►
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - How well do we integrate Ostrom principles?
24:00 - GitBook
37:30 - Mutual monitoring
44:35 - Celeste and disputable voting
🙏 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
Can
take
it
man,
I
think
we're
just
killing
it
on
austrum's
principles
in
general.
It's
I
mean
legal
is
so
great
and
I
feel
like
juan
carlos
on
monitoring
and
conflict.
Res
has
really
been
killing
it.
The
nested
like
wow,
you
know
we're
just
like
the
working
groups
are
so
well
nested
into
everybody,
and
it
all
seems
so
effortless.
A
I
think
one
thing
that
might
help
that
we
could
work
on
and
do
a
better
job
is
the
boundaries
I
I
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
still
doing
a
pretty
good
job,
but
building
a
stronger
boundaries
and
like
using
that
is
like
I,
you
know
knowing
someone
knowing
where
they
are.
I
feel
like
people
don't
really
know.
Am
I
part
of
the
te
commons
or
whatnot,
like
the
only
people
who
know
are
the
stewards
and
then
like
what
are
the
boundaries
for
other
people?
I
could.
A
D
E
You
know
kind
of
highlighting
too
with
griff
a
bit.
I've
been
I've
noticed
that
we
have
we
we're
doing
much
better
in
a
short
amount
of
time
with
new
people.
I
think
more
people
that
come
in
are
kind
of
seeing
directions.
They
can
go.
I
think,
even
in
a
short
amount
of
time,
we're
doing
we're
doing
much
better
at
directing
that,
so
you
know
I
I
am
totally
horrible
because
I'm
still
not,
I
didn't
I
was
not
in
the
book
club.
E
I
am
not
very
well
on
austria's
principles,
but
I
will
say
like
with
griff
and
boundaries
that
the
working
groups
do
they
have
their
own
kind
of
character
and
personality
based
off
of
the
stewards.
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
and
I
think
if
we
can
help
facilitate
that
in
different
ways,
we
can
help
also
help
guide
people
into
different
directions
that
they
may.
E
I
guess
as
they
come
to
it
and
learn
about
it.
They
may
see
more
of
a
place
or
fit
for
them,
not
just
based
off
of
hey.
What's
your
skill
set,
they
might
find
out.
You
know
what
this
is
more
aligned
and
how
I
think,
or
what
I
want
to
do,
does
that
so
I
think
that
helps
kind
of
just
direct
a
bigger
spectrum
as
we
grow,
because
we're
going
to
grow
all
right,
I'm
going
to
pass
it
to
mr
mount
manu
is
that
right
did
I
do
that
right.
D
Ostrom
is
an
economist
writer
that
won
the
nobel
prize
for
governing
the
comments,
so
we've
been
implementing
her
work
and
our
culture
and-
and
the
question
is
how
how
have
we
been
doing
that
reflecting
on
ostrom's
principles
and
what
has
been
challenging.
But
since
you
haven't
seen
it
most
of
the
work
so
far,
if
you
have
any
questions
around
it,.
G
I've
been
kind
of
exploring
those
things
a
little
bit
and
I
feel
like
ostrom
is
good
and
we
are
talking
about
the
comments,
but
you
know
my
thing
is
you
know
as
well
as
we
might
be
doing
with
ostrom?
I
think
it
really
makes
the
most
sense
to
the
people
who
sort
of
began
the
whole
operation
and
who
are
the
stewards
and
have
this
sort
of
overview.
I
still
find
myself
perpetually
confused
about
just
about
everything.
A
G
So
I
I
I
really
I
feel
like
I'm
almost
physically
suffering,
because
I
don't
get
the
the
overview
that
I
need
out
of
this
and
I've
read
a
million
things
and
read
all
the
communications
bits
and-
and
I
still
don't
sort
of
fully
understand
and
it's.
It
has
taken
me
almost
five
months
of
to
get
to
this
point.
So
it
just
seems
like
a
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
too
much.
G
B
But
now
then
we
have
to
jump
into
practice,
and
that
is
like
a
big
leap,
because
there
is
always
like
the
theory
and
then
the
practice
and
like
yeah.
