
50
50
distribution?
Is
that
just
keeping
with
mateo's
analogy?
B
No,
no,
it's!
Basically,
you
keep
contributing
okay
and
the
system
just
makes
a
distinction
between
the
actual
period
and
the
periods
before
okay
and-
and
that
is
a
way
to
compensate
those
that
have
been
involved,
for
instance,
for
half
a
year
and
then
all
the
sudden
they
decide
to
quit.
For
whatever
reason,
their
contribution
should
still
be
rewarded
because
it's
there
and
they
they
were
helping
the
the
development
of
the
community.
B
B
C
For
example,
I
have
we
have
source
credit
implemented
since
november,
but
actually
the
first
distribution
of
grain
that
we
made
was
like
three
weeks
ago.
If
the
these
parameters
were
not
50
50,
all
the
work
that
has
been
made
since
the
first
week
of
november
would
have
been
completely
ignored
and
only
would
have
been
distributed.
The
the
week
of
the
the
the
last
week
of
january,
for
example.
A
And
just
to
answer
your
impact,
our
question,
so
praise
is
dished
and
then
all
this
phrase
goes
to
a
spreadsheet
and
then
every
two
weeks,
the
two
people
that
have
the
highest
numbers
of
phrase
or
impact
hours
they
they
are
invited
to
quantify
this
phrase.
So
this
quantification
is
a
very
manual
and
subjective
process
of
seeing
it
reading
each
contribution
and
saying:
oh,
this
deserves
this
amount
of
impact
hours.
This
deserves
this
amount
of
impact
hours.
A
So
by
the
end
there
is
an
average
made
and
then
this
final
impact
hours
number
is
computed
with
the
previous
contribution
from
every
person.
So
now
we
all
have
like
a
score
of
impact
hours
that
will
turn
into
tech
tokens
and
then
we'll
receive
this,
the
tech
token.
So
the
impact
hour,
it's
almost
like
the
cred,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
from
source
cred,
and
then
it
would
turn
into
a
grain.
It's
like
the
bucket
that
will
receive
the
the
tokens.
C
C
So
in
this
case,
both
of
those
values
will
turn
into
into
grain,
but
in
the
end,
grain
is
another
kind
of
currency
if
if
the
distribution
is
happening
in
die
or
prime
tokens
or
whatever,
so
in
the
end
of
both
credit
and
pray
and
praise
is
the
same,
but
just
the
source
that
where
is
coming
from
is
different.
One
is
automated
and
the
other
one
is
given
peer-to-peer.
G
C
A
Yeah,
so
so
the
questions
we
had
that
would
be
good
to
have
a
sense
from
everyone
is
like.
First,
if
we
should
have
a
committee,
I
felt
from
like
no
objections
that
this
sounds
good
still,
gonna
go
through
a
proposal,
but
okay,
cool
and
then
the
second
was
how
to
deal
with
additional
identities,
and
I
think
this
it
came
from
mateo
it,
and
I
think
it
also
touches
on
your
posts
in
the
forum
nate,
that
your
talk,
that
you
talked
about
bright
id
or
other
types
of
identity
integration.
C
Yeah,
so
so,
to
make
a
video
a
little
bit
of
more
explanation
in
there
when
the
the
grain
distribution,
the
weekly
distribution,
has
to
be
done
manually,
but
one
of
the
administrators
of
the
of
the
of
the
source,
let's
say
so.
This
grain
will
only
be
distributed
to
approve
identities
that
the
administrator
has
previously
made
into
the
into
the
source
grid.
So
everybody
that
is
getting
grain
has
necessarily
had
to
have
a
a
previous
verification.
C
So
far,
so
now
is
only
me
and
santiago
and
libya
who
said
okay,
this
this.
This
guy
is
true,
so
we
merged
the
accounts,
the
the
different
accounts
between
github
discord
and
discourse.
Oh
no
discord
only
this
course
and
we
decide
which
entities
is
real.
So
let's
say
that
today
comes
a
new
contributor
by
the
distribution.
If
it
happens
on
sunday,
he
won't
get
any
unless
I
already
added
it
to
the
to
the
implementation
as
a
real
identity.
