►
From YouTube: W36 Softgov WG: Praise proposals
Description
TheSoftgov Working Group researches and applies best practices for governance, social collaboration and contribution rewards while implementing Ostrom’s 8 principles for governing the commons in its foundation.
We gather every Tuesday at 7pm CET.
Steward: Liviade
🙏 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
B
A
C
C
A
When
tim
brought
the
intro
question
today,
and
it
is
which
tc
member
would
you
eat.
E
E
Well,
I
I
I
love
this
manga
that
is
called
shingeki,
no
kyojin
which,
if,
if,
if
you
eat
like
someone
who
can
become
a
giant,
then
you
can
become
a
giant
and
you
like
acquire
it's
about
their
powers.
E
So
then
I
will
eat
grief,
because
I
will
have
like
a
lot
of
energy
all
the
time
and
a
lot
of
like
mind
and
a
very
high
point
of
view
overall
over
things.
So
yeah-
and
I
will
pass
this
to
tom.
B
C
Oh
wow
yeah,
I
you
know
I
was
I
was
thinking
of
griff
too,
just
because
I
met
him
in
person
and
he's
just
he's
a
very
big
person,
a
lot
bigger
than
I
thought
he
was,
and
so
it
would
sustain
me
for
a
very
long
time,
but
if
it
was
for
the
powers,
I
would
probably
eat
tam.
Just
I
I
just
I
wish
I
had
your
your
your
organizational
skills
and
your
your
priority
skills.
So
yeah
it'd
be
between
each
of
you
to
be
honest
with
you
how
fast
it
is
empty.
F
D
I
will
I
will
abstain,
although
on
this
note
I
highly
recommend
everyone
take
a
look
at
jan
spunkmeyer's,
1992
short
film
called
food
and
there's
a
brilliant
depiction
kind
of
of
what
we're
talking
about
here
in
in
stop
motion
format.
Okay,
so
I'm
abstaining.
G
Sorry
I
was
saying
yeah.
This
is
a
really
serious
decision,
because
I
really
like
food,
so
I
don't
take
this
lightly,
like
if
anyone
tastes
like
chocolate,
then
I'll
just
eat
them
and
I'm
not
sure
he
does,
but
just
going
from
what
we've
got
here
and
I
really
whatever
nate's
profile
picture
is,
I
feel
like
he's
kind
of
cute,
but
I,
if
I
had
to
push
it
I'd,
eat
whatever.
G
That
is
so
I
feel
like
that
could
get
like
fried
or
something
a
barbecue
would
be
gonna
be
great,
so
yeah,
it's
gonna
have
to
be
nate's,
like
auto
ego
that
I
get
to
eat,
and
I
will
pass
that
to
mateo.
H
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I
would
have
to
join
the
the
buffet
between
grief
and
wanka,
just
because
of
the
the
energy
and
the
peaceful
meat
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
I'll
pass
it
to
chewie.
I
Yeah
also
like
like,
like,
like
I
kind
of
like
visualized
like
a
a
kirby,
I
don't
know
like
if
someone
here
likes
video
games
and
super
smash.
That's
like
kirby's
super
power
like
absorbs
and
then
like
spits
out
but
or
like
you
can
like
get
powers
from
other
from
other
characters,
and
I
feel
that
I
I
would
probably
to
accept
these
powers
just
to
be
like
able
to
like
smile
and
be
happy
like
most
of
the
time.
I
I
feel
that
is
that's
always
the
best,
like
learning
like
position
like
to
most
like
absorb
what
what
other
people
have
to
to
give.
So
in
order
to
have
a
little
bit
of
everyone,
I
would
accept
these
powers.
J
Oh,
this
is
cannibalism.
I
will
go
for
that's
a
hard
one.
I
will
pick
either
tam
to
get
her
efficiency
and
and
yeah
her
efficiency.
Otherwise
I
would
go
for.
J
Sam
I'll
actually
go
for
sam,
because
I
really
love
sorry
ygg,
no
ygg.
I
would
love
to
have
his
output
and
his
input
and
his
everything
about
data.
I
feel
that's
that's
something
I
will
eat
all
day.
If
that
makes
any
sense,
I
don't
know
who's
back.
Who
is
not
so
I
will
pass
back
to
you.
A
Okay,
so
today
we're
gonna
have
a
little
like
a
little
collective
session
for
a
proposal
making,
because
I
think
except
me,
nobody
in
this
room
made
a
proposal,
and
it's
of
course
not.
If
no
one
wants
to
make
a
proposal,
you
don't
have
to
it's
just
that
we
have
some
start
to
have
like
the
understanding
of.
If
I
was
going
to
make
a
proposal
or
what
what
would
I
be
thinking,
and
I
think
that
helps
to
have
an
informed
vote
as
well
so
I'll
share
my
screen.
A
And
I
just
put
the
template
here
in
our
in
our
agenda
and
we
can,
I
think,
I'll
pass
around
and
to
ask
everyone
if
you
would
make
a
proposal
or
not
for
each
one
of
these
categories.
A
K
A
A
Okay,
so
we're
yeah
we're
just
gonna
go
around
and
have
yes
or
no.
If
you
would
make
a
proposal
for
each
one
of
those
categories
or
not,
and
then,
if
you
said
yes,
then
we're
just
gonna
craft
something
together
and
discuss
a
little
bit
about
it
and
then
we're
gonna
look
at
the
proposals
that
are
in
token
log
now.
So
we
have
four
proposals.