The
theory
of
gravity
is
that
we
will
be
able
to
solve
our
our
conflicts
and
to
turn
them
into
opportunities
of
improvement.
But
maybe
in
the
practice
there
are
harder
problems
that
are
difficult
to
handle
and
we
will
need
to
then
innovate
again
and
try
to
propose
like
improvement
for
our
own
initial
theories
and
like
we.
B
We
have
clearly
defined
boundaries,
but
we
are
now
like
stepping
up
like
moving
into
a
new
discord.
Is,
is
also
like
defining
better
our
boundaries
and
then
we
will
have
to
have
congruence
between
appropriation
and
provision,
and
this
is
like
the
part
where,
where
it's
so
important,
to
choose
good
parameters
and
yeah.
B
For
us
to
to
face
the
the
reality
of
our
goals,
because,
like
it's,
not
that
that
we
are
gonna,
get
to
an
end
state
where,
where
everything
is
going
to
go
well,
but
we
are
always
going
to
be
looking
for
ways
of
improving
so
yeah
that
really
great
for
like
preparing
ourselves
and
studying.
But
now
it's
like.
We
have
to
go
through
fire
and-
and
that
is
what
will
like
measure,
the
the
success
and
the
of
all
the
efforts
that
we
have
been
doing.
H
Yeah,
I
have
to
have
to
give
it
up
to
you
one
with
the
the
gravity
working
group
and
everything
in
terms
of
ostrom's
principles.
You
know
dispute
resolution,
you
you
guys
are
you
guys,
are
doing
it
and
so
huge
praise
for
that.
I
think
we
also
do
a
really
good
job
by
defining
group
boundaries,
which
is
you
know
still,
you
know
we're
finding
ourselves,
but
those
boundaries
are
there.
H
The
only
criticisms,
I
think
I
would
have
would
be
our
monitoring,
I'm
not
sure
about
the
infrastructure
that
we're
building
for
monitoring
each
working
group
and
monitoring
each
of
the
roles
that
we
have,
but
I
think
you
know
some
improvements
could
be
made
and
maybe
I'm
just
not
seeing
the
whole
picture
yet,
but
you
know
it.
I
think
we're
as
far
as
oh
osh
principles,
I
think
we're
doing
really
well
and
applying
them
to
the
tec
so
yeah.
I
A
I
We've
been
working
a
lot
on
that
and
and
juan
carlos
doing
a
great
job,
but
I
just
somehow
I
feel
I'm
curious
about
how
we're
going
to
deal
with
that
when,
when
it
ever
appears,
because
that's
probably
one
of
the
most
important
differentiation
we
have
with
the
rest
of
the
dollars
out
there
and
and
it's
good
that
we're
working
on
that
direction.
I
just
I'm
just
curious
to
see
how
everything
is
going
to
come
together
when
we
need
to
use
it
I'll
pass
it.
I
don't
know
if
septimus
went.
C
No
thank
you
santi.
I
think.
Overall,
we
are
doing
a
great
job
implementing
them
and
regarding
their
monitoring
on
transparency
or
working
on
this
audit
for
all
the
working
groups
and
also,
if
you
like,
to
contribute
on
them.
I
really
love
to
yeah
help
you
with
to
sing
with
all
the
job
we've
done
before
and
yeah
integrate
all
your
great
feedback,
because
you're
super
smart,
and
you
know
that
yeah
choosing
to
integrate
that
and
the
only
thing
I
think
I
mean,
for
example,
for
the
rules
and
boundaries.
A
C
Feel
like
with
the
culture
where
we're
building,
I
feel
integrated
but
yeah
for
someone
who's
new.
I
don't
know
if
they
knew
like
the
whole
thing,
like
the
price
system
like
yeah.
There
is
a
lot
of
things
I
they're
there
but
yeah.
I
don't
know
how
to
how
to
share
it
with
the
new
members
and
I'll
pass
it
to.
C
J
D
J
No
I'm
psyched,
I'm
psyched.
I
haven't
been
in
soft
code
in
a
while
and
and
the
kind
of
growth
that
has
been
happening
just
being
not
entirely
outside
looking
in,
but
at
least
in
the
sidelines
in
the
border
for
a
couple
of
weeks,
it's
it's
simply
beautiful.
