►
From YouTube: W20 Softgov WG: Disputable voting, Sourcecred, Handbook
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Sometimes I think I am too… and at those times i would like to be more…
15:18 - Disputable voting, Celeste
30:58 - Gitbook
36:07 - Sourcecred
42:23 - Handbook
🙏 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
How
can
we
improve
that
ten
percent-
and
sometimes
I
like
don't
profit
and
from
like
what,
when
things
are
going
really
good,
and
I
like
to
sometimes
see
like
see
small
details
in
in
such
in
such
like
assume
that
I
I
think
it's
it's
it's
not
something
that
good.
I
am
too
perfect
and
at
those
times
I
would
like
to
be
more
relaxed.
B
I
feel
that
I
am
relaxed,
but
sometimes
like.
I
would
love
to
to
say
to
myself
like
let
things
go
and
yeah
I.
I
am
like
a
little
bit
tense
with
that
thing
of
small
details,
and
sometimes
I
would
just
love
to
relax
and-
and,
as
I
say
to
to
everyone
like
embrace
the
conflict
and
embrace
imperfection
and
embrace
that
everything
is
going
to
like
you
fix
one
thing
and
then
it
it
br.
B
Other
things
breaks
or
like
you
fix
one
thing
and
then
yeah
it
functions,
but
it
like
it
doesn't
work
in
a
hundred
percent.
But
that's
not
like
an
excuse
to
throw
things
because
they
they
are
like
not
working
a
hundred
percent
and
we
can
like
love
things
when
they
are
like
working,
not
perfectly
so
yeah.
That
is
my
my
my
initial
take
and
I
will
pass
to
grief.
C
Some
I
feel
like
sometimes
I
am
too
unfocused.
I
have
a
lot
of
pieces
moving
around.
You
know
the
token
engineering
commons
is
one
of
three
central
banks.
I'm
trying
to
make
happen
right
now,
which
is
kind
of
wild.
You
know
so
it's
hard
to
it's
hard
to
like
have
the
time
to
give
focused
energy.
I
wish
that
I
could
be
more
picky
with
how,
with
where
I
share
my
energy
a
little
bit.
A
Relaxed
and
being
able
to
compromise
more
but
then
talking
about
the
paradox
also,
sometimes
I
am
too
critical
and
I
judge
myself
about
it.
So
I'm
being
critical
with
myself
and
I
wish
I
didn't
judge
myself,
and
I
would
just
like
embrace
being
like
that
more
often
so,
there's
this
two
points
of
it
and
I
passed
to
nate.
D
Yeah,
I
think
that's
I
I
hate
uncertainty,
and
so
when
things
are
uncertain,
I'm
I'm
kind
of
like
how's.
This
all
gonna
work
out.
You
know-
and
it's
funny
being
in
a
community
like
this,
because
everybody's
doing
so
many
different
things
and
it's
all
you
know
everybody's
kind
of
focusing
on
what
they're
doing
and
you're
focusing
on
what
you're
doing,
and
you
kind
of
see
like
this
bigger
picture
coming
together
as
one
and
it's
really
interesting.
E
E
There's
this
energy
that
you
get
from
starting
something
that
it's
hard
to
maintain
later
when
when,
when
you
wanna
develop
it
or
you
want
to
get
just
like
learning
curve
right
like
at
first,
when
you
start
it's
it
good,
it's
good!
It
works,
you
get
things
done,
you
learn
a
lot
and
then
it's
kind
of
like
a
plot
two,
where
you're
not
learning
as
fast
you're,
not
contributing
as
much
you're
networking
or
you
don't
feel
like
you're
producing
as
much
so
definitely
notion
has
helped
a
lot
in
that.
E
A
F
G
Sure
I
yeah
I
thought
about
this
one
briefly
and
I
I
hate
changing
the
plan.
I
if
we
make
a
plan,
I'm
like
okay
and
I
start
working
around
it
and
then
new
ideas
come
and
people
want
to
change
the
plan
and
often
without
thinking
about
it.
I
already
don't
like
it.
You
know,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
I
need
to
work
on
is
being
more
open
to
changing
plans
and
seeing
things
from
different
perspectives
and
then,
like
you,
know,
being
more
of
a
team
player
in
that
sense.
H
No
thank
you
mitch.
