►
From YouTube: W5 Softgov WG: Rules and boundaries, Ostrom's principles
Description
Question of the week:
What is Softgov for you?
Timecodes
00:00 - Question of the week
17:24 - Rules and boundaries
21:09 - Feedback about rules and boundaries
29:56 - Griff explains the extra step on the launch
34:09 - Feedback, questions and doubts
56:32 - Liviade invite everyone to participate on the book club and closing round
🙏 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/
C
D
A
A
E
B
Sure
for
me,
I
always
take
like
an
analogy
that
if
there
is
self-governance
there
must
be
a
higher
governance
so
that
hard
governance
are
those
rules
or
those
impositions
that
needs
to
be
done
so
the
system
or
the
community
remains
stable
and
working.
The
soft
governance
is,
as
we
are,
trying
to
to
build
some
dynamism
in
the
system.
B
F
Yeah
related
with
what
matteo
was
saying
for
me,
self-governance,
it's
like
like.
Oh,
I
just
the
complement
of
legal,
because,
for
example,
last
time
I
was
asking
a
question
on
the
legal
work
king
group-
and
it
was
about
self-governance,
like
I
think
for
me,
legal
is
like
the
the
law,
but
so
governance
like
for
the
people
like
for
that
role
on
for
the
people
and
I'll
pass
it
to
craig.
H
Yeah
yeah
we'll
come
back
to
you,
craig
I'll,
save
you.
So
the
question
is
like
what
is
soft
governance
and
tom
was
just
like
what
is
this
working
group
even
about
and
and
so
we
went
improv
style
with
like
okay.
This
is
our
entry
question.
What
is
soft
governance
about
to
to
each
of
us?
And
why
are
we
here?
H
H
It's
about
cultural
norms
and
understanding,
and
it's
it's
going
to
be
blatantly
obvious
to
anyone
in
this
group
because
we're
going
to
launch
a
dow
in
a
few
weeks
like
a
an
economy
that
we
just
say:
oh
yeah,
this
is
a
test,
the
soft
governance,
the
the
understanding,
the
cultural,
like
the
shared
knowledge
that
we
all
have
that
this
is
soft
gov.
This
is
the
the
piece
we're
all
deciding.
This
is
a
test.
It's
going
to
be
on
main.
It's
going
to
be
on
xdi
with
real
money.
H
If
we
all
decided
it
was
the
launch,
then
it
would
be
the
launch
and
it's
about
understanding.
How
do
we
manage
this
unwieldy,
beast
of,
like
shared
knowledge,
common
knowledge,
and
you
know
that
the
social
norms
that
we
use
to
interact
with
each
other?
We
can
manage
certain
amounts
of
our
governance.
With
the
tech
we
can
say,
code
is
law,
but
obviously
it's
it's
code.
Isn't
law,
there's,
there's
there's
holes
in
the
law.
H
Did
I
break
up
there?
We
need
to
nail
all
of
ostrom's
principles
and
that's
soft.
For
me,
that's
soft
gov's
main
objective
is
to
just
make
sure
all
the
principles
are
checked
off.
Legal
has
one
principle,
and
one
for
juan
carlos
for
con,
for
gravity
has
like
three
of
them
and
and
then
the
tech
even
might
have
have
some
say
on
some
of
these.
But
it's
really
soft
governance
job
to
make
sure
all
of
them
are
checked.
Okay,
sorry,
too
long
I'll
pass
it
to
santi.
I
I
We
got
to
make
them
feel
that
they
want
to.
They
want
to
participate
that
they
want
to
invest,
they
want
to
join
and
and
and
that's
the
most
challenging
job
and
and
it's
not
easy,
and
just
we
can.
We
can
take
a
look
at
just
the
group
since
the
group
started.
There
is
two
groups
that
have
come
out
of
sub
governance,
which
is
which
is
conflict,
management
and
legal,
and
there
is
onboarding.
D
I
So
there's
three
of
them
and
and
that's
because
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
do
and
the
technique.
I'm
I'm
not
saying
that
the
rest
of
the
the
people
is
important.
Tech
guys
are
key
here
also,
but
once
everything
is
launched,
that
job
is
done
and
and
the
rest
of
the
group
keeps
being
here
and
keeps
keeps
the
machine
working
and
and
keeps
everything
moving.