C
So
this
flow,
I
guess
we
need
to
find
a
better
way
to,
of
course,
make
it
easier
for
for
the
person
that
is
contributing
to
know
what
he's
getting
into
like
yeah.
Your
identity
is
being
considered
in
the
source,
credit
and
you
will
be
having
the
grain
and
then
the
cred.
All
of
that
I
see
it
as
a
onboarding
issue,
and
the
other
part
is
to
that.
B
B
Well,
I
think
that
the
best
way
first
is
to
let
everyone
know
that
they
can
apply.
You
know,
make
sort
of
a
form
and
make
that
public.
So
anyone
knows
that
they
have
in
order
to
get
rewards.
They
have
to
fill
in
that
form,
giving
us
their
handles
and
somehow
make
sure
that
when
someone
fills
that
in
we
right
away,
introduce
it
okay,
because
it
will
be
maybe
one
or
two
contributors
every
once
in
a
while.
C
Not
really
bright
id
would
help
us
getting
to
know
that
this
account
is
a
real
person
and
not
someone
faking
it,
but
we
should
also
have
like
yeah
right.
This
guy
was
very
vital
in
brazil,
so
he
gets
more
verification
points.
So
that's
all
following
the
transparency
issue.
That
nate
was
mentioning
the
most
transparent
thing
of
this
is
that
the
source
credit
info
is
available
to
everyone.
So
you
can
see
everything
everybody
that
is
in
there
and
how
much
everyone
is
getting.
B
If
you
want
to
see
what
happened
on
the
past,
you
will
be
able
to
go
over
all
those
charts
every
time
we
distribute
it
and
you
might
be
able
to
see
okay,
I
got
this
much
on
this
distribution
and
this
match
on
this
one
and
this
match
on
this
one
or
this
other
guy
did
got
this
or
that
or
whatever.
So
we
we're
gonna,
have
we're
gonna
create
a
history
of
snapshots
of
the
distributions,
because
once
they've
passed,
there
is
no
way
to
grab
that
information.
B
No,
not
really
not
really,
that
you
can
catch
them.
If
it
scales
you
you
you
it
just
since
it's
a
living
thing,
it
just
holds
the
information
on
every
period
and
keeps
accumulating,
but
once
you
distribute
on
the
way
the
way
it's
created
the
way
you
can
see
it
right
now,
because
it's
already
online
and
and
maybe
mateo
can
post
the
link
on
on
the
song
governance
channel.
B
So
you
see
you
see
the
picture
of
what
do
what
what's
the
amount
that
everyone's
got
right
now,
but
if
you
want
to
see
what
was
the
amount
two
weeks
ago,
because
I
know
that
this
guy
wasn't
joining
the
the
group
yet
and
he
wasn't
here.
I
want
to
make
sure
this
guy
had
zero
back
then
because
he
wasn't
even
here.
Okay,
the
only
way
is
if
we
keep
track
making
a
snapshot
through
charts
of
every
distribution.
I
B
I
Yeah,
well,
that's
getting
set
up
the
other
thing
I
would
just
like
a
small
suggestion
is
like
maybe
it's
best
to
do.
The
distribution
in
x
die,
but
then,
at
the
last
minute,
just
throw
it
through
the
bonding
curve,
get
the
tec
and
then
distribute
the
tc
at
the
current
value,
as
opposed
to
holding
dc
in
the
in
the
dow
or
whatever
ends
up
holding
it.
F
D
I
D
Actually,
something
that's
been
an
issue
at
one.
Hive
has
been
the
changing
value
of
honey
and
I
think
that's
an
excellent
idea.
If
what
you're
concerned
about
is
having
a
consistent
payout
as
opposed
to
you,
know
kind
of
gambling
on
your
token
value
it,
it
actually
does
make
a
difference
and
it
will
come
up
as
an
issue.
If
you
don't
have
it
tied
to
a
dollar
value.
D
Santi,
I
was
going
to
say
that
if,
if
you
guys
are
interested,
I
know
that
there's
people
at
one
hype
that
have
really
buckled
down
and
started
working
on
automating
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that
source
credit
hasn't
managed
to
automate,
and
you
might
find
some
helpful
people
in
the
pollen
channels
over
there.