I
think
I
feel
I
feel
comfortable
dealing
with
different
things
at
a
time
and
a
little
bit
dealing
with
chaos,
but
you're
always
there
on
the
edge
between
a
control,
chaos
and
and
cares
that
you
cannot
control
anymore
and
some
somehow.
I
feel
that
here
we
it
used
to
be
you
used
to
be
able
to
go
to
all
the
meetings
and
more
or
less
being
a
store,
especially
you
get
to
get
to
see
how
everything
was
moving
forward
and
we're
reaching
a
point
where
everything
is
growing.
H
You
can
be
able
to
be
all
over
and
that's
that's
good,
but
but
at
the
same
time
it's
it's
kind
of
a
little
bit
sad,
but
but
I
like
it
and
I
feel
comfortable
with
with
chaos,
although
sometimes
I
want
to
be
in
so
many
places
that
it's
impossible
to
to
manage,
and
I
should
be
able
to
sometimes
try
try
to
find
that
point
where
it's
impossible
to
manage
and
stop
a
little
bit
and
focus
a
little
bit
more
and
I'll
pass
it
to
ruby.
I
don't
know
if
ruby
went.
I
No,
I
haven't
gone
yet.
The
question
is,
if
sometimes
I
feel
I'd
say
sometimes
this
is
like.
I
have
an
ocd
with
this.
Sometimes
I
just
I
feel
like
I'm
inefficient,
and
I
have
like
a
efficiency
ocd
and
it's
work.
Life
personal
everywhere
everywhere
in
my
life
is:
how
can
I
do
this
better
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
like
efficiency,
doesn't
necessarily
correlate
with
time.
You
know
it's
not
it's
not
less
time,
sometimes
to
be
more
efficient
takes
more
time,
but
the
long-term
gains
of
efficiency
are
are
rewarded
with
taking
more
time.
I
I
I
J
Thanks
for
me
what
I
think
yeah,
I
do
a
lot
and
things
I
have
iv
to
correct
me
all
the
time
it's
like,
for
example,
I'm
writing
and
I'm
not
like
super
professional
or,
like
I
just
write
what
I'm
thinking
and
yeah.
I'm
super
honest
and
yeah.
I
I'm
super
happy
that
tabi
is
always
there
too
yeah
next
thing.
Mateo
didn't
go.
K
K
Critical
or
too
analytical
stuff
can
get
a
little
bit
overwhelming
in
one's
mind.
So
I
think
that's
that's
mine,
because
sometimes
I
get
stuck
in
my
thoughts
in
many
scenarios
that
I
can
put
to
myself
and
sometimes
that
that
tends
to
go
not
for
the
optimistic
way,
but
the
pessimistic
and-
and
it's
not
good.
So
that's
why
I
set
a
goal
for
this
year
to
to
be
a
little
bit
more
mindful
and
practice
more
mindfulness
instead
of
the
overthinking
way.
K
F
So
it
can
sometimes
be
hard
to
remain
connected
to
all
of
these
sort
of
mundane
things
or
or
invest
myself
in
in
anything
really
even
including
relationships.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
for
me
and-
and
that
applies
to
you-
know
things
here
and
in
token
engineering,
commons
and
and
my
job
and
and
relationships
everywhere.
So
that's
my
thing.
F
A
E
Yeah
my
laptop
died,
it
yeah
it's
it's
just
that.
I
think
it
echoes
a
lot
of
what
other
people
say.
I
recognize
myself
also
in
what
tam
tamara
said
about
inefficiency
and
productivity
and
focus
so
yeah
glad
we
got.
I
got.
I
got
to
hear
what
everyone
else
is
going
through,
so
that
I
know
I'm
not
the
only
one.
A
A
But
then
I
was
thinking
this
is
somehow
a
decision
that
we
made
like.
Is
this
a
decision
that
we
made?
Do
we
need
any
type
of
voting
for
this?
What
are
the
things
that
we
need
voting
sessions
for-
or
this
was
just
like,
agreed
informally
that
we're
using
and
that
we're
moving
towards
this
direction?
A
So
then
I
thought,
oh
then
I
mean
the
bonding
curve
and
conviction.
Voting
were
brought
in
since
the
beginning
as
something
that
we
are
using,
so
it
wasn't
the
collective
understanding
that
we
are
moving
in
this
direction.