I
mean
like
just
just
very
much
looking
forward
to
the
documentation
of
everything.
J
Basically
I
always
had
the
question
like
if
I
want
to
show
somebody
external
like
a
map
of
what
is
going
on
in
the
tc.
Is
there
like
a
map?
You
know
one
link
to
rule.
You
know
something
like
that.
Maybe
that's
going
to
be
the
website,
but
yeah.
That's
something,
I'm
very
much
looking
forward
to
and
I'll
pass
it
back
to
you
libby,
because
I
don't
know
who
hasn't
gone
yet.
D
K
Hey
thanks
livy
I
wanted
to
come.
I
really
miss
these
meetings
and
yeah.
I
think
it's
very
interesting
to
reflect
on
this.
I
would
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
people
and
kind
of
echo
what's
been
said
so
far
and
just
add
yeah
the
boundaries.
I
think
we've
been
doing
great,
and
we
should
remember
that
this
is
pioneering
work,
that
you
know
this.
K
We
are
the
first
people
to
really
do
this,
and
so
it's
been
fantastic
and,
of
course,
I
think
the
areas
for
improvement
are
definitely
in
documentation
and
directing
some
energy
energy
towards
yeah
that
map
as
well
dan.
I
feel
the
communications
we
could
improve
there
and
then
also
on
the
decision-making,
participatory,
participatory
decision
making
and
having
some
more
documentation
and
sharing,
because
many
other
communities
are
coming
and
asking
you
know
what
are
some
different
mechanisms
and
from
a
community
side
of
how
to
make
decisions
and
what
decisions
are
delegated.
K
But
a
potential
area
for
exploration
growth
is
to
look
at
dow
to
dao
collaborations
and
that's
a
very
early
area
as
well.
That's
completely
kind
of
open
for
so
sinking
in
with
some
of
that
research
and
trying
some
things
out
in
the
future.
Looking
down
the
road,
but
thank
you
and
I
I
don't
think
tamara
has
gone
yet
or
maybe
I
missed
it
because
I
jumped.
L
I
have
not
so
I'll
go
now
now
being
one
of
the
last
people
to
go.
I
always
want
to
give
reflections
on
what
other
people
have
said,
but
I'll
try
to
keep
that
part
brief.
I
love
what
just
said
about
us
being
pioneers.
I
think
we
should
always
keep
that
in
mind.
This
is
just
something
that
hasn't
been
done
before
and
then
what
santi
said
with
respect
to
scales,
and
we
have
some
really
interesting.
L
We
have
some
really
cool
processes
that
are
mapped
to
eleanor
ostrom's
principles.
Conflict
resolution
is
a
great
one
or
participatory
decision
making
clear
boundaries,
but
how
does
that
scale?
When
there's
you
know
five
times
or
ten
times
the
number
of
participants
that
we
have
for
community
members
that
we
have
and
we
do
now?
So
that's
also
really
that
really
resonated
with
me
too.
L
I
think
we're
doing
pretty
great
for
in
terms
of
implementing.
I
think
that
there
is
maybe
still
some
challenges,
but
I
think
that
we
take
them
as
we
take
each
challenge.
As
it
comes
up,
the
participatory
decision
making
is
sort
of
gone
from.
You
know
discord
emojis
to
the
forum
to
the
next
phase,
which
will
be
token
log.
You
know
weighted
weighted
log
weighted
voting
to
dandelion
voting,
so
I
think
that
a
lot
of
these
are
just.
We
have
to
take
steps
to
reach
the
the
desired
goal.
M
Yep,
hey
everyone,
so
I
don't
have
like
a
strong
opinion
on
how
we're
doing
stuff
here,
as
I
am
really
partially
here.
But
I
do
like
to
mention
some
some
stuff
that
I
notice
on
my
other
side
and
it's
it's
mainly
related.
I
agree
with
everything
that
you
guys
said,
because
it's
true
mainly
in
the
nesting
part,
because
I
believe
that
the
cultural
aspect
that
is
being
moving
around
the
working
groups
and
and
how
we
are
actually
working.
M
It's
really
great,
and
I
I
think
that's
that's
amazing,
at
least
of
how
the
soft
working
group
has
made
an
impact
in
that
aspect.