A
I
think
this
gives
a
good
number
already
for
today
for
us
to
have
yeah
and
a
place
to
make
informed
decisions
and
that
there
are
a
few
options
there
that
cover
most
of
what
people
are
thinking
so
okay,
so
I
said
that
I
would
not
intervene
in
number
one
and
we
can
go
like
one
by
one
and
tell
all
of
them,
and
then
we
come
back
so
for
me
levia.
A
A
So
for
me
this
was
a
yes
and
then
here
if
it
addresses
token
engineering,
community
lacking
recognition,
then
here
was
also
a
yes
and
then
for
the
uubi
and
juni
coefficient
here
was
a
no
and
I'll
pass
to
eduardo.
J
Yes,
thank
you
really,
no,
in
my
case.
No,
because
I
will
go
for
sam's
proposal,
my
proposal
will
be
the
same
as
his.
So
in
my
case,
it's
enough.
J
J
B
Oh,
I
didn't
know
that
you
were
calling
on
me
thanks,
so
I
do
I
am
in
the
middle
of
writing
a
proposal
and
yeah.
I
find
it
not
as
easy
as
everyone
else
seems
to
find
it,
but
I
found
that
the
same
way
with
the
mvv
and
the
the
parameters
so
for
the
first
one.
Does
the
proposal
address
categories
that
may
be
under
rewarded
and
others
over
rewarded?
B
I
think
that
the
results
show
that
we
definitely
want
to
consider
how
we
are
rewarding
different
participations
in
the
tec,
especially
the
ones
that
might
be
better
served
by
something,
like
you
know,
source
credit,
so
the
calls
and
the
retweets
we
may
want
to
consider
a
different.
In
fact,
I
think
we
should
consider
a
different
way
of
of
measuring
and
valuing
those
now,
but
there's
no
way
that
I
could
see.
That
would
make
sense
to
go
back
and
change
anything
based
on
these
categories
that
we
have.
B
B
Yeah,
I
definitely
have
a
strong
opinion
about
that,
but
I
think
we
should
just
get
rid
of
it
going
forward
so
for
the
impact
hours
that
were
deleted,
I
would
say
those
who
had
50
deleted
should
should
receive
25
of
what
was
half
of
what
was
deleted.
So
they
would
end
up
with
75,
and
those
who
have
85
percent
deleted
should
end
up
at
50,
so
35
restored.
B
Basically-
and
you
know,
the
reasoning
is
that
the
net
was
just
cast
too
far
it
it
sort
of
captured
people
who
didn't
have
a
lot
to
do
with
the
tec,
but
were
sort
of
affiliated
with
the
tec.
So
we're
also
under
this
reduction
of
hours,
that
that
was
discussed
in
december
november
december
and
I
think
85
85
was
right
in
the
beginning
of
an
initialization
of
the
dow
but
should
have
probably
been
decremented
or
decreased
over
time
and
that
that
never
happened.
B
Yeah
I
mean
I
really
liked
your
proposal,
but
I
just
thought
it
was
so
picky
and
choosy
that
it
was
too
hard
to
to
agree
to
everything
and
then
so
I
just,
I
think
it
just
sort
of
be
across
the
board
that
everyone
who
had
50
of
their
hours
deleted
should,
instead
of
being
at
50,
should
end
up
at
75.
So
they
should
have
25
percent
deleted,
and
everyone
who
had
85
percent
deleted
should
have
theirs
restored
up
until
50,
so
they
should
have
35
of
their
deleted
hours
or
yeah.
K
B
Yeah,
I
see
what
you're
saying:
that's
a
that's,
a
good
tip,
I'll
I'll,
try
to
incorporate
that
I'll
be
like.
If
we
can
do
this,
then
that
if
not,
then
just
I
don't
know
what
the
number
would
be.
B
It
would
be
maybe
something
like
40
cool
thanks
for
that
and
then
I
really
liked
this
concept
of
infinite
vesting
governance
tokens,
but
I
feel
like
have
we
thought
it
all
the
way
through
like
are
we
are
there
going
to
be
things
that
happen
in
the
future,
now
that
we
have
this
infant,
so
my
my
proposal
is
actually
going
to
be
just
to
do
this.
B
One
action
like
just
do
this
rest,
like
there's
some
number
of
impact
hours
that
were
deleted,
restore
some
percentage
of
that,
but
don't
do
the
infinite
resting,
even
though
it's
very
compelling,
I
feel
like
there's
going
to
be
it's
a
cut.
It's
like
there's
complications.
It
might
bring
in
the
future
that
I
don't
know
that.
We've
actually
really
you
know,
stress
tested
yet.
B
So
I
think
it's
a
cleaner
option
not
to
do
that,
even
though
I
think
it's
a
really
elegant
solution,
I
think
it
would
just
be
cleaner
just
to
not
even
touch
it.
I
think
it
can.
You
know
maybe
there's
problems
in
the
future.
We
talked
about
having
to
have
a
negative
bonding
curve
to
compensate
for
these
non.
You
know
monetary
non-monetary
tokens
and
it
just
seems
like
once
we
start
going
down
that
road.
B
It's
like,
I
feel,
like
there's
going
to
be
things
that
we're
going
to
discover
only
too
late
after
we
have
implemented
that
solution
so
and
then
yeah
for
the
proposal
around
the
foundational
members
of
token
engineering.
I
mean
I
want
this
so
bad
to
be
something
we
consider
as
a
as
a
community,
and
I
don't
have
a
great
solution.
B
So
I
think
what
griff
mentioned
is
pretty
fair,
and
you
know
this
trying
to
trying
to
work
within
the
the
bounds
of
what
we
have
and
doing
some
like
mass
praises,
specifically
for
people
that
we
think
are
underrepresented
and
making
sure
in
the
next
quant
we
can.