So
it's
it's
really
important,
and-
and
that
is
the
reason
I'm
I'm
participating
in
this
group-
I'm
gonna
pass
it
to
tonga.
C
Hey,
okay,
thank
you.
Now,
it's
much
clearer
only
one
like
which
comes
like
for
me.
I
will
tell
you
at
first
I
started
seeing
the
the
discord
server
and
I
was
like
wow.
This
is
I'm
from
argentina,
so
I
didn't
go
to
university
here
and-
and
one
of
the
reasons
was
because
I
I
keep
arguing
with
so
many
people
that
university
is
not
necessary
or
that
I
can
learn
much
cooler
stuff
online,
but
I
never
had
an
opportunity
to
meet
so
many
people,
so
smart
at
the
same
time.
A
A
D
What
I
feel
is,
you
know,
being
in
crypto,
it's
much
less
about
kind
of
making
her
that
kind
of
like
a
structured
organization
works,
but
more.
So
it's
about
the
energies
of
people
and
their
ideas
and
like
there's
these
kind
of
like
extraordinary
levels
of
commitment,
energy,
enthusiasm
and
then
I
think
the
most
important
part
about
soft
governance
for
me
is
to
be
able
to
harness
this
in
a
way
that
makes
a
project
sustainable
and
also
functioning
and
yeah.
That's
why
I
think,
like
soft
governance,
especially
in
crypto,
is.
D
J
I'm
happy
to
go
next,
I'm
probably
going
to
keep
this
very
short,
because,
with
respect
to
the
time
we
have
left,
I
am
here
to
listen
to
people
like
juan
and
livia
and
santi
and
their
their
passionate
understanding
of
softcup
and
to
absorb
some
of
that
information
and
importance
from
them
and
as
well.
I
understood
from
a
previous
meeting
that
we
might
be
discussing
the
direct
direction
change
in
the
project,
which
is
why
I
jumped
on
this
call.
D
K
So
it's
easy
to
engage
for
about
anybody
at
any
point
in
time
and
thinking
about
the
text
site.
It
reminds
me
of
the
concept
of
maturanas
altopoiesis,
so
a
system
that
is
capable
of
reproducing
and
maintaining
itself.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
is
a
goal,
but
it's
a
beautiful
way
of
thinking
about
dallas.
I
think
so.
Yes,
who
else
is
there
jessica
came,
but
I
don't
know
if
she
knows
the
question.
L
You
know
I
was
to
be
honest,
a
bit
confused
about
this
term
as
well
like
grace
that
was
kind
of
like
what
soft
governance.
I
still
think
it's
I
don't
know
it's
kind
of
a
funny
term.
I
like
culture
better,
like
sits
well
with
me.
I
feel
like
it's
culture,
I
feel
like
it's
holding
down
the
house.
It's
like
the
how
we
want
people
to
feel
I
feel
like
it's
taking
on
the
kind
of
like
nurturing
world
to
see
that
everybody
has
what
they
need
and
that
they
feel
good
and.
L
A
G
Moving
past,
like
the
game,
theoretic
kind
of
like
hard
governance
like
algorithmic
governance,
like
this,
is
the
the
conviction
voting
type
you
know,
governance
is
is
one
thing,
but
it
doesn't
handle
a
lot
of
the
nuance
of
you
know
human
dynamics,
and
I
think
this
is
where
we
can
bring
the
humanity
into
dowses
with
this
kind
of
another
layer
of
governance,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
part
of
governance.
There's
no
one
answer
to
it.
G
There
are
multiple
layers
and
I
really
like
soft
governance
because
it
brings
in
a
human
layer
to
you
know
these
kinds
of
decision
makings,
rather
than
just
this
hard
algorithmic
governance
layer
that
a
lot
of
dao's
have.
So,
I
think
that's
that's
my
view
of
soft
gov
and
really
happy
to
be
here
as
well.
A
Thank
you.
I
love
what
some
of
you
say
like
along
the
time
that
we
start
to
pick
these
phrases
like
zaptimus
just
had
a
gold.
One
like
softgov
is
for
the
people
and
juan
said
something
another
time
too,
that
what
is
the
difference
between
law
and
and
just
social
agreements
that
that
people
have
like
hard
law
and
soft
law.
