►
From YouTube: W34 Softgov WG: Praise analysis
Description
Timecodes:
00:00 - Something you are exited about?
08:35 - Praise analysis
01:10:55 - Sourcecred
🙏 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
C
Thank
you
on
my
well,
I'm
a
little
relaxed
after
I
launched
two
big
projects
related
with
nfts,
and
I
just
heard
from
my
partners
that
the
spanish
tv
wants
to
interview
us.
So
it's
I'm
gonna
have
to
drive
down
to
madrid
for
next
week
and
and
do
the
recording,
which
is
good
because
we're
going
to
have
a
bunch
of
exposure.
C
But
but
it's
a
it's.
C
But
anyway,
we're
having
fun
I'll
pass
it
to
the.
B
E
B
F
Probably
it's
been
a
popular
one,
but
paris
yeah,
I'm
very,
very
excited
about
it.
I
just
got
a
call
with
heather
last
night
and
like
I
I
like,
we
talked
a
lot
a
lot
about
like
logistics.
F
This,
like
event
planner
that
we're
looking
for
to
have
like
some
stuff
ready
around
it
and
yeah.
It's
it's
just
something
that
excites
me
a
lot.
Oh
wait!
I'm.
G
F
Yeah
yeah
you're
you're
here
yeah,
I
didn't
see
it
because
it
was
yeah,
so
yeah
we're
we're
we're.
We
were
talking
about
logistics
and
yeah,
we're
just
like
we.
We
had
a
lot
of
excitement
around
the
ideas
that
we
have
so
yeah.
I'm
excited
about
paris
I'll,
pass
it
to
I'll
pass.
You
I'll
pass
it
to
you
levy,
because
I
don't
know
who
already
went.
H
Sorry,
apologies
I'm
just
getting
my
headphones
in
what
was
the
intro.
H
I
am
excited
about
moving
in
the
next
couple
days,
but
also
not
excited
so
yeah,
I'm
just
yeah,
it's
one
of
those
things
yeah
I'll,
pass
it
to
santi.
H
H
I
Take
it,
I'm
really
excited
about
meeting
all
of
you
in
paris,
but
I'm
really
excited
about
it
being
very
hot
in
france
and
all
the
amazing
pools
that
france
have
are
open.
So
we
really
kicked
it
up
and
swam
twice
this
weekend
and
I
just
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
swimming
in
my
future
now
in
the
summer
and
I'll
pass
to
libya
to
pass
on.
G
I'll
pass
to
header
hi
everyone,
my
name
is
heather
and
I'm
in
india.
So
it's
night
time
here,
which
is
why
it's
very
dark-
and
you
can't
see
my
my
face
and
I'm
excited
to
to
meet
all
of
you,
I'm
a
part
of
the
well
I'm
a
new
addition
to
the
general
magic
team
and
help
with
hiring.
G
So
I
thought,
it'd
be
really
important
for
me
to
understand
more
what
goes
on
in
the
community
and
the
projects
if
I'm
hiring
or
like
trying
to
find
can
candidates,
I'm
also
a
little
tired.
So
my
speech
may
be
really
like
not
articulate,
but
so
yeah
just
excited
to
be
here
and
and
and
understand
more
about
what
goes
on
in
the
tech,
and
I
will
pass
to.
J
B
J
That's
me
thanks
a
lot.
I'm
excited
about
three
things,
so
I
have
to
say
three
things,
so
I
don't
forget
any
of
them.
One
of
them
is
that
it's
hot
in
france
and
the
swimming
town
we're
totally
doing
loads
of
swimming
because
we
live
across
the
street,
the
little
country,
road,
the
rivers
across
the
street,
so
we
go
swimming
like
every
day.
It's
amazing.
The
second
thing
is
eat
cc,
so
I'm
super
excited
to
meet
everybody,
and
I
just
can't
wait
to
like
see
your
yeah,
it's
cool.
J
I
push
back
my
travels
so
that
I
can
go
to
that
really
excited
about
that,
and
the
third
thing
is
my
travels
to
the
u.s
will
come
directly
after
ecc,
so
I'll
be
excited
to
meet
nate,
for
example,
and
maybe
griff
and
craig
and
other
folks
who
are
on
the
west
coast,
so
we'll
see
yeah.
So
those
are
my
three
things.
Thanks
back
to
olivia.
K
I
will
I'll
pass
it
on
until
I
think
about
it
and
then
I'll
come
back.
That's
okay!.
D
K
Okay,
I
suppose
I'm
excited
in
participating
in
the
first
patch
ever
as
a
presta
seat
and
newcomer
into
this,
it's
fascinating
to
see
how
this
project
evolves
and
it's
just
about
to
see
its
finish
line
in
a
sense,
not
the
final
finish
line,
but
you
know
the
first
print,
I
suppose-
and
it's
it's
really
cool
to
witness
this
and
be
part
of
it.
Yeah
thanks.
A
A
A
So
we
are
starting
to
have
some
structure
around
this.
It's
still
in
this
in
this
moment
that
we
don't
have
all
the
information
and
that
we
need
to
talk
about
this
and
have
a
quick
sense
making
before
moving
forward.
So
I
listed
some
of
the
possibilities
we've
been
talking
about.
I
had
a
meeting
with
ygg
yesterday
and,
and
we
kind
of
outlined
some
of
the
things
we're
thinking
so
so
now
seems
like.
We
have
forming
three
categories
for
what
proposals
we
can
submit
and
they
are
paid
contributors
deductions.
A
Should
we
change
the
percentage
that
is
discounted
from
paid
contributors,
and
if
we
do,
how
much
is
that
percentage?
So
griff
had
an
interesting
proposal.
That
is
what,
if
we
don't
touch
on
any
of
the
compensation
part,
but
we
we
give
back
a
hundred
percent
of
the
governance
to
the
governance
power
to
all
the
contributors
that
were
paid,
but
this
governance
would
be
a
vested
to
like
forever
vested
until
a
proposal
or
something
changes
that
vesting
period.
A
So
people
would
have
that
governance
power
because
they
would
have
the
tokens,
but
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
trade
the
tokens
or
to
liquidate
the
token,
so
the
compensation
value
wouldn't
be
there
and
then
the
other
proposal
would
be
to
give
it
back
an
x
percentage
that
we
have
to
discuss.
What
does
it
feel
good
of
both
governance,
power
and
compensation
so
to
give
tokens
that
would
be
liquid
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
that
will
be
decided
by
the
params?
A
D
Other
than
I
mean
no,
I
think
you
nailed
it.
The
big
the
big
thing
here
is
they
would
get
real
tokens,
but
they
would
never
be
able
to
sell
them,
and
but
they
would
be
able
to
use
them
for
voting,
and
then
you
know
debating
if
it's
worth
a
hundred
percent
or
sixty
percent
or
whatever,
and
I
don't
think
it
has
to
be
excluding
other
options
either
right.
It's
just
like
it's
kind
of
like
okay,
here's
our
configuration
space,
here's
here's,
here's,
here's!
What
we
can
do
here
are
some
solutions
right.
D
We
can
mint
tokens
for
people
that
cannot
be
sold
and
only
have
governance
rights.
We
could
replace
the
impact
hours
that
it
was
taken
away
up
to
100,
but
we
could
do
150.
We
could
do
50
right,
I
mean
hey.
We
can
do
anything,
it's
programmable
money,
so
cool
right
and
then
we
can
also,
like
you
said.
We
could
also
just
mint
dc
tokens
that
are
liquid
as
well
at
some
percentage
to
replace
what
is
probably
over
extract
or
over
correcting
on
the
85
percent
deduction
for
impact.