We
can
give
them
some
more.
B
You
know
we
can
see
them,
we
can
make
them
more
visible,
make
their
invisible
work
more
visible
and
their
contributions
that
are
many
cases
just
hidden
from
from
most
contributors
in
the
tec,
make
it
more
visible
for
them
and
then
the
last
one.
I
don't
think
this
needs
to
be
addressed
so
I
chose
no.
I
don't
think
we
want
necessarily
our
community
to
respect
the
genie
coefficient,
so
I
don't
see
the
I
don't
see.
B
B
Okay,
I'll
pass
to
anne-marie.
G
Thank
you.
I
mean
firstly,
this
is
really
fascinating.
Thank
you
so
much
for
like
talking
through,
I
I
feel
like
I.
I
really
don't
have
the
context
of
what
a
lot
of
this
is
to
be
able
to
really
answer.
So,
if
it's
all
right,
I'm
going
to
just
pass
and
just
listen
and
observe
that's
cool,
in
which
case
I
will
pass
to
sugar.
D
But
I
have
spent
a
lot
of
brain
power
on
these
topics.
My
quick
and
dirty
version
is
yes
to
everything.
D
G
A
D
I
actually,
I
took
a
little
brain
vacation
from
this
the
last
couple
of
days
that
connection
just
yeah,
so
I'm
yes
to
everything
and
even
number
four,
although
I
you
know
it
was
me
who
raised
the
question
about
the
legitimacy
of
the
genie
coefficient
in
relation
to
the
tec,
and,
to
be
honest,
it
may
be
worth
me
writing
a
proposal
just
to
explain
why
the
genie
coefficient
is
not
appropriate
for
consideration
as
a
metric
as
a
as
a
coefficient,
and
I
I
did
talk
to
octopus
at
length
about
the
different
coefficients
that
he
did
apply
and
that
was
fantastic
and
enlightening.
D
D
I
can
share
that.
I
mean
I'm,
not
I'm
not
a
mathematician
or
an
economist,
but
number
four.
I
do
have
some
thoughts
on
that,
and
could
you
scroll
up
for
a
second,
because
I'm
not
looking
at
the
document,
and
I
can
only
see
what
you're
showing
number
three
I
don't
know
what
was
it?
I
wanted
to
add
to
that.
Oh
similarly,
number
number
two
I'm
I'm
struggling
and
I
would
love
to
have
input
from
the
mathy
people
out
there,
because
I
do
feel
like
there
must
be
how
tam
phrased
it.
D
The
idea
of
a
stress
test
like
it
feels
like
there
needs
there.
There
exists
a
some
kind
of
an
equation
that
I
can't
find
as
a
non-mathematician
that
I
don't
know.
That
would
be
super
beneficial
here
to
figure
out
really
what
is
appropriate
but
anyway.
My
short
answer,
which
is
no
longer
short,
is
yes
to
all
of
those
categories
and
I'll
move
on
pass.
That
on
to
griff.
K
Sure
so
I'll
share
my
screen,
because
I
made
a
proposal
and
it's
up
there
and
you
should
all
vote
for
it
because
it's
the
best
one.
No,
it's
messing
around
it's
a
fine
proposal,
though,
and
I
hope
that
at
least
the
ideas
get
to
be
used
and
forked
and
that's
why
I
made
an
effort
to
get
it
up
first,
and
so
these
were
my
answers.
I
I
actually
don't.
I
think
meetings
were
really
important.
K
Yes,
some
people
went
to
meetings
and
didn't
didn't
like
pick
up
work
or
whatever,
but
other
people
went
to
meetings
and
it
had
a,
and
that
was
where
they
went
to
go,
get
work
and
spent
an
hour
in
the
call,
and
if
these
are
impact
hours,
a
meeting
being
worth
one
point
something
hours,
isn't
that
isn't
that
outrageous?
They
spent
an
hour.
You
know,
and
also
I
think,
retweeting
is
really
valuable
too
so,
but
either
way
I
I
I
thought
the
categories
distribution
was
actually
pretty
fine.
K
I
I
do
think
that
the
challenge
paid
contributors
getting
an
85
percent
reduction
in
governance
power
is
a
real
issue,
but
I'll
show
some
math
on
why
the
financial
side
actually
was
fine.
K
So
I
do
want
to
address
the
governance
side
of
it,
though,
and
for
the
foundational
members
it
would
be
nice
to
get
more
tec
praise
parties.
K
Honestly,
I've
been
proposing
this
for
the
last
several
months
and
we
we
used
to
do
them
sometimes,
but
like
it
wasn't
ever
really
picked
up
so
and
then
the
genie
coefficient,
I
just
don't
think
applies
like
it's
for
distributing
wealth
based
on
like
seeing
how
good
an
economy
is
not
like
how
well
you,
if
people
do
more
work,
they
should
get
more
in
this
small
system
of
rewards,
and
especially
since
this
system
was
literally
designed
explicitly
to
reward
volunteers
was
its
intention.
K
So
the
first
thing
is
the
governance.
Give
back
so
like
the
the
thing
is
it?
I
think
it's
fine
to
reduce
people,
because
people
who
are
rewarded
with
money
are
rewarded
and
the
people
who
aren't
rewarded
with
with
like
die
then,
like
you
know,
they
get
tec
tokens
in
the
future.
Maybe
who
knows
how
much?
K
If
we
don't
raise
800k,
they
get
nothing
right
so,
like
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
important
to
account
for
that,
and
but
the
problem
is
that
all
these
awesome
people
who
have
been
putting
their
heart
and
soul
into
this
thing
and
it
would
have
really
good
ideas
about
how
what
what
is
a
good
thing
for
the
dow
or
a
bad
thing
for
the
tao.