Therefore,
we
don't
need
a
community
voting,
because
we'll
have
that
voting
in
in
the
hatchdale
that
will
implement
or
not
this
apps,
so
the
same
will
happen
with
with
disputable
voting.
A
C
Maybe
maybe
I
could
just
add
some
context
because
there's
some
posts
out
there,
but
I
doubt
every
them.
The
big
question
here
is:
if
we
want
to
integrate
celeste,
it
is
an
option
and
it's
not
something
that
we
have
to
do,
but
the
the
way
celeste
works.
It's
a
basically
an
arbitrator,
third-party
arbitra,
so
people
with
honey
tokens
and
bright,
verified
bright.
C
I
can
stake
honey
to
become
judges
in
a
decentralized
and
if
their
the
the
requirements
would
be,
which
I
think
we
fulfill
pretty
well
or
we
planned
on
doing
this
already.
But
the
requirements
are
that
you
have
a
community
covenant
integrated
into
the
voting
apps
so
for
conviction,
voting
and
disputable
voting,
which
would
be
the
replacement
of
daylight
voting.
C
You
would
have
this
little
agreement
that
everyone
has
to
sign
that
kind
of
sets
expectations
kind
of,
and
then,
if
someone
makes
a
proposal
that
you
don't
like,
like
my
favorite
classic
is
firebombing
a
house,
but
another
classic.
That's
used
is
like
hey.
Whoever
votes
on
this
if
it
passes,
will
get
all
the
money
in
the
dow
right.
This
proposal
is
send
all
the
money
in
the
dow
to
the
people
who
vote
yes
on
this.
C
C
So
celeste
is
what
makes
it
disputable
and
then
the
so.
The
voting
app
that
aragon
made
a
long
time
ago
has
had
a
few
up,
and
the
latest
upgrade
happened
in
september
last
year
and
they
had
it
fully
audited
and
they
integrated
all
these
awesome
things
that
I've
wanted
for
years.
That
are
really
important
for
dallas
to
have
like
delegation
right
so
that
you
don't
have
to
vote.
If
you
don't
want
to,
you
can
delegate
your
vote
wow.
C
Of
course
you
know.
I
wanted
this
for
so
long.
Also,
a
very
important
feature,
that's
undersold,
but
known
in
the
dow
community.
Is
this
wait
for
quiet
where,
if
the
vote
is
close
and
at
in
the
last,
like
certain
amount
of
period
of
time,
the
vote
result
changes,
then
they
add
extra
time
for
the
people
to
vote
who
haven't
voted
the
those
are
the
two
big
features
that
are
really
nice
in
this
latest
version
of
voting
for
aragon
that
I
don't.
C
Would
disagree
with
honestly
and
it
comes
with
celeste
the
thing
is
we
could
easily
remove
celeste
without
any
pause
like
okay,
so
there's
there's
a
certain
things
like
there's
there's
a
lot
of
technical
value
and
I
would
say
some
of
the
decisions
really
should
live
within
the
common
swarm
working
group.
Just
like
some
of
the
decisions
and
comms
and
some
of
the
decisions
in
gravity.
They
live
in
the
working
group
because
they
have
the
context
to
make
the
right
decisions.
C
We
need
to
be
using
the
audited
code
that
is
generally
considered
the
the
stuff
that
everyone
is
is
wants
to
use.
That's
very
critical
for
the
technical
side.
So
if
dandelion
voting
is
basically
being
abandoned,
it's
not
going
to
be
maintained
and
disputable.
Voting
is
going
to
be
the
one
that's
maintained.
However,
we
do
not
have
to
integrate
celeste.
So
from
the
technical
side
we
have
to
use,
that's
not
really
an
option.
I'm
sorry
like
the
it's
just
the.
C
So
we
will
definitely
be
using
the
software
like
that's
kind
of
it
would
be,
it
would
be
almost
it.
We
just
can't
not
use
that
software
because
that's
what's
being
maintained,
that's
where
all
the
bugs
have
been
fixed.
That's
where
the
front
ends
are
looking
really
cool,
you
know,
but
we
don't
have
to
integrate.
A
Yeah
yeah
that
was
very
clarifying
to
have,
I
think,
before
it
wasn't
so
clear
that
dandelion
was
being
abandoned
as
a
software
and
that
disputable
voting
was
kind
of
the
upgrade.