D
B
Question
yeah
is
a
paid
contributors,
the
like
core
team
members,
or
is
this
something
that's
like
a
possibility
or
are
there
other
people
outside
of
the
team
that
get
paid
in
some
way?
Now
so.
D
I
coordinate
a
lot
of
the
funding
for
this
stuff
right
and
we
give
deductions
like
matteo
works
for
giveth
and
he
actually
gets
a
50
deduction,
even
though
maybe
he
shouldn't
right,
but
I
feel
weird
because,
like
I
helped
make
that
happen
too,
and
I
feel
like
you
know,
he's
got
free
reign,
of
course,
to
help
in
the
tc
olivia
and
me
and
tam.
D
We
all
get
paid
from
the
common
stack,
we're
part
of
the
common
stack
towards
core
team
and
then,
but
then
also
like
chewie
and
nate,
and
katie
also
get
paid
by
the
common
stack
but
more
like
as
contributors
and
so
like.
We
kind
of
just
made
an
individual
deal
so
that
people
who
you
know
it's
been
brought
up
that,
like
you
know
not,
everyone
is
privileged
enough
to
be
able
to
just
take
off
their
time
and
just
come
and
work
on
things.
You
know
like
it's.
D
People
got
to
put
food
on
the
table
and
stuff,
so
we
we
p
we're
willing
to
like
subsidize
people's
pay
so
that
they
can
come
here
and
work
and
contribute
and
learn
and
be
part
of
this
part
of
this
amazing
thing
without
having
to
be
so
privileged,
but
because
there's
also
people
who
are
working
without
being
paid,
we
also
have
to
be
fair
to
them,
and
so
we
kind
of
just
pulled
out
some
numbers
and
said:
oh
yeah,
85
people
were
paid
full
time.
D
A
Yeah
there's
a
list
here
of
who
are
the
people
that
get
paid
mostly
by
by
the
comments
that,
by
by
the
common
stack
and
the
projects
that
are
like
siblings,
of
the
common
stack
so
giveth
and
general
magic,
and
I
think
that's
probably
it
so.
A
And
common
swarm
that
is
paid
by
one
hive,
so
there
are
some
contributors
that
yeah
have
different
streams
of
funding
that
are
directly
connected
to
their
work
in
the
tc.
But
then
to
that
point
maybe
give
it.
I
don't
know
if
it's
so
directly
connected
and
then
there
is
a
different
percentage
of
50
50
percent
instead
of
15.
A
But
those
are
all
like
numbers
that
we
are
starting
to
look
at
now,
and
people
have
raised
different,
different
thoughts
about
how
this
works,
and
if
this
is
fair
for
who
or
not
or
so
that's
why
these
proposals
are.
A
That's
why
this
is
a
part
of
this
proposal
from
the
data
analysis,
so
we
will
have
from
ygg
and
an
octopus
will
have
the
the
the
comparisons.
A
So
how
does
this
list
and
the
distribution
looks
like
if
we
deduce
this
percentage,
if
we
change,
if
we
give
just
governance
power,
if
we
give
you
know
so,
we'll
have
those
to
compare.
H
A
I
think
different
people
were
concerned
about
different
things.
I
heard
both
the
aspects
being
erased,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
give
the
opportunity.
I
Yeah
and
the
document
that
that
olivia
is
sharing
is
actually
something
that
she
invited
me
to
present
to
softcup,
because
I
did
a
roundup
advice
process
with
common
stock
already,
and
maybe
I
don't
think
it's
really
ready
to
propose,
but
really
maybe
we
can
do
it
advice
process
instead
of
proposing
it
to
softgov.
I
If
that
makes
sense,
libya
and
the
idea
was,
you
know,
I
spent
a
lot
of
time,
thinking
about
why
we're
why
we
have
this
reduction
and
the
original
reasons
and
whether
they
still
are
relevant
today
and
how
it
makes
sense
and
what
the
outcomes
were
the
positive
and
negative
outcomes
because
they
were
they
were
both,
and
maybe
I
just
maybe
I'll,
share
the
screen,
so
I
can
run
through
the
document
too.
So
I'm
this
is
not
related
to
the
impact
hour
distribution.
I
Just
to
be
clear.
It's
it's
tangential,
but
it's
not.
The
proposal
that
I
want
to
make
is
that
we
get
rid
of
the
the
impact
hour
tax
just
going
forward,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
it's
not
gonna.
This
isn't
a
proposal.
That's
gonna
suggest
anything
that
we
do
with
the
existing
impact
hours,
but
the
idea
is,
you
know.
I
started
thinking
about
what
the
original
considerations
were.
You
know
what
the
original
thinking
was
and
the
original
thinking
is
really
sound.
I
Actually,
you
know
when
you're
bootstrapping,
a
dow
and
people
are
compensated
to
bootstrap
the
dow.
Those
are
the
people
that
are
the
most
visible
that
will
be
seen
that
are
in
the
earliest,
so
there's
almost
no
way
to
avert
them
being
the
whales
of
the
dow
and
the
idea
being
that,
if
the
team
that's
bootstrapping,
the
dao
could
then
have
reduced
impact
our
earnings.
I
Then
they
could
have
a
more
fair
distribution
across
everyone
in
the
community.
So
I
think
it
made
a
lot
of
sense.
Two
considerations
I
came
across
while
I
was
looking
at
this
was
one
is
that,
of
course,
impact
hours
provides
governance,
not
just
monetary
compensation.
So
that's
one
of
those
like.
I
Oh,
if
we
you
know,
we
couldn't
have
known
that
it
would
that
it
would
turn
out
like
this,
and
then
it's
only
common
stack
that
the
tec
imposes
this
tax
on
we're
not
imposing
this
tax
on
any
other
organizations,
not
one
hive,
not
block
science,
not
prime
down,
not
curved
labs.
So
it's
it's
actually
worth
us
considering.
Why
are
we
applying
this?
This
impact,
our
reduction
only
to
common
stack,
and
do
we
want
to
keep
doing
that?
I'm
I'm
going
to
propose.
I
We
don't
want
to
keep
doing
that
and
then
the
idea
of
there.
Being
this
no
compensation,
you
know
people
who
weren't
receiving
compensation
took
added
risk
because
they
didn't
know
if
the
dow
would
exist
and
for
sir,
that's
very
true.
You
know
at
the
end
of
last
year
there
was
like
should
happen,
but
there
was
no.
There
was
no
sure
thing
and
then
we
sort
of
timed
nicely
with
the
bull
run
and
it
seems
like.
I
Okay,
funding
suddenly
got
up
got
liftoff,
so
we
were
able
to
continue
funding
and
it
looks
very
likely
that
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
hatch
and
in
a
few
weeks,
two
weeks
and
then
the
unintended
negative
consequences,
I
think,
are
a
few
fold.
One
is
that
the
visibility
of
the
initial
bootstrapping
team-
it
might
have
been
for
many
weeks,
just
livia
and
griff,
who
are
doing
everything
for
everyone,
and
now
we
have
you
know
12
to
14
stewards
and
many
different
working
groups
and
a
much
bigger
community
400
active
contributors.
I
So
it's
not
really
necessary
that
these
are
the
people
that
the
common
staff
team
is
are
the
people
who
are
getting
the
most
visibility
may
be
arguable
actually,
because
a
lot
of
our
stewards
are
still
compensated
by
common
stacks.
So
that's
not
actually
that's
a
that's
a
that's
an
argument.
That's
but
it's.