K
We
can't
let
them
get
less
governance,
like
that's
just
that's
just
shooting
us
ourselves
in
the
foot,
they're
they're
the
best
informed
they
put
so
many
hours
and
have
such
deep
context
that
we
need
to
give
them
voting
rights
and
then
te
praise
party.
Let's,
let's
give
some
praise
party.
K
So
here's
the
thing
when
I,
if
you
look
at
the
math
like
85
percent,
if
someone's
working
full-time,
they
get
1400
die
every
two
weeks
and
if
they're
working
full
time
when
I
was
looking
at
the
at
the
like
averages,
you
know,
like
some
people
get
like
80
impact
hours
per
week
and
some
people
will
get
like
20.
K
Most
people
are
getting
like
20
to
40,
and
so
it
kind
of
averaged
out
to
be
about
40
impact
hours
for
people
who
are
working
and
especially
in
the
later
in
the
earlier
weeks
earlier
rounds,
there
were
less
impact
hours
being
given,
so
it
ended
up
being
about
40
impact
hours
for
the
full-time
people
that
were
getting
85
reductions
and
that's
41
die
per
impact
hour.
K
K
Sorry
they're
trading
one
impact
hour
for
41.,
and
so,
if
you
go
and
look
at
the
parameters,
that
means
that
if
we
raise,
if
we
raise
101.25
million,
then
the
people
that
took
pay
would
be
better
off
they
were,
they
will
make
more
money
than
the
people
who
just
chose
to
take
impact
hours,
and
if
we
raise
one
and
a
half
million,
then
the
people
who
took
impact
hours
would
be
better
off.
K
K
If
I
got
to
just
pick,
you
know,
but
being
at
1.3
million
is
close
enough,
so
I
think
I
think,
that's
a
pretty
fair
from
a
financial
perspective,
but
we,
but
we
have
money
and
governance
rights.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that,
as
as
a
dow,
the
right
people
are
making
decisions
and
the
right
people
are
the
ones
that
have
the
best
context.
K
So
me,
you
know
maybe
the
direct
way
of
finding.
I
was
talking
with
sam
and
he's
talking
about
what,
if
we
just
make
another
non-transferable
token
and
use
instead
of
using
tec
tokens,
we
could
have
a
second
token.
That's
governance
rights
in
the
dow,
that's
just
a
non-transferable
token,
and
that
might
be
cleaner.
K
So
I'm
not
100
sure
of
the
right
way
to
implement
it.
But
I
would
like
to
give
75
governance
rights
back
and
but
because
not
a
hundred
percent,
because
the
deal
was
that
they
were
supposed
to
get
deducted
right
so
that
when
people
were
making
the
decision
they
knew
they
would
get
less
governance
rights,
so
they
should
still
get
less
and
then
the
praise
party,
the
biggest
most
of
the
biggest
praises
that
were
ever
given,
were
given
to
token
engineers
that
got
lots
of
impact
hours.
K
Simon
daly,
ruby
tops
the
list
for
inventing
bonding
curves.
He
got
48
impact
hours
for
that
dan
lessa
got
28
impact
hours
for
all
the
incredible
work
he
has
done
to
onboard
future
generation
of
token
engineers,
benjamin
schultz,
for
his
tireless
work
building
the
new
economic
paradigm
got
17
impact
hours,
tyler
for
all
his
amazing
cad
cad
work
got
eight.
You
know
19
to
angela
for
leading
so
many
activities
in
the
tv
space
and
zargum
got
20
and
one
basically
for
catalyzing
work
to
do
nft
primitives
it
works
it
works.
K
We
can
do
this
yeah.
We
just
need
to
actually
say
who
the
token
engineer
is
and
why
they
deserve
the
impact
hours,
which
should
be
a
requirement
for
any
proposal
to
reward
token
engineers.
We
need
to
justify
it.
So,
let's
just
dish
and
praise,
you
know
yeah
and
I
think
that's
the
that's
the
easiest
way
to
do
it.
K
The
the
only
caveat
is
oh.
We
have
to
actually
go
get
them
into
our
discord
like
if
they're,
not
our
discord,
they
don't
deserve
them.
They
shouldn't
be
getting
free
tokens,
I'm
sorry
like
they
can't
participate
in
governance.
If
they're
not
in
our
discord,
if
they
don't
want
to
participate,
let's
not
give
them
token.
You
know
like
it's.
It's
okay.
I
know
they're
busy.
K
Sorry,
you
know
like
so
those
are.
Those
are
my
feelings
on
it
and
vote
from
vote
for
number
two
and
actually
the
number
one's
cool
too
and
I'll
pass
it
to
wonka.
E
Yeah
there
is
this
book
that
is
called
the
alchemist,
and
this
guy,
like
goes
around
the
whole
world
like
looking
for
a
treasure,
and
then
he
finds
out
like
the
treasure,
was
where,
where
he
started
so
yeah.
I
I
think
that
it's
good,
that
we
have
had
a
lot
of
discussion
around
this
topic,
and
that
is
good
that
we
have
heard
a
lot
of
voices
around
this
topic.
E
But
I
I
think
that
I
also
agree
that
the
that
the
praise
system
is
is
very
adaptative
and
that,
like
doing
some
adjustments
like
through
praising
people
who,
who
we
feel
that
is
not
enough,
recognized
is
good.