A
So
it's
very
important
that
we
understand
what
are
those
granular
rules
and
boundaries
that
are
emerging
from
our
culture
and
it's
important
that
they
are
emerging
and
we
just
perceive
them
and
not
that
we
are
like
creating
them
or
imposing
them.
So
I
want
to
maybe
griff.
Do
you?
Do
you
think
it's
it's
better
to
for
you
to
start?
H
A
Okay,
so
so,
let's
maybe
just
put
a
framing
into
what
griff
is
going
to
talk
about
that.
We
can
have
this
like
open
ears
to
pick
from
everything
he's
saying
what
are
the
implicit
rules
and
boundaries
there
and
then
we'll
continue
this
exercise
to
other
rules
and
boundaries
that
we
that
we
can
identify
already,
if
you
guys
can
jump
in
in
the
document
that
it's
in
the
in
the
softcup
chat,
you
can
share
my
screen,
quick
just.
A
So
this
is
the
this
is
the
astron
principles
document,
with
all
the
principles
and
and
some
questions
and
some
of
the
topics
that
it's
important
for
us
to
focus
on
so
the
second,
the
first
and
the
second
principles
are
commons,
need
to
have
clearly
defined
boundaries
and
rules
to
feed
local
circumstances
and,
of
course,
ostrom
wrote
this
based
on
physical
comments,
and
we
have
a
cyber
comment.
So
some
of
the
things
have
to
be
adapted
and
we
need
to
understand
what
is
the?
A
So
that
wasn't
so
clear
for
me,
the
difference
between
rule
and
boundary-
and
I
went
to
the
dictionary-
and
I
pulled
it
out
so
rule-
is
one
of
a
set
of
explicit
or
understood
regulations
or
principles
governing
conduct
within
a
particular
activity
or
sphere
so
regulations
or
principles.
I
see
this
very
much
as
agreements
in
our
case
and
boundary
is
a
line
that
marks
the
limits
of
an
area,
a
dividing
line
or
a
limit
of
a
subject
or
sphere
of
activity.
A
So
this
is
very
interesting
for
us
to
not
limit
the
subject
that
we're
speaking
off
but
have
some
type
of
align
there
of
until
where
this
token
engineering
goes
and
of
course,
we
would
need
a
lot
of
token
engineer
experts
to
help
answer
this
question,
but
I
think
we
can
already
pull
some
things
out
of
there.
So
before
passing
to
griff,
I
just
wanna
have
a
quick,
a
quick
round
to
see.
A
M
G
G
H
H
Anyone
who
has
the
tec
token
is
part
of
the
te
commons
and
I
also
think
that
there
are
other
boundaries
around
social
media
platforms,
for
instance
people
on
discord,
people
who
follow
us
on
twitter
people,
who
you
know,
read
our
comments
on
a
medium
or
participate
on
the
forum.
These
are
these
are
a
little
bit
like,
I
would
say,
like
the
clear
boundary
is,
do
you
hold
t
and
then
the
next
boundary
out
is
like?
Are
you
participating
in
the
conversation
and
then
the
next
boundary?
H
Even
further
is,
do
you
consider
yourself
a
token
engineer,
or
are
you
a
you
know,
a
token
engineering
expert
of
some
sort?
That
would
benefit
from
the
result
of
our
our
work,
which
is
t
public
goods
so
kind
of
like
the
benefactors
of
the
te
commons,
but
those
those
concentric
rings?
Are
it
kind
of
gets
to
be
gray,
and
one
of
eleanor
ostrom's
principles
is
like
defining
a
clear
boundary
and
I
think
the
clearest
boundary
that
we
can
define
is
tec
token
holders
as
far
as
rules
matching
local
circumstances.
H
I
really
see
a
lot
of
this
coming
out
of
conflict
res
and
the
gravity
work,
making
sure
that
we
have
feedback
on
the
rules
as
as
we
go,
but
the
clear
rules
that
I
see
are
code
of
conduct-
and
you
know
the
bonding
curve
and
the
tech
rules
like
if
you
put
in
your
there's
an
exit
tribute
an
entry
tribute
the
rules
around
conviction
voting.
These
are
these.
H
All
these
rules
that
are
defined
in
tech
are
part
of
the
rules
as
well,
but
then
we
have
soft
governance
rules
which
are
like.