I
I
feel
like
it's
not
a
strong
enough
argument,
but
still
in
thinking
about
future
commons,
there's
got
to
be
some
other
way
to
sort
of
diminish
that
you
know
like
to
diminish
the
reduction
so
to
give
the
people
that
are
originally
bootstrapping
it
to
also
sort
of
allow
their
impact
hours
to
to
increase
or
to
to
tax
them
less
over
time.
Over.
I
don't
know
what
the
right
time
is.
There's
some
mathematical
formula.
I
That's
going
to
make
sense,
just
some
rough
numbers,
like
maybe
start
with
75
and
after
the
first
quarter
of
the
year
or
the
first
half
of
the
year,
drop
to
50
and
after
another,
four
months
or
six
months,
drop
to
zero.
Whatever
that
timing
would
be,
and
then
the
reach
falls
very
wide.
You
know
there's
people
on
who
are
being
compensated
by
common
stack,
who
are
barely
involved
in
the
tec,
but
they
also
have
this
tax.
You
know
dan
is
a
great
example
he's
the
gardener
of
the
trusted
seed.
I
He
he
he
comes
into
the
community
and
participates,
but
he's
not
able
to
receive
his
full
impact
hours
because
he's
being
compensated
for
common
staff
for
something
entirely
different
than
the
tec
atas.
Maybe
another
person
chris.
So
there's
a
number
of
people
who
I
feel
like
we
trap
accidentally
and
then
I
think
we
don't
really
fully
take
into
account
everyone's
unique
circumstances.
I
I
Is
the
this
is
analogous
to
the
unpaid
internship
and
the
you
know
the
advantages
you
have
if
you're,
in
a
position
in
your
life,
where
you
can
accept
an
unpaid
internship,
your
career
advancements
are
huge,
the
possibilities
for
your
future
open
up
versus,
if
you're,
not
in
a
position
in
your
life,
where
you
can
accept
an
unpaid
internship
and
those
are
you
know,
I
think
we
just
maybe
want
to
reflect
or
think
about
how
you
know
how
we
can
make
make
sure
that
people
are
being
compensated
because
they've
gone
through
a
process
to
accept
a
role
and
it's
a
role,
that's
necessary
and
needed,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
maybe
we're
not
penalizing
them
for
needing
to
have
compensation
at
that
point
in
their
life
and
really
this,
I
think,
also
comes
down
to
what
you
just
said:
nate,
really
it's
really
like
governance.
I
You
know
it's
like
the
the
monetary
compensation.
I
don't
think
anyone
here
in
this
room
or
anyone
in
the
tec
is
in
this
for
money
like
we're
all
in
this,
because
we
super
we're
very
passionate.
We
care
about
this,
so
somebody
that
is
receiving
compensation,
but
has
their
governance
so
greatly
reduced
seems
to
be
unfair,
so
I'm
I
am
proposing
that
we're
actually
just
saying.
I
Okay,
the
tec
is
no
longer
going
to
impose
this
reduction
on
common
stack
or
the
people
who've
been
identified
and
giveth
or
general
magic,
because
we're
not
imposing
this
tax
on
any
other
organization,
and
we
don't
know
why
we
continue
to
do
it
with
common
stack,
and
that
was
my
that's
my
that's
my
proposal.
So
I'd
love
to
hear
feedback
and
help
make
this
have
diverse
opinions
on
this
as
well.
C
Can
I
just
say
my
opinion?
I
have
been
especially
out
of
these
conversations
because
I
didn't
wanna
intervene
of
course
or
give
my
opinion
until
most
of
the
people
was
telling
you
know
their
feedback,
giving
their
feedback,
and
maybe
we
had
some
analysis.
C
We
had
some
analysis
on
the
impact
hours,
but
just-
and
this
is
my
personal
deal
I
jumped
in
tc
because
I
wanted
to
get
involved
into
something
related
to
token
engineering.
I
found
token
engineering
and
through
talking
engineering
I
got
involved
into
talking
engineering
commons.
You
you
get
involved
for
different
reasons.
Everyone
gets
involved
for
different
reasons,
but,
and-
and
you
know
this
is
a
this-
is
a
lottery
of
compensation.
C
You
think
that
maybe
some
compensation,
but
you
know
it's,
it's
just
a
lottery.
You
don't
know,
you
know
if
there's
gonna
be
a
hatch
if
you're
gonna
get
funded
or
not,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
impossible
not
to
compare
yourself
with
the
rest
of
the
team
and
the
same
way
that
I
understand
governance.
Tokens
should
be
given
to
those
that
have
not
received
impact
towers
because
they
were
getting
paid.
My
was
50
70
or
100
or
whatever
I
understand
that
they've
been
involved
and
they
should
be
able
to
get
involved.
C
C
There's
many
more
people
involved,
there's
many
different
cases,
and-
and
we
should
learn
from
the
past
and
try
to
make
some
some
new
rules
to
adjust
to
what
we
are
right
now,
which
is
not
what
we
were
a
few
months
ago
when
I
joined
and
not
what
we
were
a
few
months
after
I
joined
because
we've
been
growing
quite
fast
lately,
but
from
the
perspective
of
someone
that's
been
putting
time
just
because
he
wanted.
I
wanted
to
put
time.
No
one
was
asking
me
to
do
so,
but
I.
C
It's
not
really
nice,
and
this
is
a
personal
perspective
and,
and
that
may
put
someone
back
and
I've
been
listening
to
other
people
and
I've
been
hearing
different
opinions.
Everyone
has
their
own
opinion,
but
but
for
someone
that's
been
putting
a
lot
of
time
and
not
being
compensated
just
because
they
didn't
ask
or
because
it
didn't
there
wasn't
any
reason
to
get
compensated,
which
is
fair.
I
understand
that
not
and
not
everyone
has
the
same.
C
You
know
life
situation
and
and
not
everyone
has
the
same
skills
and
maybe
useful
for
the
for
the
for
the
dow,
but
not
enough
to
get
compensated
or
for
any
other
reason.
That's
that's
not
the
story,
but
I
mean
you,
you
do
work,
you
do
a
lot
of
work,
you
put
a
lot
of
time
and
I'm
not
gonna
say
your
hours
are
more
valued
than
others
to
me.
Anyone
that's
putting
time.
C
It's
valuable
and
then
other
people
is
getting
compensated
for
any
other
reason,
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
have
to
end
up
giving
back
part
of
your
compensation,
which
was
given
because
you
were
not
getting
any
anything
paid
to
those
that
were
getting
paid.
C
I
mean,
if
you
talk
to
someone
logically,
that
doesn't
have
any
sense
at
all
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we're
going
to
end
up
doing
whatever
everyone
votes,
because
we
are
down
and
that's
how
things
get
done,
but
the
same
way
that
I
I
this
is
the
first
time
I
hear
about
governance,
and
I'm
absolutely
on
that.
I
think
that
one
thing
is
compensation.
C
This
is
a
skewed
method
from
the
very
beginning,
and
this
is
cute
because
we
wanted
to
be
skewed
because
we
wanted
to
be
fair
and
grief
was
making
the
rules
mostly
initially
just
you
know,
trying
to
compensate
every
single
one
case,
which
was
not
easy
and
that's
what
we
all
played
and
after
playing
these
rules
now
we
may
change
the
game.
C
Now,
at
the
end
of
the
game,
you
change
the
rules.
This
is
not
very,
very
nice,
you
can
change
the
rules
from
now
on,
we've
been
playing.
Now
we
can
change
rules.
We've
learned
a
lot.
We
from
learning
we
evolve,
but
don't
change
rules,
backwards,
change
the
rules
for
words.