E
So
I
I
like
grief's
proposal-
and
I
also
like
about
the
governance
rights,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
concerned
for
the
impact,
our
distribution
was
mostly
that
the
the
that
there
was
like
a
lot
of
governance
in
in
in
the
first
percentage
of
the
list.
E
But
if,
if
we
give
out
these
governance
rights
to
the
people
who
were
paid,
I
think
like
that
distribution
is
going
to
be
a
little
bit
better.
So
so
yeah.
I
I
like
grief's
proposal
and
but
I
am
also
curious
about
what
would
be
the
the
impact
around.
E
Around
using
the
the
dashboard
that
that
ygg,
designed
like
mostly
what
what
would
be
the
the.
E
E
So
I
yeah,
I
I
like
those
proposals,
but
I
I
am
also
curious
to
see
what
other
proposals
can
can
come
in
these
next
days.
L
Hi,
everybody,
sorry,
I'm
late,
how's
everybody
going
just
jumped
from
another
call,
so
yeah
I
apologize.
I
wish
I
will
watch
the
video
and
would
like
to
hear
the
chat.
That's
happened
so
far,
but
I
suppose
is
there
a
format.
I
should
be
aware
of
before
jumping
into
sharing
the
proposal
that
I've
submitted
and
another
one
incoming.
A
L
Okay,
okay!
Well,
if
this
is
a
good
time,
then
I
will
share
so
I
submitted
a
proposal
and
tried
my
best
to
get
it
in
as
fast
as
possible,
and
it's
called
sharing
is
caring,
forking
number
three,
so
I
believe
that
this
solves
for
all
of
the
problem
sets
that
we
are
looking
at
and
it's
a
fork
of
livia's
proposal,
which
I
agreed
with
livia
that
the
meetings
and
tweets
and
some
of
the
bucketing
wasn't
ideal.
L
L
For
number
two,
I
yeah,
I
love
olivia
what
you
did
with
the
bucketing,
because
I
feel
very
strongly
that
people
who
were
paid
by
organizations
comments
that
giveth
et
cetera
that
we're
not
working
on
tec
work.
It's
not
really
fair
to
take
away
their
impact
hours
just
because
they're
close
to
the
tec,
so
that
would
be
like
you
know.
L
Basically,
anyone
getting
paid
from
any
organization-
it's
basically
like
we
would
say
trent,
doesn't
gets
85
reduction
because
he
pays
himself
via
ocean
protocol,
so
I
think
we
should
restore
based
on
libya's
bucketing
system.
I
thought
that
was
a
great
proposal
and
then
number
three,
the
praise
party,
I
obviously
don't
have.
L
I
have
my
own
opinions
about
whether
or
not
I
think
this
is
effective
as
far
as
like
a
way
to
like
move,
some
people
around
or
basically
is
what
it's
doing,
but
obviously
I
think
great
go
for
it.
I
have
noticed
a
bit
of
a
difference
in
the
last
weeks
and
an
improvement
that
some
of
that
has
been
remedied
through
that
process,
but
I
would
say
it
still
doesn't
solve
what
I
see
as
the
core
issue
is
this
kind
of
skewed
distribution?
L
L
Is
it
fair
or
is
it
right
that
their
work
is
valued
times
four
or
times
five
or
times
six
like?
Should
the
number
one
person
have
six
times
what
the
number?
Thirty
person
has,
I
don't
think
so.
I
think
that
the
top
30
contributors
that
are
being
identified
in
the
prairie
system
probably
have
done
pretty
equal
work.
L
If
people
don't
agree
with
that,
I'm
open
to
like
a
fork
of
this.
If
you
think
that
only
the
top
active
contributors,
the
top
40
contributors,
are
10.
However,
you
want
to
slice
and
dice
it
get
that
then
I'm
open
to
that,
but
I
do
think
we
should
apply
a
ubi,
I'm
suggesting
seven,
who
doesn't
like
the
number
seven,
and
I
think
also
by
giving
these
impact
hours
to
everyone.
This
could
incentivize
people
who
have
say
fractions
of
impact
hours
at
the
bottom
to
participate.
L
So
we
have
said
this
kind
of
like
three
impact
hours
or
higher
tier
that
the
hatcher
outreach
is
reaching
out
to.
I
think
this
would
incentivize
that
group
to
participate
if
they
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
stake
in
the
system
and
also
it
will
fix
the
genie
coefficient,
and
I
know
some
people
say
jenny
isn't
applicable,
but
I
haven't
really
heard
any
other
suggestions
for
measuring
measuring
equity
and
distribution.
L
So
I
I
don't
think
we
should
set
the
bar
with
like
oligarchical
crypto
projects
and
say
well
we're
better
than
them.
I
think
we
should
set
the
bar
higher
and
use
the
standard
of
jenny
which
is
used
by
the
un,
and
I
think
we
should
have
a
high
bar
when
it
comes
to
equitable
distribution
in
our
systems
and
so
yeah.
L
I
don't
think
anyone
is
worth
or
should
be
valued,
two
three
four
five
six
x
and
I
think
we
should
care
more
about
the
collective
and
equitable
distribution
than
our
own
personal
gain.
If
we're
in
alignment
with
the
mission
of
the
community
and
the
comments.
So
that's
my
proposal,
jeff
has
one
incoming
he's
not
able
to
come
to
this
meeting,
but
he
will
be
submitting
a
proposal
suggesting
a
tiered
system.
A
Thanks
jess,
so
maybe
I'll
share
my
proposal
because
I
didn't
yet
and
then
we
can
have
time
to
listen
to
sam
and
him
presenting
his
proposal,
and
I
also
know
that
nate
has
a
proposal
that
he's
working
on.