But
but
I
believe
that
that
we
are
missing
in
how
the
relationships
and
how
the
cultural
aspects
of
everyone's
work
will
will
have
a
an
effect
on
a
consequence.
Other
words
our
community,
because
in
the
end,
the
commons.
If
we
take
the
the
last
principle
about
how
the
nested
tiers
grow
from
lower
to
the
whole
interconnected
system.
M
We
are
not
that
robust
and
looking
out
adwords
looking
outside
our
own
community
and
that's
a
problem
that
we
may
start
considering
and
that
connects
to
the
scaling
problem.
Because,
in
the
end,
we
are
doing
amazing
between
the
people
that
is
working
currently
and
amazing,
with
the
new
people,
hopefully,
but
eventually
when,
when
all
the,
when
there
is
not
only
one
commons
where
there
is,
there
starts
to
be
many
other
groups
how
we
are
going
to
to
make
that
flow
between
the
cultural
aspects
and
and
the
way
the
energy
flows
between
the
parts.
M
So
in
that,
I
think
we
have
a
lot
to
work
to
do,
but
in
everything
else,
I
believe
that
that
is
really
great.
The
other
part
that
I
was
thinking
is
about
the
learning
curve
that
can
be
a
little
bit
tough,
but
thinking
about
what
jessica
said
that
we
are
pioneering
is
like
the
the
least
that
we
could
expect
it's
too
complex
to
expect
the
the
learning
curve
to
be
smooth
so
for
anyone
that
that
could
try
to
join
in.
M
Even
if
you
make
the
best
literature
the
best
way
to
communicate,
it
can
be
a
little
bit
hard
and-
and
it's
not
only
a
problem
of
us-
it's
really
a
problem
that
is
a
share
between
all
the
communities
in
the
crypto
space,
blockchain
and
whatever.
So
so
yeah,
I
think
that's
it,
I'm
not
sure
who's
missing.
N
Hello
yeah,
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
how
we
are
doing.
I
think
when,
when
there
is
a
real
funding
you
pull
in
this
community,
it's
going
to
be
the
time
when,
when
we
are
going
to
see
how
good
we
are
doing
now
preparing
for
probably
it
is
for
for
real
money,
I
guess
and
see
how
how
people
are
how
people
behave
so
yeah.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
much
more.
I've
been
just
focusing
on
code,
but
I've
been
like,
I
believe
the
the
mutual
monitoring
has
been
very
good
like
I
have.
N
D
Cool,
I
think
that
was
everyone.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
feedback.
This
is
super
helpful
just
to
have
this
checking
of
where
we're
at
sometimes,
I
think
it's
hard
when,
when
we're
so
involved
so
in
to
have
this
out
perspective.
So
it's
really
great
to
to
hear
all
of
this,
and
I
reflect
on
all
of
this
points
and
also
if
anyone
has
ideas
that
come
out
of
it,
like
I
loved
this
of
having
a
map
of
the
community,
I
think
this
would
be
super
great.
D
D
Let
me
share
my
screen.
I
think
this
will
address
a
lot,
this
point
of
of
the
boundaries
and
the
rules,
hopefully
a
place
where
people
can
arrive
and
see
like.
Oh,
what
is
what
is
this
community
until
where
it
goes?
What
are
the
actions
I
can
take,
and
I
think
this
is
a
lot
about
the
boundaries
and
rules,
so
here
in
the
agreement
part,
we
should
have
just
this
introduction
and
and
the
general
code
of
conduct
and
explain
a
little
bit.
What
is
this?
Why
why
we
are?
D
D
F
Yeah,
so
it
would
be
a
fusion
of
the
mental
map
that
that
dan
suggested
is
this.
I
mean
this
could
be
the
input
for,
though
I'm
really
good
at
mental
mapping
and
modeling
with
the
next
mind,
which
is
a
software.
That
does
that.
So
again
I
do
it
and
then
I
I
you
know,
give
it
to
you
olivia.
So
you
can,
you
know
green
light
it,
but
yeah.
It
would
be
a
a
great
way
for
me
to
get
familiarized
with
everything
that
you
guys
are
doing
and
to
contribute.