Oh,
if
you
swear,
if
you
swear
in
discord,
you
know
what
do
we
do?
You
know
we
gotta
have
some
kind
of
graduated
sanction
there.
So
that's
probably
not
for
me
I'll
pass
it
to
zeptimus.
F
F
E
Boundaries
like
physical
boundaries
that
I
don't
know
if
can
apply
here
in
the
cultural
boundary
or
something
like
if,
if
we
come
from
different
parts,
is
that
a
cultural
boundary
or
like
a
cultural
rule
for
for
our
organization?
It's
like
a
question.
I
am
not
sure
if
my
thoughts
are
clear
on
this.
It's
like
yeah,
it's
like
yeah,
cultural
boundaries
and
in
when
we
are
in
in
the
tc
yeah.
E
E
A
G
Definitely
I
I
like
that
framing
as
well
olivia
that
these
are
almost
like.
You
know
these
different
channels
are
like
our
different
office
rooms.
You
know
we
meet
in
discord
for
some
things
we
meet.
You
know
in
our
email,
inboxes
for
other
things.
You
know,
email
is
more
of
a
you
know
an
outbound
update,
whereas
discord
is
more
of.
Like
the
you
know,
the
the
meeting
room
where
we
all
meet
face
to
face,
and
I
think
those
bounds.
You
know
there
are
economic
bounds.
G
G
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
stretch
to
to
take
these
into
the
digital
realm,
but
basically,
wherever
any,
you
know,
group
comes
together.
You
know
you
can
draw
a
boundary
around
that
system
and
different
digital
tools
serve
different
digital
purp
different
purposes.
For
you
know
our
digital
community.
A
Yeah,
that's
interesting
to
explore
more
in
depth
later.
What
are
the
different
rules
of
each
one
of
the
rooms
that
we've
been
using,
because
maybe
this
court
has
a
little
bit
of
a
different
culture
than
the
forum,
and
maybe
it's
interesting
to
go
into
those
and
see
if
there's
anything
hidden
about
behavior
as
well.
But
we
can
do
that
maybe
later,
because
I
do
want
to
give
space
to
griff
to
get
into
all
the
juicy
news
and
then
we
can.
H
Yeah-
and
I
want
to
minimize
the
the
change-
it's
not
a
big
change,
it's
really
just
adding
one
extra
step.
It's
like
a
a
two-part
launch
instead
of
a
one-part
launch.
The
general
idea
is
okay.
Let
me
say
what
the
original
idea
was
that
hey
we're
gonna,
launch
everything
out
once
we're
gonna
launch
that
the
all
the
code
base
will
be
ready
at
one
moment
and
we
will
have
a
hatch
and
automatically
the
funds
from
the
hatch
would
go
to
the
augmented
bombing
curve
and
conviction,
money
and
that
would
all
be
automatic.
H
H
The
people
who
participate
in
the
hatch
to
have
to
vote,
to
add
in
the
augmented,
bonding
curve
and
conviction
voting,
and
so
it
does
change
the
rules
it
and
it
it
does
change
the
boundaries
which
is
beneficial
for
legal,
hugely
beneficial
for
legal
and
also
hugely
beneficial
for
tech,
because
the
complicated
pieces
of
the
tech
are
the
augmented
bonding
curve
and
conviction.
Voting
and
those
pieces
would
have
the
time
of
the
hatch
to
find
more
bugs
and
find
more
issues
with
them.
So
those
are
the
two
big
wins
with
this
extra
edition
of.
H
Oh
sorry,
that's
the
tech
win.
The
big,
the
big
pro
for
the
legal
side
is
when
people
buy
into
the
hatch,
there's
no
expectation
of
profit.
In
fact,
they
have
to
take
the
step
to
say
no
we're
going
to
put
the
funds
in
this
pot
into
the
augmented
bonding
curve
and
really
implement
both
into
what
one
hive
calls
the
gardens
template.
So
that
makes
our
lives
easier,
because,
when
people
are
buying
into
the
hatch
they're
buying
tokens
that
are
going
to
be
worth
less
than
the
what
they
put
in,
that's
really
easy.
H
You
don't
have
to
you.