That
will
that'll
like
help
you
smooth
out
the
whole
process.
C
For
now,
I
know
that
they
are
implementing
a
cradle,
they
called
which
implements
the
aragon
dao
alongside
the
source
grid.
So
the
airdrop
of
the
final
grain
distribution
happens
really
smoothly,
but
it
is
not
done
yet.
I
guess
that
when
that's
ready,
we
can
use
it
really
great,
because
that
would
imply
that
all
the
yeah,
the
air
drop
in
the
the
distribution,
the
real
money
distribution
in
the
end
will
happen
more
more
easily.
B
B
Wanna,
do
sorry
mateo
another
thing
I
I
think
it'd
be
nice
to
do
and
maybe
why
gg
can
help
us
on
there
once
everything
is
up
and
running,
there's
a
lot
of
insight
that
you
can
get
just
from
checking
out
the
data
that
that
beast
throws
out
just
seeing
and
trying
to
intervene
like
you
have
those
numbers
and
if
you
think
you
want
more,
let's
see
you
can
give
me
five
a
little
bit.
You
want
more
voting
on
the
proposals
that
we
post
on
the
forum.
B
C
Yeah,
so
all
the
information
is
in
right
now
in
the
tc
commons.
That
gives
us
that
long
link
that
we
will
show
you
in
the
in
the
channel
later
but
yeah.
This
is
like
all
the
credit
that
so
far
has
been
given
since
the
first
week
of
november,
and
it's
just
numbers
so
12
percent
has
been
given
to
grief
the
nine
percent
to
yg
etc,
and
you
can
check
how
the
weight
configuration
is
being
right
now
and
also
you
can
even
compute
your
own
distribution.
C
If
you
want
to
to
try
and
tweak
and
see
how
much
heat
it
makes
the
a
difference,
so
you
can
see
a
lot
of
numbers,
a
lot
of
alpha
and
betas.
We
want
in
our
post
to
make
it
really
easy
to
understand,
but
an
easy
way
that
sometimes
it
doesn't
make
sense,
because
it's
quite
complex
is
that
alpha
is
you
and
beta
is
something
else.
So
when
you
organize
a
sentence,
you
say
alpha
has
something
to
do
with
beta.
C
So,
in
this
case,
for
example,
in
this
course
alpha
pose
replied
to
by
beta
is
what
a
really
complex
way
to
word
that
phrase,
but
it's
basically
that
beta
or
someone
replied
to
your
post.
How
much
credit
should
be
given
to
that
person
that
replied
to
the
post
that
you
that
you
made
so
in
this
case
it
just
has
a
multiplier
of
one.
So
everything
in
here
has
a
multiplier
from
from
zero
to,
I
believe,
is
8
16
or
32
32
yeah,
it's
32..
C
So
in
that
case
you
can
like
balance
how
much
of
the
trade
that
is
being
constantly
being
distributed.
If
we
come
back
to
the
analogy
is
how
much
rain
will
be
extremely
being
directed
to
to
a
certain
part
of
the
pocket,
let's
say
so,
for
example,
in
this
course
we
are
giving
more
importance
to
the
likes
than
to
the
post
and
the
topics.
C
C
C
C
C
They
earned
one
is
based
on
if
he
already
withdrawn
all
of
the
balance
or
everything
is
in
here
yet
so
everyone
is
in
here.
We
have
also
the
option
to
deactivate
or
activate
accounts.
Everyone
in
here
is
activated,
and
the
other
ones
are
people
that
are
in
the
platforms,
but
haven't
really
contributed
anything
for
the
past
months
since
november.
B
B
Why
why
is
important?
Excuse
me
mateo.
Now
you
see
what
is
important
to
take
a
snapshot
because
through
through
this
chart
through
this
scorecard
you,
you
cannot
see
what
was
the
distribution
two
weeks
ago.
There's
no
way
to
know
it.
Okay,
and
also
there's
one
leverage
there
that
we're
not
mentioning
it's.
That
grief
got
the
best
the
best
score,
but
when
you
lose
your
voice,
you
lose
all
your
points
so
bad
for
him.