So
maybe
we
can
just
communicate
that
better
and
and
also
there
was
some
posts
around
celeste
at
the
same
time,
so
at
least
for
me,
it
got
confusing,
but
now
it
it
clarified.
C
Absolutely-
and
I
shouldn't
say,
dandelion
is
not
going
to
be
like
it:
it's
audited:
it's
there,
it
works
it's
just.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
If
you
have
a
bonding
curve,
the
bombing
curve
is
the
rage
quit
and,
and
it
and
the
rage
quit
thing
dandelion
voting
is
so
comes
with
a
lot
of
baggage
that
rage
quit
functionality
comes
a
lot
of
baggage.
You
can
only
propose
so
many
proposals
a
year
and
there's
this
there's
all
this
stuff
with
the
annual
so
yeah,
it's
not
it.
C
D
Something
yeah
I
was
gonna
ask
we
are.
I
have
two
questions.
We
are
maintaining
the
dandelion
dow
within
the
hatch,
dial
right,
the
dandelion
voting
within
the
hat
show
and
then
the
second
question
is:
is
there
a
kind
of
a
a
voting
framework
for
which
instance
of
the
voting
that
we're
going
to
use
for
what
types
of
proposals,
for
example
like
conviction,
voting
versus
disputable
voting
once
the
commons
has
upgraded?
What
types
of
proposals
are
going
to
be
used
for
which
and
how
do
we
decide
that.
C
Well,
this
is
part
of
the
parametrization
process.
I
I
would
expand
that
question
in
some
ways,
but
first
the
conviction
voting
is
only
there
to
allocate
funding
to
projects.
That's
the
only
thing
that
it
does.
It
does
nothing
else.
There
will
be
two
pots
of
funds,
the
bonding
curve,
which
is
kind
of
the
economic
engine
and
the
money.
C
There
is
the
fuel
that
keeps
that
economic
engine
going
and
then
there's
the
funding
pool,
which
is
the
the
value
creation
engine
that
that
the
conviction
voting
governs
this
funding
right,
but
then
the
the
disputable
voting
actually
governs
all
so
conviction.
Voting
can
spend
money
out
of
only
the
funding
and
it
has
very
set
regulatory
like
rules
on
how
that
happens.
C
Disputable
voting,
as
I
like
to
say,
is
god
mode.
I
think
I
replied
to
your
guys's
post
today.
I'm
sorry
it
took
so
long,
but
you
know
like
if,
if
disputable
voting
wants
to
turn
our
down
to
a
duck,
then
we
will
become
a
duck,
at
least
when
the
technology
you
know,
gets
us
there.
So,
like
you
can
do
the
disputable
voting
can
basically
take
all
the
money
and
send
it
anywhere.
C
So
this
is
really
the
disputable
voting.
Can
up
that's
how
the
upgrade
would
happen
like
that's
how
the
dandelion
upgrade
is
happening.
Our
dandelion
vote
will
say:
hey
all
this
money
going
over
there,
you
know,
and
and
so
because
of
that
power
and
then-
and
so
now
the
decision
there's
another
post
out
there,
which
needs
to
be
updated
mitch.
Maybe
you
can
help
us
there
once
you're
tackling
all
these
posts?
C
What's
it
called
tell
me
it's
name,
it's
called
number
of
dandelion,
and
this
is
this-
is
kind
of
a
crazy
post
because
it
kind
of
hits
on
what
I
don't.
I
I
worry.
I
might
I'm
gonna
say
this
and
then
let's
not
talk,
because
this
might
take
us
on
a
tangent
away
from
olivia's
original
question,
but
there
are
some
parameters
that
we
may
want
different.
C
What
we're
trying
to
figure
out
like
what
does
it
take
for
something
to
be
accepted
and
that
acceptance
level
might
be
different
for
different
parameters,
so
we
may
want
to
have
like
just
two
versions
of
the
disputable
voting.
One
version:
that's
like:
oh,
like
the
god
mode
version
where
it's
like.
Oh,
send
all
the
money
out
of
the
bonding
curve
and
funding
pool
to
another
dow
we
need
like
10,
quorum
and
87..
C
People
have
to
have
to
say
yes,
like
they're,
only
13
right
and
that's
because,
like
that's
a
pretty
crazy
decision,
but
maybe
we
want
to
make
it
easier
to
you
know,
tweak
the
exit
and
entry
tributes
on
the
body.