That's
that's
my
personal
sense.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that.
Thank
you.
A
A
So
the
proposals
that
we
are
exploring
for
touching
into
past
data
are
probably
this
too
and
then
the
proposal
term
is
is
sharing
is
for
the
future,
so
it
wouldn't
touch
into
any
past
data,
and
I
think
it's
good
to.
A
It
might
be
a
good
practice
time
to
post
in
the
advice
process
in
the
forum,
and
then
people
can
add
their
comments
there,
and
this
can
be
a
separate
discussion
for
this
scope
of
moving
forward
and
people
can
propose
other
views
as
well,
and
that
would
be,
I
think,
the
ideal
scenario
if
people
that
have
different
opinions
also
try
shaping
different
proposals
or
comments,
and
we
can
move
on
on
in
regards
to
that
and
then
for
the
data
that
is
being
analyzed
and
looked
at
and
the
proposals
that
will
come
from
the
analysis
for
them
to
be
separate
and
for
us
to
form
debates.
A
So
something
I
think
it
would
be
good
is
understanding
like
okay,
if
we
have,
if
we
have
a
very
rough
consensus,
that
these
two
are
interesting
like
spectrums
to
look
at
and
that
they
represent
mult
most
of
the
opinions
that
we
have
heard,
what
are
the
implications
of
choosing
one
and
another,
and
I
think
that
would
be
something
great
to
start
talking
in
the
debates
and
for
those
ones.
A
We
can
kind
of
start
talking
about
them
now,
it's
not
that
we
need
so
much
more
analysis
from
the
data
to
start
investigating
this
so,
for
example,
restituting
a
percentage
of
governance
power
through
infinite
vesting.
What
would
that
mean
practically?
Would
we
have
any
future
implications
with
the
funding
curve?
What
is
what,
if
people
that
have
infinite
vesting
start
behaving
badly?
Would
that
cause
any
type
of
conflict?
A
D
I
don't
think
that
I
mean
we
can
programmable
money,
it's
crazy.
We
can
do
whatever
we
want,
but
you
you,
I'm
pretty
sure
the
vesting
would
not
be
able
to
be
stopped
in
any
way
unless
maybe
by
a
full
dow
vote
like
the
full
tc
could
vote
on
it.
If
someone
is
misbehaving,
the
full
doubt
I
mean
this
is
the
crazy
thing
about
dallas
man.
They
can
just
burn
tokens.
D
The
dow
can
be
like
hey
this
guy's
bad.
Let's
vote
to
burn
his
tokens
and
the
dow
can
do
that.
You
know
this
is
the
difference
between
a
a
block
chain.
You
know
that
has
like
various
well,
even
blockchains
ethereum
burns
effectively
burns
the
dow
hackers
tokens
right.
So
even
if
blockchain
can
do
it,
it's
just
way
harder.
With
with
this,
if
someone's
misbehaving
or
being
a
bad
down
member
their
tokens
are
stuck
in
a
contract,
it
can't
really
be
stopped.
They
can
just
burn
those
tokens.
E
But
no
that's
the
vested
ones
yeah,
but
I
mean
these
people
could
also.
You
know
like
ask
for
money
and
then
sell
it
right.
D
D
It's
you
know
it's
as
complicated
as
as
you
want
me
to
go,
but
basically
we
can
tweak
the
bonding
curve,
so
it
just
ignores
the
fact
that
we
minted
these
tokens.
It
just
forgets
that
they
exist.
D
There's
this
thing
called
virtual
supply
and
we
have
to
change.
We
have
to
change
the
bonding
curve
contract
because
it
and
I-
but
I
want
to
do
this
anyway,
for
other
comments,
because
there's
other
cool
functionalities
that
we
can
do
with
this
like,
for
instance,
what
if
we
wanted
to
give
people
who
want
to
just
donate
to
the
tech,
just
send
money
to
conviction
the
the
common
pool
by
the
way
off
topic,
we
have
to
change
funding,
pool
to
common
pool.
D
I
tried
with
one
hive
to
get
them
to
stick
with
common
funding
pool,
but
we
really
should
probably
be
using
the
terminology
common
pool
now
good
news,
okay
anyway,
but
if
someone
donates
directly
to
the
common
pool,
wouldn't
it
be
cool
to
give
them
locked
tokens
that
don't
that
could
never
be
sold,
and
it
could
be
like
a
way
that,
like
that,
you
could
get
governance
with
and
donate
at
the
same
time,
and
so
changing
this
in
the
bonding
curve
would
allow
us
to
have
some
freedom
to
do
cool
things
like
that
later
anyway,
mint
tokens
for
people
or
create
systems
that
will
mint
tokens
for
people
without
without
them
being
able
to
be
sold
or
without
them
affecting
the
bonding
curve.
D
So
we'll
have
to
make
one
small
change
in
in
the
bonding
curve
application.
That
says,
this
number
can
be
a
negative
number
right.
It's
just
like
say
changing
the
type
of
you
know
input,
so
it's
like.
Instead
of
an
unsigned
integer,
it's
a
signed
integer
and
that's
it.
It
shouldn't
be
that
crazy
and
we
have
to
audit
the
bonding
curve
code
anyway.
So.
A
Cool
yeah
sounds
sounds
sounds
like
an
interesting
solution
that
I
feel
like.
I
don't
understand
so
much
about
it.
It
is
more
clear
now
that
you
explained,
but
it
would
probably
be
good
also
to
pass
through
advice
process,
I'm
hoping
that
all
of
these
proposals
that
we
are
like
starting
to
lift
now
could
go
through
advice
process
during
this
week
like
as
soon
as
possible.
A
Just
for
us
to
start
discussing
them
in
this
discussion
help
to
shape
the
final
proposal
that
will
be
voted
on,
and
I
will
yeah
for
the
debate
to
start
now
and
then
we
continue
with
live
debates
and
calls
kind
of
like
we
did
for
the
params,
and
then
I
want
to
change
to
the
second,
the
second
one.
That
is
the
categories
so
I'll
later
after
we
talk
about
this
I'll
show
the
categorizing
praise
process.
A
We
need
a
lot
of
help
there,
so
it
would
be
great
to
that
everyone
on
the
call,
at
least
like
understand
how
it
works,
and
if
you
want
to
jump
into
it,
that
would
be
awesome.
A
So
the
categories
are
we're
basically
putting
all
of
the
praise
into
buckets
and
with
that
we're
hoping
to
understand
what
were
the
categories
that
were
most
praised
or
under-praised.
A
And
if
there
is
something
there
that
we
understand
about
the
behavior
of
the
community
and
what
has
been
yeah.
What
haven't?
Have
we
been
praising
the
most?
What
are
the
blind
sides?
And
this
is
really
cool,
because
it
feeds
more
or
less
into
how
source
cred
works,
and
I
think
that
will
offer
us
a
lot
of
insights
for
like
moving
forward
with
source
cred
and
also
understanding
the
data
of
source
cred
and
seeing
what
needs
to
be
tweaked.
And
this
is
something
we
talked
about
in
the
past
and
it's
a
huge
amount
of
work.
A
A
But
I
thought
it
would
be
best
for
us
to
do
it
manually
now,
because
we
don't
have
time
for
a
full
like
the
building,
a
tool
developing
this
yeah,
this
automated
process,
but
it
will
happen
in
the
future
and
it
will
make
our
lives
a
lot
easier
in
terms
of
quantification
and
understanding
in
general
of
the
of
grace
so
so
yeah,
one
of
the
ideas
actually
tim
talked
about
today
that
she
heard
from
someone
else
that
we
it's
just
been
a
lot
of
conversations
going
around
and
we
lose
track
of
who
says
what,
but
that
we
could
have
a
similar
distribution
to
source
cred.