F
F
D
D
D
Awesome,
that's
awesome!
Thank
you
guys,
okay,
so
so
the
first
part
I
thought
of
of
having
some
type
of
an
intuitive
order
between
between
all
the
parts,
so
first
the
hatch
dial.
That
is
what
we're
going
to
start
with
and
and
all
of
them
will
have
this
like
tiny
subtitle
and
then
and
about
there's
a
is
a
little
explanation
and
then,
in
the
hatched
out
case,
grief,
work
with
me
this
week,
thanks
cliff,
I
think
we
got
to
a
good
point
of
for
this
section
now.
D
D
D
D
And
then
I
added
transparency
that
we
didn't
have
in
the
time
we
started
to
create
all
of
this,
but
it's
super
important
and
it
ties
up
with
gravity
and
it
explains
a
lot
of
the
mechanics
of
how
mutual
monitoring
is
gonna,
work
and
then
advice
process.
So
here's
the
whole
like
decision
making
governance
section,
that
is
advice,
process,
the
forum
voting
and
and
so
on,
and
then
also
source
cred.
I
added
because
we
can
go
to
the
next
topic
from
here.
D
So
we
thought
that
the
best
framing
for
the
source
credit
proposal
is
not
like
accepting
source
cred
as
a
community,
because
we
already
took
this
decision
and
we've
been
trying
to
explore
a
lot,
this
concept
of
not
needing
to
vote
for
all
the
decision
making.
So
we've
been
talking
about
source
cred
for
so
long
that
I
think
we
can
assume
that
isn't
a
decision
we
took
collectively
and
and
what
needs
to
be
approved
is
the
use
of
a
committee.
D
So
we
are
proposing
that
source
cred
will
have
a
committee
that
will
make
this
and
this
and
these
decisions,
and
then
we
listed
them
all
here.
So
the
committee
will
choose
how
tokens
are
going
to
be
distributed,
how
much
they,
how
much
will
be
distributed
in
every
distribution
period?
How
often
should
the
distribution
occur?
D
What
is
the
percentage
that
goes
to
old
and
recent
contributors
and
how
the
community
interacts
with
the
parameters
through
data
analysis,
but
then
all
of
this
there
will
have
will
have
a
process
for
each
one
of
these
things
and
why
is
it
different
than
a
working
group
just
because
the
committee
gets
together
by
sumoni?
So
it's
not
like
a
recurring
meeting
that
is
always
there,
but
whenever
something
needs
to
be
addressed
then
then
these
people
come
together
and
we
were
exploring
like
what
type
of
people
do
we
need.
D
We
need,
like
a
data
scientist,
do
we
need
a
developer
with
with
which
type
of
understanding
so
we're
putting
all
of
these
things
in
the
document
and
if
anyone
also
wants
to
jump
in
and
have
something
to
say,
wants
to
help
us
in
this
process
before
we
post
in
the
forum
I
know
santi,
I
was
gonna,
have
a
look
at
it,
so
I'm
just
I
talked
a
lot.
I'm
just
gonna
open
and
see
if
you
guys
have
any
reflections
questions
so
far,.
I
I've
been
taking
a
look
at
the
document
that
you
and
mateo
were
working
on
for
the
proposal
and
I've
added
a
couple
of
suggestions.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
have
had
the
chance
to
go
over
it.
There
were
very
minus
minor
suggestions,
but
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everyone
understands
that,
although
we
may
be
giving
impact
hours
initially,
because
that's
the
monetary
somehow
value
that
we
use
now
and
ideally
we
might
be
using
token
engineering
tokens
anytime,
we
can
distribute
anything
that
we
may
want
that.
We
have
funds,
okay
and
that's
open.
I
Any
distribution
can
decide
which
type
of
contribution
reward
wants
to
give,
and
that
should
be
clear
because
it
may
change
in
the
future.
If
we
decide
as
a
doubt
that
we
want
to
change
okay-
and
that
was
something
I
added
and
I
don't
know
there
was
another
minor
change
that
I
added
I
haven't
had
time
to
go
over
the
and
create
that
that
graphic
that
I
wanted
to
create.
I
I
had
a
small
conversation
with
the
guys
at
one
hive
and
they
are
willing
to
give
us
hand.