So
maybe
for
that
one
we
have
like
a
a
two
percent
quorum
and
and
sixty
percent
supporter,
and
so
we
might
have
two
different
instances
of
the
same
application
or
maybe
three
or
maybe
17
god.
C
I
hope
we
don't
have
more
than
that
would
be
crazy,
but
like
we
can
have
multiple
instances
of
disputable
voting
that
give
that
kind
of
decide
the
acceptance
criteria
for
different
questions
that
could
be
asked,
and
then
we
have
conviction
voting
that
has
funds,
and
maybe
one
day
a
new
voting
app
will
come
in
and
the
disputable
voting
will
have
the
power
to
say.
Oh,
we
want
to
use
dot
voting
for
you
know
this
parameter
this
these
things,
I'm
sorry
olivia.
A
Yeah,
I
think
also
some
of
these
decisions
are
cultural
because,
for
example,
the
the
the
disputable
voting
app
has
the
capability
of
allocating
funds,
but
we
don't
want
that
app
to
do
that.
So
we
agree
as
a
community
that
we're
only
using
conviction
voting
to
do
that
and
conviction.
Voting
has
the
capability
of
passing
signaling
proposals
without
allocating
any
funds,
but
we
don't
want
that
because
that
would
like
stake
too
many
tokens
on
a
proposal
that
could
be
stealing
attention
from
the
the
real
like
capability
of
that
app.
A
G
A
A
So
what
we'll
have
to
change
with
the
with
the
disputable
voting
is
basically
this
whole
section
we'll
have
to
understand
what,
from
this
needs
to
be
changed
to
the
hatchdale?
What
of
this
information
about
dandelion
voting?
So
we
have
a
lot
of
information
here
already,
but
maybe
it's
just
taking
a
look
at
dandelion
and
see
what
is
missing
here
and
then.
A
G
C
C
Yeah,
basically,
because
I
can't
we
can't
say
we
have
to
tweak
the
celeste
just
like
a
tad
just
the
way
that
we're
interacting
with
it
just
like
a
little
bit
from
what
one
hive
has
so
until
we
understand
the
technical
challenge
very
like
that,
we
don't,
we
would
be
making
guesses
and
then
oh
hey.
We
voted
on
the
concept
because
well
we
found
out,
we
can't
we
have.
C
We
can't
use
tec
tokens
for
the
deposit
we
have
to
use
the
wrapped
x
die
because
of
this
or
that
now
or
we
have
to
use
honey
god.
I
forbid,
I
I
hope
we
don't
have
to
use
honey.
The
proposal
deposits,
I'm
pretty
confident
we
won,
but
that's
just
one
example
of
detail
that
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
analyze
and
the.
What
I
really
fear
is
the
details
that
we
don't
know
yet.
So
I
think
it's
just
better
to.
A
G
A
So
that's
pretty
exciting,
because
all
of
the
other
decisions
that
are
coming
from
source
cred
now
will
be
held
by
this
committee,
and
I
think
just
one
thing
we
should
decide
is
who
is
in
this
committee
I
put
in
the
proposal
that
we
started
with
a
source
with
a
sofka
working
group,
mostly
mateo
santi,
and
I
and
then
now
there
is
a
new
contributor
that
griff
brought
in
santiago,
that
he's
a
data
analyst
santi
you're.
Talking
to
him.
Do
you
guys
want
to
give
some
updates
on
that.
H
The
other
part
is
actually
trying
to
extract
insight
from
the
data
internally
more
more
than
exposing
the
basically
the
the
rewards
after
the
distribution,
so
anyone
can
check
how
they
are
doing.
So
that's
what
I'm
going
to
be
discussing
with
him
later
on
today
and
and
hopefully
from
there,
we,
we
might
be
able
to
you,
know,
define
the
ways
to
move
forward.
A
Wow,
that's
super
exciting
that
will
be
like
huge
for
us
and
even
a
month
we'll
be
able
to
have
so
much
insights
of
how
it's
working.
Does
anybody
has
any
questions
or
would
anyone
like
to
be
in
the
committee
or
what
what
thoughts
do
you
have
about
the
committee?
We
also
thought
game
designer
would
be
really
interesting
to
be
like
looking
into
this
data
and
proposing
new
directions
we
take
with
the
parameters.