A
For
example.
Let's
say
there
is
like
this
is
a
number
that
we
have
so
in
one
of
the
rounds.
12
of
the
whole
praise
was
just
for
tweets
and
retweets,
and
everything
involved
with
twitter
and
12.
I
became
3.5
of
the
impact
hours
of
that
round,
so
we
could
understand
together.
If
oh,
do
we
want
tweeter
to
have
3.5
of
the
impact
hours?
Maybe
we
do
and
then
that
bucket
receives
three
point.
A
Three
point:
five
percent
every
time,
or
maybe
we
think
it's
too
much,
and
then
we
want
twitter
to
receive
like
one
percent
or
two
percent,
so
we
could
have
kind
of
like
source
credit
works,
there's
buckets
that
have
different
sizes
and
the
impact
hours
are
raining
on
them.
Using
mateo's
analogy
and
the
buckets
that
are
bigger
will
just
fill
with
more
of
that
phrase,
and
the
buckets
that
are
smaller
will
have
a
smaller
number.
A
E
Has
some
like
also
like
people
who
retweet
and
do
stuff
and
quantify
price?
It's
even
higher.
So
that's
the
thing
when
you're
changing
the
rules,
it's
hard
because,
as
I
told
you
like,
there
was
people
like
you
know
like
they
were
getting
like
even
four
impact
hours
for
even
more.
Like
eight,
let's
say
because
it's
every
two
weeks
two
praises
and
they
get
average
phrase.
I
mean
it's
crazy.
So
that's
why
changing
rules
is
so
crazy,
but
yeah.
A
A
It
would
be
a
waste
of
like
knowledge
of
preciousness
to
not
look
into
all
of
this
data.
But
what
is
happening
now
is
looking
into
all
of
this
to
see
what
we
have,
and
this
is
something
we
talked-
that
we
would
love
to
have
happening
in
source
cred,
but
because
we
built
like
we
are
implementing
source
cred.
So
slowly
and
it's
happening
in
parallel
with
praise.
A
So
what
we
thought
from
source
cred
even
santi
had
said
like.
Oh,
if
the
behavi
the,
if
the
cred
is
not
it's
not
aligned
with
with
what
we
want,
we
can
tweak
them.
We
can
like
put
more
cred
to
in
this
parameter.
We
can
put
less
cred
for
this
part
like,
for
example,
we
decided
to
not
give
cred
to
discord,
and
this
is
something
that
we
only
got
that
awareness
from
observing
one
hive
and
seeing
that
for
them
it
was
being
very
gained
their
use
of
discord.
A
A
Then
changing
rules,
and
also
just
to
finalize
on
that,
like
one
of
the
astrum's
principles,
is
to
have
this
autonomy
over
the
rules
that
we
create
ourselves.
So
we
don't
want
to
be
rigid
and
bureaucratic
that
we
can
never
look
back
into
the
rules
that
we
created,
even
when
they
might
not
work
for
everyone
anymore.
So
it's
just
like
really
looking
into
all
of
these
possibilities.
E
Yeah,
but
also
she
refers
like
to
modify
the
rules
to
the
past,
not
I
to
the
future
like
if
you
have
a
common-
and
you
know
like
you,
were
it's
hard
to
say
in
english,
but
I
mean
you
were
collecting
fruits,
let's
say
and
the
fruits
you
collected
in
the
past
after
you
change
the
rules,
this
fruit
doesn't
change,
you
know
like
you
already
eat
them
or
sell
them
or
whatever
yeah.
You
change
the
rules
by
looking
to
the
future,
not
looking
to
the
past,
and
this
is
so
important.
A
Well,
I
don't
think
there
is
any
there's
any
time
mentions
on
on
what
on
what
she
writes
about
and
and
it's
a
different
scenario,
because
it's
a
it's
a
physical
structure
and
here
we're
like
in
a
very
experimental
experimental
ground,
with
experimental
tools
and
processes
and
and
of
course
we
have
the
option
to
not
change
anything,
but
we
have
to
do
that
from
an
informed
from
an
informed
perspective,
and
all
all
I
want
us
to
do
is
to
have
that
informed
perspective
and
see
like
okay,
I
see
where
everything
is
going.
A
A
So
we
are
dealing
with
tools
that
offer
a
broader
spectrum
of
what
we
can
do,
and
it's
just
important
that
that
we
look
at
it
like
trying
to
be
the
last
biased
possible
and
if
we
don't
agree
with
something
that
we
have
the
full
autonomy
to
say.
I
don't
agree
with
this
and
I
don't
want
to
move
forward
with
this.
I
Yeah,
I
think
you
explained
that
really
well
olivia.
Thank
you.
I
want
to
dig
into
this
idea
of
changing
the
rules
because
it's
been
said
a
few
times
now
during
this
session,
and
it
doesn't
appear
to
me
as
something
that
is
necessarily
what's
being
attempted
here.
I
The
prey
system
has
worked
really
well
with
common
stack,
a
non-governance
non-financial
token
and
now
we're
applying
it
in
a
completely
different
context
and
we're
experimenting
with
how
it
can
work,
but
we
also
want
to
ensure
that
the
results
that
we
have
are
do
make
sense
like
if,
if
something,
if
you're
experimenting
with
a
process-
and
you
see
that
it
doesn't
make
sense
and
you
think
okay,
we
could
change
certain
things
in
order
for
a
result.
That
makes
more
sense.
I
For
example,
if
we
talk
about
tec
as
a
governance
token,
would
we
logically
say
for
this
praise
quant
session?
We
should
give
3.5
of
the
tec's
governance
to
anyone
who's
retweeted
on
twitter.
Anything
that,
like
so
there's
these
there's
these
illogical
outcomes
that
we've
that
we
have,
and
I
think,
as
olivia's
saying
I
really
support
that.
I
We
should
really
make
informed
decisions
about
how
we're
how
we've
decided
to
allocate
governance
in
in
this
in
this
commons,
and
it's
not,
I
would
maybe
hesitate-
or
I
don't
know
like
changing
the
rules-
is
not
what's
happening,
but
it's
it's
one
of
those
phrases
that
people
feel
is
inherently
unjust,
so
it
it
makes
you
feel
so
like.
Oh
we're,
changing
the
rules,
don't
change
the
rules,
you
know
no,
but
it's
I
I
just
I
want
to
feel
like.
I
want
to
hesitate
to
say.
J
Right
and
let
me
just
throw
in
one
word
there
that
goes
back
to
this-
is
just
the
concept
of
being
robust.
I
mean
if
we,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
system
will
work
going
forward
and
if
we're
discovering,
through
the
analysis
that
the
distribution
is,
is
incorrect
for
the
robustness
of
the
dow.
I
mean
precisely
it's
an
experiment.
It's
an
experiment
that
needs
to
find
its
footing
so
that
it
can
run
it
can
run.
C
I
I
agree
that
organizations
evolve
and
rules
are
there
to
be
changed,
especially
when
they,
when
the
organization
realizes
that
they
are
not
fair
enough
anymore,
because
the
organization
has
changed
because
it
evolves.
C
My
point
is
that
we
should
change
them
looking
forward
and
that's
that's
that's
all
I
wanted
to
mention,
but
I
completely
agree
and
source
credit
is
going
to
be
a
great
tool
to
tweak
change
and
just
look
at
one
hive.