A
H
C
I'm
not
really
sure
how
much
of
the
interaction
is
happening
in
github,
as
I
am
not
currently
there
or
regularly
there,
but
yeah.
The
the
main
actions
are
these
ones
that
are
seen
on
the
in
the
node
weights.
So
we
can
decide
if,
for
me
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
give
anyone
praise
for
creating
a
repository,
but
sometimes
it
may
be.
B
So
but
yeah
it's,
I
think
I
think,
a
tank
on
time
contribution.
I
think
time
contribution
to
this
site
or
to
get
her.
Her
points
on
on
github
may
may
be
really
valuable
because
she
really
knows
how
you
know:
everything
is
around
github,
not
from
the
development
side
but
more
from
the
organization
side,
and-
and
maybe
we
want
to
encourage
that
or
we
want
to
reward
that
and
we
we
did
on
that
when
we
were
tweaking
the
parameters
initially.
I
Source
credit
source
credit
is
a
very
difficult
thing
to
integrate.
With
is
what
I'd
say:
it's
like.
We
basically
have
whatever,
I
believe,
there's
only
three
options:
discourse,
github
and
discord
and
discord
has
been
notoriously
difficult
to
handle,
and
I
believe
that's
why
you
guys
took
it
out.
I
assume
out
of
the
scope
just
because
it's
too
hard
it's
too
easily
gamed
and
one
day,
hopefully
source
credit
will
integrate
with
aragon,
yeah
that'd
be
so
cool,
but
it
kind
of
requires
the
the
core
team
to
actually
make
those
integrations.
B
Yeah,
that's
what
I
was
mentioning
before.
I
think
there's
gonna
be
a
document
that
explains
clearly
how
everything
is
measured.
Okay
and
there's
gonna
be
a
procedure
put
in
practice
where
anyone
can
have
the
right
to
propose
a
change
of
a
parameter,
and
then
I
don't
know
if
that
committee
should
take
that
and
vote
it,
or
we
have
to
put
procedure
in
place
for
anyone
to
propose
a
change
on
any
parameter
and
then
listen
to
it.
And
if
we
decide
as
a
group
that
we
have
to
do
it,
we
do
it.
I
I,
I
think,
that's
a
great
idea.
I
do
think
it's
important
that
we
follow
more
of
the
colony
approach
of
like
keeping
decisions
at
the
edges.
Also,
the
one
hive
approach
where
it's
like
you
know
the
the
dow
the
conviction
voting
dow
is
macro,
managing
where
it's
like.
Oh
yeah,
here's
funding,
you're
doing
a
good
job.
You
know
here's
funding,
you
guys
request
funding
every
two
months
or
something
like,
but
then
in
the
end
there
is
like
a
lot
of
value
in
the
working
groups.
I
You
know
and
like
you
guys
are
in
the
thick
of
it,
you
have
the
best
perspective,
be
accountable
and
transparent,
right,
be
transparent,
which
brings
accountability
just
because
like
if
someone
has
a
challenge,
they
have
the
the
tools
and
resources
to
make
that
challenge
in
an
educated
way
and
then,
but
you
guys
got
to
be
the
ones
making
the
decisions.
I
really
hope
that
it
doesn't
evolve
into
every
time.
You
want
to
make
a
a
tweak.
I
You
have
to
do
a
discord
poll
or
something
like
it
really
should
be
that
you
guys
are
trusted
to
make
decisions
and
then
you're
accountable
every
so
many
months,
because
you're
you're
going
to
be
requesting
funding,
and
if
someone
wants
to
start
up
a
challenging
group
to
also
reward
you
know,
do
the
exact
same
thing.
They
can.
You
know
so.
A
Yeah
I
like
having
this
calls
to
be
like
a
place
for
like
even
now.
If
this
was
a
proposal,
this
wouldn't
have
passed,
because
there
would
be
so
many
like,
like
tamara
bringing
a
point,
grief,
bringing
everyone
bringing
a
point
and
then
now
in
this
space
we
can
actually
go
together
and
talk
about
it
and
like
oh.
I
don't
think
this
is
reflecting
what
is
happening
and
then
we
can
like
change
it
and
and
trust
that
we
are
the
people
that
would
be
voting.
Anyways.