C
I
mean-
maybe
maybe
this
is
like
a
group
that
hangs
out
in
the
first
grade
community
the
metagame
community
or
tries
to
like
bring
in
the
network
instead
of
being
like
you
know,
a
circle
that's
come,
haven't
it
be,
maybe
a
an
opportunity
for
external
developers,
kings
people
who
are
already
in
the
source
or
or
any
of
these
communities
that
already
have
source
one
hack
as
well.
I
don't
know.
H
He
already
mentioned
that
if
we
develop
something
like
that,
it'd
be
awesome
for
them
and
for
other
communities.
So
there's
maybe
two
angles,
and
you
can
look
at
this.
One
is
trying
to
create
a
group
from
different
dials
and
work
together.
Another
one
would
be
that
we
work
initially
and
and
try
to
once.
We
have,
you
know,
let's
say
a
solution
that
fits
what
we
need.
H
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
complete
solution,
but
you
know
something
that
no
one
else
does
have,
because
the
other
communities
just
don't
have
these
tools
and
then
we
can
approach
them
see
if
they
want
to
use
them
see.
If
we
can,
I
don't
know
collaborate
or
get
you
know
integrate
somehow
with
those
communities
getting
something
or
or
just
you
know,
sharing
it
with
them.
H
I
just
don't
know,
but
if
it's
something
that
we've
created
with
the
tool
that
many
other
communities
are
using,
I'm
sure
you
know
we
can
get
something
out
of
there.
Either
either
be
collaboration
with
the
house
or
just
as
the
source
credit
team.
Does
they
charge
five
percent
and
it's
integrated
in
the
software
there's
no
way
you
can,
you
know
get
rid
of
that.
So
I
just
don't
know.
H
F
A
C
C
Yeah
yeah,
the
maker
dao,
would
be
a
good
one,
but
like
even
just
having
calls
in
their
discord.
You
know
just
like
who
are
all
these
people.
What
are
they
doing?
You
know
and
then
you'll
have
people
dropping
in,
like
I
don't
know
if
they're
a
source
credit,
but
I'm
especially
thinking
that
for
the
credit,
but
you
know
any,
you
know
low
effort
like
opportunities
for
people
to
be
that
they.
A
A
There
is
just
a
couple
of
sections
that
are
not
are
you
seeing
my
screen
yet
yeah,
there's
just
a
couple
of
sections
that
are
not
filled
yet
because
they
are
new,
so
transparency
is
one
of
them
and
source
cred.
I
just
started
writing
about
it,
but
we
also
need
a
bit
of
like
the
actions
I
think
for
source.
Cred
is
a
little
bit
easier
because
we
have
the
forum
posts
already
and
then
for
transparency.
I
just
wanted
to
have
a
quick
like
sense
making
on
what
is
transparency
beyond
the
working
group.
A
J
I
think
we
could
use
a
bit
of
the
proposal
we
are
creating
and
we
were
hacking
on
transparency
all
together
and
yeah,
and
I
actually
I
don't
know
I
mean
it's
regarding
the
topic,
but
not
a
lot,
but
with
nate.
He
bring
that
fantastic
idea
of
that,
an
initial
page
with
all
the
austrian
principles
and
explaining
them
and
how
how
tc
interacts
with
every
ostrom
principle
regarding
yeah.
J
A
D
But
the
idea
would
be
to
integrate.
You
know,
you
know,
explain
how
each
section
in
each
working
group
kind
of
integrates
within
ocean's
design
principles
and
and
shows
how
it
exactly
integrates
with
it
and
how
we
we
honestly.
I
think
that
it
all
this
can
be
explained
really
well.
If
we
could
answer
the
simple
question
of
if,
if
the
simple
mission
of
the
token
engineering
commons
is
to
advance
the
state
of
token
engineering,
why
is
it
that
we
chose
the
commons
at
the
commons
approach
as
the
best
method
of
doing
so?
A
A
So
how
can
we
have
all
the
information
necessary
in
this
few
agreements?
And
this
is
the
holistic
approach
and
we
can
evolve
them
with
with
time
and
we
have
like
a
voting
mechanism
to
propose
changes
to
it.
We
have.
This
is
a
collaborative
document.
There
are
multiple
people
like
working
on
it,
so
yeah.
I
think
I
think
this
is
great.