They
started
giving
away
tons
of
money
on
that
faucet
and
it's
it's
not
doing
anything
anymore
because
it
just
served
the
purpose
when
it
was
serving
it
and
now
that
they've
grown
they
just
don't
give
it
the
value
that
they
used
to
give
it,
and-
and
that's
it
there
is
no
issue
with
that.
E
Improve
exactly
I
I
really
agree
like
we
need
really
need
to
change.
The
rules
like,
for
example,
like
in
indeed
like
on
the
price
quantify
like.
I
feel
honestly
like,
I
feel,
like
the
quantifiers,
get
more
praise
than
not
quantified
like
I
was
doing
quantify
myself
and
I
was
experimenting
when
I
was
quantifying.
I
was
getting
more
praise
than
when
I
was
not,
and
you
know
like
changing.
The
rules
would
mean
like
changing
how
we
price
the
quantifiers,
but
we
don't
remove
what
quantifies
get
from
before
that
big
wrong.
A
We
won't
have
time
to
debate
this
one
I'll
I'll,
just
go
over
it
and
then
show
the
categorizing
phrase
and
we
can
move
forward
by
using
advice
process
and
then
hosting
discussions
so
yeah
for
the
for
the
categorization
of
praise.
We
have
this
spreadsheet
that
octopus
put
up
and
a
lot
of
people
help
working
on
this
and
there's
all
the
praise
in
the
samples.
A
So
there
are
many
many
samples
that
we
need
to
categorize
and
it's
okay.
If
we
don't
finish
them
all.
So
the
timeline
that
we're
thinking
is
working
on
this
until
sunday
and
getting
the
most
we
can
and
then
on
sunday
we'll
have
a
session
with
octopus
and
ygg
and
everyone
that
wants
to
come
and
transfer
the
the
the
analysis
to
the
hands
of
softgov
and
and
have
the
debates
there
moving
forward
for
the
proposals
to
be
voted.
A
This
for
me
feels
weird
that
they
are
together,
but
it
started
like
this
octopus
was
saying
that
there
is
a
way
to
separate
them
after
and
then
fundraising,
donating
anyways,
there's
all
these
categories.
So
what
we
need
to
do
is
come
here.
Let's
say:
sample
eight
attending
today's
garden
swarm
weekly
meeting.
This
is
tc
12
because
is
oops.
A
Tc
12
because
it's
participation,
so
it's
interaction
between
members
is
like
coming
to
a
meeting,
so
I
come
here
and
I
put
tc12
and
then
for
all
the
ones
I
do
just
for
the
sake
of
transparency.
A
I
come
here
to
tag
by
and
I
say
I
was
working
on
sample
one
and
I
did
the
rouse
between
two
and
twenty
two.
A
So
so
I
go
that
I
I
come
here
and
tag
what
I
did
so
so
people
know
if
they
have
questions
about
like
oh
there's
one.
I
don't
know
yeah
thanks,
vive
v
and
eduardo
for
doing
helping
here
so
far,
and
if
anyone
wants
to
jump
in
that
would
be
really
great
and
it
also
offers
some
insights
about
like
what
has
been
praised.
What
are
the
categories
that
are
that
are
happening?
A
A
A
I
would
like
to
do
a
closing
round.
I
feel
like
there
is
a
tense
air
in
this,
maybe
just
like
a
few
words
from
each
one
for
us
to
to
close
this
and
then
move
to
our
next
meetings.
N
I
don't
have
an
opinion
on
this,
but
I
did
want
to
mention
the
the
pc
drops
down
is
up
and
running
all
the
information
into
the
channels.
If
you
want
to
check
it
out,
we
should
be
making
the
test
distribution
soon
enough
and
yeah.
I
just
didn't
want
to
go
with
before
without
saying
that
I'll
pass
it
to
nate.
A
H
Yeah,
I
guess
my
last
statement
on
this
soft
gov
call
would
be
that
you
know.
I
think
we
should
be
careful,
how
we
frame
it
and
not
have
so
much
contention
between
those
who
were
compensated
versus
those
who
were
not
for
those
who've
earned
impact
hours.
You
are
actually
getting
a
very
good
deal,
especially
if
we
launch
this
comments
in
terms
of
the
the
hash
parameters
that
we
chose.
H
You
are
getting
compensated
very,
very
well,
and
I
think
everybody
is
being
taken
care
of
really
well
in
terms
of
finances
for
our
contributions
to
this,
and
so
I
just
want
to
keep
that
in
mind
that
this
is
more
about
the
process
and
and
for
the
future
of
of
commons
launches
and
and
making
sure
that
they
have
good
systems
to
work
with
and
that
we
are
the
pilot
you
know
and
we're
testing
these
things
out
and
moving
forward
is,
is
the
most
important
thing
for
us,
so
I
will
pass
it
to
suga.
J
Thanks
nate,
I
totally
agree
with
you.
I
like
that
idea,
making
it
not
contentious.
J
Thank
you,
olivia
and
everybody
who's
working
so
hard
on
the
data
analysis,
because
this
is
that
that's
important
and
it's
productive
and
it's
constructive
and
we
really
have
to
move
away
from
the
the
fear-mongering
because
nobody's
taking
anything
away
from
anybody
else,
and
I
love
you
all
and
we
need
to
just
come
back
to
that
this
space
of
the
community
that
we're
all
connected
and
we're
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
for
the
community
all
together.
So
thank
you
to
tam.
Please.
I
Yeah,
I
want
to
say
I'm
really
really
excited
about
all
of
the
the
ideas
that
are
coming
for
how
to
improve
the
praise
process.
You
know,
there's
ideas
around
how
we
can
better
categorize
these.
You
know
the
tweets
and
the
calls
and
everyone
who's
been
who's,
done,
praise
quant
and
knows
that
it's
like
two
hours
of
like
sitting
and
typing
numbers
on
your
keyboard
like.
I
Wouldn't
it
be
amazing
if
there's
like
all,
only
just
the
actual
praise,
that's
like
person
to
person
and
not
these
automatic
praise
that
you
sort
of
also
have
to
then
go
and
quantify
and
sort
of
slog
through
there's
an
idea
of
using
you
know
ai,
to
be
able
to
do
a
first
pass
and
then
just
have
a
human
go
through
and
sort
of
have
a
look.
So
the
evolution
of
praise
is
actually
really
exciting
and
what
we'll
be
able
to
do
with
it
in
the
future.
B
Thanks
tam
yeah
just
really
appreciate
being
able
to
listen
and
learn
and
pay
attention.
It's
the
first
community,
I'm
a
part
of
that
is
working
through
this
and
the
tech
involved.
So
yeah
appreciate
it
and
I'll
pass
that
to
craig.
M
Yeah
great
discussion-
and
I
guess
I'm
excited
that
it's
all
happening.
It
is
a
super
rich
data
set
like
santi
I've
reframed,
really
from
entering
the
debate
so
much.
M
D
D
You
know
and
like
the
rules
aren't
always
fair,
you
change
them
going
forward,
but
you
don't
change
them
going
back
and
I
think
I
think
that
we
have
enough
like
subject
subjectivity
in
the
praise
process,
that's
built
in
to
the
system
that
we
can
make
some
adjustments
and
improve
it,
and
I,
but
ideally
you
know-
I
don't
I
I
I
definitely
am
more
of
a.
I
have
more
of
a
preference
for
small
tweaks
versus
like
big
changes.
You
know
you
know
like
saying.
Oh
all
this
gets
this.
Maybe
it's
like
okay!
D
Well,
there
was
an
intention
here.