B
And
now
you
see
that
this
is
really
a
complex
thing
and
there's
no
way
you
can
vote
in
just
one
proposal
on
the
room.
We
probably
will
have
to
put
several
of
them
explaining
the
different
tools,
the
different
aspects
of
the
pool
that
we
want
to
require
for
boarding
and
then
from
I
don't
know
three
or
four
of
those
proposals
without
getting
all
the
insight
from
the
community.
But
but
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
really
complex
system.
There's
a
lot
of
parameters.
B
I
C
Like
you
see
in
the
in
my
screen,
there
is
the
the
credit
accounts
that
are
currently
active.
We
have
the
the
say
of
activating
them
or
deactivating
them
if
we
see
that
something
has
been
wrong.
So
if
we
go
to
the
bottom
of
the
list,
there
may
be
someone
that
is
currently
in
every
platform,
but
haven't
really
made
any
real
contributions,
so
he's
not
being
taken
account
when
the
when
the
distribution
is
happening.
So
that's
like
sort
of
a
white
listing
yeah.
A
Yeah,
I
think,
for
this
we
would
have
to
add
a
quick
like
code
of
conduct
for
source
credit
just
to
have
an
awareness
of
like
if
you're
breaking,
if
you're
having
this
or
this
behavior
or
if
you
you're
breaking
this
and
this
code
of
conduct,
we
are
allowed
to
just
remove
someone.
Otherwise
this
would
have
to
be
a
proposal
every
time
and
I
don't
think
we
need
it,
but
to
have
it
transparent
in
the
way
that,
like
you,
know
that
if
this
and
those
are
crossed,
then
it's
it's
okay
to
remove
someone.
D
I
Yeah,
like
like
github
issues,
for
instance,
are
very
critical
for
the
way
that
we
organize
and
they
should
really
be
rewarded
because
it's
heroes
work
to
make
a
good
hub
issue,
but
at
the
same
time
someone
can
just
come
around
and
mix
really
stupid
issues
and
feel
like
they're
making
money
right.
So
we
just
need
to
to
be
able
to
allow
gameable
situations,
but
then
try
to
have
awareness
over
people
gaming.
It.
C
As
it
is,
I
would
say
one
is
prioritized
opinion
and
save
time,
because
she
is
the
one
that
knows
very
well
how
the
github
should
be
working
in
that
aspect.
So
one
for
that,
because
before
we
go
live
because
we
are
already
live,
this
would
mean
the
first
change
of
parameters
in
there
is
any
that
I
believe
that
would
be
at
least
one,
so
so
that
that's
important.
The
second
one
is
to
decide
how
the
procedure
will
work
for
the
snapshots,
the
weekly
or
monthly
snapshots
and
all
of.
C
Main
parameters
in
the
beginning,
that
is
how
much
tc
tokens
or
whatever
tokens
that
we
are
called
into
in
the
source
grid,
will
be
being
distributed
every
week
or
every
month.
So
it's
just
how
santy
was
mentioning
the
the
real
procedure.
How
of
how
this
will
be
keep
moving
in
time?
So
I
think
those
are
the
two
main
necessities
that
we
have
right
now
for
for
actually
going
live
or
more
useful
than
it
is
right.
Now.
C
So
more
of
an
architecture
of
how
can
we
finally
check
all
of
the
accounts
and
merge
it
into
one
and
how
we
are
going
to
connect
to
the
price
board
and
grab
the
information
automatically?
All
of
that,
it
has
many
many
conditions
that
that
cannot
be
solved
in
in
a
week.
Let's
say
maybe
maybe
a
month,
maybe
two-
I
don't
know,
but
for
now,
if
we
are
currently
having
a
correct
procedure
for
the
source
spread,
integrating
the
phrase
and
automating
that
part
can
can
be
a
little
easier,
but
not
really
fast.
I
would
say.
A
And
then
for
that
you
would
need
you
would
need
anything
specific
or
now
just
time.
So
now
we
just
prioritize
on
point
one
and
two
that
is
hearing
times
opinion
and
changing,
get
github
parameters
and
then
understanding
how
the
snapshots
will
work
and
then
next
yeah
next
week
we
can
talk
about
how
to
start
merging
praise.