So
maybe
he
would
like
to
speak
too
I'll
try
to
be
quick
and
then
we
can
have
time
for
everyone
else.
A
Crane
so
so
yeah
my
thought
of
number
one
of
the
categories.
I
think
it
was
really
hard
to
get
a
real
sense
of
what
was
happening
from
those
categories,
because
a
lot
went
to
personal
praise
and
that
made
me
think
how
first
of
all,
I
think,
all
of
this
conversations
and
the
analysis
made
me
see
how.
A
We
we
are,
we
need
more
reward
systems,
like
praise
is
incredible
for
what
it
does
and
then
we
are
trying
to
stretch
the
scope
of
praise
so
much
and
there
are
some
things
that
just
need
other
systems
and
we
are
implementing
source
cred
and
we
started
to
research
other
ones
as
well,
and
there
are
not
so
many
out
there
and
anyways.
I
I'm
writing
something
about
that
too,
that
I'll
share
soon
but
yeah
from
the
categories.
A
I
agree
with
griff
that
meetings
were
a
really
important
part
of
our
cultural
build
and
I
think
they
should
be
rewarded,
but
maybe
they
were
heavily
rewarded
to
have
like
one
point,
fourteen
fifteen
impact
hours,
because
I
think
there
is
something
more
passive
about
attending
meetings,
sometimes
and
and
not
that
this
is
a
bad
thing.
I
think
it
does
make
people
get
acquainted
with
everything,
that's
happening
and
more
in
the
know-
and
this
is
always
positive,
but
then
looking
at
how
other
things
were
balanced
out,
maybe
maybe
they
should
be
a
little
lower.
A
I
would
suggest-
maybe
I
don't
know
like
point
six
four
meetings
or
something
like
that
and
twitter.
I
also
think
twitter
is
important,
but
not
like
one
tweet
is
equivalent
of
one
impactful
hour
of
work,
but
yeah,
I'm
not
proposing
any
solution
for
that,
because
I
don't.
I
don't
think
there
is
any.
I
would
be
curious
to
hear
if
someone
can
think
of
something-
and
I
think
those
were
decisions
that
I
take
shared
responsibility
off
and
yeah.
So
no
no
proposal
for
that
and
then
number
two.
A
I
was
just
looking
into
the
list
of
the
people
that
receive
contrib
paid
that
received
a
payment
and
they
are
from
common
stack,
giveth,
general
magic,
general
magic
and
common
swarm.
So
I
thought
that
people
who
I
try
to
separate
between
like
are
the
workloads
of
the
people
who
get
paid
affected
by
the
tc
or
not
and
how
much
it
is
affected.
So
from
one
to
five.
A
There
is
different,
like
different
tiers
for
how
the
work
of
people
get
affected
by
it,
and
I
try
to
get
a
sense
by
talking
to
a
lot
of
the
people
in
this
list,
but
not
to
everyone,
so
I'm
really
open
for
feedback
here,
especially
from
the
people
that
are
in
this
list.
A
So
I
proposed
a
one
by
one:
a
number
of
this
one
to
five
list.
A
And
and
then
number
three,
I
I
agree
with
griff
that
we
should
use
the
system
to
reward
teas
and
that
we
should
dish
them
praise
and
that
part
of
this
effort
is
bringing
them
to
discord
and
that
it
is
the
minimum
that
people
should
be
here
to
receive
this
praise
and
that
we
can
contact
them.
I
I
also
added
that
I
think
an
educational
approach
from
this
would
be
really
great.
A
A
I
think
we
are
a
meritocratic
system
and
and
again,
if
it
didn't
cover,
everything
is
because
maybe
things
were
invisible
and
that's
why
we
could
do
this
tea
thing
or
maybe
because
the
the
system
scaled
too
much
and
we
didn't
have
the
capacity
to
cover
that
anyways,
I'm
taking
too
much
time
already,
but
I'll
pass
to
sam.
J
Yeah,
just
in
the
case
of
number
two
I
don't
like,
I
don't
do
any
other
or
common
stock
or
general
magic
work.
I
only
do
tec
and
in
this
case,
like
I
will
say
at
least
on
my
case
when
I
entered
the
project,
I
know
I
knew
the
terms
and
conditions
and
the
circumstances
of
of
how
I
was
going
to
work
for
so
for
me,
this
is
like
the
the
current
deduction
is
completely
fine,
because
I
knew
those
were
the
rules
once
I
entered
the
project.
J
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Do
you
wanna,
do
you
wanna
share
about
your
proposal.
M
Yes,
I
am
in
a
bar,
so
my
internet
connection
is
not
the
best.
I
will
not
be
selling
the
screen
because
when
I
say
it,
it
just
breaks
everything.
M
M
M
What
I
would
like
to
propose
is
not
to
intervene,
because
one
is
the
things
that
we
we
don't
like
of
how
it
has
gone.
I
I
also
there
are
things
that
I
would
like
to
propose,
but.
M
M
M
So,
at
the
end
we
are
we
end
up
in
the
same
in
the
same
place.
This
is
why
I
think
that
the
more
fair
thing
is
to
accept
and
and
just.
M
C
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
kind
of
took
a
little
bit
of
diff
different
approach
to
my
intervention
proposal
and
my
thoughts
on
it.
Just
because
I
think
trying
to
achieve
equality
or
fairness
within
a
dynamic
system
is,
I
don't
know,
I
don't
want
to
call
it
a
fool's
fool's
errand.