So
so,
hopefully
I
I
will
talk
to
them
and
and
get
some
clarification
on
that
and
probably
add
that
chart
into
the
document.
So
everyone
has
a
clear
picture
of
more
or
less
what
all
those
parameters
are.
I
also
was
going
over
the
documentation
on
there's
a
little
bit
more
of
explanation.
I
will
share
that
with
you
livy
and
mateo.
D
That's
great
thanks:
auntie,
that's
awesome!
They
want
to
help.
I
was
telling
matteo
that
we
we
should
do
two
separate
posts,
one
that
is
mostly
informative
just
to
have
that.
It's
basically,
this
top
part
that
you
guys
worked
on
it
already
and
it's
it's
basically
ready
to
post
and
then
the
other
one
would
be
the
the
proposal
for
the
committee.
M
No,
I
think
it's,
I
guess
really
clear-
that
a
post
is
not
supposed
to
be
a
proposal
but
more
of
an
explanatory
document,
so
everyone
can
get
and
follow
the
for
example,
the
the
last
analogy
that
we've
made
with
the
pockets
and
and
and
the
water
flow
to
explain
how
source
threat
works.
So
everybody
that
that
jumps
in
and
tries
to
understand,
what's
going
on,
can
you
can
really
get
it
quite
fast,
so
yeah
the
document
is
internal
to
that
and
for
the
proposal.
C
D
Yeah
yeah
I'll,
send
you
guys
the
link
I'll,
send
everyone
everyone
who
wants
the
link
to
edit
it.
Please
let
me
know
I
posted
in
a
few
channels
before
but
then
now
I'm
thinking
like
it's
super
open.
It's
just
clicking
that
link
and
then
you
have
permission
to
add
it.
So
it
might
be
good
to
be
a
little
careful
of
like
how
we
distribute
the
link,
but
anyone
who
requests
then
we
can
we
can
share.
I
think
that's
a
good
metric.
D
So
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
topic
that
is
neutral,
mutual
monitoring,
so
yeah.
I
think
it's
good
to
to
bring
this
up.
That
is
something
zaptimus
is
working
a
lot
on
and-
and
I
I
see
from
the
comments
we
had
now-
that
is
still
very
unknown
for
people,
so
we
can
yeah.
We
can
discuss
this,
this
document
zap,
you
want
to
talk
about
it.
C
Well,
we
had
an
issue
about
the
mutual
accountability
on
the
tc
and
what
I
first
do
was
all
the
metrics
we're
using
at
least
which
I
know
and
and
then
on
transparency
with
ivy
we
yeah.
We
were
brainstorming
on
it,
but
yeah.
The
idea
was
to
bring
it
to
softcups,
or
maybe
I
don't
know
yeah.
The
idea
is
to
hack
on
it.
Maybe
we
can
even
do
it
silent
like,
for
example,
we
have
access
to
this
document.
Everyone
can
edit
it
and
yeah.
C
D
Yeah
so
there
there
are
a
few
topics
here
for
mutual
accountability.
We
could
do
like
a
quick
round
to
see
if
people
have
any
to
add
or
if
there's
agreement
around
this
one,
so
meetings
being
recorded
is
a
mutual
accountability
method.
Assigning
one
person
on
the
github
issues
gravity
grade
graduated
sanctions.
I
think
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
mutual
accountability,
I
think
it
enters
then
on
on
graduated
sanctions.
That
is
like
another
topic.
D
C
D
D
H
I
think
would
be
very
helpful
and
then
septimus,
like
the
things
you're
working
on,
are
the
the
bigger
ones
like
the
infrastructure
pieces
are
saying
like
how
do
we
keep
multiple
working
groups
accountable
at
once?
And
how
do
we
keep?
You
know
the
people
in
contact?
How
do
we,
you
know,
make
it
easy
for
people
to
interact
with
other
working
groups
that
they're
not
necessarily
a
part
of,
because
I
think
that
is
a
huge
one,
especially
if
you're
doing
something
in
the
context
of
the
entire
tec.
C
I
think,
like
github
is
a
very,
very
good
tool,
we're
using
a
lot
for
the
model
monitoring,
and
especially
this
new
thing.