Don't
have
to
have
any
major
crazy
legal
agreements
to
say:
hey,
you
know,
put
money
here
and
some
of
it's
going
to
be
donated.
The
rest
will
be
collectively
governed.
That's
way
easier
than
put
money
here,
you'll
get
a
token
and
there'll
be
a
market
for
it
in
where
it's
instantly
worth
more.
H
Instead,
we
can
more
easily
say
they
are
sufficiently
decentralized.
These
people
had
to
vote
to
upgrade
to
this
next
path.
So
big
wins
on
the
tech
side
and
on
the
legal
side
challenges
for
the
the
onboarding
group.
They
have
to
say:
hey
hatchers,
when
you
buy
in
you
know,
you're
going
to
lose
money
right
away
before
we
could
say
hey
when
you
buy
in
you
know,
you're
going
to
get
tokens
that
are
worth
x
times.
You
know
more
than
what
you
put
in.
That's
really
nice,
this
way
easier
sell.
H
You
know
I'm
just
going
to
throw
that
out
there,
but
of
course
they
have
to
just
say
this
is
the
case,
but
then
we
have
this
upgrade
plan
where
we
can
put
that
money
into
a
bonding
curve.
If
the
people
who
hatch
the
commons
agree,
it's
it's,
it's
a
nice,
it's
still,
it's
still
there,
it's
not
a
huge
loss,
but
it
adds
complication,
and
this,
of
course
impacts
comms
as
well,
because
it
adds
this
extra
complication.
It's
extra
step.
H
That
has
to
be
explained
that
when
you
put
money
in
you're
going
to
get
tokens
that
are
worth
less
than
you
put
in,
but
then
we
have
a
plan
of
putting
this
portion
to
the
augmented
bargaining
curve
in
this
portion
too
conviction
buddy
that
will
be.
That
will
be
an
extra
challenge
and
then
soft
gov
has
to
you
know,
has
to
also
deal
with
the
ambiguous
situation.
H
L
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
hybrid
possibility,
but
I
do
feel
like
this
is
going
to
greatly
impact
the
amount
of
funds
that
we've
raised
and
it
does
kind
of
touch
on
people's
boundaries
of
how
much
skin
in
the
game
am
I
really
willing
to
put
for
not
a
guarantee,
and
it
doesn't
feel
like,
maybe
to
me,
like
my
immediate
trigger
and
I'm
not
saying
that
this
is
correct.
I'm
just
saying
my
first
reaction
is
like,
oh
god,
this
doesn't
feel
safe
like
before.
L
I
know
where
it's
going,
I
know
what's
happening,
but
I
think
that
could
impact
the
race
and
then
I
I
also
am
still
a
little
confused.
What
this
looks
like
like.
So
we
donate
to
the
dandelion
and
then
we
don't
get
any
tokens.
Then
everybody
votes
together
to
put
that
as
a
buy-in
to
hatch,
augmented
bonding
curve
and
then
receives
an
equal
amount
of
tokens
or
tokens
based
on
what
they
put
in,
or
I
still
am
confused
like
what.
H
Sure
so
people
so
here's
the
mapping,
people
would
participate
in
hatch,
just
as
they
had
you
would
have
to.
You
probably
have
to
have
c-stack
tokens.
We
probably
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
any
kyc
for
sure
we
we
wouldn't
have
to
do.
We
wouldn't
have
to
be
so
limited
on
the
people
that
participate
per
se,
but
but
we
probably
still
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
token
engineering
people
and
that
they
you
know,
we
still
want
to
have
the
limitation
of
we're
not
looking
for
speculators
to
participate.
H
But
yes,
so
then,
when
people
put
into
the
hatch
once
it
reaches
the
f
its
final
goals,
tokens
are
created.
In
fact,
tokens
will
probably
be
created.
The
second
people
put
money
into
the
hatch,
they
will
be
issued
tokens
and
then,
at
the
end
of
the
hatch,
the
depending
on
how
much
is
raised.
The
impact
hours
will
be
also
rewarded
with
tokens,
so
people
who
earn
the
impact
hours
will
get
tokens
and
then
all
of
those
tokens
will
be
part
of
the
dandelion
dowel.