C
But,
like
you
know,
it's,
the
distribution
is
going
to
change
over
time
in
the
long
run,
and
so
when,
when
we
have
this
intervention
proposal,
I
have
two
goals
in
mind,
and
that
is
to
make
sure
that
the
commitments
that
we
made
as
a
community
to
individuals
and
individuals
to
the
community
are
recognized
and
compensated
properly
and
that
governance
power
is
put
into
the
hands
of
those
who
are
going
to
sustain
the
commons
far
into
the
future.
C
And
so
the
idea
for
this
was
for
the
compensation
aspect
of
it
was
to
actually
do
a
reduction
in
percentage
of
the
the
the
impact
hours
that
were
deducted
from
those
who
were
paid
contributors,
a
flat
rate
of
10
for
everyone.
C
If
that
was
your
goal,
so
to
entice
those
who
are
interested
in
redistributing,
I
also
like
jessica's
idea
of
applying
a
givable
ubi,
so
my
proposal
would
be
to
give
five
impact
hours
to
everyone
that
they
would
be
able
to
distribute
to
whoever
they
like
and
possibly
having
a
list
of
possible
token
engineers
or
individuals
who
we
think
that
haven't
been
recognized
for
their
work
within
the
tec,
an
opportunity
to
be
given
those
those
those
impact
hours
by
members
of
the
community
so
giving
people
the
opportunity
to
say
hey.
C
We
understand
the
system
did
not
recognize
your
work
and
we're
going
to
give
that
to
you,
and
so
those
are
the
points
of
compensation
in
terms
of
the
governance
power.
I
really
like
the
infinite
investing.
However,
I
don't
like
the
infinite
investing
for
specific
individuals.
C
And
if
I'm
answering
honestly,
not
many,
you
know
that's
going
to
evolve
and
I
think
that
the
governance
powers
that
that
we
would
grant
early
on
in
the
initial
initialization
stage
is
highly
important.
And
I
do
think,
having
a
a
vested
amount
of
governance.
Power
allocated
to
individuals
who
were
going
to
be
a
part
of
this
is
which
is
going
to
evolve.
C
You're
gonna
have
a
lot
of
token
engineers
that
come
in
and
out
of
this
community,
and
so
my
idea,
which
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
impact
hours,
is
to
have
a
five
percent
of
the
total
tec
tokens
that
we
are
minted
be
allocated
to
infinite
investing,
which
would
be
strictly
used
for
governance
power
by
a
committee
of
token
engineers
that
the
community
decides
on,
and
we
can
vote
in
and
out
to
utilize
that
governance
power
for
extra
support
to
help
guide
the
commons
into
the
future,
and
that
may
be
outside
the
scope
of
of
of
the
impact
hour
proposal,
which
is
why
I've
been
hesitant
to
propose
it
in
the
first
place.
C
A
N
I'm
still
finalizing
the
last
little
bit.
I
hope
to
get
it
up
in
the
next
little
bit.
I'm
just
dealing
with
how
to
get
images
into
github
so
much
fun,
but
I
think
I
would
rather
allow
people
to
read
through.
I
don't
really
have
a
top
to
bottom,
so
I
will
post
it
and
happily
share
on
the
forum
and
happy
to
have
any
feedback
and
discussion
on
the
post.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Does
anyone
has
we
have
four
minutes
left?
Anyone
has
any
questions
for
the
proposals
that
were
presented
or
any
thoughts
you
want
to
share.
K
One
thing
I
want
to
bring
up
on
the
the
twitter
phrase
is
that
it's
not
per
tweet,
but
it's
per
tweeting
at
all
during
that
week,
so
some
people
may
have
gone
done,
one
tweet,
some
people
may
have
done
20
tweets
and
they
would
get
the
and
in
the
end
they
get
the
same
amount.
But
it's
for
tweeting
during
that
week,.
A
F
Yeah,
but
what
grief
wants
to
say
is
like,
for
example,
like
I
do
a
bunch
of
tweets
or
retweets
during
the
week,
then
ivy
will
price
me
for
that
week
and
then
the
whole
to
it
together.
You
know
like
I,
even
if
I
do
it
retweeted
one
two,
three:
twenty
it
doesn't
matter.
You
get
price
once
a
week,
so
yeah
just
try
to
find
that.
K
A
K
F
F
O
I
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
there's
there's
no
perfect
solution
and
we've
been
doing
a
great
job,
analyzing
we're
doing
a
great
job,
just
putting
proposals
and
boarding
them,
and
I'm
completely
on
that.
I
think
it's
a
way
to
move
forward,
but
I
I
I
agree
with
part
of
the
arguments
of
of
grief
and
sam
and
eduardo.
O
O
The
rules
are
not
perfect,
they
are
far
away
from
being
perfect
and
that's
why
we
are
here
and
that's
why
we
are
discussing
them
and
that's
why
we
have
to
implement
them
in
the
future,
but
looking
looking
backwards.
I
think
it's
it's.
It
will
cause
a
worse
problem
than
the
one
we
are
discussing
here,
because
it's
not
going
to
be
perfect.
Nothing
is
going
to
be
perfect
either
if
we
touch
it
or
we
don't
if
we
or
if
we
don't
touch
it
and
every
single
one
of
us
is
going
to
have
a
personal
feeling.
O
O
But
beyond
that
and
I'm
always
talking
financially
I
I
agree
that
we
want
to
have
every
single,
valuable
people
in
the
governments
as
much
as
possible,
and
I
am
I
I'm
also.
I
also
agree
on
that.
But
financially,
I
just
think
that
probably
just
doing
nothing
is
the
best
way
to
move
forward
and
just
approach
the
next
time,
with
all
the
knowledge
that
we've
gained
through
all
this
process.