We
do
to
only
assign
one
people,
so
it
makes
when
you
are
the
only
one
assigned
it
makes
you
to
feel
like
you
are
the
one
responsible
to
make
this
issue
done.
Even
if
it's
that's
something
I
I
talked
with
grief,
for
example,
maybe
it's
an
issue
I'm
assigned,
but
it's
great
doing
it
and
yeah.
My
job
is
like
hey
grief.
We
should.
How
do
we
do
that
and
help
yeah?
D
Yeah,
this
isn't
interesting
about
how
source
cred
can
gamify
it
in
a
in
a
beneficial
way,
because
it's
like
oh
skip
book
github
is
awesome
for
accountability,
but
then
who
uses
github.
But
then,
if
we
have
a
weighted
incentive
from
source
cred
for
people
to
use
github
and
especially
for
making
issues,
then
it's
like
a
funneling.
D
A
Absolutely
so
the
general
concept
is
that
one
hive
has
created
a
decentralized
court
that
to
be
part
of
this
court,
you
have
to
have
a
bribe
id,
so
you
have
to
be
an
individual
and
you
can
a
proof
of
uniqueness.
That's
what
brad
provides
so
one
person
as
a
court
member
can
have
like
multiple
addresses,
and
then
they
put
a
cap
of
how
much
collateral
in
honey
you
put
down
and
the
idea
there
is
that
hey,
you
need
to
respond
call.
A
A
So
to
apply
this
within
the
common
stack
design
anytime,
we
make
a
a
vote,
whether
it's
a
vote
to
change
the
parameters
or
a
vote
within
conviction.
We
are,
we
would
we
would
well
we'll
vote.
This
is
a
big
decision,
so
this
is
something
that
we
should
vote
on,
but
we
will
use
disputable,
voting
and
disputable
conviction
voting.
A
You
have
to
have
some
expectations
set,
which
we're
already
doing
so.
It's
really
easy
for
us.
It's
probably
something
to
dissuade
most
doubts
that
that
just
dow
it,
but
for
us,
we're
already
planning
on
doing
this.
So
it's
easy.
It's
like
what
kind
of
the
rules
that
say
this
is
what
we're
trying
to
do.
These
are
what
this
is.
The
range
of
what
acceptable
proposals
should
be
targeting
to
do
so
in
conviction.
Voting.
For
instance,
if
someone
says
hey,
I
want
to
fire
bomb
at
house
like
a
great
idea.
A
Bad
idea
doesn't
fit
our
agreements,
that's
not
what
we're
trying
to
do
as
the
tokens
and
so
instead
of
having
to
like
try
to
vote
no
or
anything
like
that
which
we
can't
even
do
in
commercial,
someone
could
challenge
it.
So
a
person
had
to
put
down
a
deposit
and
then
someone
here
has
to
match
the
deposit.
Well,
technically,
we
can
change
the
challenge
and
the
action
amount.
Those
are
what
the
parameters
are
called,
but
I
imagine
we'll
just
keep
them
the
same.
A
I
don't
know
that'll
be
up
to
the
the
community
to
decide
right.
We
don't
get
the
parameters,
no
technocracy
over
here,
okay,
but
not
much,
not
as
much
as
there.
There
could
be
anyway.
So
there's
there's
the
action
amount
and
the
challenge
amount
and
those
will
both
be
a
next
time
right.
But
if
this
person
who
says
hey,
I
want
to
fire
bomb
a
house,
they
get
challenged
and
they're
like
no.
This
is
what
the
token
engineering
commons
is
all
about.
Right
they
can.
A
They
can
respond
to
that
challenge
by
putting
up
honey,
so
the
honey
is
the
currency
of
celeste
and
the
in
our
external
court.
So
they
would
put
up
some
honey
and
say
no.
This
is
real
right
and
then
the
challenger
would
also
have
to
put
up
honey,
say
no,
it's
not
and
and
then
it
would
go
to
the
court
and
then
the
court
jurors
would
decide.
But,
as
you
can
see,
there's
these
multiple
steps,
it's
very
rare
that
things
will
go
to
the
court.
A
The
guy
who's
firebombing
wants
to
fire
them
on
a
house.