H
The
dandelion
dowel
will
have
two
pots
of
money,
one
that's
geared
towards
the
augmented
bonding
curve
and
one
that's
that's
supposed
to
be
allocated
to
the
conviction
voting
down
so
now
the
dandelion
dow
will
have
to
pass
a
proposal
to
say,
send
this
money
to
augmented
bonding
curve
and
send
this
money
to
conviction
voting
dial.
So
there
is
this
one
extra
step,
and
then,
after
that,
everything
would
be
the
same.
The
same
token
would
be
part
of
the
bonding
curve.
H
Its
value
would
have
skyrocketed,
because
now
it's
backed
by
the
bonding
curve
kind
of
like
when
panvala
or
anybody
puts
when
it.
When
someone
has
a
token
like
seeds,
seeds
has
a
token,
and
they
just
decide
to
put
it
in
to
a
to
a
someone
decides
to
put
that
token
into
uniswap
at
a
certain
price
boom.
Now
it
has
that
price,
because
it's
backed
by
this
collateral,
and
so
we
would
have
the
same
situation
for
the
same
token.
Ideally
it'd
be
the
same
token
worst
case
scenario.
H
There's
a
potential
for
two
tokens
here,
like
a
token
swap
basically
or
there's
the
potential
that
hopefully
we
can
just
keep
the
same
jumping
and
then
we
would
continue.
We
would
have
the
augmented
bonding
curve
anyone
could
buy
into
the
bonding
curve
at
that
moment
after
the
dandelion
vote,
and
also
the
people
could
start
passing,
proposals
and
conviction,
budding
we'd
still
have
the
same
vesting
requirements.
H
We'd
have
the
same
rules
all
together.
We're
really
just
adding
this
one
extra
piece
that
hopefully,
before
the
hatch,
even
starts,
everyone
would
see
that
this
vote
is
proposed
in
the
forum.
It's
it's
going
to
happen.
People
have
signaled
support
and
that
it's
it's
just
a
matter
of
like
having
the
people
who
put
money
in
agree
to
that
possibility.
H
The
other
piece
is
the
people
who
put
money
would
be
able
to
pull
their
money
out
before
that.
If
they
don't
like
it,
in
fact,
the
people
who
put
money
in
would
be
able
to
pull
all
of
their
money
back
out
because
we
would
have
the
redemptions
out,
although
except
well
all
the
money.
That's
not
the
conviction,
vote
all.
H
So
that's
that's
still.
We
don't
know
I
mean
we
have
to
see.
If,
ideally,
we
keep
this
token
but
worst
case
scenario
for
sure
we
can
do
this
where
everyone
who
has
this
token,
the
token
from
the
hatch
would
then
be
able
to
swap
it
for
well,
they
wouldn't
even
have
to
swap
it
they'd
just
be
airdropped
the
same
number
of
tokens
in
the
new
dial.
That
has
the
money
in
the
bonding
curve
and
the
money.
H
A
I
think
in
terms
of
culture,
that's
really
interesting,
because
because
people
would
have
to
be
so
much
more
informed
when
they
join
and
and
the
the
chances
that
they
would
actually
be
aligned
with
the
mission
and
the
values
and
be
aligned
with
the
project
as
a
whole
having
to
understand
how
to
make
changes
into
the
dao
and
and
having
that,
like
small
risk
that
maybe
that
wouldn't
happen.
Even
though,
like
there's
so
much
signal
for
that
to
happen.
I
think
that's
that
it's
actually
perfect,
like
that's
the
type
of
hatcheries,
that
we
want
right.
H
The
hatch
tribute
the
amount
that
goes
to
conviction,
voting
of
pool
there
in
the
amount
that
goes
to
augmented
bonding
curve.
That
would
be
clear
from
the
beginning:
we'd
want
to
keep
as
many
things
clear
from
the
beginning
as
possible,
still
like
that,
just
as
before
the
hatch
tribute
the
you
know,
impact
hours
algorithm
how
people
get
rewarded
for
impact
hours
and
everything
else
that
was
part
of
the
hash
was
investing.
H
All
those
rules
would
still
be
applied.
It's
just
that,
after
that,
they
would
have
to
approve
a
vote.
That
would
also
already
basically
be
like
the
plan,
but
they
would
have
to
actually
take
action
and
vote.