A
L
L
If
I
wanted
to
be
in
a
system
where
I
couldn't
modify
or
change
the
rules,
then
I
would
just
be
happy
living
in
u.s
like
or
any
country
like
that,
doesn't
really
allow
for
this
modification
of
rules,
and
I
think
austin's
principle
number
three,
as
we're
seeing
in
daos
is
probably
one
of
the
most
important
parts
of
any
governance
decision,
space
or
voting
space
that
we
can
be
making
decisions
on.
I
think
just
saying
the
rules
of
the
rules.
L
We
can't
change
the
rules
and
the
process
of
the
process
is
the
wrong
way
to
look
at
these
new
systems
that
we're
trying
to
create
which
are
better
than
existing
systems,
and
so
far
I
think,
for
me,
that's
been
in
my
research
that
I've
been
doing
with
git
coindao
and
other
groups
and
the
group
that
we're
creating
going
forward
in
governance.
Research
is
the
ability
for
people
to
change.
L
The
rules
is
one
of
the
most
important
things,
so
even
the
forefathers
in
the
constitution
like
this
is
one
of
the
things
they
were
looking
at,
and
this
is
what
a
lot
of
people
look
at
the
constitution
is
just
going
to
stand
the
test
of
time
and
for
me
the
rules
shouldn't
be
concrete.
If
the
community
doesn't
decide
to
change,
people
have
different
opinions.
L
Fine,
but
if
there's
one
thing
I
would
like
to
say
is
that
we
should
be
able
to
modify
the
rules
actively
and
that
this
should
be
welcome
and
that
we
should
be
open
to
change
in
the
present
moment
and
the
evolution
of
information
and
not
get
so
stuck
and
in
old
patterns
or
things
that
were
decided
months
ago.
With
less
information.
B
Can
I
just
add
something
too:
I
know
we
are
over
yeah.
I
really
agree
that
we
had
rules
and
no
data,
and
now
we
have
lots
of
data
and
we
can
decide
that
we
can
ameliorate
an
imperfect
system
for
the
benefit
of
the
people
who
are
participating
in
this
community
and
that's
a
choice
that
we
can
make
as
a
community
and
so
yeah.
I
agree
with
that
and
I
also
want
to
say
I've
heard
on
this
call
that
people
who
participating
knew
the
rules
and
those
are
the
rules
and
we
went
into.
B
I
know
eduardo
you're,
saying
that
you
sort
of
went
into
an
understanding
that
you
were
trading
impact
hours
for
compensation,
but
I
think
we'll
find
that
a
lot
of
the
people
who
are
who
are
in
that
same
position
did
not.
They
came
from
they're
being
compensated
by
a
company
by
you,
know,
organizations
that
were
they
they
existed
in
before,
and
they
were
sort
of
brought
into
the
tec
to
help.
B
But
they
were
also
sort
of
not
necessarily
100
in
the
tec,
but
are
also
receiving
the
you
know
the
common
stack
haircut
or
the
you
know:
common
stack,
giveth,
the
general
magic
tax
or
whatever.
We
call
it
this.
This
reduction
in
earned
impact
hours
because
they
are
working
for
an
organization
that
is
having
them
help
the
the
tec
and
support
the
tec
build
yeah.
B
So
I
think
it's
important
to
say
that
I
think
that
there's
some
people
who
work
only
in
the
tec-
and
that
is
not
all
of
the
people
who
are
being
compensated.
A
lot
of
the
people
who
are
being
compensated
have
another
job
outside
the
tec
organization
and
in
many
cases,
are
doing
two
jobs
and
are
still
receiving
the
this
deduction
and
impact
hours
for
their
participation
in
the
tec.
K
Okay,
so
I
got
to
clarify
a
little
something
on
that.
Basically,
the
people
who
are
deducted
gardens
common
swarm
and
which
many
of
them
chose
to
some
weeks
not
take
pay
and
then
get
full
impact
hours,
and
then
the
other
organizations
are
general
magic
and
giveth,
of
which
I
just
straight
up,
pay
them,
and
if
they
wanted
to
take
a
deduction,
it
would
have
been
easy
to
work
out.
So
it's
not
like
a
complicated
thing
like
it's
not
like.
K
L
L
I
was
hired
for
tec
to
work
on
tec
and
I
didn't
take
pay
for
a
couple
of
months
then
took
pay
to
work
on
tec,
and
for
that
the
deduction
is
fine
and
then,
as
of
february
march,
then
I
switched
and
I'm
only
working
on
common
stack,
which
is
a
lot
of
work.
So
I
think
that's
where
the
crossover
is
for
the
folks
from
giveth,
like
they
weren't
necessarily
working
on
tvc.
L
J
Just
to
add
this
to
this
point
regarding
the
rules
that
was
mentioned
for
me,
the
fact
that
I
need
rules
when
entering
the
space
doesn't
mean
I'm
not
that
the
rules
won't
change.
I'm
talking
just
about
retrospectively
wise
is
that,
in
my
case,
personal
space,
personal
circumstances,
I
will
leave
it
as
it
is
with
the
things
that
say,
as
I
committed
to
doesn't
mean
that
the
community
or
the
the
process
will
be,
will
evolve
and
will,
of
course,
adapt
to
the
circumstances
of
the
community
decision.
J
A
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
opinions
on
all
of
this
matters
and
that's
why
we
have
the
proposals,
the
proposal,
space
and
the
voting
space,
and
I
hope
we
can
participate
in
there
and
share
our
opinions
in
there
too.
I
appreciate
everyone
who
came
and
shared
today.
Thank
you
and-
and
please
participate,
we'll
close.
The
voting
on
thursday.