He
knows
he's
not
supposed
to
do
that.
He's,
probably
not
going
to
put
up
more
collateral,
more
honey
to
try
to
get
this
to
go
to
court.
You
know
like
that
would
be
kind
of
crazy,
so
the
guy
who
challenges
it
will
just
get
his
deposit
when
he
doesn't
do
anything
and
there
will
be
a
period
of
time
where
he
has
the
person
who
proposed
has
to
act.
Otherwise,
the
pro
the
deposit
goes
to
the
other
person
yeah.
B
But
if
we
have
to
go
to
celeste,
then
it's
not
a
self-compositive
way.
It
is
a
heterocompositive
way
because
we
are
looking
for
a
third,
an
external
actor
to
to
to
help
in
in
the
settlement
of
the
dispute.
So
yeah,
like
my
question,
is:
is
that,
like
the
boundary
of
the
things
that
cannot,
that
cannot
be
solved
with
gravity,
then
will
go
to
celeste.
A
We
can
have
you
know,
gravity
has
documents
and
stock
gov
has
documents,
and
these
things
can
be
submitted
to
you
know
when,
when
you,
when
you
go
to
celeste
and
for
action
for
for
to
settle
a
dispute,
you
submit
extra
evidence
to
celeste
and
the
jurors
for
their
review,
but
you
know
so
we
have
those
documents,
but
it's
really
about
settling
terry
dispute
or
procedural
dispute
like
for
instance,
if
one
person
feels
like
someone
else,
oh
are
we
celeste
isn't
built
like?
Oh,
you
can
sue
that
person.
A
A
The
it's
generally
done
during
the
votes.
You
could
say
right
so
when
I
make
a
proposal
instantly,
it
goes
up
for
vote
and,
if
someone's
like,
that's
not
what
we're
supposed
to
do,
that
is
against
our
terms
of
service.
This
is
against
our
collective
agreement.
Then,
during
the
vote
it
gets
challenged
and
that
stops
the
vote.
Okay,.
A
I
should
say
like
those
details,
I'm
not
like
I'm
like
80
sure,
let
me
just
say
there.
I
I'm
pretty
confident
that
there's
no
like
waiting
period
before
the
vote
starts
pretty
sure
the
vote
starts
and
then
it
goes
and
for
also
for
all
of
the
voting
like
conviction,
voting
and
disputable
voting.
They
have
time
limits
that
it
takes
before
they
can
be
successfully.
A
A
It's
a
totally
different
instance,
so
the
differences
between
dandelion
voting
and
disputable
voting
are
strong.
The
main
the
biggest
difference
is
that
there's
no
mechanism
there's
no
like
exit
for
disputable
voting.
We
don't
need
it
because
we
will
be
using
so
like
we're
launching
in
two
phases
right.
Dandelion
voting
is
perfect
for
the
first
face,
because
anyone
who
participates
if
they
don't
like
the
way
the
commons
is
going
to
be
upgraded,
they
can
rage
quit,
they
can
exit,
they
can
burn
their
tec.
A
We'll
have
a
bonding,
so
the
bonding
curve
serves
as
the
range,
but
we
don't
need
that
in
the
disputable
book
and
the
rate
mechanism
adds
in
all
these
other
stupid
things
that
we
so
all
those
other
weird
like
like
vote
buffer
delay-
and
I
don't
know
there
are
a
couple
other
like
weird
parameters
that
we
have
to
set
that
only
mitigate
problems
with
the
arrangement
mechanism
like
those
go
away
and
the
new
disputable
voting
is
kind
of
the
next
evolution
of
aragon
voting
and
it
applies.
It
includes
delegation,
just
super
cool.
A
No
delegation
for
conviction,
but
delegation
within
like
parameters
like
if
you're
like
I
don't
know
what
to
do
about
like
if
we
should
raise
the
exit
tribute
or
change
the
shape
of
the
bonding
curve,
I'm
going
to
delegate
that
to
sound.
He
builds
this
stuff.
You
know
you
can
do
that.
We
have
one
hop
delegation
and
we
also
have
this
wait
for
quiet
stuff.
There
will
be
a
forum
post
that
mitch's
work
that
will
go
into
this.