Maybe
we
only
get
50
to
to
fix
this
thing
or
you
know-
and
it's
like
this
like
okay?
Yes,
we
can
all
agree
that
the
these
people
were
under
rewarded
or
this
system
was
flawed
in
that
way,
or
these
results
are
not
how
we
want,
but
then,
at
the
same
time,
there's
like
got
to
be
some
respect
for
the
system
and
how
it
was
built
and
and
how
the
outcomes
that
it
gave
and
not
trying
to
just
re-manipulate
it
to.
D
However,
we
want,
because
also
we
just
will
never
agree
and
that's
what
I
really
worry
about.
Most
is
just
like
making
some
changes
that
you
know
loud.
Voices
really
want
to
happen
and
then,
like
just
like
alienated
alienating
people,
you
know
in
a
way
for,
like
you
know,
a
small
change
in
something
that
is
relatively
unimportant
to
in
the
systemic
scene.
You
know
it's
like
you
know.
Maybe
this
will.
D
Maybe
impact
hours
will
represent
15
of
the
initial
supply
15
to
20
of
the
initial
tokens
and
then
from
there
they
get
diluted
from
more
people
buying
into
the
bonding
curve
and
such
so
you
know
the
distribution
is,
is
real,
of
course
it's
not
nothing,
but
at
the
same
time
it's
not
like.
Also,
all
those
tokens
will
be
locked
for
a
long
time
likely.
You
know
and-
and
the
people
who
are
you
know,
want
more
impact.
I
don't
know
there's
just
so
much
going
on.
K
Thanks
griff,
it's
interesting
to
see
the
passion
that
is
shown
all
around,
regardless
of
the
people
being
content
with
the
changes
or
not
just
want
to
remind
you
guys
that
you
are
at
the
forefront
of
the
entire
movement
and
that
the
system
that
you're
trying
to
build
here
represents
an
inspiration
for
other
entities
and
people
all
around.
So
just
a
sort
of
reminder
for
you
guys,
because
so
it's
really
cool
to
see
this.
K
And,
of
course
not
all
the
conversations
are
easy.
But
at
the
end
of
the
day,
if
people
are
saying
that
they
actually
contribute
and
believe
in
the
cause
they'll
to
have
the
tough
conversation
when
it's
needed
so
yeah.
Should
we
opacity,
I'm
not
sure
whether
or
not.
F
F
This
is
like
one
of
the
first
a
few
times
that
I've
gotten
involved
with
this
with
the
whole
situation
around
this,
I
I
do
agree
with
with
santi
regarding,
like
some
of
some
of
the
points
about
changing
the
rules.
F
I
do
feel
that
these
kind
of
situations
are
gonna
arise
like
every
time
like
there's
a
hatch
or
there's
like
a
discussion
around
the
prey
system,
and
I
don't
think
that
there's
always
gonna
be
like
an
absolute
solution,
of
course,
but
I
do
feel
that
what
we
have
as
a
community
that
maybe
some
other
communities
are
missing
is
is
like
the
cultural
build
behind
it
and
and
just
the
trust
side
of
it.
F
So
I
I
do
agree
that
that
we
we
eventually
are
gonna
need
to
like
talk
about
trust
in
in
in,
like
exactly
like
what
we
want
to
achieve,
because
I
I
I
do
feel
that
that
yeah,
like
that
there
shouldn't
be
like
any,
like
just
major
changes
to
to
how,
like
the
rules
were
said.
Like
I'm
more
like
inclined
towards
that
part
of
the
argument.
F
F
L
E
Thank
you
living
yeah
first,
I
want
to
say,
like
honestly,
when
I
first
joined
in
here
like
don't
like,
even
if
I
get
like
no
reward
at
all,
I
would
feel
you
know
like.
I
feel
good,
like
I
learned
a
lot
and
when
I
first
come
here,
I
come
to
learn
and
I
learn
a
lot
and
I
still
learning
so
it's
awesome
the
the
thing
that
concerns
me
like
when
all
of
these,
it's
like
the
trust
right
like
we
were
saying
one
thing
and
then
we're
changing
it
and
yeah.
Oh
trying
to.
E
I
don't
know,
that's
what
concerns
me,
but
though
I
mean
it
doesn't
matter
what
we
do
like.
I
feel
rewarded
for.
You
know,
like
all
I'm
doing
all
I'm
learning
and
I
feel
great
honestly,
but
I'm
just
this
thing
of
about
trust
like
you
know
like
if
another
commons
happens
or
something
like,
would
I
do
it
like
unpaid
on
a
spreadsheet?
C
Let
me
just
stand,
I
just
didn't
go.
I
just
want
to
add
two
little
things.
First,
first
there
is
it's
important
to
not
to
analyze
the
small
changes,
because
if
we
change
a
lot
of
things,
there's
no
way
we're
going
to
get
a
a
really
information
out
of
it,
because
you
don't
know
what
is
affecting
what
all
right.
So
it's
whatever
we
do.
It
doesn't
matter.
C
If
we
want
to
change
20
things,
we
have
to
change
it
to
one
at
a
time
or
two
at
a
time
to
be
able
to
analyze
the
response
and,
second
to
me,
what's
most
important
is
to
keep
the
group
you
know
happy
and-
and
I
know
some
people
may
feel
better
than
others,
because
when
things
decisions
take
place,
not
everyone
is
happy
with
the
outcome,
but
I
we
should
think
on
a
way
to
you
know,
keep
the
group
strong
and
together
and-
and
that's
that
to
me-
that's
what
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
and
that's
the
most
valuable
of
the
of
the
group
of
the
community
of
the
and
and
and
just
answering
to
to
zepty.
C
C
If
we
get
money,
if
we
launch,
if
we
hatch
whatever
happens,
what
I
take
from
all
these
is
the
the
relationships,
the
learning
you
know,
the
the
group
a
lot
of
things
and
and
again
to
me
what
what
touched
me
the
most:
it's
not
even
the
impact
hours,
it's
what
happened
with
jake
and
that
keeps
resonating
to
my
head.
That's
sad
very
sad,
and
I
wish
that
doesn't
happen
again,
at
least
not
the
way
it
happened.
C
A
A
And
I'm
really
excited
to
move
forward
with
this
discussions,
because
I
think
even
having
an
open
space
to
discuss
is
the
best
that
can
happen
with
us
and
being
open
to
talk
about
trust
and
about
relationships
and
about
what
is
fair
or
not.
The
subjects
are
not
easy.
Talking
about
compensation,
it's
not
easy
about
governance
power.
A
All
of
this,
so
I
think
everyone
is
really
brave
to
be
sharing,
sharing
opinions
and
positions
here,
and
I
I
really
trust
that
we'll
find
the
best
solution
for
everyone
and
be
able
to
communicate
that
to
the
the
wider
community
that
sometimes
is
not
present
in
this
calls,
but
have
been
contributing
in
other
ways
and
and
find
a
resonance
within
everyone.
A
So
we'll
talk
for
a
couple
of
minutes
about
source
cred.
Whoever
wants
to
stay
is
welcome.
Otherwise,
thanks
so
much
for
joining.
A
So
we
just
had
a
couple
of
questions.
I
don't
know
sanji.
If
you
were
able
to
see
in
the
in
the
chat.
I
think
there
were
two
things
that
maybe
you
could
help
us
with.
One
is:
how
can
we
automate
the
spreadsheet
mateo
had
something
on
there.
N
Yeah,
what
I
did
last
week
was:
I
updated
every
identity
that
was
not
active.