Question
is,
of
course
we
don't
have
any
of
those
rules
sorted
out
yet,
like
the
exact
parameters,
that's
what
we
get
to
debate
over
the
forums
in
the
next
couple
months,
including
what
that
attribute
should
be,
and
also
including
what
the
quorum
requirement
for
that
vote
would
be.
L
You're
saying
people
would
donate
part
of
the
tribute
would
be
like
whatever
10
or
20
percent.
That
would
go
immediately
to
the
conviction
voting
and
then
the
other
percent
would
be
assigned
tokens
like
what
were
the
tokens?
How
would
you
you
said
one
for
one
and
then
that
would
be
voted
to
be
reserved
to
launch
bonding
curve.
H
H
To
be
debated
yeah,
all
these
parameters
need
to
be
debated,
but
the
general
idea
would
be
that
the
people
would
get
tokens
based
off
of
how
much
they
donate,
and
it's
not
really
going
to
change
depending
on
how
much
the
tribute
is.
But
what
would
change
is
that,
like,
when
people
put
money
in
there
would
be
an
an
entry
tribute?
The
hatch
tribute
and
the
hatch
tribute
would
say:
20
goes
to
this
pot,
which
you
can't
withdraw
from.
H
H
Anyone
who
has
the
token
engineering
commons
token,
maybe
we
call
it
the
token
engineering
commons
hatch
token.
If
there
is
a
two
token
system,
then
they
would
be
able
to
withdraw
the
money
that
they
put
in
minus
the
hash
tribute
at
any
time.
If
they
don't
like
the
vote,
then
they
would
be
able
to
withdraw
with
their
token
they'd,
be
able
to
withdraw
that
portion
and
they
would,
but
they
would
also
lose
governance
over
that
20
percent.
H
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
they
would
they
would
have
to
agree
that
they're
donating
a
portion
of
their
funds,
that
a
portion
of
their
funds
is
meant
for
the
common,
the
token
engineering
commons
you
know
and
like
the
public
good
of
public
goods
in
the
token
engineering
space
and
the
other
portion
of
their
funds,
is
for
building
an
economic
experiment
right
like
that.
That
would
be
part
of
the
the
understanding
of
when
you're
buying
into
this.
It's
like.
Okay,
we're
going
to
use
this
portion
of
funds.
L
And
also
the
parameter
of
I
mean
I
guess
it
makes.
I
mean
it
would
make
sense
that
the
tribute
is
a
donation,
so
you
wouldn't
receive
tokens
for
that.
So
it'd
be
like
basically
get
tokens
on
the
80,
which
would
then
be
swapped
for,
if
there's
a
second
token
and
for
one
after
hatch
or
something,
but
that
would
all
need
to
be
decided.
H
H
L
H
H
H
It
won't
it.
The
airdrop
piece
is
that's
just
my
bad
word.
Don't
think,
though,
I
think
there's
too
much
baggage
around
the
word
airdrop,
it's
not
it's
not
an
airdrop.
It
would
really
just
be
a
a
non-rook.
Like
a
token
swap
everyone
who
has
this
like
a
token
change
like
ocean.
Did
this
ocean
just
straight
up
said:
okay,
yeah.
We
had
that
token
we're
gonna,
lock
that
token
and
it'll
never
be
transferred
again.
H
You
can
never
use
that
token
and
we're
gonna
give
everyone
who
had
that
old
token,
a
new
token,
it's
just
a
different
token
contract
in
the
end,
tokens
are
packages
of
rights,
and
you
know
there's
like
the
on
the
ether
scan
it's
a
new
token,
but
for
the
people
the
rights
are
the
same.
The
rights
you
know
it's.
I
M
Well,
I
think
that
I
think
that
is,
it
makes
absolutely
sense
to
do
it
like
that.
However,
I'm
wondering
how
how
do
you,
how
do
you
envision
that
transition
from
the
first
token?
To
the
second
token,
would
it
be
just
that
you
will
stop
the
other
contract
and
then
just
swap
it
for
the
new
one
or
will?
Would
it
be
that
the
user
would
not?
The
use
of
the
humans
would
need
to
come
in
and
claim
the
token
by
themselves.
H
H
No,
they
won't
notice.
The
tokens
will
not
the
token
wasn't
transferable
in
the
first
place,
so
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
scammers
or
anything
like
that.
The
token
that
we
launch
with
will
not
be
transferable,
so
you
couldn't
try
to
say.