C
Those
are
mainly
for
decisions
and
just
get
the
numbers
right,
because
everything
is
already
working,
and
it's
just
a
case
of
making
some
distinctions
in
the
in
the
current
implementation
and
for
the
procedure
is
take.
Maybe
inspiration
from
other
communities
that
already
have
something
really
cool.
For
example,
mr
dao
has
a
really
nice
way
of
of
displaying
the
the
weekly,
I
believe,
is
weekly
distribution.
They
say
how
much
everybody
is
getting
if
there
is
any
change,
etc,
and
they
make
it
in
the
forum
on
this
course.
F
F
D
B
I
think
we
gotta
we
gotta,
but
that's
the
that's
the
key
of
any
doubt.
You
know
trying
to
engage
everyone,
especially
as
time
goes
by,
and
I
agree
completely
that
you
put
the
effort
of
writing
and
doing
all
the
you
know,
research
or
whatever
you
have
to
do
before
posting
and
then
you
finally
post
and-
and
you
don't
want
people
to
just
you
know
answer
because
they
get
extra
points
and
not
because
they
really
jump
into
the
meat
of
the
post.
B
That's
that's
what
you're
posting
and
I
think
we
have
to
find
a
you
know
a
midpoint
there
and
and
probably
use
any
single
tool
that
we
can
to
make
or
try
to
get
people
involved
in
in
the
process.
Okay
and
then-
and
we
have
to
try
everything
that
we
can.
I
agree
that
we
initially
before
we
start
and
we
may
even
test
a
period
and
we
can
add
some
changes.
B
What
I
don't
think
good
is
once
we
are
already
up
and
running
from
one
period
to
another,
introduce
a
lot
of
changes,
because
then
we
lose
insight
and
we
don't
see
what.
Why
is
final
changing
but
before
on
the
very
first,
if
we
want
to
introduce
three
or
four
or
five,
let's
put
your
knowledge?
That's
why
we're
here
for
these
guys
and-
and
we
understand
that
we
have
to
tweak
some
of
those
parameters
and
and
eat
six
of
them.
Let's
do
it.
It's
later.
F
B
That
it's
much
better
to
just
do
it
one
at
a
time
which
is
one
or
two
per
period.
If
we
still
think
that
we
have
to
change
them
because
until
until
we
really
give
money
this-
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
ever
traded,
but
this
is
like
trading
okay,
you're
playing
with
paper
money.
Everything
is
fine.
You
feel
great
you're
doing
awesome.
Then
you
put
one
dollar
into
that
account
and
everything
changes
completely
okay.
So
this
is
what's
going
to
happen
when
people
start
seeing
that
they're
getting.
B
C
And
I
wanted
to
end
that
part
following
that.
The
real
measure
of
value
in
the
ideal
world
is
getting
right.
What
is
objective
by
what
is
subjective-
and
I
believe,
in
our
case
by
the
time
that
we
find
a
way
to
integrate
praise
and
this,
that
middle
ground
will
be
a
little
bit
more
tangible.
So
whatever
the
effort
on
making
a
post
or
everything
can
be
really
given
value.
A
A
We
could
schedule
a
hack
session
this
week
to
look
into
the
parameters
and
invite
the
people
that
have
been
most
active
in
each
one
of
the
the
channels
and
then
we
go
through
it
and
we
have
like
a
wrap
up
to
give
it
to
the
next
step.
That
is
the
implementation
and
then,
from
there
we
take
a
step
back
on
changing
the
parameters
for
a
little
bit.
D
E
F
G
E
One
quick
thing
I
grieve
a
very
long
time
ago
mentioned
about,
like
all
the
source
credit
go
to
the
price
one,
and
then
we
could
add
what
jake
was
mentioning
like
and
like.
We
were
saying
talking
about
gamifying
this,
but
if,
instead
of
giving
directly
the
rewards
to
the
people
it
went
through
the
quant,
would
it
help
to,
for
example,
reward
the
github
issues
creating
and
reward
when
someone
is
creating
posts.
So
it's
more
engaging
and
at
the
same
time
we
avoid
the
we
avoid
the
gamification,
because
we
are
quantifying
it.