I
noticed
that
there
were
some
of
them
and
all
the
instances
already
with
the
credits
that
everybody
has
gotten
until
that
week.
So
I
took
all
that
information
and
moved
it
to
a
spreadsheet
that
I
shared
on
the
channel.
In
that
spreadsheet
we
have
the
name
of
the
person
we
have
the
credit
obtained.
We
have
a
calculation
of
the
percentage
of
how
much
according
to
the
threat
distributed,
should
be
getting,
and
I
added
a
little
pro
about.
N
N
So
I
figured
that
maybe
there
is
a
way
to
automate
grabbing
the
great
amount
that
everyone
is
getting
into
a
spreadsheet
and
that
we
can
make
the
these
like
automatically
because
so
far
what
cannot
be
automated
is
the
manual
setting
up
the
address
and
how
much
should
everyone
get
and
the
board
action
on
the
source
credit
account,
as
some
paper
recommended,
that
is
get
the
credit
out
of
the
people's
account
on
source
credit
and
move
it
to
a
port
wallet,
which
is
another
identity
that
is
going
only
to
serve
as
a
support
wallet.
N
Let's
say
so.
If
we
find
a
way
to
make
this
a
spreadsheet
only
regarding
the
threat
of
saying
for
every
distribution
that
would
yeah
make
it
a
lot
easier
because
maybe
it
was
what's
it,
I
know
santiago,
it's
something,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
there.
C
I
can
ask
him
if
yeah
I'm
sure
he
updated
the
whatever
he
did
on
github.
We
have
to
check
and
I'm
sure,
there's
a
way
to
grab
them
from
fetching
information
from
source
cred
and
put
it
on
a
spreadsheet.
I'm
sure
he
can.
He
can
do
that.
What
I
so
there's
like
two
steps.
One
step
is
getting
the
information
from
the
graph,
the
source
credit
graph
and
putting
it
on
a
spreadsheet
and
then
is
the
is
the
second
step
which
is
using
that
information
and
either
distributing
or
burning.
C
N
Yeah,
the
the
manual
part,
is
actually
sending
every
transaction
to
the
dock.
That
is
already
working
with
a
transaction
app,
the
the
one
when
I
see
implemented
and
after
we
distribute
that
we
have
to
remove
the
the
thread
that
is
actually
of
the
source
right.
C
Do
you
have
any
application
to
do
the
burning
as
a
bulk
or
or
we
have
to
do
it
manually.
N
C
The
people
of
source
cred
and
see
if
there's
any
way
we
can
automate
that
because
doing
it
one
I
mean
I
don't
know
how
many
accounts
there
are
right
now,
but
they
are
going
to
be
increasing
by
time
and
it's
and
it's
first,
it's
a
it's
a
time-consuming
process
and
second,
you
can
make
mistakes.
If
you
do
it
manually,
I
mean
so
it's
both.
We
want
to
avoid
both.
C
So
maybe
we
can
pose
a
question
to
these
guys
and
see
if
they,
if
they
have
I'm
sure
they
don't
have
an
absolutely
automatic
solution,
because
they
would
have
implemented
it
probably,
but
they
may
have
a
way
for
us
to
have
it
semi-automatic,
and
maybe
we
have
to
do
human
intervention,
but
but
it
can
go
on
on
a
batch
process
or
in
a
faster
way,
whatever
so
I'll
point
it
to
both
directions.
C
I'll
ask
santiago
if
he
can
help
us
with
fetching
the
information
from
the
graph
from
source
credit
graph
and
and
sending
it
to
this,
to
a
spreadsheet
and
and
also
get
in
touch
with
the
people
at
source
credit
and
see.
If,
if
there
is
any,
you
know
alternative
to
doing
everything
manually,
especially
for
the
burning,
because
the
distribution
through
the
tool,
we
are
pretty
much
it's
still
manual,
but
it's
much
faster
than
doing
it,
one
by
one
yeah,
okay,.
C
A
And
then
the
last
question
was:
should
we
add
a
channel
for
the
addresses
collection
in
the
onboarding
section?
I
asked
vivei
v
and
then
he
said
you
suggested
santi
that
this
is
done
via
dm.
Is
there
any
like
benefit
for
doing
it,
private
or
or
like
a
bad
thing?
That
could
happen
from
putting
it
public.
C
The
problem
is
not
that
I
can
see
it
or
anyone
can
say.
The
problem
is
that
they
may
not
even
know
that
they're
using
an
address
that
was
published
on
a
public
service
just
to
get
the
credit
and
they
keep
using
that
address
for
other
purposes.
And
then
anyone
can,
you
know,
keep
an
eye
on
what
they
are
doing
with
their
own
privacy.
C
That's
why
I
tend
to
think
that
it's
better
to
do
it
on
a
dm
I
mean
mateo
is
one
person.
I
am
one
person,
but
I'm
not
20
30
40
eyes
that
can
watch
that
address.
Okay,
that's
that's
my
personal
reasoning
behind
that.
But
you
know
it's
my
own
opinion.
We
we,
we
are
a
group
here.
We
can
all
decide
together,
but
I
tend
to
think
like
that
in
it's
like,
for
instance,
just
to
give
you
a
short
example.
C
C
C
You
know
because
they
just
don't
know
they
are
artists,
they
jump
into
a
new
space.
They
are
selling,
they
are
happy,
those
that
are
selling
those
are
not
selling.
They
don't
have
any
problem
because
hackers
are
not
after
them,
but
those
are
the
implications
when
new
people
is
jumping
into
this
space
that
don't
know
at
all.
What
is
this
all
about?
They
don't
have
the
foundation
of
crypto.
You
know
the
fun,
so
that's
why
I
try
to
protect.
A
That
yeah,
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
think
the
only
concern
would
be
is
this:
how
are
the
logistics
of
this
gonna
work?
Are
we
gonna
have
to
message
people
individually?
Do
the
bot
works
the
same
way?
C
C
You
know
at
least
we
warn
them,
we
let
them
know
and
those
that
are
having
doubts.
They
may
contact
us
via
the
m
and
ask.
Why
is
this?
Why
is
that
and
then
we
tell
them,
but
at
least
those
that
are
completely
new,
that
don't
know.
Oh,
I
have
this
address
that
I
created
to
get
my
ethereum
a
while
ago
on
the
exchange
here
and
there,
let's
use
this
one.
C
If
they
see
you
should
create
a
new
address
for
this
purpose
and
and
be
aware
that
this
address
is,
is
being
published
on
a
public
channel
that
that
that
adds
at
least
some
level
of
security
to
those
that
are
willing
to
read.
I
know
that
many
people's
not
even
going
to
read,
but
that's
not
our
fault,.
E
C
C
C
Right
and
and
if
you
and
you,
if
you
interact
on
discord
on
the
forum,
you
have
to
be
participating,
and
if
you
just
we
see
someone
that
you
know
is
just
saying:
yeah,
hello,
hi
and
voting
or
doing
no,
no
really
interactions,
you
end
up
catching
them.
I
mean
it's
very
easy
to
see
it
I
mean
so
it
it
doesn't.
Have
I
mean
the
the
effort
of
putting
a
lot
of
control?
It's
not
worth
it
not
at.
C
Right
and
a
little
highlighted
so
they
watch
it.
You
know,
because
if
it's
the
same
type
and
the
same
color
many
people
just
gonna
go
click
the
go
and
forget
about
it.
Just
have
a
red
sign,
and
so
they
their
eyes
just
point
into
there
and
at
least
if
they
want
to
read
it
and
they
they.
You
know
they
can
and
they
can
decide
what
they
want
to
do.