Oh
look,
I
have
the
original
tec
token.
You
know
like
no
yeah,
you
do,
but
it's
just
sitting
there.
H
It
becomes
like
a
badge
on
your
ether
scan
and
then
and
then
you
have
the
actual
token
that
starts
doing
interactions
like
if
you
look
at
ether
scan
you
might
notice,
but
the
website
should
just
like
even
be
the
same
website.
Gov.T
commons
on
the
back
end,
we'll
just
point
it
to
a
different
dao
right,
it'll
be
like.
Oh,
it's
pointed
at
this
dao
at
0x3,
blah
blah
blah.
Now
we're
moving
it
to
0x4
blah
blah
blah
and
people
go
to
the
same
website.
They
can
vote
everything's
the
same.
L
E
F
I
I
already
talked,
I
think,
it's
from
the
legal
point
of
view.
It's
a
much
much
much
way
better.
It's
amazing
how
switching
through
something
that
proposed
technical.
We
are
making
taking
away
our
responsibility
in
such
a
way.
I
love
it.
Of
course,
there's
there's.
I
can
understand
jazz
point
of
view.
I
A
H
E
D
D
D
F
E
B
L
Oh
no,
I
was
just
gonna
say
like
it's
kind
of
funny,
like
yeah.
Every
other
crypto
project
in
the
history
of
crypto
projects
is
like
big
gains
to
the
moon.
I
think
we
could
make
a
story,
a
narrative
about
put
your
money
here.
You're
gonna
lose
it,
and
actually
it's
more
like
the
narrative
of
sacrificing
the
individual
for
the
whole
and
like
we
are
a
cooperative
who
is
trying
to
fund
public
goods,
and
I
think
the
problem
with
defy
is
the
focus
on
individual
gains
versus
like
community.
L
G
I
like
that,
I
think
it's
also
less
less
about
you
know
like
put
your
money
where
you're
gonna
lose
it,
but
let's
make
dow
decisions
as
a
dow.
I
think
this
is
just
pushing
like
all
of
the
decisions
to
the
group,
because
this
removes
you
know
the
personal
or
the
the
individual
or
organizational
legal
issue
by
deciding
everything
is
a
dow,
so
essentially
we're
just
going
like
all
in
on
the
dow.
You
know
hey,
we
want
to
do
these
things,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
everyone
that's
involved,
wants
to
do
these
things.
G
G
You're
going
to
get
people
from
all
over
the
world
putting
money
into
a
speculative
crypto
project.
You
know
this
happens
all
the
time
in
the
crypto
space,
but
the
more
we
say
you
know
hey.
We
want
to
use
this
money
responsibly.
We
want
to
steward
this
community
as
a
dow
we
want
to.
You
know:
ask
you
guys
to
make
decisions
as
we
go
along
we're
going
to
get
less
and
less.
G
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
still
appeal
to
a
wide
enough
base
of
token
engineers
that
we're
going
about
this
the
right
way
and
that
you
know
ultimately,
this
money
is
going
towards
building
public
goods
that
we
can
all
use
in
the
token
engineering
space,
and
I
think
that's
just
what
we
have
to
keep
coming
back
to
we're
just
trying
to
do
this.
The
most
responsible
way
possible.
B
Jump
well,
santia
and
I
have
been
working
on
the
source,
credit
implementation,
but
I
think
that
we
will
leave
that
for
the
next
call,
so
that
that
would
be
something
interesting
to
talk
about
the
weights
and
how
we
can
make
this
experiment
something
reliable
along
the
time.
But
yeah.
That's
just
a
short
mention
on
that,
because
there
was
some
work
on
that
previously.
H
Exciting
very
exciting
yeah
I
think
well.
Thank
you
guys.
I
would
strongly
recommend
checking
out
the
dao
book
club,
the
it's
in
the
dao
discord,
which
I
believe
olivia
linked
to
in
the
general
channel
right,
yeah
yeah
in
tec
general,
so
check
out
the
book
club.
Sadly,
I
have
another
call
I
have
to
do
instead,
but
I
I
blocked
it
off
in
my
calendar.
I'm
definitely
going
to
go
to
these
calls
every
week
we're
reading
eleanor
ostrom's
governing
the
commons.