A
I'm
also
working
on
a
piece
for
the
common
stack
that
talks
about
the
the
ostrom's
principles
and
it
will
be
really
cool
to
have
this
coming
from
you
and
zap,
especially
because
you
guys
were
in
the
book
club-
and
you
have
this
like
understanding
of
your
own
and
we
can
collaborate
on
it.
But
I
think
it's
like
an
awesome
direction.
F
Can
I
just
mention
something
that
I
mentioned
at
the
same
last
meeting
with
zepp
and
and
nate
it
feels
to
me
like
we
gain
a
lot
of
coherent
narrative
when
we
can
say
what
what
I've
noted
and
it's
taken
me
a
long
time
to
understand
we're
all
always
talking
about
ostrom's
principles
and
for
a
long
time.
What
I
didn't
understand
is:
why
is
it
we're
doing
ostrom's
principles,
they're
cool
and
all
but
they're
we're
doing
ostrom's
principles
because
of
the
the
the
other,
the
poor
governance.
F
The
shadow
side
of
that
is
we're
using
ostrom's
principles,
because
the
the
typical
way
that
the
commons
governance
is
done
is
is
done
so
poorly
right
and
and
so
by
sort
of
understanding
that
that
secondary
narrative,
which
is
kind
of
what
I
was
proposing
to
zepp
and
nate
last
time,
which
is
just
to
just
say,
there's
a
positive
thing.
We're
doing.
F
So
if
you
could
set
up
like
the
reason
why
we're
doing
this
is
because
to
avoid
sort
of
this
other
thing
right
and
instead
of
just
we,
we
typically
just
talk
about
what
are
all
the
benefits
of
this
positive
thing
that
we're
doing
without
sort
of
giving
the
story
behind
it's
a
response
to
something
else,
and-
and
this
is
actually
the
reason
why
I
brought
in
spiral
dynamics
because
spiral
dynamics
is
actually
a
whole
story
of
exactly
those
dynamics.
The
colors
give
or
come
out
about,
because
it
it
it.
C
Yeah,
I
wanna
add
to
that
that
you
know
people
don't
really
wanna
talk
about.
I
should
say
that
solutions
are
not
as
entertaining
right.
Star
wars
was
a
whole
movie
with
a
whole
bunch
of
problems
that
kept
happening
people
and
it's
very
entertaining
to
hear
about
the
problems
and
talk
about
the
problems
and
and
then
at
the
end.
You
have
like
this
little
snippet
of
a
happy
or
something,
but
they
don't
show
him
like
enjoying
a
delicious
meal
right,
and
this
is
something
that
is
common
talks
like
like
persuasive
talks.
C
F
Standpoint,
I'm
just
saying
that
we,
we
all
tend
to
focus
on
the
really
positive
aspects
of
what
we're
doing,
and
some
people
will
understand
that
and
some
people
won't.
I've
always
found
myself
in
the
position
of
not
really
getting
everything
that
was
going
on,
but
the
parts
that
I
did
get
I
was
so
excited
about.
I'm
like
okay,
I'm
here,
but
from
a
coherent
narrative
standpoint
I
feel
like
if
we
were
all
to
do
that
in
all
of
our
sort
of
governance
groups
to
have
that
throughput
of
the
the
light
against
the
dark.
A
E
I've
I've
made
a
note
both
of
what
nate
said
and
what
sorry
your
goddess
said.
I
don't
know
your
real
name
but
yeah.
I
made
a
note
of
what
both
of
you
guys
said
and
and
I'll
be
sure
to
include
that
both
in
the
video
and
the
diagrams
that
I
will
be
working
on.
Basically,
what
I
got
is
that
we
need
to
compare
narrative,
embedding
token
engineering
into
commons
governments
and
how
the
talking
engineering
commons
is
a
framework
for
this
and
more
and
I'm
making
it
universal.
A
C
A
E
E
E
A
A
C
J
I
also
wanted
to
say
something
about
the
hashtag
we
with
nate.
We
were
discussing
like
if
the
disagreements
are
going
to
be
like
for
the
whole
time.
The
hashtag
is
something
that's
going
to
be
now,
but
then
it's
going
to
be
gone
when
we
actually
upgrade
to
the
new
commons
so
yeah
we
were
discussing
like
if
yeah
about
feedback
on
what
that
be
here
and
also
about
the
nate
was
talking
about
adding
the
faq.
Here
we
yeah,
we
would
love
some
feedback
on
those
two
points
very
fast.